Find Nearby Plumbers In Omaha, Nebraska

Mike's Plumbing earns strong marks across all four dimensions, driven by an overwhelming volume of positive reviews praising punctuality, communication, friendly technicians, and quality workmanship across a wide range of jobs. Professionalism is the most frequently cited strength, with dozens of reviewers specifically calling out on-time arrivals, courteous staff, clean work habits, and responsive office personnel. Pricing scores moderately well — the majority of reviewers describe fair, competitive, or below-estimate final costs, but a meaningful minority of negative reviews cite unexpectedly high charges, undisclosed labor rates, and a significant bait-and-switch pricing complaint that cannot be ignored. Project completion is strong overall, with most jobs described as fully resolved in a timely manner, though several reviews flag recurring issues, abandoned callbacks, and at least one instance of a new leak appearing within 24 hours of service. Experience scores well, with many reviewers praising skilled diagnosis, creative problem-solving, and technical knowledge, though a handful of negative reviews describe technicians who could not resolve the issue or required senior intervention.

• Two reviews (dated 2024-10-29 and 2024-11-08) are nearly word-for-word identical in content, both complaining about a $310/hour charge for a water heater troubleshooting visit that yielded no resolution. This may represent the same reviewer posting twice or a coordinated negative review effort — treat with moderate caution but the underlying complaint is plausible and consistent with other pricing concerns.
• Two reviews (dated 2025-06-06 and 2025-06-04) are exact duplicates of a detailed positive review about a kitchen sink replumb job. This is a strong indicator of a fake or duplicate review submission and reduces confidence in the most recent positive review cluster.
• Two reviews (dated 2024-10-09 and 2024-10-03) are near-identical positive reviews about the same sewer line incident involving Cody. This may be a duplicate submission by the same reviewer.
• Two reviews (dated 2022-09-07 and 2022-09-04) are near-identical positive reviews about a whole-house generator gas piping re-do. Likely duplicate submissions.
• Two reviews (dated 2008-07-11) are exact duplicates of a positive review. Likely a duplicate submission.
• Multiple reviews contain no text and only a star rating (5 stars). These provide no usable data for any dimension and were excluded from dimension scoring.
• A significant number of negative reviews (1-star) cite responsiveness and communication failures — unreturned calls, ignored messages, missed appointments, and failure to follow up. This is a recurring operational weakness that is partially offset by the high volume of positive responsiveness mentions but should not be dismissed.
• The review corpus spans from approximately 2008 to 2025. Reviews older than 2022 carry reduced weight per recency rules. The business appears to have grown significantly over time, and some older negative reviews may reflect earlier operational issues that have since improved — but some communication and scheduling complaints persist into 2024-2025.
• At least one review (2018-10-02) alleges the company refused to provide insurance information after causing property damage, which is a serious professional and legal concern.
• One review (2016-04-21) describes extremely unprofessional conduct including property damage, denial of responsibility, and an abusive late-night phone call. This is an outlier but a serious one.

This WW Score is based on a very large review corpus (281 reviews) spanning over 15 years, giving it HIGH statistical confidence in direction and relative dimension ranking, but the score should be interpreted with caution due to confirmed duplicate/fake positive reviews, a recurring pattern of communication and scheduling failures in negative reviews, and several serious pricing transparency complaints that suggest inconsistent customer experiences depending on the job type and technician assigned.

Zoom Drain demonstrates strong overall performance with a WW Score of 78.2, driven primarily by excellent professionalism (82.5) and solid project completion rates (81.0). Technicians are consistently praised for punctuality, friendliness, and technical knowledge. However, pricing emerges as a significant weakness (68.0), with numerous customers citing costs as excessive or overpriced relative to work performed. Experience scores are solid (79.5), reflecting genuine expertise in drain and sewer work, though some customers report incomplete diagnostics or unnecessary upselling. The company shows strong responsiveness and same-day service availability, which customers value highly.

• PRICING CONCERNS: 156 mentions of pricing issues reveal a consistent pattern of customer dissatisfaction. Many reviews explicitly state prices are 2-3x higher than competitors for identical work. Examples include $500+ for simple drain snaking, $638 for a quote without service, and $1000+ for jobs completed elsewhere for $200-300. This is the most frequently cited complaint.
• NO-SHOW AND SCHEDULING FAILURES: At least 25 reviews document missed appointments, no-call/no-shows, or failure to meet promised time windows. Customers report waiting full appointment windows (4-6 hours) with no technician arrival and poor communication from dispatch.
• INCOMPLETE WORK AND FOLLOW-UP ISSUES: Multiple reviews (15+) describe situations where initial service failed to fully resolve problems, requiring expensive return visits or customers hiring competitors to finish the job. Some customers report being charged for 'attempts' that didn't work.
• POTENTIAL UPSELLING PATTERN: Approximately 20 reviews suggest technicians recommend expensive solutions (full pipe replacement, hydro-jetting, etc.) when simpler/cheaper fixes would suffice. Some customers report being pressured into higher-cost options.
• DAMAGE AND LIABILITY ISSUES: At least 8 reviews document property damage (sprinkler pipes, water mains, driveways, electrical lines) caused by Zoom technicians, with the company refusing to cover repair costs or claiming 'not responsible per contract.'
• COMMUNICATION BREAKDOWN: Multiple reviews cite poor follow-up (missing estimates, unreturned calls, no response to complaints), particularly from management and administrative staff.
• INCONSISTENT QUALITY: Wide variance in technician competence noted. Some reviews praise specific technicians (Johnny Rodriguez, Ian, Kyle, Maurice) while others describe inexperienced or unknowledgeable technicians sent to the same locations.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK - MODERATE: Approximately 80-100 reviews are extremely generic 5-star ratings with minimal detail (e.g., 'Great service!' 'Excellent!' 'Highly recommend!') and no substantive information. Many lack dates or contain identical phrasing. However, the volume of detailed negative reviews and specific complaints suggests these are not entirely fabricated—rather, the company may be actively soliciting reviews post-service (one review explicitly mentions aggressive review-hunting via text/call within 24 hours).
• RECENCY BIAS: Most reviews are from 2023-2025 (past 12 months), with a concentration in June 2023 and January-June 2025. Older reviews (2014-2020) tend to be more positive, suggesting potential service quality decline or increased customer expectations.
• GEOGRAPHIC VARIATION: Reviews span multiple states (PA, CA, NJ, NC, TX, UT, CO, etc.), suggesting this is a franchise or multi-location operation. Quality and pricing may vary significantly by location.

This WW Score of 78.2 should be interpreted with caution: while Zoom Drain demonstrates genuine expertise and professionalism in technical execution, the consistent and detailed complaints about pricing (appearing in 13% of reviews) and scheduling failures (2% of reviews) represent material service gaps. The company excels at the core plumbing work but struggles with business operations and pricing transparency. Customers should obtain multiple quotes before engaging and clarify pricing in writing beforehand. The score reflects strong technical capability undermined by significant operational and pricing concerns.

Simms Plumbing demonstrates strong technical competence and generally professional service, with most customers praising responsiveness, friendliness, and quality workmanship. However, the company suffers from significant reliability issues: multiple reviews document missed appointments, poor follow-through on callbacks, and inconsistent communication. Pricing is generally competitive and fair, though one customer reported substantial overcharging without transparent communication. Project completion shows mixed results—many jobs are completed well and on time, but several reviews highlight abandoned work and failure to return for promised follow-up visits. The WW Score of 78.2 reflects solid fundamentals undermined by operational inconsistencies that erode customer trust.

• CRITICAL: Multiple reviews (2023-09-07, 2023-06-12) document severe appointment no-show patterns and failure to respond to customer calls/messages. This is a systemic professionalism issue.
• Quality control concern: 2023-05-25 review reports unsafe water heater installation (improper pan, unsecured strapping, reused old fittings). This is a serious safety and workmanship issue.
• Pricing transparency issue: 2024-10-05 review alleges overcharging ($500 invoice for 1.5 hours of work at $150/hr, charged for 3 hours) without customer consent or clear communication of costs upfront.
• Inconsistent service quality: Strong positive reviews contrast sharply with detailed negative reviews describing unprofessional behavior, suggesting either inconsistent crew performance or selective service quality.
• No fake review pattern detected: Reviews show genuine variation in experience with specific details and dates; negative reviews are detailed and credible.

This score should be treated with caution: while Simms Plumbing demonstrates genuine technical competence and strong customer service in many cases, the documented pattern of missed appointments, poor communication, and at least one serious safety/quality issue indicates operational reliability problems that could significantly impact future customer experiences. The HIGH overall confidence reflects adequate review volume, but the underlying inconsistency suggests customers should verify current operational practices before engaging.

This plumber demonstrates strong professionalism across all four reviews, with consistent praise for respectful behavior, responsiveness, and technical competence. Pricing is characterized as fair and competitive, though one reviewer noted uncertainty about guarantee terms. Project completion is solid with same-day service and successful drain clearing that has held up over time. Technical skill is evident in quick problem-solving and knowledge, though the sample size is small and all reviews are 8+ years old, limiting confidence in current performance.

• All four reviews are from 2014–2019; no recent reviews (past 12 months) available to assess current service quality or consistency
• Small sample size (n=4) limits statistical confidence; scores should be treated as indicative rather than definitive
• Two reviews (2014 and 2019) use similar enthusiastic language and brand reference ('Drain Whisperer') which may indicate repeat customers rather than fake reviews, but pattern noted
• One reviewer (2015) explicitly noted dissatisfaction with unclear guarantee communication, which slightly tempers otherwise positive feedback

This score should be treated with caution due to small sample size and age of reviews; it reflects strong historical performance but provides limited insight into current operations or recent customer experience.

Micro Plumbing earns strong marks across professionalism and experience, with dozens of reviewers praising courteous, knowledgeable, and punctual technicians by name across many years of service. Project completion is also well-regarded, with most customers reporting jobs finished correctly and on time, and the company honoring callbacks when issues arose. However, pricing is the most contested dimension: while many reviewers call pricing fair and affordable, a meaningful cluster of negative reviews specifically cite inflated quotes, non-itemized bills, charges that exceeded phone quotes, and one instance of a technician attempting to leave mid-job and demanding extra payment to finish. These pricing complaints are credible, specific, and span multiple years, which meaningfully pulls the pricing score down. The overall picture is of a generally capable and professional company with a recurring pattern of pricing transparency issues that prospective customers should be aware of.

• 4 reviews contain no text at all — only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence.
• 2 reviews are labeled 'unknown' with no text content and were excluded from scoring.
• Pricing complaints are specific and credible: one reviewer was quoted one price and charged nearly double; another was told prices rise $75 every two weeks and then the installer attempted to leave with water leaking and demanded $150 more to finish; a third was charged $300 for a drain clear they considered excessive; a fourth received a non-itemized bill with disputed labor hours. These are not vague complaints and represent a real pattern.
• One 1-star review (2025-01-10) describes a plumber refusing to diagnose a water heater and attempting to charge $150 for doing nothing — this is a serious professionalism and project completion concern.
• The majority of highly positive reviews are genuine and specific, referencing technician names, job types, and details. No strong fake review pattern detected, though the volume of generic 5-star reviews with no detail (blank or near-blank) slightly reduces overall confidence.
• A significant portion of reviews are older than 3 years (many from 2021 and earlier, some from 2006–2015). Recency weighting was applied — more recent reviews (2023–2025) were given greater influence. The pricing complaints are distributed across multiple years including recent ones, suggesting the issue is not resolved.

This WW Score is based on 59 reviews with usable content spanning roughly 19 years, with strong mention counts across all four dimensions, making the score statistically reliable — however, the persistent and specific pricing complaints across multiple years introduce meaningful uncertainty, and prospective customers should request itemized written quotes before work begins.

Eyman Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism with consistent punctuality, courteous technicians, and clear communication across 58 mentions. Technical experience is solid with 28 mentions of skilled workmanship and problem-solving. Project completion is reliable with 35 mentions of timely, thorough work. However, pricing emerges as a significant weakness with only 12 mentions but a notably low score of 62, driven by multiple complaints of overcharging, unnecessary upsells, hidden fees, and aggressive sales tactics. The company's reputation is bifurcated: recent reviews (2025) are overwhelmingly positive, while older reviews (2013-2021) contain serious allegations of diagnostic fraud and price gouging.

• SUSPICIOUS REVIEW PATTERN: 36 reviews from June 5-9, 2025 are nearly identical in structure (5-star, brief praise, technician name, minimal detail). This clustering suggests potential fake review activity or coordinated posting.
• SERIOUS PRICING ALLEGATIONS: Multiple independent reviews (2021, 2020, 2018) allege fraudulent diagnostics, unnecessary repairs, and overcharging. Two separate customers reported identical scams: being told of $6,000-$10,000 pipe breaks, charged $300 for camera inspection, then having another plumber clear the line with no break found.
• RECENCY BIAS: 36 of 101 reviews are from June 2025 alone. If these are legitimate, the company has dramatically improved. If fabricated, the WW Score is artificially inflated. Older reviews (2006-2021) show more balanced criticism.
• AGGRESSIVE SALES PRACTICES: One 2025 review documents persistent email harassment after customer declined estimate, contradicting the professional image of recent reviews.
• NO-SHOW INCIDENTS: Multiple reviews (2021, 2018, 2015) document missed appointments and poor communication, though these are older.
• PRICING TRANSPARENCY FAILURE: Consistent complaints about undisclosed fees (trip charges, overtime rates calculated from shop departure, minimum service charges) and pressure to add unnecessary services.
• EMPTY REVIEWS: 4 reviews contain no text, only 5-star ratings, reducing data quality.

This WW Score should be treated with CAUTION. While recent 2025 reviews are overwhelmingly positive and suggest strong current performance, the suspicious clustering of 36 nearly-identical reviews in a 5-day period raises credibility concerns. The pricing dimension (62.0) is well-supported by detailed, specific complaints spanning multiple years, indicating a genuine historical weakness. Older reviews (2006-2021) document serious allegations of diagnostic fraud that are not present in recent reviews, suggesting either genuine company reform or review manipulation. Recommend verifying recent reviews independently and requesting detailed written estimates before engaging services.