Find Nearby Plumbers In Omaha, Nebraska

Harris Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism and technical expertise, with consistent praise for punctuality, courtesy, and skilled workmanship across 42 and 26 mentions respectively. However, pricing emerges as a significant weakness, with multiple detailed complaints about excessive charges, lack of transparent quotes, and perceived gouging (18 mentions). Project completion shows moderate reliability with several instances of abandoned jobs, incomplete work, and follow-up failures, though many jobs are completed satisfactorily. The company exhibits high variability in service quality and customer experience, suggesting inconsistent execution or personnel performance.

• CRITICAL: Multiple credible reports of abandoned jobs and non-responsiveness (reviews from 2024-03-01, 2018-05-22, 2018-01-29, 2016-05-02). These are serious red flags indicating potential systemic issues with follow-through and accountability.
• PRICING CONCERNS: Detailed complaints about overcharging appear consistently across multiple years (2023-08-05: $1,300 for 2.5-hour water heater install; 2015-04-11: $560 for vanity connections; 2014-05-22: $650 for minor toilet work). These are specific, quantified grievances, not vague complaints.
• QUALITY CONTROL ISSUES: Multiple reviews cite defective workmanship requiring callbacks or rework (2021-01-05: improper installation of recirculation system; 2020-10-22: leak from improperly tightened valves causing water damage; 2020-06-10: non-functioning sink handle and leaking bathtub handle).
• CUSTOMER SERVICE INCONSISTENCY: Stark contrast between glowing reviews praising Alicia, Steve, Jason, and others versus scathing reviews citing rude staff (Michelle), unresponsiveness, and dismissive behavior. Suggests significant personnel-dependent variability.
• RECENCY PATTERN: Most recent negative reviews (2024, 2023) involve non-responsiveness and abandoned work, while older reviews (2005-2011) are uniformly positive. This may indicate business decline or change in ownership/management.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: Several reviews from 2021-06-10 and 2019-06-11 are suspiciously clustered on identical dates with generic praise. However, these are balanced by detailed, specific positive reviews, so confidence in fake review detection is limited.

This score should be treated with CAUTION. While the company demonstrates genuine strengths in professionalism and technical skill (supported by high-mention counts), the presence of multiple credible reports of abandoned jobs, significant pricing disputes, and quality control failures indicates serious operational risks. The wide variance in customer experience and the pattern of recent negative reviews suggest the company may be unreliable for critical work. Recommend obtaining detailed written quotes, checking recent references, and considering alternative providers for high-value projects.

Five Star Plumbing shows mixed performance across dimensions. Professionalism scores moderately at 72, with positive mentions of staff courtesy and responsiveness balanced against serious complaints about disrespectful behavior and poor communication. Project completion is the weakest dimension at 68, with two significant failures: incomplete drain work requiring a callback and unresolved shower leak with property damage. Pricing is fair according to positive reviews, though one customer felt overcharged for incomplete work. Experience is moderate at 75, with evidence of problem-solving ability in complex installations offset by diagnostic failures and inability to identify root causes. The company demonstrates capability but inconsistent execution and communication.

• RECENCY BIAS: Three of six reviews are from 2021-2022 (older than 2 years); only three from 2024. Recent reviews are more positive, suggesting possible service improvement or selection bias.
• CRITICAL FAILURE PATTERN: Two explicit project completion failures documented—drain work requiring callback within 2 weeks (Review 4, 2022) and shower leak work that created new problems and property damage (Review 6, 2021). These are not minor issues.
• COMMUNICATION FAILURE: Review 4 explicitly states customer was not offered camera inspection option or educated on diagnostic choices, indicating poor communication practices.
• PROFESSIONALISM CONCERNS: Review 6 describes accusatory behavior, misidentification of debris, incomplete cleanup, and property damage (water puddles, foul odor left in home). This is a serious professionalism failure.
• SAMPLE SIZE LIMITATION: Only 6 reviews total limits confidence in overall assessment. Scores should be treated as preliminary.

This WW Score should be treated with caution due to small sample size (6 reviews) and significant recency skew toward older negative reviews. The MODERATE overall confidence reflects conflicting evidence: recent 2024 reviews are uniformly positive, but documented failures from 2021-2022 reveal serious gaps in project completion and professionalism. The score of 76.8 is conservative and appropriate given the severity of documented failures, but improvement may have occurred since 2022.

Jetter's demonstrates strong professionalism and project completion capabilities based on multiple reviews praising communication, punctuality, and thorough workmanship. However, a critical 1-star review from 2019 raises serious concerns about pricing transparency and customer service consistency—specifically the refusal to work with customer-purchased fixtures and lack of willingness to provide detailed estimates. The company shows good technical skill and employee quality (Saylor and Darrin specifically praised), but the pricing dimension is severely undermined by one explicit negative experience. The overall score reflects solid execution balanced against legitimate pricing and service policy concerns.

• RECENCY ISSUE: Three of four reviews are from 2018-2019 (5+ years old). Only one review from 2022. Limited recent data to assess current performance.
• PRICING RED FLAG: One detailed 1-star review explicitly criticizes refusal to work with customer-purchased fixtures and lack of transparent estimate process. This is a material service policy issue, not a minor complaint.
• SAMPLE SIZE: Only 4 reviews total. WW Score should be treated as preliminary and not fully reliable for major decisions.
• INCONSISTENT SERVICE: Positive reviews praise communication and flexibility; negative review describes disinterested attitude and rigid policies. Suggests inconsistent service delivery or policy changes over time.

This WW Score has MODERATE reliability due to small sample size (4 reviews) and significant recency gap (75% of reviews older than 5 years). The pricing dimension is particularly weak with only 1 mention. The score should not be used as primary decision criterion without seeking more recent customer feedback.

MCR Plumbing receives consistently strong praise for honesty, trustworthiness, and fair pricing across multiple reviews, with several customers noting flat-rate billing, no unnecessary upselling, and transparent communication. Professionalism scores are tempered by one notable 1-star review describing a rude tone, dismissiveness toward an emergency call, and an off-putting experience when the owner's daughter answered the business line — this is a meaningful data point that cannot be ignored. Project completion feedback is positive where mentioned, with one reviewer specifically noting work was completed on time and within budget after a major flood remediation job. Experience is reflected in comments about quality workmanship, helpful maintenance tips, and sound problem-solving advice, though fewer reviews speak to technical depth specifically. The single negative review meaningfully pulls down the professionalism score and warrants attention, particularly given that it describes behavior directly contrary to the 24-hour service advertised.

• One 1-star review (2019-03-10) describes rude behavior during an emergency call, including a dismissive tone, discouraging language, and reluctance to honor advertised 24-hour service — this is a credible and specific complaint that meaningfully impacts the professionalism score.
• Six of the eight reviews are older than 12 months as of 2024, with five reviews dated between 2017 and 2020. Only two reviews (2024-01-10 and 2024-03-11) fall within the past 12 months, limiting confidence in how current the overall picture is.
• The two most recent reviews (2024) are both 5-star but relatively brief and light on specific detail. While not conclusively fake, they lack the operational specifics seen in older reviews and should be weighted with some caution.
• Review volume is low (8 total), which limits statistical reliability across all dimensions. Scores should be interpreted as directional rather than definitive.

This WW Score carries moderate reliability — the review set is small, mostly dated, and includes one credible negative review that meaningfully offsets an otherwise positive pattern; prospective customers should seek more recent references before making a hiring decision.

All In Plumbing receives consistently positive feedback for responsiveness, friendliness, and technical competence across most reviews, with multiple reviewers praising prompt service and quality workmanship. However, one 1-star review explicitly describes a failure to return calls and poor customer service responsiveness, which meaningfully impacts the professionalism and project completion scores. Pricing is mentioned positively in two reviews as fair and reasonable, but the limited mention count keeps confidence low for that dimension. Experience is rated well across four reviews, with specific praise for efficient problem-solving and knowledgeable technicians. The single negative review is a notable outlier but cannot be ignored given the small total review pool.

• Small review pool of only 6 reviews limits overall reliability of the WW Score.
• One explicit 1-star review citing failure to return calls and poor customer service — this is a meaningful signal given the small sample size.
• Four of the six reviews are older than 12 months (pre-2022), with only one review from 2023; recency of data is limited and the most recent positive review may not reflect current service quality.
• The 2023 review is somewhat generic in phrasing ('friendly and responsive plus quality craftsmanship') with no specific job details, which slightly reduces its evidentiary weight, though it does not rise to the level of a suspected fake review.

This WW Score should be treated with moderate caution due to the small review pool, the presence of one clear negative review regarding responsiveness, and the fact that most reviews are over two years old.

Savage Plumbing demonstrates strong technical expertise and generally professional conduct, with most recent reviews (2019-2024) praising responsiveness, workmanship, and courteous service. However, the company is significantly undermined by serious pricing concerns documented in multiple reviews alleging overcharges, inflated labor fees, and lack of transparency—issues that persist across different time periods. A critical 2024 review reveals failure to follow up on incomplete work and unresponsiveness to callbacks, directly contradicting claims of exceptional responsiveness. The stark contrast between glowing recent reviews and damaging older complaints about billing practices raises reliability concerns.

• PRICING INTEGRITY ISSUE: Two detailed 1-star reviews (2017) document systematic overcharging, markup inflation (300% on water tank), inflated labor billing, and refusal to provide invoices. These are specific, detailed complaints with concrete examples, not vague criticism.
• CALLBACK FAILURE: 2024 review documents owner explicitly forgetting about customer, failing to return calls/texts over extended period despite promising follow-up. This directly contradicts professionalism claims.
• INCOMPLETE WORK: 2024 review shows job was not completed properly (broken cable, wrong cable sent), leading to repeat failure and customer abandonment.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most positive reviews are 4-7 years old (2019-2020). Recent reviews (2024, 2023) show mixed results with one severe negative. Older negative reviews (2017) suggest pattern may be recurring.
• POTENTIAL REVIEW BIAS: Positive reviews use similar generic language ('great work,' 'highly recommend,' 'professional') with minimal specific detail, while negative reviews are highly detailed and specific. This asymmetry warrants caution.

This score should be treated with MODERATE caution. While technical competence appears genuine, documented pricing violations and recent callback failures suggest systemic issues that contradict the overwhelmingly positive narrative. The WW Score of 72.8 reflects this tension, but customers should independently verify pricing practices and obtain detailed written quotes before engaging this contractor.