Find Nearby Plumbers In Dearborn, Michigan

Convenient Plumbing earns strong marks across all four dimensions, driven by a large volume of detailed, specific reviews praising Ed and Jeremy's responsiveness, punctuality, honest communication, and technical skill. The professionalism and experience scores are particularly well-supported, with dozens of reviewers citing prompt callbacks, on-time arrivals, thorough explanations, and quality workmanship across a wide variety of jobs. Project completion is also highly rated, with numerous reviewers confirming jobs were finished on time, at the quoted price, and with follow-up calls to ensure satisfaction. However, the pricing dimension is meaningfully dragged down by three credible 1-star reviews — two of which specifically allege that a warranted water heater installation was billed at roughly double what competing plumbers quoted for the same job, and one alleging a $300 repair failed within a year with a demand for full replacement cost — which prevents a higher pricing score despite the majority of reviewers praising fair and transparent pricing. These negative pricing complaints are detailed, plausible, and consistent with each other, and cannot be dismissed.

• TWO DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: The review beginning 'These guys are honest and efficient professionals...' (ejector pump failure) appears twice with different dates (2019-06-11 and 2018-08-27). Similarly, the review beginning 'Once again, I am very happy with their work...' (water softener and laundry tub) appears twice with different dates (2021-06-10 and 2021-04-28). The review beginning 'These guys were great. I hired them to install my water softener...' also appears twice (2021-06-10 and 2020-11-13). These duplicates were counted only once each for scoring purposes.
• PRICING CONCERN — CREDIBLE NEGATIVE PATTERN: Two separate 1-star reviews (2025-05-10 and 2024-06-17) independently describe being charged approximately $1,200–$1,275 for a warranted water heater installation and allege this was roughly double competitor quotes. The 2024 reviewer also states Ed refused to provide an itemized bill when challenged. This is a specific, recurring, and credible pattern that meaningfully suppresses the pricing score.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews are from 2018–2022, with only a handful from 2023–2025. The two most recent negative pricing reviews (2024 and 2025) are among the most recent data points, which is a concern as it may indicate a shift in pricing practices.
• TWO REVIEWS CONTAIN NO USABLE TEXT: One review has no text at all (5-star, 2023-06-10) and one contains only the words 'Water softener' (5-star, 2023-06-10). These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no actionable evidence.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK — LOW: The vast majority of positive reviews contain specific names, job types, and situational details, which reduces the likelihood of coordinated fake reviews. However, the high volume of near-identical 5-star sentiment and the presence of duplicate reviews warrants mild caution.

This WW Score is based on a large, well-detailed review set and carries HIGH overall confidence, but consumers should weigh the pricing dimension carefully given two credible and independent complaints about significantly inflated charges on warranted water heater installations — a pattern specific enough to suggest a systemic pricing issue rather than isolated misunderstandings.

Lane Plumbing demonstrates strong overall performance with particular strengths in professionalism, experience, and project completion. The company excels at responsiveness, punctuality, and technical expertise, with owner Jimmy Lane frequently praised for phone diagnostics and personalized service. However, pricing emerges as a notable weakness, with multiple customers reporting charges that feel excessive relative to work performed, including concerns about job-based pricing, travel time charges, and parts markups. While most recent reviews (2024-2025) are highly positive, older reviews reveal recurring pricing complaints and occasional service failures that suggest inconsistency over time.

• PRICING CONCERNS: Multiple reviews (at least 8) explicitly criticize pricing as unfair, excessive, or deceptive. Complaints include: $175 minimum fee charged for no work performed, labor rates 3x normal ($175/hr), parts marked up significantly (e.g., $125 for items costing <$40), double quotes, and charges for travel time. This is a material pattern.
• SERVICE INCONSISTENCY: Older reviews (2013-2018) contain serious complaints about incomplete work, missed appointments, and poor diagnostics (e.g., water heater leak misdiagnosed, burst pipe emergency not returned, slab work done incorrectly). Recent reviews (2024-2025) are overwhelmingly positive, suggesting either significant company improvement or potential review manipulation.
• POTENTIAL REVIEW SKEW: The dataset shows a stark temporal divide: pre-2020 reviews contain 12 one-star ratings and multiple serious complaints; post-2023 reviews contain almost exclusively 5-star ratings with minimal critical detail. This pattern warrants caution regarding recency bias or selective review posting.
• COMMUNICATION FAILURES: At least 3 reviews document missed appointments, no-shows, or failure to return calls despite promises, including one emergency service call that went unanswered.
• INCOMPLETE WORK: Multiple reviews describe jobs left unfinished or requiring callbacks (e.g., hole not filled, drip not resolved on first visit, multiple trips needed for septic work).
• DISCOUNT POLICY VIOLATION: One review explicitly states advertised senior/veteran discounts were not honored.

This WW Score of 81.2 should be treated with MODERATE-TO-HIGH caution. While recent reviews (past 12 months) are consistently strong and support a score in the 82-86 range, the historical pattern of serious pricing complaints, service failures, and communication breakdowns suggests the company may have improved significantly or that recent reviews may not fully represent customer experience. The pricing dimension is particularly unreliable due to conflicting narratives: many customers report fair pricing, but a substantial minority report excessive charges. Prospective customers should obtain detailed written estimates, clarify labor rates and travel charges upfront, and verify any advertised discounts before committing.

Anaconda Drain Cleaning earns consistently strong marks across all four dimensions, with professionalism being a standout — nearly every reviewer praised prompt communication, courteous behavior, and transparency. Pricing was frequently described as fair, reasonable, and consistent with quoted amounts, with one reviewer explicitly noting they avoided a $5,600 overcharge by calling Anaconda instead. Project completion is solid overall but is meaningfully dragged down by one detailed 1-star review in which the technician failed to diagnose a clog, did not use available camera equipment, and left the customer without a working toilet for four days — a significant failure that cannot be ignored. Experience scores well across most reviews, with multiple mentions of thorough multi-pass snaking, camera inspections, and correct diagnosis of root clogs, though the same 1-star incident reflects a lapse in problem-solving that tempers the score. The majority of reviews are from 2015–2022, with no reviews in the past 12 months, which slightly reduces confidence in current performance.

• Most reviews are older than 12 months — the most recent review is from December 2022 and the majority are from 2015–2019. Current performance cannot be reliably assessed from this data.
• One significant 1-star review (2018) describes a clear failure in project completion and experience: the technician could not identify the problem, declined to use available camera equipment, and left the customer without a working toilet for four days. This is weighted heavily in project completion and experience scoring.
• Several reviews use enthusiastic, detailed language that appears genuine and specific (named technicians, described specific procedures, referenced dollar amounts), reducing concern about fake reviews. No strong fake review patterns detected.
• The 5-star review from 2017 references a competitor's $5,600 misdiagnosis — while this reflects well on Anaconda's honesty, it is a single reviewer's account and cannot be independently verified.

This WW Score is based on 11 reviews spanning 2015–2022 with usable data across all four dimensions and HIGH confidence on every dimension; the score is reasonably reliable as a historical baseline but should be treated with caution given the absence of recent reviews and one substantive failure incident that meaningfully impacts project completion and experience scores.

Johnson Plumbing demonstrates solid overall performance with a WW Score of 76.8, driven by strong technical expertise and generally reliable project completion. The company excels in experience and skill level (82.5), with numerous reviews praising knowledgeable technicians and quality workmanship. Professionalism scores well at 78.5, reflecting punctuality and courteous service across most engagements. However, pricing emerges as a significant weakness at 68.0, with recurring complaints about overcharges, unexpected bills, diagnostic fees, and quotes that exceed initial estimates. Project completion is reliable at 79.0, though some customers report incomplete work or callbacks needed. The company's long operational history and family ownership are assets, but pricing transparency and consistency remain persistent pain points.

• PRICING CONCERNS: 89 mentions of pricing issues reveal a pattern of customer dissatisfaction. Complaints include: unexpected additional charges weeks/months after service, diagnostic fees ($100-$126 for simple assessments), quotes that increase significantly on-site, hourly rates perceived as excessive ($118-$220/hr), and lack of itemized billing. Multiple customers report being charged for incomplete work or work that required callbacks.
• INCONSISTENT QUALITY: While many reviews praise specific technicians (Ken, Rodney, Brad, Eric, Jason), others report incompetent work from unnamed technicians, suggesting quality varies significantly by individual. Some customers had to hire second plumbers to redo work.
• BILLING DISPUTES: Multiple reviews (2023-2024) describe delayed invoicing (bills arriving 4+ months after service), surprise charges, and threats of collection action. One customer reported being billed for a service they were not supposed to pay for (GE warranty case).
• FOLLOW-UP FAILURES: Several reviews mention promised callbacks that never occurred, estimates that were never provided, and poor communication from dispatch/office staff.
• NEGATIVE OUTLIERS: 1-star reviews (approximately 25 total) cluster around pricing disputes, incomplete work, rude staff behavior, and failure to honor commitments. A few reviews suggest the company takes advantage of elderly customers and veterans.
• RECENCY NOTE: Most recent reviews (2025) are overwhelmingly positive (5-star), which contrasts sharply with 2020-2023 reviews that contain more critical feedback. This shift may indicate recent operational improvements or potential review manipulation. Recommend treating very recent reviews with moderate caution.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: Multiple empty reviews (no text, 5-star rating) and several generic single-word reviews ('Great!', 'Awesome', 'fine') appear throughout the dataset, particularly in 2025 and 2020-2021 clusters. This pattern is consistent with review padding, though not conclusive.

This WW Score of 76.8 is reliable for understanding Johnson Plumbing's overall performance, supported by 287 reviews with HIGH confidence across all dimensions. However, the score masks significant variability: the company delivers strong technical work and responsiveness but has persistent, well-documented pricing issues that materially impact customer satisfaction. Prospective customers should expect quality workmanship but should obtain detailed written estimates, confirm pricing before work begins, and request itemized invoices to mitigate financial risk. The recent surge in 5-star reviews warrants cautious interpretation.

SOS Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism with consistently courteous, responsive staff and timely service across most reviews. However, the company shows significant inconsistency in project completion and pricing transparency, with multiple complaints about incomplete work, follow-up failures, and unexpected charges. Experience-level feedback is generally positive regarding technical knowledge and problem-solving, though some reviews indicate diagnostic errors. The WW Score of 76.8 reflects a company with solid fundamentals but notable reliability and pricing concerns that prevent a higher rating.

• CRITICAL: Multiple reviews (at least 8) report no-shows, missed appointments, or failure to follow up on callbacks despite claims of 24/7 service. This is a systemic professionalism issue.
• PRICING CONCERNS: At least 6 reviews explicitly mention overcharging, inflated estimates, hidden charges, or unexpected fees. One elderly customer was allegedly charged $4,320 for work estimated at $800-$1,500 by competitors.
• PROJECT COMPLETION FAILURES: Multiple reviews (at least 5) report incomplete work, jobs requiring multiple visits to fix, or work that had to be redone by other contractors or homeowners.
• QUALITY INCONSISTENCY: Several reviews report poor workmanship (leaking installations, damaged fixtures, incorrect diagnostics) despite other reviews praising quality.
• OWNER/MANAGEMENT ISSUES: Multiple reviews describe rude, dismissive, or threatening behavior from ownership when complaints were raised. One review reports owner threatening legal action over payment disputes.
• WARRANTY DISPUTES: At least 2 reviews report the company refusing to honor stated warranties or guarantees.
• RECENCY NOTE: Most negative reviews cluster in 2017-2024 period, suggesting ongoing systemic issues rather than historical problems. Recent reviews (2024-2025) are predominantly 5-star with minimal detail, which may indicate review selection bias.
• FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: Approximately 15-20 reviews from June 9, 2024 show identical timestamps, minimal detail, or generic praise without specifics. Several are blank or single-sentence reviews. This clustering suggests possible review manipulation.
• ELDERLY CUSTOMER COMPLAINTS: Multiple reviews specifically mention poor treatment of elderly customers, including overcharging and delayed emergency service.

This WW Score should be treated with MODERATE-TO-HIGH caution. While the score of 76.8 is supported by substantial data (150 reviews), the company exhibits a troubling pattern of inconsistency: excellent service in some cases paired with serious failures in others, particularly around appointment reliability, pricing transparency, and warranty honoring. The recent clustering of generic 5-star reviews and the prevalence of detailed negative reviews from 2017-2024 suggest the company may have systemic operational issues that are not fully reflected in the overall score. Prospective customers should request detailed written estimates, confirm appointment times in writing, and consider the company's mixed track record before committing to major projects.

Pete the Plumber and associated operators (The Plumbing God, Bill, Mark, and others) earn strong marks for professionalism, with the vast majority of reviewers praising punctuality, friendliness, communication, and respectful conduct in the home. However, pricing is a recurring concern across multiple independent reviews spanning several years, with customers citing high hourly rates, unexpected truck charges, and costs that felt disproportionate to the work performed — this meaningfully drags the pricing score down. Project completion is generally solid, with most jobs described as finished correctly and promptly, but there are several credible negative reviews describing incomplete work, return visits needed, and at least two cases where jobs were left unresolved or made worse. Experience scores well overall given the volume of praise for technical knowledge and problem-solving, but is tempered by a handful of serious complaints about faulty installations and misdiagnoses that required correction by other plumbers.

• 25 reviews contain no text — only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence per scoring rules.
• Several reviews from the 2024–2025 period use the nickname 'The Plumbing God' (Bill) while others reference 'Pete the Plumber' as a separate entity or team. It is unclear whether these are the same business or co-listed entities. This may inflate review volume and conflate two distinct service providers.
• One review (2025-05-01, 1-star) appears to be about a parking lot dispute unrelated to plumbing services. It was excluded from dimension scoring but noted as a professionalism flag.
• Pricing complaints are consistent and span multiple years (2014–2024), suggesting a systemic pattern rather than isolated incidents. At least 7 independent reviewers explicitly flagged pricing as high or unfair.
• At least 5 negative reviews describe serious project completion failures: work not completed, leaks returning immediately after repair, a PRV installed incorrectly at 100 psi, a pressure tank left leaking and made worse on return visit, and a drain job that required a second company to redo.
• One negative review (2023-09-05) alleges the contractor became verbally abusive after a complaint. Another (2024-01-18) alleges the contractor threatened to send someone with COVID to the reviewer's home. These are serious conduct flags.
• One review (2023-12-15) alleges the contractor may not hold a valid Michigan plumbing license and stopped communicating when asked for a license number. This is an unverified but serious flag.
• Recency note: A significant portion of detailed reviews are from 2014–2018. While recent reviews (2024–2025) are present, many are text-free ratings. The most detailed and critical reviews span the full date range, suggesting long-standing mixed performance.
• No confirmed fake review pattern detected, though some short generic 5-star reviews (e.g., 'Great work', 'Did great work', 'Great company!') lack specifics. These were scored conservatively or excluded from dimension counts.

This WW Score is based on a large review set (163 total, 138 with usable data) spanning over a decade, giving it HIGH statistical confidence, but consumers should weigh the recurring pricing complaints, multiple credible project completion failures, and serious conduct allegations before hiring.