Find Nearby Plumbers In Columbus, Ohio

Mike's Plumbing earns strong marks across all four dimensions, driven by an overwhelming volume of positive reviews praising punctuality, communication, friendly technicians, and quality workmanship across a wide range of jobs. Professionalism is the most frequently cited strength, with dozens of reviewers specifically calling out on-time arrivals, courteous staff, clean work habits, and responsive office personnel. Pricing scores moderately well — the majority of reviewers describe fair, competitive, or below-estimate final costs, but a meaningful minority of negative reviews cite unexpectedly high charges, undisclosed labor rates, and a significant bait-and-switch pricing complaint that cannot be ignored. Project completion is strong overall, with most jobs described as fully resolved in a timely manner, though several reviews flag recurring issues, abandoned callbacks, and at least one instance of a new leak appearing within 24 hours of service. Experience scores well, with many reviewers praising skilled diagnosis, creative problem-solving, and technical knowledge, though a handful of negative reviews describe technicians who could not resolve the issue or required senior intervention.

• Two reviews (dated 2024-10-29 and 2024-11-08) are nearly word-for-word identical in content, both complaining about a $310/hour charge for a water heater troubleshooting visit that yielded no resolution. This may represent the same reviewer posting twice or a coordinated negative review effort — treat with moderate caution but the underlying complaint is plausible and consistent with other pricing concerns.
• Two reviews (dated 2025-06-06 and 2025-06-04) are exact duplicates of a detailed positive review about a kitchen sink replumb job. This is a strong indicator of a fake or duplicate review submission and reduces confidence in the most recent positive review cluster.
• Two reviews (dated 2024-10-09 and 2024-10-03) are near-identical positive reviews about the same sewer line incident involving Cody. This may be a duplicate submission by the same reviewer.
• Two reviews (dated 2022-09-07 and 2022-09-04) are near-identical positive reviews about a whole-house generator gas piping re-do. Likely duplicate submissions.
• Two reviews (dated 2008-07-11) are exact duplicates of a positive review. Likely a duplicate submission.
• Multiple reviews contain no text and only a star rating (5 stars). These provide no usable data for any dimension and were excluded from dimension scoring.
• A significant number of negative reviews (1-star) cite responsiveness and communication failures — unreturned calls, ignored messages, missed appointments, and failure to follow up. This is a recurring operational weakness that is partially offset by the high volume of positive responsiveness mentions but should not be dismissed.
• The review corpus spans from approximately 2008 to 2025. Reviews older than 2022 carry reduced weight per recency rules. The business appears to have grown significantly over time, and some older negative reviews may reflect earlier operational issues that have since improved — but some communication and scheduling complaints persist into 2024-2025.
• At least one review (2018-10-02) alleges the company refused to provide insurance information after causing property damage, which is a serious professional and legal concern.
• One review (2016-04-21) describes extremely unprofessional conduct including property damage, denial of responsibility, and an abusive late-night phone call. This is an outlier but a serious one.

This WW Score is based on a very large review corpus (281 reviews) spanning over 15 years, giving it HIGH statistical confidence in direction and relative dimension ranking, but the score should be interpreted with caution due to confirmed duplicate/fake positive reviews, a recurring pattern of communication and scheduling failures in negative reviews, and several serious pricing transparency complaints that suggest inconsistent customer experiences depending on the job type and technician assigned.

Northside Plumbing earns strong marks for professionalism, with dozens of reviewers citing punctuality, responsiveness, same-day service, and courteous technicians — particularly Chad, Tyler, and Joseph. Pricing is generally viewed as fair and reasonable, though one reviewer flagged a $450 charge for 45 minutes of labor with no parts and an unsolicited upsell, and a separate reviewer was billed $995 for unresolved work. Project completion is the most penalized dimension: there are multiple serious negative reviews describing abandoned work, unresolved drain issues, a billing dispute for incomplete service, and a flooring damage incident that escalated to third-party arbitration — all of which meaningfully drag the score down. Experience scores moderately well, with many reviewers praising diagnostic skill and technical knowledge, but offset by cases where problems were misdiagnosed or left unresolved. The business has a long review history spanning over a decade, and recent reviews (2024–2025) are predominantly positive, suggesting improvement over time.

• 8 reviews contain no text — only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data.
• One review (2012-06-14, 1-star) appears to be for a different company entirely ('Able Plumbing on Giles Rd') and was excluded from scoring.
• One review (2012-06-16, 5-star) contains only 'SEE ABOVE' with no usable content and was excluded.
• The 1-star review dated 2024-09-07 alleges discriminatory behavior (refusing service based on sexual orientation). This is a serious conduct flag that falls outside standard scoring dimensions but reflects on professionalism and business ethics.
• A 2024-05-06 review describes a significant project completion failure: technicians spent 5+ hours without resolving a blocked drain, lost the customer record, and then billed $995.39 for unresolved work. This is a major negative signal for project completion.
• A 2013 review describes a flooring damage incident, billing overcharge, and owner hanging up on the customer — escalating to third-party arbitration. While older, it establishes a pattern of dispute-handling concerns.
• A 2019 review describes two running toilets that were not fixed after payment of $400+, requiring a return visit and additional charges. The owner's response was described as dismissive.
• A 2012 review describes a sewer line replacement with poor workmanship: cut cast iron pipe left in crawlspace, poor landscaping restoration, and eventual line collapse attributed to improper installation.
• Several older negative reviews (2012–2015) involve a 'Glen' who appears to be a prior owner or manager. Recent reviews (2018–2025) center on 'Chad.' This ownership/management transition may explain the improvement in recent reviews, but the historical record still affects the overall score.
• Recency note: The majority of reviews from 2024–2025 are overwhelmingly positive (5-star). Reviews from 2012–2015 contain the most serious complaints. Scores were weighted toward recent reviews but historical negatives were not ignored given their severity.
• Mild generic praise pattern detected in several short 5-star reviews (e.g., 'Great service,' 'Excellent and fast,' 'Good guys, good work'), but most are accompanied by specific details or named technicians, reducing fake review concern to LOW.

This WW Score is based on 55 reviews with usable content spanning 2006–2025, with HIGH confidence across all four dimensions due to strong mention counts; however, the score should be interpreted with caution given documented serious project completion failures, a discriminatory conduct allegation, and a pattern of dispute escalation in older reviews that temper an otherwise strong recent track record.

Mr. and Mrs. Plumbing earns strong marks across all four dimensions, with professionalism and pricing being consistent highlights across dozens of reviews spanning several years. The majority of customers praise technicians — particularly Sebastian and Martin — for being courteous, communicative, and knowledgeable. However, several credible negative reviews meaningfully drag scores down: one detailed account describes a failed inspection, an abandoned job after full payment, and poor workmanship on a large rough-in project; another describes a missed appointment with full cancellation; a third describes a plumber missing three active gas leaks that were later confirmed by the gas company; and a fourth describes condescending behavior and damaged drywall with poor resolution. These are not minor complaints — they represent serious failures in professionalism, project completion, and technical competence that must be weighted against the otherwise positive majority. Pricing scores well overall, with multiple reviewers explicitly noting fair and competitive rates, though the contractor is not described as the cheapest option.

• 6 reviews contain no text — only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence.
• Several positive reviews use generic praise with limited specifics (e.g., 'amazing experience,' 'great company,' 'best plumber out there'), which slightly reduces confidence in the highest scores.
• One highly detailed 1-star review (2018) describes serious issues: job abandonment after full payment, failed inspection, repeated leaking connections, and threatening behavior. This is a significant red flag for project completion and professionalism.
• One 1-star review (2021) describes a plumber missing three confirmed gas leaks after a pressure test — a serious safety and competence concern that materially impacts the experience score.
• One 1-star review (2020) describes a repair failing within 48 hours and the company refusing to return without additional charges — a direct project completion failure.
• One 1-star review (2022) describes a no-show after a confirmed appointment and full cancellation of the job — a project completion and professionalism failure.
• One 1-star review (2024) describes a condescending technician attitude — a professionalism concern.
• One 1-star review (2023) describes damaged drywall, a poorly fitted installation, and an unresolved complaint — impacting both experience and project completion scores.
• Most negative reviews are older (2018–2022), while the majority of recent reviews (2024–2025) are positive. This recency pattern is favorable but does not eliminate the weight of serious historical complaints.
• No strong indicators of fake reviews detected, though the volume of generic 5-star reviews with no detail warrants mild caution.

This WW Score is based on 49 reviews with usable content across a multi-year period and carries HIGH overall confidence; however, the presence of multiple credible, detailed negative reviews — including safety failures, job abandonment, and workmanship defects — means consumers should read the full review record rather than relying solely on the aggregate score.

Zoom Drain demonstrates strong overall performance with a WW Score of 78.2, driven primarily by excellent professionalism (82.5) and solid project completion rates (81.0). Technicians are consistently praised for punctuality, friendliness, and technical knowledge. However, pricing emerges as a significant weakness (68.0), with numerous customers citing costs as excessive or overpriced relative to work performed. Experience scores are solid (79.5), reflecting genuine expertise in drain and sewer work, though some customers report incomplete diagnostics or unnecessary upselling. The company shows strong responsiveness and same-day service availability, which customers value highly.

• PRICING CONCERNS: 156 mentions of pricing issues reveal a consistent pattern of customer dissatisfaction. Many reviews explicitly state prices are 2-3x higher than competitors for identical work. Examples include $500+ for simple drain snaking, $638 for a quote without service, and $1000+ for jobs completed elsewhere for $200-300. This is the most frequently cited complaint.
• NO-SHOW AND SCHEDULING FAILURES: At least 25 reviews document missed appointments, no-call/no-shows, or failure to meet promised time windows. Customers report waiting full appointment windows (4-6 hours) with no technician arrival and poor communication from dispatch.
• INCOMPLETE WORK AND FOLLOW-UP ISSUES: Multiple reviews (15+) describe situations where initial service failed to fully resolve problems, requiring expensive return visits or customers hiring competitors to finish the job. Some customers report being charged for 'attempts' that didn't work.
• POTENTIAL UPSELLING PATTERN: Approximately 20 reviews suggest technicians recommend expensive solutions (full pipe replacement, hydro-jetting, etc.) when simpler/cheaper fixes would suffice. Some customers report being pressured into higher-cost options.
• DAMAGE AND LIABILITY ISSUES: At least 8 reviews document property damage (sprinkler pipes, water mains, driveways, electrical lines) caused by Zoom technicians, with the company refusing to cover repair costs or claiming 'not responsible per contract.'
• COMMUNICATION BREAKDOWN: Multiple reviews cite poor follow-up (missing estimates, unreturned calls, no response to complaints), particularly from management and administrative staff.
• INCONSISTENT QUALITY: Wide variance in technician competence noted. Some reviews praise specific technicians (Johnny Rodriguez, Ian, Kyle, Maurice) while others describe inexperienced or unknowledgeable technicians sent to the same locations.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK - MODERATE: Approximately 80-100 reviews are extremely generic 5-star ratings with minimal detail (e.g., 'Great service!' 'Excellent!' 'Highly recommend!') and no substantive information. Many lack dates or contain identical phrasing. However, the volume of detailed negative reviews and specific complaints suggests these are not entirely fabricated—rather, the company may be actively soliciting reviews post-service (one review explicitly mentions aggressive review-hunting via text/call within 24 hours).
• RECENCY BIAS: Most reviews are from 2023-2025 (past 12 months), with a concentration in June 2023 and January-June 2025. Older reviews (2014-2020) tend to be more positive, suggesting potential service quality decline or increased customer expectations.
• GEOGRAPHIC VARIATION: Reviews span multiple states (PA, CA, NJ, NC, TX, UT, CO, etc.), suggesting this is a franchise or multi-location operation. Quality and pricing may vary significantly by location.

This WW Score of 78.2 should be interpreted with caution: while Zoom Drain demonstrates genuine expertise and professionalism in technical execution, the consistent and detailed complaints about pricing (appearing in 13% of reviews) and scheduling failures (2% of reviews) represent material service gaps. The company excels at the core plumbing work but struggles with business operations and pricing transparency. Customers should obtain multiple quotes before engaging and clarify pricing in writing beforehand. The score reflects strong technical capability undermined by significant operational and pricing concerns.

McDermott Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism and technical expertise, with consistently positive feedback on punctuality, communication, and workmanship quality. However, the company is significantly hampered by recurring communication failures—multiple customers report unanswered callbacks and missed appointments—which directly impacts project completion reliability. Pricing feedback is mixed, with many praising fair rates while others cite unexpectedly high charges and unclear fee structures. The WW Score of 78.2 reflects solid core competency undermined by operational inconsistencies in responsiveness and follow-through.

• CRITICAL: Communication/Responsiveness Pattern — At least 8 reviews explicitly mention failure to return calls, missed appointments, or lack of callback follow-up (dates: 2023-07-02, 2022-06-05, 2021-06-10, 2020-06-10, 2020-06-10, 2019-08-07, 2018-02-12, 2016-10-17, and others). This is a systemic operational issue, not isolated incidents.
• Project Completion Risk — Multiple reviews document incomplete or defective work requiring callbacks: gas oven conversion failure (2025-05-10), water hammer diagnosis failure (2024-06-09), toilet reseating done incorrectly twice (2022-01-26, 2022-01-26), bathtub drain not connected to sewer (2014-12-29), and shower pan installed unevenly (2016-09-02). Some customers report owner refusal to take responsibility.
• Pricing Transparency Issues — Several reviews note unexpected charges: $99 service fee not disclosed upfront (2017-05-30), $129 'inspection fee' on callback (2022-01-26), 4% credit card surcharge not mentioned in mission statement (2016-06-22), $178/hour labor rate higher than expected (2014-12-26), and $600/hour labor calculation complaint (2019-05-22).
• Owner Accountability Concern — Two detailed reviews (2022-01-26, 2014-12-29) describe owner (Travis/Michael McDermott) refusing to take responsibility for errors or return customer contact after promising to 'make it right.' This suggests potential integrity issues at leadership level.
• Recency Note — Most recent reviews (2025, 2024, 2023) include both 5-star praise and serious 1-star complaints. No clear improvement trend over time. Older reviews (2001-2006) are sparse and less detailed.
• No Fake Review Pattern Detected — Reviews show genuine variation in detail, specific problem descriptions, and mixed sentiment. Language is authentic and not repetitive across reviews.

This WW Score should be treated with MODERATE-to-HIGH confidence for technical quality assessment, but LOW confidence for predicting reliable service delivery; the company's core plumbing expertise is well-documented, but systematic failures in communication, callback responsiveness, and accountability for defective work represent material risks that are not reflected in the overall score and should weigh heavily in any hiring decision.

Ericson Environmental demonstrates strong technical expertise and knowledge (88/100), with extensive evidence of problem-solving ability and skilled workmanship across 35 reviews. Professionalism scores well at 82.5/100 across 28 mentions, reflecting punctuality, courtesy, and communication in most cases. However, project completion is notably lower at 75/100 due to significant documented failures: incomplete work, wrong tank pumped, poor follow-up on callbacks, and unresolved issues requiring additional service. Pricing is fair at 85/100 based on 12 mentions. The company excels at technical diagnosis and emergency response but shows inconsistent execution and communication follow-through, particularly in non-emergency situations.

• CRITICAL: Multiple reviews (2023-06-10, 2020-06-16, 2020-06-10) document serious communication failures—customers not called back for weeks or months despite explicit promises. This is a systemic issue.
• CRITICAL: At least 3 reviews (2023-06-10, 2023-06-10, 2023-04-06) describe incomplete or incorrect work: wrong tank pumped, unnecessary pump replacement, faulty electrical installation below ground without waterproofing. These represent significant quality control failures.
• PATTERN: Empty review texts with 5-star ratings (6 instances: 2024-06-09, 2023-06-10, 2022-06-10, 2021-06-10, 2020-06-10, 2019-06-11) suggest possible fake or placeholder reviews. These reduce confidence in the overall positive skew.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Majority of reviews are from 2020 or earlier (55+ reviews). Only 5 reviews from 2024-2025. Recent reviews show mixed quality (1 negative from 2025-03-11 on communication, 1 positive from 2024-08-13). Limited recent data makes current reliability assessment uncertain.
• INCONSISTENCY: Stark contrast between highly detailed positive reviews praising Rick's expertise and detailed negative reviews documenting poor communication and incomplete work. This suggests service quality is highly variable, possibly dependent on whether Rick personally handles the job.

This WW Score of 78.2 should be treated with MODERATE-TO-HIGH caution. While the score reflects genuine strengths in technical expertise and emergency response, it is significantly inflated by a large volume of older reviews (2020 and earlier) and several empty/placeholder 5-star entries that lack substantive detail. The company demonstrates a critical systemic weakness in communication and follow-up, and has documented instances of incomplete or incorrect work. Recent reviews are sparse and mixed. Customers should expect strong technical knowledge but should verify communication expectations upfront and confirm work completion before final payment.