Find Nearby Plumbers In Roseville, Michigan

Stadler Plumbing demonstrates strong performance across all dimensions with a WW Score of 88.2. Professionalism is a standout strength (89.5), with consistent mentions of punctuality, courteous behavior, and clean work practices across 32 reviews. Project completion scores well at 88.0 based on 28 mentions of jobs finished properly and on time. Experience is solid at 87.5 with 18 mentions of technical knowledge and skilled problem-solving. Pricing is the weakest dimension at 82.0, though still respectable—10 mentions show generally fair pricing, but two older negative reviews (2018, 2022) cite pricing transparency issues that slightly temper confidence. The company shows strong consistency in recent reviews (past 12 months dominate the dataset) with particular praise for technicians Dan and Brian.

• Two negative reviews from 2018 and 2022 cite pricing transparency and communication failures; however, these are isolated incidents among 51 total reviews and predate the recent positive trend
• Multiple reviews with no text content (blank reviews rated 5.0) cannot be analyzed for evidence; these 3 reviews are excluded from scoring but counted in total
• Recency bias noted: 40 of 51 reviews are from 2024-2025; only 11 reviews are older than 1 year, which may not fully represent long-term consistency
• One review from 2022 explicitly states 'Not professional' regarding lack of callback on a quote request—this is a legitimate service failure that appropriately reduces professionalism confidence slightly

This WW Score of 88.2 is highly reliable due to strong mention counts across all dimensions (10+ mentions minimum) and overwhelming recent positive data, though the score should be understood as reflecting current performance (2024-2025) rather than historical consistency, and pricing transparency remains a minor concern based on isolated past incidents.

Precision Plumbing draws a large volume of strongly positive reviews praising individual technicians by name for professionalism, punctuality, clear communication, and technical skill — these positives are consistent and span many years and locations. However, a meaningful minority of negative reviews (roughly 15–18% of substantive reviews) describe serious issues including no-shows, scheduling failures, poor communication, alleged price gouging, overcharging, warranty disputes, substandard workmanship, and in at least two cases regulatory investigations by the Nevada State Contractors Board. Pricing is the weakest dimension: while many reviewers call pricing fair or reasonable, a notable cluster of negative reviewers describe charges they considered grossly excessive (e.g., $528/hour, $750 for a $1.99 fix, $1,400 for a 20-minute job, $650 for a cartridge replacement). Project completion is moderately strong but is dragged down by multiple documented no-shows, abandoned jobs, and at least one case of work left incomplete for weeks. Experience scores well overall given the volume of praise for diagnostic skill and quality workmanship, but is tempered by a handful of reviews describing incompetent diagnosis or dangerous substandard work.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: Numerous reviews appear to be exact or near-exact duplicates posted on the same or adjacent dates (e.g., multiple identical 'Fast, affordable, friendly, and super reliable' reviews on 2018-02-22; identical 'Great family business' reviews on 2022-09-08; identical 'Will hire again' reviews on 2022-09-12; identical 'Great and quick service' and 'Excellent customer service' reviews on 2022-09-06; identical 'He did a good job and was nice to work with' reviews on 2022-10-20; identical 'Friendly service, great job' reviews on 2022-10-01; identical 'Kieth was very easy to work with' reviews on 2022-10-22; identical 'Very high quality work promp service' reviews on 2023-01-24; identical 'The young man did an expert job' reviews on 2022-12-16; identical 'Precision Plumbimg is a great Company' reviews on 2020-10-24 and 2020-10-25). This pattern strongly suggests review manipulation or system duplication and reduces confidence in the raw positive review count.
• REGULATORY FLAG: At least two reviews (dated August 2024) allege that Precision Plumbing (dba aaa Precision Plumbing, Las Vegas) was under investigation by the Nevada State Board of Contractors for substandard work, failed city inspection, a life-threatening gas leak, and deceptive practices. These are serious allegations that, if accurate, represent significant safety and integrity concerns.
• MULTI-ENTITY CONCERN: Reviews appear to reference multiple distinct businesses operating under the 'Precision Plumbing' name across different geographic markets (Las Vegas NV, Bay Area CA, Michigan, South Carolina, California Central Valley, etc.) as well as references to 'Plumbing Squad' and 'Budget Water Heaters.' Scores may reflect an aggregation of different companies rather than a single contractor, which limits the reliability of any single composite score.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS PATTERN: A recurring pattern of pricing complaints exists across multiple reviewers and years — including allegations of price gouging against elderly or disabled customers, charges not matching quotes, refusal to provide itemized receipts, and hourly rates described as $600+ per hour for simple jobs. This is not isolated and depresses the pricing score significantly.
• NO-SHOW AND SCHEDULING FAILURES: Multiple independent reviewers across different time periods describe no-shows, missed appointment windows without notification, and failure to return calls. This is a consistent pattern affecting the project completion score.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews with substantive content are from 2019 through mid-2025, with the most recent cluster from May–June 2025. Reviews from 2025 are predominantly positive and recent, which is a positive signal, but the negative regulatory and safety reviews from mid-2024 are also recent and carry significant weight.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Approximately 40–50 reviews contain no text and only a 5-star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence per scoring rules, but their volume inflates the apparent star average.

This WW Score of 72.1 carries HIGH data confidence due to the large review volume, but should be interpreted cautiously given confirmed duplicate reviews suggesting possible manipulation, multi-entity ambiguity across geographic markets, serious unresolved regulatory allegations from 2024, and a consistent minority pattern of pricing, scheduling, and workmanship complaints that cannot be dismissed as outliers.

All N' One Plumbing has a large volume of strongly positive reviews praising professionalism, responsiveness, fair pricing, and technical competence across multiple technicians including Byron, Frank, and Alfonso. However, the review set contains a meaningful cluster of serious negative reviews — including multiple 1-star accounts describing flooded properties, failed warranty follow-through, rude communication, bait-and-switch pricing, and work left incomplete or done incorrectly. These negative reviews are detailed, specific, and credible, and they materially drag down scores across all four dimensions. The pricing dimension scores moderately well overall, as many reviewers praised fair quotes and no hidden charges, but several negative reviewers explicitly described charges exceeding original quotes. Project completion is the most penalized dimension due to multiple accounts of abandoned callbacks, failed inspections, and unresolved warranty claims. The score reflects a contractor with genuine strengths but a documented pattern of serious service failures that prospective customers should weigh carefully.

• Two reviews dated 2021-05-17 from 'Nada Harrison' are nearly identical in content and were posted within 30 minutes of each other — likely a duplicate submission, counted as one unique review for scoring purposes.
• Two reviews dated 2017-12-29 describe the same flooding incident at a business from two different reviewers — these appear to be from the same event and may represent coordinated posting, though both are treated as independent accounts given differing perspectives.
• Two reviews dated 2018-05-23 from what appears to be the same reviewer are word-for-word identical — counted as one review for scoring purposes.
• Two lengthy negative reviews (2012-08-06 and 2011-07-29) describe what appears to be the same job from the same customer filed at different times — counted as one unique negative data point to avoid double-penalizing.
• The majority of 5-star reviews lack specific detail about pricing or project outcomes, relying on generic praise. While not conclusive of fake reviews, this pattern warrants moderate caution.
• A significant number of positive reviews are dated 2024-06-09 with identical timestamps, suggesting a possible batch upload or solicited review campaign — confidence in those specific reviews is reduced.
• Negative reviews span from 2011 through 2022 and describe recurring issues: poor communication, warranty non-fulfillment, work quality failures, and rude owner behavior. This is not an isolated pattern and should be weighted seriously.
• Recency note: The most recent reviews (2024) are predominantly positive, but the negative reviews extend as recently as 2022, meaning the issues are not exclusively historical.

This WW Score is based on a large and diverse review set with HIGH data confidence across all dimensions, but the presence of multiple credible, detailed negative reviews — including warranty failures, flooding incidents, and communication breakdowns — means the score should be treated as a moderate-confidence indicator of real-world performance, and prospective customers are strongly advised to review the negative accounts in full before hiring.

Perfect Plumbing has an overwhelmingly negative review record across a large sample of reviews spanning nearly two decades. Professionalism is the most-cited dimension and is severely damaged by dozens of accounts of no-call no-shows, rude office staff (including screaming at customers and hanging up on them), missed appointments, and failure to return calls — with only a minority of reviewers praising individual technicians like Chris, Steven, and Matt. Project completion is similarly poor, with repeated accounts of abandoned jobs, work that failed shortly after completion, technicians arriving hours late or not at all, and failure to follow through on warranty callbacks. Pricing drew significant negative attention, with multiple reviewers citing excessive charges, unexplained billing, double-charging of credit cards, and markups on materials far above retail cost, though a handful of reviewers found pricing fair. Experience scores slightly higher because some individual technicians received genuine praise for skill and knowledge, but this is offset by accounts of incompetent diagnostics, incorrect repairs, and work that made problems worse.

• Two reviews dated 2020-02-26 appear to be near-identical duplicates, likely submitted by the same customer twice — these were counted as one unique mention to avoid double-weighting.
• Two reviews dated 2019-08-30 and 2019-06-11 contain identical text about no-call no-shows across multiple appointments — likely duplicate submissions and treated as one mention.
• Two reviews dated 2018-11-12 and 2019-06-11 contain identical text about scheduling failures — treated as one mention.
• Several 5-star reviews are blank (no text) and were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data.
• One review (2025-01-10, 1-star) concerns a reckless driver in a company van and is not a service review — excluded from all dimension scoring.
• One review (2006-03-23) references 'Power Rooter' rather than Perfect Plumbing and may have been posted to the wrong business listing — treated with caution and given minimal weight.
• The majority of positive reviews reference specific named technicians (Chris, Steven, Matt, Harry) suggesting quality is highly technician-dependent rather than a company-wide standard.
• A significant volume of negative reviews spans from 2012 through 2025, indicating persistent and systemic issues rather than isolated incidents.
• Reviews older than 12 months (pre-June 2024) were given reduced weight in scoring; the most recent reviews (2024–2025) continue to show both positive individual technician experiences and serious professionalism failures.

This WW Score is based on 95 reviews with a high volume of detailed, specific accounts across all four dimensions, yielding HIGH confidence — the score of 38.7 reliably reflects a contractor with serious and longstanding systemic issues in scheduling, communication, and follow-through, partially offset by a subset of genuinely skilled and professional individual technicians.

The reviews paint a largely negative picture of this contractor across nearly all dimensions. Professionalism is severely undermined by a receptionist who appeared indifferent to complaints, a sales rep who reversed his own recommendations when a mistake was made, and a technician who arrived nearly an hour outside the promised service window. Project completion is a major concern, with one documented case of the wrong furnace being installed and a repair that failed within two days, alongside a sales follow-up that was never delivered despite three callback requests. Pricing received a very low score due to the single but serious incident of a customer being charged for a premium furnace and receiving a cheaper model, with the company then attempting to convince the customer to accept the inferior product. The one positive review is brief, generic, and lacks specific detail, which limits its ability to meaningfully offset the detailed negative accounts.

• Only 3 reviews total — WW Score should be treated as highly provisional and not representative of long-term performance.
• The single 5-star review (2016) is vague and generic with no specific details about the job, technician, or outcome. It provides minimal usable signal and may not be a reliable data point.
• Two of the three reviews are over 4 years old as of the most recent review date (2020), and all three reviews are now more than 4 years old from today. Recency is a significant concern — current performance is unknown.
• A pattern of poor follow-through is documented across two separate negative reviews from different years, suggesting a potentially systemic issue rather than isolated incidents.
• The furnace installation incident (wrong unit installed, then pressure applied to accept it) raises a concern about sales ethics and integrity that goes beyond a simple error.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews, all of which are outdated, and should be considered highly unreliable as a representation of the contractor's current quality — significantly more recent reviews are needed before any confident assessment can be made.

With only two reviews, the data is insufficient to produce a reliable WW Score. The two reviews are sharply divided: one is a detailed 5-star account praising competitive pricing, a thoughtful installation approach, and careful workmanship on a mini-split system, while the other is a detailed 1-star account describing persistent warranty issues, property damage left unrepaired, a faulty chimney cap causing water intrusion, and poor customer service. The negative review is more recent (2021) and describes ongoing failures across multiple dimensions including professionalism, project completion, and workmanship. The positive review, while specific and credible, dates to 2019 and may reflect a different ownership or management era, as the negative reviewer notes the company was acquired. These two reviews pull scores in opposite directions, resulting in conservative mid-range estimates with very low confidence across all dimensions.

• Only 2 reviews analyzed — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per scoring rules requiring a minimum of 3 reviews.
• The negative reviewer explicitly states the company changed ownership (now a 'Randall company'), which may mean the two reviews reflect different business entities or management cultures and should not be directly compared.
• The negative review (2021) is more recent than the positive review (2019); per recency rules, the negative review carries more weight.
• No fake review patterns detected — both reviews contain specific, credible details and are plausible as genuine customer experiences.
• The 1-star review raises a serious concern about warranty service being charged at $95 per visit despite acknowledged defects, which is a significant professionalism and pricing red flag.

This score report is based on only 2 reviews spanning different ownership periods and should be considered highly unreliable — no meaningful conclusions about this contractor's current performance can be drawn without substantially more review data.