Find Nearby Plumbers In Mansfield, Ohio

This is a franchise brand with hundreds of locations, and the review pool reflects wildly inconsistent quality across different operators and technicians. Professionalism scores are dragged down significantly by a large volume of reviews describing rude, condescending, or outright hostile technicians and office staff, though many positive reviews praise specific named technicians as courteous and professional. Pricing is the most damaging dimension: an enormous number of reviews describe a bait-and-switch pattern where a low advertised rate (often $49) is used to gain entry, followed by aggressive upselling to hydro-jetting, camera inspections, and pipe replacement at prices reviewers consistently describe as two to ten times market rate. Project completion is mixed — many jobs are completed satisfactorily and quickly, but a significant minority of reviews describe incomplete work, warranty refusals, no-shows, and jobs that required a second company to actually fix the problem. Experience scores reflect genuine skill from certain technicians but are undermined by repeated accounts of misdiagnosis, fabricated damage, and work that failed within days or weeks.

• STRONG BAIT-AND-SWITCH PATTERN DETECTED: Dozens of independent reviews across multiple years and locations describe an identical pattern — low advertised price ($49 drain special) used to gain entry, followed by claims the snake cannot work and escalating upsells to hydro-jetting ($500-$1200), camera inspection, and full pipe replacement ($3,000-$15,000+). This is a systemic business practice, not isolated incidents.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — POSITIVE SIDE: A notable cluster of short, generic 5-star reviews with no detail (e.g., 'Good experience', 'Great service!', 'You guys great!', blank text with 5 stars) appear throughout the dataset, many dated in close proximity. These lack specificity and are consistent with review padding. Confidence in the positive score pool is reduced accordingly.
• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: Multiple reviews appear to be exact duplicates submitted on the same or adjacent dates (e.g., identical text for 'Many other contractors proposed to snake the sewer line', 'Very Pleased with results', 'Did a great job excellent work', 'Prompt, polite, professional', etc.). This inflates the apparent review count and may indicate manipulation.
• MULTI-LOCATION FRANCHISE ISSUE: Reviews clearly reference dozens of different geographic locations (Sacramento, Orange County, Reno, Framingham MA, Spartanburg SC, Baton Rouge, etc.) and different named technicians. This is not a single contractor — it is a franchise brand. Scores reflect the aggregate brand, not any single operator. Individual location quality varies enormously.
• SERIOUS FRAUD ALLEGATIONS: Multiple reviews allege criminal-level conduct including: charging for work not performed, fabricating damage on camera footage, partnering with restoration companies (Bolmer Restoration named repeatedly) to generate fraudulent insurance claims, opening credit cards in customers' names, placing mechanics liens on homes, and targeting elderly and vulnerable customers. One review references a revoked NV business license and cancelled contractor license.
• WARRANTY REFUSAL PATTERN: Multiple reviews describe the company refusing to honor stated warranties when problems recurred within the warranty period, often citing new reasons to charge again.
• NO-SHOW AND SCHEDULING FAILURE PATTERN: A significant number of reviews describe confirmed appointments where technicians never arrived and calls were not returned, sometimes leaving customers without water or sewage service for days.
• RECENCY NOTE: The review dataset spans from approximately 2010 to June 2025. Reviews from the past 12 months (mid-2024 to mid-2025) show a continued mix of strong positives for specific named technicians and serious negatives for pricing and scam-like upselling, suggesting the pattern has not materially changed. More recent reviews were weighted slightly higher in scoring.

This WW Score of 58.2 should be treated with MODERATE-TO-LOW trust as a hiring signal: while it accurately reflects the deeply polarized nature of this franchise brand, the score is based on a mixed pool that includes suspected fake positive reviews, duplicate submissions, and reviews from dozens of geographically distinct franchise locations — meaning the score does not reliably predict the quality of any single local operator, and the systemic pricing and upselling complaints documented across hundreds of independent reviews represent a material risk that any prospective customer should investigate carefully before engaging this company.

Comfort Control exhibits significant inconsistency across service quality dimensions. While recent reviews (2024, 2023) praise professionalism, responsiveness, and technical knowledge, older reviews (2006-2019) reveal persistent problems with pricing transparency, scheduling reliability, and follow-through. Professionalism scores are dragged down by documented unprofessional behavior, late arrivals, and rude staff interactions. Pricing is a major weakness, with multiple customers reporting bills 2-3X higher than quoted estimates, double-billing practices, and overcharges for parts and labor. Project completion suffers from missed appointments, incomplete work, and warranty service failures. The company shows capability in technical execution but fails consistently in customer service delivery and business practices.

• CRITICAL: Severe pricing complaints across multiple years (2016, 2013, 2014, 2009) with documented evidence of flat-rate overbilling, double-billing overlapping services, and quotes that bear no relation to final invoices. This is a systemic issue, not isolated incidents.
• RECENCY BIAS ALERT: Most recent reviews (2024, 2023) are highly positive, but reviews from 2006-2019 show consistent negative patterns. The company may have improved recently, but historical data suggests caution.
• PROFESSIONALISM CONCERNS: Multiple reviews document rude staff, poor attitudes, late arrivals, and disrespectful treatment of customers' time. One review specifically names 'Remy' as unprofessional and crass.
• SCHEDULING RELIABILITY: Repeated failures to honor appointment times, no-shows without notice, and inability to schedule service for months despite warranty obligations.
• TECHNICAL COMPETENCE QUESTIONS: One review documents misdiagnosis (pilot assembly vs. loose wires), another shows sloppy wiring, and a third documents installing undersized replacement compressor (5-ton vs. 6-ton ordered).
• WARRANTY VIOLATIONS: Multiple customers report being charged for warranty-period service and having warranty work delayed or refused.
• CONSUMER COMPLAINTS: At least two reviews mention involvement of consumer protection agencies (NY Attorney General, Westchester County Consumer Affairs, Department of Consumer Affairs).

This score should be treated with MODERATE confidence due to significant temporal inconsistency in the data. Recent reviews suggest possible improvement, but the weight of historical evidence (14+ years of complaints about pricing, scheduling, and professionalism) indicates systemic business practice issues that may not have been fully resolved. The WW Score of 54.8 reflects a company with technical capability but serious customer service and ethical concerns.

This contractor's reviews paint a predominantly negative picture across nearly all dimensions. Professionalism is the most-mentioned dimension and is heavily dragged down by multiple accounts of arguing with customers, disrespectful comments, and dismissive attitudes — offset only slightly by two positive reviews praising promptness and honest communication. Project completion is similarly poor, with multiple reviews describing incomplete work, repeat callbacks that failed to resolve issues, and at least one case where a broken blade was allegedly left in a sewer pipe. Pricing drew a serious red flag with one reviewer alleging a $700 quote for a $40 fix on a widowed woman, indicating potential predatory pricing practices. The two positive reviews, while genuine in tone, are older (2015 and 2021) and are significantly outweighed by the volume and severity of the negative experiences described.

• Potential predatory pricing flagged: one reviewer alleges a $700 quote was given to a widowed mother for a repair that cost $40 to fix independently — this is a serious ethical concern.
• Abandoned or incomplete work reported in multiple reviews: sewer line only partially cleaned, toilet drain issue required three visits and was never resolved, and a foreign object (broken blade) allegedly left in a sewer pipe.
• Pattern of dismissive and disrespectful behavior toward customers reported across at least two separate reviews, including arguing with customers and making belittling comments during callbacks.
• The two positive reviews are dated 2015 and 2021 — both are outside the most recent 12-month window and carry reduced recency weight. The three most recent reviews (2022) are all 1-star.
• Small sample size of only 5 reviews limits statistical reliability. Scores should be interpreted with caution.

This WW Score is based on only 5 reviews spanning nearly a decade, with the most recent cluster (2022) being uniformly negative — the score should be treated as directionally informative but not statistically robust, and the pattern of serious complaints warrants significant caution before hiring.

All three reviews are strongly negative and paint a consistent picture of a contractor who routinely fails to show up, does not return calls or texts, and does not complete jobs. Professionalism scores near zero due to repeated reports of extreme lateness, no-shows, and failure to communicate. Project completion is similarly devastated, with at least two reviewers explicitly stating the job was never finished. The single mention of workmanship quality (a roof job with a concerning crew) is too limited to score meaningfully but was scored conservatively low. No reviewer mentioned pricing or value, so that dimension cannot be assessed.

• SUSPECTED FAKE REVIEW DEFENSE: Review 1 explicitly alleges that the sole 5-star review on this contractor's profile was posted by his wife under her maiden name (Angie Saunders). This is a serious credibility flag and suggests the positive review history may be artificially inflated.
• PATTERN WARNING: Two reviews were posted on the same date (2020-07-27) with nearly identical language and structure, including the same phrase 'benefit of the doubt because I wanted to use a local contractor.' This may indicate coordinated posting, though both are negative reviews so the intent appears to be genuine warning rather than fake promotion.
• RECENCY WARNING: All three reviews are from 2020, making them over 4 years old at time of analysis. No recent reviews are available to assess whether performance has improved or declined.
• LOW REVIEW VOLUME: Only 3 reviews are available. While the WW Score has been calculated, it should be treated with caution due to the small sample size and age of the data.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews, all from 2020, and should be considered LOW reliability — the score directionally reflects serious and consistent complaints, but cannot be considered a statistically robust assessment of current contractor performance.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 3 reviews analyzed, all from 2011–2018 (6–13 years old). Each dimension has only 2 mentions, resulting in LIMITED confidence across all categories. Reviews are uniformly positive with minimal specific detail, making it impossible to construct a reliable composite score. Recency is a critical concern; no reviews from the past 12 months.

• All reviews are older than 6 years; no recent data available (oldest from 2011, most recent from 2018)
• Only 3 total reviews — below minimum threshold for reliable scoring
• All reviews are 5-star ratings with generic praise and minimal specifics; pattern suggests potential selection bias or incomplete review dataset
• Mentions are uniformly low (2 per dimension); confidence cannot exceed LIMITED
• No negative feedback or critical detail provided; unable to validate claims independently

This analysis cannot produce a trustworthy WW Score due to insufficient review volume (n=3), extreme age of data (6–13 years old with no recent reviews), and uniformly generic positive feedback lacking specificity. Any score derived would be unreliable and should not be used for decision-making.

This single review paints a consistently negative picture across all four dimensions. On professionalism, the plumber made a verbal implication that the job might be free due to equipment failures, then walked that back — a significant breach of trust that also caused the customer to be two hours late for work. Pricing was a major complaint: no phone estimate was provided, the in-person quote was ~$300 for a simple drain snake, and despite multiple equipment failures and a near-promise of no charge, the customer still paid over $250. Project completion was severely hampered by two broken machines requiring multiple return trips, though the job was ultimately finished. Experience is called into question by the fact that the plumber arrived with non-functioning equipment not once but twice, suggesting poor preparation and equipment maintenance.

• Only 1 review analyzed — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably with fewer than 3 reviews.
• The plumber verbally implied the job might be free due to repeated equipment failures, then only offered a $40 discount — this represents a potential integrity concern.
• No phone pricing provided upfront; customer felt trapped into accepting a high quote due to an urgent clog situation — possible pressure-pricing tactic.
• Multiple broken machines on a single job raises serious concerns about equipment readiness and operational competence.

This score is based on a single 1-star review and should be considered highly unreliable as a representation of the contractor's overall performance — far more reviews are needed before any meaningful conclusions can be drawn.