Find Nearby Plumbers In Green Bay, Wisconsin

Mechanical Technologies presents a deeply polarized review profile spanning over a decade. Recent reviews from 2024–2025 skew heavily positive, with many customers praising punctual, courteous, and professional technicians — however, a significant portion of these recent positive reviews are brief, generic, and lack specific detail, raising mild fake-review concerns. Pricing is the weakest dimension, with multiple credible and detailed complaints across many years describing price gouging, bait-and-switch quotes, warranty manipulation, and charges for parts not installed. Project completion is also significantly dragged down by serious, detailed negative reviews describing abandoned work, no-shows across multiple appointments, incomplete installations, dangerous electrical work, and jobs requiring costly third-party remediation. Experience scores are mixed: several reviewers praise knowledgeable technicians, while others describe incompetent diagnoses (e.g., recommending a $4,500 unit replacement when only a $125 capacitor was needed) and dangerous substandard workmanship including improper grounding and undersized electrical systems. The overall WW Score of 58.7 reflects a company with genuine service capability undermined by persistent, serious, and credible complaints about ethics, pricing transparency, and quality control.

• SUSPECTED THIN/GENERIC REVIEWS: A large cluster of 5-star reviews dated 2025-05-10 and 2025-05-26 contain extremely brief or empty text (e.g., 'Great service, very professional', 'Always great service', 'Excellent service!', 'Oscar was awesome', blank text with 5 stars). Several have no review text at all. This pattern is consistent with solicited or potentially inauthentic reviews and reduces confidence in the recent positive signal.
• MULTIPLE BLANK REVIEWS: At least 7 reviews contain no text whatsoever but carry 5-star ratings. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data.
• SERIOUS SAFETY COMPLAINTS: Two detailed reviews (2023 and 2024) allege dangerous electrical work including improper grounding, undersized amperage systems, use of plastic instead of copper wiring, and work that nearly caused a house fire. One reviewer states they are pursuing legal action. These are high-severity flags.
• PRICING INTEGRITY CONCERNS: Multiple independent reviewers across different years describe price changes after signed contracts, charges for parts not installed, warranty loopholes used to extract payment, and quotes that increased dramatically on the day of service. This is a recurring and credible pattern.
• NO-SHOW AND SCHEDULING FAILURES: Multiple reviews across 2013–2025 describe missed appointments without notice, no callbacks after scheduling, and technicians arriving hours late or not at all — resulting in customers missing multiple days of work.
• RECENCY BIAS RISK: The majority of positive reviews are from 2025 and are short and generic. The majority of detailed, specific negative reviews span 2011–2024. Older reviews (pre-2020) were given reduced weight in scoring but were included as they reveal long-standing patterns.
• CONTRACTOR LICENSING CONCERN: One 2024 reviewer alleges that unlicensed workers (licensed in Mexico but not the US) performed HVAC and electrical work in their home. This is an unverified but serious allegation.

This WW Score is based on a large review set (90 reviews) with HIGH mention counts across all four dimensions, making the score statistically robust; however, the prevalence of blank and generic 5-star reviews inflates the positive signal, and the score should be interpreted cautiously — the detailed negative reviews are credible, specific, and describe serious recurring issues with pricing, project completion, and workmanship quality.

ASAP Sewer and Drain presents a deeply polarized review profile. On the positive side, technician Nik/Nick is praised extensively across many recent reviews for professionalism, friendliness, thoroughness, and problem-solving ability, and the company earns consistent credit for same-day and emergency availability. However, a substantial and persistent pattern of negative reviews — spanning from 2015 through 2025 — raises serious concerns across all four dimensions. Pricing is the weakest dimension: multiple reviewers report being quoted one price and charged significantly more, undisclosed after-hours surcharges, charges for services not rendered, and rates described as far exceeding competitors. Project completion is also significantly undermined by recurring complaints of drains re-clogging within days or weeks, failure to honor warranties, and at least two cases where a competitor fixed the problem in one visit after ASAP could not. Professionalism scores are dragged down by reports of poor communication, failure to return calls, an unlicensed technician performing work, and one alarming contractual clause explicitly disclaiming any guarantee that services will fix the customer's problem.

• PRICING CONCERNS: At least 10 reviews explicitly describe being charged more than quoted, undisclosed surcharges (e.g., after-hours fees), charges for services not performed, and rates described as 2x competitor pricing. This is a consistent and multi-year pattern, not isolated incidents.
• WARRANTY/COMPLETION FAILURES: Multiple reviews (2017, 2024, 2025) report the same drain re-clogging within weeks or months, with ASAP refusing to honor warranty or charging again for the same issue. One 2025 review describes a competitor fixing the problem in one visit after ASAP failed across multiple visits.
• CONTRACTUAL RED FLAG: One 2024 review quotes ASAP's own paperwork stating they 'do not guarantee the services performed will alleviate, correct, or remedy the problems faced by the customer.' This is a significant liability and trust concern.
• UNLICENSED TECHNICIAN: A 2025 review explicitly states the technician was not a licensed plumber, which raises legal and safety concerns.
• EQUIPMENT DAMAGE: A 2018 review describes ASAP's technician ignoring instructions, getting equipment stuck 65 feet into a pipe, requiring a yard excavation costing over $5,000, and still demanding $500 in labor.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of positive reviews are from 2024-2025 and cluster heavily around one technician (Nik/Nick). Negative reviews span the full date range from 2015 to 2025, suggesting systemic issues are not fully resolved despite individual technician quality.
• POSSIBLE REVIEW SOLICITATION: One 2018 reviewer explicitly states they were offered $20 off their bill in exchange for writing a review immediately before paying. This calls into question the authenticity of some positive reviews and is a violation of standard review platform policies.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK — MODERATE: While most positive reviews include specific technician names and situational details (reducing generic fake review risk), the concentration of praise around a single technician and the confirmed $20-for-review offer warrants moderate skepticism about the overall positive review pool.

This WW Score is based on a large and diverse review set spanning 10 years and carries HIGH statistical confidence, but the score should be interpreted cautiously given documented pricing inconsistencies, warranty failures, a confirmed review-incentivization incident, and a contractual disclaimer that the company does not guarantee its own work will fix the customer's problem.

Edge Plumbing exhibits a deeply polarized review pattern with stark contrasts between positive and negative experiences. While many reviews from 2017 praise technicians like Kenny, Cody, and Devon for friendliness, knowledge, and efficiency, a substantial body of negative reviews—particularly from 2012–2016—document serious failures in professionalism (unresponsiveness, no-shows, poor communication), project completion (incomplete repairs, follow-up failures, water damage), and pricing ethics (overcharging, unnecessary add-ons, warranty exploitation). The company struggles with consistency, accountability, and customer service fundamentals. Positive reviews often mention specific technician names and quick service; negative reviews consistently cite systemic failures in scheduling, responsiveness, and quality assurance. The recency of reviews is mixed, with older reviews containing more detailed complaints about structural business problems.

• SEVERE RECENCY BIAS: Majority of 5-star reviews are clustered on 2017-06-11 with identical formatting and generic praise; many lack specific details or mention only first names. This pattern is consistent with fake or incentivized reviews.
• POLARIZATION RED FLAG: 67 reviews split into two distinct camps—mostly 5-star (2017) vs. mostly 1-star (2012–2016). This suggests either dramatic business change, review manipulation, or platform-specific rating patterns.
• SYSTEMIC ISSUES DOCUMENTED: Multiple independent reviews from different years (2012–2016) report identical problems: unresponsiveness, no-shows, incomplete repairs, and poor follow-up. This consistency suggests real operational failures, not isolated incidents.
• ETHICAL CONCERNS: Multiple reviews document overcharging (earthquake strap $75 vs. $18 retail), unnecessary add-ons, warranty exploitation, and refusal to warranty own work. These are not isolated complaints.
• QUALITY INCONSISTENCY: Positive reviews praise individual technicians (Kenny, Cody, Devon, Kevin); negative reviews cite same company failures across different technicians, suggesting management/systemic issues rather than technician-specific problems.
• HOME WARRANTY PATTERN: Disproportionate number of complaints involve home warranty work, suggesting possible contractor-warranty company dynamics or selective service quality based on job type/payment source.

This WW Score should be treated with CAUTION despite HIGH confidence in mention counts. The review dataset is heavily compromised by apparent fake reviews (2017 cluster) and extreme polarization that obscures true current performance. The score of 56.8 reflects the mathematical average, but the underlying data quality is poor. If forced to assess current reliability, weight the 2012–2016 negative reviews more heavily as they contain specific, corroborated complaints; treat 2017 positive reviews as unreliable. A site visit or recent independent review would be essential before hiring this contractor.

This contractor shows significant inconsistency across reviews spanning 2012–2020. Positive reviews from 2012–2014 praise punctuality, responsiveness, and technical knowledge, but two recent negative reviews (2019–2020) reveal serious failures: no-shows despite repeated promises, billing without service delivery, and overbilling for labor. The pricing dimension is particularly weak, with explicit complaints about fraudulent billing practices. Project completion is undermined by the 2019 incident where the company billed for a permit cancellation without ever inspecting the problem. Overall confidence is limited due to the small sample size and the stark contradiction between older and newer reviews.

• RECENCY CONCERN: Most positive reviews are 8–10 years old (2012–2014). The two most recent reviews (2019–2020) are severely negative, suggesting service quality has deteriorated significantly.
• BILLING INTEGRITY ISSUE: Two reviews explicitly allege fraudulent or deceptive billing practices—overbilling for labor hours and charging for services never rendered. This is a critical red flag.
• NO-SHOW PATTERN: 2019 review documents repeated no-shows and broken promises despite multiple contact attempts.
• SAMPLE SIZE: Only 6 reviews total limits statistical reliability. Older reviews may not reflect current operations.

This score should be treated with caution. While older reviews suggest competent work, the recent pattern of billing fraud, no-shows, and service failures indicates the company's current reliability is questionable. The WW Score of 58.3 reflects this deterioration, but the small sample size and age disparity mean this assessment should be validated with additional recent customer feedback before making a hiring decision.

The review set presents a deeply mixed picture of Royal Flush Plumbing. Professionalism is the most-mentioned dimension and is significantly dragged down by two explicit negative accounts: one reviewer describes a rude and unprofessional response when disputing an overcharge, and another describes repeated rescheduling followed by a referral to a competitor with no prior notice. Pricing is similarly mixed — one reviewer praises good pricing and another long-term customer expresses trust around cost, but the first reviewer explicitly documents being billed $100 over the provided estimate with no satisfactory explanation, which is a serious transparency concern. Project completion is hurt by the rescheduling review, where work was never completed and the customer was ultimately redirected elsewhere. Experience scores somewhat better, with two reviewers describing Ben as skilled and trustworthy, but the small sample limits confidence.

• Three of the five reviews are older than 12 months, with two reviews dating back to 2017–2018 and one to 2019. These older reviews may not reflect current service quality.
• The most recent reviews (2022) include the most detailed negative feedback, suggesting a possible decline in service quality over time. Recency weighting applied — negative recent reviews carry more weight.
• No fake review patterns detected. Reviews vary in tone, detail, and rating, which supports authenticity.
• Small sample size of only 5 reviews significantly limits the reliability of all dimension scores. Confidence is inherently constrained regardless of mention counts.

This WW Score should be treated with caution — the sample of 5 reviews is too small to draw firm conclusions, the most recent reviews skew negative, and the score reflects genuine documented concerns around billing transparency, rescheduling, and unprofessional communication.

This contractor shows highly polarized performance with severe quality and professionalism issues offset by some positive completion outcomes. The first review documents catastrophic failures including incomplete work, overcharging ($600 for a simple fix after $300 initial charge), unsanitary work practices (fecal contamination of customer property), poor communication, and dishonesty about root causes. Two positive reviews praise responsiveness and speed, but these are dated 2020–2022 and lack detail. The second review actually exonerates the crew of fault. The pattern suggests inconsistent service quality with critical gaps in workmanship, pricing transparency, and professional conduct.

• CRITICAL: First review (2023) documents severe professionalism failures including unsanitary work practices, property damage, overcharging, and dishonesty. This is a detailed, specific complaint with photographic evidence mentioned.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Positive reviews are from 2020 and 2022; the most recent review (2023) is highly negative, suggesting possible service degradation.
• PRICING RED FLAG: Explicit evidence of overcharging ($600 charged for simple fix when estimate was conditional on cracked pipe). No other pricing data to validate fairness.
• EXPERIENCE CONCERN: First review indicates lack of technical knowledge (inability to seat toilet correctly, misdiagnosis of noise issue) and poor problem-solving.
• SAMPLE SIZE: Only 4 reviews total; limited statistical reliability despite detailed negative feedback.

This score should be treated with caution due to small sample size (4 reviews) and extreme polarization, but the detailed, specific nature of the 2023 complaint with evidence claims carries significant weight and suggests real service quality issues that cannot be dismissed.