Find Nearby Plumbers In Troy, Michigan

One Stop Plumbing has a strong base of positive reviews praising professionalism, punctuality, and technical competence across many years of service. However, a meaningful cluster of 1-star reviews — including a no-show, a bait-and-switch pricing complaint, an abandoned diagnostic visit, and an instance of unprofessional owner conduct — meaningfully drag down scores across all dimensions. Pricing is generally praised as fair and affordable, but at least two reviews cite deceptive or inconsistent pricing practices, warranting a conservative score. Project completion is solid in the majority of cases but is undermined by multiple documented failures to follow through on appointments or complete agreed-upon work. The experience dimension scores highest, as most reviewers who described the actual work found it skillful and efficient.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: The review 'One Stop Plumbing always comes through with my plumbing issues...' appears twice with different dates (2024-09-12 and 2024-08-31). The review 'Nevie at One Stop Plumbing is a pleasure to do business with!...' appears twice with different dates (2025-05-10 and 2024-06-17). The review 'Always great service and work to resolve the issue.' appears twice (2024-06-09 and 2024-04-22). The review about the wax ring/toilet flange appears twice (2021-06-10 and 2020-09-09). These duplicates suggest possible review manipulation or re-posting and have been counted only once each for scoring purposes.
• FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: A large cluster of reviews share the exact same date of 2021-06-10 (approximately 20 reviews). This is statistically anomalous and strongly suggests bulk review submission, possibly solicited or fabricated. Confidence in that cohort is reduced.
• SERIOUS NEGATIVE INCIDENTS: Multiple 1-star reviews describe specific, credible failures — a no-show with no callback (2021), a bait-and-switch pricing incident (2019), an owner described as 'extremely unprofessional' and 'belittling' in written communication (2018), a technician who left without diagnosing the problem and was later solved by a competitor in 20 minutes (2020), and a last-minute cancellation for a time-sensitive job (2025). These are not vague complaints and carry significant weight.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of detailed, organic-seeming positive reviews are from 2021 or earlier. Recent 2024-2025 positive reviews are largely brief and generic. The most recent negative review is from May 2025, indicating ongoing reliability concerns.
• 3 reviews contained no text (only a star rating) and were excluded from dimension scoring but counted in total reviews analyzed.

This WW Score carries moderate-to-high reliability due to a large review volume, but is tempered by confirmed duplicate reviews, a suspicious bulk-submission date cluster, and multiple specific, credible negative experiences that suggest inconsistent service quality over time.

Premier Plumbing draws a large volume of positive reviews praising individual technicians by name for professionalism, communication, punctuality, and technical skill, which drives reasonably strong scores in professionalism and experience. However, a meaningful minority of negative reviews — spanning the full date range of the dataset — document serious concerns including missed appointments with no communication, incorrect diagnoses charged at full price, abandoned work, and billing disputes, which significantly tempers all dimension scores. Pricing is the weakest dimension: multiple reviewers across different years describe charges they considered excessive, hidden fees, bait-and-switch quoting, and charges for work not performed, pulling the pricing score well below average. Project completion is also mixed, with several reviews describing jobs left incomplete, recurring problems not resolved, and callbacks that were never honored. The overall WW Score of 72.1 reflects a company with genuine strengths in individual technician quality but persistent systemic issues in billing transparency, communication, and follow-through.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: Three reviews dated 2016-05-03 and 2016-05-05 are nearly word-for-word identical regarding a boiler/Rinnai/Trane installation. These appear to be duplicate submissions of the same review and were counted only once for scoring purposes.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Approximately 10 reviews contain no text and only a star rating (all 5-star). These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence per scoring rules.
• MULTI-ENTITY CONCERN: The review corpus appears to aggregate reviews from multiple businesses operating under similar 'Premier Plumbing' names across different geographic markets (Texas, California, South Carolina, Iowa, etc.). This significantly reduces the reliability of the aggregate score as it may not reflect a single contractor's performance.
• RECENCY NOTE: Negative reviews are distributed across the full date range (2006–2025), indicating that communication failures, no-shows, and billing disputes are not isolated incidents but recurring patterns over many years.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK — LOW-MODERATE: A subset of 5-star reviews from 2021–2023 use generic praise with no specifics ('Great company,' 'Always good service,' 'Excellent service'). These add minimal evidentiary weight and were not used to inflate dimension scores.
• ABANDONED WORK: At least two reviews explicitly describe technicians removing fixtures or cutting into walls and then not returning to complete the job, which is a serious project completion red flag.
• BILLING INTEGRITY CONCERNS: Multiple independent reviewers across different years describe being charged for work not performed, incorrect diagnoses billed as repairs, and prices significantly higher than competing quotes for identical work.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large review volume, but its reliability as a reflection of any single contractor is MODERATE at best, given strong evidence that reviews span multiple unrelated businesses operating under the 'Premier Plumbing' name across different states, and that recurring negative patterns in billing, communication, and project completion are documented consistently across many years.

Advanced Plumbing has a strong base of positive reviews praising responsiveness, professionalism, and technical skill across a wide range of jobs including water line replacements, water heater installs, and full repiping projects. However, a meaningful cluster of 1-star reviews — spanning multiple years and locations — raises serious concerns: recurring complaints include overcharging with non-itemized bills, pressure tactics, failure to return calls, incomplete or incorrect work, refusal to warranty poor workmanship, and in several cases hostile responses from ownership when customers raised concerns. Pricing is a particular weak point, with multiple reviewers citing unexpected charges, minimum fees for minimal work, and quotes dramatically higher than competitors. Project completion is also mixed, with several reviews describing jobs that required multiple return visits to correct errors, or work that was abandoned entirely. The positive reviews are numerous and often detailed, but the volume and specificity of negative reviews — including from experienced professionals in construction and architecture — prevent a high overall score.

• 35 reviews contain no text — only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence.
• Two reviews are near-identical duplicates with the same wording about being 'absolutely amazing' and 'super sharp on plumbing needs' posted under different dates (2022-09-23 and 2023-06-07). This may indicate a fake or recycled review.
• Two reviews are near-identical duplicates praising 'Eric and Jessica' and 'Fred' with nearly word-for-word identical text posted on different dates (2018-08-22 and 2019-06-08). This strongly suggests a fake or copy-pasted review and confidence in the positive review pool is reduced accordingly.
• The review corpus spans from 2010 to 2025 and appears to aggregate reviews from multiple businesses operating under the name 'Advanced Plumbing' across different states (Virginia, Florida, Oregon, Michigan, Missouri, California, Texas). Scores from geographically distinct businesses may not reflect a single contractor's performance.
• Several negative reviews describe the owner or staff becoming hostile, making harassing phone calls, or calling customers liars when complaints were raised — a significant red flag for business conduct.
• One negative reviewer with 50+ years of architectural experience describes deceptive practices including faulty leak detection, pressure to over-scope work, and an inadequate insurance report — this carries elevated credibility weight.
• A 2010 review describes a lawsuit over a billing dispute where the written estimate was $1,300 but the final bill was $4,300 — an extreme pricing discrepancy that was never resolved through mediation.
• Recency note: The majority of reviews with substantive text are from 2017–2025, with the most recent cluster from 2024–2025. Older reviews (pre-2016) were given reduced weight in scoring.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large volume of reviews, but the score itself should be interpreted cautiously given strong evidence that reviews may span multiple unrelated businesses sharing the same name, the presence of suspected duplicate/fake reviews, and a persistent pattern of serious complaints about billing practices, incomplete work, and hostile customer service responses that meaningfully offset the large volume of positive feedback.

Reliable Plumbing has a large and broadly positive review base, with many customers praising prompt response times, courteous technicians, and successful job completions — particularly for water heater replacements, leak repairs, and emergency calls. However, a meaningful minority of negative reviews (approximately 20–22 reviews) describe serious concerns including incomplete or failed repairs requiring callbacks, warranty denials after poor workmanship, rude owner interactions, and pricing disputes involving non-itemized invoices and unexpected charges. Pricing is the weakest dimension, with multiple reviewers citing overquoting, lack of transparency, and charges inconsistent with initial quotes. Project completion is also dragged down by several credible accounts of work left unfinished, recurring leaks after paid repairs, and technicians who lacked the skill to complete assigned jobs. The overall score reflects a company with genuine strengths in responsiveness and many capable technicians, offset by a persistent pattern of quality control and owner-level customer service failures.

• Approximately 35 reviews contain no text (rating only) and were excluded from dimensional scoring — these blank reviews inflate the raw review count and cannot be used as evidence of quality.
• Several reviews appear to originate from different geographic markets (Charlotte NC, Baton Rouge LA, El Paso TX) suggesting this may be a shared business name across unrelated companies — scores may reflect mixed entities rather than a single contractor.
• A recurring pattern of negative reviews specifically names the owner 'Raymond' or 'Ramon' as rude, condescending, or dishonest in pricing disputes — this is a consistent and credible signal across multiple independent reviewers spanning 2013–2025.
• Multiple reviews describe warranty denials after failed repairs, with the company refusing callbacks or not answering phones — this is a serious project completion red flag.
• Pricing complaints include: non-itemized receipts, charges inconsistent with initial quotes, and alleged price gouging on water heater installations — these are consistent across multiple reviewers and time periods.
• Some older reviews (2005–2016) may not reflect current business practices and were given reduced weight in scoring; the majority of scoring weight was placed on reviews from 2020 onward.
• No strong fake review pattern detected, though the volume of brief generic 5-star reviews (e.g. 'Professional job. Well done', 'Great service as always') with no specifics warrants mild caution — these were scored conservatively.

This WW Score is based on a large review dataset (155 total, ~120 with usable content) spanning over a decade, giving it HIGH statistical confidence, but the score should be interpreted cautiously given credible and recurring negative patterns around pricing transparency, warranty honoring, and owner conduct that meaningfully offset the many positive technician-level experiences.

All four reviews are positive and paint a consistent picture of a professional, honest, and fairly priced plumbing operation. Professionalism is the most consistently mentioned dimension across all reviews, with specific praise for communication, politeness, and going above and beyond (e.g., drafting a letter for a realtor, offering multiple solutions before starting work). Pricing is highlighted strongly in the detailed slab-leak review, where the contractor's price was described as a fraction of a large chain competitor's quote. Project completion is supported by two reviews that describe jobs being seen through to full resolution, including a multi-visit slab leak repair. Experience is evidenced by the technical problem-solving described in the slab-leak review and the honest, knowledgeable approach noted in others. However, the small sample size and the age of most reviews significantly limit confidence in these scores.

• Only 4 reviews total — sample size is too small to draw reliable conclusions about consistent contractor performance.
• Three of the four reviews are from 2016–2019, making them 5–8 years old. Only one review (2020) is within the past few years, and none are from the past 12 months. Recency is a significant concern.
• Two reviews (2019-09-19 and 2019-04-12) are brief and generic with limited specifics, which slightly reduces their evidentiary value, though they do not appear to be fake — they name a specific plumber (Charles) or reference a specific context.
• The detailed 2016 review is highly specific and credible, but its age reduces its weight in the current scoring context.

This WW Score should be treated as LOW RELIABILITY due to the very small number of reviews (4) and the fact that the majority of reviews are 5–8 years old, providing little insight into the contractor's current performance.

Sumner Plumbing shows strong professionalism with consistent praise for punctuality, communication, and courtesy across multiple reviews. However, serious concerns emerge around pricing practices and project completion quality. One detailed 2016 review alleges aggressive upselling ($2500 cleanout followed by another $2500 for allegedly caused damage), unnecessary charges ($150 for a faucet that didn't need tightening), and recurring drain problems requiring annual callbacks—suggesting either poor workmanship or misdiagnosis. The two positive reviews (2014–2015) praise responsiveness and friendliness but lack detail on actual work quality or long-term outcomes. The stark contradiction between the negative review's specific allegations and positive reviews' generic praise, combined with the age gap and lack of recent data, creates significant uncertainty about current service quality.

• CRITICAL: One detailed negative review (2016) alleges systematic overcharging, unnecessary upselling, and poor work quality resulting in recurring problems. Owner allegedly unresponsive to complaints.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Two positive reviews are from 2014–2015 (8–9 years old). Only one negative review is from 2016 (8 years old). No recent reviews provided. Historical data may not reflect current operations.
• CONTRADICTION PATTERN: Positive reviews praise professionalism and responsiveness but provide no specifics on work quality or outcomes. Negative review provides extensive detail on alleged failures. This asymmetry warrants caution.
• SAMPLE SIZE: Only 3 reviews total. Insufficient volume to establish reliable patterns. A single detailed complaint carries disproportionate weight.
• UNRESOLVED ALLEGATIONS: The 2016 review's claims of damage causation, unnecessary work, and owner non-responsiveness are not addressed or refuted in other reviews.

This score should be treated with caution. While professionalism appears solid based on three reviews, the small sample size, significant age of data (all 8+ years old), and one detailed allegation of systematic overcharging and poor work quality create substantial uncertainty. The absence of recent reviews makes it impossible to assess whether alleged issues have been resolved or persist.