Find Nearby Plumbers In Ann Arbor, Michigan

ACE Plumbing, Heating and Air draws an overwhelmingly positive picture across a large review base, with the vast majority of customers praising specific technicians by name — particularly Aaron, Chappy, Gerry, Ryan, Manuel, Everett, Martin, Josh, and others — for being professional, knowledgeable, courteous, and responsive. Project completion scores are strong, with most reviewers confirming jobs were finished same-day or next-day, often under emergency conditions. Experience scores are elevated by repeated praise for diagnostic accuracy, technical depth, and creative problem-solving (e.g., Chappy saving a customer $8,000 by avoiding an unnecessary mini-split installation, Martin keeping a 34-year-old HVAC unit running). Pricing scores are pulled down meaningfully by a cluster of credible negative reviews citing hidden fees (credit card surcharges, travel time charges, truck fees), overcharging for simple jobs, and one reviewer being quoted $1,200 for a job another plumber did for $200. Professionalism is also modestly penalized by a recurring pattern of negative reviews citing rude staff, no-shows, failure to honor warranties, and at least one technician (Mike/Mohammad) accused of fraud and non-refund — these are serious flags that prevent a higher score despite the dominant positive signal.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: Two pairs of reviews are near-identical in wording and posted on consecutive dates (June 6-8 and June 5-7, 2025). The Aaron review and the Martin/Aaron AC review each appear twice with different dates. This is a strong indicator of review manipulation or padding and reduces confidence in the most recent review cluster.
• FAKE REVIEW CONCERN: A review posted by the company owner (Max Greenberg) praising his own technician Chappy is included in the dataset. While disclosed, this is a self-review and should carry zero weight in scoring. It has been excluded from scoring calculations.
• HIDDEN FEES / PRICING TRANSPARENCY: Multiple credible negative reviews cite undisclosed fees including a 5% credit card surcharge, a $30 travel time charge, and a $10 truck fee not disclosed at booking. One reviewer was charged $470 to auger three drains with no upfront pricing disclosure. These are material pricing integrity concerns.
• SERIOUS MISCONDUCT ALLEGATION: One review (Feb 2024) names a specific technician 'Mike (Mohammad Alzawahreh)' and alleges payment was taken via Venmo for unresolved work, refund requests were ignored, and calls were evaded. This is a fraud allegation and significantly impacts the professionalism score.
• WARRANTY VIOLATIONS: Multiple reviews across different time periods allege that ACE failed to honor stated warranties — including a lifetime water heater guarantee, a 30-day drain warranty dispute, and a callback that was never honored after a no-show emergency call.
• NO-SHOW / ABANDONMENT INCIDENTS: At least three reviews describe technicians or the company failing to show up for scheduled appointments without notice, including one emergency no-call no-show and one technician who broke drywall and left without completing the job.
• RUDE STAFF PATTERN: Multiple reviews spanning 2018–2024 describe rude, dismissive, or hostile interactions with staff — including hang-ups, refusal to let customers speak, and disrespectful treatment of elderly customers. This is a recurring pattern, not isolated incidents.
• RECENCY NOTE: The review dataset spans from 2011 to June 2025. Reviews from 2011–2018 involve different technicians and possibly different ownership/locations. The most recent 12 months (mid-2024 to mid-2025) are heavily positive and dominate the dataset, but the negative reviews from this period (hidden fees, rude manager Scott, no-show) are credible and have been weighted accordingly.
• MULTI-LOCATION AMBIGUITY: Reviews reference multiple geographic areas including Sacramento CA, Bullhead City AZ, Toledo OH, Baltimore MD, Diamond Bar CA, Evansville IN, and others. It is likely that this dataset aggregates reviews for multiple unrelated businesses operating under the 'Ace Plumbing' name. Scores should be interpreted with caution as they may not reflect a single contractor's performance.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large review volume, but its reliability as a single-contractor assessment is MODERATE at best, given strong evidence that reviews from multiple geographically distinct and likely unrelated 'Ace Plumbing' businesses have been aggregated together — consumers should verify they are reading reviews specific to their local ACE Plumbing branch before making a hiring decision.

Diversified Heating & Cooling demonstrates strong professionalism and technical expertise across most recent reviews, with consistent praise for technician courtesy, punctuality, and knowledge. Project completion is generally solid with most jobs finished properly and on time. However, pricing emerges as a significant weakness, with multiple complaints about hidden fees, inflated estimates, and lack of transparency—particularly regarding advertised 'free estimates' that carry $89 charges. Several older reviews (2016–2022) document serious diagnostic failures and poor customer service recovery, though recent reviews (2025) show marked improvement in service quality and communication.

• PRICING CONCERNS: Multiple reviews explicitly criticize pricing practices—$89 'free estimate' fee (2025-05-19), $400 part that didn't solve problem requiring $300 specialist part (2025-02-09), $250 service call fee with double-market pricing (2016-06-06). This pattern suggests systemic pricing transparency issues.
• DIAGNOSTIC FAILURES: Two detailed negative reviews (2025-02-09 boiler, 2022-01-27 furnace) document misdiagnosis requiring specialist intervention. A third (2018-12-28) describes incorrect part installation. These suggest inconsistent technical competence, though recent reviews do not repeat this pattern.
• CUSTOMER SERVICE RECOVERY FAILURE: 2018-12-28 review documents extremely poor phone support and lack of callback follow-up after service error. This is a serious professionalism gap, though not mentioned in recent reviews.
• CLEANLINESS INCONSISTENCY: 2022-02-18 review documents technician tracking mud throughout home despite request for booties. Recent reviews (2025) consistently mention boot covers and cleanliness, suggesting this was addressed.
• RECENCY BIAS NOTED: 45 of 56 reviews (80%) are from 2025 or late 2024. Older reviews (2016–2022) contain more serious complaints. Recent reviews are overwhelmingly positive (5-star) with minimal critical detail, which may reflect selection bias or improved operations.
• GENERIC PRAISE PATTERN: Many recent 5-star reviews contain minimal detail (empty reviews, single-sentence praise). While not necessarily fake, this limits ability to verify claims and may inflate apparent satisfaction.

This WW Score of 82.1 is moderately reliable for recent service expectations (2025), reflecting strong professionalism and experience dimensions supported by 30+ recent mentions. However, the pricing score (62.5) is based on only 5 mentions and represents a genuine weakness that should not be overlooked. The score does not fully capture historical service failures (2016–2022) or current pricing transparency issues, which remain material concerns despite recent operational improvements. Prospective customers should specifically clarify pricing structure and obtain detailed written estimates before committing.

Action Drain has a strong overall reputation built on consistent praise for friendliness, responsiveness, and fair pricing across the majority of its reviews. Professionalism scores well but is meaningfully dragged down by one detailed 1-star review describing a technician arriving without tools, failing to clear drains, leaving a mess, and charging $250 for poor results — this is a serious and credible negative data point that cannot be ignored. Project completion is similarly strong in most reviews, with multiple mentions of same-day service, warranty honoring, and after-hours dedication, but the same negative review and one early review noting an inability to clear a clog (though that reviewer was not charged) temper the score. Pricing is a genuine strength, with many reviewers explicitly calling out low or fair prices and several making favorable comparisons to competitors. Experience scores solidly but not exceptionally, as most reviews praise speed and results without deep technical detail, and the one negative review raises real concerns about skill and preparation on at least one job.

• One highly credible 1-star review (2020-10-23) describes serious service failures: technician arrived without tools, failed to clear two of three drains, missed a clog entirely, left a mess, and charged $250 — this review is detailed and specific and significantly impacts professionalism and project completion scores.
• The majority of reviews are older than 12 months (most from 2013–2020), with only one review from 2021. Recency is limited and the business may have changed ownership or staff since many reviews were written. Two different owners and multiple technician names (Ryan, Calvin, Bryan, Russell) appear across reviews, making it difficult to assess current service consistency.
• Most reviews are 5-star with broadly positive language, which warrants mild fake-review scrutiny. However, the reviews generally contain specific details (names, times, prices, scenarios) that suggest authenticity. No strong evidence of coordinated fake reviews, but the near-universal 5-star pattern (22 of 23) outside one outlier is noted.
• Payment method limitation noted in one review: business only accepts cash or check, no credit cards — this may be a practical concern for some customers.

This WW Score is based on 23 reviews with good dimensional coverage and HIGH confidence across all four dimensions, but should be treated with moderate caution due to the age of most reviews, multiple ownership/staff changes over the review period, and one serious negative review that reveals a meaningful service failure.

Absolute Plumbing earns strong marks across all four dimensions, driven by an exceptionally large and predominantly positive review base spanning over a decade. Professionalism scores are bolstered by hundreds of mentions of punctuality, courtesy, and communication, but are meaningfully dragged down by a recurring pattern of no-shows, missed appointments without notification, and several accounts of rude or combative behavior from staff and owners — a pattern that appears across multiple years and multiple reviewers. Pricing receives the lowest score due to a notable minority of reviewers explicitly calling out overcharging, non-itemized invoices, hidden fees, inflated service call charges, and pricing that felt inconsistent or deceptive; while many reviewers praise fair pricing, the negative pricing complaints are specific and credible enough to suppress the score. Project completion is generally strong, with most jobs described as completed efficiently and thoroughly, though a handful of reviews describe incomplete work, callbacks needed, or jobs that failed within days. Experience scores well, with many reviewers citing skilled diagnostics, problem-solving, and technical knowledge across a wide variety of plumbing tasks.

• APPOINTMENT RELIABILITY PATTERN: At least 15 reviews across multiple years describe no-shows, missed appointments without any call, or plumbers arriving significantly late without notice. This is a persistent and credible operational weakness, not isolated incidents.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS — SPECIFIC AND CREDIBLE: Multiple reviewers across different years cite non-itemized bills, unexpected charges for drive time, inflated parts markups, high service call fees, and pricing that felt inconsistent or deceptive. One reviewer was quoted $3,200 for a water heater; another paid $162 for a 15-minute repair. These are not vague complaints.
• RUDE STAFF COMPLAINTS: Several reviews describe rude, dismissive, or combative behavior from staff or owners — including hanging up on customers, refusing to answer questions, and making racially charged comments. These are serious professionalism flags.
• POSSIBLE MULTI-ENTITY REVIEW POOL: The review set references a very large number of different technician names (Jose, Howard, Bill, Edwin, Josh, Larry, Steve, Raul, Sean, Brett, Andy, Jared, Matthew, Nick, John, Justin, etc.) and spans geographies including California (Bay Area, San Diego, Lodi, Castro Valley), Texas (Flower Mound, DFW), and Illinois (Chicago suburbs). This strongly suggests these reviews are aggregated from multiple distinct business locations or franchises operating under the 'Absolute Plumbing' name. Scores should be interpreted with caution as they may not reflect any single location's performance.
• RECENCY NOTE: The review set spans from approximately 2008 to June 2025. Reviews from 2025 and 2024 are heavily weighted in this analysis. Older reviews (pre-2020) are present in large numbers and show similar patterns — both positive and negative — suggesting the operational issues are long-standing rather than recently resolved.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK — LOW TO MODERATE: The majority of 5-star reviews contain specific technician names, job descriptions, and situational details, which reduces fake review suspicion. However, a subset of very short, generic 5-star reviews with no detail (e.g., 'Great work', 'Hard worker gets the job done right', blank text with 5 stars) are present and contribute minor concern. Overall fake review risk is assessed as low to moderate.
• INCOMPLETE WORK INSTANCES: At least 3 reviews describe work that was left incomplete, required a return visit, or failed within days of completion — including a drain that re-blocked within 48 hours and a tankless water heater installation left unfinished for a month.

This WW Score carries HIGH statistical confidence due to the very large review volume, but should be interpreted with caution given strong evidence that the review pool aggregates multiple distinct business locations operating under the same name, and given persistent credible complaints about appointment reliability, pricing transparency, and occasional staff conduct that meaningfully offset the otherwise strong positive sentiment.

Mayes Plumbing demonstrates strong performance across all dimensions based on available reviews. Professionalism is consistently praised with on-time arrivals, friendly demeanor, responsive communication, and holiday weekend availability. Project completion is solid with quick turnaround, complete job fulfillment, and willingness to perform additional work without extra charges. Pricing is characterized as fair and transparent with upfront quotes. Technical skill is evident through efficient repairs and problem-solving. However, the sample size of 4 reviews limits confidence; all reviews are 5-star ratings with no critical feedback, which may not fully represent the complete customer experience spectrum.

• Small sample size (4 reviews) limits statistical reliability
• All reviews are 5-star ratings with no negative feedback or complaints — this is atypical and may not represent full customer experience
• Review dates span 2021-2024 with significant gaps; most recent review is from May 2024, but one review is from 2021 (3+ years old)
• No reviews mention specific challenges, delays, or issues that would provide balanced perspective
• Generic praise language present but not repetitive enough to definitively flag as fake; however, uniformly positive tone warrants caution

This WW Score should be treated with caution due to the small sample size (4 reviews) and absence of any critical feedback or complaints, which is statistically unusual and may not reflect the full range of customer experiences.

Joel demonstrates strong professionalism across all three reviews, with consistent mentions of quick response times, professional demeanor, and accommodating behavior. Project completion is well-supported with evidence of thorough work and follow-through on drain service. Pricing is mentioned positively but only once as 'reasonable,' limiting confidence in that dimension. Technical skill is evident from the detailed drain-clearing work described, though explicit experience mentions are minimal. The score reflects solid performance across dimensions with moderate overall confidence due to the small sample size.

• Only 3 reviews analyzed — sample size is small and limits statistical reliability
• All reviews are 5-star ratings with no negative feedback, which could indicate selection bias or incomplete review dataset
• Pricing dimension based on single mention ('reasonable pricing') — insufficient data for robust assessment
• No dates older than 1 year; all reviews from past 12 months is positive for recency

This WW Score should be treated as preliminary and directional only. With only 3 reviews, the score reflects a positive trend but lacks the volume needed for high confidence. Recommend collecting additional reviews before making major decisions based on this score.