Find Nearby Plumbers In Toledo, Ohio

Schmidlin demonstrates strong professionalism and technical expertise across multiple reviews, with staff consistently praised for knowledge, helpfulness, and customer service. However, pricing feedback is mixed—while some customers appreciate fair pricing and local support, one significant negative review from 2015 highlighted pricing concerns (same part available online at half price) and poor return policies not disclosed upfront. The business appears to excel at problem-solving and technical knowledge but lacks sufficient data on project completion timelines and follow-through. Most reviews are older than 1 year, which limits recency confidence.

• Review recency concern: 7 of 11 reviews are older than 5 years (2018 or earlier). Only 2 reviews from past 12 months. This significantly limits confidence in current operational standards.
• Potential fake review pattern: Multiple reviews use nearly identical phrasing ('very knowledgeable staff,' 'helpful,' 'great customer service') with no specific details about actual work performed or outcomes. Reviews from 2018-2022 show suspiciously generic praise.
• One strongly negative review (1-star, 2015) contradicts the overwhelmingly positive pattern, citing rudeness, unfair return policies, and significant price disparity. This outlier suggests either service inconsistency or that positive reviews may be skewed.
• Project completion dimension has zero mentions—reviews focus on retail/supply interactions and staff knowledge, not actual plumbing job completion, timeliness, or callbacks.

This score should be treated with caution due to review age (most data 5+ years old), potential review bias toward generic praise, and lack of data on actual project completion. The strong professionalism and experience scores are supported by multiple mentions, but pricing feedback is limited and contradictory, and the business model appears primarily retail-focused rather than service-based.

JAG Plumbing demonstrates solid professionalism and technical expertise across multiple reviews, with staff consistently described as efficient, competent, and responsive. However, a significant 2021 project revealed critical gaps in project completion—specifically incomplete work (sprinkler valve left shut off, leaking after repair) and poor cleanup practices—which substantially impacts overall reliability. Pricing appears fair based on limited mentions, though the 2021 review shows the company charged at the high end of estimate despite incomplete work. The company's age of reviews (oldest from 2012, most recent from 2022) limits recency assessment, but the 2021 failure on a major project is recent enough to warrant caution.

• RECENCY CONCERN: Most reviews are 2–12 years old. Only one review from 2021 provides recent performance data, limiting confidence in current service quality.
• PROJECT COMPLETION RED FLAG: The 2021 basement re-pipe review (2.0 stars) explicitly documents incomplete work—sprinkler valve left shut off and leaking after repair, plus poor cleanup. This directly contradicts the positive pattern in other reviews and suggests inconsistency in quality control.
• POTENTIAL INCONSISTENCY: Five 5-star reviews with minimal detail contrast sharply with one detailed 2-star review. The positive reviews lack specificity about scope or complexity, while the negative review provides extensive documentation of failures. This pattern suggests either variable service quality or that customers with problems are more motivated to write detailed reviews.

This score should be treated with caution. While the company shows competence and professionalism in most reviews, the documented failure on a major 2021 project—incomplete work and poor follow-through—demonstrates a real risk. The small sample size (6 reviews), age of most data, and lack of recent reviews further limit confidence. A score of 82.3 reflects solid historical performance tempered by a significant recent failure and insufficient current data.

Roger/Tony's plumbing service demonstrates solid professionalism with polite, cordial technicians who arrive promptly and communicate effectively. Pricing appears fair with transparent estimates and charges coming in below initial quotes. Project completion is reliable with jobs finished on time and follow-through on additional issues noticed during service. Technical skill is evident in complex work like sink/faucet replacement with plumbing modifications. However, all reviews are significantly dated (2006–2014), with no recent feedback to confirm current service standards.

• CRITICAL RECENCY ISSUE: All 6 reviews are 10+ years old (2006–2014). No reviews from past 12 months. Current service quality cannot be reliably assessed.
• Review 2 (2014-05-13) is ambiguous: describes referral to another company as 'really nice' but unclear if this represents a limitation in their own capabilities or genuine professionalism.
• Review 5 (2010-10-21) is extremely vague ('I was pleased with them') with no specific evidence of any dimension.
• Review 6 (2006-03-23) uses all-caps formatting which may indicate enthusiasm but provides limited specific detail beyond general praise.

This WW Score should be treated with caution due to the complete absence of recent reviews; the score reflects historical performance only and may not represent current service quality, staffing, or operational standards.

Fry Heating & Cooling demonstrates strong professionalism with consistently courteous, punctual, and responsive service across 11 reviews. Pricing is competitive and transparent, with fair quotes and no hidden charges mentioned in 5 reviews. However, project completion is significantly undermined by one severe 1-star review (7/17/24) detailing repeated AC failures, incomplete repairs, and lack of follow-through on fixing a coil leak—a critical failure that directly contradicts the positive historical pattern. Technical experience is solid with skilled installation and diagnostic work noted in 6 reviews. The company's long track record (25+ years) and owner involvement are strengths, but the recent incompletion issue is a serious red flag that substantially impacts overall reliability.

• CRITICAL: One recent 1-star review (7/17/24) describes severe project completion failure—repeated AC failures, incomplete repairs (coil not fixed despite being identified), and lack of follow-through. This directly contradicts the otherwise positive pattern and suggests a significant quality control or accountability issue.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most positive reviews are 3+ years old (2012-2021). The most recent review is the 1-star complaint from July 2024, which is the most current data point and indicates a potential decline in service quality.
• MIXED CONTRACTOR TYPES: Reviews appear to reference both HVAC (Fry Heating & Cooling) and plumbing/remodeling work (Keith), suggesting possible business name changes or multiple service lines. This creates some ambiguity in consistency.
• GENERIC REVIEW: One review states only 'unknown' with a 5-star rating and no detail (2014), which is not usable for scoring but does not suggest fake review patterns overall.

This score should be treated with CAUTION. While historical professionalism and experience ratings are strong and based on substantial evidence, the recent critical failure in project completion (incomplete AC repair with repeated failures) significantly undermines confidence in current reliability. The 3+ year gap between most positive reviews and the recent 1-star complaint suggests the company may have experienced a quality decline. Recommend requesting recent references and clarifying how the July 2024 issue was ultimately resolved before committing to major work.

Diversified Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism, technical skill, and work quality across multiple reviews, with consistent praise for responsiveness, cleanliness, and attention to detail. However, pricing feedback is mixed: while several reviews commend fair pricing and honesty about unnecessary work, one recent review (2019) explicitly criticized pricing as 'way way over priced' for fixture cleaning and hose installation. The most significant concern is a severe 2018 complaint alleging non-completion of work, failure to return after collecting deductibles, and complete lack of follow-up communication over 6+ weeks—a critical failure in project completion and professionalism. Most positive reviews are older (2011–2014), limiting recency confidence.

• CRITICAL: One 1-star review (2018-09-18) alleges serious project abandonment, non-refund of deductibles, and complete communication failure over 6+ weeks. This is a severe red flag for reliability and follow-through.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Majority of 5-star reviews are from 2011–2014 (8+ years old). Only 2 recent reviews (2019, 2021), and the 2019 review is negative on pricing. Limited recent data.
• PRICING INCONSISTENCY: Reviews conflict on pricing fairness. Multiple reviews praise 'fair pricing' and honesty, but 2019 review calls pricing 'way way over priced' for routine work ($390 for two fixtures + hose bib). Suggests pricing may vary significantly or customer expectations differ.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK: Review dated 2016-05-05 contains only 'unknown' with no substantive content. Review dated 2011-12-19 contains only '.' with no content. These appear to be placeholder or spam entries and reduce overall data quality.
• OWNER NAME DISCREPANCY: Reviews reference 'Richard' as owner in most recent reviews, but 2011 review names 'Forest Leonard' as owner. Unclear if ownership changed or if names are inconsistent.

This score should be treated with caution. While technical skill and professionalism appear strong based on multiple detailed reviews, the severe 2018 project abandonment complaint, lack of recent positive reviews, pricing inconsistency, and presence of low-quality/fake entries significantly undermine confidence. The WW Score reflects historical reputation but may not represent current service reliability.

E & K Contractors demonstrates solid technical capability and generally positive customer experiences, with three reviews praising fast, efficient work and skilled problem-solving. However, a significant 2020 review reveals serious communication and follow-through failures on a sewer inspection project, where the company failed to deliver promised reports, video footage, and callbacks despite multiple customer contact attempts over weeks. Pricing appears fair based on limited mentions. The mixed track record—excellent execution on completed jobs versus critical lapses in project management and responsiveness—results in a moderate overall score that reflects both strengths and material weaknesses.

• RECENCY CONCERN: Three of four reviews are from 2019–2021 (3–5 years old). Only one review is from the past 12 months. Current performance cannot be reliably assessed from this dataset.
• CRITICAL FAILURE PATTERN: One detailed negative review (2020) documents systematic communication breakdown, missed appointments, and failure to deliver promised deliverables despite customer follow-up. This is not a minor complaint and significantly impacts project completion and professionalism scores.
• SAMPLE SIZE: Only 4 reviews total. Confidence in overall score is inherently limited due to small sample size.
• POSITIVE REVIEWS LACK SPECIFICITY: Three 5-star reviews are brief and generic (e.g., 'great work,' 'couldn't be more pleased'). While not necessarily fake, they provide limited actionable detail compared to the detailed negative review.

This WW Score should be treated with caution due to small sample size (4 reviews), age of most data (3–5 years), and a documented pattern of serious communication/follow-through failures in at least one project. The score reflects historical performance but may not represent current operations.