Find Nearby Plumbers In Wyoming, Michigan

Prestige Plumbing Services, led primarily by Robert and his brother Richard, receives overwhelmingly positive feedback across all four scored dimensions. Professionalism is the most frequently cited strength, with dozens of reviewers praising punctuality, clear communication, friendliness, and respectful conduct — including one reviewer noting Robert removed his shoes without being asked. Project completion scores are also very strong, with the vast majority of reviewers confirming jobs were finished quickly, cleanly, and thoroughly, often within a single visit or with prompt follow-up when parts were needed. Experience is consistently highlighted through specific examples of accurate diagnosis, problem-solving that other plumbers failed at, and honest advice that saved customers money. Pricing is notably favorable, with multiple reviewers explicitly stating costs were 20–40% below competitor quotes and that there was no upselling. Four negative reviews exist: one citing no callback, one citing unprofessional communication around insurance, one alleging incorrect diagnosis and overcharging, and one that appears to be for an entirely different company (hospice harassment complaint) and was excluded from scoring.

• Two reviews (dated 2019-06-11 and 2018-06-11) appear to be for a completely different company — 'Prestige Home Improvement' based in Sykesville, MD, referencing contractors named Steve and Jim. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they do not pertain to Prestige Plumbing Services of Burbank, CA.
• One 1-star review (2017-06-11) referencing 17 harassing phone calls to someone with a parent in hospice is almost certainly for a different business entirely and was excluded from scoring.
• The overwhelming majority of reviews are 5-star with similar praise patterns (honest, professional, quick, knowledgeable). While this could suggest fake review risk, the reviews contain specific job details, named technicians, unique scenarios, and varied writing styles, which substantially reduces that concern. No fake review flag is raised, but the pattern warrants mild note.
• One 1-star review (2018-12-04) alleges incorrect diagnosis and attempts to extract unnecessary charges — this is a credible negative signal and was factored into experience and professionalism scores.
• One 1-star review (2024-02-17) and one 1-star review (2018-06-18) cite failure to respond to voicemails and texts, which negatively impacted the professionalism score.
• A significant portion of reviews (roughly 40%) are older than 24 months. Reviews from 2024 and 2023 remain consistently positive, suggesting sustained quality, but the score is anchored more heavily on recent reviews per scoring rules.

This WW Score is based on a large volume of reviews (83 total, 79 usable) spanning multiple years with strong recency representation through 2024, yielding HIGH confidence across all four dimensions and making this one of the more reliable scores that can be produced.

AllPro Services receives consistently strong marks across all four dimensions, with professionalism and project completion being the most frequently cited strengths. Multiple reviewers specifically praised communication, responsiveness, and respectful behavior on-site, including daily cleanup — hallmarks of a professional operation. Project completion scores are supported by accounts of complex, multi-phase renovations delivered fully and on time, with at least one reviewer noting a same-day turnaround on an urgent plumbing issue. Pricing transparency is mentioned in fewer reviews but positively, with one reviewer specifically noting the contractor's ability to stay close to estimates. Experience and workmanship quality are affirmed across multiple reviews referencing skilled problem-solving, attention to detail, and results that met or exceeded expectations. One review noted worker attrition mid-project, which is a minor flag but was handled transparently and did not result in an incomplete outcome.

• All 13 reviews are 5-star (one is 4-star), which warrants mild scrutiny for potential selection bias or platform curation.
• Several reviews are brief and generic (e.g., 'All Pro Services did an excellent job', 'They have done four projects.', 'Beautiful job.') with no specific detail — these contribute limited scoring evidence.
• The majority of reviews (10 of 13) are older than 12 months relative to a 2024 evaluation date, with most clustering in 2019–2020. Only 2 reviews are from 2023. Recency of performance cannot be fully confirmed.
• No negative reviews are present in the dataset. While this may reflect genuine quality, it limits the ability to assess how the contractor handles problems or disputes.

The WW Score of 84.6 carries HIGH overall confidence given 13 reviews with usable data across all four dimensions, though the score should be interpreted with moderate caution due to the age of most reviews and the absence of any critical or mixed feedback.

Integrity Plumbing demonstrates strong overall performance across all dimensions, with particularly high marks for professionalism (87.5) driven by consistent praise for punctuality, communication, and courteous staff. Pricing scores well (82.0) with many customers noting fair, transparent, and competitive rates. Project completion (85.5) reflects reliable follow-through, though a small number of reviews mention delayed callbacks or incomplete follow-up. Technical expertise (83.0) is consistently praised, with customers highlighting knowledgeable technicians and thorough diagnostics. The company's name genuinely reflects its operational values in the majority of reviews.

• FAKE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: Reviews dated 2025-06-08, 2025-06-05, and 2025-06-03 contain identical text (long, detailed narrative about managing renovation projects, mentioning Emily, James, Josh, Steve, Lyle by name). This repetition across three consecutive dates is highly suspicious and suggests potential review manipulation.
• EMPTY REVIEWS: 18 reviews contain only a 5.0 rating with no text content. While not necessarily fake, these provide no substantive data and inflate review count without evidence.
• RECENCY BIAS: Approximately 60% of reviews are from 2024-2025 (past 12 months), with a sharp increase in volume in recent months. Earlier reviews (2006-2020) show more varied ratings (including 1-3 star reviews), while recent reviews are overwhelmingly 5-star. This pattern warrants caution.
• NEGATIVE REVIEWS CONCENTRATED IN PAST: Most 1-star and 2-star reviews are from 2013-2022. Recent negative reviews (2024-2025) are rare, which could indicate either genuine improvement or selective review removal/suppression.
• MULTIPLE BUSINESS LOCATIONS/OWNERS: Reviews reference different owners/technicians across different regions (Dave, James, Toby, Marc, Sean, etc.) and locations (Rancho Santa Margarita, Vallejo, Omaha, Utah, Brentwood, etc.), suggesting either multiple franchises under one name or significant data mixing. This complicates reliability assessment.
• INCONSISTENT COMPANY IDENTITY: Some reviews reference 'Integrity Plumbing' as a single-owner operation (Dave, James, Toby), while others describe it as a larger company with multiple crews. Geographic and personnel inconsistencies suggest these may be different companies with the same name.

While the WW Score of 84.2 reflects genuinely positive feedback across most dimensions, the reliability is MODERATE-TO-HIGH rather than fully HIGH due to: (1) suspicious identical reviews in June 2025 suggesting potential manipulation, (2) 18 empty 5-star reviews providing no evidence, (3) dramatic recency bias with 60% of reviews from past 12 months and nearly all recent reviews being 5-star, and (4) apparent mixing of multiple businesses/locations under the same name. The score is most trustworthy for recent service quality (2024-2025) but should be viewed with caution regarding historical consistency. Customers should verify they are contacting the correct location/owner before booking.

Mr. Rooter earns strong marks for professionalism and experience, with hundreds of reviews praising courteous, knowledgeable technicians who communicate clearly, arrive promptly, and clean up after themselves. Project completion is generally solid, with most jobs finished same-day or within the promised timeframe, though a meaningful minority of reviews describe incomplete work, no-shows, or jobs that required callbacks. The most significant drag on the overall WW Score is pricing: a very large volume of reviewers — across many years and locations — explicitly describe charges as excessive, sometimes 2–4x competitor quotes, with several accounts of suspected upselling, undisclosed fees, and work billed but not performed. This pricing concern is too consistent and widespread to discount.

• PRICING CONCERN — HIGH VOLUME: Pricing complaints appear in well over 100 reviews spanning multiple years and locations. Specific complaints include: $400–$766 to snake a drain, $4,500+ for water heater replacements available elsewhere for $1,400–$2,100, $12,000 quotes for jobs completed by competitors for $1,100–$3,000, and charges for services (e.g., camera inspection) that were never performed. This is a systemic pattern, not isolated incidents.
• INCOMPLETE WORK / CALLBACKS: Multiple reviews describe jobs left unfinished, problems recurring within days, or original issues not addressed (e.g., kitchen sink still clogged after $4,500 job, drain re-clogged within 24 hours, shower still leaking after repair).
• NO-SHOW / SCHEDULING FAILURES: At least 8–10 reviews describe technicians who did not arrive at scheduled times with no proactive communication, including one review describing a 5-hour wait with no contact.
• SERIOUS SAFETY ALLEGATION: One review (dated 2024-10-14, rating 0.5) alleges that dry-cutting through a slab without asbestos precautions caused $43,000 in out-of-pocket losses and 43 days of hotel displacement. This is an extreme outlier but warrants flagging.
• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: Several review texts appear verbatim across multiple dates (e.g., 'Fast, pleasant, and excellent service!' on 2025-06-08 and 2025-06-06; 'Excellent service. Efficient and courteous...' on 2025-06-08 and 2025-06-06; 'Nathan did an excellent job...' on 2025-06-07 and 2025-06-05; 'Well done, completely satisfied.' on 2025-06-07 and 2025-06-04; 'good quality work' on 2024-09-17 twice). This suggests possible review duplication or platform aggregation artifacts. Confidence in the very recent review cluster is slightly reduced.
• BLANK REVIEWS WITH 5-STAR RATINGS: A large number of reviews (estimated 80–100+) contain no text and only a 5-star rating. These provide no usable data for dimension scoring and inflate the raw star average without substantive evidence.
• FRANCHISE VARIABILITY: Reviews reference multiple geographic locations (Santa Cruz, Portland/Vancouver, Camp Verde/Verde Valley, Inland Empire, etc.). Scores reflect the aggregate of what appears to be a multi-franchise dataset; individual location quality may vary significantly.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews with substantive text are from 2021–2025, which is within the relevant scoring window. Reviews from 2012–2019 are present but weighted less heavily per scoring rules.

The WW Score of 72.4 carries HIGH statistical confidence given the very large review volume, but consumers should treat the pricing dimension (score: 42) as a serious and well-documented risk — the volume and specificity of overcharging complaints across years and locations is too consistent to dismiss, and prospective customers are strongly advised to obtain competing quotes before authorizing any work.

Pipe Monster Plumbing scores strongly across all four dimensions based on 11 reviews, with professionalism being the most consistently praised attribute — punctuality, politeness, communication, and responsiveness are mentioned across nearly every review. Project completion is also well-supported, with multiple reviewers noting jobs were finished efficiently, on schedule, and with thorough cleanup. Pricing is mentioned positively in three reviews, including one notable case where the final cost was less than half a competitor's estimate and another where a callback was honored at no charge. Experience and workmanship are affirmed by several reviewers, including a renovation contractor who vouched for their craftsmanship. However, all reviews are from 2021–2022, meaning none fall within the past 12 months, which reduces confidence in how current this performance picture is.

• ALL 11 reviews are 5-star ratings with no negative or mixed feedback — this is a potential indicator of review curation or selection bias, though individual reviews do contain specific details that reduce fake review suspicion.
• Three reviews share the exact same date (2021-10-06) and two others share the same date (2021-09-29) — this clustering may suggest batch submission of reviews and warrants mild caution.
• Some reviews use generic phrasing ('great job', 'excellent service', 'very professional') with limited specifics, which slightly reduces evidentiary weight for those individual entries.
• RECENCY WARNING: All reviews are dated between September 2021 and August 2022 — none are within the past 12 months. This score may not reflect current performance and should be treated with caution until more recent reviews are available.

This WW Score is moderately reliable given consistent positive signals across multiple dimensions and 11 reviews, but confidence is tempered by the complete absence of recent reviews, a uniform 5-star rating pattern, and some clustering of review submission dates.

Whitney Services demonstrates severe and systemic deficiencies across all four dimensions. The company exhibits chronic professionalism failures including missed appointments, no-shows, poor communication, rude staff, and unresponsiveness to customer concerns. Project completion is critically weak, with extensive documentation of abandoned work, repeated rescheduling, failure to follow through on callbacks, and incomplete repairs requiring customer intervention or third-party contractors. Pricing practices are frequently criticized as deceptive, with hidden charges, inflated estimates, and charges for services not rendered. While individual technicians occasionally demonstrate competence, the company's operational infrastructure is fundamentally broken, making reliable service delivery impossible.

• CRITICAL: Extremely high volume of 1-star reviews (approximately 110+ one-star ratings) with consistent, detailed complaints spanning 10+ years indicates systemic, persistent organizational failure—not isolated incidents.
• PATTERN: Overwhelming evidence of no-shows and missed appointments across multiple time periods, with customers reporting 2-7 scheduled appointments with zero completion.
• PATTERN: Repeated complaints about communication failures—customers unable to reach company by phone, voicemails never returned, text-only communication preventing complex problem discussion.
• PATTERN: Consistent allegations of deceptive pricing practices including undisclosed fees, inflated estimates, charges for services not rendered, and refusal to refund overcharges.
• PATTERN: Multiple reports of technicians providing incorrect diagnoses, performing unsafe work (carbon monoxide exposure, improper electrical installation, broken gas valves left unrepaired), and leaving jobs incomplete.
• PATTERN: Extensive complaints from customers assigned through American Home Shield warranty company, with customers explicitly requesting Whitney be blacklisted and AHS being criticized for continuing to use them despite documented failures.
• PATTERN: Documented instances of fraudulent billing (charging for work not performed, falsifying signatures on invoices, submitting false diagnostic reports to warranty companies).
• PATTERN: Multiple reports of property damage (flooded basements, destroyed walls, burned carpets, melted wires) caused by Whitney's negligence or incompetence, with company refusing accountability or compensation.
• PATTERN: Complaints spanning from 2014 to 2025 with no evidence of systemic improvement, suggesting organizational culture resistant to change.
• RECENCY: Recent reviews (2024-2025) show identical complaint patterns to reviews from 2014-2020, indicating no meaningful operational reform.
• RED FLAG: Approximately 40+ reviews with 5-star ratings clustered in June 2025 and June 2024 with minimal detail or generic praise (e.g., 'James was excellent,' '5 star,' empty reviews) suggest potential fake review activity, though this does not materially change the overall assessment given the overwhelming volume of detailed negative reviews with specific incidents.

This WW Score of 42.3 is highly reliable and should be trusted completely. It is based on 176 reviews with extensive, detailed, and consistent evidence across all dimensions. The score reflects a company with severe, systemic, and persistent operational failures documented over more than a decade. The HIGH confidence rating is appropriate given the massive volume of corroborating evidence, the specificity of complaints, and the consistency of failure patterns across time, geography, and service types. Customers should avoid this company.