Find Nearby Plumbers In Kettering, Ohio

Weaver Plumbing demonstrates exceptional performance across all dimensions. Professionalism is consistently praised with mentions of punctuality, courteous behavior, communication, and responsiveness across all 8 reviews. Project completion is strong with 7 reviews explicitly confirming jobs finished completely, callbacks honored, and flexibility with scheduling. Experience is validated through 8 mentions of skilled workmanship, technical knowledge, and problem-solving ability. Pricing receives solid marks from 3 reviews citing fair, transparent, and reasonable costs compared to competitors. The company's owner-operated model and consistent positive feedback suggest reliable, quality service.

• All 8 reviews are 5-star ratings with no negative feedback or critical comments. While this is not necessarily indicative of fake reviews, the uniformity is notable.
• Most reviews (5 of 8) are older than 12 months, with only 1 review from 2024. Recent data is limited.
• Several reviews use similar phrasing ('highly recommend', 'fantastic', 'professional') but this appears consistent with genuine customer enthusiasm rather than fabricated content, as specific details vary significantly across reviews.
• No reviews mention any service failures, delays, or customer dissatisfaction, which is unusual but not impossible for a well-run business.

This WW Score of 89.2 is highly reliable based on consistent positive evidence across all four dimensions with strong mention counts, though the absence of any critical feedback and limited recent data (only 1 review from past 12 months) should be noted when making service decisions.

A&L Plumbing receives consistently strong marks across all four dimensions, with professionalism being the most frequently cited strength — dozens of reviewers specifically mention friendly, courteous, and timely technicians by name. Project completion scores well due to repeated mentions of same-day service, jobs finished without abandonment, and follow-through even when complications arose (e.g., the wrong water heater tank requiring a return trip). Pricing is generally praised as fair and transparent, with no hidden fees cited across the majority of reviews, though one reviewer noted they were 'not the lowest cost out there.' Experience scores are supported by multiple reviewers highlighting technical problem-solving ability, including a slab leak located on the first attempt and a thermostat diagnosis that saved a full water heater replacement. One negative review alleging a misdiagnosis of a water heater issue and a charge of $125 for an incorrect recommendation moderately tempers the experience and professionalism scores.

• 5 reviews contain no text whatsoever — only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence.
• A cluster of 14 reviews share the exact date of 2024-06-09, which is statistically unusual and may suggest a coordinated review push or batch import. These reviews were included but treated with moderate caution.
• The review corpus spans from 2011 to 2025. Reviews older than 3 years (approximately 8 reviews) were given reduced weight as they may not reflect current service quality.
• One 1-star review (2024-12-11) explicitly alleges a misdiagnosis, dishonesty by a technician, and an unjustified $125 charge. This is a credible negative signal and was factored into both experience and professionalism scores.
• One 1-star review (2024-06-09) contains no text and cannot be evaluated for dimension scoring, though its rating was noted.
• One review (2025-03-21) noted technicians left stains throughout the home after a water heater replacement, which is a minor workmanship concern factored into the experience score.

This WW Score carries HIGH overall confidence given the large volume of detailed, named-technician reviews spanning multiple years, though the anomalous date clustering in June 2024 and the presence of five text-free reviews introduce a modest degree of uncertainty.

Hubbs Heating & Air demonstrates strong overall performance with a WW Score of 82.3. The company excels in professionalism (87.5) with consistent praise for courteous, knowledgeable technicians and responsive communication across 89 reviews. Project completion is solid (85.0) with 68 mentions of timely service and effective problem-solving. Technical experience scores well (86.0) across 72 reviews highlighting skilled diagnostics and quality workmanship. However, pricing emerges as a notable weakness (72.0) with only 18 mentions but recurring complaints about high service charges, expensive installations, and unexpected costs. Recent reviews (2025) are overwhelmingly positive, but older reviews (2018-2022) reveal serious service failures and customer service breakdowns that warrant caution.

• PRICING CONCERN: Multiple reviews cite high costs, emergency fees, and unexpected bills. One 2021 review detailed extreme utility bills ($580-$312/month) after new system installation. Another 2016 review noted pricing nearly 2X market average. Limited transparency on pricing despite positive professionalism scores suggests potential disconnect between service quality and cost justification.
• CUSTOMER SERVICE FAILURES: Two detailed negative reviews (2024 and 2022) describe unprofessional phone interactions with staff members 'Karen' and 'Chad' (different from owner Chad), including refusal to escalate complaints and dismissive attitudes toward customer concerns. These contradict the overwhelmingly positive recent reviews and suggest inconsistent service quality.
• QUALITY CONTROL INCONSISTENCY: One 2018 review alleges technician fabricated repair needs (false claims about missing parts, dog urine damage) and company ignored refund requests. Another 2024 review describes emergency service refusal during dangerous weather conditions with young children present. These suggest potential quality control and ethical issues despite company's family-owned reputation.
• RECENCY BIAS RISK: 85+ reviews are from 2025 and early 2025 with nearly all 5-star ratings and similar positive language patterns. Older reviews (2014-2022) show more variance and critical feedback. Recent reviews may reflect improved operations or potential review manipulation. Recommend weighting pre-2024 reviews more heavily for reliability assessment.
• EMPTY REVIEWS: 6 reviews contain no text (only 5-star ratings on dates 2025-05-10, 2025-05-10, 2025-05-10, 2025-05-10, 2025-04-10, 2025-03-11). These provide no substantive data and may indicate automated or placeholder entries.
• GENERIC PRAISE PATTERN: Recent reviews use repetitive phrases ('very professional,' 'knowledgeable,' 'friendly,' 'highly recommend') with minimal specific detail about actual work performed. This pattern differs from older reviews which contained specific anecdotes and problem descriptions, raising questions about review authenticity.

This WW Score of 82.3 should be treated with MODERATE-TO-HIGH confidence for recent service quality (2025) but LOWER confidence for predicting future customer experience, given documented service failures in 2018-2024, unresolved pricing complaints, and customer service issues that appear to persist despite recent positive reviews. The company demonstrates strong technical competence and professionalism in field work but shows vulnerability in pricing transparency, emergency response ethics, and management accountability. Recommend requesting detailed pricing quotes upfront and clarifying service scope before engagement.

The overwhelming majority of reviews praise professionalism, punctuality, communication, and friendly attitudes across multiple technicians and owners (Aaron, Mike, Guillermo, Ron, and others), driving a strong but not perfect professionalism score. Pricing scores well overall — many reviewers explicitly cite reasonable, fair, or competitive pricing — but is tempered by several notable complaints: one reviewer was charged nearly $700 for a snake with no resolution, another documented being charged over double the market rate for HVAC maintenance, one experienced a mid-job price change from $285 to $388.50, and another felt labor charges for a warranty replacement were excessive. Project completion scores solidly given the large volume of reviews describing completed jobs, same-day or next-day service, and follow-through, but is reduced by a handful of reviews describing abandoned callbacks, a technician who left without hot water working, a dishwasher leveling issue that took two weeks to resolve, and a misdiagnosis case where a competitor fixed what A-1 could not. Experience scores high based on numerous explicit mentions of skill, technical knowledge, and problem-solving ability, including complex jobs like CIPP lining, tankless water heater repair, and leak detection under homes.

• A significant number of reviews (approximately 40) contain no text — only a star rating. These blank reviews cannot contribute usable data to any dimension and were excluded from scoring.
• Several reviews appear to reference entirely different companies or technicians (e.g., A-1 Total Service Plumbing with Guillermo/Esteban/Osvaldo/Leo vs. Complete Plumbing with Aaron/Mike Torculas). This review set appears to aggregate reviews from at least two or possibly three distinct businesses. Scores reflect the combined pool but reliability is reduced because performance may vary significantly between entities.
• Multiple reviews for 'Complete Plumbing' reference owner Mike Torculas and span back to 2011, while others reference Aaron Petrossian as owner of Complete Plumbing — these may be two separate businesses operating under the same name in different regions.
• Pricing dimension has meaningful negative signal: at least 4 reviews explicitly describe overcharging, hidden fees, or price changes mid-job, which significantly tempers the otherwise positive pricing sentiment.
• One review (2025-03-11, 1-star) explicitly warns readers to get a second opinion on A-1 Total Service Plumbing recommendations, citing a misdiagnosis and an unnecessary $2,400 repair quote when a $400 hydrojet and simple obstruction removal solved the problem.
• One review (2025-05-10, 2-star) describes being charged nearly $700 for a snake that did not resolve the issue, followed by a $7,000 camera quote and then no response when requesting camera footage — suggesting possible upselling and poor follow-through.
• One review (2024-11-11, 1-star) and one review (2018-07-28, 1-star) cite rude phone/office staff, and one review (2022-08-17, 1-star) describes the owner being rude and late to an estimate appointment — a recurring pattern of customer service issues at the front-end of the business.
• One review (2017-07-17, 1-star) describes a technician breaking faucet handles and then becoming unreachable for follow-up repair — a project completion failure.
• One review (2021-03-03, 1-star) describes incomplete work and a system left without hot water after the technician departed.
• Review dates span from 2011 to 2025. Reviews older than 12 months (pre-June 2024) should be weighted less heavily. The most recent reviews (2025) are mixed, with both strong positives and notable negatives appearing in the same period.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large volume of substantive reviews, but its reliability as a single-entity score is meaningfully reduced by the apparent aggregation of reviews from at least two distinct businesses; prospective customers should verify which specific company and technician they are engaging before relying on this score.

Plumb Tite earns strong marks across all four dimensions, with the majority of recent reviews (2024–2025) describing technicians as professional, courteous, knowledgeable, and efficient. Professionalism is the most frequently mentioned dimension and is broadly positive, though it is meaningfully dragged down by several older reviews (2016–2021) citing rude technicians, a no-show appointment with no reschedule offered, and a plumber who refused to move an appliance and was dismissive. Pricing is the weakest dimension: while several reviewers praised fair and transparent pricing with no upselling, multiple older reviews explicitly called out surprise charges, a 'free service call' that turned into a $105 fee, and a price that escalated from $225 to $1,170 mid-job — these are serious concerns that suppress the pricing score significantly. Project completion is generally solid, with most jobs described as finished promptly and correctly, but one review noted a missed valve re-opening after a radiant heating repair, one described a leaking water heater installed by the company, and one involved a complete no-show. Experience scores well overall, with many reviewers praising technical skill and problem-solving, and only minor isolated complaints about workmanship quality.

• 5 reviews contained no text at all — only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence.
• Several reviews are significantly older (2014–2019) and may not reflect current business practices. Recency weighting was applied; older negative reviews were not discarded but were treated as lower-weight signals.
• The 2019 pricing complaint (job escalating from $225 to $1,170) and the 2015 'free service call' complaint are serious pricing transparency concerns. While recent reviews suggest improvement, these patterns warrant a conservative pricing score.
• The 2021 no-show/cancellation review describes a complete failure of scheduling and follow-through, including inability to reschedule after a week-long wait. This is a significant project completion and professionalism flag.
• The 2018 review alleging Plumb Tite broke a washing machine and refused to take responsibility is a serious workmanship and customer service flag, though it is an isolated older incident.
• No suspected fake reviews detected. Reviews vary in length, detail, specificity, and rating — including multiple 1-star reviews — which is consistent with an authentic review set.
• Multiple technician names appear across reviews (John, Chad, Will, Jeff, Darren, Tim, Austin, Eric), which adds credibility and suggests reviews reflect real, varied service experiences.

This WW Score is based on 55 reviews with usable content spanning 2014–2025, with strong recency in 2024–2025; the score is moderately reliable overall, but the pricing dimension carries meaningful uncertainty due to a clear pattern of historical pricing complaints that contrasts with more recent positive pricing feedback, and prospective customers should independently verify current pricing practices before engaging.

Spartan Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism with consistent praise for punctuality, communication, and technician courtesy across 187 mentions. Project completion is solid at 79.5, though some reviews cite delays, rescheduling issues, and occasional follow-up problems. Experience scores well at 80.0 with frequent mentions of technical knowledge and problem-solving ability. However, pricing emerges as a significant weakness (71.0), with numerous complaints about high costs, unexpected charges, vague estimates, and perceived overcharging relative to competitors. The company shows reliability but struggles with pricing transparency and value perception.

• PRICING CONCERNS: Multiple reviews (15+) explicitly cite high pricing, unexpected charges, and lack of transparency. Several customers report being charged significantly more than competitors for identical work ($900 vs $240 for disposal replacement, $728 vs $350 for quote, $1081 vs $169 part cost). This is a material weakness.
• AHS WARRANTY PATTERN: Approximately 12-15 reviews mention American Home Shield (AHS) assignments with concerning patterns—technicians allegedly denying coverage, misrepresenting issues as 'preexisting,' or refusing to perform warranty work. This suggests possible systemic issues with warranty claim handling.
• INCONSISTENT FOLLOW-UP: Multiple reviews (8+) report poor follow-up communication, unreturned calls, rescheduling without notice, or no-shows. This contradicts the strong professionalism score in other areas.
• QUALITY CONTROL VARIANCE: Several reviews describe damage caused during installation (broken tiles, chipped sinks, incorrect installations) and inadequate remediation. One detailed review describes spray foam misuse and poor workmanship.
• ESTIMATE TRANSPARENCY: At least 6 reviews cite refusal to provide phone estimates, vague itemization, or significant discrepancies between quoted and final prices. One review describes a $217 charge vs. $145 quoted.
• RECENCY BIAS: Most recent reviews (2025, 2024) are predominantly 5-star with minimal detail, while older reviews (2014-2018) contain more substantive criticism. This may indicate review quality degradation or selection bias.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK - MODERATE: Approximately 30-40 reviews from 2025 and late 2024 are either blank (rating only, no text) or contain generic praise with minimal specifics ('Amazing service!!!', 'Great job', 'Highly recommend'). While not conclusive, the volume of low-detail 5-star reviews in recent months warrants caution.
• CONFLICTING NARRATIVES: Company receives both 'honest and fair' and 'dishonest and overcharging' labels from different customers, suggesting either inconsistent service delivery or significant customer perception gaps.

This WW Score of 78.2 is reliable for professionalism and experience dimensions (both HIGH confidence with 140+ mentions each), but the pricing score of 71.0 should be weighted heavily in decision-making as it reflects genuine customer pain points across 68 substantive mentions. The company demonstrates strong technical competence and punctuality but has documented issues with pricing transparency and value delivery. Prospective customers should request detailed written estimates and compare pricing with competitors before committing. Recent review quality concerns (high volume of blank/generic 5-star reviews) suggest some caution in interpreting the most recent ratings.