Find Nearby Plumbers In Cleveland, Ohio

Approved Plumbing receives overwhelmingly positive marks for professionalism, with dozens of reviews praising punctuality, communication, courtesy, and technician demeanor. Project completion scores well overall, with many reviews describing jobs finished thoroughly and on time, though one serious negative review describes over $5,000 in unnecessary work that failed to fix the problem — a significant red flag that meaningfully drags down the completion score. Experience is similarly strong across the majority of reviews, with technicians praised for technical knowledge and problem-solving, but offset by multiple reviews describing misdiagnosis, guesswork, and unnecessary upselling. Pricing is the weakest dimension, with multiple reviewers across different time periods explicitly calling out prices as high, outrageous, or constituting a rip-off, including a $392 charge for a $35 part and a $465 charge for a simple exposed pipe repair — these are not isolated complaints and substantially lower the pricing score.

• MIXED COMPANY DATA: Several reviews reference 'All Fixture Plumbing' and 'Brandon' or 'Mr. Griffin' — these appear to be reviews for a different company entirely (All Fixture Plumbing, based in Oracle/Tucson, Arizona) and may have been incorrectly aggregated with Approved Plumbing reviews. Scores may be inflated or distorted by cross-contamination of review data.
• RECENCY NOTE: Several negative pricing reviews date back to 2016–2019, but pricing complaints also appear in 2025 reviews, suggesting the pricing concern is persistent and not resolved.
• SERIOUS NEGATIVE INCIDENT: One detailed 1-star review (May 2025) describes over $5,000 charged for unnecessary replacements, a failure to diagnose a simple issue that another company resolved in 5 minutes, and an iPad allegedly found hidden in a bedroom. This is a severe credibility and competence flag.
• MISDIAGNOSIS PATTERN: At least two separate reviews (2019 and 2025) describe technicians failing to properly diagnose issues and recommending unnecessary or incorrect work. This is a recurring pattern that warrants caution.
• AI COMMUNICATION FAILURE: One review (March 2025) describes a job that could not be completed because an AI chatbot ('Rusty') gave incorrect assurances, resulting in a wasted appointment. This is a systemic process risk.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Six reviews contained no text, only star ratings. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data.
• OLDER REVIEWS: Several reviews date to 2015–2020 and were given reduced weight. The review pool spans approximately 10 years, which limits direct comparability.

This WW Score carries moderate-to-high reliability for professionalism and experience dimensions given the large number of mentions, but the pricing score and project completion score should be treated with caution due to credible, specific, and recurring negative reviews describing price gouging and misdiagnosis — and the overall score may be slightly inflated due to suspected cross-contamination from a separate company's reviews.

This contractor demonstrates strong professionalism across all five reviews, with consistent mentions of friendly service, honesty, and upfront communication. Pricing is a notable strength, with multiple reviews highlighting fair pricing, honest estimates, and lower costs than competitors. Project completion is supported by references to prompt service and follow-through, though specific project details are limited. Technical expertise is evident in the detailed sewer inspection review demonstrating professional knowledge and problem-solving. However, the small sample size (5 reviews) and age of some reviews (2 from 2020-2021) warrant moderate overall confidence.

• Small sample size (5 reviews total) limits statistical reliability
• Two reviews are from 2020-2021, reducing recency weight; only three reviews from 2024
• All reviews are 5-star ratings with no negative feedback, which is atypical and may suggest selection bias or incomplete review dataset
• Language patterns show some repetition of key phrases ('honest,' 'friendly,' 'upfront') across reviews, though not identical enough to suggest fabrication
• Limited specificity in most reviews regarding actual work scope or complexity

This WW Score of 88.2 should be treated with caution due to the small sample size and absence of any critical feedback; while the reviews are detailed and credible, a larger and more recent dataset would be needed to establish high confidence in this rating.

Alex demonstrates strong professionalism across all three reviews, with consistent praise for punctuality, responsiveness, communication, and courteous demeanor. Project completion is solid, with evidence of follow-through on callbacks and same-day service availability. Technical expertise is evident in diagnostic ability and problem-solving. Pricing feedback is limited but positive where mentioned. However, the sample size is small (3 reviews) and two reviews are significantly dated (2015–2016), limiting confidence in the overall assessment.

• Only 3 reviews analyzed — sample size is very small and limits statistical reliability
• Two of three reviews are from 2015–2016 (8–9 years old); only one review from 2022 provides recent data
• Pricing dimension based on only 2 mentions; insufficient data for strong confidence
• All reviews are 5-star ratings with no negative feedback — while not necessarily fake, the absence of any critical detail or balanced perspective is atypical and should be noted

This WW Score should be treated as preliminary and directional only. The small sample size (3 reviews), age of most data, and lack of any critical feedback limit confidence. Additional recent reviews are needed to validate this score reliably.

All six reviews speak positively to professionalism, with explicit mentions of punctuality, cleanliness, pleasant demeanor, responsiveness, and follow-up — driving a high-confidence professionalism score. Project completion is strongly supported across five reviews, with jobs described as finished correctly, on time, and with proper follow-through including a next-day callback. Experience is evidenced by technically sound work across multiple job types (drain jetting, water heater install, toilet replacement, leak diagnosis) and one standout instance where Shawn successfully identified a city-side leak and saved a customer $8,000. Pricing is mentioned positively in three reviews — described as reasonable, below expected cost, and fair relative to value delivered — yielding a moderate-confidence but solid pricing score. The overall WW Score reflects a consistently well-regarded contractor across all four dimensions, tempered only by the small total review count.

• Small sample size of only 6 reviews — scores should be interpreted cautiously despite high per-dimension confidence labels.
• Two reviews are from 2018, which is over 6 years old. These carry reduced weight given recency rules; the more recent 2022–2024 reviews are more reliable indicators of current performance.
• All reviews are 5-star ratings with no negative or mixed feedback. While the reviews contain specific details and varied scenarios (reducing fake review suspicion), the absence of any critical feedback warrants mild caution.
• No fake review patterns detected — reviews reference specific technician names (Shawn, Jimmy), distinct job types, and unique situations, suggesting authenticity.

This WW Score carries moderate overall reliability — the reviews are specific and credible, but the total count of 6 (with 2 being over 6 years old) limits statistical confidence; more recent reviews would significantly strengthen this assessment.

Great White Plumbing demonstrates strong performance across all measured dimensions. Professionalism is consistently praised with mentions of efficient work, clean work areas, and attentive ownership across three reviews. Project completion is solid with explicit references to work done correctly on the first time and no callbacks needed. Pricing receives positive feedback for reasonable rates and transparent, detailed estimates. Technical expertise is evident through proper installations, quality part selection, and problem-solving ability. However, the sample size is small (3 reviews) and two are older than 2 years, which limits confidence in the overall assessment.

• Only 3 reviews analyzed — sample size is very small and limits statistical reliability
• Two of three reviews are older than 2 years (2018 and 2019), with only one from 2022 — recency is a concern
• All three reviews are 5-star ratings with no negative feedback mentioned — while not necessarily fake, the uniformity and lack of any critical detail warrants caution
• Minor concern: One review mentions a minor professionalism lapse (using customer's hand towel without permission) but customer still rated 5 stars, suggesting tolerance for minor issues

This WW Score should be treated with caution due to the very small sample size (3 reviews) and age of most data; scores are based on limited mentions and would benefit from additional recent reviews to validate reliability.

Jensen-Reiche demonstrates strong performance across all four dimensions based on explicit customer feedback. Professionalism is consistently praised with 8 mentions highlighting punctuality, responsiveness, friendly demeanor, and professional conduct. Project completion is well-documented across 7 mentions showing jobs finished completely, cleanup performed, and callbacks honored. Pricing receives 5 mentions emphasizing fair and transparent pricing. Experience is supported by 5 mentions of quality workmanship, problem-solving ability, and technical skill. However, the analysis is significantly limited by review age and data quality issues that reduce overall confidence.

• CRITICAL: 3 reviews contain only 'unknown' text with 5-star ratings (2015, 2014 dates) — these are unusable and suggest potential data quality issues or fake reviews
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most reviews are 8+ years old (2002-2014). Only 2 reviews are from 2016-2017. This severely limits the reliability of current service quality assessment
• One review (2005-09-20, 4-star) documents an inappropriate personal question by serviceman, indicating a professionalism lapse not reflected in other reviews
• Multiple reviews use ALL CAPS formatting (2002-2005 era), suggesting different review platform or data migration issues
• One review is extremely vague ('SATISFACTORY' from 1996) with no substantive content
• Lack of negative reviews across 14 reviews is unusual and may indicate selection bias or incomplete review dataset

This WW Score should be treated with caution. While the available data shows consistently positive performance, the analysis is undermined by significant recency issues (most reviews 8+ years old), 3 unusable 'unknown' reviews, and potential selection bias. The score reflects historical performance but may not accurately represent current service quality. Recommend seeking recent customer references before making a decision.