Find Nearby Plumbers In Detroit, Michigan

Z Plumberz demonstrates strong overall performance with a WW Score of 81.2, driven primarily by consistently high marks in professionalism (86.5) and experience (85.5). The company excels at punctuality, communication, technical knowledge, and customer service, with numerous reviews praising specific technicians by name and their courteous, knowledgeable approach. Project completion is solid at 84.0, with most jobs finished on time and to customer satisfaction. However, pricing emerges as a significant weakness (68.0), with recurring complaints about high costs, overcharging, and what some customers perceive as opportunistic pricing for straightforward repairs. This pricing concern appears across multiple reviews spanning several years, suggesting a systemic issue rather than isolated incidents.

• PRICING PATTERN: Multiple reviews (at least 10+) explicitly criticize pricing as 'ridiculously high,' 'overpriced,' or 'rip-off.' Examples include $582 for sink strainer/shutoff valve replacement, $350 for water heater cleaning, $280 for drain clearing, $500 for shower cartridge replacement, and $1300 for root treatment. This is the most consistent negative theme across the dataset.
• QUALITY INCONSISTENCY: Two 1-star reviews (2023) allege attempted scams—one claiming a technician misdiagnosed a broken pipe to justify $3400 in unnecessary work, another claiming overdiagnosis of issues. While these are isolated, they raise trust concerns.
• FOLLOW-UP FAILURES: Multiple reviews cite poor callback/follow-up: one customer waited 3 weeks for a callback on a phantom flushing toilet (never resolved), another paid $350 for inspection with no quote follow-up, and one customer reported the company never returned calls after initial service.
• INCOMPLETE WORK: One 2-star review (2025-05-15) describes a plumber attempting to leave without completing work (tub spout replacement) and performing substandard work on toilet flange that required a second visit to fix properly.
• RECENCY NOTE: Most negative reviews (pricing, follow-up failures, incomplete work) are from 2025 and late 2024, suggesting recent deterioration in service quality or pricing practices. Older reviews (2017-2021) tend to be more positive.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK - MODERATE: Reviews 1-3 (2025-06-08, 2025-06-05, 2025-06-02) contain identical or near-identical text ('We had a sink re-mounted. We just a toilet flange replaced as well they did a good job again') with grammatical errors, suggesting possible fabrication. Review 3 is blank with 5-star rating. Multiple blank reviews with 5-star ratings appear throughout (at least 5 instances), which is suspicious. However, the majority of reviews contain specific details, technician names, and varied language, limiting overall fake review confidence.
• COMPANY NAME INCONSISTENCY: Reviews reference 'Z Plumberz,' 'Z Plumbers,' 'Zplumberz,' 'Z plumbers,' and 'First Class Plumbing' (appears to be a separate entity or past name). This may indicate multiple locations or a rebranding, which could affect score reliability if these are different companies.

This WW Score of 81.2 is reliable for overall assessment but should be interpreted with caution regarding pricing: while professionalism and experience scores are well-supported by 68-89 mentions with HIGH confidence, the pricing dimension (28 mentions, MODERATE confidence) reveals a consistent pattern of customer dissatisfaction that may warrant even lower weighting than the 68.0 score suggests. Recent reviews (2025) show deteriorating follow-up and quality control. Prospective customers should expect professional service but should obtain detailed quotes and compare pricing with competitors before committing.

Steel Plumbing & Drain Experts demonstrates strong overall performance with a WW Score of 81.2. The company excels in professionalism (86.5) and project completion (84.0), with consistently praised responsiveness, punctuality, and courteous technicians across 52 and 48 mentions respectively. Technical expertise is solid (85.0 across 38 mentions), with customers noting knowledgeable staff and effective problem-solving. However, pricing emerges as a notable weakness (68.0 across 12 mentions), with multiple customers reporting significantly higher costs than competitors for identical work, lack of itemized quotes, and instances of overcharging. Several serious negative reviews document misdiagnosis leading to unnecessary $5,000+ recommendations, poor cleanup practices, and unresponsive management to complaints. These issues prevent a higher score despite predominantly positive feedback.

• PRICING CONCERN: Multiple reviews (2017-2023) document pricing significantly above market rate. One customer paid $650 vs. competitor quote of $300 for same work; another paid $1,800 for hydro jetting vs. competitor range of $750-$950. Pattern suggests systematic overpricing.
• MISDIAGNOSIS & ACCOUNTABILITY: Two identical detailed reviews (2018-06-11 and 2017-10-09, likely same incident) describe faulty leak diagnosis costing customer $5,000+ in unnecessary work plus collateral damage. Customer requested partial refund; company allegedly did not respond or provide refund.
• QUALITY CONTROL ISSUES: Multiple reviews (2017-2018) document poor cleanup after work—drywall dust/debris left on furniture, carpets, and personal items. One customer required professional cleaning service afterward. Another review noted incomplete work with drips in newly installed fixtures.
• INCOMPLETE/ABANDONED WORK: One 2023 review explicitly states company 'canceled it without completing the job' and charged $250 for a reset button press that competitor fixed in minutes at no charge.
• CUSTOMER SERVICE RESPONSIVENESS: 2021 review documents 11+ days without response to detailed email inquiry about $6,500 proposal; follow-up also unanswered after 2+ months.
• INCONSISTENT PROFESSIONALISM: One 2018 review documents serious behavioral issues—dented refrigerator, wet shoes on carpet, inappropriate use of apartment complex facilities in front of children. Management reportedly gave 'run around' on resolution.
• RECENCY NOTE: Most negative reviews cluster in 2017-2023 period. Recent reviews (2024-2025) are predominantly 5-star with minimal detail, raising potential review authenticity concerns. However, sufficient detailed negative reviews exist across multiple years to establish pattern credibility.
• EMPTY REVIEWS: 7 reviews contain only 5-star ratings with no text, suggesting possible review padding or incomplete submissions.

This WW Score of 81.2 is reliable for overall assessment but masks significant risk factors: while the company demonstrates genuine strengths in responsiveness and technical capability, the consistent pattern of above-market pricing, documented misdiagnosis with poor accountability, and quality control lapses warrant caution. Customers should obtain itemized quotes, seek second opinions on major recommendations, and clarify cleanup expectations before engagement.

Foundation Restoration demonstrates strong performance across all measured dimensions. Professionalism is consistently praised across all three reviews, with specific mentions of punctuality, courtesy, knowledge, and attention to detail (shoe covers, cleanup). Project completion is evidenced by timely repairs and thorough problem-solving, including preventive measures like carbon fiber application and lifetime warranties. Technical expertise is explicitly highlighted through knowledgeable technicians and detailed explanations of work processes. Pricing receives positive mention in one review as 'very reasonable' for the scope of work. The limited sample size (3 reviews) and modest pricing data (1 mention) prevent a higher overall confidence rating.

• Small sample size (n=3) limits statistical reliability; recommend collecting additional reviews before making major business decisions
• All reviews are 5-star ratings with uniformly positive language; while not necessarily fake, lack of critical feedback or variance is atypical
• Pricing dimension based on only 1 mention; insufficient data to confidently assess value proposition
• Two reviews are older than 12 months (Nov 2023, Apr 2023); only one review from past 12 months (Sep 2024)

This WW Score should be treated as preliminary and directionally positive but not definitive; the small sample size and absence of critical feedback warrant caution before relying heavily on this score for major decisions.

GLS Plumbing demonstrates strong performance across all dimensions with consistent positive feedback. Professionalism is a clear strength, with all five reviews explicitly praising communication, responsiveness, punctuality, and courteous demeanor. Project completion is equally solid, with customers reporting timely resolution and thorough work on diverse plumbing issues. Pricing receives positive mention in three reviews as fair and reasonable, though fewer explicit price discussions limit confidence here. Technical skill and problem-solving ability are evident across four reviews, though experience-specific details are somewhat limited. The overall WW Score of 89.3 reflects reliable, professional service delivery.

• All five reviews are 5-star ratings with uniformly positive language, which could suggest selection bias or limited negative feedback visibility rather than fake reviews per se
• Most recent review is from April 2024, but three of five reviews are from 2018-2020 (older than 2 years), which may not reflect current service levels
• Small sample size (5 reviews) limits statistical confidence despite high individual review quality
• No negative or critical feedback present to validate balance of assessment

This score should be treated with moderate caution due to the small sample size (5 reviews) and age of some data, though the consistency and specificity of positive feedback across dimensions is encouraging.

Dearborn Plumbing demonstrates strong performance across all measured dimensions. Project completion is the standout strength, with all five reviews explicitly confirming timely job completion and follow-through on callbacks. Professionalism and pricing both score in the high 80s, supported by consistent mentions of courteous staff, prompt response times, and reasonable charges. Technical expertise is evident from descriptions of quality workmanship across emergency and routine jobs. However, the overall confidence is MODERATE rather than HIGH due to the small sample size (5 reviews) and the absence of any critical feedback that would validate the scores through contrast.

• Small sample size (5 reviews) limits statistical reliability; recommend collecting additional reviews before making major business decisions
• All reviews are 5-star ratings with uniformly positive language; while not necessarily fake, the absence of any mixed or critical feedback is atypical and should be noted
• Two reviews are older than 12 months (2021), which reduces their relevance to current service quality; three recent reviews (2023-2024) provide better currency
• No reviews mention specific pricing details or quote transparency, limiting depth of pricing assessment

This WW Score of 88.3 should be treated as a preliminary indicator based on limited data; the MODERATE overall confidence reflects the small review sample and lack of critical perspective, and the score should be validated with additional customer feedback before relying on it for major decisions.

Even Flow Plumbing demonstrates strong performance across all measured dimensions. Professionalism is consistently praised with mentions of punctuality, communication, and courteous behavior across all three reviews. Project completion is solid, with jobs finished thoroughly and customers expressing confidence in future service. Technical expertise is evident in handling complex issues like old house plumbing and drain work. Pricing is highlighted as reasonable and fair in two reviews, though the limited mention count prevents higher confidence. All reviews are from satisfied repeat or loyal customers, suggesting sustained quality.

• Only 3 reviews analyzed — sample size is small and limits statistical reliability
• All reviews are 5-star ratings with no critical feedback — consider whether negative reviews exist elsewhere
• Reviews span 2017–2019 (oldest is 5+ years old) — no recent data to assess current service quality
• Pricing dimension based on only 2 mentions — insufficient data for strong confidence

This WW Score should be treated as indicative only due to the very small sample size (3 reviews) and age of data (oldest from 2017). A score of 88.3 is promising but requires validation with more recent and larger review volume before making high-confidence business decisions.