Find Nearby Plumbers In Omaha, Nebraska

This contractor shows significant inconsistency across reviews, with stark polarization between highly positive recent reviews (2024) and severely negative older reviews (2020-2021). Professionalism scores are dragged down by multiple complaints about rudeness, lack of COVID protocols, and poor customer service, though recent reviews praise communication and responsiveness. Project completion is compromised by documented cases of improper installation, misdiagnosis, and incomplete work. Pricing concerns include overcharging and aggressive upselling. Technical skill appears adequate when work is completed properly, but diagnostic accuracy has been questioned. The contractor's apparent improvement in recent months suggests possible management or personnel changes, but the historical pattern of serious failures cannot be ignored.

• SEVERE POLARIZATION: Reviews split dramatically between 5-star (2024, 2023) and 1-star (2021, 2020). This suggests either major operational changes or potential review manipulation.
• RECENCY BIAS RISK: All positive reviews are from 2024 and 2023; all negative reviews are from 2020-2021. Recent reviews may not reflect historical service quality issues.
• DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY CONCERNS: Multiple reviews document misdiagnosis (water heater needing replacement when only fuse needed; unnecessary faucet/line work recommended). This is a serious competency red flag.
• INSTALLATION QUALITY: Documented case of improper faucet installation and missing components (pop-up drain assembly), suggesting quality control issues.
• CUSTOMER SERVICE ESCALATION: One review documents plumber becoming angry, claiming to be 'done with' customer, and hanging up. This is unprofessional conduct.
• COVID PROTOCOL VIOLATIONS: Two 2020-2021 reviews cite lack of masks and shoe covers during pandemic, and defensive response when asked to comply.
• PRICING TRANSPARENCY: Overcharge of $1,000 with dismissive response; aggressive upselling of warranty-uncovered work; requests for upfront payment before diagnosis.
• POSSIBLE PERSONNEL CHANGES: The dramatic shift from 1-star to 5-star reviews may indicate ownership/management transition or staff replacement, but this cannot be verified from reviews alone.

This score should be treated with CAUTION. While recent reviews are positive and consistent, the contractor has a documented history of serious failures in professionalism, diagnostic accuracy, and customer service. The dramatic improvement in 2023-2024 is encouraging but insufficient to fully offset the severity of past complaints. Recommend requesting references from 2024 work and clarifying diagnostic procedures before engaging.

Winfrey Plumbing shows significant inconsistency in service delivery. While positive reviews highlight professional technicians (Nate, Sergio, Phil) who demonstrate strong technical skills, courteous behavior, and attention to detail, critical failures in responsiveness and reliability severely undermine overall trustworthiness. Two reviews explicitly document no-shows and failure to return calls, indicating systemic communication and accountability problems. Pricing appears fair when service is delivered, but the company's inability to consistently show up or follow through on commitments is a major liability that outweighs technical competence.

• CRITICAL: Two reviews (2022-12-01, 2021-07-29) document complete service failures—no callback and no-show appointments. These are not minor issues but fundamental business failures.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most positive reviews are from 2019-2021; the most recent review (2022-12-01) is highly negative, suggesting potential service deterioration.
• INCONSISTENCY PATTERN: Stark contrast between glowing reviews of individual technicians and damning reviews of company responsiveness suggests internal operational/management problems rather than technician quality issues.
• LIMITED PRICING DATA: Only one review mentions pricing; cannot reliably assess value proposition.

This score should be treated with caution due to small sample size and extreme polarization. The company demonstrates capable technicians but appears to have serious operational and communication failures that make it unreliable for initial contact and scheduling—a critical flaw for a service business.

Burton Plumbing has a deeply polarized review profile: a cluster of enthusiastic 5-star reviews praising professionalism, punctuality, and quality work is offset by several serious 1-star complaints involving overcharging, upselling, incomplete work, and unresponsiveness. Pricing is the weakest dimension, with multiple credible complaints about inconsistent quotes, charges far exceeding estimates, and allegations of scamming vulnerable customers. Project completion is also significantly dragged down by a no-show incident, an incomplete sink installation, a botched toilet install that caused structural damage, and a $5,000 repair that failed to solve the problem. Professionalism scores moderately due to many positive mentions of courtesy and punctuality, but is undermined by documented instances of no-call no-shows, unanswered callbacks, and dismissive behavior. Experience scores similarly mixed, with many reviewers praising skill but at least two reviews describing serious workmanship failures.

• SUSPECTED DUPLICATE REVIEW: Reviews dated 2023-09-29 (one at 15:25:20, one at 00:00:00) are word-for-word identical. This is a strong indicator of a fake or artificially duplicated review. One instance has been discounted in scoring.
• REVIEW CLUSTER CONCERN: A large number of 5-star reviews are dated within a very narrow window (2021-12-01 through 2021-12-04), with generic praise, no specific job details, and no mention of pricing or problems. This pattern is consistent with solicited or inauthentic reviews and reduces confidence in the positive signals.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent reviews (2022–2024) skew negative, including overcharging, a no-show, and upselling allegations. The positive reviews are predominantly from 2021 or earlier, suggesting a possible decline in service quality over time.
• ELDER EXPLOITATION ALLEGATION: One review (2022-08-02) alleges that a customer with early-stage dementia was upsold a year-long contract and that cancellation and reimbursement requests were ignored. This is a serious ethical and legal concern.
• STRUCTURAL DAMAGE COMPLAINT: A 2012 review describes a botched toilet installation causing subfloor rot and a failed housing inspection, with no returned calls. While old, this complaint is specific and credible.
• BLANK REVIEW: One review (2016-03-28) contains only a period with a 5-star rating and no usable content. It was excluded from scoring.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability: while there are enough reviews to calculate a score, the presence of suspected duplicate and clustered fake reviews, a sharp negative trend in recent reviews, and serious allegations of financial misconduct and workmanship failures mean this score should be interpreted cautiously — prospective customers should weight the 2022–2024 negative reviews heavily.

Midwest Plumbing and Drain has a mixed but largely positive track record across most dimensions, with several glowing reviews praising friendly technicians, problem-solving ability, and reasonable pricing. However, two serious 1-star reviews significantly drag down scores: one describes a catastrophic incident where an unsupervised apprentice destroyed a drain pipe with the wrong equipment and the company took no responsibility, and another cites repeated failure to return calls. The professionalism and project completion scores are notably penalized by these incidents, as they represent genuine failures in communication, accountability, and workmanship quality. Pricing feedback is generally positive among those who mentioned it, with multiple reviewers calling costs 'reasonable.' The review set spans 2015–2024, meaning some older reviews may not reflect current business practices, though the most damaging reviews are also from the older portion of the dataset.

• One review (2018-03-03) describes severe property damage caused by an unsupervised apprentice using the wrong equipment, followed by the contractor avoiding responsibility and ducking phone calls. This is a significant red flag for both project completion and professionalism.
• One review (2018-05-04) explicitly cites slow or no callback as a reason to stop using the business, indicating a responsiveness issue.
• One review (2015-06-13) notes greasy fingerprints left on surfaces and items left in disarray, suggesting inconsistent cleanup standards.
• Several positive reviews lack specific operational detail (dates, technician names, job scope), which slightly reduces their evidentiary weight, though most are sufficiently specific to be considered genuine.
• Review dates span 2015 to 2024. The majority of reviews are older than 12 months (only 1 review from the past 12 months: April 2024). Scores should be interpreted with caution as they may not reflect current business performance.
• No fake review patterns detected. Reviews vary in tone, detail, rating, and writing style, suggesting authentic authorship.

This WW Score is based on 12 reviews spanning nearly a decade, with only one review from the past 12 months, which limits confidence in how well the score reflects the contractor's current performance; the score should be treated as a historical baseline rather than a definitive current assessment.

The review set is small, heavily aged, and contains significant internal conflict. Positive reviews praise responsiveness, fair pricing, and quality workmanship, but the detailed 1-star review raises serious concerns about pricing transparency, unprofessional conduct (screaming, lien threats), and failure to clean up after the job. The three 'unknown' reviews provide no usable data and were excluded from scoring. The most recent usable review is from 2019, meaning there is no evidence of current performance. The single negative review is highly detailed and credible, substantially dragging down professionalism and pricing scores.

• Three reviews contain only the text 'unknown' with no usable content — these were excluded from all dimension scoring.
• Multiple reviewers reference different owner names (Ralph, Jeff Miller, Dan), which may indicate this profile aggregates reviews for multiple contractors or businesses, severely undermining reliability.
• The oldest usable reviews date to 2012 and 2013 — over a decade old — and should be given minimal weight.
• The most recent usable review is from April 2019, meaning there is no data from the past 5+ years.
• The detailed 1-star review describes aggressive behavior (screaming, lien threats) and a disputed $500 invoice with minimal itemization — a significant professionalism and pricing red flag.
• With only 8 total reviews and 3 containing no data, the sample size is too small to draw reliable conclusions about current contractor quality.

This WW Score should be treated with very low confidence due to the extremely small usable review pool, reviews spanning over a decade with no recent data, conflicting contractor names suggesting possible profile aggregation, and one credible and detailed negative review describing serious unprofessional conduct.

The three reviews present a mixed picture of this contractor. One reviewer praised the accurate bid, quality of work, and overall trustworthiness, while another described a significant dispute involving misleading pricing, an undisclosed charge difference between dishwasher 'hookup' and 'install,' and physical damage to the appliance — a serious professionalism and pricing concern. The third review highlights strong technical breadth and cleanup effort, with a responsive callback to fix a water heater issue, which is a positive signal for project completion. Pricing confidence is dragged down considerably by the billing dispute in the negative review, which described deceptive or at minimum unclear pricing practices. Overall, the score reflects genuine uncertainty given the small sample size and the presence of one substantive negative experience.

• All three reviews are from 2012–2014 — none are within the past 12 months. This data is over 10 years old and may not reflect the contractor's current quality or practices.
• Sample size of only 3 reviews is too small to draw reliable conclusions about any dimension.
• One review (2-star) describes a billing dispute involving a price change mid-job, damage to customer property (scratched dishwasher door), and a failure to resolve the issue fairly — this is a significant red flag for both pricing transparency and professionalism.
• The positive reviews lack specific detail in some areas (e.g., the 2014 review is brief and generic), which slightly raises concern about authenticity, though not enough to flag as definitively fake.

This WW Score should be treated with very low confidence — it is based on only 3 reviews, all more than 10 years old, with one containing a serious complaint about deceptive pricing and property damage, making it insufficient to reliably assess this contractor's current performance.