Find Nearby Plumbers In Euclid, Ohio

Reddy Repair Plumbing scores strongly on professionalism, with a large number of reviews explicitly praising punctuality, responsiveness, communication, and courteous behavior — Chad in particular is repeatedly named as friendly, accessible, and prompt. Project completion is generally positive, with multiple reviewers noting jobs finished on time, cleanly, and with follow-through including a no-charge callback visit; however, one detailed 1-star review describes incorrect pipe reassembly requiring a second plumber to fix and a complete lack of response to the complaint, which meaningfully drags this dimension down. Experience scores well overall, with reviewers citing problem-solving on unusual jobs, technical thoroughness, and quality workmanship, though the same 1-star review raises a concrete quality-of-work failure. Pricing is mixed: many reviewers call it reasonable or affordable, one reviewer specifically states pricing was half that of competitors, but the 1-star reviewer found charges excessive and itemized them as evidence of overcharging, warranting a conservative score rather than a high one.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: Two reviews with identical text ('It went well. Everything is working OK.') were submitted on different dates (2019-01-07 and 2018-12-27). This is a potential fake or copy-paste review pattern and reduces confidence in those two entries.
• THIN/GENERIC REVIEWS: Approximately 10–12 reviews contain no substantive detail (e.g., 'Job well done', 'I was very pleased.', 'everything went well.', 'Great and dependable worker'). These provide minimal usable signal and may inflate perceived sentiment without adding evidentiary weight.
• RECENCY WARNING: The majority of reviews (roughly 27 of 37) are dated before January 2023, with most clustered in 2019. Only 4 reviews are from 2023 or later. The most recent reviews include one significant negative experience (January 2023) and one very brief positive (April 2024). The score should be interpreted with caution given the age of most positive data.
• NEGATIVE REVIEW ACCOUNTABILITY FAILURE: The 1-star review from January 2023 explicitly states the company did not respond to a complaint about faulty workmanship and overcharging. This is a material flag for project completion and professionalism dimensions.
• REVIEW VOLUME SKEW: All but one review are 5-star ratings. While this could reflect genuine quality, combined with the generic language in many reviews and the duplicate entry, it warrants moderate skepticism about the uniformity of the positive signal.

This WW Score is based on a moderately sized review set with HIGH mention counts across all dimensions, but reliability is tempered by the age of most reviews (majority from 2019), the presence of duplicate and generic reviews, and one substantive negative review describing both workmanship failure and non-responsiveness that stands in sharp contrast to the otherwise uniformly positive feedback.

Pro-Service Plumbing has a strong overall track record built on consistent praise for professionalism, punctuality, responsiveness, and technical competence across many years of reviews. Multiple long-term customers spanning 8–30 years speak to reliable, high-quality work and fair pricing, which anchors the positive scores. However, three negative reviews — including a no-show incident, a late arrival with hidden charges, and a failure to resolve a basic issue — introduce meaningful deductions across professionalism and project completion. Pricing is generally viewed as fair to reasonable, though two reviewers noted it skews slightly higher than average, and one reviewer cited it as a reason to seek alternatives. The one clearly nonsensical review ('skibidi toilet') was excluded from scoring as it contains no usable data.

• One review (2024-10-03, 'skibidi toilet') is entirely nonsensical and contains no usable information about any service dimension. It was excluded from all scoring.
• The three negative reviews (2011-09-15, 2011-10-24, 2021-08-11) are all older than 12 months and two are from 2011, which reduces their weight per recency rules. However, they are not dismissed — they represent real complaints about punctuality, hidden charges, and a no-show.
• The majority of reviews are older than 12 months; only 3 reviews fall within the past 12 months (2022–2024), which limits confidence in the current state of the business.
• Several reviews use similarly enthusiastic language ('highly recommend', 'cannot say enough good things') but are sufficiently specific in detail to not trigger a fake review flag. No fake review pattern detected.
• One review (2011-12-26) flagged an employee taking removed copper pipes without permission — a minor ethics concern that was noted but not heavily weighted as it is over 12 years old.

This WW Score is moderately reliable — it is based on 22 usable reviews spanning over a decade, with strong mention counts across all four dimensions, but the limited number of recent reviews (only 3 from 2022–2024) means the score may not fully reflect the company's current performance.

Landmark Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism and technical expertise across most dimensions, with consistently positive feedback on responsiveness, communication, and workmanship quality. However, pricing concerns emerge as a significant weakness, with multiple customers reporting overcharges, lack of transparency, and failure to obtain proper permits—issues that directly impact trust. Project completion is generally solid, though several older reviews (2016–2022) document serious follow-up failures and unresponsiveness. Recent reviews (2024–2025) show marked improvement in responsiveness and service quality, suggesting operational changes. The WW Score of 78.2 reflects strong technical capability offset by legitimate pricing and accountability concerns.

• PRICING RED FLAG: Multiple independent complaints about overcharging ($628 for drain unclog, $200+ premium over quotes, $100 for 5-minute service, $250 for connection failure). Lack of transparent pricing mentioned in several reviews.
• PERMIT COMPLIANCE ISSUE: One detailed 2020 review documents failure to obtain required permits, resulting in $360 county fine and owner non-responsiveness. This is a serious legal/professional concern.
• RESPONSIVENESS PATTERN (2016–2022): Multiple reviews from 2016–2022 document poor callback responsiveness, unanswered voicemails, and failure to honor warranty commitments. This pattern appears to have improved significantly in 2024–2025 reviews.
• WORK QUALITY DISPUTE: One 2024 review alleges improper installation (excessive pipe tape/goop, failed connection) and defensive behavior when customer complained. Second opinion from competing plumber supported customer's concern.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: Two identical lengthy reviews (Sept 2024, Aug 2024) with nearly identical wording about 'Kris' and four plumbing issues. Highly suspicious duplication suggests possible review manipulation.
• ATTITUDE/CUSTOMER SERVICE: Two reviews document rude phone behavior (hung up on customer, argumentative tone when customer complained about lack of follow-up). One review documents threatening behavior (threatened to charge emergency fee if customer didn't seem 'grateful').
• EMPTY/MINIMAL REVIEWS: Several 5-star reviews contain no text or only 1–2 words ('Clear drain for my family', '.', blank), limiting data quality.
• RECENCY BIAS: Most negative reviews are from 2016–2022 (older); most positive reviews are from 2024–2025 (recent). This suggests either genuine improvement or recent reputation management effort.

This WW Score of 78.2 is reliable for assessing technical competence and recent professionalism (HIGH confidence on those dimensions), but should be interpreted cautiously regarding pricing fairness and long-term accountability—multiple credible complaints about overcharging and permit violations are not offset by positive reviews, and customers should request detailed written quotes and verify permit compliance before hiring. The significant improvement in recent reviews (2024–2025) is encouraging but does not fully erase the pattern of issues documented in 2016–2022.

Campbell Plumbing earns strong marks for professionalism and responsiveness across a large volume of reviews, with dozens of customers praising punctuality, courtesy, communication, and willingness to go above and beyond — including emergency calls on holidays and late nights. Project completion is generally solid, with most jobs described as finished thoroughly and on time, though a notable minority of reviews describe incomplete cleanup, a tool left stuck in a sewer line, a wrong-size pump installed without disclosure, and one account of sewage flooding left unaddressed. Experience scores well overall, with multiple reviewers citing knowledgeable diagnostics, honest recommendations against unnecessary work, and effective problem-solving — but a few incidents of poor judgment or undisclosed substitutions temper this. Pricing is the weakest dimension by a significant margin: while several reviewers describe fair or reasonable costs, a meaningful cluster of reviews — including a $1,360 charge for three hours of work, $600 for 15–20 minutes of jetting, $250 for a $10 part, and $1,175 for a 90-minute sump pump install — describe feeling significantly overcharged, and the owner's defensive response to pricing complaints in multiple reviews is a concern. The WW Score reflects a contractor with genuine strengths in responsiveness and professionalism but a recurring and documented pattern of pricing opacity and occasional project-quality issues.

• PRICING CONCERN: Multiple independent reviews across different years describe feeling significantly overcharged — $1,360 for 3 hours of work, $600 for 15–20 minutes of jetting, $250 for a part worth under $10, and $1,175 for a 90-minute sump pump install. The owner reportedly argued with customers rather than addressing concerns. This is a consistent and credible pattern, not isolated incidents.
• TRANSPARENCY CONCERN: At least two reviews describe work being completed without upfront estimates or clear pricing disclosure. One reviewer was billed weeks after service with no prior invoice. Another was not told a smaller pump was installed instead of the requested size.
• PROJECT QUALITY CONCERN: One review describes a tool head being left stuck in a sewer line with the customer billed $3,000 for retrieval, and the yard left in a significant mess after excavation with no cleanup. Another review describes a sewage flood left for the customer to clean up (1-star, 2015).
• CONDUCT CONCERN: One review (1-star, 2015) describes a plumber becoming rude and leaving the job, followed by an allegation that a pipe was deliberately cut. A separate review (1-star, 2015) describes the owner telling a customer asking about discounts to 'call someone else' and then not showing up to a scheduled appointment.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews are from 2014–2020, with only a small number from 2021–2023. The most recent review is from April 2023. Scoring reflects the full review history but recent data is limited.
• BLANK/UNUSABLE REVIEWS: Several reviews contain only '.', '...', or 'unknown' with no substantive content. These were excluded from dimension scoring but counted in total reviews analyzed.
• NO FAKE REVIEW FLAG: No strong patterns of fake reviews detected. Reviews vary in length, detail, tone, and rating. Negative reviews are specific and credible. No suspicious clustering of identical phrasing.

This WW Score is based on a large and diverse review set (97 reviews) spanning approximately 16 years, giving HIGH confidence in the directional accuracy of all four dimension scores; however, the pricing score in particular should be weighted heavily by prospective customers, as the overcharging pattern is well-documented, multi-year, and corroborated by multiple independent reviewers.

Mayes & Sons demonstrates strong technical competency and generally professional individual technicians, with many reviews praising specific workers by name for friendliness, efficiency, and knowledge. However, the company is significantly hampered by systemic issues in communication, follow-through, and accountability at the management level. Multiple reviews document failures to return calls, incomplete job scheduling, damage to customer property without proper remediation, and defensive ownership responses to legitimate complaints. While pricing is generally perceived as fair when quoted accurately, several customers report unexpected cost increases or poor initial estimates. The company's performance is highly inconsistent—some customers report exceptional experiences while others encounter serious problems with the same company.

• CRITICAL: Multiple reviews (at least 8) document serious property damage incidents (burst pipes, flooded basements, damaged fixtures, gas leaks, water damage) with inadequate follow-up or refusal to take responsibility. This pattern suggests potential systemic quality control issues.
• MANAGEMENT ACCOUNTABILITY: Several reviews explicitly criticize owner 'Dave' and management for being unresponsive, defensive, rude, or dismissive when customers report problems. One review quotes the owner calling a customer 'an idiot.'
• COMMUNICATION FAILURES: At least 5 reviews document poor responsiveness to phone calls, failure to return calls, lack of follow-up on quoted jobs, and miscommunication about service scope.
• INCONSISTENCY: Stark contrast between highly positive reviews (often praising individual technicians) and highly negative reviews (criticizing management and systemic failures). This suggests individual technician quality varies significantly and management does not maintain consistent standards.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK: Several reviews from 2024-06-09 are suspiciously generic (e.g., 'profesional', 'Great technician.', empty text with 5-star rating). Three reviews contain no text but 5-star ratings. This clustering suggests possible review manipulation, though the majority of substantive reviews appear authentic.
• RECENCY: Most detailed negative reviews are from 2020-2023, with more positive reviews concentrated in 2024. However, recent negative reviews from 2025 (April, May) indicate ongoing issues with responsiveness and scope management.
• WARRANTY WORK ISSUES: Multiple reviews mention HomeServe/Cinch warranty work, with mixed results. At least 2 reviews document the company accepting dispatch calls they could not fulfill, wasting customer time.

This WW Score of 74.2 should be treated with caution: while based on substantial data (75 reviews), the company exhibits a deeply bifurcated performance profile with excellent individual technician work undermined by serious management, communication, and accountability failures. The score reflects this tension—it is neither a reliable endorsement nor a clear condemnation. Customers should expect variable service quality and should document all agreements in writing before work begins. The pattern of property damage incidents without adequate remediation is a significant red flag.

Nathan's Plumbing has a strong base of loyal, long-term customers who consistently praise his technical knowledge, responsiveness, and willingness to go above and beyond — including walking customers through repairs over the phone at no charge. Project completion scores well overall, with multiple reviewers noting jobs were finished promptly, correctly the first time, and with follow-through on callbacks. However, professionalism and pricing scores are meaningfully dragged down by a recurring pattern of negative reviews: at least three reviews cite unprofessional communication or behavior (rude responses, hanging up on customers, ignoring messages), and at least three reviews raise pricing concerns including undisclosed charges, no upfront quotes, and a disputed $500 overcharge. One negative review involves a road rage incident with a company vehicle, which while not a direct service complaint, reflects on business conduct. The experience dimension scores highest, supported by numerous specific accounts of skilled diagnostics and quality workmanship across complex jobs.

• PRICING CONCERNS: At least 3 reviews explicitly cite pricing problems — one customer was charged $500 for a job a second plumber estimated at $120, one customer was shocked by a bill more than double their budget with no upfront quote, and one customer was quoted one price by phone and a different price on arrival. These are not isolated incidents.
• PROFESSIONALISM CONCERNS: Multiple negative reviews describe Nathan as dismissive, lacking empathy, hanging up on customers, and ignoring follow-up messages. These are direct, specific accounts — not vague complaints — and they reduce confidence in the professionalism score.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of 5-star reviews are from 2013–2017, with only a handful from 2020 onward. The most recent negative review (2020) involves an unresolved $500 dispute with no response. Older positive reviews may not reflect current service quality.
• ABANDONED/UNRESOLVED WORK: One review (2020) describes Nathan failing to return calls after a disputed repair, and one review (2014) describes a failure to follow up on a diagnosed leak that subsequently caused significant water damage to a living room floor.
• NON-SERVICE CONDUCT FLAG: One review (2014) describes reckless driving by a Nathan's Plumbing company vehicle on a public road, followed by a dismissive and unapologetic phone response when confronted. While not a plumbing service review, it is a direct account of business owner conduct.
• REVIEW AUTHENTICITY: No strong fake review patterns detected. Reviews vary in length, detail, tone, and rating. Negative reviews are specific and credible. Overall review set appears authentic.

This WW Score is based on 33 reviews spanning 2009–2024 with high mention counts across all four dimensions, making the score statistically reliable in terms of data volume; however, the presence of multiple credible, specific negative reviews regarding pricing transparency and professionalism — combined with the fact that most glowing reviews are more than five years old — means the score should be treated as a moderate-confidence reflection of current service quality, and prospective customers are strongly advised to obtain written upfront quotes before engaging this contractor.