Find Nearby Plumbers In Davenport, Iowa

Petersen Plumbing & Heating has a strong base of positive reviews praising punctuality, friendliness, and technical competence across a wide range of services including water heaters, sump pumps, gas lines, and HVAC. However, a meaningful cluster of negative reviews — spanning multiple years — raises serious concerns about workmanship quality, accountability, and follow-through: specific complaints include an improperly installed toilet that broke and caused injury, a leaking underground gas line that was never corrected, a no-show estimate appointment, and a pattern of unresponsiveness to callbacks. Pricing feedback is mixed: several reviewers praised reasonable or competitive pricing, while others described feeling overcharged for labor and materials. The professionalism score is tempered by multiple credible accounts of poor customer service responses (particularly from a staff member named Carter) and a failure to honor commitments. Project completion is the most penalized dimension due to documented cases of abandoned work, unresolved defects, and failure to return calls after problems arose.

• 12 reviews contain no text — only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data.
• Several positive reviews are very brief and generic (e.g., 'Brian was awesome!', 'Great job and service.', 'Always professional and do an excellent job!') with no specific details. While not conclusively fake, these inflate the positive signal and were weighted conservatively.
• Two reviews dated 2024-08-26 appear to be near-identical duplicates of the same incident (toilet installation complaint). Only one was counted per dimension to avoid double-weighting a single event.
• A significant portion of reviews are older than 12 months (many from 2016–2021), and some are as old as 2006. Recency weighting was applied — older negative reviews were not dismissed but were noted as potentially reflecting past rather than current practices.
• The negative reviews are highly specific and detailed (named technicians, dollar amounts, described sequences of events), lending them strong credibility. These were weighted heavily despite being outnumbered by positive reviews.
• One reviewer explicitly stated 'I was not paid for my review,' which is an unusual disclaimer that can sometimes indicate review solicitation campaigns — noted as a minor flag.
• Overall star rating distribution is heavily skewed toward 5 stars with a cluster of 1-star reviews and almost no 2, 3, or 4-star reviews, which is a common pattern in businesses that actively solicit positive reviews while dissatisfied customers self-select to leave detailed complaints.

This WW Score is based on a large and diverse review set with HIGH mention counts across all four dimensions, making the score mathematically reliable; however, the presence of credible, detailed negative reviews about workmanship failures and accountability issues means consumers should treat the score as a moderate-confidence indicator and independently verify recent performance before hiring for complex or high-value projects.

Superior Plumbing demonstrates strong technical expertise and professionalism in execution, with technicians consistently praised for knowledge, punctuality, and courteous behavior. However, the company is significantly undermined by widespread pricing concerns—numerous customers report excessive charges, hidden fees (dispatch/service charges not applied to work), and quotes that are double or triple competitor rates. Project completion is generally solid with good follow-through, though some customers report callback issues and unresolved problems. The disparity between positive service quality reviews and negative pricing/billing reviews creates a polarized customer experience.

• PRICING PATTERN: Extremely high volume of complaints (60+ reviews) about overcharging, excessive dispatch fees ($62-$89 not credited to work), and quotes significantly above market rates. This is the dominant negative theme across the dataset.
• FAKE REVIEW DETECTION: Approximately 40-50 reviews from June 2025 show identical or near-identical phrasing (e.g., multiple reviews with 'Tyler D.', 'Seth', 'Andrew' using nearly word-for-word descriptions). These appear clustered in a 2-week period and lack specificity. Confidence in recent 5-star reviews is reduced.
• RECENCY BIAS: Most recent reviews (June 2025) are overwhelmingly 5-star with suspicious similarity. Reviews from 2019-2024 show much more balanced distribution with significant 1-star complaints. Recent data may not be representative.
• MANAGEMENT/CUSTOMER SERVICE: Multiple reviews cite rude office staff, managers who hang up on customers, refusal to honor warranties, and poor callback responsiveness. This suggests systemic customer service issues beyond individual technician performance.
• DISPATCH FEE CONTROVERSY: Repeated complaint that $62-$89 dispatch fee is charged in addition to work costs, not credited toward the job—this practice is explicitly called out as deceptive in 15+ reviews.
• WARRANTY DISPUTES: Several customers report company refusing to honor stated warranties or charging full price for warranty work, creating trust issues.

This WW Score of 72.8 should be interpreted with caution: while technician professionalism and experience are genuinely strong (HIGH confidence), the pricing dimension is severely problematic and represents a major value concern that significantly drags down the overall score. The recent cluster of identical 5-star reviews suggests potential review manipulation, reducing confidence in the most recent data. Customers should expect quality work but should obtain detailed written estimates upfront and verify pricing with competitors before committing, as overcharging complaints are pervasive and credible across multiple years.

Roto-Rooter receives consistently strong marks for professionalism and responsiveness from individual technicians, with hundreds of reviews praising courteous, knowledgeable, and prompt service. However, pricing is the single most damaging dimension across this dataset, with an enormous volume of reviews describing charges as excessive, deceptive, or wildly inconsistent — including numerous accounts of bait-and-switch quoting, undisclosed fees, and charges for incomplete work. Project completion is significantly dragged down by a substantial minority of reviews describing failed repairs, no-shows, abandoned jobs, warranty disputes, and work that made problems worse. Experience scores moderately well overall, as many technicians are praised for skill and problem-solving, but this is offset by recurring accounts of misdiagnosis, wrong equipment, and upselling unnecessary services. The aggregate picture is a company with capable individual technicians but systemic issues around pricing transparency, scheduling reliability, and quality control.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: Multiple reviews appear to be exact or near-exact duplicates (e.g., two identical reviews from 'Paul arrived same day...', two identical 'Zach is the man...', two identical 'Based solely off customer service...', two identical 'Easy to schedule and a quick service...', two identical 'Great service. Would highly recommend!', two identical 'Efficient and effective...', two identical 'Excellent with Armando...', two identical 'Very prompt and helpful! Anthony...', two identical 'My name is Antoinette...'). These duplicates inflate positive scores and have been treated conservatively.
• FAKE REVIEW PATTERNS: A large cluster of reviews dated 1996-2001 consist of single-line responses ('NO', 'NOT REALLY', 'ON TIME AND DID THE WORK') with no detail, all rated 5 stars. These appear to be placeholder or fabricated entries and were excluded from scoring.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Approximately 100+ reviews contain no text content but carry 5-star ratings. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data, but their presence inflates the raw star average.
• EXTREME RATING POLARIZATION: The dataset shows a pronounced bimodal distribution — a very large number of 5-star reviews with minimal detail alongside a substantial volume of detailed 1-star reviews describing serious failures. This pattern is consistent with either review manipulation on the positive end or a company with highly inconsistent service quality.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS ARE SYSTEMIC: Pricing complaints are not isolated incidents — they span multiple years, multiple geographic locations, and multiple service types. Charges ranging from $200-$900 for simple drain snaking (15-30 minutes of work) are documented repeatedly. This is a structural business practice issue, not individual technician behavior.
• NO-SHOW AND SCHEDULING FAILURES: A significant number of reviews describe confirmed appointments where technicians never arrived and no communication was provided. This is a recurring operational failure across multiple franchise locations.
• MULTI-FRANCHISE DATASET: Reviews appear to span dozens of different Roto-Rooter franchise locations across the United States. Scores reflect the brand aggregate, not any single location. Individual location quality varies significantly.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews with substantive content are dated between 2020-2025, which is within the relevant scoring window. Older reviews (pre-2015) were given reduced weight.

This WW Score of 72.4 is based on a very large dataset (1,456 reviews) and carries HIGH statistical confidence in its directional accuracy, but should be interpreted as a brand-level aggregate across many franchise locations — individual location quality varies substantially, and the systemic pricing and scheduling issues documented here may not apply equally to all franchises.

All Pro Plumbing has a large and highly polarized review base. The majority of reviews praise individual technicians — particularly Ifran, Eddie/Lalo, Brandon, Jerry, and others — for punctuality, friendliness, clear communication, and technical skill. However, a significant and recurring minority of negative reviews describe serious failures: no-shows without notification, ghosting after payment, incomplete work, overcharging (especially of elderly and vulnerable customers), and confrontational or dishonest office staff (particularly referencing 'Michelle' and 'Ifran' in separate negative contexts). Pricing is a mixed picture — many reviewers cite fair or below-market rates, while others describe feeling gouged or misled on costs. Project completion is the most concerning dimension, with multiple credible accounts of abandoned jobs, failed callbacks, and warranty promises that were never honored. The experience dimension scores highest, as technical competence is frequently praised when work is actually completed, but is undermined by instances of misdiagnosis and substandard workmanship.

• SUSPECTED FAKE OR LOW-QUALITY REVIEWS: A cluster of reviews dated 2025-05-09, 2025-05-18, and 2025-05-25 use nearly identical templated language ('arrived on time,' 'fixed the issue quickly,' 'very polite,' 'highly recommend') with no specific technician names, job details, or unique context. These appear to be generic, possibly fabricated 5-star reviews and have been discounted in scoring.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The review from 'Ifran came and did a thorough inspection...' (grey water leak, toilet) appears verbatim twice with dates 2024-09-19 and 2024-09-20. Similarly, the emergency kitchen sink leak review appears twice on 2024-09-10. These duplicates were counted once each.
• MULTIPLE CREDIBLE ACCOUNTS OF NO-SHOWS AND GHOSTING: At least 15 distinct reviews across multiple years describe confirmed appointments where technicians never arrived and the company did not call to reschedule or apologize. This is a systemic pattern, not isolated incidents.
• FINANCIAL MISCONDUCT ALLEGATIONS: Multiple reviews allege technicians kept cash payments without crediting the company, that promised refunds were never issued, that a warranty water heater check was cashed by the technician personally, and that discounts (first responder, veteran, senior) were promised but not applied. These are serious credibility and trust concerns.
• INCOMPLETE WORK AND WARRANTY FAILURES: Multiple reviews describe jobs left unfinished, work that failed inspection, and warranty promises that were explicitly not honored when customers called back. This pattern significantly depresses the project completion score.
• OFFICE STAFF COMPLAINTS: Multiple reviews specifically name 'Michelle' (described as an owner or manager) as dishonest, confrontational, or unresponsive. This suggests a systemic customer service issue at the administrative level, separate from individual technician quality.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews are from 2019 to present, with a strong concentration in 2024-2025. Older reviews (pre-2018) are sparse and have been given reduced weight. The most recent 12 months (mid-2024 to mid-2025) show continued mixed patterns — both strong positive individual technician reviews and continued no-show and communication complaints.
• ENTITY AMBIGUITY: Reviews reference multiple different owners, managers, and operating locations (Bay Area CA, Camarillo CA, McHenry IL, Fresno CA, Reno NV, Texas, Florida, Indiana, and others). It is likely that 'All Pro Plumbing' is a name used by multiple unrelated businesses. Scores reflect the aggregate of all reviews as submitted but users should be aware that this may not represent a single unified company.
• ROAD RAGE INCIDENTS: Two separate reviews (2024 and 2019) describe dangerous or aggressive driving by employees in marked company vehicles. While not directly related to plumbing quality, these reflect on company culture and employee conduct.

This WW Score of 72.1 is based on a very large review set and carries HIGH statistical confidence in its direction, but should be interpreted cautiously due to strong evidence of fake or templated reviews inflating the positive signal, serious and credible recurring complaints about no-shows, financial misconduct, and incomplete work, and likely entity ambiguity across multiple unrelated businesses operating under the same name.

All Action Plumbing shows a genuinely mixed track record across its review history. Professionalism scores moderately well overall — many reviewers praised punctuality, courteous communication, and responsiveness — but is significantly dragged down by multiple credible complaints about no-shows, failure to call back after promising to do so, and one instance of arriving without a mask during COVID. Pricing is the strongest dimension, with numerous reviewers explicitly calling out fair, reasonable, or honest pricing and no hidden charges. Project completion is the weakest area: while many jobs were completed successfully and on time, there are several serious complaints including a job requiring multiple return visits without resolution, a 7-day delay for an urgent repair with no toilet or shower, and a water heater installation that failed prematurely with workmanship blamed. Experience scores moderately — skilled improvisation and quality work are praised in several reviews, but one review explicitly cited poor pipe work and premature equipment failure attributable to the installer.

• 7 reviews contain only the text 'unknown' with no usable content — these were excluded from dimension scoring but counted in total reviews analyzed.
• The majority of reviews (approximately 30 of 37) are older than 3 years as of a 2024 reference date, and all reviews predate 2022. The most recent review is from July 2021. Recency is a significant concern — this score reflects historical performance only and may not represent current service quality.
• No fake review patterns detected — negative reviews are specific, credible, and include named individuals and detailed circumstances, which increases overall authenticity confidence.
• There is a notable pattern of the company failing to follow through on promised callbacks or return visits across multiple independent reviews spanning different years (2016, 2020, 2014), suggesting a systemic issue rather than isolated incidents.

This WW Score is based on a reasonable volume of reviews (37 total, 30 with usable data) and carries HIGH confidence in its directional accuracy, but should be treated with caution given that all reviews are more than 3 years old and no recent data exists to confirm whether service quality has improved or declined.

Patrick demonstrates strong professionalism across all five reviews, with consistent praise for punctuality, communication, and courteous demeanor. Project completion is reliably strong, with jobs finished promptly and follow-up service honored. Pricing feedback is mixed: four reviews praise fair or transparent pricing, but one explicitly criticizes high costs relative to work performed, creating a moderate score. Technical skill is evident but mentioned in only two reviews, limiting confidence in the experience dimension. The overall WW Score of 84.3 reflects solid performance tempered by pricing concerns and limited data on technical expertise.

• One review (2024-08-29) mentions 'electrician' while all others reference plumbing work by Patrick/Garrels—possible service mix or reviewer error, but treated as valid feedback on pricing and professionalism.
• Review from 2023-01-26 is nearly 2 years old; most recent reviews (2024) show consistent quality, suggesting no decline in service.
• Pricing dimension shows polarization: 4 positive mentions vs. 1 strongly negative, suggesting either variable pricing practices or customer expectation misalignment on certain job types.

This score is moderately reliable due to small sample size (5 reviews) and mixed pricing feedback, but professionalism and completion metrics are consistently strong across all recent reviews, providing reasonable confidence in the 84.3 rating for general plumbing work.