Find Nearby Plumbers In Omaha, Nebraska

Apollo Plumbing receives broadly positive marks for professionalism and responsiveness — many reviewers praise on-time arrivals, friendly technicians, clear communication, and same-day scheduling — but a significant and recurring pattern of price gouging complaints substantially drags down the overall score. Pricing is the weakest dimension by far, with at least 12 reviews explicitly describing quotes as 'outrageous,' 'highway robbery,' or dramatically higher than competitors, sometimes by a factor of 3–5x. Project completion is generally solid, with most jobs described as finished correctly and on time, though a handful of reviews cite incomplete work, a no-show, or work done incorrectly requiring costly remediation. Experience scores moderately well, with several reviewers praising skilled diagnostics and quality workmanship, but offset by a few notable failures including a misdiagnosis, an incorrect pipe pitch, and a technician who appeared unfamiliar with the equipment. The WW Score of 72.1 reflects a company with genuine service strengths undermined by a persistent and well-documented pricing problem.

• PRICING CONCERN — HIGH SEVERITY: At least 12 reviews independently and specifically describe Apollo's quotes as grossly inflated compared to competitors, with documented examples including $7,513 vs. ~$2,800 market rate, $2,200 to snake two drains vs. $475 from a competitor, $6,000 for a job the customer DIY'd for under $200, and $4,800 for a water heater replacement. This is a consistent and credible pattern, not isolated complaints.
• WORKMANSHIP FAILURE FLAG: One review (2019-07-23) describes a drain line installed with incorrect pitch (sloping the wrong direction), which Apollo refused to remedy under warranty. Another review (2017-07-11) describes an amateur-looking tub/shower control install. These are serious quality failures.
• NO-SHOW / FOLLOW-THROUGH ISSUE: One review (2018-10-04) describes a scheduled plumber who was a no-show with no call. Another review (2017-05-03) describes a technician who never followed up with a promised estimate despite multiple calls to the office.
• RECENCY NOTE: Reviews span from 2006 to 2024. The oldest review (2006) and several reviews from 2017–2019 were included in scoring but given reduced weight. The most recent reviews (2023–2024) continue to show both positive service experiences and pricing complaints, suggesting the pricing issue is ongoing and not historical.
• FAKE REVIEW AWARENESS: No strong evidence of fake reviews detected. Reviews vary meaningfully in detail, tone, rating, and specificity. Both positive and negative reviews reference named technicians (Quinn, Diego, Trevor, Corey, Tyler, Mark, Danny, Zac, Steve), which adds credibility. One 2006 review written in all-caps with generic praise was noted but treated as low-weight due to age.
• ETHICAL CONCERN: One review (2018-05-07) alleges a technician refused to leave without payment of a travel fee and had to be 'kicked out.' Another review (2022-02-16) alleges a technician made statements in front of a tenant to pressure the homeowner into accepting an inflated quote. These behavioral patterns, if accurate, represent serious ethical concerns beyond mere pricing.

This WW Score is based on 97 reviews spanning nearly two decades and carries HIGH confidence due to the large volume of detailed, specific, and independently corroborating reviews — however, prospective customers should treat the pricing dimension score of 38 as a strong and well-evidenced warning, as the pattern of inflated quotes is one of the most consistent signals in the entire review set.

Plumbing Today has a strong base of recent (2024–2025) positive reviews praising punctuality, friendliness, and technical competence from named technicians like Ed, Jesse, Carson, and Tim. However, a meaningful cluster of older negative reviews (2016–2022) describes serious concerns including hidden fees, warranty refusal, incomplete work, unprofessional conduct, and pricing disputes — some involving vulnerable customers. Pricing is the weakest dimension, with multiple reviewers explicitly calling out overcharging, bait-and-switch estimates, and undisclosed service call fees, which significantly drags down that score. Project completion is mixed: many recent jobs were finished well, but older reviews document abandoned trenches, unresolved callbacks, and rescheduling failures. The overall score reflects a company that appears to have improved in recent years but carries a documented history of serious service failures.

• 19 reviews contained no text — only a star rating. These were excluded from dimensional scoring as they provide no usable evidence.
• Several 5-star reviews from 2025 are very brief and generic (e.g., 'Great company!', 'Fast, great service', 'Good service') with no specifics. These were given reduced evidentiary weight.
• Multiple older reviews (2016–2022) describe a pattern of bait-and-switch pricing, undisclosed fees, and warranty denial — suggesting systemic issues that may or may not have been resolved.
• One review (2017) alleges predatory pricing targeting an elderly couple and describes work that was technically incorrect for the system type — a serious workmanship flag.
• One review (2021) describes a month-long unresolved callback, an open trench left in a yard, and broken landscaping — a significant project completion failure.
• One review (2021) alleges employees disclosed private customer information to third parties — an ethical and trust concern outside standard scoring dimensions.
• Recency note: The majority of detailed positive reviews are from 2024–2025, while the majority of negative reviews are from 2016–2022. This suggests possible improvement over time, but the older negative reviews are too serious to discount entirely.
• The review from 2019 describing repeated communication failures and a job being farmed out without notice is consistent with the pattern seen in other negative reviews from that era.

This WW Score is based on 49 reviews with usable content spanning 2015–2025 and carries HIGH confidence due to volume, but consumers should weigh the serious and specific negative reviews from 2016–2022 carefully, as they describe patterns — not isolated incidents — that meaningfully offset the strong recent positive trend.

Bill's Sewer Service has a long track record of prompt, courteous service with many repeat customers spanning decades, which speaks positively to professionalism and reliability. Project completion scores well overall, with most reviewers reporting jobs finished quickly and correctly, though two notable negative reviews describe recurring problems and one instance of a misdiagnosis where the contractor failed to resolve the issue and offered no alternative solution. Pricing is the weakest dimension: while several reviewers praised reasonable or even below-market rates, at least three reviewers explicitly called out overcharging for short or simple jobs, pulling the score down meaningfully. Experience is generally solid, with multiple reviewers citing technical knowledge and problem-solving ability, but the 2022 negative review raises a concern about the contractor's current physical capability and willingness to tackle certain job types.

• Several reviews are marked 'unknown' with no review text — these were excluded from scoring as they provide no usable data beyond a star rating.
• A significant portion of reviews are older than 5 years, with the majority predating 2018. Only one review is from the past 12 months (2022). Recency is a concern — current service quality may differ from historical patterns.
• The 2022 review raises a specific concern: the contractor charged $160 twice for the same unresolved problem, refused to pursue the likely root cause (roof vent), and offered no alternative solution. This is a meaningful red flag for both pricing integrity and project completion.
• The 2017 negative review describes a misdiagnosis, incorrect information given to the customer, and a charge for work that did not resolve the problem — money had to be demanded back.
• No strong fake review patterns detected. Reviews vary in length, specificity, and rating, which suggests organic feedback. However, the high volume of very old 5-star reviews with minimal detail warrants mild caution.

This WW Score is based on a moderate-to-large review set with HIGH mention counts across all dimensions, but reliability is reduced by the age of most reviews — the contractor's current performance cannot be confidently inferred from reviews that are predominantly 5–10+ years old, and the most recent review is a significant negative outlier.

Stouter Plumbing demonstrates solid performance across all measured dimensions based on three reviews. Professionalism is evidenced by timely emergency response and work ethic. Pricing receives strong marks for fair charges and transparent invoicing that met customer expectations. Project completion is supported by successful resolution of complex plumbing issues including drain clearing and pressure diagnosis. Technical experience is reflected in ability to diagnose and fix pre-WWI plumbing systems and identify root causes of problems. However, all scores are based on limited mentions (1–2 per dimension) and the dataset is small, warranting conservative confidence levels.

• Only 3 total reviews analyzed — sample size is very small and limits statistical reliability
• Two reviews are significantly dated (2012 and 2020), with only one recent review from 2024 — recency is a concern
• All three reviews are 5-star ratings with no negative feedback — while not necessarily fake, the absence of any critical detail or balanced perspective is atypical
• Review from 2012 contains minimal detail ('very good job') and provides no actionable evidence for scoring
• Confidence across all dimensions is LIMITED due to mention counts of 1–2 per dimension

This WW Score should be treated with caution due to the very small sample size (3 reviews), limited recency (only 1 review from past 12 months), and low mention counts across all dimensions. The score reflects available data but does not provide robust statistical confidence. Additional recent reviews are strongly recommended before making high-stakes decisions based on this score.

Viper Drain Cleaning demonstrates strong technical competence and project completion capabilities, with multiple reviews praising timely work, thorough cleanup, and reliable follow-through. Pricing is perceived as fair and competitive. However, professionalism is tempered by one severely negative experience involving poor communication and job abandonment, which significantly impacts the overall score. The majority of positive reviews are older (2019–2023), with the most recent review being negative from November 2023, raising recency concerns.

• CRITICAL: One extremely negative review (1-star, Nov 2023) describes job abandonment without communication and refusal to proceed with work. This is the most recent review and directly contradicts the pattern of positive older reviews.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most positive reviews are 1–4 years old (2019–2023). The most recent review is highly negative, suggesting possible service quality decline or inconsistency.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: Reviews from 2023, 2022, and 2019 contain suspiciously similar phrasing ('courteous and respectful,' 'cleaned up,' 'will definitely call again'). While not conclusive, this warrants caution.
• SMALL SAMPLE SIZE: Only 7 reviews analyzed. Confidence is limited by low volume.

This WW Score should be treated with caution. While the calculated score is 82.1, the most recent review is severely negative and contradicts the older positive pattern, suggesting either inconsistent service quality or a significant service failure. The small sample size (7 reviews) and age of most positive reviews further limit reliability. Recommend requesting recent references or follow-up before engaging this contractor.

Standard Plumbing demonstrates solid professionalism with responsive communication and courteous service noted across multiple reviews. Pricing appears fair and transparent based on limited mentions, with customers reporting agreed-upon costs. Project completion is generally reliable, though the sample size is small. Technical skill and problem-solving ability are evident in positive feedback. However, one significant 1-star review from 2020 raises serious concerns about attitude, respect for customer choices, and professional boundaries—specifically dismissive behavior toward a customer's purchased materials and inappropriate questioning about mask-wearing. This negative review substantially impacts overall confidence despite being older.

• RECENCY ISSUE: Most reviews are significantly dated (2006, 2013, 2020, 2021). Only two reviews from 2021; three reviews are 10+ years old. Recent performance data is limited.
• NEGATIVE REVIEW CREDIBILITY: The 1-star review (2020) contains specific, detailed complaints about unprofessional conduct (dismissive attitude, upselling pressure, disrespect). This is not generic criticism and appears credible, contrasting sharply with generic praise in other reviews.
• GENERIC PRAISE PATTERN: Three reviews (2021, 2013, 2006) contain very general positive language ('best,' 'great job,' 'highly recommend') with minimal specific detail about actual work performed. This pattern warrants caution.
• SMALL SAMPLE SIZE: Only 5 reviews total limits statistical reliability. One negative review carries disproportionate weight in such a small dataset.

This score should be treated with caution due to small sample size (5 reviews), significant age of most data (10+ years old), and one credible negative review documenting unprofessional behavior that contradicts the generic praise in other reviews. The MODERATE confidence reflects genuine uncertainty about current service quality and consistency.