Find Nearby Plumbers In Canton, Ohio

Grabill demonstrates strong professionalism and technical expertise across most reviews, with technicians consistently described as friendly, courteous, and knowledgeable. Pricing is competitive and transparent based on limited mentions. However, one severe 1-star review from 2017 alleges serious installation errors (illegal brick removal, improper venting, warranty violation) that directly contradicts the positive narrative and raises significant concerns about quality control and project completion standards. The majority of positive reviews are older than 3 years, limiting recency validation. The stark contrast between five 5-star reviews and one catastrophic 1-star review suggests either inconsistent service quality or a legitimate major failure that was not isolated.

• CRITICAL: One 1-star review (2017) alleges serious safety and installation violations including illegal structural modifications, improper venting, and warranty invalidation. This is not a minor complaint and directly contradicts claims of quality workmanship.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Five of six reviews are from 2019-2022, with the most recent positive review from July 2022. The severe negative review is from June 2017 (6+ years old), making it unclear if issues were resolved.
• POLARIZED RATINGS: Five 5-star reviews vs. one 1-star review with no middle-ground ratings suggests either highly variable service quality or potential selection bias in review submission.
• MINOR: One review misspells company name as 'Graybill' instead of 'Grabill,' but content is consistent with other reviews.

This score should be treated with caution due to the severe polarization in ratings and the presence of a credible allegation of safety violations and installation failures that was never addressed or refuted in subsequent reviews; the overall score reflects recent positive feedback but is substantially undermined by the unresolved serious complaint.

Professionalism is the most consistently mentioned dimension across all 12 reviews, with strong praise for punctuality, communication, and courteous behavior — though one review noted a one-hour late arrival without a call, which tempers the score slightly. Pricing feedback is mixed: several reviewers explicitly describe the service as expensive or pricey, though most felt the value was justified given quality and responsiveness, resulting in a conservative score. Project completion is well-supported, with multiple reviews confirming jobs were finished fully, callbacks were honored at no charge, and follow-through was reliable. Experience scores well based on specific mentions of technical knowledge, accurate diagnosis, and quality workmanship across a range of plumbing scenarios.

• One review is dated 1900-01-01, which is clearly a data entry error — this review was included in analysis but its date cannot be used for recency weighting.
• The majority of reviews are older than 5 years, with most dated between 2006 and 2020. Only one review falls within the past 12 months relative to a typical current date. Recency confidence is low — this score may not reflect current service quality.
• Several reviews are generic in praise (e.g., 'very good,' 'very nice person,' 'excellent work') with limited specifics, which slightly reduces confidence in those individual data points. However, enough reviews contain specific details to avoid a fake review flag at this time.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability due to the age of most reviews and one undatable entry — the score reflects a historically consistent contractor but should be interpreted cautiously without more recent evidence of current performance.

K&K Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism with consistent praise for punctuality, communication, and courteous staff across multiple recent reviews. However, pricing concerns appear in 8 reviews, with customers reporting unexpectedly high labor charges, unnecessary upsells (expansion tank), and additional fees that competitors do not charge. Project completion is generally solid with timely work and quality output, though older reviews (2020-2021) document serious failures including broken valves, improper installations, and unresolved follow-up issues. Experience level is strong based on technical competency and problem-solving, but the company's track record shows inconsistency—excellent recent performance contrasts sharply with documented quality failures in prior years.

• RECENCY BIAS: Most positive reviews are from 2022-2024 (recent), while most negative reviews are from 2019-2021 (older). This suggests either genuine improvement or selective review deletion. Treat recent positive trend cautiously.
• PRICING PATTERN: Multiple reviews (2019, 2020, 2021, 2023) explicitly cite unexpectedly high labor charges and unnecessary add-ons (expansion tank, extra plumbing fees). This is a consistent complaint across different time periods.
• QUALITY INCONSISTENCY: Stark contrast between recent 5-star reviews praising work quality and 2020-2021 reviews documenting broken valves, improper installations, and flooding. Suggests either staff turnover or inconsistent quality control.
• CUSTOMER SERVICE CONFLICT: 2024 review documents argumentative phone interaction and company's defensive response to criticism, raising concerns about conflict resolution and customer relations.
• UNRESOLVED ISSUES: 2020 review describes 'unanswered emails and texts' and failure to make things right—indicates potential follow-through problems despite recent positive completion scores.

This WW Score of 74.2 should be treated with MODERATE confidence. While recent reviews (2022-2024) are consistently positive and support higher scores, the company's documented history of pricing disputes, quality failures, and customer service conflicts (2019-2021) creates legitimate concern about consistency. The sharp improvement in recent reviews may reflect genuine operational changes, but insufficient time has passed to confirm sustained improvement. Prospective customers should specifically discuss pricing structure upfront and request references from recent jobs.

The contractor receives strong praise for the lead technician Rick's friendliness, knowledge, and honest communication — including transparency when a job falls outside their scope. However, professionalism is significantly dragged down by a recurring pattern of rude phone/scheduling staff, an undisclosed overtime charge, and a last-minute cancellation that left a customer stranded, all documented across multiple reviews. Project completion is mixed: several jobs were completed efficiently and cleanly, but one review describes a prolonged 4.5-hour visit with repeated failures, and some visits concluded without completing work due to scope limitations. Pricing feedback is generally positive, with one reviewer noting costs were less than half of competitors, though the hidden overtime charge incident introduces a transparency concern. The score reflects a business with a capable technician at its core but meaningful operational and customer service weaknesses that cannot be ignored.

• Significant recency gap: only 1 review is from the past 12 months (2024), 2 are from 2018, and 4 are from 2017 or earlier — the majority of data is over 5 years old and may not reflect current business practices.
• The 2015 review documents a hidden overtime charge not disclosed at booking, which is a pricing transparency concern and was weighted accordingly.
• The 2015 review also documents a same-day cancellation by the business at 2:45 PM after a confirmed appointment, which negatively impacted the project completion score.
• The 2012 review is vague ('nightmare,' 'failing at most') with no specific detail about what was attempted or failed — it was included but treated with limited interpretive weight due to lack of specifics.
• No fake review patterns detected; reviews vary in rating (1–5 stars), detail level, and tone, suggesting authentic submissions.

This WW Score carries moderate overall reliability: the technician-level quality signal is reasonably consistent across reviews, but the small total review count (7), the heavy skew toward older reviews (5 of 7 are from 2017 or earlier), and documented operational failures limit confidence in how accurately this score reflects the contractor's current performance.

Miracle Plumbing shows a generally positive track record in professionalism and project completion, with multiple reviews praising punctuality, courtesy, and follow-through on completed work — including a notable callback to fix a paint separation issue. However, professionalism is tempered by one review citing a crew quality inconsistency and another where a general manager failed to follow up on a pricing complaint as promised. Pricing is the weakest dimension: two reviews explicitly criticize opaque or excessive charges — one customer was shocked by a bill with no prior estimate, and another complained about a job-based pricing system yielding a $255 charge for under an hour of work — while only one review praised pricing favorably. Experience scores moderately well based on specific mentions of knowledgeable, skilled work, though the dataset is heavily skewed toward older reviews with limited recent data.

• 9 reviews contain only 'unknown', 'NO', or similarly non-informative text and were excluded from scoring as they provide no usable data.
• 6 reviews dated 1997-06-10 and multiple from 1999 are extremely old (25+ years) and carry very low relevance to current service quality.
• 2 reviews are dated 1900-01-01, which are clearly placeholder or corrupt dates and were treated as unreliable.
• The most recent review is from 2017, meaning there is NO data from the past 8+ years — the WW Score cannot reflect current business quality.
• Several older reviews use all-caps formatting with generic praise and no specifics, raising minor concern about data quality for those entries, though they were not flagged as definitively fake.
• Inconsistency warning: one review explicitly states crew quality varies ('if you get the right crew'), and two reviews specifically name a single employee (Todd) as the only reliable worker, suggesting uneven service quality.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability due to the complete absence of reviews from the past 8 years, a significant volume of non-informative placeholder reviews, and explicit pricing complaints that meaningfully drag down the value dimension — prospective customers should seek current references before hiring.

All three reviews are positive and speak generally well of this contractor, but the dataset is very small and spans several years, limiting reliability. Professionalism is supported by explicit mentions of Tyler being professional and the team being described as honest and hard-working. Pricing is noted as reasonable and great value in two reviews, though no specific figures or quotes are discussed. Project completion is implied in two reviews where jobs were described as finished and working correctly, though no detail about timelines or callbacks is provided. Experience is supported by the creative problem-solving noted in the vanity installation review and the repeated trust placed in Tyler across multiple visits.

• Only 3 reviews total — WW Score should be treated as preliminary and unreliable for decision-making.
• One review (2017) is significantly older than 12 months and carries reduced weight; the most recent review is from 2022, also outside the preferred 12-month recency window.
• All reviews are 5-star with generally positive but vague language; the first review in particular ('The best!', 'Hard working and honest') lacks specific detail and could reflect generic praise, though it does not show identical phrasing to others.
• No negative feedback or constructive criticism present across any review — this may reflect a genuinely strong contractor, but with only 3 data points it is impossible to assess consistency.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews, all rated 5 stars, with the most recent dating to 2022, making it insufficient for high-confidence assessment — treat this score as a preliminary signal only and seek additional recent reviews before making a hiring decision.