Find Nearby Plumbers In Toledo, Ohio

This contractor demonstrates strong professionalism with consistent punctuality, politeness, and responsiveness across multiple reviews spanning nearly two decades. Pricing is fair and transparent with no hidden charges reported. Project completion is generally reliable with same-day emergency service and follow-through on callbacks, though one significant quality failure in tile work (2006) indicates inconsistency in specialized tasks. Technical expertise in plumbing is well-documented with strong problem-solving ability, though the tile work failure suggests limitations outside core plumbing services.

• One review (2012-10-26) contains awkward, non-native phrasing ('Absolutely envy the loyalty', 'Under no circumstances doubted') that appears suspicious or machine-generated, though rating is consistent with others.
• One review (2014-02-27) contains only a period with 5-star rating—no usable data, excluded from analysis.
• Significant quality failure in 2006 (crooked tile and wall work requiring complete redo) contradicts otherwise positive reviews; suggests contractor may lack expertise in tile/finish work despite strong plumbing reputation.
• Review dates span 2004–2018 with heavy concentration in 2005–2007 and 2013–2018; only 3 reviews from past 12 months relative to analysis date, limiting recency assessment.
• One negative review (2014-11-01) reports no answer to call/voicemail—isolated incident but indicates occasional communication lapses.

This WW Score of 82.3 is reliable and based on substantial evidence across 15 usable reviews with consistent mention counts across all dimensions (6–9 mentions each). However, the score should be interpreted as reflecting core plumbing services; the contractor's reliability in specialized work (tile, finish carpentry) is questionable based on documented failure, and most reviews are older than 5 years, so current performance may differ.

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.

Drain Master demonstrates strong overall performance with a WW Score of 82.1, driven primarily by exceptional professionalism (86.5) across 127 reviews mentioning punctuality, communication, and courteous service. Project completion scores 79.5 based on 98 mentions, reflecting generally reliable work delivery but tempered by several documented instances of incomplete follow-up, missed appointments, and unresolved issues. Pricing is competitive at 82.0 across 48 mentions, with customers consistently noting fair and reasonable rates. Experience/workmanship scores 84.0 across 67 mentions, indicating solid technical skill. However, the company shows material inconsistency: while the majority of recent reviews (2024-2025) are highly positive, older reviews and scattered recent complaints reveal recurring problems with accountability, communication breakdowns, and occasional quality lapses.

• INCONSISTENCY PATTERN: Stark contrast between recent reviews (predominantly 5-star, 2024-2025) and older reviews (2012-2019) which contain multiple 1-star complaints about no-shows, non-responsiveness, and unfinished work. This suggests either significant operational improvement or potential review manipulation.
• MULTIPLE SERIOUS COMPLAINTS: At least 8 reviews (1-star ratings) document critical failures: no-shows with no callback (2019, 2015), incomplete work with no follow-up (2018 sump pump installation error, 2018 faucet abandonment), unresolved sewage backup (2012), electrical line damage without accountability (2018), and cash payment with no receipts (2017). These are not minor issues.
• COMMUNICATION FAILURES: Recurring theme across negative reviews of unreturned calls/texts and broken commitments despite initial responsiveness. One 2014 review documents 3 weeks of unanswered calls; another 2019 review shows 2-3 hour appointment delays.
• ACCOUNTABILITY GAPS: Multiple reviews indicate owner defensiveness when problems occur (2018 faucet incident, 2018 sump pump installation error) rather than proactive resolution. One 2018 review documents $4,000 job with no receipt, no estimate, and no response to follow-up calls after electrical line was cut.
• GENERIC/VAGUE REVIEWS: Approximately 20 reviews contain only 'unknown' text or single-word responses ('Excellent service'), providing no substantive data. These inflate the positive count without evidence.
• RECENCY BIAS RISK: 70% of reviews are from 2024-2025 and are uniformly 5-star with detailed praise. Earlier reviews (2012-2019) show much higher variance and more critical feedback. Recent reviews may reflect improved operations, but the dramatic shift warrants caution.
• PERSONNEL INCONSISTENCY: Reviews reference multiple owners/operators (Tim, Bill, Bob, Mike, Charlie, Ron) and technicians with varying quality levels, suggesting either company turnover or multiple locations/franchises with inconsistent standards.

This WW Score of 82.1 should be treated with MODERATE-TO-HIGH caution: while recent performance (2024-2025) appears genuinely strong and professionalism metrics are well-supported, the company's documented history of serious failures (no-shows, incomplete work, communication breakdowns, accountability gaps) and the dramatic shift in review tone between older and newer periods suggest either significant operational restructuring or potential review quality issues. The score reflects current trajectory but does not fully capture historical risk. Customers should verify current ownership/management and request written estimates and warranties before engaging.

Whitcher Plumbing & Heating demonstrates strong overall performance with particular strengths in professionalism (87.3) and technical experience (85.6). The company excels at punctuality, courteous technician behavior, and skilled workmanship, with many reviews praising specific technicians like Jacob, Carlos, and Richard by name. Project completion is solid (84.2), with most jobs finished as promised and emergency calls handled promptly. However, pricing emerges as a notable weakness (71.4), with multiple customers reporting unexpected charges, evaluation fees not credited toward service, and bills significantly higher than quoted amounts. This pricing concern, while not universal, appears in enough reviews to warrant caution.

• PRICING INCONSISTENCY: Multiple reviews (2014, 2020, 2024) report significant billing discrepancies—evaluation fees not credited, final bills substantially exceeding quoted prices, and surprise charges. This pattern suggests potential transparency issues in pricing communication.
• FOLLOW-UP FAILURES: Three 1-star reviews (2022-2023, 2024) describe situations where technicians failed to return for promised callbacks or refused to honor warranty claims, contradicting the company's otherwise strong completion record.
• QUALITY CONTROL VARIANCE: One review alleges technician sabotage (capacitor sticker), and another describes a bathtub installation that failed to hold water with no warranty honor. These suggest inconsistent quality control despite mostly positive feedback.
• RECENCY BIAS NOTED: Most recent reviews (2025, 2024) are overwhelmingly 5-star with minimal critical detail, while older reviews (2014-2017) contain more balanced feedback. Recent reviews show less specificity and may reflect selection bias.
• GENERIC PRAISE PATTERN: Several recent reviews use nearly identical phrasing ('highly recommend,' 'great service,' 'professional') with minimal specific detail, though not enough to conclusively flag as fake.

This WW Score of 82.1 is reliable for assessing professionalism and technical competence, but customers should exercise caution regarding pricing—request detailed written quotes, confirm all fees upfront, and verify that evaluation charges will be credited toward service costs before authorizing work.

Kellermeier demonstrates strong professionalism across 38 reviews, with consistent praise for punctuality, courtesy, communication, and respectful behavior. Technical expertise is well-documented across 25 reviews, with technicians frequently noted as knowledgeable and skilled. Project completion is supported by 8 reviews showing jobs finished properly and issues resolved. However, pricing is a significant concern: two explicit negative reviews cite excessive charges ($880 for a $120 part; repeated $289-$300 charges for warranty-covered defects), substantially lowering the pricing dimension. The company's overall score reflects strong service quality undermined by documented pricing practices that customers perceive as unfair.

• PRICING RED FLAG: Two detailed 1-star reviews (2023-11-21 and 2023-08-15) explicitly accuse the company of overcharging and not honoring warranties. The 2023-08-15 review describes a technician as 'very rude and disrespectful' and uses all-caps language ('WORST COMPANY I HAVE EVERY DEALT WITH'), indicating genuine customer frustration rather than isolated incidents.
• FAKE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: Multiple reviews (particularly from 2025-04-10 and 2025-05-26) contain suspiciously generic praise with minimal specifics ('good service today!!!', 'Professional', empty reviews with 5-star ratings). Three completely blank reviews with 5-star ratings (2025-05-26, 2025-04-10) suggest potential review manipulation. This pattern inflates professionalism and experience scores artificially.
• RECENCY BIAS: 36 of 50 reviews are from 2025 (past 6 months), while critical negative reviews are from 2023-2017. Recent reviews are overwhelmingly 5-star with generic language, while older reviews contain substantive detail (both positive and negative). This temporal clustering warrants caution.
• WARRANTY/PRODUCT QUALITY CONCERN: The 2023-08-15 review documents repeated failures of installed sump pump switches within warranty periods, with the company refusing to honor coverage. This suggests potential product quality or warranty policy issues not captured in other dimensions.
• INSTALLATION QUALITY CONCERN: The 2017-12-06 review indicates a water line installation oversight that created a functional problem for the customer, suggesting gaps in attention to detail during installation work.

This WW Score of 82.1 should be treated with MODERATE-TO-HIGH caution: while professionalism and experience scores are well-supported by numerous recent reviews, the pricing dimension is severely limited (only 2 mentions) and those mentions are damaging. The prevalence of generic/blank 5-star reviews from 2025 suggests potential review inflation, which artificially elevates the overall score. The documented pricing complaints and warranty disputes from 2023 are serious and unresolved. A more conservative estimate of true performance would be 75–80, with pricing being a genuine weakness despite strong technical execution.

T&J Rooter Service demonstrates strong professionalism with consistent praise for punctuality, courtesy, and responsiveness across 68 reviews. Project completion is solid at 82.0, though some older reviews (2013-2020) document scheduling failures and incomplete follow-ups that drag this dimension down. Experience scores well at 85.0, with technicians frequently praised for knowledge and thoroughness. Pricing is the weakest dimension at 72.0—while many recent reviews call pricing 'reasonable' or 'fair,' several older reviews (2017-2021) document significant price increases and complaints about high labor rates, creating a mixed perception. The company shows marked improvement in recent months (2025 reviews are predominantly 5-star with specific praise), but historical service failures and pricing concerns prevent a higher overall score.

• RECENCY BIAS: 40+ reviews are from 2025 (past 6 months) with nearly all 5-star ratings and generic praise. Older reviews (2012-2021) show more critical feedback and specific complaints. Recent reviews lack the detailed specificity of older reviews, suggesting possible review clustering or seasonal variation.
• PRICING VOLATILITY: Multiple reviews document significant price increases over time. A 2021 review explicitly states labor charges 'doubled' post-pandemic ($90→$200 per faucet install). A 2017 review documents a $1200 quote vs. competitor's $150 for same repair. This pattern suggests pricing inconsistency or market-driven increases that may not reflect current practices.
• SCHEDULING FAILURES: Six reviews (2019-2020) document no-shows, missed appointments, and poor callback follow-up. These are concentrated in 2019-2020 period and largely absent from 2025 reviews, suggesting operational improvements.
• EMPTY REVIEWS: Four reviews contain no text (5.0 ratings on 2025-06-02, 2025-05-26, 2024-12-11, 2025-01-10), making them unusable for dimension scoring.
• INCONSISTENT SERVICE QUALITY: One 2013 review documents unprofessional behavior (cell phone flashlights, unsolicited bathroom remodel recommendation, $75 undisclosed fee). This is an outlier but indicates historical service variability.
• INCOMPLETE WORK: One 2015 review states 'It's clogged up again, so it wasn't a good job' (3.0 rating), and one 2021 review documents poor follow-up communication over 5 months despite initial good service (2.0 rating).

This WW Score of 81.2 is reliable for current service expectations (2025) based on 40+ recent high-confidence reviews, but should be interpreted cautiously for pricing and scheduling reliability given historical volatility documented in 2012-2021 reviews. The company appears to have improved operational consistency in the past 12 months, but prospective customers should obtain detailed written quotes and confirm appointment details given documented scheduling issues in prior years.