Find Nearby Plumbers In Lansing, Michigan

Advanced Home Services scores strongly on professionalism, with the overwhelming majority of reviewers praising friendly, courteous, and communicative technicians across a very large review base. Experience and technical knowledge also receive broadly positive feedback, with many reviewers specifically noting knowledgeable technicians who explained their work thoroughly. However, pricing is a significant and recurring concern — multiple reviewers across different years explicitly called out charges as excessive, including a $695 mixer valve replacement taking 15 minutes, a $1,000 sprinkler head swap that failed to fix the actual leak, and an alleged $11,000 misdiagnosis upsell — driving the pricing score down sharply. Project completion is mixed: most jobs appear to be finished satisfactorily, but there are serious outlier complaints including an abandoned $15,000 plumbing job with multiple unfinished items, a sprinkler leak left unresolved, and a misdiagnosis that delayed resolution significantly, which meaningfully suppresses that dimension's score.

• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The review from Brett regarding the main drain ('Brett was the tech who responded and I was very pleased with his professionalism and wisdom on the issues with my main drain') appears twice with identical text and the same date (2020-07-30). One instance was excluded from scoring to avoid double-counting.
• THIN/UNUSABLE REVIEWS: Several reviews contain no scorable content ('yes good job', 'Good work', '.', 'N/A', 'Giggity', 'unknown', 'Great company'). These were counted in total but excluded from dimension scoring.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews are from 2020-2021, with a cluster from late 2020 that shows high volume and consistent positive tone. Only a handful of reviews are from 2022-2024. The most recent reviews (2023-2024) include two serious negative complaints about pricing and incomplete work, which may signal a recent decline in service quality.
• PRICING CONCERN — SYSTEMIC: Overcharging complaints are not isolated incidents. They span from 2020 through 2024 and include specific dollar amounts ($695 for a 15-minute repair, $1,000 for sprinkler heads, $11,000 upsell on a misdiagnosis). This pattern is credible and consistent enough to significantly suppress the pricing score.
• PROJECT COMPLETION CONCERN: At least two reviews describe serious incomplete or abandoned work — one involving a $15,000 plumbing job with multiple unresolved items over a month, and one involving a sprinkler leak that was never fixed despite a $1,000 charge. These are high-severity failures that weigh heavily on the project completion score.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW RISK — LOW-MODERATE: A large number of reviews from late 2020 and early 2021 are very brief, generic, and uniformly positive (e.g., 'Great service', 'Very professional', 'Good work', 'They were great'). While not conclusive, the volume and uniformity of short 5-star reviews during this period warrants mild caution. No identical phrasing was detected beyond the confirmed duplicate.

This WW Score is based on a large review set (163 reviews) with high mention counts across all four dimensions, making it statistically reliable overall; however, the pricing and project completion scores carry particular weight given credible, specific, and recurring negative evidence that should not be dismissed despite the high volume of positive reviews.

Rooter Guy Drain Cleaning receives consistently strong feedback across all four dimensions. Professionalism is the most frequently praised attribute, with every reviewer noting friendliness, punctuality, communication, and courteous behavior. Pricing stands out in multiple reviews, with one reviewer explicitly noting the cost was a fraction of a competitor's quote, suggesting strong value. Project completion is well-supported, with reviewers describing jobs finished quickly, thoroughly, and cleanly. Experience is also well-evidenced, with mentions of technical competence, problem diagnosis, and customer education about root causes.

• All 6 reviews are 5-star ratings with no negative feedback of any kind — this warrants mild caution, though the reviews do contain specific details (names, scenarios, comparisons) that reduce the likelihood of fabrication.
• Two reviews are significantly dated (2017 and 2019) and one is from 2020 — three of six reviews are more than 4 years old. Recent performance may differ from historical reviews.
• Review volume is low (only 6 reviews total), which limits statistical reliability. Scores should be interpreted conservatively.

This WW Score carries moderate reliability due to a small but detail-rich review set; the consistent specificity across reviews adds credibility, but the low volume and age of several reviews mean the score should be treated as a promising indicator rather than a definitive assessment.

Miteff Plumbing earns strong marks for professionalism across a large volume of reviews, with consistent praise for punctuality, friendliness, cleanliness, and communication — particularly from the owner Shawn Denny. Experience and workmanship scores are also solid, with multiple reviewers citing skilled problem-solving, quality tile and plumbing work, and technical competence. However, project completion is meaningfully dragged down by a recurring pattern of follow-through failures: multiple reviewers report that promised callbacks never came, quotes were never delivered, appointments were missed without notice, and at least two jobs were abandoned mid-process without explanation. Pricing scores are moderate — many reviewers found pricing fair or reasonable, but several noted a lack of transparency around flat-rate charges, undisclosed parts costs, and reluctance to honor advertised discounts. The combination of strong in-person performance but inconsistent administrative and follow-through reliability produces a mid-to-upper-range but not exceptional WW Score.

• FOLLOW-THROUGH FAILURES: At least 6 reviews explicitly describe Miteff failing to call back with quotes, failing to return after promising follow-up repairs, or abandoning jobs without notifying the customer (reviews dated 2017-07-13, 2017-07-07, 2017-06-26, 2017-04-12, 2014-10-12, 2016-07-11). This is a systemic pattern, not isolated incidents.
• MISSED APPOINTMENTS: Multiple reviews cite no-call/no-show incidents or significant lateness without communication (2017-01-05, 2016-07-11, 2014-10-04), which materially reduces the professionalism and project completion scores.
• PRICING TRANSPARENCY CONCERNS: Several reviewers noted they were not told the price in advance, were surprised by flat-rate charges, or felt the cost was disproportionate to the work performed (2016-06-06, 2014-10-15, 2014-05-17). One reviewer noted parts costs were not disclosed when purchasing a faucet on their behalf.
• RECENCY WARNING: The vast majority of reviews are dated between 2013 and 2020, with the most recent review from December 2020. No reviews from 2021 or later are present. The WW Score reflects historical performance and may not represent current service quality.
• WORKMANSHIP OUTLIER: One detailed 2017 review (rated 2 stars) describes a bathroom remodel that took 12 weeks instead of 2, substandard tiling with no consistent pattern, wavy mosaic tile, and grout left all over the floor — Miteff never offered to redo the tile. This is a significant negative data point for the experience dimension.
• INCOMPLETE JOB PATTERN: The 2016-08-16 review describes being charged a $100 travel fee with no work performed and no resolution of the plumbing problem. The 2017-06-26 review describes plumbers leaving without completing a second repair and never calling back. These suggest a pattern of incomplete service delivery.
• NO FAKE REVIEW FLAGS: Despite the high volume of 5-star reviews, most contain specific names, dates, job descriptions, and details. No significant fake review pattern detected, though the volume of generic short 5-star reviews (e.g., 'Terrific. They exceeded expectations.', 'Fast, clean, and professional.') warrants mild caution.

This WW Score is based on 97 reviews spanning approximately 7 years and carries HIGH statistical confidence due to volume, but users should weight the score cautiously given the recency gap (no reviews since late 2020) and the documented systemic pattern of follow-through and communication failures that meaningfully offset the otherwise strong in-person service quality.

Hedlund Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism and technical competence with consistently punctual, courteous technicians who communicate well and explain work clearly. Project completion is reliable with most jobs finished on time and to specification. However, pricing emerges as a significant weakness, with numerous complaints about high costs, lack of itemized estimates, unexpected charges, and perceived price gouging relative to competitors. The company shows inconsistency in service quality and customer communication, with some negative experiences involving poor follow-up, miscommunication on estimates, and occasional technical errors that required callbacks.

• PRICING CONCERNS: 32 mentions of pricing issues reveal a pattern of customer dissatisfaction. Multiple reviews cite lack of itemized quotes, verbal estimates that differ significantly from final bills (sometimes double), and charges perceived as excessive compared to competitors. This is a material weakness.
• ESTIMATE ACCURACY: Several reviews document discrepancies between phone quotes and final invoices, with customers reporting bait-and-switch tactics. Customers are advised to get written estimates before work begins.
• INCONSISTENT SERVICE QUALITY: While many reviews praise specific technicians, others report poor communication, forgotten follow-ups, incomplete work, and callbacks needed to fix initial mistakes.
• RECENT NEGATIVE REVIEWS: The most recent reviews (June 2025) include a 1-star complaint about refusal to provide itemized quotes and aggressive collection tactics, and a 5-star review with contradictory text ('No very happy I won't be calling them again' rated 5 stars). This suggests possible fake or corrupted recent reviews.
• EMPTY REVIEWS: 11 reviews contain no text, only 5-star ratings. This is unusual and may indicate data quality issues or fake reviews.
• OWNERSHIP CHANGE IMPACT: One review notes the company was purchased by another entity, with new policies (assessment fees, landlord presence requirements) that changed customer experience negatively.
• TECHNICAL ERRORS: Multiple reviews document instances where technicians misdiagnosed problems, left work incomplete, or created new problems (e.g., gas line left leaking, backup sump pump left unhooked, incorrect water heater venting assessment).

This WW Score of 78.2 is reliable for overall assessment but should be interpreted with caution: Hedlund Plumbing excels in professionalism and project completion but has a documented pattern of pricing concerns that significantly impacts customer satisfaction. The score reflects a company with strong technical execution undermined by transparency and cost management issues. Customers should obtain detailed written estimates before engaging services and verify pricing carefully.

The Meridian Company demonstrates strong professionalism, project completion, and technical expertise across a large sample of reviews, earning a WW Score of 78.2. However, pricing emerges as a significant weakness, with numerous customers explicitly describing costs as 'outrageous,' 'excessive,' or unjustifiable relative to work performed. The company excels at punctuality, cleanliness, communication, and workmanship quality, but this excellence comes at a premium that many customers resent. Recent reviews (2025) are overwhelmingly positive, while older reviews (2009–2016) contain more pricing complaints and occasional service failures. The company's strength in professionalism and experience is substantially offset by persistent pricing concerns.

• PRICING PATTERN: 52 reviews explicitly mention pricing; 31+ describe it as high, excessive, or unfair. This is the dominant complaint across the entire dataset. Customers frequently report feeling 'ripped off' or 'gouged,' even when acknowledging quality work.
• RECENCY BIAS: Reviews from 2025 and 2024 are almost uniformly 5-star with minimal detail, while older reviews (2009–2016) contain more balanced criticism and specific pricing grievances. Recent reviews may reflect selection bias (satisfied customers more likely to review immediately).
• INCONSISTENT SERVICE QUALITY: Several reviews report incomplete work, abandoned projects, or follow-up failures (e.g., 2014 review: 6 weeks of unanswered calls for promised regrade; 2019 review: last-minute cancellation without accommodation). This suggests operational inconsistency.
• FLAT-RATE PRICING MODEL CRITICISM: Multiple reviews criticize the company's use of flat-rate pricing 'by the book' rather than hourly rates, with customers unable to understand or challenge the pricing logic. This opacity fuels distrust.
• AFTER-HOURS PREMIUM COMPLAINTS: Several reviews cite aggressive after-hours fees ($225–$500) with minimal service, suggesting potential price gouging during emergencies.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: 15+ reviews from 2016-11-21 contain nearly identical phrasing ('They were great,' 'They do an great job every time,' 'pretty high but you get what you pay for'), suggesting possible bulk review generation or scripted feedback. These reviews lack specificity and detail.
• MANAGEMENT RESPONSIVENESS ISSUES: Multiple reviews report unanswered calls to supervisors/owners, suggesting poor complaint resolution processes.
• SAMPLE SIZE CAVEAT: While 161 reviews is substantial, the 2025 reviews (40+ of them) are heavily weighted toward 5-star ratings with minimal detail, potentially inflating overall scores.

This WW Score of 78.2 is reliable for assessing professionalism and technical competence (HIGH confidence), but the pricing dimension (58.0) is the most critical factor and reflects genuine, widespread customer dissatisfaction that should weigh heavily in any decision. The company delivers quality work and professional service, but at costs that many customers find unjustifiable; prospective customers should obtain multiple quotes and be prepared for premium pricing before engaging Meridian.

Jensen Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism with consistent praise for responsiveness, punctuality, and courteous staff across 38 reviews. Technical expertise is well-documented with 22 mentions of skilled workmanship and problem-solving. However, project completion reliability is mixed (28 mentions, 76.3 score) with several documented instances of missed appointments, incomplete work, and follow-through failures. Pricing presents the most significant concern (12 mentions, 71.4 score), with multiple complaints about unexpected cost increases, high service call fees, and perceived overcharging during emergencies, though some reviews praise competitive rates. The company excels in emergency response and technical skill but struggles with communication consistency and pricing transparency.

• PRICING VOLATILITY: Multiple reviews (2021-03-02, 2021-03-08, 2022-11-29, 2023-08-11) document significant pricing disputes, unexpected cost increases, and aggressive collection practices. One customer reported being charged $1,500 for 10 inches of pipe replacement; another paid $175 for a diagnostic call with no work performed.
• PROJECT COMPLETION FAILURES: Three detailed negative reviews (2021-03-08, 2020-10-15, 2021-03-02) describe missed appointments without notification, incomplete work, and failure to follow through on promised callbacks. One customer waited weeks for a water fountain installation with multiple no-shows.
• COMMUNICATION BREAKDOWN: 2022-11-29 review documents systematic communication failures—customer not informed of delays, rescheduling, or inspection scheduling; Todd only communicated promptly when payment was overdue.
• RECENCY BIAS NOTED: Most recent reviews (2024-2025, 38 of 56 reviews) are overwhelmingly 5-star with minimal critical detail, while older reviews (2018-2022) contain more substantive complaints. This temporal clustering warrants caution.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: Multiple recent 5-star reviews use similar phrasing ('highly recommend,' 'professional,' 'responsive,' 'great experience') with minimal specificity. However, older reviews provide detailed narratives, suggesting genuine variation rather than systematic fabrication.
• ETHICAL CONCERNS: 2021-12-16 review alleges Todd uses city inspector calls as intimidation tactic. 2021-03-02 review questions 'ethical business practices' during emergency situations with exorbitant pricing.

This WW Score of 78.2 should be treated with MODERATE-TO-HIGH caution: while professionalism and experience scores are well-supported by 38+ mentions, the pricing dimension (only 12 mentions) and project completion reliability (multiple documented failures) significantly drag the overall score. The stark contrast between recent glowing reviews and older detailed complaints suggests either genuine business improvement or review recency bias. Customers should prioritize obtaining detailed written quotes and clear communication agreements before engaging this company, particularly for complex or emergency work.