Find Nearby Plumbers In Appleton, Wisconsin

Watters Plumbing demonstrates strong overall performance with a WW Score of 81.2, driven by consistently high marks in professionalism, experience, and project completion. The company excels in punctuality, communication, and technical skill, with numerous customers praising specific technicians (Dylan, Cletus, Al, Brian, Jared) for their knowledge and courteous demeanor. However, pricing emerges as a notable weakness, with multiple customers citing high costs, unexpected charges, and payment disputes. Several significant negative reviews document serious issues including poor craftsmanship in new construction, unresponsive management, and miscommunication about pricing terms. While the majority of recent reviews (2024-2025) are highly positive, older reviews reveal persistent quality control and customer service inconsistencies.

• PRICING CONCERNS: Multiple reviews (2024-2025) report overpricing, unexpected charges, and aggressive payment collection practices. One customer reported a $1,500 quote vs. competitor's $1,300 for identical work. Payment disputes and down-payment demands appear in at least 3 reviews.
• QUALITY CONTROL INCONSISTENCY: Significant disparity between positive and negative reviews suggests inconsistent workmanship. A 5-year construction review (2024-06-09) documents multiple defects: missing insulation, failed backfill, exposed tubing, failed sump pump, failed lift station pump, and improper drain installation. Another construction review (2018-12-18) reports under-cabinet leaks, slow drains, and refusal to address issues.
• RESPONSIVENESS ISSUES: Multiple reviews document poor follow-up and communication failures. One 2018 review reports 2-month delay with no callback after initial consultation. Another 2020 review reports cancellation miscommunication and emergency service denial due to staff hunting.
• MANAGEMENT RESPONSIVENESS: Several reviews indicate owner/management does not return calls or follow up on complaints, particularly regarding estimate delays and service issues.
• EMPTY/MINIMAL REVIEWS: 4 reviews contain no text (only ratings of 5.0 or 4.0), reducing data quality slightly.
• RECENCY BIAS NOTED: Most recent reviews (2024-2025) are overwhelmingly positive (5-star), while older reviews (2008-2020) show more balanced criticism. This may reflect improved operations or selection bias in recent review submissions.
• TECHNICIAN VARIABILITY: Reviews frequently praise specific technicians by name (Dylan, Cletus, Al, Brian, Jared, Phil, Rod) while criticizing unnamed technicians, suggesting significant performance variation across staff.

This WW Score of 81.2 is reliable for recent work (2024-2025) where professionalism and experience are consistently strong, but customers should be cautious about pricing expectations and should obtain detailed written quotes with clear payment terms before committing. The company's track record on complex projects and new construction work shows quality control concerns that warrant careful vetting and detailed contracts.

Absolute Plumbing earns strong marks across all four dimensions, driven by an exceptionally large and predominantly positive review base spanning over a decade. Professionalism scores are bolstered by hundreds of mentions of punctuality, courtesy, and communication, but are meaningfully dragged down by a recurring pattern of no-shows, missed appointments without notification, and several accounts of rude or combative behavior from staff and owners — a pattern that appears across multiple years and multiple reviewers. Pricing receives the lowest score due to a notable minority of reviewers explicitly calling out overcharging, non-itemized invoices, hidden fees, inflated service call charges, and pricing that felt inconsistent or deceptive; while many reviewers praise fair pricing, the negative pricing complaints are specific and credible enough to suppress the score. Project completion is generally strong, with most jobs described as completed efficiently and thoroughly, though a handful of reviews describe incomplete work, callbacks needed, or jobs that failed within days. Experience scores well, with many reviewers citing skilled diagnostics, problem-solving, and technical knowledge across a wide variety of plumbing tasks.

• APPOINTMENT RELIABILITY PATTERN: At least 15 reviews across multiple years describe no-shows, missed appointments without any call, or plumbers arriving significantly late without notice. This is a persistent and credible operational weakness, not isolated incidents.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS — SPECIFIC AND CREDIBLE: Multiple reviewers across different years cite non-itemized bills, unexpected charges for drive time, inflated parts markups, high service call fees, and pricing that felt inconsistent or deceptive. One reviewer was quoted $3,200 for a water heater; another paid $162 for a 15-minute repair. These are not vague complaints.
• RUDE STAFF COMPLAINTS: Several reviews describe rude, dismissive, or combative behavior from staff or owners — including hanging up on customers, refusing to answer questions, and making racially charged comments. These are serious professionalism flags.
• POSSIBLE MULTI-ENTITY REVIEW POOL: The review set references a very large number of different technician names (Jose, Howard, Bill, Edwin, Josh, Larry, Steve, Raul, Sean, Brett, Andy, Jared, Matthew, Nick, John, Justin, etc.) and spans geographies including California (Bay Area, San Diego, Lodi, Castro Valley), Texas (Flower Mound, DFW), and Illinois (Chicago suburbs). This strongly suggests these reviews are aggregated from multiple distinct business locations or franchises operating under the 'Absolute Plumbing' name. Scores should be interpreted with caution as they may not reflect any single location's performance.
• RECENCY NOTE: The review set spans from approximately 2008 to June 2025. Reviews from 2025 and 2024 are heavily weighted in this analysis. Older reviews (pre-2020) are present in large numbers and show similar patterns — both positive and negative — suggesting the operational issues are long-standing rather than recently resolved.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK — LOW TO MODERATE: The majority of 5-star reviews contain specific technician names, job descriptions, and situational details, which reduces fake review suspicion. However, a subset of very short, generic 5-star reviews with no detail (e.g., 'Great work', 'Hard worker gets the job done right', blank text with 5 stars) are present and contribute minor concern. Overall fake review risk is assessed as low to moderate.
• INCOMPLETE WORK INSTANCES: At least 3 reviews describe work that was left incomplete, required a return visit, or failed within days of completion — including a drain that re-blocked within 48 hours and a tankless water heater installation left unfinished for a month.

This WW Score carries HIGH statistical confidence due to the very large review volume, but should be interpreted with caution given strong evidence that the review pool aggregates multiple distinct business locations operating under the same name, and given persistent credible complaints about appointment reliability, pricing transparency, and occasional staff conduct that meaningfully offset the otherwise strong positive sentiment.

The overwhelming majority of reviews praise professionalism, punctuality, communication, and friendly attitudes across multiple technicians and owners (Aaron, Mike, Guillermo, Ron, and others), driving a strong but not perfect professionalism score. Pricing scores well overall — many reviewers explicitly cite reasonable, fair, or competitive pricing — but is tempered by several notable complaints: one reviewer was charged nearly $700 for a snake with no resolution, another documented being charged over double the market rate for HVAC maintenance, one experienced a mid-job price change from $285 to $388.50, and another felt labor charges for a warranty replacement were excessive. Project completion scores solidly given the large volume of reviews describing completed jobs, same-day or next-day service, and follow-through, but is reduced by a handful of reviews describing abandoned callbacks, a technician who left without hot water working, a dishwasher leveling issue that took two weeks to resolve, and a misdiagnosis case where a competitor fixed what A-1 could not. Experience scores high based on numerous explicit mentions of skill, technical knowledge, and problem-solving ability, including complex jobs like CIPP lining, tankless water heater repair, and leak detection under homes.

• A significant number of reviews (approximately 40) contain no text — only a star rating. These blank reviews cannot contribute usable data to any dimension and were excluded from scoring.
• Several reviews appear to reference entirely different companies or technicians (e.g., A-1 Total Service Plumbing with Guillermo/Esteban/Osvaldo/Leo vs. Complete Plumbing with Aaron/Mike Torculas). This review set appears to aggregate reviews from at least two or possibly three distinct businesses. Scores reflect the combined pool but reliability is reduced because performance may vary significantly between entities.
• Multiple reviews for 'Complete Plumbing' reference owner Mike Torculas and span back to 2011, while others reference Aaron Petrossian as owner of Complete Plumbing — these may be two separate businesses operating under the same name in different regions.
• Pricing dimension has meaningful negative signal: at least 4 reviews explicitly describe overcharging, hidden fees, or price changes mid-job, which significantly tempers the otherwise positive pricing sentiment.
• One review (2025-03-11, 1-star) explicitly warns readers to get a second opinion on A-1 Total Service Plumbing recommendations, citing a misdiagnosis and an unnecessary $2,400 repair quote when a $400 hydrojet and simple obstruction removal solved the problem.
• One review (2025-05-10, 2-star) describes being charged nearly $700 for a snake that did not resolve the issue, followed by a $7,000 camera quote and then no response when requesting camera footage — suggesting possible upselling and poor follow-through.
• One review (2024-11-11, 1-star) and one review (2018-07-28, 1-star) cite rude phone/office staff, and one review (2022-08-17, 1-star) describes the owner being rude and late to an estimate appointment — a recurring pattern of customer service issues at the front-end of the business.
• One review (2017-07-17, 1-star) describes a technician breaking faucet handles and then becoming unreachable for follow-up repair — a project completion failure.
• One review (2021-03-03, 1-star) describes incomplete work and a system left without hot water after the technician departed.
• Review dates span from 2011 to 2025. Reviews older than 12 months (pre-June 2024) should be weighted less heavily. The most recent reviews (2025) are mixed, with both strong positives and notable negatives appearing in the same period.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large volume of substantive reviews, but its reliability as a single-entity score is meaningfully reduced by the apparent aggregation of reviews from at least two distinct businesses; prospective customers should verify which specific company and technician they are engaging before relying on this score.

Lee's Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism with responsive communication, friendly staff, and punctual service across 48 mentions. Project completion is solid but shows some concerns: while most jobs are finished well, there are documented cases of incomplete repairs requiring callbacks and one significant failure to resolve a recurring water leak over a year. Pricing is generally fair and transparent (22 mentions), though one customer reported an undisclosed $65 estimate fee and another noted parts markups. Technical skill is strong (28 mentions) with knowledgeable technicians, though a few reviews indicate diagnostic failures. The company excels at customer service and professionalism but has reliability gaps in follow-through on complex issues.

• Two severe negative reviews (2024-06-09 and 2024-04-07) describe a recurring water leak issue over 12+ months where initial repair was incomplete, customer had no water for 5+ days, and company refused weekend service despite family hardship. This suggests potential project completion and responsiveness failures.
• One review (2023-06-10) reports no-show after confirmed appointment window, indicating scheduling/reliability issues.
• One review (2023-01-31) and another (2022-08-17) describe failed repairs where work was ineffective or incomplete, contradicting majority positive feedback on technical skill.
• Multiple reviews with minimal or 'unknown' text content (approximately 12 reviews) reduce data quality; these appear to be placeholder entries and were counted but provide limited substantive information.
• One review (2019-06-25) reports undisclosed $65 estimate fee that was not mentioned during initial phone call, suggesting potential transparency issues in pricing communication.
• One review (2013-04-07) describes misdiagnosis of sewer line problem that led to insurance claim denial and required second plumber to identify actual issue, indicating diagnostic limitations.
• Recency note: Approximately 35% of reviews are from 2023 or earlier (pre-2024), with some dating back to 2012-2016. Most recent reviews (2024-2025) are predominantly positive, but older reviews contain more critical feedback.

This WW Score of 78.2 is moderately reliable due to high mention counts across all dimensions and recent data concentration, but confidence is tempered by documented project completion failures (incomplete repairs, no-shows, diagnostic errors) and pricing transparency concerns that contradict the predominantly positive rating distribution. The score reflects a company with strong customer service and professionalism but inconsistent follow-through on complex issues.

Artisan Plumbing earns strong marks for professionalism and experience across a large and diverse review base spanning over a decade, with many customers praising punctuality, communication, courteous technicians, and skilled problem-solving. However, pricing is a meaningful drag on the overall score: multiple reviewers across different years explicitly flagged high hourly rates, unexpected equipment/diagnosis fees, and significant parts markups, with one reviewer citing a $285 part sold for $56–69 at retail and another calling the company a 'huge rip-off.' Project completion is mixed — the majority of jobs were finished well, but there are credible, detailed accounts of abandoned follow-through: one customer was ghosted after paying for a camera inspection and never received a quote, another waited months for a promised estimate with no response, a gas leak went undetected for two months after an uninspected installation, and one technician no-showed entirely. These are not minor complaints — they represent a pattern of follow-through failures that meaningfully tempers an otherwise solid reputation. The business clearly delivers excellent service in many cases, but the inconsistency in pricing transparency and job follow-through prevents a higher score.

• 9 reviews contain no text at all — only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: Two reviews with nearly identical text about a pressure tank leak (dated 2024-09-12 and 2024-08-18) appear to be the same review submitted twice. Only one instance was counted in scoring.
• PRICING CONCERNS — RECURRING PATTERN: Multiple independent reviewers across different years (2017, 2019, 2020, 2022, 2024) explicitly flagged high labor rates, unexpected snake/equipment fees, diagnosis charges on top of completed work, and large parts markups. This is not isolated and reduces confidence in pricing fairness claims made in positive reviews.
• PROJECT COMPLETION FAILURES — RECURRING PATTERN: At least three detailed, credible negative reviews describe being ghosted after paying for diagnostic work (2019, 2023), a no-show with no follow-up (2022), and a gas leak left undetected for two months due to a missed county inspection (2025). These are serious completion and safety concerns.
• RECENCY NOTE: The review base spans 2013–2025. Reviews older than 2022 carry reduced weight. The most recent reviews (2024–2025) are generally positive but include the gas leak incident and the Kenny misdiagnosis complaint, suggesting quality inconsistency persists.
• One 1-star review (2024-08-10) describes the office becoming defensive when workmanship concerns were raised, an admitted incorrect installation that was never remedied, and undisclosed premium parts pricing. This aligns with other pricing and follow-through complaints and is treated as credible.
• No strong evidence of fake reviews detected. The review set contains specific names, dates, job types, and a realistic mix of positive and negative experiences. Language varies sufficiently across reviews.

This WW Score is based on 85 reviews spanning 12 years with strong mention counts across all four dimensions, making it statistically reliable — however, consumers should weigh the recurring and independently corroborated concerns about pricing transparency and job follow-through before hiring, as these patterns appear across multiple years and reviewers.

Ken's Plumbing demonstrates strong technical expertise and generally professional service delivery, with many customers praising technicians' knowledge and work quality. However, the company is significantly hampered by persistent pricing concerns—numerous reviews cite excessive charges, lack of transparency in estimates, and perceived price gouging that substantially undermine customer trust. Project completion is reliable but inconsistent, with some no-shows and scheduling issues documented. Professionalism varies by technician; while many are courteous and efficient, communication gaps and occasional rudeness from office staff create friction. The company's failure to respond constructively to negative feedback is a notable weakness.

• PRICING PATTERN: 28 mentions of pricing issues across 127 reviews (22% of total). Complaints range from quotes significantly higher than final bills, to charges perceived as 2-3x market rate, to undisclosed fees. This is the single largest driver of negative sentiment.
• INCONSISTENT SERVICE QUALITY: Multiple reviews indicate service varies dramatically by technician. Some technicians (Keith, Ben, Noah) receive consistent praise; others receive complaints about rudeness, lack of professionalism, or poor work.
• NO-SHOW AND SCHEDULING ISSUES: At least 6 reviews document missed appointments, late arrivals, or poor communication about arrival times. One detailed 2025 review describes 11+ call-outs with repeated no-shows.
• QUALITY CONTROL CONCERNS: Several reviews document incomplete repairs requiring callbacks, damage to property during service (ceiling damage, siding damage), and work that did not meet specifications.
• UNRESPONSIVE TO COMPLAINTS: Multiple reviews note the company does not respond to negative feedback or attempt to resolve disputes, which is flagged as unprofessional by customers familiar with industry standards.
• DIAGNOSTIC FEE CONTROVERSY: Multiple reviews cite $49-$158 diagnostic/trip fees that customers view as excessive, particularly when no work is performed or when the diagnosis is incorrect.
• RECENT NEGATIVE ESCALATION: Two detailed 1-star reviews from May 2025 and April 2024 describe serious incidents (gas line damage, no-shows, overcharges, gaslighting by staff) that suggest ongoing systemic issues rather than isolated incidents.
• POSITIVE REVIEW CONCENTRATION: Approximately 75% of 5-star reviews lack specific detail and use generic praise language ('awesome,' 'highly recommend,' 'great service'). While not conclusive evidence of fake reviews, the pattern warrants caution. However, detailed negative reviews are highly specific and credible, suggesting genuine customer dissatisfaction.

This WW Score of 72.8 is reliable but reflects a company in decline. The HIGH confidence is justified by large mention counts across all dimensions and a substantial body of detailed, specific feedback spanning 15+ years. However, the score masks significant internal inconsistency: technical competence and professionalism are genuine strengths, but pricing practices and customer service responsiveness are serious weaknesses that have worsened in recent years. Customers should expect variable service quality, verify all quotes in writing, and be prepared for final bills to exceed estimates. The company's unwillingness to address complaints constructively is a major red flag.