Find Nearby Plumbers In Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Jake & Jim's Quality Plumbing demonstrates severe and consistent deficiencies across all measured dimensions. While 2 early positive reviews (2022) praised professionalism and responsiveness, the overwhelming majority of reviews (9 of 13) document serious failures: dishonesty about work performed, incomplete projects, missed deadlines, unprofessional conduct, and predatory pricing practices. Critical incidents include installing wrong-sized water heaters then lying about it, replacing sewer lines at wrong addresses, abandoning jobs mid-completion, and quoting dramatically inflated prices ($3200 vs. actual $500 market rate). The company's lack of proper equipment, safety protocols, and licensing further undermines credibility. Only the earliest positive reviews suggest any period of acceptable service.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: Reviews dated 2024-01-04 and 2024-01-03 are identical (water heater replacement complaint). Reviews dated 2023-06-29 appear twice with identical text (predatory pricing complaint). Reviews dated 2022-09-28 are duplicated. This reduces unique complaint instances but does not change the severity of documented issues.
• PATTERN OF DISHONESTY: Multiple independent reviews document the company lying to customers about work performed, pricing, permits, and responsibility for errors. This is a critical trust violation.
• UNLICENSED OPERATION: One review explicitly states 'THEY ARE NOT LICENSED,' raising serious legal and safety concerns.
• PREDATORY PRICING: Multiple reviews document bait-and-switch pricing (quotes doubled mid-negotiation) and charges far exceeding market rates for identical work performed by competitors.
• INCOMPLETE/ABANDONED WORK: Multiple reviews document jobs left incomplete, extended timelines (1-month projects), and failure to honor contractual obligations including inspections.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most negative reviews are from 2021-2023, but the most recent review (2024-08-30) is positive. However, the 2024-01-04 duplicate review documents a serious failure from January 2024, suggesting ongoing issues.
• SAFETY VIOLATIONS: One detailed review documents lack of safety shoring on 12-foot excavation and improper equipment use.

This WW Score of 32.8 is highly reliable and should be trusted as a strong warning against this contractor. The score is based on 13 reviews with consistent patterns of serious failures across professionalism, pricing, project completion, and experience, supported by HIGH confidence in professionalism and project completion dimensions. The company exhibits characteristics of predatory business practices and should be avoided.

Sembower-Mikesell receives a critically low WW Score of 32.1, driven almost entirely by severe and consistent pricing complaints across all five reviews. Four of five reviews explicitly condemn the company for excessive labor charges ($300–$600/hr) with minimal work performed, lack of transparency in quotes, and what customers characterize as predatory billing practices. While two reviews acknowledge competent workmanship and responsive service, these positives are overwhelmed by pervasive pricing abuse and one documented case of incomplete diagnostics that led to false repair recommendations totaling $16,000. The company's professionalism is further undermined by failure to provide upfront pricing and inadequate diagnostic procedures.

• SEVERE PRICING PATTERN: All 5 reviews mention pricing; 4 of 5 are 1-star ratings citing excessive charges. This is not isolated complaint but systemic business model issue.
• DIAGNOSTIC MALPRACTICE: Review from 2017-02-03 documents incomplete sewer line diagnosis, failure to use proper diagnostic tools (camera/sensors), and recommendation of $16,000 in unnecessary repairs. Two independent plumbers contradicted findings and charged 97% less ($50–$160 vs $559).
• LACK OF TRANSPARENCY: Multiple reviews cite refusal to provide advance pricing or ballpark estimates before work begins.
• RECENCY NOTE: Most reviews are 6–8 years old (2016–2017). One recent review from 2022 shows pricing issues persist. Limited recent data may reduce confidence slightly, but pattern is consistent across time period.
• POSITIVE REVIEW ANOMALY: Single 5-star review (2016-11-14) uses generic language ('quick and quiet,' 'hard and reliable workers') with no specific pricing or detail. Stands in stark contrast to detailed negative reviews. Possible outlier or unverified review, but insufficient evidence to flag as fake.

This WW Score is highly reliable and should be trusted as a strong warning signal. The pricing dimension is supported by 5 mentions with unanimous negative sentiment, and the documented diagnostic failure in 2017 provides concrete evidence of competency issues beyond mere customer dissatisfaction. However, the small sample size (5 reviews) and age of most data (6–8 years) mean current service quality cannot be fully assessed; recent pricing complaint from 2022 suggests problems persist.

The review set is heavily polarized: one extremely detailed and damning 1-star review from 2023 describes serious professionalism failures including a 4-hour late arrival with a fabricated excuse, spitting chew in the home, inappropriate language, flooding a basement ceiling, breaking a valve, misrepresenting the scope and cost of work, and refusing to return a $225 deposit. The three positive reviews (all from 2019–2020) describe timely, professional, and effective service. The most recent review by over two years is the deeply negative one, and recency weighting pulls all dimension scores down significantly. The pricing dimension is particularly damaged by the allegation of deliberate cost inflation and an unrefunded deposit, while project completion suffers from the documented pattern of incomplete, damaging, and misleading work in the 2023 review.

• RECENCY CONCERN: The only review from the past 12–36 months (2023) is a 1-star review. All positive reviews are from 2019–2020, making them over 3 years old at time of analysis. Recent performance appears significantly worse than historical performance.
• CREDIBILITY CONCERN: The 2023 review is highly detailed, internally consistent, and includes third-party corroboration from a second plumber. It describes specific misconduct including fabricated alibis, property damage, misrepresentation of scope and cost, and theft of a deposit. This review carries high credibility weight.
• POTENTIAL MISCONDUCT FLAG: The 2023 review alleges deliberate upselling/misrepresentation of job scope and cost, refusal to return a deposit, and that the contractor is 'known for being untrustworthy and a drinker' per a competing plumber. These are serious allegations that materially affect the pricing and professionalism scores.
• FAKE REVIEW AWARENESS: The three positive reviews are brief, lack specific detail about pricing or workmanship quality, and are clustered within a narrow date range (Dec 2019 – Mar 2020). While not definitively fake, they are generic enough to warrant reduced confidence in the positive signal they provide.
• LOW REVIEW VOLUME: Only 4 total reviews are available. This is above the minimum threshold of 3 but still insufficient for high-confidence scoring across any dimension.

This WW Score should be treated with caution — the small review volume, the 3+ year gap in positive reviews, and the presence of one highly credible and detailed negative review from 2023 mean the score likely reflects a contractor whose performance has deteriorated significantly since their earlier positive reviews.

AG Plumbing's review record is deeply mixed but skews heavily negative across nearly all dimensions. Professionalism is the most damaged dimension: multiple reviews describe no-shows, failure to return calls, broken promises, and in one case a contractor who became entirely unreachable after taking payment. Project completion is similarly alarming, with at least three reviews describing work that was left incomplete, done incorrectly, or that caused additional damage requiring a second contractor to fix. Pricing drew both praise and serious concern — one reviewer was charged a disputed delivery fee and another had $1,350 withheld for over a month with no refund, while a handful of positive reviewers noted fair or generous pricing. Experience scores are pulled down by documented instances of incorrect wiring that fried a circulation pump and a leak repair that was done so poorly it caused a ceiling panel to collapse, though a small number of positive reviewers praised skill and thoroughness. The few positive reviews, while genuine in tone, are significantly outweighed by detailed, specific, and credible negative accounts.

• Review dated 2014-11-18 ('Great Expirience with these guys / I am gonna use them again next time / thanks a lot') is suspiciously vague with no specific details — possible fake or low-effort review; minimal weight applied.
• Multiple serious misconduct allegations are present: withholding $1,350 for over a month (BBB complaint filed), refusing warranty return until disputed fee paid, and work causing property damage. These are not minor complaints.
• The contractor 'Barak' is named directly in both positive and negative reviews, suggesting the same individual is responsible for the full range of outcomes — inconsistency in service quality is a significant concern.
• Review dates span from 2012 to 2022. Only 3 reviews are from 2021–2022, and both of those are 1-star. The most recent positive reviews are from 2015–2016. Recency trend is strongly negative.
• No reviews are from the past 12 months (relative to a 2024/2025 analysis date), so current operational status and quality cannot be confirmed.

This WW Score is based on 9 reviews with usable data spanning a decade, and while mention counts are sufficient for HIGH confidence labeling on all dimensions, the score should be treated with caution given the age of most reviews, one likely low-effort fake review, and the extreme variance between glowing and deeply negative accounts — the negative reviews are notably more detailed and specific, lending them greater credibility.

Professionalism is the most heavily cited dimension and paints a deeply negative picture: three separate reviews describe no-shows, missed appointment windows, and unreturned calls spanning multiple days, while only two older reviews offer positive remarks about courtesy and responsiveness. Project completion is similarly troubled, with multiple reviewers describing abandoned follow-ups, unresolved issues, and a manager who never called back with promised options. Pricing drew explicit criticism in two reviews, with one customer feeling significantly overcharged for less than 30 minutes of work and a high diagnostic fee, and another noting a $70 service call charge with little to show for it. Experience scores slightly higher than the other dimensions, as several reviewers acknowledged the technicians appeared knowledgeable and competent, though this praise was consistently undercut by poor follow-through and communication failures. The two positive reviews are both quite old (2013 and 2014) and lack specific detail, which limits their ability to offset the more recent and detailed negative accounts.

• The two 5-star reviews (dated 2013 and 2014) are over 10 years old and contain generic, non-specific praise with no technical or situational detail — their reliability is low and they carry minimal weight given recency rules.
• The majority of negative reviews span 2018–2022, suggesting a sustained pattern of poor service rather than isolated incidents.
• No reviews from the past 12 months (relative to the most recent review date of 2022-03-21) were provided, meaning current service quality cannot be assessed.
• The two positive reviews use similarly vague, enthusiastic language ('great customer service', 'professional and prompt') with no specifics, which raises a mild concern about authenticity, though there is insufficient evidence to definitively flag them as fake.

This WW Score carries moderate overall reliability: the negative reviews are detailed, specific, and span multiple years, lending credibility to the low scores, but the small total review count of 7 and the absence of any recent positive reviews limit the statistical confidence of the final figure.

Hruska Plumbing receives a critically low WW Score of 32.1, driven by severe deficiencies in professionalism and project completion. Three of four reviews (75%) report serious communication failures, missed appointments, lack of follow-through, and unprofessional behavior including a family member confronting a customer at work. The single positive review lacks specificity and appears generic. Pricing concerns emerge in two reviews citing unexpected charges and lack of transparency. The company demonstrates a pattern of scheduling failures, unreturned calls, and broken commitments that directly undermine customer trust.

• One review (2023-05-20) is suspiciously generic with vague praise ('love it so much', 'so fast', 'so nice') and no specific details about work performed; lacks credibility compared to detailed negative reviews
• Three detailed negative reviews (2022-12-27, 2022-03-28, 2019-07-13) show consistent pattern of poor communication, missed appointments, and lack of professionalism across multiple years, suggesting systemic company issues rather than isolated incidents
• Review from 2019 is over 4 years old; however, 2022 reviews are more recent and show the same problems persisting, indicating ongoing issues
• Pricing dimension based on only 2 mentions; one review explicitly mentions bait-and-switch pricing ($175 quoted, $575 charged without authorization)

This score is moderately reliable given 4 reviews with consistent negative patterns across professionalism and completion dimensions, though the small sample size and presence of one potentially generic positive review introduce some uncertainty; the convergence of detailed complaints across multiple years strengthens confidence in the negative assessment.