Find Nearby Plumbers In Toledo, Ohio

Mike's Sewer Service receives consistently positive feedback across professionalism, pricing, and workmanship from customers who explicitly mention these dimensions. Multiple reviewers highlight reasonable and affordable pricing, with one noting significant savings versus a competitor, lending solid confidence to the pricing score. Professionalism is supported by mentions of timeliness, friendly attitudes, and good communication across several reviews, though one 1-star review raises a concern about a driver's conduct and dismissive phone response from staff, which moderately pulls that dimension down. Project completion is supported by references to reliable, repeat service and standing behind their work, though explicit detail on job completion specifics is limited. The overall score is tempered by the age of several reviews — the majority predate 2023 — and two reviews consisting only of punctuation marks that provide no usable data.

• Two reviews consist entirely of punctuation marks ('.' and a string of dots) with 5-star ratings and no text content — these are not usable and were excluded from scoring.
• Most reviews are older than 12 months; only 2 of 8 reviews are from the past 12 months (2023–2024), which reduces recency confidence in the overall score.
• One 1-star review (2019) describes a serious road safety incident involving a company driver and an allegedly dismissive response from staff — this is a professionalism concern that was factored into the professionalism score.
• Review volume is low (8 total, 6 usable), which limits statistical reliability. Scores should be interpreted with caution.

This WW Score carries moderate reliability due to a small and largely dated review pool, two non-informative placeholder reviews, and a notable negative incident involving staff conduct — prospective customers should seek more recent feedback before making a hiring decision.

Peters Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism, project completion, and technical expertise across multiple reviews spanning over a decade. Technicians are consistently praised for punctuality, communication, responsiveness, and quality workmanship. However, pricing emerges as a significant weakness, with multiple customers citing high estimates, lack of transparency, and poor communication regarding quotes. Two critical 1-star reviews from 2023 and 2021 document serious failures in estimate delivery and responsiveness. The company's older reviews (2008–2015) are overwhelmingly positive, but recent performance shows deterioration in customer service responsiveness.

• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: Reviews dated 2021-07-08 09:37:28 and 2021-07-08 00:00:00 contain identical text with identical 1-star ratings. This suggests either a data error or a customer resubmitting the same complaint.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most positive reviews are from 2008–2015 (10+ years old). Recent reviews (2023, 2021) are predominantly negative, indicating potential service quality decline.
• PRICING TRANSPARENCY ISSUE: Multiple reviews explicitly mention lack of itemized breakdowns, vague estimates, and prices significantly above customer expectations ($3k–$10k overages cited).
• COMMUNICATION BREAKDOWN: Two recent reviews document failure to deliver estimates, ignored follow-up requests, and poor responsiveness—contradicting the strong communication praise in older reviews.
• ONE UNUSABLE REVIEW: Review dated 2016-08-09 contains only 'unknown' as text and provides no evaluable data.

This score should be treated with caution due to significant recency bias: recent reviews (2021–2023) show serious service failures, while the majority of positive data comes from reviews 8+ years old. The pricing dimension is particularly weak and based on limited but consistent negative evidence. The company's current reliability is questionable despite historical strength.

Martin's Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism with consistent praise for punctuality, politeness, and responsiveness across 9 reviews. Pricing shows mixed signals: most reviews cite fair or good value, but one detailed 2018 complaint reveals a significant bid-to-final-cost discrepancy ($8,000 quoted vs. $21,000 final for a bathroom remodel), raising concerns about transparency. Project completion data is limited to 2 mentions, both positive but insufficient for robust confidence. Experience/workmanship is rated well across 4 mentions. The company's score is anchored by strong professionalism but tempered by pricing transparency concerns and limited project completion evidence.

• PRICING TRANSPARENCY ISSUE: One detailed 2018 review documents a major bid-to-final-cost discrepancy ($8,000 estimate vs. $21,000 final charge for bathroom remodel). Another 2022 review flags $175 permit charges when city permits cost $42, representing a $133 markup. These suggest potential pricing opacity on complex projects.
• RECENCY CONCERN: 3 of 12 reviews are older than 5 years (2006, 2016, 2019-2020). Most recent reviews (2023-2024) are positive, but the 2018 bathroom remodel complaint is substantive and detailed, not dismissible.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK: One review (2016-05-16) contains only a period (.) with a 5-star rating—this appears to be spam or placeholder data and was excluded from scoring.
• LIMITED PROJECT COMPLETION DATA: Only 2 reviews explicitly mention job completion/follow-through. Most reviews address service calls or simple repairs, not complex projects. The one detailed complex project (bathroom remodel) ended in significant dispute.
• CONFIDENCE MODERATION: Project completion score (65.0) is based on only 2 mentions and includes one positive emergency response but lacks evidence on larger renovation projects.

This score should be treated with MODERATE confidence. Strong professionalism ratings are well-supported (9 mentions), but pricing concerns from detailed complaints and limited project completion data (2 mentions) create uncertainty about performance on complex, higher-value jobs. Recent reviews are positive, but the 2018 bathroom remodel dispute suggests risk on larger projects without written, itemized quotes.

Miller's Nu-Tech earns strong marks across most dimensions, with multiple reviewers praising the professionalism, politeness, and technical knowledge of named technicians. Project completion is generally well-regarded, with jobs described as thorough, clean, and delivered as promised. However, pricing is a notable mixed point — while several reviewers describe costs as fair, at least two explicitly note the company is more expensive than competitors, and one reviewer found the pricing high with no offsetting service quality. The most significant negative signal is a 3-star review describing a 2-week wait time for a no-heat emergency in winter, which directly undermines the project completion and responsiveness scores. Recency is a concern, as the most critical reviews are from 2016–2018, while the positive reviews cluster in 2020–2022.

• Most reviews are 5-star with positive language, but they include specific technician names, job details, and varied scenarios — this reduces fake review suspicion significantly.
• One 3-star review (2016) describes a serious responsiveness failure — a 2-week wait for a no-heat emergency — which meaningfully impacts professionalism and project completion scores.
• Two reviews explicitly flag higher-than-average pricing, which tempers the pricing score despite other reviewers calling it fair.
• RECENCY WARNING: The critical 3-star review is from 2016 and the next review is from 2018. The majority of positive reviews are from 2020–2022. The older negative data may not reflect current service quality, but cannot be ignored.
• Review sample size is small (7 reviews total). Scores carry moderate reliability and should be interpreted cautiously.

This WW Score is based on a small but largely specific and credible review set spanning 2016–2022; the score is moderately reliable but should be supplemented with more recent reviews before making a high-stakes hiring decision.

Merit Plumbing receives broadly positive feedback across all four scored dimensions, with multiple reviewers praising punctuality, responsiveness, and pleasant demeanor — particularly for JJ Donaldson. Pricing is mentioned favorably in several reviews, with one reviewer specifically noting a job came in under $200 and another calling costs 'reasonable,' supporting a solid but not exceptional pricing score. Project completion is well-documented, with reviewers describing multi-task jobs finished on time and one notable instance of post-job follow-up by Robert. However, scores are tempered by one vague but pointed 1-star warning review alleging the contractor operates under different company names, which raises a credibility concern that cannot be ignored. The significant age spread of reviews — ranging from 2008 to 2024 — also reduces confidence, as the business and its personnel appear to have changed over time.

• WARNING — Operating under multiple business names: One reviewer explicitly states 'Different Company Name same Plumber — JJ Donaldson' and warns others to 'DYOR' (Do Your Own Research). Reviews also reference at least two distinct company names: 'Merit Plumbing' and 'Expert Plumbing Solutions.' This pattern of operating under multiple names is a known risk indicator and warrants caution.
• RECENCY CONCERN — Only 5 of 15 reviews are from the past 12 months (2024). Six reviews are from 2022–2023, and four reviews date back to 2008–2020. Older reviews may not reflect current service quality, staffing, or business practices.
• PERSONNEL INCONSISTENCY — Reviews mention at least two different technicians by name (JJ and Robert), suggesting either multiple employees or business transitions over time. It is unclear whether current service quality is consistent across personnel.
• DETAIL VARIABILITY — Several reviews (e.g., 'They did a great job and were very nice,' 'They're very good') are extremely generic with no specifics, which slightly reduces their evidentiary value. However, the volume of detailed reviews prevents a fake review flag at this time.
• 1-STAR REVIEW UNRESOLVED — The sole negative review provides no specific detail about what went wrong, making it impossible to assess severity. Its warning about name-switching is the most actionable concern and should be investigated independently.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability: the volume of reviews is sufficient and dimension coverage is strong, but the multi-name business flag, wide date range spanning 16 years, and one unresolved warning review introduce meaningful uncertainty that prospective customers should independently verify before hiring.

Kidd Plumbing demonstrates strong technical competence and project completion capability, with multiple reviews praising workmanship quality and timely job delivery. Pricing is consistently noted as fair and competitive, often significantly lower than competitors. However, professionalism scores are pulled down substantially by one detailed 2021 review documenting poor communication, lack of follow-up, and dismissive attitude from Russell, which directly contradicts the reliability claims in other reviews. The company shows inconsistency in customer service quality across different interactions.

• RECENCY CONCERN: Most positive reviews are from 2016–2019 (5–8 years old). Only 2 reviews from 2021 onward, with the most recent positive review from April 2024 but the most recent negative review from December 2021. Older reviews may not reflect current operations.
• PROFESSIONALISM INCONSISTENCY: One detailed negative review (Dec 2021) explicitly documents poor communication and unprofessional behavior from Russell, directly contradicting the 'reliable' and 'professional' claims in other reviews. This suggests inconsistent service quality or potential personnel issues.
• GENERIC PRAISE PATTERN: Several reviews use very similar phrasing ('amazing,' 'highly recommend,' 'the only plumber to use') with minimal specific technical detail, though the 2019 and 2017 reviews do provide concrete examples (pricing comparisons, specific work done), reducing but not eliminating concern about authenticity.

This score should be treated with caution due to significant recency bias (most data is 5+ years old), a documented professionalism failure in 2021 that contradicts other claims, and a small sample size (7 reviews). The WW Score reflects historical strength in technical work and pricing, but current reliability is uncertain given the communication issues documented in the most recent negative review.