Find Nearby Plumbers In Appleton, Wisconsin

Todd/Tanner's service demonstrates strong performance across all dimensions. Professionalism is consistently praised with 11 mentions highlighting punctuality, communication, courtesy, and responsiveness—though one review noted missing contact information on the receipt. Project completion is solid with 10 mentions showing jobs finished on time and to customer satisfaction, including complex remodeling work. Pricing receives strong marks across 5 mentions with customers noting fair and reasonable rates. Experience is well-documented with 8 mentions of skilled workmanship, problem-solving ability, and technical competence. The WW Score of 88.2 reflects reliable, professional service with minor administrative gaps.

• One review (2024-08-05) explicitly noted missing company information on receipt, creating a minor professionalism gap despite satisfaction with work quality
• Review from 2022-08-03 is significantly older than others; most reviews cluster within past 18 months, providing strong recency weighting
• No negative reviews present; while this suggests consistent quality, the absence of critical feedback limits ability to identify potential weaknesses

This WW Score of 88.2 is highly reliable, based on 14 reviews with strong mention counts across all dimensions (5-11 mentions each), predominantly recent data from the past 18 months, and consistent positive patterns without evidence of fake reviews.

Appleton Drain and Sewer Cleaning scores strongly across all four dimensions, driven by a large volume of detailed, specific reviews spanning nearly a decade. Professionalism is the most frequently cited strength, with dozens of reviewers praising punctuality, friendliness, communication, and weekend/holiday availability. Pricing is consistently described as fair, affordable, and competitive — multiple reviewers explicitly noted the cost was lower than competing quotes or expectations. Project completion scores slightly lower due to one notable negative review (June 2024) in which a tool broke mid-job, the team promised a return visit within 1-2 days, and never followed through — forcing the customer to hire someone else and experiencing the same issue a month later. Experience scores well overall, with many reviewers highlighting diagnostic transparency, camera use, root cause explanation, and effective problem-solving, though the abandoned job incident tempers this slightly.

• 6 reviews contained no text — only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence.
• One 1-star review (2021) describes a road rage incident involving a company vehicle and is not related to service quality. It was factored into professionalism at a reduced weight given it describes off-site conduct rather than a service interaction.
• One 1-star review (April 2025) contains no text and no context — it cannot be evaluated and was excluded from scoring.
• One 4-star review (June 2024) describes an incomplete job: tool broke, team promised to return in 1-2 days, never called back, and the drain was not fully cleared. This is a meaningful project completion failure and was weighted accordingly.
• Several reviews use similar phrasing around weekend availability and emergency response, but the specificity of names, situations, and details across reviews suggests these are genuine rather than fabricated. No fake review flag raised.
• A significant portion of reviews (roughly 15+) are older than 3 years, with some dating back to 2014-2017. While the most recent reviews (2024-2025) remain consistently positive, the older reviews were given reduced weight per recency rules.

This WW Score is based on 48 reviews with usable content spanning 2014 to 2025, with strong recent representation, making it a reliable indicator of this contractor's service quality — tempered slightly by one documented project abandonment and a handful of no-text reviews that could not be evaluated.

Midwest Mechanical earns strong scores across all four dimensions, driven by a large volume of reviews spanning multiple years with consistent praise for punctuality, responsiveness, and technician conduct. Project completion scores are high, with numerous reviewers noting same-day or next-day resolution, follow-through on callbacks, and jobs finished correctly — including one detailed account where a technician correctly diagnosed a repair that a competitor had misquoted as a full replacement. Pricing feedback is notably positive, with multiple reviewers explicitly calling out fair, competitive, or lower-than-expected costs, and one standout account of the owner proactively steering a customer away from an unnecessarily expensive system. The one significant negative review — a 1-star from 2021 alleging technician rudeness and discriminatory behavior toward a queer customer, and failure to confirm the unit was working before leaving — is a serious flag that prevents a higher score in professionalism and project completion, even though it is an isolated older data point. Overall, the score reflects a well-established, consistently performing company with one credible and serious conduct complaint on record.

• ONE SERIOUS NEGATIVE REVIEW (2021): A 1-star review alleges a technician was repeatedly rude, misgendered a customer's wife, displayed hostile body language toward pride flags, was reluctant to service the unit, and left without confirming the unit was functioning — which it was not. This is a credible, specific, and detailed complaint that stands in sharp contrast to all other reviews and has been factored into professionalism and project completion scores.
• THREE BLANK REVIEWS: Three reviews contained no text (only a 5-star rating and date). These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence per scoring rules.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews (approximately 38 of 52) are dated within the past 12 months (mid-2024 to mid-2025), which increases confidence in the current state of the business. Older reviews (2011–2020) are consistent in tone but weighted less heavily.
• MILD REPETITION PATTERN: A large number of reviews use similar positive language ('professional,' 'prompt,' 'friendly,' 'great service'). While this could suggest generic phrasing, the volume of named technicians (Lee, Angel, Alex, Lalo, Kevin, Shon), specific job details, and varied narrative structures across reviews suggests these are likely genuine. No fake review flag is raised, but the pattern is noted.
• ALL 5-STAR RATINGS (except one 4-star and one 1-star): The near-universal 5-star distribution is notable. While the detailed and specific nature of most reviews reduces fake review concern, the lack of any 2- or 3-star reviews across 52 submissions is statistically unusual and should be considered when interpreting the score.

This WW Score is based on a high volume of reviews with strong recency, named technicians, and specific job details, making it moderately reliable — however, the single credible 1-star complaint alleging discriminatory technician behavior and incomplete work is a meaningful data point that prospective customers should read in full before making a hiring decision.

Tim Rausch Plumbing demonstrates strong overall performance driven by consistently high marks in professionalism and project completion. The company excels in responsiveness, punctuality, communication, and technical skill, with numerous reviews praising specific technicians by name and detailing quality workmanship. However, pricing emerges as a notable weakness, with three explicit complaints about high costs and perceived gouging, offsetting the otherwise positive sentiment. The vast majority of reviews (44 of 47) are from the past 12 months, providing current and reliable data. Two older negative reviews from 2019 and 2023 regarding pricing and service quality add balance to the assessment.

• PRICING CONCERN: Three reviews explicitly criticize pricing as excessive or unfair (1-star and 2-star ratings in 2024, 2023, and 2019). One customer reported a $500 charge for attempted water heater repair that left the unit in worse condition. Another complained about a $1,000+ potential bill for sink installation. A third criticized $150 charges for float valve and flapper replacement as 'ridiculous.' This pattern suggests potential pricing inconsistency or lack of transparency.
• SERVICE QUALITY OUTLIER: One 1-star review (June 2024) describes a negative experience with a water heater repair where the technician allegedly changed pricing mid-job, provided unprofessional attitude, and left the unit in worse condition than arrival. This contradicts the overwhelmingly positive narrative and suggests occasional service failures.
• EMPTY REVIEWS: Four reviews (5.0 stars) contain no text, making them impossible to analyze for dimension-specific evidence. These are counted in total but contribute no data.
• RECENCY BIAS POTENTIAL: 44 of 47 reviews are from the past 12 months (January 2025 back to June 2024), with only 3 reviews older than 1 year. While this provides current data, it may not capture longer-term reliability patterns.
• POSITIVE REVIEW CONSISTENCY: The overwhelming majority of detailed reviews (43 of 46 usable) are 5-star with specific technician names, detailed project descriptions, and consistent praise language. While not necessarily fake, the uniformity is notable and suggests either genuinely exceptional service or potential selection bias in review platform.

This WW Score of 87.2 is reliable and should be trusted, supported by HIGH confidence in professionalism and project completion dimensions based on 28-32 mentions each. However, the pricing dimension (LIMITED confidence, 5 mentions) significantly drags the overall score and warrants caution—customers should request detailed written quotes and clarify all charges upfront before engaging services. The two negative service quality reviews suggest occasional failures, though they remain statistical outliers among 47 total reviews.

Reliable Rooter earns strong marks across all four dimensions, with the review base large enough to support HIGH confidence in every category. Professionalism is consistently praised — reviewers repeatedly highlight friendly, respectful, and communicative technicians — but is tempered by a no-show incident, a complaint about disrespectful treatment, and one poor communication complaint. Pricing scores well overall, with many reviewers calling costs reasonable or lower than expected, though one reviewer was shocked by a $489 charge for an unresolved problem and another noted costs were higher than anticipated for weekend service. Project completion is solid, with the vast majority of reviewers confirming jobs were finished promptly and correctly, but one reviewer explicitly states the problem was not resolved after payment, and a no-show appointment was reported. Experience scores highest in narrative quality, with multiple reviewers praising technical knowledge, problem-solving on difficult clogs, and proactive advice — though the unresolved $489 job and one 'unnecessary services' complaint prevent a top-tier score.

• 7 reviews contain no text at all — only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence.
• Several reviews use very brief generic praise ('Great people and service!', 'Awesome people and service!', 'Excellent service!') with no specifics. These were counted only where they clearly supported a dimension but were weighted conservatively.
• Review date clustering: the majority of reviews are dated 2024-2025, but a significant number span back to 2013. Reviews older than 12 months (pre-May 2024) were given reduced weight in scoring. The oldest reviews (2013-2018) were treated as low-weight historical context only.
• One 1-star review (2024-09-12) describes paying $489 for less than one hour of work with the problem remaining unresolved — a serious project completion and pricing concern.
• One 1-star review (2024-06-09) describes a confirmed no-show where the company lost track of their own technician and told the customer to call someone else — a significant professionalism failure.
• One 3-star review (2023-08-25) alleges poor communications, overcharging, and unnecessary services performed.
• One 2-star review (2024-06-09) describes technicians behaving unprofessionally, showing inappropriate phone content, and repeatedly changing the quoted price.
• One 1-star review (2021-12-13) reports two unanswered calls with no callback — a responsiveness failure.
• No strong fake review patterns detected. While some reviews are brief and generic, the corpus contains sufficient specific detail, named technicians, and varied language to suggest authenticity overall.

This WW Score is based on a large, multi-year review set with HIGH confidence across all dimensions; however, the presence of five negative reviews documenting unresolved work, a no-show, pricing disputes, and unprofessional conduct meaningfully constrains the score and should be taken seriously by prospective customers.

Turek's Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism with consistent praise for punctuality, courtesy, and communication across 32 reviews. Technical expertise is well-documented with 20 mentions of knowledgeable technicians and quality workmanship. Project completion shows solid performance (79/100) across 18 reviews, though three older reviews (2017, 2020) cite warranty/callback issues that lower this score. Pricing presents the weakest dimension (72/100) with 8 mentions revealing mixed sentiment: most customers accept fair pricing, but several explicitly note higher costs, and one detailed 2025 review criticizes lack of transparency on diagnostic fees despite positive service quality. Recent reviews (past 12 months) are overwhelmingly positive, while older reviews contain legitimate service failures.

• RECENCY BIAS: 44 of 54 reviews (81%) are from June 2025 and April-May 2025, creating a heavily skewed recent dataset. Only 10 reviews predate 2025, limiting historical perspective.
• PRICING TRANSPARENCY CONCERN: May 2025 review explicitly states customer was told 'no trip fee' but charged $100 diagnostic fee, indicating potential communication gap between phone scheduling and technician billing despite 5-star rating.
• HISTORICAL SERVICE FAILURES: Three older reviews (2020, 2017, 2017) document significant issues—incomplete drain repair requiring re-work, warranty non-compliance, and slow emergency response—suggesting past operational problems not reflected in recent surge.
• EMPTY REVIEWS: 8 reviews contain only 5-star ratings with no text, providing no actionable data but inflating review count.
• OUTLIER NEGATIVE REVIEWS: Two 1-star reviews (2024, 2016) and one 2-star review (2017) are substantive and credible, not fake, indicating real service failures in company history.

This WW Score of 82.3 should be treated with cautious optimism: it reflects genuinely strong recent performance (past 12 months) with HIGH confidence across professionalism and experience, but is heavily weighted toward a recent surge of reviews that may not represent long-term consistency. The pricing dimension remains LIMITED in confidence and shows legitimate transparency concerns. Historical reviews document real service failures (warranty issues, incomplete work, slow emergency response), suggesting the company has improved but past problems should not be ignored. Score is reliable for current service quality expectations but does not guarantee warranty or callback performance.