Find Nearby Plumbers In Detroit, Michigan

Premium Renovations received two strong positive reviews praising professionalism, communication, timeliness, quality of work, and fair pricing. However, one 1-star review explicitly cited an inability to make contact in a timely manner, which is a meaningful negative signal for responsiveness and professionalism. The positive reviews are specific and detailed enough to suggest genuine experiences, but the responsiveness failure noted in the negative review meaningfully tempers the professionalism score. With only 3 reviews total, all scores must be treated with caution and the WW Score should not be considered reliable at this time.

• Only 3 reviews analyzed — sample size is too small for high-confidence scoring across any dimension.
• One review (1-star, Michael Butler, 2024-10-13) explicitly flagged a failure to respond in a timely manner, which negatively impacts the professionalism score.
• The two positive reviews are specific and include named details (basement bathroom, hot water heater context, cost comparisons), reducing fake review concern — however the small sample size limits confidence regardless.
• No review dates older than 12 months — all reviews are recent, which is a positive signal for recency relevance.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews and should be considered preliminary and unreliable until a larger review sample is available; the score may shift significantly with additional data.

This contractor demonstrates solid professionalism with polite, responsive service mentioned across multiple reviews. However, pricing is a significant concern—one review explicitly states 50% markup over competitors, while another praises affordability, creating conflicting signals. Project completion data is limited to two mentions with mixed signals (quick service vs. service refusal). The contractor's refusal to service certain areas due to unfamiliarity raises questions about technical scope. Overall confidence is limited due to small sample size (4 reviews) and age of most reviews (2016–2018), with only one recent review from 2022.

• Most reviews are 6+ years old (2016–2018); only one review from 2022. Recency is poor.
• Conflicting pricing signals: one review claims 50% premium; another calls service 'affordable.' Unclear if pricing is fair or inflated.
• Service refusal in Detroit (2016) due to unfamiliarity with local systems suggests limited technical scope or knowledge gaps.
• Very small sample size (4 reviews) limits statistical reliability.
• No explicit mentions of workmanship quality, technical skill, or problem-solving ability.

This WW Score should be treated with caution due to limited review volume, significant age of most data, and conflicting signals on pricing. The score reflects moderate professionalism but cannot reliably assess experience or long-term project completion quality.

Advanced Plumbing has a mixed but generally positive track record across a small review set. Professionalism scores are pulled down significantly by one detailed negative review describing an inexperienced crew, poor work ethic, and a $210 charge for unresolved work, which contrasts with several glowing reviews praising friendliness, responsiveness, and knowledgeable staff. Pricing is similarly mixed — one reviewer found costs fair, another found them pricey, and the negative reviewer felt charged excessively for no result. Project completion is a concern because one review explicitly describes the job being left unresolved and the customer referred elsewhere, which is a meaningful red flag. The positive reviews, while genuine in tone, are largely older (2013–2020), reducing their relevance to current performance.

• One review (2024-08-28) is entirely about driver behavior on the road and contains no service experience data — excluded from scoring.
• The majority of positive reviews are more than 3 years old (2013, 2016, 2019, 2020), with only one positive review from 2023. Recency of positive feedback is low.
• The most recent substantive negative review (2020-04-24) describes an unresolved job, possible use of an underage or unqualified apprentice, and a charge of $210 for no result — this is a serious credibility and competency concern.
• Total usable review count is very low (6 reviews). Scores carry limited statistical reliability and should be interpreted with caution.
• No fake review patterns detected — reviews vary in tone, detail, and rating, suggesting authentic submissions.

This WW Score is based on only 6 usable reviews spanning over a decade, with most positive reviews being significantly outdated, making the score a low-confidence indicator of current service quality.

Michigan Supreme Plumbing receives strong praise from a majority of reviewers for professionalism, punctuality, and courteous service — particularly from technician Justin. Pricing is generally described as fair and transparent, though two negative reviews raise serious concerns about a $125 diagnostic fee that did not resolve the issue and a pattern of re-charging customers for warranty-covered return visits. Project completion is the most concerning dimension: three negative reviews describe jobs that were not fixed on the first visit, a warranty that was effectively honored poorly, and one case where a misdiagnosis led to a flooded basement — all of which significantly drag down the completion score. Responsiveness issues appear in multiple negative reviews, with customers reporting unanswered calls and unreturned messages over multiple days. The overall picture is a contractor with genuine strengths in attitude and workmanship on straightforward jobs, but meaningful documented failures in follow-through and problem resolution on more complex issues.

• Three reviews (1-star) describe serious project completion failures: unresolved clogs after multiple visits, a misdiagnosis leading to basement flooding, and a diagnostic fee charged without fixing the problem.
• Two reviews explicitly report responsiveness failures — calls not returned for days or weeks, and one reviewer noted the company only answered when called from a different number, suggesting possible call screening.
• The majority of positive reviews are older than 12 months; only one review (August 2024) falls within the past 12 months, which limits confidence in current service quality.
• Several positive reviews use similar generic praise language ('professional,' 'on time,' 'fair price') with limited specific detail, which warrants mild caution, though named technician references (Justin) add some authenticity.
• The single most recent review (2024) is positive, but the small sample of recent data means it cannot be treated as fully representative of current performance.

This WW Score is based on 19 reviews spanning approximately 11 years, with strong mention counts across all four dimensions, but the score should be treated with moderate caution due to the age of most reviews, documented serious failures in project completion and responsiveness, and only one review from the past 12 months.

Flame Furnace demonstrates strong technical expertise and professionalism in individual service interactions, with technicians consistently praised for knowledge, politeness, and cleanliness. However, the company is significantly undermined by widespread pricing concerns—numerous reviews document markups of 400-1200% on parts, bait-and-switch pricing tactics, and aggressive upselling. Project completion issues are substantial, with multiple reports of incomplete installations requiring 2-6+ months to finish, missed callbacks, and follow-through failures. The company shows a troubling pattern of recommending unnecessary replacements and repairs, with several customers reporting second opinions that contradicted Flame's diagnoses. While recent 2025 reviews are predominantly positive, older reviews reveal systemic problems with billing transparency, warranty honoring, and management responsiveness.

• FAKE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: Multiple identical or near-identical reviews appear in the dataset (e.g., Rob/gas lines review appears twice; Cole/financially friendly review appears twice; crew/electrical service review appears twice; service person/clean review appears twice). This repetition suggests potential review manipulation and reduces confidence in the overall positive skew of recent reviews.
• RECENCY BIAS: 2025 reviews (past 6 months) are overwhelmingly 5-star with minimal critical detail, while 2010-2022 reviews contain extensive documentation of serious problems. This stark contrast warrants caution—either the company has dramatically improved or recent reviews may be artificially inflated.
• PRICING FRAUD PATTERN: At least 15+ reviews document explicit pricing deception: quotes given over phone differ dramatically from written estimates; parts marked up 400-1200% above supplier cost; service fees charged despite cancellations; bait-and-switch tactics on Gold Plan pricing.
• PROJECT COMPLETION FAILURES: Multiple reviews report installations taking 2-6+ months when promised in days/weeks; incomplete work requiring multiple callbacks; technicians arriving with wrong parts; work left unfinished with billing demands.
• UNNECESSARY WORK RECOMMENDATIONS: At least 8 reviews document recommendations for expensive replacements (furnaces, AC units, water heaters) that were later determined unnecessary by independent contractors or second opinions. One customer was quoted $6,500 for a furnace when only a $15 blower motor was needed.
• WARRANTY & FOLLOW-UP FAILURES: Multiple reports of promised callbacks never occurring; warranty claims denied; management unresponsive to complaints; BBB complaints allegedly ignored.
• EMPTY REVIEWS: 5 reviews in dataset contain only a 5-star rating with no text, suggesting potential placeholder or fake entries.

This WW Score of 68.2 should be treated with MODERATE-TO-HIGH caution due to apparent review manipulation in recent months and a stark recency bias that contradicts the documented pattern of serious issues in older reviews. While the score reflects genuine high technical competence and professionalism in service delivery, it significantly underweights the pervasive and well-documented pricing fraud, project completion failures, and unnecessary upselling that characterize the company's business practices. Customers should independently verify pricing, seek second opinions on major recommendations, and carefully review contracts before engaging this company.

John's Plumbing demonstrates strong technical competence and professionalism from individual technicians, with many reviews praising punctuality, friendliness, and quality workmanship. However, the company is significantly undermined by persistent pricing concerns—numerous customers report excessive charges, inflated hourly rates, undisclosed fees, and billing for time not worked. Project completion issues include scheduling failures, no-shows, and incomplete work requiring callbacks. The company shows a stark divide between field technician quality and office/management accountability, with many negative reviews citing poor follow-up and unresponsive management when disputes arise.

• CRITICAL PRICING PATTERN: At least 25+ reviews explicitly cite overcharging, inflated rates ($185-$225/hour), billing for unworked time, and unauthorized parts charges. This is the single largest complaint category and suggests systemic pricing practices rather than isolated incidents.
• OWNERSHIP CHANGE NOTED: One detailed 5-star review (2023-02-06) explicitly references new ownership since May 2022 and asks readers to give the company a fair chance. However, negative pricing and scheduling reviews continue post-May 2022, indicating issues persist under new management.
• NO-SHOW AND SCHEDULING FAILURES: Multiple reviews (2020-07-31, 2020-06-29, 2019-10-23, 2017-03-24, 2016-10-17, 2015-01-22, 2014-11-01, 2013-09-16) document no-shows, broken promises, and failure to return calls. This pattern spans years and multiple ownership periods.
• INCOMPLETE WORK: Several reviews report jobs left unfinished, leaks after repair, or work that failed shortly after completion (2023-05-25, 2024-09-27, 2016-10-17, 2012-09-19).
• OFFICE VS. FIELD DISCONNECT: Review from 2023-09-04 explicitly notes 'night and day' difference between excellent field technicians and poor office communication/management. This pattern appears in multiple reviews.
• DIAGNOSTIC OVERREACH: Multiple reviews (2023-07-16, 2024-02-21, 2013-05-25) report technicians recommending expensive solutions (whole-house repiping, $9,000 jobs) that other plumbers later identified as unnecessary or vastly overpriced.
• RECENT NEGATIVE REVIEWS: Negative reviews continue through 2024 (June, August, September, October), indicating problems are ongoing and not resolved by management changes.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK - LOW: While many recent reviews are uniformly 5-star with generic praise, they contain specific technician names, detailed scenarios, and varied language patterns. The negative reviews are highly detailed and credible. No strong evidence of fake positive reviews, but the volume of recent 5-stars vs. older mixed reviews warrants noting.

This WW Score of 68.2 is reliable and conservative. The company excels in technical execution and individual technician professionalism (78.5 experience score) but is severely compromised by systematic pricing practices that customers perceive as exploitative and by recurring scheduling/follow-up failures. The HIGH confidence across all dimensions is based on 47-89 mentions per category, providing robust data. However, the score reflects a company with significant structural problems in billing transparency and management accountability that offset strong field-level performance. Customers should expect quality work but should obtain detailed written estimates, verify all charges, and be prepared to dispute bills.