Find Nearby Plumbers In Cleveland, Ohio

Professionalism is the strongest dimension, with the overwhelming majority of reviews praising technicians as courteous, prompt, and communicative — including frequent emergency and after-hours responsiveness. Experience scores well overall, with many reviewers noting technicians diagnosed and resolved issues quickly and knowledgeably, though a handful of negative reviews describe operator error, misdiagnosis, and work that had to be redone. Project completion is solid but meaningfully dragged down by several serious complaints: a drain snake left stuck in a pipe at the customer's expense, a $2,200 excavation job that failed to fix the problem, a frozen pipe repair left incomplete, and a toilet that began leaking again within seven months with only a 30-day warranty honored. Pricing is the weakest dimension by a significant margin, with multiple independent reviewers across different time periods explicitly describing quotes as grossly inflated, markups described as 4x fair market value, and one reviewer documenting a $3,200 water heater quote; these are partially offset by reviewers who found pricing fair or reasonable, but the volume and specificity of overcharging complaints is notable.

• FAKE REVIEW RISK — HIGH: A large cluster of reviews dated 2025-05-10 and 2025-06-05 through 2025-06-09 show highly repetitive patterns: extremely short text (e.g., 'Joe was great!', 'Sam was here he did great!', 'Ben L', 'Cullen great work', 'He's a legend.'), near-identical phrasing across multiple reviews, and many with zero specifics about the work performed. Several pairs of reviews appear to reference the same technician on the same date with suspiciously similar wording. These reviews inflate the review count significantly and should be treated with low confidence.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The review praising Ryan for honesty and integrity ('PLUMBERS with HONESTY & INTEGRITY...') appears twice with identical text, dated 2022-08-04, submitted under what appear to be two separate entries.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS ARE SERIOUS AND RECURRING: At least 8 distinct reviews across multiple years (2018–2024) independently describe being quoted prices 2x–4x above market rate, being charged for unnecessary work, or feeling pressured into expensive services. This is not isolated and represents a systemic pattern.
• WORKMANSHIP FAILURES DOCUMENTED: At least 4 reviews describe work that was not completed correctly — a drain snake left stuck in a customer's pipe requiring jackhammering at customer expense, a $2,200 excavation that did not fix the problem, a frozen pipe repair left incomplete with dispatch hanging up on the customer, and a toilet repair that failed within 7 months covered by only a 30-day warranty.
• COMMISSION DECEPTION COMPLAINT: One reviewer explicitly states they were told technicians do not work on commission, then discovered job postings showing commission-based pay, and requested a refund for the $99 visit fee. This raises a trust and transparency concern.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews are from 2025 (within the past 12 months), which is positive for recency weighting. However, the high concentration of very short, generic 5-star reviews in this recent period raises the fake review concern noted above. Older reviews (2018–2022) tend to be more detailed and carry higher individual credibility.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Two reviews contained no text (one rated 4.0, one rated 5.0) and were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large review volume, but should be interpreted cautiously given strong evidence of fake or incentivized short-form reviews inflating the count, a recurring and independently corroborated pattern of pricing complaints, and multiple documented workmanship failures — the true score for an unbiased customer pool may be meaningfully lower than 76.4.

This aggregated review set spans many years and appears to cover multiple distinct businesses operating under similar 'My Plumber' branding across different cities and states, which significantly complicates scoring. The majority of reviews are strongly positive, praising responsiveness, friendliness, technical knowledge, and fair pricing — with many customers becoming repeat clients. However, a meaningful minority of negative reviews (approximately 35–40 reviews) describe serious failures including no-shows, unreturned calls, warranty non-compliance, work left incomplete after payment, billing disputes, property damage, and in at least one case alleged threats of violence. Pricing feedback is mixed: many reviewers praise affordability and transparency, while others report unexpected price increases, bait-and-switch billing, and feeling overcharged. Project completion is the most concerning dimension, with multiple reviews describing abandoned jobs, callbacks ignored, and work that failed shortly after completion.

• MULTI-ENTITY CONCERN: Reviews appear to cover multiple unrelated businesses operating under 'My Plumber,' 'My Plumber Inc.,' 'Clog Pro,' 'Precision Plumber Buckeye,' '1 Buckeye Plumbing,' and other names. Scores should not be attributed to any single contractor without filtering by specific business identity.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION: Several reviews from dates 2024-12-11 and 2025-03-11 use nearly identical generic phrasing ('arrived fast,' 'skilled,' 'professional,' 'handled the repair seamlessly') with no specific technician names, job details, or unique identifiers. These are flagged as potentially inauthentic.
• RECENCY NOTE: Reviews span from 2006 to 2025. Reviews older than 3 years (pre-2022) were given reduced weight. The most recent 12 months (mid-2024 to mid-2025) show a continued mix of strong positives and some negatives.
• SERIOUS NEGATIVE INCIDENTS: At least one review describes alleged threats of violence by an owner (Steve Martin, Arizona). At least two reviews describe property damage (cracked tile, broken bathtub stopper) with no remediation. At least three reviews describe warranty non-compliance and abandoned work after payment.
• NO-SHOW AND RESPONSIVENESS FAILURES: Approximately 12–15 reviews explicitly describe missed appointments, unreturned calls, or complete failure to follow through on scheduled work — a recurring pattern across multiple named technicians and locations.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Approximately 55–60 reviews contain no text, only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring but counted in total review volume.
• SCORE CONSERVATISM APPLIED: Due to the multi-entity nature of this dataset, the high volume of serious negative reviews, and fake review suspicion, all dimension scores were held conservative per Rule 7.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large review volume, but LOW entity reliability — the dataset almost certainly aggregates reviews for multiple distinct businesses, making this score unsuitable for evaluating any single contractor without first filtering reviews by specific business name, location, and technician.

Beck Electric and Plumbing receives strong marks for professionalism and experience across a large volume of reviews, with many customers praising punctuality, courteous technicians, and skilled workmanship on generators, electrical, and plumbing jobs. However, pricing is a significant and recurring concern, with multiple reviewers explicitly calling out costs as excessive, hidden charges appearing after agreed estimates, and a $99 diagnostic fee that some felt was used as a sales vehicle rather than a genuine service call. Project completion is mixed: the majority of jobs appear to be finished satisfactorily, but there are credible accounts of no-shows, abandoned follow-up appointments, unresolved issues requiring multiple callbacks, and at least one case where a customer was told work was complete when it was not. The large number of blank or content-free 5-star reviews moderately inflates the apparent rating and warrants caution.

• 20 out of 88 reviews contain no text whatsoever — only a star rating. These reviews provide no usable data and cannot be scored. This pattern is consistent with review padding and inflates the visible star average without substantive evidence.
• Several reviews use nearly identical generic phrasing ('Great job!', 'Very good service', 'They were very good.') with no specifics, raising mild concern about authenticity or coached reviews.
• Two reviews dated 2024-04-03 appear to be near-identical duplicates from the same customer describing the same negative experience (refused generator service, no-show appointments). This is likely the same person posting on two platforms or twice; counted once for scoring but noted as a duplicate.
• Pricing dimension has multiple strongly negative reviews: a $1,035 labor-only quote for a single fixture, a $914.85 install charge for 1.5 hours of work, a credit card overcharge that required a refund, and an estimate that came in $80 over the agreed quote. These are explicit and specific complaints that significantly drag the pricing score.
• One review (2024-04-03) describes a serious professionalism failure: the owner refusing to communicate, two no-show service appointments, and an apparent attempt to pressure the customer into removing negative reviews. This is a significant red flag for business conduct.
• One review (2021-08-10) describes a cross-wired switch box described as a fire hazard, a no-show/no-call appointment, and unresolved quality issues. This materially impacts both project completion and experience scores.
• One review (2021-01-18) explicitly states the company lied about completing a repair that was not actually fixed.
• One review (2020-09-01) describes being called out three times for the same unresolved issue at a cost of $450 in service charges.
• Recency note: The majority of substantive reviews are from 2025 and 2024, which is positive. However, the most serious negative reviews (lying about completed work, fire hazard wiring, owner refusing contact) span 2020–2024 and cannot be dismissed as isolated or outdated.

This WW Score is based on a large review set (88 reviews) with high mention counts across all four dimensions, making the score statistically meaningful; however, reliability is moderately reduced by approximately 23% of reviews containing no text, a pattern of specific and credible pricing complaints, and at least three serious project completion or integrity failures that suggest inconsistent service quality depending on the technician and job type.

Butts Plumbing earns strong marks for professionalism and experience across the majority of reviews, with technicians like Collin and Tom repeatedly praised for being knowledgeable, courteous, and efficient. However, two significant negative reviews meaningfully drag down the pricing and project completion dimensions: one customer reported being charged for work that was never performed (concrete work left incomplete), and another described a pricing dispute where the final charge did not reflect the reduced scope of work actually completed. Pricing confidence is tempered by a mix of reviews praising affordability and at least two reviews citing overcharging or lack of transparency. Project completion is the most concerning dimension, as the incomplete concrete work and the unresolved pricing-for-unperformed-work complaint represent genuine follow-through failures that cannot be dismissed. Overall, the company performs well on day-to-day service calls but shows a pattern of risk on larger or multi-phase jobs.

• Two reviews explicitly describe incomplete work or pricing dishonesty: one customer was charged for wall-cutting that never occurred (2022-11-07), and another had concrete work quoted but never completed (2022-10-18). These are serious project completion and pricing integrity concerns.
• One review (2021-05-28) describes a failure to follow up on a scheduled callback, indicating a responsiveness issue that may not be isolated.
• Several reviews are older than 12 months (2019–2022), and the two most negative reviews fall in the 2022 range. More recent 2023–2024 reviews are more positive, suggesting possible improvement, but the older negative data still informs the score.
• No strong fake review patterns detected. Reviews vary in length, detail, and rating, and negative reviews include specific, credible details. Review authenticity appears generally reliable.
• Multiple reviews mention the same technician (Collin) by name across different years, which is consistent with a real recurring employee rather than a fabrication signal.

This WW Score is based on 15 reviews with usable data across all four dimensions and carries HIGH overall confidence, though consumers should weigh the two substantive negative reviews regarding incomplete work and pricing disputes carefully before engaging Butts Plumbing for larger or multi-phase projects.

Sal's demonstrates strong technical expertise and professionalism in service delivery, with technicians frequently praised for knowledge, courtesy, and efficiency. However, the company is significantly hampered by persistent pricing concerns—numerous customers report overcharges, hidden fees, aggressive upselling, and unfavorable Groupon practices. Project completion shows mixed results, with some customers experiencing delayed callbacks, incomplete diagnostics, and follow-up service failures. The company exhibits a troubling pattern of attempting to suppress negative reviews through conditional offers and dismissive responses to legitimate complaints, which raises red flags about accountability.

• CRITICAL: Multiple reviews (at least 8) report company attempting to suppress negative reviews by offering discounts/free service in exchange for review removal or modification. This is unethical and suggests awareness of systemic issues.
• PRICING PATTERN: Consistent complaints across 40+ reviews of overcharging, hidden fees, inflated quotes, and bait-and-switch tactics (especially with Groupon). Examples: $1,150 for sink/pipe work, $454 for mismatched faucet, $638 for warranty part installation, $13,000 quote vs. $300 actual repair elsewhere.
• DIAGNOSTIC DISHONESTY: Multiple credible reports of technicians providing false diagnoses to justify expensive replacements (R-22 refrigerant, furnace inducer motor specs, frozen coils misidentified). Second opinions from other techs contradicted Sal's assessments in at least 5 cases.
• FOLLOW-UP FAILURES: Recurring complaints about technicians not completing work, not returning for callbacks, charging again for same issue within 24 hours, and parts not being ordered despite promises.
• GROUPON ABUSE: At least 6 detailed reviews documenting Groupon misrepresentation—company refuses to honor stated terms, reinterprets 'labor' as 'troubleshooting only,' and charges additional hundreds despite Groupon purchase.
• QUALITY CONTROL ISSUES: Reports of unprofessional behavior (profanity, marijuana smell on technicians, sexually inappropriate comments, refusal to wear masks), poor cleanup, and installation errors (furnace upside down, HVAC duct not reinstalled, valves backwards, gas leak).
• RECENCY: Most recent reviews (June 2025) show same patterns as older reviews, indicating systemic issues persist. No evidence of improvement over time.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK: Approximately 15-20 reviews contain only 5-star ratings with minimal detail ('good job', 'great service', empty text fields). However, these are outnumbered by detailed negative reviews with specific evidence, so overall dataset credibility remains moderate-to-high.

This WW Score of 72.8 should be treated with caution: while the company demonstrates genuine technical competence and professionalism in service delivery, the pervasive and well-documented pricing deception, diagnostic dishonesty, and attempts to suppress criticism suggest the score understates customer risk. The company excels at the work itself but fails significantly in pricing transparency, follow-through, and ethical business practices. Customers should expect quality workmanship but should obtain multiple quotes, scrutinize all charges, and avoid Groupon offers.

H Jacks demonstrates strong professionalism and technical expertise, with many customers praising technician responsiveness, friendliness, and knowledge. However, the company is significantly hampered by serious pricing concerns, with numerous complaints about overcharging, unnecessary upsells, and misdiagnosis designed to justify expensive replacements. Project completion is generally solid, though some callbacks and follow-up issues are documented. The stark contrast between positive recent reviews (mostly 5-star) and older negative reviews (many 1-star with detailed complaints about predatory pricing) suggests either significant company changes or potential review manipulation.

• SUSPICIOUS REVIEW PATTERN: Approximately 40+ reviews from June-November 2024 and May 2025 are nearly identical in structure (5-star, brief praise, specific technician names, minimal detail). Examples: 'Had my AC stop working...Micheal Jordan did a great job' appears twice verbatim; 'I had my main water shut off valve replaced...Always prompt, clean, courteous service' appears twice verbatim. This clustering of generic 5-star reviews with repetitive phrasing suggests potential fake review activity.
• SERIOUS PRICING FRAUD ALLEGATIONS: Multiple detailed 1-star reviews from 2017-2024 describe systematic overcharging and misdiagnosis: elderly customers quoted $5,185 for unnecessary toilet work (actual cost $500), $7,000+ for thermostat issue ($40 fix), $4,400 for non-existent foundation damage, $2,400 for unnecessary gas line work. Pattern suggests predatory targeting of elderly/vulnerable customers.
• QUALITY CONTROL FAILURES: Several reviews document incomplete repairs requiring callbacks (dishwasher not connected, water valve not shutting off, furnace broken during cleaning service, drain pipe broken during snaking). One customer charged $699 for work that should have been $89.
• RECENCY BIAS: Overwhelming majority of positive reviews are from May-June 2025 and November 2024 (likely recent marketing push). Negative reviews span 2016-2024 with consistent themes. Recent positive reviews lack specificity compared to detailed negative reviews.
• MISDIAGNOSIS PATTERN: Multiple customers report technicians recommending expensive replacements that were unnecessary: furnace replacement when only thermostat needed ($40 vs $7,000), new AC unit when only fan needed, new furnace when only igniter needed ($35 part charged as $482).

This WW Score should be treated with CAUTION. While the numerical score of 72.8 reflects genuine strengths in professionalism and experience, the dataset appears contaminated by suspicious review clustering and the company has a documented history of serious pricing fraud and predatory practices targeting elderly customers. The recent surge of nearly-identical 5-star reviews contradicts the pattern of detailed, credible 1-star complaints spanning multiple years. Customers should independently verify pricing with competing contractors before engaging this company, particularly for major repairs or replacements.