Find Nearby Plumbers In Akron, Ohio

ABC Drain and Plumbing has a strong base of positive reviews praising friendly, knowledgeable technicians and responsive service, particularly in recent years. However, meaningful negative reviews across multiple dimensions prevent a high score: professionalism is dragged down by several documented failures in communication, no-shows, and poor follow-up callbacks. Project completion is notably impacted by multiple reviews describing abandoned or incomplete work, poor cleanup, and jobs that required months of follow-up to resolve. Pricing is generally viewed as fair or competitive, with one significant outlier citing a quote more than double a competitor's price, and one older review calling them too expensive. Experience scores moderately well, with many reviewers praising technical skill and problem-solving, but offset by at least two reviews describing inferior workmanship and improper installations.

• FAKE REVIEW FLAG: Approximately 15 reviews from August–September 2017 consist entirely of single punctuation marks (periods, commas) with 4–5 star ratings and no text content. These have been excluded from scoring as they contain no usable data and exhibit a pattern consistent with rating manipulation.
• FAKE REVIEW FLAG: Multiple reviews marked 'unknown' spanning 1999–2016 with no review text have been excluded from scoring as they provide no usable information.
• RECENCY NOTE: A significant portion of substantive reviews are older than 3 years. The most recent reviews (2024–2025) are weighted more heavily and show a mixed but generally improving trend in professionalism and responsiveness.
• RECENCY NOTE: Several of the most damaging reviews regarding project abandonment and incomplete work (2021–2022) are now 3+ years old, but the 2025 review about poor cleanup and unreturned property suggests follow-through issues may persist.
• NEGATIVE PATTERN: At least 4 separate reviews describe the company failing to call back, not showing up, or leaving jobs incomplete without resolution — this is a recurring and credible pattern across multiple years and reviewers.
• CONDUCT FLAG: One 1-star review (2024-12-11) alleges a company van driver was swerving, running red lights, and potentially impaired. This is a safety concern and conduct flag, though it cannot be verified from reviews alone.

This WW Score is based on a large review set spanning over two decades, but reliability is moderately reduced by a cluster of suspected fake punctuation-only reviews, numerous content-free 'unknown' entries, and significant recency spread — the score should be treated as a reasonable but cautious estimate of current service quality.

Jeff the Plumber demonstrates strong technical competence and professionalism in execution, with many customers praising individual technicians' skill and courtesy. However, the company is significantly hampered by inconsistent pricing practices, poor communication/follow-up, and occasional project completion failures. Recent reviews (2024-2025) show both exceptional service and serious failures (property damage, ghosting, incomplete work), indicating high variability. Pricing complaints are persistent across multiple years, with customers reporting undisclosed fees, misquotes, and overcharges. While experience and professionalism scores are solid, pricing and project completion reliability drag the overall score down substantially.

• PRICING INTEGRITY CONCERNS: Multiple reviews across different years (2012-2025) report being quoted one price and charged another, undisclosed fees, or significant overcharges. This is a systemic pattern, not isolated incidents.
• COMMUNICATION FAILURES: Numerous complaints about unreturned calls, ghosting customers, rude phone staff, and failure to follow up on promised callbacks. This appears to be a recurring operational issue.
• PROJECT COMPLETION VARIABILITY: Several reviews report incomplete work, work that failed shortly after completion, or callbacks needed to fix initial work. Examples include: balloons left in pipes, missing pipe sections, improper installations, and leaks recurring within days.
• PROPERTY DAMAGE INCIDENTS: At least 3 reviews mention significant property damage (flooding from incorrect condensate pump installation, basement flooding from incomplete work, stolen tools). These are serious liability issues.
• INCONSISTENT QUALITY: Wide variance in technician quality and professionalism. Some technicians highly praised; others described as incompetent, rude, or unprofessional.
• SCHEDULING RELIABILITY: Multiple no-shows, missed appointment windows, and late arrivals reported across different years.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Recent reviews (2024-2025) include both 5-star praise and serious 1-star failures, suggesting current operational instability or inconsistency.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK - MODERATE: Two empty review texts with 5-star ratings (2024-06-09, 2024-09-12) are suspicious. Additionally, several reviews from 2024-06-09 cluster with identical positive themes but lack specificity. However, most reviews contain sufficient detail to appear genuine.

This WW Score of 72.8 should be treated with caution due to high operational inconsistency. The company appears capable of excellent work but suffers from systemic issues in pricing transparency, communication, and project follow-through. Customers should expect variability in experience and should carefully document all quotes and agreements in writing before engaging services. Recent reviews suggest ongoing problems rather than historical issues that have been resolved.

H. Jack's Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism and project completion capabilities, with consistent praise for friendly technicians, quick response times, and thorough workmanship across 38 and 28 mentions respectively. However, the company is significantly undermined by serious pricing concerns documented in 11 reviews, with multiple customers reporting estimates 2-3x higher than competitors, aggressive upselling tactics, and alleged predatory practices targeting elderly customers. While technical experience is solid (80.5), the pattern of overcharging and questionable sales practices creates substantial trust issues that substantially lower the overall score despite strong operational execution.

• CRITICAL: Multiple credible reviews (2019-2023) document systematic overpricing and aggressive upselling, including targeting elderly/vulnerable customers with inflated estimates ($6,500 vs. $420 competitor quote; $600 flapper vs. $70-200 market rate; $8,000+ unnecessary work). This suggests a business model issue, not isolated incidents.
• SUSPICIOUS PATTERN: 37 of 56 reviews are 5-star with nearly identical positive phrasing ('Ron/Ben were amazing,' 'professional,' 'friendly,' 'great job') all dated within 2-week clusters (June 2025, May 2025, April 2025). This concentration and repetitive language raises concerns about review authenticity or solicitation bias.
• RECENCY BIAS: Positive reviews are heavily concentrated in 2025 (37 reviews), while negative reviews span 2018-2023. Recent reviews may not reflect current practices, or company may have changed operations. The 2+ year gap between negative and positive reviews is notable.
• DOCUMENTED FRAUD CONCERNS: One 2019 review explicitly describes unauthorized contract signing and misrepresentation of financing terms. Another 2021 review alleges elder abuse. These are serious allegations beyond normal service complaints.
• NO PRICING TRANSPARENCY: Positive reviews rarely mention pricing; negative reviews consistently cite lack of upfront quotes and surprise estimates. This suggests pricing practices remain opaque.
• INCONSISTENT SERVICE QUALITY: Emergency response praised in recent reviews (15-60 minutes), but 2021 review documents no-show despite confirmed appointment window.

This score should be treated with CAUTION. While recent 2025 reviews show strong operational performance, the company has a documented history (2018-2023) of predatory pricing practices and alleged fraud targeting vulnerable customers. The clustering of identical 5-star reviews in 2025 raises authenticity concerns. The WW Score of 72.8 reflects genuine strengths in professionalism and execution, but the pricing dimension (58.0) and historical conduct issues suggest significant risk; customers should obtain multiple independent quotes and verify all contract terms before engaging this company.

Roto-Rooter scores very strongly on professionalism and technician experience, with hundreds of reviews praising individual technicians by name for being courteous, knowledgeable, communicative, and thorough. Project completion is generally solid, with most jobs resolved same-day or within a short timeframe, though a meaningful minority of reviews describe incomplete work, no-shows, broken promises on follow-up visits, and warranty disputes. The most significant drag on the overall WW Score is pricing, which is the single most-complained-about dimension across the entire review set — dozens of reviewers explicitly describe charges as 'outrageous,' 'ridiculous,' 'a scam,' or triple the price of competitors, with specific dollar amounts cited ranging from $315 for 4 minutes of work to $8,700 for a water heater installation. Several reviews also describe deceptive pricing practices, including quotes that changed after work began, failure to disclose service fees upfront, and pressure tactics targeting vulnerable customers including seniors and non-English speakers.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: A significant number of reviews appear to be exact or near-exact duplicates posted on different dates (e.g., multiple identical reviews for 'Gio,' 'Gabriel,' 'Daniel,' 'Gus,' 'Giovanni,' and others). This inflates the apparent review count and may indicate a review solicitation system that caused customers to submit the same review twice, or potential manipulation. Confidence in raw review count is reduced.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Approximately 150-200 reviews contain no text and only a star rating (almost all 5-star). These provide no usable data for any dimension and were excluded from scoring but inflate the total count.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS ARE SEVERE AND SPECIFIC: Negative pricing reviews are not vague — they cite specific dollar amounts, compare to competitor prices, and describe practices such as quoting after work begins, refusing to honor coupons, and charging elderly or non-English-speaking customers without disclosure. This is a systemic pattern, not isolated incidents.
• SCHEDULING AND NO-SHOW COMPLAINTS: Multiple reviews describe technicians failing to arrive within promised windows, no-call-no-shows, and dispatch communication failures. This is a recurring pattern affecting the project completion score.
• WARRANTY DISPUTES: Several reviews describe Roto-Rooter refusing to honor stated warranties, including a 6-month guarantee and a 30-day guarantee, with customers being charged again for the same recurring issue.
• WORK QUALITY FAILURES: A small but notable number of reviews describe active harm caused by technicians — flooding a kitchen, improperly setting a toilet, changing the wrong pipe, leaving sewage handprints, and damaging property with no accountability.
• PREDATORY PRICING PATTERN: Multiple reviews describe technicians quoting extremely high prices and then reducing them when customers push back, suggesting initial quotes are inflated as a negotiating tactic rather than honest pricing.
• RECENCY: All reviews are dated between approximately May 7, 2025 and June 9, 2025 — all within the past 12 months. Recency weighting is fully applied.

This WW Score is based on an exceptionally large review set and carries HIGH overall confidence, but the score should be interpreted with caution given confirmed duplicate reviews inflating volume, a strong and consistent pattern of severe pricing complaints that meaningfully suppresses the score, and documented instances of incomplete work and warranty non-compliance that suggest the positive technician-level experience does not always translate to a satisfactory overall customer outcome.

Roto-Rooter receives consistently strong praise for technician professionalism, friendliness, and communication, with hundreds of reviews citing courteous, knowledgeable, and prompt service. However, pricing is a major and recurring pain point: dozens of reviewers explicitly describe charges as excessive, shocking, or outright predatory, with specific complaints ranging from $400+ for a single drain snake to $1,600+ for incomplete work, significantly dragging down the pricing dimension. Project completion is mixed — the majority of jobs are completed successfully and often same-day, but a meaningful minority of reviews describe incomplete work, no-shows, failed repairs requiring follow-up by other companies, and jobs left in worse condition than found. Technician skill and experience scores well overall, but is undermined by a notable subset of reviews describing misdiagnosis, incompetent repairs, and technicians who appeared uncertain or unqualified for the task at hand.

• PRICING CONCERN: Pricing is the single most negatively reviewed dimension. Dozens of reviews across multiple years and locations explicitly cite charges of $400–$1,600+ for basic drain cleaning or simple repairs as excessive, with multiple reviewers stating they found the same work done for 50–75% less elsewhere.
• PROJECT COMPLETION FAILURES: A significant number of reviews describe jobs that were not completed, required multiple return visits, or were left in worse condition. Several reviews describe technicians abandoning jobs mid-work, failing to reconnect appliances, or leaving hazardous conditions.
• NO-SHOW AND SCHEDULING FAILURES: A recurring pattern of no-shows, missed appointment windows without notification, and poor dispatcher communication appears across multiple years and locations. This is a systemic operational issue.
• MISDIAGNOSIS PATTERN: Multiple reviews describe technicians recommending expensive repairs (e.g., $3,000–$10,000 excavations) that were later found unnecessary by other plumbers who resolved the issue quickly and cheaply.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK — MODERATE: A cluster of reviews dated 2025-06-07 and 2025-06-02 share very similar short-form praise structures (e.g., 'Justin was awesome', 'Great Job Mo!', 'Justin saved our lives today!') with minimal detail. Several appear to be from the same franchise location and may reflect solicited or incentivized reviews. Confidence in the high-end scores is slightly reduced as a result.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Approximately 60–70 reviews contain no text and only a star rating (mostly 5-star). These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews with substantive text are from 2024–2025 and are within the past 12 months. Older reviews (2013–2020) show similar patterns of both praise and complaints, suggesting these issues are long-standing and not improving significantly over time.
• GEOGRAPHIC VARIANCE: Reviews appear to span many different Roto-Rooter franchise locations across the US. Scores reflect aggregate performance across all locations, which may mask significant variation between individual franchises.

This WW Score is based on a very large review set (600+ reviews) with HIGH confidence across all four dimensions, making the aggregate score statistically robust; however, the score should be interpreted cautiously because it aggregates performance across many distinct franchise locations, and individual location quality varies dramatically — some franchises consistently earn 5-star praise while others generate repeated complaints about pricing, no-shows, and incomplete work.

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.