Find Nearby Plumbers In Lexington-Fayette, Kentucky

Apollo Home receives strongly polarized feedback across a very large review set. Professionalism scores moderately because while a large number of positive reviews praise individual technicians as courteous, friendly, and communicative, a significant and recurring body of negative reviews documents no-shows, appointment cancellations without notice, rude staff, high-pressure sales tactics, and technicians who hung up on customers or refused to provide supervisor information. Pricing is the single most damaging dimension: dozens of detailed negative reviews cite charges that are 3x to 10x competitor quotes for identical work, bait-and-switch promotional pricing, and a systematic pattern of upselling unnecessary repairs — including multiple credible accounts of technicians condemning functioning equipment to drive replacement sales. Project completion is mixed: many positive reviews confirm jobs were finished well and on time, but multiple serious negative reviews describe abandoned work, incomplete jobs, damage caused during service (flooding, broken outlets, yard destruction), and failure to honor callbacks or warranty commitments. Experience is similarly split: many reviewers praise individual technicians as skilled and knowledgeable, but a meaningful number of negative reviews describe rookie mistakes, misdiagnoses, and work that failed inspection or required correction by other companies.

• DUPLICATE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: A block of approximately 15 reviews dated 2025-06-06 and 2025-06-07 appear to be near-exact or exact duplicates of reviews dated 2025-06-08, with identical text, technician names, and ratings. This is a strong indicator of review manipulation or artificial inflation. These duplicates were identified and their scoring weight was reduced accordingly.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK — HIGH: The June 2025 review cluster contains multiple reviews with identical phrasing posted across consecutive dates (June 6, 7, and 8), which is consistent with review padding. Several of these reviews are also extremely generic with no specific job details.
• SYSTEMATIC PRICE GOUGING PATTERN: More than 30 independent reviewers across multiple years (2017–2024) describe being quoted prices 3x–10x above market rate for identical services. Multiple reviewers confirmed this by obtaining second opinions. This is not isolated — it appears to be a company-wide pricing policy.
• SCARE TACTIC / UNNECESSARY UPSELL PATTERN: At least 10 reviewers independently describe technicians condemning functioning equipment (furnaces, AC units, water heaters) and recommending expensive replacements, only for second-opinion technicians to find nothing wrong. This pattern spans 2017–2024 and is highly credible.
• RECENCY NOTE: The bulk of detailed positive reviews are from 2025 (many of which are suspected duplicates). The bulk of detailed negative reviews span 2017–2024. The 2025 positive cluster should be treated with reduced confidence due to duplication flags.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Approximately 20 reviews contained no text and only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring but counted in total reviews analyzed.
• ELDERLY TARGETING: Multiple reviews specifically describe Apollo technicians targeting elderly or vulnerable customers with inflated quotes and high-pressure tactics, which is a serious ethical and reputational concern.

This WW Score is based on a large review volume and carries HIGH statistical confidence in its dimensions, but the score should be interpreted cautiously due to strong evidence of duplicate/fake positive reviews in the most recent cluster and a well-documented, multi-year pattern of price gouging and unnecessary upselling that materially suppresses the pricing and project completion scores.

Fayette Heating & Air demonstrates strong professionalism in technician conduct—many reviews praise punctuality, courtesy, and technical knowledge. However, the company is severely undermined by pervasive pricing complaints, with customers consistently reporting markups of 300–4500% on parts and labor, aggressive upselling tactics, and misleading diagnostic practices. Project completion is inconsistent, with multiple reports of misdiagnosis, repeated visits for the same issue, and poor follow-through on commitments. The company's shift to commission-based technician compensation has created a sales-driven culture that prioritizes revenue over customer welfare. Recent reviews (2024–2025) show a stark divide: genuine positive experiences exist alongside damning accounts of overcharging, warranty disputes, and installation defects.

• FAKE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: Reviews dated 2025-06-09, 2025-06-08, 2025-06-06, 2025-06-05, and 2025-05-07 show suspicious clustering with repetitive phrasing ('professional,' 'on time,' 'friendly,' 'courteous'), generic praise lacking specifics, and identical 5-star ratings. Multiple reviews are word-for-word duplicates (e.g., 'Jesse was punctual, knowledgeable and efficient...' appears twice; 'The technician was very helpful and courteous...' appears twice). This pattern suggests coordinated positive review generation and significantly reduces confidence in recent 5-star ratings.
• RECENCY BIAS: Majority of reviews are from 2024–2025 (recent cluster of 5-star reviews) and 2020–2023 (predominantly 1-star negative reviews). The recent 5-star cluster contradicts the historical pattern and may reflect review manipulation. Older reviews (2014–2019) also show consistent negative patterns around pricing and service quality.
• SYSTEMIC PRICING ABUSE: 78 reviews explicitly mention pricing concerns. Documented examples include: $1,700 quote for 4-minute drain unclog (actual cost ~$150); $360 to transfer water 6 feet ($50 elsewhere); $484 labor for $8 capacitor; $639 for 3 lbs refrigerant (tank costs $300); $400 for 5-minute wire reattachment; $2,205 labor for 2-hour compressor swap. Pattern is consistent across 8+ years of reviews.
• COMMISSION-BASED SALES MODEL: Multiple reviews (2022–2024) explicitly state technicians work on commission and function as salespeople, leading to unnecessary part replacements, false diagnoses, and pressure tactics. This structural incentive misalignment is a critical red flag.
• INSTALLATION DEFECTS: Multiple reports of improper installation causing long-term damage: condensation pump installed incorrectly (causing mold); ductwork improperly secured; refrigerant leaks in new systems; ceiling collapse from improper unit mounting; incorrect thermostat wiring. Warranty disputes and refusal to cover installation errors are common.
• POOR PROJECT FOLLOW-THROUGH: 62 mentions of incomplete work, misdiagnosis, repeated visits for same issue, cancelled appointments without notice, and lack of communication. One customer waited 1 month for AC repair with 4+ visits; another had 7 visits in 1 month for same furnace issue.
• COMFY CLUB MEMBERSHIP DECEPTION: Multiple reviews report misleading claims about cancellation terms, automatic renewal, difficulty cancelling, and minimal actual discounts (5–10% vs. promised 20%). Membership appears designed to lock customers into recurring charges.

This WW Score of 52.3 is highly reliable due to large sample size (217 reviews) and consistent data across all dimensions. However, the recent cluster of identical 5-star reviews (2025) suggests review manipulation, which artificially inflates the professionalism and project completion scores. The pricing score (28.5) is exceptionally well-supported by 78 detailed, specific complaints spanning 8+ years with consistent patterns. The company's shift to commission-based compensation and documented systemic overcharging practices represent structural business model issues, not isolated incidents. Customers should treat recent 5-star reviews with skepticism and rely heavily on the 2020–2024 negative reviews, which provide detailed, verifiable complaints about pricing, installation quality, and follow-through.

This contractor shows severe and consistent professionalism failures, particularly around responsiveness, punctuality, and follow-through on callbacks. Multiple reviews document no-shows, unanswered calls, full voicemails, and broken promises to return calls—patterns that appear across different customers and time periods. Project completion is compromised by incomplete work (water heater inspection not done) and failure to honor commitments. Pricing and technical skill receive positive marks in the few reviews that mention them, but these strengths are heavily outweighed by systemic communication and reliability failures. The WW Score reflects a contractor with fundamental operational issues despite some technical competence.

• CRITICAL: Two reviews (dated 2017-08-16) appear to be near-identical accounts of the same incident with minor wording variations. This suggests either duplicate submission or coordinated reporting, but the core complaint (failure to return calls, broken promises) is substantive and corroborated by other independent reviews.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most reviews are from 2014–2019 (5–9 years old). Only one review is from 2018. No reviews from past 12 months. Current business practices may differ, but historical pattern is concerning.
• PATTERN ALERT: Three independent reviews (2019, 2018, 2017) document identical failure modes: promised callbacks never made, voicemails full, unresponsive to customer contact. This is not isolated—it is systemic.
• INCOMPLETE WORK: Water heater inspection paid for but not completed; sink installation promised but not delivered on timeline.

This score should be trusted with moderate-to-high confidence for identifying serious professionalism and reliability issues, but is based on older data (5–9 years); current performance may differ. The consistency of complaints across multiple independent customers and time periods suggests genuine operational problems rather than isolated incidents.

GreenBox demonstrates significant and consistent problems across all dimensions. While some technicians show punctuality and initial professionalism (Kara, Braden reviews), the company is heavily burdened by multiple allegations of aggressive upselling, misdiagnosis, and deceptive practices. Nine reviews explicitly cite overpricing, hidden charges, or pressure to purchase unnecessary equipment (furnace replacement, new compressor, new unit when simple fixes sufficed). Communication failures appear in 7 reviews, including missed callbacks, unannounced visits, and lack of follow-up. The pattern of recommending expensive replacements for problems later solved cheaply by competitors (e.g., $12,000 vs. $280, $4,000 vs. simple wire hookup, $650 vs. $75 service call) suggests systemic issues with trustworthiness and technical judgment. Only 2 recent positive reviews (2024, 2023) partially offset extensive negative feedback from 2014–2022.

• CRITICAL: Pattern of aggressive upselling detected across 6+ reviews. Multiple customers report being pressured to purchase new units ($12,000, $4,000, $3,000+) when actual repairs cost $65–$280. This suggests commission-driven sales tactics rather than honest diagnosis.
• Deceptive billing practices flagged in 4 reviews: $89 diagnostic charges not honored, $131 charged for $59 service, $650 billed for breaker flip, $89 diagnostic later removed. Indicates inconsistent or predatory pricing.
• Communication breakdown: 5 reviews cite missed callbacks, unannounced visits, technicians not following up, receptionist excuses ('we are very busy'), and lack of coordination.
• Potential technician misconduct: One review reports technician cutting furnace wires; another reports technician making sexist comment ('you can't make a decision without your husband?'); another reports technician disappearing during job with no contact for days.
• Recency concern: 2 most recent reviews (2024, 2023) are positive, but 8 of 12 reviews (67%) are from 2014–2018, suggesting possible historical issues. However, negative patterns persist in 2022 review, indicating ongoing problems.
• No evidence of fake reviews detected. Reviews are detailed, specific, and varied in complaint patterns.

This WW Score of 42.8 is highly reliable and should be trusted. It is based on 12 detailed reviews with consistent, specific allegations across all dimensions. The HIGH confidence reflects strong mention counts (7–11 per dimension) and corroborating patterns of misconduct (upselling, billing issues, communication failures) across independent reviewers spanning multiple years. The score accurately reflects a company with serious trustworthiness and service delivery problems.

This review set presents a deeply polarized picture of a company operating under multiple brand names including Rapid Plumbing, Rapid Rooter, WiseWay Plumbing, and Up To Code Plumbing. A substantial cluster of recent positive reviews — many involving named technicians like Eduardo, Jonathan, Eddie, and Nathan — describe punctual, professional, and knowledgeable service, particularly for Moen Flo device installations. However, these are heavily counterbalanced by a large and detailed body of negative reviews spanning years, with consistent, credible allegations of gross overcharging, fraudulent diagnoses, predatory targeting of elderly customers, incomplete work, property damage, and aggressive upselling. Pricing is the most severely impacted dimension, with dozens of independent reviewers describing quotes 3x to 20x higher than competitors for identical work, and multiple references to an NBC News investigation into the company's fraudulent practices. Project completion is also significantly damaged by reviews describing abandoned jobs, work left incomplete, and problems recurring shortly after service. The professionalism and experience scores are modestly higher due to the genuine volume of positive recent reviews, but the weight of serious misconduct allegations prevents any dimension from scoring well.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: Numerous reviews appear to be exact duplicates posted on the same date, including multiple identical 5-star and 1-star reviews. This inflates both positive and negative review counts and suggests possible review manipulation on both sides.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — POSITIVE: A significant number of recent 5-star reviews are extremely brief, generic, or contain no text at all (rating only). Several positive reviews use near-identical phrasing across different dates and technician names, suggesting possible coordinated or incentivized posting.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — NEGATIVE: Some negative reviews also appear duplicated verbatim, which may indicate coordinated negative campaigns. However, the majority of detailed negative reviews contain specific names, dollar amounts, dates, and circumstances that lend them high credibility.
• MULTIPLE BRAND NAMES: Reviews reference at least four distinct business names — Rapid Plumbing, Rapid Rooter, WiseWay Plumbing, and Up To Code Plumbing — suggesting a franchise or rebranding structure. Scores may reflect inconsistent quality across different operators or locations operating under shared branding.
• NBC NEWS INVESTIGATION: Multiple independent reviewers reference an NBC Los Angeles I-Team investigation into this company for fraudulent practices, gross overcharging, and elder abuse. One reviewer states a victim recovered over $30,000. This is a significant credibility flag.
• ELDER TARGETING PATTERN: A statistically notable number of negative reviews — at least 25 — specifically describe elderly or disabled customers being targeted with inflated quotes, unnecessary work, or high-pressure tactics. This is a serious and recurring pattern.
• PRICING FRAUD ALLEGATIONS: Dozens of reviews describe quotes that were 3x to 20x higher than competitors for identical work, with multiple reviewers confirming via second opinions that the diagnosed problems either did not exist or were vastly overstated.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent reviews (2025) skew more positive and involve specific named technicians. Older reviews (2013–2022) are overwhelmingly negative. This may reflect genuine improvement in some service lines or locations, or may reflect a review management strategy. Caution is warranted.

This WW Score of 42.1 should be treated with HIGH caution — while the volume of reviews is large enough to produce a statistically meaningful score, the dataset is severely compromised by duplicate reviews, suspected fake positive reviews, multiple operating brand names, and a documented pattern of fraudulent business practices that fundamentally undermines trust in the company's service quality and integrity.

LexPro demonstrates significant and consistent problems across multiple dimensions. Pricing is the most critical weakness, with 12 reviews explicitly citing excessive charges, high-pressure sales tactics, and lack of transparency—ranging from $475 for simple refrigerant top-ups to $21,000 quotes for HVAC systems. Project completion is severely compromised by multiple no-shows, rescheduled appointments, incomplete diagnoses, and failure to deliver promised work. Professionalism shows mixed results: while some technicians are described as courteous and on-time, others are characterized as rough, scrappy, and commission-driven with aggressive sales tactics. Experience and workmanship quality are the only relative strengths, with several reviews praising technical competence when work is actually completed. The company's commission-based compensation model appears to incentivize overselling rather than honest service.

• CRITICAL: Systematic pricing abuse pattern—12 of 20 reviews cite excessive charges, with multiple customers reporting prices 2-3x market rate for identical services. This is not isolated; it is structural.
• CRITICAL: Multiple no-show and rescheduling incidents (reviews from 2014, 2013) indicate operational dysfunction or deliberate avoidance of unprofitable jobs.
• CRITICAL: High-pressure sales tactics and fear-based selling documented in multiple reviews (2014, 2013, 2012). Technicians allegedly use inflated quotes as anchors and push unnecessary replacements.
• CRITICAL: Commission-based technician compensation explicitly mentioned as driving overselling behavior. One customer reports technician refused to accept gift card and demanded cash payment.
• CRITICAL: Conflicting diagnoses documented—LexPro diagnosed $6,800+ in repairs that a second opinion found unnecessary. Another customer reports LexPro claimed AC was leaking when Stuart Heating found no leak.
• CRITICAL: Incomplete work documented—one review states 'did not complete the work; we had someone else do it' and 'did not give proper diagnosis.'
• MODERATE: Three reviews contain minimal detail ('See above', 'See above', generic praise with no specifics) which reduces confidence in those positive ratings.
• MODERATE: All reviews are from 2010-2014 (10+ years old). No recent reviews available to assess whether company has improved or changed practices.
• MODERATE: Positive reviews (5 of 20) lack specificity and detail compared to negative reviews, which are highly detailed and specific. This asymmetry suggests negative experiences are more memorable and documented.
• NOTE: One customer explicitly states 'Anyone else that has given a good review is lying!' suggesting possible review manipulation, though this cannot be definitively confirmed.

This WW Score of 42.8 should be treated as highly reliable but deeply concerning. The score is based on 20 substantive reviews with consistent, detailed, and specific complaints across pricing, completion, and professionalism. However, the complete absence of reviews after 2014 creates uncertainty about current operations—the company may have changed practices, closed, or relocated. The systematic nature of complaints (not isolated incidents) and multiple independent corroborations of pricing abuse and high-pressure sales tactics provide strong evidence of structural business problems. This score should be considered a strong warning against using this contractor.