Find Nearby Plumbers In Lansing, Michigan

Aaron's Plumbing presents a deeply divided picture across its 8 reviews. Positive reviews highlight prompt response times, friendly technicians, and reasonable pricing, while negative reviews — which are detailed and specific — describe technicians arriving without proper tools, parts being replaced without proper diagnosis, and markups of nearly 400% over retail cost. The professionalism score is dragged down significantly by one review describing a technician arriving without tools for an emergency call and a complete failure of management responsiveness. Pricing is the weakest dimension, with multiple independent reviewers citing grossly inflated parts costs and charges for work that did not resolve the problem. Project completion is also compromised by recurring issues — one customer paid thousands over multiple visits only to be told a prior problem was missed — suggesting inconsistent follow-through on complex jobs.

• Two negative reviews from November 2019 (2019-11-26 and 2019-11-27) describe nearly identical experiences with the same water heater issue, same parts pricing complaints, and very similar language about parts markup and free assessment misrepresentation — these may be related parties or the same customer submitting twice, and should be treated with caution; however, the core complaints are specific and credible enough to retain.
• The most recent negative review (2023-09-06) is the most recent review overall and describes a serious failure: technician arrived without tools for an emergency call, charged $311 for no repair, then quoted $900 the next day. This recency increases its weight under Rule 6.
• Positive reviews are generally less detailed than negative ones — phrases like 'great repair,' 'super fair,' and 'great work' lack specifics — which limits their evidentiary weight under Rule 1.
• No reviews are from the past 12 months relative to a 2024–2025 analysis window, meaning all data may reflect outdated service quality.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability — while all 4 dimensions have sufficient mentions for HIGH confidence scoring, the review set is small (8 reviews), spans multiple years with no recent data, and contains a potential duplicate negative review, all of which limit the degree to which this score can be trusted as a current representation of service quality.

The contractor receives strong praise in two recent reviews for thoroughness, transparency, and technical competence — including identifying a root cause circulator pump failure at a church job. However, two 1-star reviews raise serious concerns: one describes a failure to consider an elderly customer's physical needs when selecting a replacement bathtub, and another details significant billing transparency issues, rude office staff, and a feeling of being overcharged for a return visit. Pricing is a notable weak point, with two out of three pricing-related reviews being explicitly negative about cost and billing practices. Project completion is mixed — work was generally finished, but the initial job in one case could not be completed in a single visit, and the bathtub installation failed to meet the customer's actual needs. The overall picture is a contractor with real technical skill but inconsistent customer service and pricing transparency.

• Three of the five reviews are from 2011–2014, making them over 10 years old. Only one review (2024) is within the past 12 months. Recency weighting significantly limits reliability of the overall score.
• The small sample size of 5 reviews means individual negative reviews have outsized impact and individual positive reviews cannot be treated as broadly representative.
• No fake review patterns detected — reviews vary in detail, tone, rating, and specificity, suggesting authentic submissions.

This WW Score should be treated with caution: it is based on only 5 reviews spanning over a decade, with just one review from the past 12 months, making it a poor reflection of the contractor's current performance.

The three reviews present a mixed picture of this contractor. One review is a clear failure — the customer paid $423 and the plumbing issue was left unresolved, which heavily drags down project completion and professionalism scores. The 5-star review praises professionalism, timeliness, and pricing but lacks specific detail, reducing its evidentiary weight. The 4-star review from 2014 is the most detailed and positive, highlighting friendly workers, good technical explanation, and a successful outcome, though it notes difficulty reaching the business at times. Overall, the contractor shows some genuine capability but has at least one documented case of charging for incomplete work, which is a serious concern.

• Only 3 reviews total — WW Score is statistically unreliable and should be treated with significant caution.
• One review documents a clear project failure: customer paid $423 and the issue remained unresolved the following day.
• The 5-star review (2020) is somewhat generic with no specific job details, which slightly reduces its credibility, though it does not appear to be an obvious fake.
• The most detailed positive review (4-star) is from 2014 — over 10 years old — and should be given significantly reduced weight relative to more recent reviews.
• Recency concern: Only one review is from the past 5 years (2020), and the most negative review (2021) is the most recent, suggesting possible decline in service quality over time.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews spanning 7 years and should be considered highly unreliable — do not use this score as a primary basis for hiring decisions without seeking additional references or more recent reviews.

Holt Plumbing shows severe inconsistency across reviews, with two highly critical 1-star reviews detailing poor workmanship, unresponsiveness, and incomplete follow-through on repairs, contrasted by one 5-star review praising punctuality and fair pricing. The two negative reviews explicitly document multiple installation failures (improper drain tie-ins, leaking fixtures, poor joint placement) and lack of responsiveness to repair requests, which heavily impact Project Completion and Experience scores. The single positive review mentions professionalism and competitive pricing but provides no detail on workmanship quality. The recency gap (most recent negative review is 2019, positive is 2018) and stark rating polarization suggest either significant quality control issues or inconsistent service delivery.

• Extreme rating polarization: two 1-star reviews vs. one 5-star review with no middle ground suggests either severe quality inconsistency or potential selection bias in review sample
• Two most recent reviews (2019, 2021) are both highly negative with detailed documentation of failures; oldest review (2018) is positive, suggesting possible service quality decline over time
• Responsiveness issues explicitly mentioned in two reviews: delayed callbacks and non-responsiveness to repair requests are critical red flags
• Multiple documented installation defects across different fixture types (drains, toilets, sinks, showers) in negative reviews suggest systemic workmanship problems, not isolated incidents

This WW Score should be treated with caution due to the very small sample size (3 reviews) and extreme polarization; however, the detailed, specific nature of the two negative reviews and their documentation of multiple failures carries significant weight and suggests genuine quality concerns that warrant serious consideration before hiring.

PAE Plumbing's review set is small (7 reviews) and spans nearly a decade, making trend analysis difficult. The majority of reviews are negative, with recurring complaints about poor communication, failure to honor warranties, rude owner interactions, and substandard workmanship such as incorrect pipe connections and hazardous job-site conditions. Positive reviews exist — notably one emergency service call handled well and one older review praising a technician named Tim — but these are heavily outweighed by documented failures across multiple dimensions. Pricing drew explicit criticism for lack of itemization and perceived price gouging, with one reviewer confirming a competitor fixed the same issue for a fraction of the quoted cost. The single most recent positive review (2023) prevents the score from being lower, but the overall pattern is one of unreliable service delivery and poor customer relations.

• Very small review set (7 reviews total) — WW Score should be treated as indicative only, not definitive.
• Reviews span from 2014 to 2023 — the oldest positive review (2014, Tim) is nearly 10 years old and may not reflect current service quality. Recency weighting significantly reduces its influence.
• Multiple reviews describe the owner or office staff as rude or dismissive when complaints were raised, suggesting a systemic customer service issue rather than isolated incidents.
• One review describes a potential warranty fraud scenario — installing incompatible fittings and then refusing to return to fix the resulting leak, with staff accusing the customer of tampering. This is a serious flag.
• No fake review patterns detected — reviews vary in tone, detail level, and rating, suggesting authentic submissions.

This WW Score carries LIMITED overall reliability due to the very small review sample (7 reviews), a wide date range spanning nearly 10 years, and the fact that the most favorable reviews are either old or describe a single positive incident — the preponderance of recent negative evidence suggests meaningful service quality concerns.

The review set paints a deeply negative picture of Michigan Mechanical Ventures across nearly every dimension. Professionalism is severely damaged by two detailed accounts of poor communication, broken appointments, unanswered messages, and an owner who refused to engage directly with a long-standing customer. Project completion is similarly alarming, with one reviewer documenting 11 failed repair attempts over three summers and a replacement unit appointment that was repeatedly no-showed. The only positive signal comes from a single 2017 review praising competitive pricing and fast installation, which provides a small but isolated data point for the pricing dimension. Technical experience scores low due to the pattern of repeated misdiagnoses and unresolved issues described in the negative reviews.

• Only 3 reviews total — WW Score should be treated as preliminary and unreliable for definitive conclusions.
• The sole positive review (5 stars, 2017) is generic in nature, lacks specific detail about the work performed, and is over 7 years old — it carries very low evidentiary weight.
• The two negative reviews are highly detailed, specific, and independently corroborate patterns of poor follow-through and communication failures, lending them higher credibility.
• Recency concern: The most recent review is from July 2024 and is negative. The positive review is from 2017. The negative trend appears to be current and ongoing.
• No reviews mention pricing in a negative context, but the single positive pricing mention is too old and isolated to be considered reliable evidence of current pricing practices.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews spanning 7 years and should be considered highly preliminary — the score directionally reflects serious service concerns but cannot be statistically trusted without a larger and more recent review sample.