Find Nearby Plumbers In Wichita, Kansas

This aggregated review set spans a very large number of contractors and plumbers operating under similar business names (Affordable Plumbing, Abel/Able Plumbing, Joseph's Affordable Plumbing, and others), making it a mixed-entity dataset rather than a single contractor profile. The majority of reviews are strongly positive, praising responsiveness, punctuality, friendliness, and fair pricing across many individual technicians such as Avi, Noe, Angelo, Bob, Chris, Rigo, and others. However, a meaningful minority of negative reviews — roughly 15 to 20 percent of substantive reviews — describe serious issues including incomplete work, no-shows, dishonest pricing, rude owner behavior, property damage left unaddressed, and failure to honor callbacks or warranties. Pricing feedback is mixed: many reviewers praise affordability and transparency, while a notable number describe hidden charges, inflated quotes, or prices that far exceeded estimates. Project completion is similarly split, with many jobs praised as thorough and timely, but a recurring pattern of abandoned work, repeat visits for the same unresolved issue, and jobs left incomplete dragging the score down significantly.

• MULTI-ENTITY DATASET WARNING: Reviews appear to originate from multiple distinct businesses operating under similar names (e.g., Affordable Plumbing in Tucson AZ, West Hollywood CA, Chicago IL, Georgia, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and others). Scores reflect an aggregate and should not be applied to any single contractor without filtering by location and technician name.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — MODERATE: A subset of reviews, particularly those dated 2017-06-08 through 2017-06-13 and 2018-06-08, share identical or near-identical dates with no review text detail (e.g., 'Excellent workmanship', 'Great job', 'Excellent', 'Very well'). These appear potentially bulk-submitted and have been weighted conservatively.
• NO-TEXT REVIEWS EXCLUDED: Approximately 15 to 20 reviews contained no review text and only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence per scoring rules.
• RECENCY NOTE: Reviews span from approximately 2000 to June 2025. A significant portion of reviews predate 2020 and some predate 2015. Recency weighting was applied, giving greater influence to reviews from 2023 to 2025, which remain largely positive but include several serious complaints.
• NEGATIVE PATTERN — OWNER CONDUCT: Multiple independent negative reviews across different apparent business locations describe the owner or manager as rude, argumentative, or retaliatory toward customers who complained. This is a recurring behavioral flag that reduces confidence in professionalism scores.
• NEGATIVE PATTERN — INCOMPLETE WORK AND NO-SHOWS: Multiple reviews across different time periods describe technicians failing to show up for scheduled appointments without notice, jobs left unfinished, and management refusing to return to correct their own errors. This materially reduces the project completion score.
• NEGATIVE PATTERN — PRICING DISPUTES: Several reviews describe quotes that escalated significantly after work began, charges for work not performed, and refusal to itemize costs. One review describes a quote growing from $75 to $7,000. These are serious red flags for pricing transparency.
• PROPERTY DAMAGE COMPLAINTS: At least three reviews describe property damage caused by technicians (scratched toilet, flooded house, broken shower door) with the company refusing to accept responsibility or make repairs.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large volume of reviews, but LOW entity reliability because the dataset aggregates reviews for multiple distinct businesses operating under similar names across different US cities and states; consumers should treat this score as a general industry benchmark rather than a rating for any single contractor, and must independently verify the specific business and technician before hiring.

Quality Plumbing receives strong praise across hundreds of reviews for responsiveness, friendly technicians, and professional demeanor, with many customers citing specific plumbers by name and describing courteous, efficient service. However, a meaningful minority of negative reviews — spread across many years and locations — describe serious concerns including billing disputes (charging for travel time, rounding up hours, marking up parts significantly), failed diagnoses, abandoned or incomplete work, and rude office staff who hung up on customers. Pricing is the weakest dimension: multiple reviewers describe feeling overcharged, discovering parts were marked up 200-300%, or being billed for time the plumber was not on-site. Project completion is also mixed, with several reviews describing jobs left unfinished, return visits that never materialized, or problems that were not resolved after multiple attempts. The experience dimension scores moderately well overall, as most technicians are described as knowledgeable and skilled, but a subset of reviews describe misdiagnoses, amateur-level work, and technicians who could not complete the job.

• FAKE REVIEW RISK — MODERATE: A significant cluster of reviews share identical or near-identical dates (e.g., dozens dated exactly 2024-09-12, 2023-06-10, 2022-06-10, 2021-06-10, 2020-06-10, 2019-06-11, 2018-06-11, 2017-06-11) with very short, generic, undetailed text and all 5-star ratings. This pattern is consistent with bulk review submission and inflates the positive signal. These reviews were counted but treated with reduced evidentiary weight.
• MULTI-LOCATION AGGREGATION RISK — HIGH: Reviews reference locations across at least 8 distinct geographic markets including Seattle WA, Cape Coral/Fort Myers FL, Kansas City MO, Ventura County CA, Honolulu HI, Galveston TX, Denver CO, and Fresno CA. These are almost certainly different businesses operating under the same or similar name 'Quality Plumbing.' Scores reflect the aggregate pool and may not represent any single business accurately.
• BLANK REVIEWS EXCLUDED FROM SCORING: Approximately 30 reviews contained no text (only a star rating). These were excluded from dimension scoring but counted in total reviews analyzed.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of substantive, detailed reviews are from 2020 to 2025, which carry the most weight. Reviews from 2005-2015 are present but represent a smaller share and may reflect different ownership or staffing.
• BILLING COMPLAINTS — RECURRING PATTERN: At least 15 independent reviews across multiple years and locations describe billing practices including charging for drive time, rounding up labor hours, excessive parts markups, and charging for assessments where no work was performed. This is a systemic concern, not isolated incidents.
• INCOMPLETE WORK PATTERN: Multiple reviews describe jobs left unfinished, promises to return that were never honored, and supervisors who never called back after complaints. This meaningfully depresses the project completion score.
• ONE REVIEW APPEARS TO BE FOR A RESTAURANT (Mexican food/tamales) — clearly misattributed and excluded from scoring.
• ONE REVIEW APPEARS TO BE A POLITICAL COMPLAINT about signage outside the business — excluded from scoring as it does not address service quality.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large volume of reviews, but its reliability as a predictor for any single 'Quality Plumbing' location is MODERATE at best, given strong evidence that reviews from multiple unrelated businesses across the United States have been aggregated together, and that a notable share of 5-star reviews show patterns consistent with fake or bulk submissions.

Armstrong Plumbing scores well on professionalism and experience, with a large volume of reviews praising friendly, courteous, and knowledgeable technicians by name across many years of service. Project completion is generally strong, with most jobs described as finished promptly and correctly, though a meaningful minority of reviews describe incomplete work, repeat callbacks for the same issue, no-shows, and at least one case of a job abandoned mid-project. The most significant drag on the overall WW Score is pricing, which is the single most-complained-about dimension in the review set — numerous reviewers explicitly describe being quoted 2x to 4x competitor prices, receiving unexplained charges, or feeling overcharged for simple jobs, and this pattern is consistent across multiple years and locations. While many satisfied customers describe pricing as fair or reasonable, the volume and specificity of pricing complaints is too substantial to ignore and pulls the price-friendly score well below average.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: At least 6 reviews appear to be exact duplicates posted on consecutive dates in early June 2025 (e.g., 'Both gentlemen from Armstrong Plumbing made the job I had been putting off easy...' and 'The staff is very friendly, and the job was done perfectly!' each appear twice within 2 days, and 'Window was 8-12, tech showed up at 1.' and 'Carlos from Armstrong Plumbing was most professional...' also appear duplicated). These duplicates were counted only once per unique review text to avoid score inflation.
• REVIEW SOLICITATION FLAG: One reviewer explicitly states Armstrong 'bombards you with requests for online reviews, even after you already submit one,' which may artificially inflate review volume and skew the overall rating distribution toward 5 stars.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS ARE SYSTEMIC AND SPECIFIC: At least 18 reviews across multiple years explicitly cite overpricing, with several providing direct competitor comparisons showing Armstrong quotes 2x to 4x higher (e.g., $1,795 vs $450 competitor, $2,500 vs $800 competitor, $67,000 vs $19,000 competitor for re-pipe). This is not isolated and materially impacts the pricing dimension score.
• NO-SHOW AND SCHEDULING FAILURES: Multiple reviews describe technicians failing to appear within scheduled windows with no communication, including one reviewer who describes three consecutive no-shows over a month. This pattern negatively impacts both professionalism and project completion scores.
• RECENCY NOTE: The review set spans from 2006 to June 2025. Reviews from 2019 and earlier carry reduced weight. The majority of substantive reviews are from 2021 onward, and the most recent 12 months (mid-2024 to mid-2025) show a broadly positive but still mixed pattern consistent with the longer-term record.
• WORKMANSHIP FAILURES NOTED: Several reviews describe jobs that were not fixed correctly on the first visit, required multiple callbacks, or resulted in damage (e.g., ceiling collapse, flooded pantry, persistent leaks after repair). These are factored into the project completion score.
• AI SYSTEM FLAG: One reviewer specifically complained about Armstrong using AI for scheduling, which may affect the authenticity of some communication-related positive mentions.

This WW Score is based on a large and diverse review set spanning nearly two decades and carries HIGH overall confidence; however, the score should be interpreted with caution on the pricing dimension specifically, where the volume and specificity of overcharging complaints across many independent reviewers represents a consistent and credible pattern that prospective customers should investigate before hiring.

ABC Plumbing has a large and predominantly positive review base, with the majority of recent reviews (2024–2025) describing prompt, professional, and courteous technicians by name, suggesting a strong core team. Pricing is frequently praised as fair and competitive, with multiple reviewers noting ABC came in significantly lower than competitors. However, a meaningful minority of negative reviews — spanning the full date range — describe serious failures including abandoned jobs, no-shows, poor communication between office and field staff, billing disputes, work that failed shortly after completion, and in a few cases allegations of dishonest or predatory behavior. Project completion is the most consistently flagged concern in negative reviews, with multiple customers reporting work left unfinished or callbacks ignored. The score is moderated downward from what the volume of 5-star reviews might suggest, because the negative reviews contain specific, credible, and recurring patterns of failure that cannot be dismissed.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: At least 3 pairs of near-identical or word-for-word duplicate reviews were found (e.g., the Jovi/quick/reasonable review appearing on 2025-06-07 and 2025-06-04; the Tammy/Jason/external repairs review appearing on 2025-06-07 and 2025-06-04; the Dana/Matthew/bathroom sink review appearing twice on 2025-02-06). This pattern is consistent with review manipulation or accidental double-posting and reduces confidence in the authenticity of some 5-star reviews.
• IRRELEVANT REVIEWS DETECTED: At least 2 reviews appear to be for unrelated businesses or contain no plumbing-related content (e.g., 'LIFT MARKETING Website Design Agency' rated 2 stars on 2025-06-05 and 2025-06-02; a review about a fast food experience on 2018-12-15; a review referencing 'Pipe Wrench Plumbing' on 2006-08-15). These were excluded from scoring.
• REVIEWS WITH NO TEXT: Multiple reviews contained only a star rating and no written content. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence per Rule 1.
• SERIOUS NEGATIVE PATTERNS: Multiple 1-star reviews across different time periods describe abandoned work, no-shows, billing for incomplete service, poor office-to-field communication, and in one case an allegation of work that caused $15,000–$20,000 in foundation damage. These are specific and credible and were weighted accordingly.
• RECENCY NOTE: The bulk of highly positive reviews are concentrated in 2024–2025, which may reflect genuine improvement in service quality, a more active review solicitation strategy, or both. Older reviews (2013–2021) show a more mixed picture. Recent reviews were weighted more heavily per Rule 6.
• MULTI-ENTITY RISK: The review corpus appears to aggregate reviews from multiple ABC Plumbing locations or franchises across different states (Texas, California, New York, Kentucky, etc.). Scores may reflect the performance of more than one distinct business operating under the same name, which limits the reliability of the composite WW Score for any single location.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large review volume, but should be interpreted cautiously given confirmed duplicate reviews, irrelevant reviews mixed into the dataset, multi-location aggregation risk, and a recurring pattern of credible negative experiences that suggest the 5-star majority does not fully represent all customer outcomes.

The majority of reviews across this large dataset praise responsiveness, same-day or next-day service, friendly technicians, and solid workmanship — with many customers citing specific technicians by name (Mark, Levin, Hugo, Art, Justin, Edward, Cesar, Daniel, Manny, Vito, Arman, Devin, Jeff, and others) as knowledgeable and professional. However, a meaningful cluster of 1-star reviews — spanning multiple years and multiple technicians — describes serious failures including no-shows, broken appointments, work left incomplete, warranty promises not honored, damage caused and not remedied, and in several cases outright non-communication after payment. Pricing feedback is mixed: many customers praise fair and affordable rates, while several others report being quoted prices far above competitors or experiencing unexpected cost escalations mid-job. Project completion is the most concerning dimension, with documented cases of abandoned work, repeated rescheduling, and failure to return after partial completion. The breadth of the review set (spanning 2010–2025) and the consistency of both praise and criticism across different technicians and time periods suggests these are genuine reviews reflecting real variability in service quality.

• Multiple 1-star reviews describe near-identical failure patterns: no-shows, missed appointments, warranty not honored, and non-communication after payment — these appear across different technicians and years, suggesting systemic operational issues rather than isolated incidents.
• Several 5-star reviews contain no text (rating only) and were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data.
• Two reviews (dated 2024-10-24 and 2024-11-10) appear to describe the same negative experience with technician 'Art' in nearly identical language, suggesting possible duplicate submission by the same customer — scored as one incident.
• A small number of 5-star reviews use generic, non-specific praise with no job details (e.g., 'Great company. Honest, hard workers. Can't go wrong with MVP') — these were counted for overall sentiment but given reduced weight in dimension scoring.
• One review (dated 2024-09-19) alleges a mid-job price escalation from $9,500 to $17,800 with demands for upfront payment — this is a significant pricing integrity concern.
• One review (dated 2020-04-09) alleges MVP caused property damage during a re-pipe and then refused to pay for repairs over a period of months — this is a serious project completion and integrity flag.
• One review (dated 2019-08-16) claims a lawsuit was filed and won against MVP for property damage, with no payment received after over a year — unverified but noted as a serious flag.
• Reviews span from 2010 to 2025. Reviews older than 24 months were given reduced weight. The most recent 12 months (mid-2024 to mid-2025) show a predominantly positive pattern, but negative reviews in this window still exist.
• This dataset appears to aggregate reviews from multiple business entities operating under similar or related names (MVP Plumbing, New Flow Plumbing, MVP Custom Plumbing) across multiple geographic regions. Scores reflect the combined dataset as submitted.

With 290 reviews analyzed and HIGH confidence across all four dimensions, the WW Score of 72.1 is statistically reliable as a representation of this contractor's overall service quality, but prospective customers should weigh the recurring pattern of no-shows, incomplete work, and unresolved damage claims documented in the negative reviews before hiring.

Plumbing Doctor has a large and broadly positive review base, with the majority of customers praising individual technicians by name for punctuality, communication, courtesy, and professionalism — driving a solid but not exceptional professionalism score. However, pricing is the single most damaging dimension: a substantial and recurring pattern of complaints across many years and many reviewers describes charges perceived as grossly inflated, lack of itemized invoices, pressure tactics, and quotes that were significantly higher than competitors, pulling the pricing score well below average. Project completion is generally strong — most jobs are reported as finished same-day or next-day — but a meaningful minority of reviews describe incomplete work, return visits for the same problem, abandoned jobs, or work that created new problems, preventing a high score. Experience scores are similarly mixed: many technicians are praised as skilled and knowledgeable, but a notable cluster of reviews describes misdiagnosis, incorrect repairs, and technicians who were out of their depth, which tempers the score. The overall WW Score of 72.1 reflects a company with genuine service strengths undermined by persistent and credible pricing and quality-control concerns.

• PRICING CONCERN — HIGH SEVERITY: Pricing complaints are among the most consistent and specific in the entire review set, spanning from 2006 through 2025. Multiple reviewers independently report being charged 2x–5x competitor rates for identical work, with specific dollar amounts cited (e.g., $306 for a toilet flapper, $280 for a wax seal, $972 to tighten a gas valve, $1,006 for a toilet, $650 for a valve cartridge). This is not a pattern of isolated dissatisfaction — it is a systemic and recurring issue.
• PROJECT QUALITY CONCERN: Multiple reviews describe technicians misdiagnosing problems, performing unnecessary work, creating new leaks or damage during repairs, or failing to resolve the original issue. Examples include flooding a bathroom during a water heater install, failing to clear a drain clog and charging anyway, replacing a water heater unnecessarily, and leaving a sump pump without a check valve.
• PROFESSIONALISM CONCERN — NEGATIVE OUTLIERS: Several reviews describe specific technicians as rude, dismissive, or aggressive toward customers, including one detailed account of a crew mocking and verbally abusing a homeowner, and another describing a technician yelling at a customer. These are serious outliers against an otherwise largely positive professionalism picture.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK — LOW-MODERATE: A significant number of reviews are blank (rating only, no text) or contain only 1–2 generic sentences with no specifics. While not conclusive, the volume of no-text 5-star reviews slightly inflates the apparent rating. These reviews were excluded from dimension scoring but counted in total reviews analyzed.
• RECENCY NOTE: The review set spans from 2006 to June 2025. Reviews from 2025 and 2024 are predominantly positive, suggesting possible improvement in recent years. However, pricing complaints persist into 2024–2025, so this concern has not been resolved. Older negative reviews (2006–2018) were weighted less heavily but were included as they reveal long-standing patterns.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: Two reviews from 2023-11-29 appear to be near-identical copies of the same complaint (same date, same content, same rating). One was treated as a single data point to avoid double-counting.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: Two reviews from 2024-09-12 and 2024-08-19 appear to be near-identical in content from the same reviewer about the same experience. Treated as a single data point.
• WARRANTY/FOLLOW-THROUGH CONCERN: Multiple reviews describe verbal warranties not honored, return visits charged again for the same problem, and a specific complaint about a 6-month verbal warranty being denied and replaced with a 30-day policy. Customers are advised to obtain all warranties in writing.

This WW Score of 72.1 is based on a very large review set (277 reviews) spanning nearly two decades, with HIGH confidence across all four dimensions, making it one of the more statistically reliable scores possible — however, consumers should weight the pricing dimension heavily in their decision-making, as it represents the most consistent and specific area of documented customer harm.