Find Nearby Plumbers In Ann Arbor, Michigan

Aaron Plumbing scores strongly on professionalism, with the vast majority of reviewers praising punctuality, communication, courtesy, and responsiveness — particularly from technician Austin. However, several serious negative reviews drag down the overall picture: one customer had a near-fire incident caused by a technician's torch work, another confirmed incomplete pipe clearing by a second plumber, and multiple reviewers cited being charged again for unresolved issues. Pricing is the weakest dimension, with complaints about $326/hour rates, a $500 charge for a failed cartridge replacement, and a $450 charge for incomplete sewer clearing — offset only partially by a handful of reviews praising reasonable or fair pricing. Project completion is mixed: most jobs appear to be finished, but a meaningful cluster of negative reviews describe incomplete work, return visits needed, and warranty disputes. Experience scores moderately well given the volume of praise for technical knowledge, but is tempered by documented incidents of poor workmanship and a technician who lacked basic tools.

• Two reviews are exact duplicates with identical text and the same date (2024-10-12): the 1-star 'DO NOT USE THIS COMPANY' review appears twice — this may be a platform artifact or intentional duplicate posting rather than a fake review, but it was counted only once per unique reviewer.
• Two additional reviews share identical text about a water heater failure (dates 2024-06-09 and 2024-04-22) and two more share identical text about Austin and a garbage disposal (dates 2024-06-09 and 2024-05-15) — these appear to be duplicate submissions and were counted only once each for scoring purposes.
• Two reviews with identical text about Steve and an emergency situation (2012-07-18) were counted as one.
• Several reviews from 2011–2014 are more than 10 years old and carry significantly reduced weight in scoring. The bulk of usable signal comes from 2022–2025 reviews.
• Five reviews contain no text (only a star rating) and were excluded from dimensional scoring as they provide no usable evidence.
• One review (rating 5.0, 2012-08-09) appears internally contradictory — it gives 5 stars while describing slow work and an overpriced quote — suggesting possible platform error or misclick; it was treated as a mixed/negative signal for relevant dimensions.
• The concentration of highly positive reviews for a single technician (Austin) across many reviews raises a mild pattern flag, though the specificity and variety of detail in most of these reviews suggests they are likely genuine rather than fabricated.

This WW Score is based on a large review set with HIGH confidence across all four dimensions, but should be interpreted cautiously given the presence of several serious negative reviews describing safety incidents, incomplete work, and pricing disputes that are partially obscured by the high volume of positive reviews for routine backflow testing jobs.

Michigan Power Rodding earns strong marks across all four dimensions, with professionalism being the most consistently praised attribute — technicians are repeatedly described as courteous, punctual, communicative, and thorough in cleanup. Project completion scores well overall, bolstered by multiple accounts of same-day or next-day service and a clear pattern of honoring callbacks at no charge when jobs recurred; however, several reviews describe jobs that did not fully resolve the problem on the first visit, and one serious unresolved equipment-loss complaint tempers the score. Pricing is the weakest dimension: while many reviewers call costs fair or reasonable, a meaningful cluster of negative reviews explicitly cite overcharging, billing inaccuracies, and poor value for short jobs — including a disputed invoice where a manager dismissed the customer's concern as 'he said/she said.' Experience scores moderately well, with many reviewers praising technical knowledge and problem-solving, but offset by a handful of reviews describing incompetent workmanship, use of wrong tools, and at least two incidents of significant property damage caused by technician error.

• BLANK REVIEWS: 6 reviews contain no text whatsoever (only a star rating). These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK — MODERATE: A large cluster of reviews dated '2024-06-09' with no timestamps (exactly the same date) raises suspicion of bulk-imported or backdated reviews. Several of these are extremely brief and generic (e.g., 'Professional and clean work.', 'Excellent service, thanks', 'Great team, very quick in response'). Confidence is not reduced to LOW because many of these reviews do contain specific technician names and job details, but this pattern warrants caution.
• BILLING INTEGRITY CONCERN: At least three reviews (2023-06, 2017-01, 2015-05) explicitly allege overcharging, inaccurate invoicing, or deceptive upselling. One manager response dismissed a billing dispute as 'he said/she said,' which is a red flag for accountability.
• PROPERTY DAMAGE INCIDENTS: Two separate reviews (2017-06, 2018-06) describe significant property damage caused by technician error — one resulting in a flooded basement and destroyed flooring, another involving equipment left stuck on the customer's property requiring $1,000 to remove. The 2018 review was later updated to reflect resolution; the 2017 review was not.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of high-quality, detailed reviews are from 2024–2025, which is a positive signal. Negative reviews are spread across multiple years (2015–2023), suggesting the issues are not isolated to one period but are recurring.
• TECHNICIAN INCONSISTENCY: Multiple reviews praise specific technicians by name (Mark, Eric, Justin, Tommy, Charles, Adam, etc.), while negative reviews describe unnamed or poorly performing technicians. This suggests quality may vary significantly depending on which technician is dispatched.

This WW Score of 79.4 is based on a large and diverse review set spanning over a decade and carries HIGH overall confidence, but should be interpreted with caution given documented billing disputes, recurring property damage incidents, and a cluster of suspiciously same-dated generic reviews that may inflate the positive signal.

Masterflow demonstrates strong performance across all dimensions with consistently positive feedback spanning over a decade. Professionalism is a clear strength, with multiple reviews highlighting punctuality, courtesy, responsiveness, and clear communication. Project completion is reliable, with customers noting jobs finished as expected and willingness to address additional issues discovered on-site. Pricing is fair and transparent with no hidden charges mentioned. Technical expertise is evident through problem-solving ability and quality workmanship. However, the overall confidence is moderated by the small sample size (8 reviews) and the age of several reviews (most from 2012-2016), which limits the recency of data.

• Review sample size is small (8 total reviews), which limits statistical confidence despite positive ratings
• Significant recency gap: only 2 reviews from 2023-2024; most reviews are 8-12 years old (2012-2016), making current service quality assessment difficult
• All reviews are 5-star ratings with no negative feedback, which is atypical and may suggest selection bias or incomplete review dataset
• Review from 2021-03-02 references 'previous review' but lacks specific detail, suggesting possible incomplete data capture

This score should be treated with caution due to the small sample size and significant age of most reviews; while historical performance appears strong, recent data (past 12 months) is limited to only 1 review, making it difficult to assess current service quality with confidence.

Dion's Complete demonstrates strong professionalism across all six reviews, with consistent praise for punctuality, responsiveness, communication, and courteous staff. Project completion is well-documented with same-day and next-day service delivery, attention to detail, and follow-through on customer requests. Technical competence is evident but mentioned less frequently. Pricing feedback is limited to two mentions of fair and transparent pricing with no hidden fees, which prevents a higher confidence score in this dimension. The company shows reliable execution and customer-centric service, though the small sample size and age of some reviews (2019–2022) warrant moderate overall confidence.

• Small sample size (6 reviews) limits statistical reliability; recommend reassessment when 10+ reviews are available.
• Three reviews are older than 2 years (2019–2022); only three reviews from 2024 or recent 2024 period provide current performance data.
• All reviews are 5-star ratings with no negative feedback; while not necessarily fake, the absence of any critical comments or mixed experiences is atypical and should be noted.
• Pricing dimension based on only 2 mentions; insufficient data to confidently assess value proposition.
• Review from 2020-10-02 references 'A&A' rather than 'Dion's Complete,' suggesting possible name confusion or different entity; included but flagged for potential data quality issue.

This WW Score of 88.2 should be treated with moderate confidence due to the small sample size (6 reviews) and recency concerns; the uniformly positive feedback is encouraging but lacks the depth and diversity of opinion needed for high confidence. Recommend collecting additional recent reviews before making major business decisions based on this score.

Diggit demonstrates strong performance across all dimensions based on four substantive positive reviews. Professionalism is evidenced by respectful crews, efficient execution, and rapid response times (same-day and next-day service). Project completion is consistently praised with jobs finished on time, complex problems solved, and follow-through on callbacks. Pricing is notably competitive, with customers reporting 40-50% savings versus competitors and fair adjustments when scope increased. Technical expertise is evident in specialized equipment use, complex problem-solving (locating water lines under driveways), and ability to handle multiple trades. However, one serious safety/conduct complaint from 2023 regarding the owner's reckless driving raises significant concerns about company culture and accountability.

• CRITICAL: One 1-star review (2023-04-14) alleges dangerous driving by the owner and reports that staff indicated the owner 'didn't care' about safety concerns. This is a serious red flag regarding company leadership and safety culture that contradicts the positive service reviews.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Three of four positive reviews are from 2013-2020 (3-10 years old). Only one positive review is from recent years. The most recent review is the negative safety complaint from April 2023.
• SAMPLE SIZE: Only 5 total reviews analyzed. While 4 are usable, this is a small dataset. Confidence should be treated as limited despite MODERATE label.
• CONTRADICTION: Strong positive feedback on service quality directly contradicts the owner's apparent disregard for safety and accountability reported by employees.

This score should be treated with caution. While service quality appears strong based on four detailed positive reviews, the recent serious safety allegation about the owner's conduct and the age of most positive reviews (3-10 years old) significantly undermine confidence in the overall reliability of this score. The contradiction between excellent service reviews and poor leadership conduct suggests the score may not reflect current company standards or culture.

Clog Busters demonstrates strong professionalism with consistently praised punctuality, communication, and courteous technicians across 98 reviews. Technical expertise and problem-solving ability are well-documented across 71 reviews, with many clients noting knowledgeable staff and thorough diagnostics. Project completion is solid at 79.5, though some reviews mention incomplete fixes or follow-up issues. Pricing emerges as a notable weakness, with 28 mentions revealing concerns about unexpected charges, price increases, and high costs relative to competitors. The company shows particular strength in emergency response and customer service but faces credibility challenges around transparent pricing and occasional service failures.

• PRICING INCONSISTENCY: Multiple reviews (2024-06-06, 2024-06-06, 2019-04-09) report unexpected price increases, undisclosed fees, and quotes that differ significantly from final charges. One customer reported a 33% price increase on repeat service without communication.
• SERVICE FAILURE PATTERN: At least 8 reviews (1-star ratings from 2025-06-02, 2025-05-30, 2024-10-09, 2024-06-06, 2020-03-05, 2019-06-01, 2019-04-09, 2018-08-11) document incomplete work, misdiagnosis, property damage, or refusal to fix errors caused by technicians.
• PROPERTY DAMAGE DISPUTES: Two nearly identical reviews (2024-06-06, 2024-01-30) describe driveway damage from sewer inspection marking that company refused to remediate, suggesting potential pattern.
• CONFLICT OF INTEREST CONCERN: One review (2019-01-08) from real estate professional flags potential conflict of interest—company performs both inspections and repairs, leading to unnecessary repair recommendations.
• DUPLICATE/SUSPICIOUS REVIEWS: Two identical negative reviews appear (2025-06-02 and 2025-05-30) describing same clogging issue and same $300 charge, suggesting possible duplicate submission or coordinated complaint.
• DUPLICATE POSITIVE REVIEWS: Two nearly identical 5-star reviews (2025-06-02 and 2025-05-30) with identical phrasing ('Wow…amazing job with friendly, courteous and efficient service') raise authenticity concerns.
• EMPLOYEE COMPLAINT: One detailed 1-star review (2024-07-30) from alleged former employee describes upselling practices, lack of advancement, and claims company is 'not plumbers' per Oregon code, suggesting operational/compliance issues.
• RECENCY BIAS: Majority of reviews are from 2024-2025 (approximately 60% of dataset), with older reviews (2015-2018) showing more balanced criticism. Recent reviews skew heavily positive, which may reflect selection bias.
• GENERIC PRAISE: Several 5-star reviews contain minimal detail or generic language ('Great service', empty review text, or suspiciously similar phrasing), reducing confidence in authenticity.

This WW Score of 78.2 should be treated with MODERATE-TO-HIGH confidence for professionalism and experience dimensions, but LOWER confidence for pricing assessment. The company demonstrates genuine strengths in responsiveness, technical knowledge, and customer service, but the pricing dimension is undermined by documented inconsistencies, unexpected charges, and price-gouging complaints. The presence of duplicate reviews, generic praise, and an employee complaint warrant caution. Prospective customers should request detailed written quotes with all fees disclosed upfront and verify pricing before service. The company's willingness to refuse responsibility for property damage and incomplete work (documented in multiple reviews) is a significant concern that reduces overall trustworthiness despite strong professionalism scores.