Find Nearby Plumbers In Kenosha, Wisconsin

Karlsen Plumbing shows mixed performance across dimensions. Professionalism is a relative strength with multiple mentions of punctuality, politeness, and responsiveness (76/100), though recent reviews (2024) reveal serious service failures. Pricing is a significant weakness (42/100), with multiple complaints about excessive charges, hidden service fees, and overcharging. Project completion is concerning (65/100) due to documented failures including a sump pump that failed after 1.5 years and a misdiagnosed leak that required a second plumber. Experience scores moderately (60/100) with evidence of technical knowledge but also diagnostic errors. The company's age and local reputation are offset by recent critical failures and pricing complaints.

• RECENCY CONCERN: Most positive reviews are from 2007-2021 (7-17 years old). The most recent reviews (2024, 2023) are predominantly negative, suggesting significant service deterioration.
• PRICING PATTERN: Multiple independent complaints about high costs, service request fees, overcharging, and double-charging. This is not isolated criticism.
• PROJECT COMPLETION FAILURES: Two documented cases of failed sump pump installations (2015) and one misdiagnosed leak (2010). Recent 2024 review shows failure to follow up on $144 evaluation and incorrect recommendation for $10,000 replacement.
• INCONSISTENT QUALITY: Stark contrast between older glowing reviews and recent negative experiences suggests either declining service quality or changing business practices.
• FOLLOW-UP FAILURES: 2024 review explicitly states 'We never heard from the salesman' after paying $144 for evaluation, indicating poor project follow-through.

This score should be treated with MODERATE caution. While based on 12 reviews, the dramatic recency shift from positive (pre-2021) to negative (2023-2024) suggests the company's current performance may be significantly worse than the overall score indicates. Recent reviews should be weighted more heavily than historical ones, which would lower the score further. The pricing complaints are consistent and specific, lending credibility to that dimension's low score.

Collet & Ano Plumbing shows significant inconsistency across reviews spanning 2011–2019. While most reviews praise punctuality, politeness, and technical skill, one detailed 2019 complaint documents multiple professionalism failures (failure to remove boots, poor follow-up, dismissive management response) and incomplete work (original toilet smell unresolved). Pricing is generally viewed as fair and reasonable, though one customer found a service call expensive. Project completion is mixed: most jobs are completed promptly, but the 2019 case involved unresolved issues and damage denial. The company's experience level is consistently praised, but professionalism scores are heavily dragged down by the documented service failures and poor customer handling in the most recent review.

• RECENCY CONCERN: Most positive reviews are 5+ years old (2011–2018). The most recent review (2019) is highly detailed and extremely negative, describing multiple service failures and poor management response. This suggests possible service quality decline or inconsistency.
• POLARIZATION PATTERN: 7 five-star reviews vs. 1 one-star and 1 three-star review. The negative reviews are far more detailed and specific than positive ones, which raises questions about review authenticity or whether positive reviews may be solicited/curated.
• PROFESSIONALISM RED FLAGS: The 2019 review documents repeated unprofessional behavior (not removing boots despite being asked twice, no follow-up communication, dismissive management tone). This is not a minor complaint but a pattern of conduct issues.
• INCOMPLETE WORK: The 2019 review explicitly states the original problem (toilet smell) was never resolved, and damage (cracked tile) was denied and not repaired. This is a critical project completion failure.

This score should be treated with caution. While the overall WW Score of 68.2 reflects mixed data, the dramatic recency shift from consistent 5-star reviews (2011–2018) to a detailed, specific 1-star complaint (2019) suggests either genuine service degradation or inconsistent quality. The 2019 review's specificity and documentation of multiple failures carries more weight than generic praise. Potential customers should heavily weight the most recent experience and request references from recent jobs.

The Water Store shows significant inconsistency in service quality. While recent positive reviews (2024) and older testimonials (2014) praise competitive pricing, timely work, and technical competence, serious concerns emerge from multiple reviews citing unprofessional behavior, appointment cancellations, installation errors, and alleged billing fraud. A 2022 review alleges triple-charging with escalation to local news, and a 2020 review documents a cross-threading error that nearly caused water damage. The company demonstrates capability in technical execution but faces credibility issues around professionalism and pricing transparency that substantially undermine overall trustworthiness.

• RECENCY CONCERN: Most negative reviews are 2–4 years old (2020, 2022), while the most recent review (2024) is positive. However, the 2022 fraud allegation is serious and unresolved.
• PRICING RED FLAG: One review explicitly alleges triple-charging with claimed proof and news escalation. Another review praises competitive pricing. This contradiction is critical and unresolved.
• PROFESSIONALISM ISSUES: Multiple reviews cite appointment cancellations and installation errors (cross-threading). These are documented failures, not subjective complaints.
• GENERIC REVIEWS: Two reviews from 2015 contain only 'unknown' text with ratings (3.0 and 5.0), suggesting incomplete or placeholder data. These were excluded from scoring but indicate data quality issues.
• SMALL SAMPLE SIZE: Only 7 usable reviews limits confidence. Scores are based on 2–4 mentions per dimension, which is inherently unstable.

This score should be treated with caution. While the company demonstrates technical capability, unresolved allegations of billing fraud and documented professionalism failures create significant trust concerns. The small sample size and age of most reviews (pre-2024) further limit reliability. Recommend requesting recent references and written quotes before engaging.

The review corpus spans nearly two decades and reveals a deeply polarized customer base. Professionalism scores are dragged down significantly by repeated accounts of rude, condescending, or dishonest technicians, no-shows, and poor communication from management, even though a meaningful subset of reviewers praised individual plumbers as courteous and punctual. Pricing is the single most damaging dimension: an overwhelming majority of reviewers — across all time periods and locations — explicitly describe charges as exorbitant, far above market rate, and in several cases potentially predatory, particularly toward elderly or first-time homeowners. Project completion is mixed: many jobs were finished satisfactorily, but a notable number of reviews describe repeat failures, unresolved callbacks, abandoned work, failed inspections, and warranty disputes. Technical experience is similarly split, with some reviewers praising problem-solving ability while others describe sloppy workmanship, incorrect installations, and technicians who misdiagnosed problems that other plumbers resolved cheaply and quickly.

• PRICING CONCERN: Pricing complaints are the single most consistent theme across the entire review set, spanning 2005–2024, with dozens of reviewers independently describing charges as 2x–5x market rate. This is a strong and credible pattern, not an outlier.
• PREDATORY PRICING PATTERN: Multiple reviews describe a specific pattern of verbal low quotes followed by significantly higher charges on final invoices, upselling unnecessary work, and targeting vulnerable customers (elderly, emergency situations, first-time homeowners).
• FAKE/THIN REVIEW FLAG: Approximately 12 reviews consist solely of 'unknown' text with a star rating and provide zero usable data. These were excluded from scoring. Their presence inflates the raw review count and may represent padding.
• FAKE/THIN REVIEW FLAG: Several 5-star reviews contain only a period ('.') as text with no detail. These were excluded from scoring as they provide no verifiable information.
• GENERIC PRAISE FLAG: A cluster of short 5-star reviews (e.g., 'excellent very friendly', 'Very professional very friendly') lack any specifics and follow a suspiciously similar pattern. Confidence in these is reduced.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent detailed negative review (October 2024) describes the same predatory pricing and billing opacity patterns seen in reviews going back to 2006, suggesting these are systemic and ongoing issues rather than isolated incidents.
• MULTI-LOCATION ISSUE: Reviews appear to reference multiple Ben Franklin Plumbing franchise locations across different states (Florida, Ohio, New Jersey, etc.). Scores reflect the aggregate brand experience but individual franchise quality may vary significantly.
• MANAGEMENT CONDUCT: Multiple reviews specifically call out owner-level or management-level misconduct including threats, yelling, hanging up on customers, and refusing to honor warranties — this is a serious flag beyond technician-level issues.
• WORKMANSHIP FAILURES: At least 4 reviews describe installations that failed shortly after completion, including a gas leak from incorrect installation, cracked pipes, failed sump pumps, and leaking faucets — indicating quality control issues at the technical level.

This WW Score is based on 88 reviews with a large proportion containing substantive detail, spanning nearly 20 years, and the HIGH confidence rating across all four dimensions reflects strong evidentiary support — however, the multi-franchise nature of the reviews means this score represents a brand-level aggregate and prospective customers should seek location-specific reviews before hiring.

Grand Comfort exhibits highly inconsistent performance across all dimensions. While some customers report excellent professionalism and technical skill (particularly in emergency response and specific technicians like Gary and Artur), numerous reviews document serious failures in project completion, installation quality, and pricing transparency. Major red flags include incorrect installations requiring costly corrections, incomplete work, unresponsive management, and aggressive upselling tactics. Pricing complaints are pervasive, with customers reporting excessive diagnostic fees, inflated labor rates, and alleged scams. The company's responsiveness varies dramatically by technician and situation, suggesting systemic quality control issues.

• CRITICAL: Multiple reviews (at least 8) allege deliberate scams or dishonest practices: disconnected cables to fake unit failure, unnecessary diagnostics, upselling of unneeded services, cash-under-the-table deals, and false claims about equipment condition.
• PATTERN: Installation quality is severely compromised in multiple HVAC jobs—units installed backwards, thermostats wired incorrectly, line replacements not completed as promised, filters blocked by poor ductwork design.
• PATTERN: Unresponsive management and non-compliance with promises—promised discounts never delivered via email, promised supervisor inspections delayed 4+ hours, promised callbacks never made, complaints to ownership ignored.
• PATTERN: Aggressive pricing and billing practices—charging full amounts before work completion, excessive diagnostic fees ($159 for basic diagnostics), inflated hourly rates ($300 for 15-minute toilet repair), and alleged cash-based side deals to avoid company oversight.
• RECENCY: Most negative reviews cluster in 2019-2021; some positive reviews from 2018-2019 may reflect different management or quality standards. Recent reviews (2020-2021) show continued serious failures.
• INCONSISTENCY: Stark contrast between 5-star reviews praising specific technicians (Gary, Artur, Randy, Javier) and 1-star reviews describing systemic fraud and incompetence. This suggests individual technician quality varies wildly, but company oversight is inadequate.
• LEGAL RISK: One review mentions filing complaint with IDFPR (Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation) and company threatening lien; another mentions BBB complaint and credit card reversal. Indicates potential regulatory and legal exposure.
• FAKE REVIEW CONCERN: Some 5-star reviews are generic and lack specifics (e.g., 'Excellent customer service...highly recommend'), but most negative reviews are detailed and credible. No strong evidence of systematic fake positive reviews, but some generic praise warrants caution.

This WW Score should be treated with CAUTION. While based on 27 reviews with substantial mention counts across all dimensions, the extreme polarization (13 one-star reviews vs. 10 five-star reviews) and documented patterns of alleged fraud, installation failures, and management unresponsiveness indicate this company poses significant financial and quality risk. The score of 54.8 reflects genuine data but masks serious systemic problems. Customers should seek independent verification of any estimate and consider alternative contractors before engaging this company.

This contractor shows significant inconsistency across reviews spanning multiple years. Pricing emerges as the primary concern, with multiple customers reporting unexpected charges, lack of upfront pricing transparency, and jobs that did not resolve issues despite substantial costs. Project completion is undermined by documented cases of incomplete work and failure to honor service guarantees. Professionalism ratings are mixed—some reviews praise responsiveness and friendliness, while others describe blame-shifting and poor follow-through. Technical skill appears adequate in successful jobs but is contradicted by cases where work failed to address root problems. The most recent negative review (2023) is particularly damaging, describing a maintenance service that failed within weeks and subsequent attempts to charge additional fees rather than stand behind the work.

• RECENCY CONCERN: Most positive reviews are from 2013–2021; most recent reviews (2023, 2021, 2017) are predominantly negative, suggesting service quality has declined over time.
• PRICING TRANSPARENCY ISSUE: Multiple reviews explicitly cite lack of upfront pricing, surprise charges, and failure to honor quoted estimates. This is a consistent pattern across at least 3 reviews.
• WORK QUALITY FAILURE: Two reviews describe incomplete or failed work (sewer line not cleared after $800 service; maintenance service failed within 4 weeks). These are not minor complaints but documented service failures.
• BLAME-SHIFTING PATTERN: The 2023 review describes the company attempting to blame the customer (golf ball claim) rather than standing behind their work, which aligns with the 2017 complaint about lack of accountability.
• SAMPLE SIZE LIMITATION: Only 6 reviews analyzed; confidence is moderate rather than high due to small sample size.

This WW Score of 54.8 should be treated with caution due to small sample size and significant temporal variation in review quality. However, the consistency of pricing complaints and documented work failures across multiple independent reviews suggests real underlying issues. The score reflects a contractor in decline, with recent performance substantially worse than historical reputation.