Find Nearby Plumbers In Rochester Hills, Michigan

Eco Plumbing demonstrates exceptional performance across all four dimensions with consistently high scores supported by substantial mention counts. Professionalism is a standout strength (89.5), with 156 reviews explicitly praising punctuality, communication, courtesy, and responsiveness. Project completion scores equally high (89.0) across 142 reviews, with customers repeatedly noting jobs finished on time, follow-through on callbacks, and thorough cleanup. Experience and technical skill (87.5) are validated by 118 mentions of knowledgeable diagnostics and quality workmanship. Pricing (85.0) is supported by 87 mentions of fair, transparent, and competitive rates. The company maintains strong performance across residential and commercial clients with multiple named technicians (Andrew, Brandon, Ricky, etc.) consistently delivering quality service.

• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: Multiple reviews from 2025-05-10 and 2025-05-19 (very recent, within days) with suspiciously generic praise and minimal specifics. However, these are outweighed by hundreds of detailed, specific reviews spanning 2013-2025.
• TWO NEGATIVE REVIEWS IDENTIFIED: One 1-star review (2021-08-25) detailing poor communication and rudeness from 'Andrew' regarding shower knob installation; one 1-star review (2017-03-29) regarding unresolved water heater issue and unprofessional owner behavior. Both are outliers in a dataset of 225+ positive reviews but should be noted.
• ONE 4-STAR REVIEW (2021-08-27): Customer concern about COVID protocols and lack of mask-wearing by technician, though customer acknowledged responsibility to request precautions.
• TWO 3-STAR REVIEWS: One (2019-12-13) regarding undisclosed weekend emergency rate; one (2013-11-12) noting delayed response but excellent quality.
• ONE 2-STAR REVIEW (2016-02-09): Customer paid multiple times for clogged main line service with incomplete root removal, requiring video inspection to identify issue.
• RECENCY NOTE: Majority of reviews (approximately 70%) are from 2020 onwards, with strong concentration in 2023-2025, indicating current service quality is well-documented and positive.

This WW Score of 88.2 is highly reliable, supported by 227 reviews with detailed, specific feedback across all four dimensions and confidence levels of HIGH for each metric. The large sample size, consistent positive patterns, and specific examples of work (water heaters, drain cleaning, leak repairs, etc.) across multiple technicians and service areas provide strong validation. The few negative reviews (3 out of 227, or 1.3%) appear to be genuine outliers rather than systematic issues and do not materially impact the overall score given the overwhelming volume of corroborating positive evidence.

Frank demonstrates strong professionalism with consistent punctuality, responsiveness, and courteous communication across 16 reviews. His technical expertise and quality workmanship are well-documented across 10 reviews spanning multiple service types. Pricing is fair and competitive per 9 reviews, though not the cheapest option. Project completion shows solid performance (78/100) with one significant no-show incident in April 2024 that substantially impacts this dimension, balanced against numerous on-time completions. The recent no-show contrasts sharply with his historical reputation, suggesting possible operational changes or capacity issues.

• RECENCY CONCERN: Most reviews are 5+ years old (2012-2020). Only 2 recent reviews from 2024 and 2023. The April 2024 no-show incident is the most recent negative feedback and represents a departure from historical pattern.
• CRITICAL INCIDENT: April 2024 review documents two no-shows with poor communication and unprofessional follow-up. This is a severe breach of the professionalism and project completion standards established in earlier reviews.
• GENERIC PRAISE PATTERN: Multiple older reviews (2002, 2004, 2006) contain minimal detail or are marked 'unknown'. Several reviews use similar phrasing ('honest, reliable, fair') but this appears consistent with genuine long-term customer satisfaction rather than fake reviews.
• CAPACITY WARNING: 2004 review mentions Frank becoming 'very busy' with difficulty scheduling callbacks, suggesting historical capacity constraints that may have resurfaced.

This score should be treated with CAUTION due to recency bias: the strong historical reputation (pre-2023) is undermined by a documented no-show incident in April 2024, suggesting current service quality may not match the 82.3 score. Recommend requesting recent references and clarifying current scheduling practices before engagement.

NES receives overwhelmingly positive feedback on professionalism and technical experience, with dozens of reviewers praising courteous, knowledgeable technicians by name and highlighting thoughtful touches like shoe covers, floor protection, pre-arrival text notifications with technician photos, and clear explanations of work performed. Project completion is generally strong, but is meaningfully dragged down by several credible complaints: one reviewer describes abandoned work that was never finished, another reports a drain unclog that re-clogged immediately with no warranty follow-through, a third describes a post-repair noise issue that was dismissed rather than resolved, and a fourth notes a gas line installation that required multiple return visits due to persistent leaks. Pricing is the weakest dimension, with multiple reviewers explicitly flagging high costs, a lack of itemized invoices, and charges that compared unfavorably to competitors, though at least two reviewers noted fair or reasonable pricing. The score reflects a company with genuine strengths in customer-facing professionalism and technical skill, tempered by a meaningful minority of serious service-delivery and pricing failures.

• Several reviews are very brief and generic (e.g., 'Great job! Exceeded expectations.', 'Great company with excellent service.', 'Aaron does great work. I recommend NES.') with no specific detail — these were counted for sentiment but given minimal weight in scoring.
• One review has no text at all (5-star, 2025-05-10) and was excluded from usable data.
• The review corpus spans 2016–2025. Reviews from 2016–2021 (approximately 15 reviews) are more than 3 years old and include a higher proportion of negative or mixed experiences. More recent reviews (2024–2025) are predominantly positive, suggesting possible service improvement over time — but older negative patterns around warranty follow-through and pricing transparency are noted.
• Multiple negative reviews describe a consistent pattern of NES not honoring callbacks or standing behind completed work (drain re-clog, furnace noise post-repair, unfinished tub/shower work, worsening pressure issues after a visit with no follow-up). This is a recurring theme that meaningfully reduces the project completion score.
• One 1-star review (2019-02-20) describes a potential service area discrimination concern (caller in Pontiac was turned away with no alternative offered). This does not affect scoring but is flagged as a customer service concern.
• No fake review patterns detected. Reviews are specific, name individual technicians, describe distinct scenarios, and include both positive and negative experiences across a multi-year span — consistent with an authentic review corpus.

This WW Score is based on 60 reviews with usable content spanning nearly a decade, with strong mention counts across all four dimensions, making it a HIGH confidence assessment — however, prospective customers should weigh the recurring negative pattern around warranty follow-through and pricing transparency before engaging NES for complex or multi-visit work.

Thomas Plumbing & Heating demonstrates strong professionalism and technical expertise across most service interactions, with consistent praise for punctuality, politeness, and knowledgeable technicians (Jeremy, Nick, Brandon, Mike). However, the company is significantly hampered by recurring complaints about pricing fairness, with multiple customers reporting overcharges, double-billing for service calls, and markups perceived as excessive. Project completion shows mixed results: while most jobs are finished promptly and competently, several older reviews document follow-up failures, missed callbacks, and incomplete problem diagnosis. The company's retail operations receive separate praise for inventory and helpfulness. Recent reviews (past 12 months) are overwhelmingly positive, but older reviews (2011-2017) reveal systemic issues with accountability and customer follow-through that appear partially resolved.

• RECENCY BIAS DETECTED: 48 of 80 reviews are from May 2024 onward; only 32 reviews predate 2024. Recent reviews are predominantly 5-star with detailed praise, while older reviews (2011-2017) contain multiple 1-star complaints about billing, follow-up failures, and unprofessional conduct. This suggests either genuine service improvement or potential review curation.
• PRICING CONCERNS: Multiple independent complaints (2023, 2024) allege scam practices, double-billing for service calls, and excessive markups. One customer reported $220 for a $100 part; another documented $450 charge for a thermocouple replacement. These are not isolated—at least 5 reviews explicitly mention pricing disputes or perceived overcharging.
• PROJECT COMPLETION RED FLAGS: Several reviews document incomplete follow-up (2014, 2015, 2016, 2022): missed callbacks after $600 spent on repairs, failure to return with promised estimates, and no-show appointments without notification. One 2016 review describes a faucet installation that failed twice and required customer self-repair.
• EMPTY/MINIMAL REVIEWS: 8 reviews contain only ratings with no text or minimal text ('unknown', '.'), making them unusable for dimension scoring but counted in total.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: Several recent reviews (June 2024) use nearly identical phrasing ('professional,' 'friendly,' 'efficient,' 'great job') with high specificity about technician names but generic praise. The Karen review (June 2024) is notably longer and more detailed than typical reviews, with polished prose suggesting possible internal authorship.
• STAFF CONDUCT ISSUES: Multiple reviews (2016, 2023) document rude, condescending, or dismissive behavior from office staff, particularly regarding customer complaints or pricing questions. One 2023 review describes a technician blocking a driveway and refusing to move.
• INCONSISTENT QUALITY: Same company receives both 'scam artist' and 'fantastic company' labels from different customers within 1-2 years, suggesting either high variability in technician quality or inconsistent service standards.

This WW Score of 78.2 should be treated with MODERATE-TO-HIGH caution: while recent reviews (past 12 months) are consistently positive and support a score in the 80s, the historical record (2011-2017) documents serious issues with billing practices, follow-up accountability, and staff professionalism that are not fully resolved by recent improvements. The company appears to have made genuine service improvements, but pricing concerns persist in recent reviews, and the heavy weighting of recent 5-star reviews may mask underlying systemic issues. Customers should verify pricing in writing before service and confirm follow-up commitments explicitly.

Evelux Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism and technical expertise, with consistent praise for punctuality, communication, and skilled workmanship across recent reviews. Pricing is generally perceived as fair and competitive, though some customers note premium rates. However, project completion reliability is a significant concern, with multiple documented instances of delayed callbacks, incomplete follow-through on jobs, and failure to show up as scheduled. This inconsistency in project completion substantially lowers the overall score despite strong performance in other dimensions. Recent reviews (2024-2025) are predominantly positive, but older reviews reveal a pattern of communication and follow-through failures that persist across years.

• FAKE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: Multiple empty or near-empty reviews (5 instances with blank or minimal text) all rated 5.0 stars on 2024-06-09 and 2025-02-09. These appear to be placeholder or fraudulent entries and reduce confidence in the dataset.
• CRITICAL INCONSISTENCY: Stark contrast between recent glowing reviews (2024-2025) and older reviews (2013-2022) documenting serious project completion failures, no-shows, and poor follow-up. This suggests either significant business improvement or review manipulation.
• PROJECT COMPLETION RED FLAG: At least 6 reviews explicitly document failure to complete jobs, no-shows despite scheduling, ignored callbacks, and abandoned work. This is a material business practice concern.
• RECENCY BIAS RISK: 70% of reviews are from 2024-2025. Older reviews (2013-2022) contain more critical feedback about follow-through and communication, suggesting the company may have improved or that older dissatisfied customers are less likely to re-review.
• CONFIDENCE FACTOR: The presence of fake/empty reviews and the dramatic shift in review sentiment over time reduces overall reliability of this score. The WW Score should be treated as provisional pending verification of recent review authenticity.

This WW Score of 78.2 should be treated with MODERATE-to-HIGH caution. While recent reviews are overwhelmingly positive and support strong professionalism and pricing scores, the presence of suspicious empty reviews, a documented pattern of project completion failures in older reviews, and a dramatic sentiment shift over time suggest the score may not fully reflect operational reality. The company appears to have either significantly improved or is selectively managing its online reputation. Prospective customers should specifically inquire about follow-through guarantees and request references for recent large projects before committing.

DeLong Plumbing demonstrates strong technical competence and generally reliable service delivery, with most customers praising professionalism, responsiveness, and workmanship quality. However, the company is significantly hampered by persistent pricing concerns—multiple customers report substantially inflated estimates, aggressive upselling tactics, and what some characterize as dishonest billing practices. The owner's interpersonal conduct has also been questioned in several detailed accounts describing hostile and menacing behavior. While many long-term customers express loyalty and satisfaction, the pattern of pricing complaints and behavioral red flags creates meaningful trust deficits that prevent a higher overall score despite solid technical execution.

• PRICING INTEGRITY CONCERNS: Multiple reviews (2015, 2016, 2020) describe overbidding, inflated estimates, and aggressive upselling. One customer reported being charged $80 for a $5 rubber gasket replacement with coercive tactics. Another received a $7,000+ bid that was deemed excessive after obtaining competing quotes. A third reported a $3,000 estimate that was nearly double competitors' pricing.
• OWNER CONDUCT ISSUES: Two detailed 1-star reviews (2018) describe Roger DeLong exhibiting hostile, menacing, and aggressive behavior toward customers over minor misunderstandings. One account describes threatening to disconnect a valve and blocking a customer's exit. A neighborhood forum reportedly generated at least four corroborating complaints of similar rude encounters.
• INCONSISTENT SERVICE QUALITY: One 4-star review (2023) describes a technician dismissing customer input, failing to diagnose a root blockage despite 2.25 hours on-site, and billing discrepancies ($180/hr × 2.25 hrs charged vs. 1.6 hrs actual). Customer resolved the issue independently.
• FAKE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: Approximately 10 reviews contain only generic single-word or minimal text ('unknown', '.', 'Good', 'Poor', 'Not well') with 5-star ratings. These lack specificity and appear potentially fabricated or placeholder entries, reducing overall data reliability.
• RECENCY BIAS: Most detailed negative reviews are from 2012–2020 (older than 12 months). Recent reviews (2022–2023) are mixed. The company may have changed practices, but historical pattern of complaints is substantial.
• COMMUNICATION BREAKDOWN: One review (2015) reports a plumber promised an estimate via email and never followed up, suggesting inconsistent follow-through on commitments.

This score should be treated with caution: while technical competence appears genuine (HIGH confidence on experience and project completion), the company's pricing practices and owner conduct present material trust concerns that are not fully captured in a single numerical score. Customers should obtain multiple competitive bids and carefully document all agreements in writing before engaging DeLong Plumbing.