Find Nearby Plumbers In Kettering, Ohio

Sanders Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism (87.5) with consistent praise for punctuality, courtesy, and responsiveness across 58 reviews. Technical expertise and workmanship are solid (85.0) with 35 mentions of skilled technicians and quality work. Project completion is reliable (82.0) across 42 reviews, with jobs typically finished as promised. However, pricing is a significant weakness (52.0) with 24 explicit mentions of excessive costs, hidden fees, and customer dissatisfaction. Multiple reviews describe diagnostic fees charged even when work is declined, and final bills substantially exceeding quotes. This pricing concern substantially reduces the overall WW Score despite strong performance in other dimensions.

• PRICING PATTERN DETECTED: 24 reviews explicitly mention high costs, overcharging, or unfair pricing. Multiple customers report diagnostic fees ($89-$150) charged regardless of whether work is performed, and final invoices significantly exceeding initial quotes. This is the most consistent complaint across the dataset.
• DIAGNOSTIC FEE CONTROVERSY: At least 6 reviews specifically cite the $89 diagnostic fee as problematic when customers decline work or when the company cannot solve the problem. Customers report feeling trapped into paying fees for unsuccessful diagnoses.
• MISDIAGNOSIS INCIDENTS: Several reviews (2015, 2016, 2017, 2020) describe incorrect problem identification leading to unnecessary work or failed repairs, with follow-up costs required to fix Sanders' mistakes.
• RECENCY BIAS NOTED: Most recent reviews (2025, 2024) are overwhelmingly positive (5-star), while older reviews (2015-2023) contain more detailed criticism and pricing complaints. Recent reviews are often generic praise with minimal detail, while older reviews provide specific incident descriptions.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: Multiple recent reviews (June 2025, May 2025) use nearly identical phrasing ('courteous and on time,' 'professional and patient,' 'highly recommend') with minimal specificity. Several reviews contain no text or single-word comments ('The best,' 'Great service') which provide no substantive data.
• ELDERLY TARGETING ALLEGATION: At least 3 reviews (2023, 2018) explicitly accuse Sanders of targeting elderly customers with inflated quotes and taking advantage of their vulnerability. One detailed 2023 review describes a family on fixed income with medical bills being charged $500+ for unsuccessful work.
• PAYMENT DISPUTE: One 2022 review reports being charged 3x the quoted amount with no explanation and refusal to clarify charges.
• CALLBACK FAILURES: One 2016 review documents multiple failed promises to return and address a faulty repair, with no follow-up despite written documentation provided to owner.

This WW Score of 72.8 is reliable and should be trusted, supported by 104 reviews with HIGH confidence across all dimensions. However, the score masks a critical bifurcation: Sanders excels in professionalism and technical skill but has a documented and persistent pricing problem that affects customer satisfaction significantly. Prospective customers should expect professional service but should obtain detailed written quotes, understand all fees upfront, and be prepared to seek second opinions on diagnostic recommendations. The recent surge in generic 5-star reviews without detail suggests possible review manipulation, which slightly reduces confidence in the most recent data.

Roto-Rooter scores very strongly on professionalism and technician experience, with hundreds of reviews praising individual technicians by name for being courteous, knowledgeable, communicative, and thorough. Project completion is generally solid, with most jobs resolved same-day or within a short timeframe, though a meaningful minority of reviews describe incomplete work, no-shows, broken promises on follow-up visits, and warranty disputes. The most significant drag on the overall WW Score is pricing, which is the single most-complained-about dimension across the entire review set — dozens of reviewers explicitly describe charges as 'outrageous,' 'ridiculous,' 'a scam,' or triple the price of competitors, with specific dollar amounts cited ranging from $315 for 4 minutes of work to $8,700 for a water heater installation. Several reviews also describe deceptive pricing practices, including quotes that changed after work began, failure to disclose service fees upfront, and pressure tactics targeting vulnerable customers including seniors and non-English speakers.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: A significant number of reviews appear to be exact or near-exact duplicates posted on different dates (e.g., multiple identical reviews for 'Gio,' 'Gabriel,' 'Daniel,' 'Gus,' 'Giovanni,' and others). This inflates the apparent review count and may indicate a review solicitation system that caused customers to submit the same review twice, or potential manipulation. Confidence in raw review count is reduced.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Approximately 150-200 reviews contain no text and only a star rating (almost all 5-star). These provide no usable data for any dimension and were excluded from scoring but inflate the total count.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS ARE SEVERE AND SPECIFIC: Negative pricing reviews are not vague — they cite specific dollar amounts, compare to competitor prices, and describe practices such as quoting after work begins, refusing to honor coupons, and charging elderly or non-English-speaking customers without disclosure. This is a systemic pattern, not isolated incidents.
• SCHEDULING AND NO-SHOW COMPLAINTS: Multiple reviews describe technicians failing to arrive within promised windows, no-call-no-shows, and dispatch communication failures. This is a recurring pattern affecting the project completion score.
• WARRANTY DISPUTES: Several reviews describe Roto-Rooter refusing to honor stated warranties, including a 6-month guarantee and a 30-day guarantee, with customers being charged again for the same recurring issue.
• WORK QUALITY FAILURES: A small but notable number of reviews describe active harm caused by technicians — flooding a kitchen, improperly setting a toilet, changing the wrong pipe, leaving sewage handprints, and damaging property with no accountability.
• PREDATORY PRICING PATTERN: Multiple reviews describe technicians quoting extremely high prices and then reducing them when customers push back, suggesting initial quotes are inflated as a negotiating tactic rather than honest pricing.
• RECENCY: All reviews are dated between approximately May 7, 2025 and June 9, 2025 — all within the past 12 months. Recency weighting is fully applied.

This WW Score is based on an exceptionally large review set and carries HIGH overall confidence, but the score should be interpreted with caution given confirmed duplicate reviews inflating volume, a strong and consistent pattern of severe pricing complaints that meaningfully suppresses the score, and documented instances of incomplete work and warranty non-compliance that suggest the positive technician-level experience does not always translate to a satisfactory overall customer outcome.

All Star Plumbing demonstrates generally solid performance across all four dimensions, though the review base is small and heavily skewed toward older reviews. Professionalism is supported by multiple reviewers noting punctuality, pleasant demeanor, and clean work habits, though one review explicitly describes a first visit that was messy, unprofessional, and poorly equipped — which meaningfully tempers the score. Project completion scores are similarly mixed: most jobs were finished satisfactorily, but the same review documents a case of sloppy initial work that required a full redo by the owner, indicating inconsistency depending on which technician is dispatched. Pricing feedback is positive across the three reviews that mention it, with customers noting reasonable and transparent costs. Experience scores are supported by technically competent problem-solving described in several reviews, including a methodical drain-clearing approach and a gas line repair that passed utility inspection.

• Two reviews contain no usable text ('unknown' and '.') and were excluded from scoring — these may be placeholder or incomplete submissions.
• The majority of reviews (8 out of 10) are older than 5 years, with most dating from 2009–2017. Only one review is from the past 5 years (2020). Recency is very poor and current performance cannot be reliably inferred.
• The one review from 2020 is very brief and generic ('prompt, friendly, wore mask') with no job-specific detail, limiting its scoring value.
• Small total review count (10) with only 8 containing usable data limits statistical reliability of all dimension scores.

This WW Score should be treated with caution — while the scoring dimensions are supported by real, specific reviewer feedback, the overwhelming age of the reviews (most from 2009–2017) and the small sample size mean this score reflects historical rather than current performance, and should not be used as a strong indicator of what a customer can expect today.

ABC Drains / American Drain generally receives positive marks for professionalism, with multiple reviewers noting responsiveness, pleasant demeanor, and prompt arrival. Project completion scores are reasonably strong, with several reviews confirming jobs were finished successfully, including one notably complex situation handled under time pressure. However, a detailed and credible 2-star review raises serious concerns about pricing transparency — the reviewer alleged non-itemized invoices, misleading cost comparisons, and potential overcharging by approximately $335 on a water heater replacement. This single negative review carries significant weight given the low total review count and meaningfully drags down the pricing dimension. The majority of remaining reviews are very old (2011–2015) and lack substantive detail, limiting overall confidence in the score.

• RECENCY WARNING: Six of eight reviews are from 2011–2022, with five reviews dated 2011–2015. These are between 9 and 13+ years old and carry very limited relevance to current service quality.
• THIN DETAIL WARNING: Several reviews (2012-11-06, 2013-09-03, 2014-07-08, 2011-06-21) contain only 1–2 generic sentences with no specifics. These provide minimal usable scoring data.
• UNUSABLE REVIEW: The review dated 2015-08-12 contains only the word 'unknown' and was excluded from scoring.
• PRICING CONCERN: One detailed 2-star review (2021-06-12) credibly alleges non-itemized billing, misleading price comparisons, and potential overcharging of ~$335 on a water heater job. This is a substantive complaint that warrants caution.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK — LOW: No strong patterns of coordinated fake reviews detected, but the cluster of vague 5-star reviews from 2011–2014 with no specifics is consistent with either genuine but unhelpful reviews or low-effort padding. Confidence is reduced accordingly.
• LOW TOTAL REVIEW COUNT: Only 8 reviews total, with 7 usable. This is a very small sample and the WW Score should be treated with caution.

This WW Score carries LOW overall reliability due to a very small review sample, a heavy concentration of outdated and detail-poor reviews, and one substantive negative review about pricing that meaningfully impacts the score without sufficient counterbalancing recent evidence.

Ed Rike Plumbing shows significant inconsistency across reviews. Professionalism and project completion scores are solid, with multiple customers praising quick response times, courteous technicians, and emergency service capability. However, pricing is a critical weakness—four reviews explicitly detail overcharging, inflated labor costs, unnecessary upsells, and bills nearly double the fair market rate. Technical experience is mixed: some reviews highlight skilled diagnostics and problem-solving, while others describe misdiagnosis and recommendations for expensive solutions that competitors resolved cheaply. The company's failure to follow up on customer complaints (noted in the April 2024 review) compounds trust issues.

• PRICING PATTERN: Four of eight reviews (50%) explicitly mention overcharging, inflated labor rates, or unnecessary expensive recommendations. This is a systemic concern, not isolated incidents.
• FOLLOW-UP FAILURE: April 2024 review documents promised callback that never occurred, suggesting poor complaint resolution process.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most positive reviews are from 2021–2023 (older than 12 months). The two most recent reviews (April 2024 and December 2022) are both 1-star complaints about pricing and misdiagnosis.
• INCONSISTENT QUALITY: Wide variance in technician performance and pricing practices suggests inconsistent standards or potential targeting of vulnerable customers (senior mentioned in April 2024 review).
• MISDIAGNOSIS RISK: December 2022 review documents recommendation for $6,500–$10,000 work that was resolved for under $1,500 by competitor, indicating possible diagnostic failures.

This score should be treated with caution. While professionalism and completion metrics are supported by multiple mentions, the company's pricing practices are severely compromised by consistent overcharging allegations across recent reviews. The WW Score of 62.8 reflects a business with strong service execution but serious ethical concerns around transparency and fair pricing that undermine overall trustworthiness.

This contractor has a deeply mixed and very thin review record. Two positive reviews praise same-day responsiveness, professionalism, and quality workmanship including cleanup after the job. However, one serious negative review describes a contractor who damaged a customer's lawn and then completely ignored repeated calls and messages, which is a significant red flag for both professionalism and project completion follow-through. The unresolved complaint about property damage and non-communication drags scores down considerably across multiple dimensions. With only 3 reviews spanning over two years, no reliable pricing data exists, and the overall picture is too limited to draw confident conclusions.

• Only 3 reviews total — WW Score reliability is very low and should be treated with caution.
• One review explicitly describes unresolved property damage (damaged lawn) and complete non-responsiveness to multiple follow-up attempts — this is a serious unresolved complaint.
• The two positive reviews are relatively generic and lack specific detail about project scope, timeline, or pricing, which limits their evidentiary value.
• Review dates span from 2020 to 2022 — all reviews are more than 2 years old. No recent activity data is available to assess current service quality.
• No pricing or value-for-money information was mentioned in any review — pricing dimension cannot be scored.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews, all older than 2 years, with one serious unresolved complaint — the score should be considered highly unreliable and insufficient for confident contractor evaluation.