Find Nearby Plumbers In Cleveland, Ohio

All Trades Construction and owner Fredy Miranda receive consistently strong praise across professionalism, project completion, and workmanship quality across a broad range of project types including kitchen remodels, bathroom renovations, flooring, fencing, and water damage repair. Professionalism scores are supported by frequent mentions of punctuality, communication, respectful crew behavior, and owner involvement on job sites. Project completion is well-documented with multiple reviewers explicitly noting timely delivery, on-budget performance, and follow-through on additional requests. Pricing is noted favorably in several reviews, with clients highlighting fair invoices, cost-effective solutions, and no pressure to upsell. One 1-star review citing a no-show appointment tempers scores slightly, and duplicate review pairs reduce the effective unique data pool.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: Two pairs of nearly identical reviews were found. The 'Fast and furious' review (dated 2022-12-23) appears twice with identical text and the same date. The 'community building water and mold damage' review appears twice with nearly identical text (dated 2023-06-10 and 2022-09-06). The 'perimeter fence' review also appears twice (2022-06-10 and 2021-06-12). The 'Excellent remodel' review appears twice (2021-06-10 and 2021-05-28). These duplicates suggest possible review padding or platform re-posting and have been counted only once each for scoring purposes.
• FAKE REVIEW PATTERN — MODERATE CONCERN: Two reviews dated 2024-01-08 and 2024-01-09 are word-for-word identical in text, posted one day apart. This is a strong indicator of a duplicated or artificially submitted review and has been counted only once.
• ONE NEGATIVE REVIEW: A 1-star review from 2020-11-11 describes a no-show appointment with an excuse given after the fact. This is the only negative data point across all reviews and has been factored into professionalism and project completion scores.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews with substantive detail are from 2021 through 2024, with the most recent being November 2024. Several older reviews (2020 and earlier) are brief and generic. Overall recency profile is acceptable.
• GENERIC REVIEWS: A small number of reviews (e.g., 'They did a great job. I will hire them again,' 'Responds fast and gives excellent service,' 'The best Contractors in the Valley') lack specific detail and contribute limited scoring evidence. These were noted but given minimal weight.

This WW Score is moderately reliable given the high volume of reviews and strong recency, but is tempered by the detection of multiple duplicate review pairs and at least one word-for-word identical review submitted on consecutive days, which raises concerns about review authenticity and inflates the apparent review count.

Menyhart Plumbing Supply is a retail supply shop, not a contracting service, so Project Completion (job delivery, callbacks, on-site work) is not applicable and returns no data. Professionalism scores well overall — the vast majority of reviewers praise helpful, patient, and friendly staff — but is meaningfully pulled down by one review citing a complete failure to return calls and a second serious review describing a customer being called an idiot and refused a warranty exchange on a defective and dangerous part. Pricing scores positively, with multiple reviewers highlighting that parts cost a fraction of big-box or plumber-quoted prices, though one reviewer paid 75% more than online pricing for a defective re-boxed part, tempering the score. Experience is the strongest dimension, with nearly every reviewer explicitly praising the staff's deep technical knowledge, vast inventory of obscure and antique parts, and accurate problem-solving advice on the first visit. The WW Score reflects a genuinely strong local specialty supplier with a long track record, modestly penalized for documented service failures.

• This business is a plumbing supply shop, not a contractor. The Project Completion dimension is inapplicable and has been scored null. The WW Score is calculated on three applicable dimensions only.
• Several reviews are significantly older than 12 months — 11 of 17 reviews predate 2022, with some dating back to 2011–2014. Recency weighting has been applied; older reviews carry reduced influence on scores.
• One review (1-star, 2018) describes a serious incident: a defective and potentially dangerous re-boxed part was sold, and when the customer returned for an exchange, staff allegedly called them an idiot and refused warranty service. This is a significant professionalism and pricing flag and has been factored into both dimensions.
• One review (2-star, 2023) explicitly reports no response to a call or email after two days, indicating a responsiveness failure. This is the most recent negative review and has been weighted accordingly in the professionalism score.
• No strong fake review patterns detected. Reviews vary in length, specificity, tone, and rating. The presence of negative reviews with specific detail further supports authenticity.

This WW Score carries HIGH overall confidence given the volume of reviews and the specificity of feedback, but users should note that the score reflects a supply shop context rather than a contractor, that two documented negative service incidents exist, and that a significant portion of the review base is more than five years old.

Five Star Plumbing demonstrates strong overall performance across all dimensions. Professionalism is a clear strength, with 98 mentions highlighting punctuality, politeness, responsiveness, and courteous behavior from technicians like Kamran, Igor, and Bart. Project completion is solid with 89 mentions confirming timely job delivery, same-day service, and follow-through on callbacks. Experience scores well with 67 mentions of skilled workmanship, diagnostic ability, and quality repairs. Pricing shows moderate confidence with 42 mentions; while many customers praise fair and reasonable rates, a notable minority report high costs for simple jobs, and two serious complaints allege overcharging and scams. The company's responsiveness and professionalism partially offset pricing concerns.

• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: Multiple reviews dated 2024-06-09 with identical or near-identical phrasing (e.g., 'Quick response', 'Very professional', 'Highly recommend') suggest possible review clustering or manipulation. This date accounts for approximately 20 reviews with suspiciously generic praise and minimal specifics.
• SERIOUS PRICING ALLEGATIONS: One 1-star review (2024-06-09) alleges a $3,500 quote for water heater replacement when a second opinion found only an $8 burner issue. Another 2-star review (2019-11-11) reports $225 for a 30-minute supply line replacement. These suggest potential overcharging on diagnostics or major replacements.
• SCAM ACCUSATION: One detailed 1-star review (2024-06-09) explicitly calls the company a 'scam' regarding water heater diagnosis and pricing. While unverified, this is a serious allegation that warrants caution.
• COMMUNICATION FAILURES: Multiple 1-star reviews (2018-08-13, 2018-08-06, 2017-11-13) report inability to reach the company by phone, voicemail full, or no response to messages. This suggests inconsistent communication infrastructure despite high professionalism scores.
• UNPROFESSIONAL INCIDENT: One 1-star review (2021-10-26) describes a team that refused to complete a job, walked out, and allegedly accused the customer of rudeness. This contradicts the overwhelmingly positive professionalism narrative.
• ESTIMATE NO-SHOWS: One 1-star review (2020-02-25) reports the technician missed two scheduled estimate appointments before finally showing, then failed to deliver promised estimate for weeks.
• RECENCY BIAS: Approximately 25% of reviews are from 2024 (mostly clustered on 2024-06-09), while many older reviews (2013-2017) are highly positive. The recent cluster of generic 5-star reviews on a single date raises authenticity concerns.
• INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR DISCLOSURE: One 4-star review (2020-06-15) notes lack of transparency about an independent contractor (Magic Hands HVAC) being used, discovered only after job completion.

This WW Score of 82.3 should be treated with MODERATE-TO-HIGH caution. While the company demonstrates genuine strengths in professionalism and project completion backed by substantial evidence (98 and 89 mentions respectively), the score is significantly undermined by: (1) a suspicious cluster of 20+ nearly identical 5-star reviews on 2024-06-09 that may inflate professionalism and completion scores artificially, (2) credible allegations of overcharging and diagnostic scams that directly contradict the pricing dimension, and (3) documented communication failures contradicting responsiveness claims. The true score likely ranges 75–85 depending on how heavily the suspicious review cluster is weighted. Customers should independently verify pricing quotes and seek second opinions on major replacements before trusting this company's estimates.

VIP Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism across nearly all reviews, with consistent praise for punctuality, courteous technicians, and responsive communication. Project completion is solid with most jobs finished on time and to customer satisfaction, though a small number of follow-up issues and callback failures were noted. Technical expertise and workmanship quality are well-documented and highly regarded. However, pricing emerges as a notable weakness, with multiple customers citing unexpectedly high charges, lack of upfront estimates, and perceived overpricing for relatively simple work. This pricing concern, while mentioned in fewer reviews, significantly impacts overall trustworthiness.

• PRICING INCONSISTENCY: Multiple reviews (at least 8) explicitly criticize pricing as 'too expensive,' 'ridiculous,' or 'ripped off.' Several customers report being charged $250-$400 for minor repairs or service calls without clear upfront estimates. This pattern suggests potential pricing transparency issues.
• CALLBACK FAILURES: At least 4 reviews document instances where technicians failed to return calls or follow up on promised callbacks, including one no-show appointment and multiple instances of unresponsiveness after initial service.
• QUALITY CONTROL VARIANCE: While most reviews praise work quality, a few reviews (2-3) describe careless work, collateral damage to homes, and inadequate troubleshooting, suggesting inconsistent quality across different technicians.
• RECENCY BIAS: Approximately 60% of reviews are from 2025 (past 6 months), with a significant cluster from June 2025. Older reviews (2013-2019) are predominantly 5-star with minimal detail, while recent reviews show more balanced feedback including legitimate complaints. This temporal distribution may skew perception.
• EMPTY REVIEWS: 11 reviews contain only a 5-star rating with no text, all dated 2025-04-10 or 2025-06-02. This is unusual and may indicate placeholder entries or review manipulation.
• DUPLICATE NARRATIVE PATTERNS: Two nearly identical reviews about AC/furnace/water heater replacement (both 5-star, both mentioning housekeeping jokes, both from 2025-05-10) suggest possible duplicate or template-based submissions.
• COMPANY NAME INCONSISTENCY: Reviews reference multiple company names (Lloyd's Plumbing, J&J Plumbing, VIP Plumbing, Floyd Plumbing) which may indicate either multiple locations/brands or data aggregation from different sources. This complicates score reliability.

This WW Score of 82.3 should be treated with MODERATE-TO-HIGH confidence for professionalism and project completion, but MODERATE confidence overall due to significant pricing concerns, callback failures, and data quality issues including empty reviews and potential duplicates. The recent clustering of reviews (60% from past 6 months) and the presence of 11 empty 5-star entries suggest the dataset may not be fully representative. Customers should prioritize obtaining detailed written estimates before engaging this contractor, as pricing transparency appears to be a genuine operational weakness despite strong technical and interpersonal performance.

Allen/Charlie's Drain Service demonstrates strong overall performance with a WW Score of 82.3. Professionalism is the standout dimension (88.5), with 89 mentions highlighting punctuality, courteous technicians, clear communication, and responsiveness—particularly praised for weekend/emergency availability. Experience scores well at 85.0 across 52 mentions, reflecting skilled technicians who diagnose problems accurately and provide preventative advice. Project completion (79.5) is solid but slightly lower, with 78 mentions noting successful job completion, though a few older reviews cite unresolved issues and follow-up problems. Pricing is favorable at 84.0 across 32 mentions, with customers consistently noting fair rates and transparency, though some competitive comparisons suggest occasional premium positioning. The company's strength lies in rapid response and professional demeanor; weaknesses appear in occasional incomplete resolutions and damage liability.

• Four reviews with minimal or no text content (empty or single character entries) reduce data quality slightly but do not materially affect scoring.
• Three negative reviews (1-star ratings from 2024, 2021, 2018, 2017) allege incomplete work, abandoned equipment, and damage without follow-through. These are credible complaints that lower project completion confidence and warrant caution.
• One 2-star review (2015) documents property damage (sump pump, downspout, siding) with inadequate resolution despite multiple follow-up calls, suggesting accountability gaps in damage remediation.
• Recency bias noted: 60+ reviews are from 2024-2025 (recent, high confidence); 40+ are from 2012-2023 (moderate recency); 20+ are from 2005-2011 (older, lower weight). Recent reviews are overwhelmingly positive (5-star), which may reflect improved operations or selection bias.
• No evidence of fake review patterns detected. Reviews show specific technician names, detailed scenarios, and varied language. Positive reviews are substantive and credible.

This WW Score of 82.3 is reliable and should be trusted for general decision-making. The score is based on 127 reviews with strong data density across all dimensions, particularly professionalism (89 mentions) and project completion (78 mentions). However, the presence of credible negative reviews alleging incomplete work and unresolved damage suggests that while the company excels in responsiveness and professionalism, customers should verify warranty terms and damage liability before engaging, particularly for complex jobs.

Elie's Plumbing demonstrates strong performance across all four dimensions with consistently high mention counts, indicating robust evidence base. Professionalism is the strongest area (87.5), with nearly universal praise for punctuality, responsiveness, and courteous demeanor across 98 reviews. Project completion scores 84.5 based on 108 mentions, reflecting reliable job finishing and follow-through, though a small number of reviews mention incomplete work or callbacks needed. Pricing scores 81.0 across 52 mentions—customers consistently report fair value and transparent quotes, though a few note costs as high relative to service duration. Experience scores 86.0 from 67 mentions, with customers praising technical knowledge and problem-solving ability. The overall WW Score of 82.3 reflects a trustworthy, competent contractor with minor pricing concerns and occasional project completion issues.

• Two reviews (2017-06-10 and 2017-06-08) describe extremely negative interactions with Elie himself regarding rudeness and poor phone communication, contrasting sharply with overwhelmingly positive reviews. These suggest possible interpersonal inconsistency or situational factors affecting service quality.
• One review (2015-06-22) is vague ('hard finding people to do work') with rating 2.0 but provides no specific criticism, limiting interpretability.
• One review (2014-04-07) notes high cost for 30 minutes of work and failure to replace items in cabinet after work, suggesting occasional lapses in attention to detail.
• One review (2014-03-28) reports two unreturned calls, indicating occasional responsiveness failures despite strong overall communication record.
• Review from 2017-05-02 appears twice with nearly identical text and same 5.0 rating, suggesting possible duplicate entry rather than fake review.
• Most reviews (approximately 70%) are from 2014-2017; only ~25 reviews from 2018 onward. Recency bias suggests more recent performance may differ from historical data.
• One review (2016-08-13) mentions multiple return trips to resolve Toto toilet leaks, though customer attributed fault to manufacturer gasket rather than Elie's work.

This WW Score of 82.3 is highly reliable, based on 125 reviews with strong mention counts across all dimensions (52–108 mentions each). However, the score should be interpreted with awareness that most reviews predate 2018, and two highly negative reviews from 2017 suggest occasional serious professionalism lapses that may not be fully captured in the aggregate score. Recent customers should verify current service quality, particularly regarding phone responsiveness and interpersonal interactions.