Find Nearby Plumbers In Akron, Ohio

Wilson Plumbing & Heating exhibits a deeply polarized performance profile. While some older reviews (2016–2018) and a handful of recent ones praise technical competence and professionalism, the overwhelming majority of recent reviews (2020–2024) document systematic failures in pricing transparency, project completion, and customer communication. The company consistently quotes inflated prices (often 2–3× market rates), misrepresents problems to justify unnecessary replacements, abandons jobs mid-completion, and fails to honor callbacks. Professionalism scores are dragged down by scheduling failures, unresponsiveness, and dishonest sales tactics. Experience is the strongest dimension, with several reviews acknowledging skilled technicians—but this is undermined by poor follow-through and lack of accountability when damage occurs.

• SEVERE PRICING PATTERN: 14 reviews explicitly document overcharging, inflated quotes, and deceptive upselling. Examples: $7,000 HVAC unit that failed to deliver promised results; $1,200 diagnostic for non-existent refrigerant leak; $700 spigot with $650 repair quote one year later; $581 toilet replacement that cost $45 elsewhere; $348 drain clearing done DIY in 15 minutes for $15.
• DECEPTIVE SALES PRACTICES: Multiple reviews describe technicians misrepresenting problems, recommending unnecessary replacements, and using high-pressure sales tactics. One review explicitly states 'theft by deception.' Another describes a technician googling furnace specs and providing false information to justify a $5,000 replacement when only a $50 part was needed.
• PROJECT ABANDONMENT & INCOMPLETE WORK: 5+ reviews document jobs left unfinished, callbacks never honored, and damage caused during work (ceiling fan left on ground, plumbing damage causing ceiling collapse, toilet broken and not replaced, permit inspection never arranged despite $10K job).
• COMMUNICATION BREAKDOWN: Systematic failures in scheduling, call-backs, and responsiveness. Multiple reviews cite 4-hour appointment windows missed, no-shows, emails unanswered for weeks, and operators who 'soothe and say nothing.'
• ACCOUNTABILITY AVOIDANCE: When damage occurs (broken toilet, damaged plumbing, failed installations), company refuses to take responsibility or offer remediation. One review documents company refusing to fix a toilet they broke during a $3,000 job.
• RECENCY BIAS CRITICAL: Older reviews (2016–2018) are predominantly 5-star with praise. Recent reviews (2020–2024) are predominantly 1-star with detailed complaints. This suggests either a significant decline in service quality or a shift in business practices under new management. The company's own website rating (4.8) contradicts Yelp (2.7) and BBB (3.6), suggesting selective review curation.
• PERMIT & COMPLIANCE FAILURE: One review documents company failing to arrange required county inspection for a $10K furnace/AC installation, leaving homeowner at risk of insurance non-coverage in case of fire.

This WW Score of 54.8 is highly reliable and should be trusted as a strong warning signal. The score is based on 35 detailed reviews with consistent patterns of deception, overcharging, and poor follow-through, particularly in recent years (2020–2024). The HIGH confidence across all dimensions reflects substantial mention counts and corroborating evidence across independent reviews. The stark divergence between the company's advertised 4.8 rating and third-party ratings (Yelp 2.7, BBB 3.6) further validates the negative findings. Consumers should proceed with extreme caution or avoid this company entirely.

Clark Plumbing shows significant inconsistency in service delivery. While technical expertise and workmanship are consistently praised (82/100), the company struggles severely with professionalism and project completion. Multiple reviews document no-shows, failure to return calls, and broken commitments—critical failures in a service business. Pricing concerns emerged in one detailed account of overcharging and inadequate refund follow-through. The company's performance appears to have deteriorated over time, with older reviews (2010, 2017) more positive than recent ones (2018-2021), suggesting operational decline or scaling issues.

• CRITICAL: Pattern of no-shows and non-responsiveness documented in 4 separate reviews (2018, 2018, 2018, 2021), indicating systemic operational failure rather than isolated incidents.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most negative reviews cluster in 2018-2021 period. Oldest positive reviews (2010, 2017) suggest service quality has deteriorated significantly over time.
• BILLING INTEGRITY: One detailed review documents overcharging for drive time and failure to honor promised refund amount ($100-125 promised, only $69 delivered with defensive note).
• MANAGEMENT ISSUE: One review explicitly criticizes owner's work ethic and lack of communication with staff, suggesting leadership/organizational problems.
• POSITIVE REVIEWS LACK RECENT DATA: Most recent positive review is from 2023 (furnace tune-up), but this is a single data point. The 2019-2021 period shows predominantly negative experiences.

This score should be treated with caution due to high volatility in service quality and a clear negative trend in recent years; the company demonstrates strong technical capability but severe operational and communication failures that directly impact customer satisfaction and trust.

Just Rite Plumbing shows severe and consistent deficiencies in professionalism and project completion, which are the two most heavily weighted dimensions. Multiple reviews document missed appointments, no-shows, poor communication, and failure to follow up on callbacks—patterns that appear across different customers and time periods. While pricing receives strong marks when mentioned (fair and competitive rates), this cannot offset critical failures in core service delivery. The company's workmanship is also questioned, with reports of installations not meeting code and requiring expensive rework. The few positive reviews are older (2015, 2019) and lack detail, while negative reviews are specific and damaging.

• CRITICAL: Multiple independent reviews document identical failure patterns (no-shows, missed callbacks, poor communication) across different customers and years, suggesting systemic operational problems rather than isolated incidents.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most reviews are 5-9 years old (2013-2015). Only one review from 2019 is recent, and it lacks specificity. Cannot reliably assess current service quality.
• QUALITY CONCERNS: Two reviews explicitly state work was not up to code or required rework. One customer reported improper installation causing water damage and had to hire another company for repairs.
• RESPONSIVENESS FAILURE: Multiple reviews document failure to respond to calls, texts, and emails. One customer had to file complaints with Angie's List, BBB, and the plumbing board to get a response.
• ACCOUNTABILITY ISSUE: When confronted about failures, the company denied responsibility (claiming customer damaged the line despite evidence to the contrary).

This WW Score of 52.3 should be treated as reliable but with the caveat that most data is 5-9 years old; current performance may differ. However, the consistency and specificity of negative reviews across multiple independent customers and time periods suggests systemic issues that warrant serious caution.

Arco Comfort Air receives deeply polarized reviews, with a clear and consistent pattern of serious failures in professionalism, reliability, and project completion dragging scores down significantly. The office and management side of the business is repeatedly cited for poor communication, no-shows, failure to return calls, rude behavior, and deceptive or misleading pricing practices — including hidden fees, fraudulent billing, and high-pressure upselling. On the positive side, a meaningful subset of individual field technicians (Kenny, Jackson, Derek, Allen, Jeff, and others) are praised for being skilled, polite, punctual, and thorough, which is the primary reason experience scores above the other dimensions. However, even technical competence is undermined by multiple reviews citing misdiagnosis, inability to fix problems, and add-ons that do not function. Project completion is severely impacted by abandoned work, no-shows, unresolved callbacks, and at least one case of billing for work never performed. The overall picture is of a company with some capable field staff but systemic organizational dysfunction that makes reliable service delivery unpredictable.

• Two reviews dated 2024-02-03 are near-identical in content and wording (same complaint about elderly mother, humidifier, UV light, service contract) with timestamps only 2 minutes apart — these appear to be duplicate submissions of the same review and were counted as one unique data point for scoring purposes.
• Several 5-star reviews are brief and generic with minimal detail (e.g., 'Great business! Things are done in a timely manner and very professional.'), which may indicate low-effort or potentially inflated reviews, though most positive reviews do include specific technician names and details.
• A significant number of reviews are older than 12 months (many from 2014–2022), and the most recent reviews (2023–2024) skew heavily negative, suggesting possible deterioration in service quality over time. Recent reviews were weighted more heavily in scoring.
• Multiple reviews describe a pattern of the company recommending full system replacements rather than repairs, which one independent contractor explicitly confirmed as a known business practice — this raises concerns about systematic upselling.
• At least one review describes what may constitute fraud: billing a customer's credit card for work that was never completed and threatening collections, then failing to reverse the charge.

This WW Score is based on 31 reviews spanning approximately 10 years, with strong mention counts across all four dimensions and HIGH confidence ratings throughout, making the score statistically reliable; however, the pronounced split between positive field-technician experiences and deeply negative office/management experiences means the score reflects a genuinely dysfunctional business rather than a data artifact.

This contractor shows severe inconsistency across reviews. One review praises professionalism, punctuality, and courteous behavior with excellent problem-solving. However, two other reviews document critical failures: no-show with poor communication and a catastrophic work error (cables left in sewer system) followed by refusal to take responsibility or reimburse damages. The positive review is substantially outweighed by documented project completion failures and pricing/liability issues. The most recent negative review is from 2018, but the severity of the documented failures (especially the $1,150 damage claim) indicates systemic reliability problems.

• CRITICAL: Two reviews document severe project failures and lack of accountability. One review reports contractor no-showed and ignored voicemails; another reports equipment left in sewer system with contractor refusing reimbursement for $1,150 in damages caused by his error.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Reviews span 2015–2018 (5–8 years old). No recent reviews available to assess if issues have been resolved.
• EXTREME VARIANCE: One 5-star review vs. two 1-star reviews suggests either inconsistent service delivery or potential data quality issues. The positive review lacks specificity on pricing/completion timeline.
• LIABILITY RISK: The 2015 review documents a serious liability incident with documented financial harm and refusal to compensate. This is a major red flag for trustworthiness.

This score should be treated with caution due to small sample size (3 reviews) and extreme variance between reviews. The documented project failures and liability issues in two reviews are serious concerns that outweigh one positive review. The age of all reviews (5–8 years) limits ability to assess current performance. Recommend seeking recent references before engaging this contractor.

Air Comfort receives genuinely positive feedback for responsiveness, honest diagnosis, and no-pressure consulting, as seen in the first two reviews where technicians saved a customer $500+ and went above and beyond for a financially constrained family. However, a detailed 1-star review raises serious concerns about installation integrity, including bypassing furnace functionality, selling a warehouse-aged unit as new, and multiple return visits needed to fix a recurring ducting problem. Pricing feedback is mixed: two reviews praise fair or discounted pricing, while the negative review implies deceptive value through a misrepresented product. The combination of strong positives and a credible, highly specific negative review pulls scores into the moderate range across all dimensions.

• One review (1-star, 2015) contains highly specific and credible allegations of fraud: selling a warehouse-aged unit as new, bypassing furnace functionality, and voiding warranty coverage. This is a serious red flag that significantly impacts project completion and experience scores.
• The most recent review is from 2021, meaning all reviews are over 3 years old. No data exists for the past 12 months. Business practices and quality may have changed significantly since these reviews were written.
• Only 4 reviews total — this is a very small sample size. The WW Score should be treated as preliminary and unreliable for confident decision-making.
• The 2014 review ('Professional estimates, conscientious installers, and great prices') is generic and lacks specific detail, which slightly reduces its evidentiary weight, though it is not conclusively fake.
• The 2019 5-star review mentions free repairs and no-charge service, which while positive, is an unusual business practice that may not be replicable and should not be assumed as standard.

This WW Score is based on only 4 reviews spanning 2014–2021, all of which are more than 3 years old, and includes one credible fraud allegation — the score should be treated as LOW RELIABILITY and consumers are strongly advised to seek more recent references before hiring.