Find Nearby Plumbers In Lakewood, Ohio

Steven's Plumbing demonstrates strong performance across all dimensions with consistently high marks for professionalism, technical expertise, and project completion. The contractor excels in responsiveness, punctuality, communication, and honest pricing practices. Two negative reviews (1-star ratings from 2021 and 2017) cite licensing concerns and diagnostic errors, which moderately impact the overall score. However, the overwhelming majority of 45 positive reviews spanning multiple years provide robust evidence of reliable service, skilled workmanship, and customer satisfaction. The business shows particular strength in emergency response and willingness to go above and beyond for customers.

• Two 1-star reviews present significant concerns: one questions licensing/insurance status (2021-04-29), another alleges misdiagnosis and failure to resolve leak issues (2017-08-23). These are substantive complaints that warrant consideration despite being outliers.
• Licensing concern is material in California where plumbing licenses are legally required. This creates potential liability risk for customers.
• One review (2015-07-31) contains no text ('unknown'), reducing data quality slightly.
• Most reviews are 5-star with enthusiastic language; while this reflects genuine satisfaction, the uniformity suggests a highly satisfied customer base rather than fake reviews. No patterns of identical phrasing detected.
• Review recency: 29 of 47 reviews (62%) are from 2021 or later, indicating strong recent performance. Older reviews (2015-2017) are sparse but positive except for one diagnostic failure complaint.

This WW Score of 88.2 is highly reliable, based on 47 usable reviews with strong mention counts across all dimensions (15-38 mentions per dimension). The score reflects genuine customer satisfaction tempered by two legitimate negative experiences regarding licensing and diagnostic accuracy. The contractor demonstrates consistent excellence in professionalism and technical skill, though the licensing question and one documented service failure introduce meaningful risk considerations that should not be overlooked.

Bravo Plumbing (also operating as Blue Man Plumbing historically) has a strong overall profile driven by consistently positive feedback across professionalism, pricing, and technical skill. The vast majority of reviewers praise punctuality, responsiveness — including after-hours and emergency availability — and courteous, respectful behavior in the home. Pricing is frequently described as fair, reasonable, and transparent, with one reviewer specifically noting no hidden charges and another highlighting that Bravo was the most affordable of three quotes. Project completion is generally strong, with multiple references to jobs finished efficiently and callbacks honored at no charge, but two credible negative reviews from 2021–2023 describe a technician abandoning a job mid-service without return or communication, which meaningfully depresses the project completion score. Experience scores well based on numerous mentions of knowledgeable diagnosis, problem-solving on complex or unexpected issues, and quality workmanship, though the negative reviews introduce some concern about consistency across technicians.

• 4 reviews contain no text — only a 5-star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data.
• Two credible negative reviews (1-star and 2-star, dated 2023-02-10 and 2021-02-21) describe technicians abandoning jobs without return or communication. These are serious project completion failures and were weighted accordingly.
• One 2-star review (2023-01-08) describes a 4-hour late arrival, a $500 charge for a simple repair, and missing parts taken by the technician — this negatively impacts professionalism and pricing scores.
• The business appears to have operated under two names: 'Bravo Plumbing' and 'Blue Man Plumbing.' Reviews reference both. This may indicate a rebrand; older negative reviews reference Blue Man/Skip, while recent reviews are predominantly Bravo/Max. Score reflects the full history.
• The overwhelming majority of reviews are 5-star with broadly positive language. While most include specific details that suggest authenticity, the pattern warrants mild caution. No strong evidence of coordinated fake reviews, but the near-uniform positivity slightly inflates confidence.
• Reviews referencing 'Skip' are predominantly older (pre-2022) and include both the most positive and most negative experiences. Recent reviews focus on Max and suggest improved consistency, but the older negative incidents are factored into scoring.

This WW Score is based on 47 reviews with usable content spanning 2019–2025, with strong mention counts across all four dimensions, making it a reasonably reliable assessment — however, the presence of two credible job-abandonment complaints and one overcharging complaint from 2021–2023 introduce meaningful uncertainty around project completion and professionalism consistency, and consumers should weigh those incidents carefully.

Gorjanc Comfort Services demonstrates strong professionalism with consistently punctual, courteous, and knowledgeable technicians across 89 mentions. Project completion is reliable with most jobs finished on time and follow-through honored, though some communication delays and unresolved callbacks were noted in isolated cases. Technical expertise is solid with skilled problem-solving and quality workmanship evident across HVAC and plumbing services. Pricing remains a significant concern, with 28 explicit mentions revealing a pattern of higher costs than competitors, aggressive upselling tactics, and questionable diagnostic practices that undermine trust despite quality execution.

• PRICING PATTERN: Multiple reviews (2018-07-23, 2017-11-12, 2020-02-12, 2023-07-24) document significantly inflated estimates and aggressive sales tactics. Gorjanc quoted $1,400 for Freon that competitors charged $150 for; $1,400 for boiler repair that cost $250 elsewhere; $700 for radiator valve replacement done for $200 by others. This suggests systematic overpricing or poor diagnostic competency.
• CUSTOMER SERVICE DETERIORATION: One detailed 2019-08-30 review from 18-year loyal customer describes recent rude, dismissive behavior, refusal to honor warranty service, and complete non-responsiveness to certified letter from company president. This suggests internal management issues.
• INSTALLATION QUALITY ISSUES: 2018-05-06 review documents reversed heating/cooling functions in new $7,200 HVAC system with delayed response and higher-than-expected electric bills. 2017-11-10 review notes technician lacked knowledge of service plans and improper humidifier installation.
• COMMUNICATION FAILURES: 2018-11-05 review reports no response to estimate request; 2017-11-30 review documents 5-day delay in providing inspection report with typo in email address; 2017-08-31 review states no response with final estimate or receipt.
• INCONSISTENT TECHNICIAN QUALITY: While most technicians are praised, several reviews (2017-11-10, 2017-11-12, 2018-04-23) describe inadequate knowledge, poor workmanship, and dishonest diagnostic practices by specific technicians.
• RECENCY NOTE: Most negative reviews cluster in 2017-2020 period. Recent reviews (2024, 2023) are predominantly positive, suggesting possible company improvements or selection bias in recent feedback.

This WW Score of 81.2 is reliable for overall assessment but masks significant variability: professionalism and project completion are genuinely strong (HIGH confidence), but pricing concerns are substantial and well-documented across multiple years, warranting caution on cost expectations and estimate verification before commitment.

Drains & Things demonstrates strong professionalism, project completion, and technical expertise across multiple reviews, with consistent praise for responsiveness, politeness, and problem-solving ability. However, pricing emerges as a significant weakness, with multiple explicit complaints about overcharging, hidden fees, and unfair markups that substantially lower the overall score. Recent reviews (2025) are overwhelmingly positive, but older reviews (2016–2022) reveal a pattern of pricing disputes that cannot be ignored. The company excels at emergency response and technical work but struggles with transparent, fair pricing practices.

• PRICING CONCERN: Multiple reviews (2 explicit negative reviews from 2021 and 2017) document overcharging, hidden material costs, and inflated service fees. This is a material pattern, not isolated complaints.
• RECENCY BIAS: 16 of 25 reviews lack dates or have no date provided. Of dated reviews, most recent are from 2025 (all 5-star), while older dated reviews (2006–2022) show more critical feedback. This suggests possible selection bias in recent submissions.
• GENERIC PRAISE PATTERN: Many undated reviews use similar phrasing ('Mike did a great job,' 'very professional,' 'highly recommend') with minimal specific detail. While not conclusive evidence of fake reviews, this warrants caution in weighting undated reviews equally with detailed, dated reviews.
• INCONSISTENT PRICING MESSAGING: Recent reviews praise 'reasonable price' and 'great value,' directly contradicting 2017–2021 complaints about overcharging. This suggests either significant business practice changes or inconsistent pricing by technician/situation.
• MISSING DATES: 13 reviews have no date information, making it impossible to assess recency and trend reliability. Recommend requesting date verification for undated reviews.

This WW Score of 79.8 should be treated with MODERATE-TO-HIGH caution: while professionalism and completion are well-supported by 14–16 mentions, the pricing dimension is based on only 7 mentions with a clear historical pattern of disputes. The heavy concentration of undated 5-star reviews and absence of recent negative feedback (post-2022) suggests either genuine improvement or potential review curation. Customers should prioritize obtaining detailed written quotes and clarifying material costs upfront before engaging this contractor.

Big Bear Plumbing has a strong base of loyal, satisfied customers who consistently praise Eric's punctuality, responsiveness, and friendly demeanor, driving solid scores across all dimensions. However, a meaningful cluster of negative reviews — spanning multiple years and covering pricing disputes, misdiagnosis, gaslighting behavior, and refusal to honor callbacks — prevents any dimension from scoring in the high 80s or above. Pricing is the weakest dimension, with multiple reviewers explicitly calling out overcharging, inflated quotes given without site visits, and charges for visits that produced no results. Project completion is moderately strong but is dragged down by at least two notable failures: a toilet that failed the next day with no callback honored, and a shower left unusable with missing tiles. Experience scores are mixed — many reviews praise skill and knowledge, but several credible negative reviews describe misdiagnosis, unfamiliarity with common fixtures (Kohler cartridges), and poor problem-solving on complex jobs.

• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: Two reviews with identical text ('Eric from Big Bear Plumbing helped us with three tough leaks at our house and installed a new toilet. He was quick, professional, and friendly.') were posted on different dates (2024-08-13 and 2024-07-22). This is a likely fake or copy-pasted review and was counted only once for scoring purposes.
• REVIEW VOLUME SPIKE: A large number of reviews share the date '2017-10-05' through '2017-10-10' with very generic, brief praise and no specific details. These may represent solicited or incentivized reviews and were treated with reduced individual weight.
• RECENCY NOTE: Several negative reviews are recent (2024–2025), suggesting the issues with pricing disputes, misdiagnosis, and poor customer service are not isolated historical incidents but ongoing concerns.
• CALLBACK FAILURE: One 2025 review explicitly states Eric refused to return to address a toilet that failed the day after service — a direct project completion failure that is weighted heavily.
• MISDIAGNOSIS PATTERN: At least two credible negative reviews (2024 water meter misdiagnosis resulting in $225 charge for incorrect assessment; 2024 instahot/faucet misdiagnosis) describe faulty technical diagnosis, suggesting a recurring experience issue on more complex jobs.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS PATTERN: At least five separate reviews across multiple years explicitly mention overcharging, inflated quotes without site inspection, or charges for unproductive visits — this is a consistent and credible pattern, not an outlier.
• ATTITUDE/RUDENESS PATTERN: At least three reviews (2021, 2023, 2024) describe Eric as rude, condescending, or dismissive — particularly toward customers who questioned his assessments or pricing. This is a recurring professionalism concern.

This WW Score is based on a large and diverse review set spanning 2014–2025 with HIGH confidence across all four dimensions; however, the score should be interpreted cautiously given a consistent and credible pattern of negative reviews related to pricing transparency, misdiagnosis, callback refusal, and dismissive customer interactions that appear to have persisted over multiple years.

Bob Hageman receives consistently positive feedback across all four dimensions, with professionalism being the most frequently cited strength — reviewers repeatedly note prompt communication, punctuality, friendliness, and cleanliness. Pricing is described as reasonable and transparent across multiple reviews, including mention of a senior discount and offering tiered repair options, which reflects customer-friendly practices. Project completion is well-supported, with reviewers describing jobs finished efficiently, cleanly, and with extra work thrown in where needed. Experience is evidenced by his handling of complex situations such as burst pipes, old plumbing systems, and stack replacements, though the total review base is small. The score is tempered primarily by the very small and heavily dated review pool.

• ALL 8 reviews are older than 1 year — the most recent review is from November 2015, nearly a decade ago. This significantly limits the reliability of the score as a reflection of current performance.
• All reviews are 5-star ratings with no negative or mixed feedback, which warrants mild caution, though most reviews contain specific details that reduce the likelihood of fabrication.
• Review from 2013-05-17 ('It went really well.') and review from 2014-10-02 ('fast efecient and clean.') are extremely brief and lack specifics, making them low-utility for scoring purposes.
• Total review count of 8 is low, limiting statistical confidence across all dimensions despite some dimensions reaching the HIGH confidence threshold by mention count.

This WW Score should be treated with caution — while the available reviews are largely specific and credible, all data is between 9 and 16 years old, making it a poor indicator of Bob Hageman's current quality, availability, or pricing.