Find Nearby Plumbers In Mansfield, Ohio

Air Solutions shows a broadly professional demeanor across the majority of reviews, with many customers praising punctuality, courteous technicians, and responsive scheduling. However, the score is meaningfully dragged down by a recurring pattern of pricing complaints: multiple reviewers describe opaque iPad-based package pricing, unexpected charges, and rates perceived as significantly above market. Project completion is mixed — many jobs were finished well and on time, but several notable failures exist including abandoned work, missed callbacks, a technician leaving a unit disassembled, and at least one instance of a technician leaving a customer without water for two hours without notice. Experience scores are generally positive, with skilled diagnostics praised in many reviews, though a handful of reviews question technician competence or suggest under-qualified personnel were sent. The combination of strong individual technician performance and systemic issues with pricing transparency and follow-through produces a mid-range overall score.

• PRICING TRANSPARENCY CONCERN: Multiple independent reviews describe a tiered iPad-based pricing system (Bandaid/Basic/Silver/Gold/Platinum) that customers found manipulative, opaque, or significantly overpriced compared to competitors. This is a systemic pattern, not isolated incidents.
• INCOMPLETE WORK / FOLLOW-THROUGH FAILURES: At least 4 reviews describe jobs that were not completed, abandoned mid-task, or where promised callbacks or estimates never materialized (e.g., the heat pump compressor estimate that took over a week with no resolution, the technician who left without replacing the faucet as advertised, the tech who left a unit disassembled and departed).
• COMMUNICATION FAILURES: Multiple reviews cite poor responsiveness — a customer who called repeatedly on a Monday and never received a callback despite advertised 24/7 service, and a customer who called multiple times over a week for a parts update with no response.
• RUDE STAFF INCIDENT: One detailed 1-star review describes a supervisor (Buckey) being condescending, laughing at a customer complaint, refusing to provide contact information for his own supervisor, and installation technicians getting into a verbal altercation with other workers on the customer's property. This is a serious professionalism flag.
• RECENCY NOTE: Reviews span from 2016 to 2023. The most recent reviews (2022–2023) include both positive and negative experiences. The negative 2023 review about the heat pump diagnosis and the 2022 rude-staff incident suggest issues have not been fully resolved over time.
• ANGIE'S LIST DEAL COMPLAINTS: At least 3 reviews describe feeling deceived by Angie's List promotional deals — arriving technicians refused to perform the advertised service or immediately upsold, suggesting a pattern of bait-and-switch behavior on promotional offers.
• NO SUSPECTED FAKE REVIEWS: Review language is varied, specific, and includes both positive and negative detail. No significant fake review pattern detected.

This WW Score is based on 97 reviews spanning approximately 7 years with strong mention counts across all four dimensions, making it a HIGH confidence assessment; however, consumers should weigh the recurring systemic concerns around pricing transparency and project follow-through before hiring.

Behr Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism with responsive emergency service, courteous technicians, and timely arrivals consistently praised across reviews. Pricing is fair and transparent, with customers noting reasonable rates and honest assessments. However, project completion is tempered by serious quality control issues: two older reviews document poor workmanship (mortar/chimney work, furnace installation cleanup), though more recent reviews show improved execution. Technical expertise is solid when present, but inconsistency in quality and follow-through on problem resolution creates concern. The company's strength lies in responsiveness and initial service quality, but weaknesses in finishing work and accountability reduce overall confidence.

• CRITICAL: One 1-star review (2018-02-27) documents severe quality and accountability issues with chimney liner installation causing water damage, followed by customer blocking and non-response. This is not a fake review—it contains specific, detailed complaints with emotional intensity consistent with genuine grievance.
• PATTERN CONCERN: A second negative review (2017-06-29, 2-star) also documents poor workmanship (furnace installation, cleanup) from the same general timeframe, suggesting systemic quality control problems circa 2017-2018.
• RECENCY BIAS: Four of seven reviews are from 2023-2024 (recent, positive). Two negative reviews are from 2017-2018 (6-7 years old). One review is from 2018 (6 years old). Recent reviews may not reflect current operations, but historical pattern of quality issues cannot be ignored.
• INCONSISTENCY: Positive reviews praise expertise and quality; negative reviews document poor workmanship and lack of accountability. This suggests either significant operational improvement over time OR inconsistent quality depending on technician/project type.

This score should be treated with MODERATE caution. While recent reviews are uniformly positive and suggest improved service, the presence of documented serious quality failures and accountability issues from 2017-2018 creates legitimate concern about consistency. The small sample size (7 reviews) and age disparity between positive and negative reviews limit confidence. Prospective customers should specifically inquire about quality control procedures and request references for similar project types.

H&H demonstrates solid technical competence and generally completes projects, but professionalism and pricing consistency are significant concerns. While multiple reviews praise skilled technicians and timely service (particularly for emergency situations), there are recurring complaints about unprofessional behavior, billing disputes, and poor customer service interactions. The company excels at emergency response and workmanship quality but struggles with communication, staff attitude, and transparent pricing practices. Recent reviews (2024, 2023) show both extreme satisfaction and severe dissatisfaction, indicating inconsistent service delivery.

• RECENCY CONCERN: Most reviews are 5+ years old (2011-2016). Only 2 reviews from past 12 months show extreme polarity (5-star and 1-star), making trend assessment difficult.
• BILLING DISPUTES: Multiple reviews mention billing issues—hourly rate disputes (2019), coupon misapplication (2016), and time-charging during phone consultations (2019). This pattern suggests systemic pricing transparency problems.
• INCONSISTENT PROFESSIONALISM: Staff behavior varies dramatically. Some reviews praise courtesy and respect; others report rudeness, sarcasm, and dismissiveness. This suggests inconsistent training or quality control.
• GENERIC REVIEWS: Three reviews contain only minimal text ('.' or 'Did a great job!') with high ratings (2014-2015), which may indicate fake or placeholder reviews. These were included in scoring but reduce overall reliability.
• DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY: One 2016 review reports significant misdiagnosis (wiring vs. control board), raising questions about technical expertise consistency.

This WW Score should be treated with caution due to data age (most reviews 5+ years old), presence of potentially fake reviews, and extreme polarity in recent feedback. The score reflects historical performance more than current service quality. Recommend requesting recent customer references before engaging.

QPH receives strong praise across multiple reviews for respectful, polite, and communicative technicians, with several reviewers specifically calling out individual workers by name for going above and beyond. Project completion is generally solid — jobs were finished on time, cleanly, and as promised — but one notable negative review describes a technician who failed to perform the requested diagnostic work and charged for it anyway, which meaningfully drags down both professionalism and project completion scores. Experience scores are supported by detailed accounts of skilled technical work including complex repiping, HVAC conversion, and problem-solving under difficult conditions, though the bolt-in-pipe incident and the mask compliance complaint introduce credible negative signals. Pricing is mentioned positively in a handful of reviews with references to fair quotes and affordability, but the sample is too small to treat as fully reliable. The overall score is tempered by the age of most reviews — the majority predate 2022, with several from 2015–2018, reducing confidence in how well this reflects current performance.

• Two reviews contain only the text 'unknown' with 5-star ratings and no usable content — these were excluded from scoring as they provide no verifiable information.
• One review is dated 1999 and another 1997 — these are over 20 years old and were given minimal weight as they cannot reflect current business practices.
• The majority of reviews are older than 12 months (most from 2015–2022), with only one review from the past 12 months (September 2022). Current performance cannot be reliably assessed.
• One review (1-star, 2021) specifically cites employees refusing to wear masks when asked — this is a direct professionalism and conduct concern and was weighted accordingly.
• One review (1-star, 2018) describes a technician named 'Tayler' who failed to perform the requested camera inspection, charged $150 for incomplete work, and required a second visit to resolve what should have been caught initially — this is a significant project completion and professionalism failure.
• No strong fake review patterns detected, though several 5-star reviews are brief and generic. The presence of specific names, dates, and detailed narratives in the majority of reviews suggests authenticity.

This WW Score carries moderate overall reliability — the review base is small (14 total, 13 usable), most reviews are more than one year old, and two reviews contained no usable data, meaning current performance may differ significantly from what this score reflects.

The majority of reviews praise specific technicians — particularly Chris Parlett and Derrick — for their professionalism, communication, and technical knowledge, which drives positive scores across all dimensions. Project completion is generally strong, with multiple reviews describing complex multi-step jobs finished thoroughly, including one technician returning on a Saturday to complete work. However, one detailed negative review from 2014 significantly tempers scores: the technician arrived nearly 3 hours late, failed to resolve the issue, and charged $344 without fixing the problem — directly impacting professionalism, project completion, and pricing scores. Pricing receives a moderately positive but cautious score, as one reviewer noted costs were lower than competitors while the negative reviewer felt strongly overcharged for no result. The overall score is held back by the serious failure documented in the 2014 review and the small total review count, which limits statistical confidence.

• Small sample size of only 6 reviews — WW Score should be treated as indicative only, not definitive.
• Most positive reviews are from 2021–2022; the negative review is from 2014. Recency weighting favors the positive reviews, but the negative review documents a serious service failure that cannot be dismissed.
• One review (2017) is vague and generic with no specific details about the work performed, technician, or outcome — it contributes limited usable signal and may reflect a low-effort or unverifiable submission.
• The positive reviews are largely specific and name individual technicians, which reduces fake review concern for those entries. However, the 2017 review lacks any specificity and was not heavily weighted.
• No reviews are from the past 12 months (most recent is August 2022), meaning there is no current data to confirm whether service quality has been maintained.

This WW Score is based on only 6 reviews spanning nearly a decade, with no data from the past 12 months, making it a low-volume and potentially outdated assessment that should be interpreted with caution.

Miller Plumbing shows a deeply inconsistent track record across all four dimensions. Professionalism is the most frequently mentioned dimension and reveals a stark split: many reviewers praise courteous, prompt technicians while others describe missed appointments, late arrivals, rude behavior, and poor communication. Pricing is a significant concern — multiple reviewers explicitly describe costs as high or outrageous, one review describes a potentially fraudulent $7,100 estimate for an unnecessary replacement, and several note billing for time not actually worked. Project completion is similarly mixed, with some jobs finished smoothly and on time but others involving incomplete work, jobs taking far longer than promised, and unresolved callbacks. Experience scores moderately, with several reviewers praising technical knowledge and skill, but offset by at least two serious incidents of poor workmanship including wrong parts installed, a resulting leak, and a technician who admitted not knowing how to remove a standard faucet.

• RECENCY WARNING: The majority of reviews are from 2013–2017, with the most recent review dated May 2017. No reviews from the past several years are present. Current performance cannot be reliably assessed from this data.
• POTENTIAL FRAUD/MISCONDUCT FLAG: One review (April 2011) describes a technician recommending a $7,100 water heater replacement that a second company resolved for $200, suggesting possible upselling or misdiagnosis. This significantly impacts pricing and experience scores.
• BILLING IRREGULARITY FLAG: Multiple reviews mention being charged for time not worked, travel time disputes, and receiving bills significantly higher than expected or quoted. This is a recurring pattern across multiple independent reviewers.
• INCOMPLETE WORK FLAG: At least two reviews describe work left unfinished — one shower left without a trim kit, and one boiler job that could not be completed as contracted. This is a meaningful pattern for project completion.
• OWNER CONDUCT FLAG: Two separate reviews describe the owner (Steve Miller) behaving aggressively or unprofessionally toward customers — one accusing a customer of being a deadbeat before sending a final bill, and another getting angry when a customer complained about poor work.
• NO FAKE REVIEW PATTERNS DETECTED: Reviews vary significantly in tone, detail, rating, and specificity. Language is not repetitive. Both positive and negative reviews contain specific, credible details. No fake review suppression applied.

This WW Score is based on 24 reviews spanning 2006–2017 with HIGH mention counts across all dimensions, but the score should be treated with caution due to the age of the data, a consistent pattern of billing complaints, at least one serious potential fraud incident, and documented incomplete work — the score of 62.1 likely reflects a contractor with capable individual technicians but unreliable and sometimes problematic overall service delivery.