Find Nearby Plumbers In Akron, Ohio

A to Z Dependable Services earns strong marks for professionalism across a large volume of reviews, with dozens of customers praising punctuality, communication, courtesy, and technician demeanor. However, pricing is a persistent and serious concern — multiple reviewers across different years explicitly describe charges as exorbitant, confusing, or dramatically higher than competitors, pulling the pricing score well below average. Project completion is mixed: many jobs were finished correctly and on time, but a meaningful cluster of reviews describes incomplete work, return visits required due to technician error, abandoned callbacks, and at least one case of a yard left in a hazardous state. Experience scores moderately well overall, with several reviewers praising technical knowledge and problem-solving, but offset by notable failures including misidentified pipes, botched installations, and work that created new problems. The WW Score of 72.1 reflects a company with genuine strengths in customer-facing professionalism but meaningful and recurring weaknesses in pricing transparency and consistent job execution.

• 35 reviews contain no text whatsoever (blank or 'unknown') and were excluded from dimension scoring — this is an unusually high proportion and may indicate review padding or platform artifacts.
• A cluster of reviews from June 2025 and May 2025 are heavily positive with minimal specifics; while not conclusively fake, the volume of brief, generic 5-star reviews in a short window warrants caution.
• Two reviews dated 2020-07-13 appear to be exact duplicates (identical text, same date) — one was excluded from scoring to avoid double-counting.
• Pricing complaints span from 2013 through 2024, indicating this is a long-standing structural issue rather than an isolated incident.
• Several negative reviews describe work that caused additional damage (clogged dishwasher after water heater install, broken toilet components, leaking pipes after repair), suggesting quality control inconsistency.
• One review (2016-03-04) describes an unauthorized credit card charge — a serious ethical flag beyond normal service quality concerns.
• The majority of reviews with substantive detail are older than 12 months; recent reviews (2025) are largely brief and low in specificity, reducing confidence in current performance assessment.

This WW Score is based on a large review set (136 total) with high mention counts across all four dimensions, giving it statistical weight, but reliability is modestly reduced by a high volume of blank or content-free reviews, a pattern of brief generic positives in recent months, and confirmed duplicate entries — treat the score as a reasonable directional indicator rather than a precise measure.

APPC Plumbing has a strong base of positive reviews praising individual technicians by name for being friendly, knowledgeable, punctual, and thorough — particularly for water heater installations. However, a meaningful cluster of negative reviews (roughly 10 out of 75) describes serious issues including a gas line left untightened after service, an expansion tank not connected after installation causing water contamination and hair/skin damage, water damage caused by a technician error with no accountability from management, and repeated failures to return calls or show up for scheduled appointments. Pricing feedback is mixed: many reviewers praise competitive rates, while several describe unexpected and steep upcharges upon arrival. Project completion is similarly split — most jobs appear to be finished well, but multiple reviews describe incomplete or defective work requiring callbacks that were either refused or handled poorly. The overall score reflects a company with genuine strengths in field-level workmanship and customer rapport, offset by recurring patterns of post-service failures, poor complaint resolution, and inconsistent reliability.

• 10 reviews contain no text at all (only a star rating) — these were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data.
• Several reviews use generic single-line praise with no specifics (e.g., 'WONDERFUL! LOVE THESE GUYS', 'Perfect! Job was performed as expected', 'unknown') — these contribute minimally to scoring confidence.
• A significant number of blank or near-blank 5-star reviews from the 2022 era cluster on the same date (2022-06-10), which may suggest review padding or bulk submission artifacts.
• Multiple serious safety complaints: one review (2025-02-09) describes a gas line left untightened after service; another (2023-06-10) describes an expansion tank not connected, resulting in contaminated water that damaged a customer's hair and skin — both represent potential liability and workmanship failures.
• Management conduct flagged negatively in at least two reviews: the owner/manager was described as rude, dismissive, and unwilling to accept responsibility for technician errors (2018-06-28, 2025-02-09).
• Recency note: The most recent reviews (2024–2025) include both strong positives and the most serious complaints, suggesting quality may be inconsistent rather than trending clearly in either direction.
• Several older reviews (pre-2016) are more than 9 years old and were given reduced weight in scoring given the company may have changed significantly since then.

This WW Score is based on a large review set with HIGH mention counts across all four dimensions, making the score statistically meaningful, but the presence of serious safety-related complaints, credible accounts of management misconduct, and a cluster of content-free 5-star reviews moderately reduces confidence in the upper end of the score range — prospective customers should read negative reviews carefully before hiring.

Big Tom's Plumbing has a long track record with many loyal repeat customers who praise punctuality, politeness, and responsiveness — including emergency after-hours service. However, several notable negative reviews drag scores down meaningfully: one technician no-showed and then cursed at the customer, a phone representative was dismissive and unhelpful, one job resulted in dogs ingesting rat poison due to failure to clean up, and one review describes a messy drain job with poor cleanup and no communication. Pricing is generally viewed as fair with senior discounts mentioned, but one review flagged an unnecessary $2,000+ upsell and another described a misdiagnosis that would have cost far more than the actual fix. Project completion is solid in most cases but undermined by the no-show incident, the misdiagnosis, and the cleanup failures. The overall picture is a competent but inconsistent contractor with genuine strengths and real documented failures.

• Several reviews contain no usable content ('unknown', 'See above', '.', 'It went well', 'He said it was working well') and were excluded from dimension scoring.
• A significant majority of reviews are older than 3 years, with most dating from 2007–2017. Only 3 reviews are from the past 12 months (2024), limiting recency confidence.
• The 2024 and 2022 reviews show mixed signals — one strong positive emergency response and one frustrated repeat-problem customer — suggesting performance may be inconsistent in recent years.
• No clear fake review patterns detected; reviews vary in detail, tone, rating, and specificity. Language is not repetitive or suspiciously uniform.
• One review (2016-01-14) describes serious negligence — failure to clean up rat poison bait after drain cleaning, resulting in emergency vet care for four dogs. This is a significant safety and professionalism flag.
• One review (2014-02-09) and one review (2017-05-01) both describe misdiagnoses where Big Tom's recommended expensive or invasive solutions that turned out to be unnecessary, raising concerns about diagnostic integrity.

This WW Score is based on 35 reviews spanning approximately 17 years, with strong mention counts across all four dimensions, but reliability is moderated by the heavy skew toward older reviews, several content-free submissions, and a handful of serious negative incidents that reveal real inconsistency in service quality.

All Out Plumbing receives consistently strong marks across all four dimensions from the reviews analyzed. Professionalism is the best-supported dimension, with all six reviewers explicitly noting punctuality, responsiveness, communication, and courteous behavior — including one reviewer highlighting a proactive 20-minute heads-up call. Pricing is described as reasonable or significantly lower than competitors in four reviews, supporting a strong but not perfect score given the limited sample. Project completion is well-supported, with five reviews confirming jobs were finished efficiently and correctly, including a complex water line replacement and a sewage emergency resolved in under 45 minutes. Experience is evidenced by four reviews referencing skilled, knowledgeable workmanship across diverse job types including sump pumps, water heaters, pipe replacement, and RO installs.

• Only 6 total reviews analyzed — sample size is small and limits statistical reliability of all scores.
• Four of the six reviews are dated 2020 or earlier, with two from 2014 and 2018 respectively. Only one review is from the past 12 months (August 2024). Recency of feedback is a concern; the contractor's current performance may differ from what older reviews reflect.
• All reviews are 5-star ratings with no negative or mixed feedback. While the reviews do contain specific details that reduce fake review suspicion, the uniformly perfect ratings across a multi-year span warrants mild caution.
• No reviews mention any negative experiences, callbacks for failed work, or pricing disputes — absence of negative data is noted but not treated as evidence of perfection per scoring rules.

This WW Score carries moderate overall reliability due to a small review pool of only 6 reviews, a significant recency gap with most reviews being 3–10 years old, and the absence of any critical or mixed feedback to provide scoring balance.

Circle G Plumbing demonstrates strong performance across all measured dimensions based on available reviews. Professionalism is consistently praised, with reviewers highlighting quick response times (24-hour service calls, same-day availability), courteous staff, and attention to detail such as shoe covers. Pricing is explicitly noted as 'very reasonable' and 'really good' across multiple reviews. Project completion is solid, with jobs finished efficiently and cleanly within stated timeframes. Technical skill is evident from successful drain clearing and HVAC diagnostics. However, the analysis is limited by only 3 usable reviews with substantive detail, all dating from 2014–2020, with no recent data from the past 12 months.

• Review from 2017-02-23 contains only 'unknown' text and provides no usable data.
• All reviews are 4+ years old (oldest from 2014, most recent from 2020). No recent reviews from past 12 months available to assess current service quality.
• Sample size is very small (3 usable reviews). Score reliability is limited by insufficient data volume.
• All usable reviews are 5-star ratings with positive sentiment. No negative or critical feedback available to balance assessment.

This WW Score should be treated with caution due to the small sample size (3 reviews), age of data (4–10 years old), and absence of recent performance information. The score reflects historical performance only and may not represent current service quality.

Prime Time Plumbing receives broadly positive feedback across all four dimensions, with reviewers consistently praising professionalism, fair pricing, and technical knowledge. The large-scope ADU project review and the espresso machine water line installation both highlight strong workmanship and follow-through. However, one 1-star review from 2017 describes an incorrectly installed water heater and months of ignored callbacks — a serious project completion and professionalism failure that cannot be dismissed. The presence of at least four likely duplicate reviews (two identical tankless water heater reviews and two identical 'kind and knowledgeable' reviews) raises authenticity concerns and reduces overall confidence. Scores have been conservatively adjusted to reflect these flags.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: Two reviews dated 2023-10-14 are word-for-word identical ('I had a great experience with them. They did a tankless water heater for a fair price...'). Two reviews dated 2023-10-13 are word-for-word identical ('had them replace my water heater with a tankless...'). Two reviews dated 2023-09-20 are word-for-word identical ('Very kind and knowledgeable. Exceeded my expectations...'). These 6 reviews appear to be 3 duplicated entries, likely submitted twice. They have been counted as 3 unique reviews, not 6.
• NEGATIVE REVIEW — PROJECT COMPLETION & PROFESSIONALISM FAILURE: One 1-star review (2017-01-08) describes an incorrectly installed water heater that caused a leak, followed by months of unanswered calls. This is a direct and serious failure in both project completion and professionalism and has been factored into those dimension scores.
• RECENCY NOTE: The negative review is from 2017, and the oldest positive reviews are from 2012 and 2016. The majority of positive reviews are from 2022–2024, suggesting possible improvement over time, but the 2017 incident cannot be ignored.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK — MODERATE: The duplicate submissions and several generic short reviews with no specific details (e.g., 'Very kind and knowledgeable. Exceeded my expectations.') suggest some reviews may have been submitted artificially or in error. Confidence has been moderated accordingly.

This WW Score carries moderate reliability: the volume of recent positive reviews is encouraging, but confirmed duplicate submissions, at least one serious unresolved complaint, and some generic low-detail reviews reduce the trustworthiness of the overall picture.