Find Nearby Plumbers In Hamilton, Ohio

Progressive Plumbing and its associated entities receive broadly positive marks for professionalism and technical experience, with many reviewers praising named technicians such as Daniel, Victor, Marcus, Justin, and Roberto for being courteous, knowledgeable, and responsive. However, pricing is the single most damaging dimension in this dataset: a very large number of reviewers across multiple years explicitly describe charges as excessive, arbitrary, or deceptive — including instances of verbal quotes being exceeded, refusal to itemize bills, and charges perceived as exploitative during emergencies. Project completion is mixed: while many jobs are described as completed promptly and well, there are notable failures including no-shows, abandoned work, callbacks that were never honored, and at least one case of a job left incomplete with damage caused. The volume and consistency of pricing complaints across a wide date range significantly suppresses the overall score.

• SUSPECTED MIXED ENTITY PROBLEM: Multiple reviews reference 'San Bruno Plumbing' as the company name, while the majority reference 'Progressive Plumbing' or 'Progressive Service Company.' These may be distinct businesses whose reviews have been aggregated together, which would make the composite score unreliable.
• FAKE OR PADDING REVIEW CONCERN: At least 30+ reviews consist of blank text with only a star rating (all 5-star). These provide zero usable data and inflate the apparent rating volume. They were excluded from dimension scoring.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The review for Marcus ('came on time in fact earlier than expected... cost was fair, lower than expected') appears verbatim on both 2025-05-19 and 2025-05-16. This is a likely duplicate submission and was counted only once.
• RECENCY NOTE: Reviews span from 2005 to 2025. A significant portion of negative pricing and project completion reviews date from 2017–2023, indicating these are not isolated historical incidents. Positive reviews are more concentrated in 2024–2025, which may reflect genuine improvement or selection bias.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS ARE SYSTEMIC: Overcharging complaints are not isolated — they appear across many years, many technicians, and many job types (water heaters, toilet repairs, faucet installs, drain clearing). This pattern is too consistent to dismiss as outliers.
• UNPROFESSIONAL CONDUCT COMPLAINTS: Multiple reviews describe technicians performing unauthorized work, billing tenants without owner approval, leaving job sites in disarray, being rude or dismissive, and in one case potentially misusing a credit card. These are serious conduct flags.
• NO-SHOW AND ABANDONMENT PATTERN: At least 5 reviews describe scheduled appointments where no technician arrived and no follow-up communication was made. This is a recurring project completion failure.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large number of substantive reviews, but the score itself should be interpreted cautiously given the systemic pricing complaints, suspected entity mixing between 'Progressive Plumbing' and 'San Bruno Plumbing,' a high volume of blank filler reviews, and recurring patterns of no-shows and incomplete work that suggest operational inconsistency rather than isolated incidents.

This contractor has a sharply divided review profile. Positive reviews consistently praise Tom and his crew for responsiveness, punctuality, communication, and quality workmanship across a variety of jobs including plumbing, electrical, and patio work. However, two strongly negative reviews — both from January 2018 — explicitly cite pricing that was described as 2-3x competitors, rude and unprofessional behavior from both staff and the contractor, and a general decline in company quality. These negative reviews significantly drag down the professionalism and pricing dimensions. The positive reviews span from 2014 to 2023, suggesting some consistency over time, but the negative reviews cannot be dismissed as isolated incidents given their specificity and detail.

• Two highly negative reviews from January 2018 describe extreme overpricing (one quote of $19,500 vs. a competitor's $6,900 for the same job) and explicitly rude, unprofessional behavior — these are specific and credible complaints that materially impact scoring.
• The two negative reviews were posted on the same date (2018-01-13) which may indicate a coordinated effort, but both contain distinct, specific details suggesting they are genuine independent accounts rather than coordinated fake reviews.
• Most positive reviews are older than 1 year relative to a current analysis; only one review (2023-12-31) is recent. The 2020 and earlier positive reviews should be weighted with caution for current service quality.
• The 2018 negative review mentions a change in ownership/management ('kids are running it into the ground'), which may explain the divergence between older positive reviews and the 2018 complaints. It is unclear whether this management issue persisted or was resolved.
• Small sample size of 6 reviews limits overall reliability. Scores should be treated as directional rather than definitive.

This WW Score carries moderate reliability due to a small and polarized review set spanning nearly a decade, with credible negative reviews on pricing and professionalism that prevent a high-confidence positive assessment.

Britton Plumbing shows genuine strengths in responsiveness, communication, and going above and beyond for customers, as evidenced by multiple detailed positive reviews praising timely callbacks, proactive updates, and courteous behavior. However, two 1-star reviews introduce meaningful concern: one describes being charged a $60 service fee for no actionable work, while another simply states 'service was no good,' pulling down both pricing and project completion scores. Project completion is mixed — several reviews confirm solid follow-through, but the sewer drain incident where a competitor resolved the issue the very next day raises questions about technical limits. The review base is small (10 reviews) and heavily skewed toward older dates, with the most recent review from January 2021, meaning current performance cannot be reliably assessed. Confidence in this score is constrained by the limited and aging dataset.

• Most reviews are older than 3 years; the most recent review is from January 2021, and the majority are from 2011–2019. Current performance cannot be reliably inferred.
• One review ('unknown', 5 stars, no text) was excluded from usable data as it contains no actionable information.
• One review ('Would definitely use again', 5 stars) contains no specific detail and contributes minimal scoring evidence.
• The 1-star review from 2011 describes a $60 service charge for no work performed — a direct pricing and project completion concern that was weighted accordingly.
• Small sample size of 10 reviews total significantly limits score reliability across all dimensions.

This WW Score should be treated with caution — the dataset is small, predominantly outdated, and includes two negative reviews that meaningfully impact key dimensions, making it insufficient to draw confident conclusions about current service quality.

Ameen's Plumbing has a mixed but small review record spanning 2016 to 2021. On professionalism, three reviews praise his kindness, patience, honesty, and flexibility, while no negative professionalism complaints exist, yielding a moderate positive score. Pricing is a significant concern: one reviewer explicitly called him overpriced (charging $200 twice for a drain snake in under 15 minutes each visit), while two others praised his cost-effectiveness and honesty about not upselling, resulting in a below-average pricing score that reflects genuine conflict. Project completion is the most worrying dimension — the 1-star reviewer explicitly describes a failed repeat visit where the same drain issue recurred within two weeks, suggesting incomplete or ineffective work, which substantially drags this score down. Experience scores moderately, with positive mentions of competence and mastery offset by the 1-star reviewer's explicit claim of incompetence.

• Very small sample size (4 reviews total) — WW Score should be treated as highly provisional and not representative of consistent performance.
• Three of the four reviews are dated within a narrow window in July–August 2016, which raises a mild concern about clustering, though the language is sufficiently varied to avoid a clear fake review determination.
• The most recent review is from July 2021, meaning all reviews are over 3 years old as of 2024. No recent performance data is available — this score may not reflect current service quality.
• The 1-star review describes a concrete, specific failure (repeat drain clog, two charges of $200+, job not resolved) and is the only review with a negative outcome. Its specificity lends it credibility and it materially impacts the project completion and pricing scores.
• Recency weighting applied: the 2021 review (positive, professionalism/experience focused) was given slightly more weight, but the overall dataset is too small to draw strong conclusions.

This WW Score is based on only 4 reviews, all more than 3 years old, and should be considered LOW reliability — prospective customers are strongly advised to seek more recent references before hiring.

This is a franchise brand with hundreds of locations, and the review pool reflects wildly inconsistent quality across different operators and technicians. Professionalism scores are dragged down significantly by a large volume of reviews describing rude, condescending, or outright hostile technicians and office staff, though many positive reviews praise specific named technicians as courteous and professional. Pricing is the most damaging dimension: an enormous number of reviews describe a bait-and-switch pattern where a low advertised rate (often $49) is used to gain entry, followed by aggressive upselling to hydro-jetting, camera inspections, and pipe replacement at prices reviewers consistently describe as two to ten times market rate. Project completion is mixed — many jobs are completed satisfactorily and quickly, but a significant minority of reviews describe incomplete work, warranty refusals, no-shows, and jobs that required a second company to actually fix the problem. Experience scores reflect genuine skill from certain technicians but are undermined by repeated accounts of misdiagnosis, fabricated damage, and work that failed within days or weeks.

• STRONG BAIT-AND-SWITCH PATTERN DETECTED: Dozens of independent reviews across multiple years and locations describe an identical pattern — low advertised price ($49 drain special) used to gain entry, followed by claims the snake cannot work and escalating upsells to hydro-jetting ($500-$1200), camera inspection, and full pipe replacement ($3,000-$15,000+). This is a systemic business practice, not isolated incidents.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — POSITIVE SIDE: A notable cluster of short, generic 5-star reviews with no detail (e.g., 'Good experience', 'Great service!', 'You guys great!', blank text with 5 stars) appear throughout the dataset, many dated in close proximity. These lack specificity and are consistent with review padding. Confidence in the positive score pool is reduced accordingly.
• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: Multiple reviews appear to be exact duplicates submitted on the same or adjacent dates (e.g., identical text for 'Many other contractors proposed to snake the sewer line', 'Very Pleased with results', 'Did a great job excellent work', 'Prompt, polite, professional', etc.). This inflates the apparent review count and may indicate manipulation.
• MULTI-LOCATION FRANCHISE ISSUE: Reviews clearly reference dozens of different geographic locations (Sacramento, Orange County, Reno, Framingham MA, Spartanburg SC, Baton Rouge, etc.) and different named technicians. This is not a single contractor — it is a franchise brand. Scores reflect the aggregate brand, not any single operator. Individual location quality varies enormously.
• SERIOUS FRAUD ALLEGATIONS: Multiple reviews allege criminal-level conduct including: charging for work not performed, fabricating damage on camera footage, partnering with restoration companies (Bolmer Restoration named repeatedly) to generate fraudulent insurance claims, opening credit cards in customers' names, placing mechanics liens on homes, and targeting elderly and vulnerable customers. One review references a revoked NV business license and cancelled contractor license.
• WARRANTY REFUSAL PATTERN: Multiple reviews describe the company refusing to honor stated warranties when problems recurred within the warranty period, often citing new reasons to charge again.
• NO-SHOW AND SCHEDULING FAILURE PATTERN: A significant number of reviews describe confirmed appointments where technicians never arrived and calls were not returned, sometimes leaving customers without water or sewage service for days.
• RECENCY NOTE: The review dataset spans from approximately 2010 to June 2025. Reviews from the past 12 months (mid-2024 to mid-2025) show a continued mix of strong positives for specific named technicians and serious negatives for pricing and scam-like upselling, suggesting the pattern has not materially changed. More recent reviews were weighted slightly higher in scoring.

This WW Score of 58.2 should be treated with MODERATE-TO-LOW trust as a hiring signal: while it accurately reflects the deeply polarized nature of this franchise brand, the score is based on a mixed pool that includes suspected fake positive reviews, duplicate submissions, and reviews from dozens of geographically distinct franchise locations — meaning the score does not reliably predict the quality of any single local operator, and the systemic pricing and upselling complaints documented across hundreds of independent reviews represent a material risk that any prospective customer should investigate carefully before engaging this company.

Mr. Rooter of Cincinnati presents a deeply mixed record across all four dimensions. Professionalism is the most frequently mentioned dimension and shows a stark split: many older and some recent reviewers praise individual technicians for punctuality, shoe covers, friendliness, and upfront communication, while a significant number of reviews describe technicians walking off jobs, failing to show up, ignoring callbacks, and supervisors threatening police over billing disputes. Pricing is the most consistently negative dimension, with numerous reviewers explicitly describing overcharging, price changes after verbal quotes, charges for incomplete or failed work, and high-pressure upselling — with only a handful of reviews describing pricing as fair or reasonable. Project completion is similarly troubled, with multiple reviews describing work that was not finished, jobs abandoned mid-project, messes left behind, and follow-up visits required to fix new problems created during the original job. Experience scores modestly above the midpoint because some technicians demonstrated clear skill and problem-solving ability, but this is offset by multiple reviews where technicians lacked proper tools, failed to clear lines that competitors cleared easily, and misdiagnosed problems that other plumbers resolved quickly and cheaply.

• Seven reviews are marked 'unknown' with no review text — these were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data.
• One review contains only a period ('.') and was excluded as non-informative.
• The majority of reviews predate 2015, with only 3 reviews from the past 12 months relative to the most recent review date (2023). The score is heavily influenced by older experiences and may not reflect current service quality.
• Several older reviews (2000–2006 era) use all-caps formatting consistent with early web review platforms — these are treated as authentic but carry less recency weight.
• No fake review patterns detected; reviews show genuine variation in sentiment, specific details, named technicians, and a wide range of ratings including 1-star complaints with specific incidents.
• Multiple reviews describe a pattern of charging full price for failed or incomplete work — this is a systemic concern flagged across at least 4 independent reviews spanning different years.
• BBB complaints are referenced by at least two independent reviewers, suggesting a documented pattern of customer disputes beyond this review set.

This WW Score is based on 53 reviews with usable data spanning approximately 23 years, giving it HIGH statistical confidence in terms of mention volume, but the score's reliability for predicting current service quality is MODERATE at best due to the heavy skew toward pre-2015 reviews and only 3 reviews from 2022–2023.