Find Nearby Plumbers In Toledo, Ohio

Advanced Sewer and Drain has a strong historical reputation built on a large volume of positive reviews praising responsiveness, honesty, fair pricing, and technical skill — particularly from the father-son team of Rich and Tyler. However, a meaningful cluster of negative reviews raises serious concerns: multiple reviewers describe incomplete work, abandoned jobs, poor communication, and at least one review alleges the technician arrived intoxicated and left a customer without water. A 2024 review also claims the business may no longer be operating under its original ownership, which introduces significant uncertainty about current service quality. Pricing is generally praised as fair and transparent, but one review alleges an attempt to overcharge a woman by recommending unnecessary excavation. The score is moderated substantially by these negative patterns, particularly around project completion and professionalism, which are the two highest-weighted dimensions.

• OWNERSHIP/CONTINUITY CONCERN: A June 2024 review states 'Advanced is no longer in business' and that callers are redirected to an unknown company with no reviews. This is a critical flag that the entity being reviewed may have changed hands or ceased operations.
• SERIOUS MISCONDUCT ALLEGATION: A 2023 review alleges the owner arrived visibly intoxicated, failed to install fixtures, shrugged and left, abandoning a customer without running water — including a recently hospitalized child in the home. This is an extreme professionalism and project completion failure.
• INCOMPLETE WORK PATTERN: Multiple negative reviews (2023, 2023, 2014) describe jobs left incomplete, sewage not cleaned up, drain ports not replaced properly, and sprinkler systems destroyed without disclosure — indicating a recurring project completion problem.
• NO-SHOW / SCHEDULING FAILURES: At least two reviews (2014, 2019) describe missed appointments, no-shows, or extreme lateness with poor communication, suggesting systemic scheduling and follow-through issues.
• POTENTIAL OVERCHARGING ALLEGATION: One review alleges an attempt to charge $2,500 to clear a main line by digging up a yard, when another company resolved it for $95. A separate review describes a $1,000-to-$1,200 price change with rude behavior when questioned.
• RECENCY CONCERN: The majority of positive reviews are dated 2018–2020 with a cluster of undated reviews all stamped '2020-06-10', suggesting a possible bulk review submission on that date. Reviews from 2022 onward are fewer and include a higher proportion of negative experiences.
• GENERIC REVIEW FLAGS: Several reviews ('Did a great job!!!', 'Saved our bacon!', blank rating with no text, 'Great service_timely and efficient!') contain no specific detail and may inflate the positive review count without adding meaningful evidence.
• TWO BLANK/EMPTY REVIEWS: Two reviews contain no text content (one 5-star, one 1-star) and were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large review volume, but the score itself should be treated with caution given credible allegations of serious misconduct, a possible change in business ownership or operations as of 2024, and a pattern of project completion failures in more recent reviews that suggest meaningful service deterioration from the company's earlier reputation.

Air-Stream Plumbing and Heating shows a genuinely mixed track record across its review history. Professionalism is the most contested dimension: while many customers praise courteous, friendly technicians like Nate, Ryan, and Jacob, a meaningful cluster of negative reviews describes rude staff, unreturned calls, no-shows, and outright dishonest behavior — including one review alleging profanity at a place of business and another describing a technician who hung up on a customer. Pricing is the strongest dimension, with the majority of reviewers who mentioned cost describing it as fair, reasonable, or better than competitors, and only one review explicitly alleging deceptive pricing. Project completion is significantly dragged down by multiple reviews describing incomplete work, a 40-day delay on an A/C repair, a three-trip water heater install, a failed motor replacement that blew again within 15 minutes, and at least one case of poor workmanship requiring a second company to fix. Experience scores moderately well — skilled technicians are praised in several reviews for creative problem-solving and quality work — but is offset by documented failures in diagnosis and execution. The overall picture is a company with capable technicians whose quality is inconsistent and whose office-level communication and follow-through are a recurring liability.

• 9 reviews contain no text whatsoever — only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence.
• Several reviews use generic praise with no specifics (e.g., 'These guys rule. 10/10 favorites to use.' and 'Great, quick response.' and 'great overall experience'). These were counted only where a dimension could be reasonably inferred but were weighted conservatively.
• The review dated 2025-03-11 contains no text and was excluded entirely.
• Multiple negative reviews reference home warranty referrals specifically, suggesting a pattern of deprioritized service for warranty customers that may not reflect direct-hire experiences equally.
• One review (2017-06-11, 1-star) alleges poor workmanship and refusal to remedy the issue, and another (2017-06-11, 1-star) describes a replaced motor failing within 15 minutes with no callback — these are serious project completion and experience red flags.
• Review dates span from 2016 to 2025. Reviews from 2019 and earlier carry reduced weight per recency rules. The most recent reviews (2024–2025) are predominantly positive, which is a mild positive signal but insufficient to override the volume of documented failures in the broader history.
• No clear fake review pattern detected, though the volume of blank 5-star reviews is mildly suspicious and warrants caution.

This WW Score is based on 41 reviews with usable content spanning approximately 9 years and carries HIGH overall confidence due to mention volume, but consumers should note that the score reflects meaningful inconsistency — particularly around project completion and professionalism — and should not be interpreted as a uniformly positive endorsement.

Bob's Plumbing has a strong base of positive reviews spanning many years, with recurring praise for punctuality, professionalism, and technical skill. However, several credible negative reviews meaningfully drag down the score: one customer was charged $130 for an incomplete diagnosis that a $12 part ultimately resolved, another received no response across multiple contact attempts, and a long-term customer reported a pattern of Bob sending unqualified substitutes whose work had to be redone. A separate reviewer documented a failure to fix a reported leak and no offer of compensation. Pricing is generally described as reasonable or fair, but at least two reviewers flagged it as expensive or not great, and the $130 half-hour visit with a missed diagnosis is a notable concern. Project completion is the most penalized dimension due to documented instances of incomplete work, ignored callbacks, and quality degradation when Bob stopped doing the work himself.

• 4 reviews contain only 'unknown' or 'Routine' as text with no usable content — these were excluded from dimension scoring but counted in total reviews analyzed.
• Several reviews are extremely old (2006–2012) and may not reflect current service quality. The majority of detailed reviews are from 2017 or earlier, with only a handful from 2019–2023.
• The most recent reviews (2023) are both negative, which is a recency flag suggesting possible quality decline.
• Some older 5-star reviews use all-caps formatting and generic praise with no specifics (e.g., 'THEY ARE VERY GOOD'), which may indicate lower authenticity — confidence slightly reduced for those data points.
• A long-term customer (2010 review) explicitly noted Bob stopped doing the work himself and sent unqualified substitutes, with at least one job requiring a redo — this is a significant quality-control flag.
• The 2008 negative review documents a failure to complete called-for work and no remediation offered, corroborating the project completion concerns raised in more recent reviews.

This WW Score is based on 36 reviews with usable data spanning 2006–2023, giving it HIGH statistical confidence in volume, but the heavy skew toward older reviews and a pattern of recent negative experiences means the score should be treated as a historical average rather than a reliable indicator of current service quality.

Gearhart Plumbing shows strong technical expertise and workmanship (82/100), with many customers praising knowledgeable technicians and quality installations. However, professionalism is significantly undermined by persistent communication failures, missed appointments, and unresponsiveness to callbacks and voicemails—issues appearing across multiple years and affecting both new and long-term customers. Project completion suffers from delayed follow-ups, incomplete work, and failure to honor scheduled appointments, with several customers reporting multi-week or multi-month delays. Pricing is generally perceived as fair to reasonable, though some customers felt overcharged for minimal service. The company demonstrates inconsistent service quality depending on which technician is assigned.

• CRITICAL: Systematic communication breakdown—at least 12 reviews explicitly mention ignored voicemails, unreturned calls, missed appointments, or no-shows spanning from 2013 to 2024. This is the single largest pattern of complaint.
• CRITICAL: Multiple reviews describe being forgotten or deprioritized after initial contact, with follow-ups taking weeks or months (2024 hot water heater case: 2 years of delays; 2024 filter rack case: 1 year of no contact; 2024 furnace estimate: no-show).
• RED FLAG: Potential staff/management issue—reviews mention specific names (Neil, Andy, Adam, Jennifer, Dennis) in both positive and negative contexts, suggesting inconsistent individual performance rather than company-wide excellence.
• RED FLAG: One review (2022) describes flooding caused by technician error, with company going 'MIA for over a week' and taking 2 weeks to return. Suggests poor accountability and follow-through on serious incidents.
• RED FLAG: One review (2024) describes disrespectful employee behavior; company response was to fire the employee, but this indicates quality control issues.
• MODERATE CONCERN: Several reviews from 2022–2024 describe rude or angry phone reception from office staff, contradicting claims of professionalism.
• DATA QUALITY: 13 reviews contain no text (empty or single emoji/symbol), reducing confidence in overall sentiment. However, these are all rated 5.0 or 3.0–4.0, so impact is limited.
• RECENCY: Most negative reviews cluster in 2022–2024, suggesting recent deterioration in service standards. Older reviews (2013–2019) are predominantly positive, indicating possible organizational decline.
• PATTERN: Long-term customers (20+ years) have recently switched away due to service failures, indicating loss of institutional reliability.

This WW Score of 71.2 is reliable and should be trusted as a cautionary assessment. The score is based on 80 reviews with HIGH overall confidence, but it masks a critical vulnerability: while technical work quality remains strong (82/100), the company's professionalism and project completion are severely compromised by systematic communication failures and missed commitments. The pattern of ignored callbacks and no-shows is consistent, documented, and spans multiple years, making this a structural business problem rather than isolated incidents. Prospective customers should expect excellent workmanship but should be prepared for significant delays, unresponsiveness, and potential frustration in scheduling and follow-up.

Gene Smith of Alternative Plumbing receives consistently strong praise across professionalism, project completion, and technical experience. Multiple reviewers highlight his punctuality, clear communication, thorough cleanup, and willingness to explain work in detail — hallmarks of high professionalism. Project completion scores are bolstered by accounts of callbacks honored at no charge, follow-through on complex multi-step jobs, and work delivered as promised. His technical skill is evidenced by solving problems other plumbers and even the gas company could not, handling aging and discontinued fixtures, and executing intricate installations cleanly. Pricing feedback is positive but limited to three reviews, with one noting a higher-than-expected bill that was ultimately justified by the scope of work, keeping the pricing score conservative. The overall picture is of a highly capable and trustworthy plumber, though the score carries moderate overall confidence due to the small review pool and the age of most reviews.

• Two reviews contain only the text 'unknown' and provide no usable data — these were excluded from scoring.
• Most reviews are significantly older than 12 months; the majority date from 2011–2018, with only one review from within the past three years (2021). Recency is a concern and limits confidence in current performance.
• All rated reviews are 5-star, which warrants mild scrutiny; however, the reviews contain specific, detailed, and varied narratives that reduce the likelihood of fabrication. No fake review flag is raised, but the uniformity is noted.

This WW Score is based on a small set of reviews (7 usable) that are predominantly older than three years, which meaningfully limits confidence in how well the score reflects the contractor's current performance; the score should be treated as a positive historical signal rather than a definitive current assessment.

All six reviews speak positively to professionalism, consistently praising punctuality, courtesy, and communication — this is the strongest and most confidently scored dimension. Pricing is mentioned in three reviews and described as fair and reasonable, supporting a solid but moderately confident score. Project completion is addressed in four reviews, with customers noting thorough work, follow-through, and resolution of complex issues including a 101-year-old home's sewer system. Experience is reflected in four reviews through references to knowledgeable explanations, problem-solving, and quality workmanship. The overall picture is consistently positive, though the small review pool and age of most reviews limit full confidence.

• Only 6 total reviews — sample size is very small and limits statistical reliability of all scores.
• Most reviews are older than 1 year; the most recent review is from January 2021 and the majority date from 2019 and earlier, with one from 2015. Recency is a concern — current service quality cannot be confirmed.
• All reviews are 5-star with uniformly positive language. While individual reviews do contain specific details (named technicians, specific job types, unique situations), the absence of any critical or mixed feedback across all reviews warrants mild caution.
• One review (2021) is very brief and generic ('we love bill and Todd') with no specific detail — limited usable data extracted from that review.
• No negative experiences, complaints, or constructive criticism present in any review — this is statistically unusual and may reflect a curated or incomplete review set.

This WW Score carries moderate reliability due to a small review pool of only 6 reviews, the majority of which are over 3 years old, making it difficult to assess current and consistent service quality with high confidence.