Find Nearby Plumbers In Toledo, Ohio

Yoas Plumbing demonstrates strong technical expertise and attention to detail, with multiple reviews praising quality workmanship and problem-solving ability. Pricing is reported as reasonable and fair. However, professionalism is mixed: while customer service and flexibility are highlighted positively, a significant 2014 review documents a critical failure in follow-through and communication (3-week non-response after estimate). Project completion shows inconsistency—multiple successful jobs completed, but the abandoned estimate callback represents a serious gap. The score reflects solid experience offset by documented communication and completion failures.

• Two reviews dated 2016-10-24 contain only 'unknown' text with 5.0 ratings—these appear to be placeholder or fake entries and were excluded from scoring
• One review from 2014 (9+ years old) documents a serious failure in follow-through and communication; recency is limited with most usable data from 2018 or earlier
• Limited recent review data (only 1 review from past 5 years with full detail); cannot assess current performance reliability
• Mention counts are low across all dimensions (2–4 mentions each), limiting confidence in dimensional scores

This WW Score should be treated with caution due to limited recent data, low mention counts across all dimensions, and the presence of suspicious placeholder reviews that reduce overall dataset quality. The score reflects historical performance but may not represent current service standards.

Premier/First Choice Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism with consistent praise for punctuality, courtesy, and responsiveness across 58 reviews. Pricing is generally viewed favorably at 81.0, with customers noting fair and reasonable rates, though some discrepancies between quotes and final bills were noted. Project completion scores lower at 72.0 due to significant quality control issues documented in multiple detailed complaints involving incomplete work, poor communication about scope, uncapped pipes causing water damage, loose fixtures, and unresolved clogs. Experience ratings of 78.5 reflect mixed technical competency—many reviews praise skill and problem-solving, but several detail failures in workmanship, lack of inspection, and inability to complete jobs properly on first attempt.

• CRITICAL: One extremely detailed negative review (dated 2024-06-09) documents systematic failures across multiple dimensions: uncapped drain pipes causing kitchen flooding, loose shower fixtures, partially clogged drains with water leakage, poor communication about scope of work, and inability to handle heavy equipment. This review is highly specific and credible, not generic.
• Multiple reviews mention communication failures: poor notification about invasive work (wall cutting), disconnected phone calls during quotes, manager avoiding refund calls, and lack of transparency about work scope.
• Quality control concerns: Several reviews document incomplete work requiring callbacks or additional plumber visits (e.g., toilet not filling properly days after install, clogged drain not actually fixed by previous plumber).
• Inconsistency in service quality: Same company receives both 5-star reviews praising specific technicians and 1-star reviews from same time period documenting poor work. This suggests highly variable performance depending on which technician is assigned.
• Several reviews appear to be for 'First Choice Plumbing' mixed with 'Premier Plumbing'—these may be different companies or locations, creating potential data contamination.
• One review (dated 2024-03-25) praises 'First Choice Plumbing' and 'Robbie' but appears to be for a different company entirely based on context.
• Multiple empty or minimal reviews ('unknown', '.') reduce data quality but do not appear to be fake—likely system artifacts.
• Recency bias: Most detailed negative reviews are from 2024 (recent), while many generic 5-star reviews are from 2014-2015, suggesting possible quality decline over time or increased scrutiny in recent reviews.

This WW Score of 76.8 should be treated with MODERATE confidence. While the company demonstrates genuine strengths in professionalism and responsiveness, the presence of multiple detailed, credible complaints about project completion failures—particularly the comprehensive 2024 remodel disaster—indicates real quality control issues that offset positive reviews. The score reflects a company with friendly, punctual staff but inconsistent workmanship and follow-through. Customers should verify specific technician assignments and obtain detailed written scope agreements before hiring.

Ideal Plumbing demonstrates strong technical expertise and generally fair pricing, with many customers praising Dave's knowledge and reasonable rates. However, the WW Score is significantly impacted by recurring professionalism and project completion issues, particularly around responsiveness, follow-through, and reliability. While recent reviews (2025) are uniformly positive, a substantial cluster of negative reviews from 2012–2020 document patterns of no-shows, poor communication, delayed callbacks, and incomplete follow-up on complex jobs. The contractor appears capable of excellent work but struggles with consistency and accountability, especially during periods of high demand.

• RECENCY BIAS DETECTED: Recent reviews (May 2025) are uniformly 5-star with generic praise and identical phrasing ('Dave is the best,' 'highly recommend,' 'no one better'). These 4 reviews share suspiciously similar language and lack specific job details, suggesting possible fake or incentivized reviews. Confidence in recent scores reduced accordingly.
• SEVERE HISTORICAL PATTERN: Multiple reviews from 2012–2020 document repeated no-shows, unanswered calls, and poor follow-up (1-star ratings in 2020, 2014, 2013, 2012). One customer gave 'at least 4 chances' before abandoning the contractor. This pattern is too consistent to ignore.
• INCOMPLETE PROJECT DELIVERY: Review from 2013-09-20 (2-star) describes a recirculating pump installation that was never completed—customer never heard from contractor after multiple follow-up attempts. Review from 2020-09-19 (2-star) shows weeks of poor communication and eventual job cancellation.
• COMMUNICATION FAILURES: Multiple reviews explicitly cite failure to return calls, texts, and emails (2012, 2013, 2020 reviews). One customer called 5 times and texted with no response.
• TEMPORAL INCONSISTENCY: Strong positive reviews cluster in 2014–2017 and 2025, with significant negative reviews in 2012–2013 and 2020. This suggests either cyclical business stress or data quality issues.
• SAMPLE COMPOSITION: 32 of 40 reviews are 5-star, 4 are 1-star, 2 are 2-star, 1 is 4-star. The bimodal distribution (mostly 5s and 1s) is atypical and suggests polarized customer experiences rather than consistent service.

This WW Score should be treated with CAUTION. While the numerical score of 76.8 reflects genuine strengths in technical expertise and pricing, the recent 5-star reviews appear potentially fabricated or incentivized, and a documented pattern of no-shows and communication failures from 2012–2020 raises serious concerns about reliability and follow-through. Customers considering this contractor should heavily weight the negative historical reviews and request recent references with verifiable contact information. The score is reliable only for identifying that this contractor has both high-capability and high-risk characteristics; trust should be earned through direct communication and clear contractual accountability.

Petrie Plumbing has a strong base of positive reviews praising punctuality, courteous service, and professional demeanor across many years of operation. However, one highly detailed 1-star review raises serious concerns about the use of undisclosed subcontractors on weekends, substandard workmanship by those subcontractors, overcharging on parts and labor, and a failure to honor any warranty for subcontracted work — this significantly weighs down the project completion and professionalism scores. Pricing is mixed: several reviewers praised fair or below-market rates, while at least two explicitly stated they felt overcharged, and one switched to a cheaper competitor. The majority of reviews are older than five years, with only one review from 2017 and one from 2017 containing substantive negative detail, reducing confidence in how well these scores reflect current performance. A large proportion of reviews contain no usable text ('unknown', 'OK', 'went well'), limiting the depth of analysis.

• 14 out of 49 reviews contain no usable text ('unknown', '.', 'OK', 'went well', 'very well', 'did not use') — these were excluded from dimension scoring but inflate the apparent review count.
• Multiple one-word or near-blank 5-star reviews with no detail are consistent with padding patterns; confidence is reduced accordingly for overall score reliability.
• The single 1-star review is highly detailed and credible, describing undisclosed subcontracting, a failed repair causing water damage, overcharging on parts, and refusal to warranty subcontractor work — this is a significant red flag that disproportionately impacts trustworthiness.
• The vast majority of reviews are dated between 2007 and 2015, with only two reviews from 2017. There is no data from 2018 onward. Current performance cannot be reliably assessed.
• One reviewer noted responsiveness issues (4-hour callback delay). Another noted initial unresponsiveness that only improved when Angie's List was mentioned — a minor but notable flag.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability: while the volume of reviews is sufficient and dimension mentions are reasonably high, the heavy skew toward older reviews, the large number of content-free submissions, and one serious and credible negative review about subcontractor misuse and failed workmanship introduce meaningful uncertainty about current service quality.

Fickwood Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism and technical expertise, with most recent reviews praising responsiveness, courtesy, and skilled workmanship. However, significant concerns emerge around project completion and pricing. Multiple reviews document incomplete work requiring costly callbacks (flapper installation leading to water damage, commercial sink work failing twice within months, pump installation costing thousands). Pricing complaints are consistent, with customers citing excessive charges for simple tasks and disputed warranty coverage. The company shows a pattern of initial professional service followed by quality or accountability issues, which undermines overall reliability despite strong individual technician performance.

• CRITICAL: Multiple reviews (Jan 2024, Aug 2023, Jan 2024) document incomplete work requiring expensive callbacks. This suggests systemic project completion issues, not isolated incidents.
• PRICING PATTERN: Consistent complaints about high costs relative to work performed (e.g., $235 for 13 minutes of work, $500 for straightforward repair, $135 repeated callback fees). Customers report feeling overcharged.
• WARRANTY/ACCOUNTABILITY CONCERN: Company explicitly states 30-day warranty on commercial work and denies responsibility for failures shortly after installation. This raises questions about workmanship quality.
• RECENCY BIAS: Most positive reviews are from 2021-2023 (older). Most negative reviews are from 2024 (recent). This suggests declining service quality or increasing customer dissatisfaction.
• CALLBACK PATTERN: At least 3 reviews explicitly mention having to call back for fixes to previous work, indicating follow-through failures.
• One review (water ionizer) appears unrelated to plumbing services and may be misclassified or from wrong contractor.

This score should be treated with MODERATE caution. While professionalism and experience scores are solid, the WW Score is significantly dragged down by documented project completion failures and pricing concerns concentrated in recent reviews. The pattern of incomplete work requiring expensive callbacks is particularly concerning and suggests the overall score may still be generous. Customers should request detailed warranties and get multiple quotes before engaging this contractor.

Hearth & Home shows strong technical skill and experience (82/100) with multiple reviews praising workmanship quality and knowledgeable tradespeople. However, professionalism is significantly undermined by serious issues with punctuality, no-shows, and poor communication—particularly with staff responsiveness and follow-up. Project completion suffers from incomplete work, scope creep, and unmet timelines. Pricing is a major concern, with multiple customers reporting significant overages, hidden labor charges (including travel time), and estimates that do not reflect actual costs. The company demonstrates inconsistency: some customers report excellent experiences while others describe blatant disregard for budgets and poor expectation-setting.

• CRITICAL: Multiple reviews (at least 5) report severe pricing issues including: underbidding followed by substantial overages ($561–$1,100+), charging full labor rates for shopping trips, and lack of transparency on final costs. This is a systemic pattern, not isolated incidents.
• CRITICAL: Multiple no-show and cancellation incidents reported by different customers (John specifically mentioned 3+ times), with poor or no communication. This directly contradicts professionalism claims.
• SUSPICIOUS PATTERN: Approximately 20 reviews are empty (rating only, no text). This is unusual and may indicate review manipulation or incomplete data entry.
• QUALITY INCONSISTENCY: Reviews mention specific workers (Tristan, Adam, Megan, John, Todd, Stephen) with highly variable outcomes. Some workers consistently praised; others (John, Todd T.) appear in multiple negative reviews regarding reliability and attention to detail.
• RECENCY BIAS: Most positive reviews cluster in 2024 and early 2025, while several serious complaints are recent (June 2025, May 2025). Recent negative reviews suggest ongoing systemic issues.
• INCOMPLETE WORK: Multiple reviews document unfinished projects, abandoned work items, and customers forced to complete work themselves or hire others to fix problems.
• CUSTOMER SERVICE FAILURE: Several reviews explicitly criticize office staff communication, lack of follow-up on estimates, and poor handling of complaints.

This WW Score should be treated with CAUTION. While the score of 72.8 reflects genuine strengths in technical skill and some positive customer experiences, the company exhibits serious and recurring problems with pricing transparency, project completion, and professionalism that are not fully captured by the aggregate score. The high volume of detailed negative reviews describing systemic issues (especially pricing overages and no-shows) suggests the positive reviews may represent best-case scenarios rather than typical customer experience. Customers should request detailed, itemized estimates with explicit labor rates and obtain everything in writing before engaging this company.