Find Nearby Plumbers In Kenosha, Wisconsin

Northern Plumbing LLC earns strong marks across all four dimensions, driven by an exceptionally large and detailed review base spanning 2018–2025. Professionalism is the standout dimension, with dozens of reviewers explicitly praising punctuality, communication, courteous attitudes, and responsiveness — including emergency availability and proactive text/phone updates. Experience and project completion are similarly well-supported, with numerous reviewers describing accurate diagnoses, thorough workmanship, follow-through on callbacks, and warranty-honored return visits at no charge. Pricing is the weakest dimension: while the majority of reviewers describe fair or competitive pricing, three reviews explicitly cite exorbitant or deceptive pricing practices — including a 1-star review alleging upselling and a lack of transparent communication, and another citing a $2,600 quote for a job others quoted at $1,300–$1,700 — which meaningfully pulls the pricing score down from what would otherwise be a higher mark. The single 2021 3-star review about incorrect valve installation that was dismissed by a supervisor also introduces a minor quality-control concern that tempers the experience score slightly.

• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The review beginning 'I actually live in Westminster, MD but my sister lived in northern VA...' appears verbatim twice (2019-06-11 and 2018-10-14). This is likely a duplicate submission and was counted only once for scoring purposes.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The review beginning 'I just had my new hot water tank installed...' appears verbatim twice (2020-06-10 and 2019-10-05). Counted only once for scoring purposes.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The review beginning 'A very honest and dependable company. Scott was wonderful to work with...' appears verbatim twice (2019-06-11 and 2018-08-08). Counted only once for scoring purposes.
• PRICING CONCERN: Three reviews (1-star May 2024, 1-star June 2023, 2-star May 2021) explicitly cite exorbitant or non-transparent pricing. This is a meaningful minority signal and has been factored into the pricing score.
• WORKMANSHIP CONCERN: One 3-star review (December 2020) describes an incorrectly installed outdoor hose bib and a drainage valve installed at the wrong elevation, with the supervisor dismissing the concern. This is a minor but notable quality flag.
• BUSINESS STATUS FLAG: One review (May 2025, 3-star) states 'it appears they are closed.' This may indicate the business is no longer operating. Prospective customers should verify current operating status before relying on this score.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews are from 2018–2022. Reviews from the past 12 months (mid-2024 to mid-2025) are limited to approximately 5–6 entries, which reduces confidence in the score as a reflection of current service quality.
• TWO REVIEWS contained no text (only a rating) and were excluded from dimensional scoring but counted in total reviews analyzed.
• GENERIC PRAISE PATTERN: Several reviews (e.g., 'Best plumbers in the area! Always happy with their work!' and 'Excellent company front to back. I would recommend them to everyone.') are very brief and lack specific detail. These were given reduced weight in scoring but not excluded, as they are consistent with the broader review pattern and do not show identical phrasing across multiple entries.

This WW Score is based on a large, predominantly detailed review set and carries HIGH overall confidence, but should be interpreted with caution given the potential business closure flag, a small cluster of serious pricing complaints, one confirmed workmanship issue, and the fact that recent reviews (past 12 months) are sparse — prospective customers should independently verify the business is still operating before engaging.

Advanced Plumbing has an overwhelmingly positive review base spanning over a decade, with the large majority of customers explicitly praising professionalism, punctuality, communication, and technical skill across a wide range of jobs including full house repiping, slab leak repairs, drain clearing, and water heater installation. Pricing is frequently cited as fair, reasonable, or better than competitors, with multiple reviewers noting they were charged significantly less than rival quotes. Project completion scores are strong, with many reviews confirming jobs were finished on time or ahead of schedule, though three negative reviews (1-star ratings from 2015, 2018, and 2022) describe a misdiagnosis and billing failure, a price-doubling incident with poor workmanship requiring a second contractor, and one complaint about poor work quality and hygiene — these meaningfully temper the otherwise high scores. Experience scores are supported by dozens of detailed accounts of skilled problem-solving, efficient crew management, and quality workmanship, though the negative reviews introduce enough doubt to prevent a top-tier score.

• Three negative reviews (1-star: 2015, 1-star: 2018, 1-star: 2022) describe serious issues: a misdiagnosis leading to an unnecessary $10,000–$15,000 referral, a job where the final charge was nearly double the quoted price with poor workmanship requiring a second contractor, and a complaint about shoddy work and overpricing. These are significant red flags that reduce confidence in consistency.
• 13 reviews contain no text at all — only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence per scoring rules.
• Several short reviews (e.g., 'Excellent!!!', 'Good Experience', 'Great service') are generic and lack specifics. While not definitively fake, they add limited scoring value and were weighted conservatively.
• The review pool spans from 2008 to 2025, meaning a substantial portion of reviews are more than 3 years old. Recency weighting was applied — reviews from 2024–2025 were given higher weight. The most recent negative review is from 2022.
• Multiple technician names appear across reviews (Nick, Miguel, Jesus, Edward, Mr. Roark, Mr. Salazar, Ed), suggesting this may be a multi-operator or franchise-style listing aggregating reviews for different individuals or locations. Scores may reflect a blended reputation rather than a single contractor's performance.
• No confirmed fake review patterns detected, but the volume of short, undetailed 5-star reviews warrants mild caution.

This WW Score is based on a large and diverse review set spanning 14+ years with high mention counts across all four dimensions, making the score statistically meaningful — however, the presence of three substantive negative reviews describing misdiagnosis, price inflation, and poor workmanship, combined with multi-technician ambiguity and 13 content-free reviews, means this score should be treated as a reliable general indicator rather than a guarantee of consistent quality.

Travis (and Allen, likely the same contractor or team) demonstrates strong performance across all four dimensions. Professionalism is consistently praised with explicit mentions of punctuality, responsiveness, respectful communication, and positive attitude. Pricing is noted as reasonable and fair in multiple reviews without hidden charges. Project completion is evidenced by complex jobs finished to inspector approval and customer satisfaction, with no abandoned work mentioned. Experience is demonstrated through skilled electrical work, plumbing, carpentry, and problem-solving on diverse projects ranging from small repairs to major remodels. The high WW Score reflects reliable, trustworthy workmanship backed by substantial positive evidence.

• Three reviews (2015, 2013, 2011) lack substantive detail or contain minimal information ('unknown', 'It went very weel', 'great'), reducing their evidentiary weight but not indicating fakery.
• Significant recency gap: 8 of 13 reviews are older than 5 years (pre-2019), with only 2 reviews from 2024 and 2020. Recent performance data is limited.
• One review (2011-08-26, rating 3.0) mentions only an estimate visit with no actual work performed, making it less relevant to quality assessment.
• Name inconsistency: Most reviews reference 'Travis' but two older reviews (2009, 2008) reference 'Allen.' This may indicate a business name change, team member, or data entry error but does not suggest fake reviews.

This WW Score of 87.2 is reliable and should be trusted, supported by HIGH confidence across all dimensions with 5+ mentions each; however, the score is anchored primarily in reviews older than 5 years, so recent performance verification is recommended.

Crane Plumbing receives overwhelmingly positive feedback across all four dimensions, with particular strength in professionalism and responsiveness — multiple reviewers highlight prompt arrivals, friendly communication, and staff members by name (Jess, Brian, Brandon, Craig, Scott). Project completion scores well, with many reviews describing jobs finished same-day or next-day, including emergency weekend calls; however, two negative reviews describe a misdiagnosed leak that was billed without resolution and a job where time was wasted and overcharged, which moderately suppresses both the completion and pricing scores. Pricing is generally praised as fair and competitive, but one reviewer noted a $700+ labor charge they felt was excessive, and another simply noted the $150/hour rate without further context, introducing some uncertainty. Experience scores are strong, with reviewers citing successful resolution of problems other plumbers could not fix and technically transparent explanations, though the sample of explicit skill-focused comments is somewhat smaller than the professionalism pool.

• 13 reviews contain no text at all — only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence.
• One review (1-star, 2024-12-11) appears to be from a former employee referencing 9.5 years without a pension, not a customer service experience. This review was excluded from scoring as it does not reflect contractor performance.
• One 1-star review (2022-04-04) describes being ignored after multiple outreach attempts for an estimate — this was counted as a professionalism and project completion negative signal.
• One 1-star review (2020-09-12) describes a misdiagnosed leak, an unreturned emergency call, and being billed for unfixed work — this is a meaningful negative signal across professionalism, project completion, and experience.
• One 1-star review (2022-01-18) describes excessive labor charges and unprofessional technician behavior — counted as a negative signal for pricing and professionalism.
• Several reviews from 2024-06-09 share the exact same date, which may indicate batch imports or platform migration rather than organic posting. Language across these reviews is varied and specific enough to not suggest fabrication, but the date clustering is noted.
• A significant portion of reviews are older than 12 months (pre-2024), and a handful are from 2016-2020. Recency weighting was applied informally — the most recent reviews (2024-2025) were given slightly more interpretive weight in scoring.
• No reviews with zero stars or extreme outlier language patterns were detected beyond the four 1-star reviews already noted.

This WW Score is based on 44 reviews with usable textual content across a multi-year period and carries HIGH overall confidence, though the presence of four substantive negative reviews — including one describing unbilled and unresolved work — means the score should be interpreted as reflecting a generally strong but not flawless service record.

Ernie Peterson Plumbing demonstrates strong overall performance with a WW Score of 82.1, driven by consistently high marks in professionalism, project completion, and technical experience. The company excels in punctuality, communication, and workmanship quality, with numerous reviews praising specific technicians (Keith, Phil, Steve, Chuck) for their courteous demeanor and efficient problem-solving. However, pricing emerges as a notable weakness, with multiple customers citing significant cost increases over time, unexpected service call charges, and labor rates perceived as excessive compared to competitors. While most recent reviews (past 12 months) are highly positive, older reviews reveal recurring pricing concerns and occasional communication lapses that warrant attention.

• PRICING VOLATILITY: Multiple reviews document substantial price increases over time (e.g., $187 in 2014 vs. $387 in 2017 for same service; $250 quote vs. $545 final bill). This pattern suggests either aggressive pricing strategy or lack of transparent upfront quoting.
• EMPTY REVIEWS: 11 reviews contain no text (only 5-star ratings), limiting data quality. These may indicate automated or incomplete submissions.
• NEGATIVE OUTLIERS: Three 1-star reviews from 2024 and 2023 cite unprofessional behavior (rude employee, refusal to quote, poor communication), contrasting sharply with predominantly positive feedback. One 2024 review describes a staff member as 'bluntly unprofessional' and unwilling to provide quotes despite company website claims.
• QUOTE DISPUTES: Two separate 1-star reviews (2023, 2018) report failure to provide estimates after service calls, with customers charged for consultations without work performed.
• RECENCY BIAS NOTED: Most recent reviews (2025, 2024) are uniformly 5-star with detailed praise, while older reviews (2017-2018) contain more balanced criticism. This shift may reflect improved operations or review selection bias.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: Several 5-star reviews from 2022-2025 are extremely brief or generic ('Awesome work,' 'Great service') with minimal specificity, though this is offset by numerous detailed, credible reviews with specific technician names and problem descriptions.

This WW Score of 82.1 is reliable and should be trusted, supported by HIGH confidence across three of four dimensions based on 42+ mentions each for professionalism and project completion. However, the pricing score (72.0, MODERATE confidence) is a material concern that significantly impacts overall trustworthiness—customers should expect to negotiate or obtain detailed written quotes before committing. The presence of recent negative reviews citing unprofessional behavior suggests inconsistent service quality across staff, warranting request for specific technicians when booking.

Ex-Stink Plumbing demonstrates strong overall performance across all measured dimensions, with particular strength in professionalism (punctuality, communication, friendly demeanor) and technical expertise. The company excels at project completion with multiple reviews citing thorough work, follow-through, and customer satisfaction. Pricing is generally perceived as fair and competitive, though some customers report concerns about transparency and warranty coverage. However, four negative reviews from 2014-2019 reveal serious issues including missed appointments, poor communication, warranty disputes, and alleged negligent workmanship, which significantly temper the otherwise positive rating profile.

• RECENCY BIAS: 48 of 56 reviews (86%) are from 2025 and early 2025, with only 8 reviews from 2014-2022. Recent reviews are overwhelmingly 5-star with minimal critical detail, suggesting possible review platform reset or concentrated positive campaign.
• NEGATIVE REVIEW PATTERN: Four 1-star reviews (2014, 2018, 2019) describe serious failures: missed appointments without communication, warranty refusal, alleged negligent cap installation causing mold damage, and misdiagnosis of water heater. These are detailed, specific complaints with concrete consequences—not generic criticism.
• INCONSISTENT SERVICE QUALITY: Positive reviews consistently praise 'Dave' and specific technicians (Kent, Mike, Harold, Frank, Phil, John, Cole, Kenny, Colton). Negative reviews also mention 'Harold' (owner) and unnamed technicians, suggesting quality may vary significantly by crew or time period.
• WARRANTY/LIABILITY CONCERNS: Two reviews explicitly cite company refusal to stand behind work or file insurance claims for alleged negligence. This is a material risk factor not reflected in recent 5-star reviews.
• GENERIC PRAISE IN RECENT REVIEWS: Many 2025 reviews use similar phrasing ('fast, friendly,' 'professional,' 'would recommend') with minimal specific detail about actual work performed, raising authenticity concerns.
• TEMPORAL QUALITY SHIFT: Negative reviews cluster in 2014-2019; positive reviews dominate 2022-2025. This could indicate genuine improvement, management change, or review platform migration.

This WW Score of 82.1 should be treated with CAUTION: while recent reviews (past 12 months) are uniformly positive and support a high score, the concentration of recent 5-star reviews combined with serious documented failures in 2014-2019 (warranty disputes, negligence, communication failures) suggests the score may not fully reflect long-term reliability or worst-case scenarios. Customers should request references for large jobs, clarify warranty terms in writing, and verify insurance coverage before engaging this contractor.