Find Nearby Plumbers In Kenosha, Wisconsin

Mike demonstrates strong professionalism with consistent praise for responsiveness, punctuality, and friendly demeanor across 24 reviews. Pricing is a clear strength, with 18 reviews explicitly noting reasonable, fair, and competitive rates with no hidden charges. However, project completion is the weakest dimension (75.0) due to two significant 1-star reviews from 2018 documenting serious follow-through failures: one involving abandoned deck painting work and another involving a no-show after 3+ months of delay on a roof fan project. Experience scores well at 87.0 based on demonstrated technical skill across diverse projects. The WW Score of 82.1 reflects strong overall capability tempered by documented reliability issues.

• Two critical 1-star reviews from 2018 document severe project completion failures: abandoned follow-up work on deck painting and a complete no-show after 3-month delay on roof fan/siding project. These are not minor complaints but represent serious breaches of commitment.
• Most reviews (26 of 30) are from 2016-2020, with only 1 review from 2024 and 1 from 2023. Recent review volume is extremely low, making it difficult to assess current reliability. The 2018 failures may or may not reflect current business practices.
• The 2024 review is generic and brief with minimal detail, while several older reviews contain suspiciously similar phrasing ('highly recommend,' 'reasonable price,' 'responsive'). However, reviews generally contain specific project details and vary in writing style enough to avoid flagging as systematically fake.
• The stark contrast between 28 five-star reviews and 2 one-star reviews suggests either significant business improvement over time or that dissatisfied customers are underrepresented in the dataset.

This score should be treated with caution: while the HIGH confidence reflects substantial positive data, the two documented project completion failures from 2018 are serious red flags that significantly impact trustworthiness, and the severe lack of recent reviews (only 2 in past 4 years) makes it impossible to determine if these issues have been resolved or if current service quality matches historical performance.

Tangney & Sons demonstrates strong overall performance with particular strengths in professionalism (86.0) and technical experience (88.0), supported by 14 and 11 mentions respectively across reviews. Project completion scores solidly at 84.0 with 13 mentions, though two significant negative reviews document unresolved callback issues and incomplete work. Pricing presents the weakest dimension at 73.0 with 9 mentions; while many reviews praise fair pricing, three reviews explicitly cite overcharging, high emergency fees, and unclear payment policies. The company shows excellent responsiveness and skill but has documented accountability gaps in follow-through on promised corrections.

• Two 1-star reviews (2023-05-15 and 2015-01-27) and one 2-star review (2014-04-05) document serious issues: unfinished work with owner non-responsiveness, leaking installations with high repair charges, and poor communication on payment policies and appointment cancellations. These are specific, detailed complaints that contradict the predominantly positive narrative.
• Pricing dimension shows conflicting signals: many reviews praise 'fair' and 'reasonable' rates, but three reviews cite overpricing ($650 for a valve fix, $400 for toilet work, unclear ceiling-removal charges). This suggests pricing may vary significantly by job type or technician.
• Most reviews are older than 2 years (15 of 21 reviews predate 2023). Only 2 reviews from past 12 months; recency is limited. The most recent negative review (2023-05-15) is particularly concerning as it suggests ongoing accountability issues.
• Multiple reviews mention different technicians by name (Mike, Joe, Shannon), making it difficult to assess whether quality issues are company-wide or technician-specific.

This score should be treated with moderate caution: while the company demonstrates genuine technical competence and professionalism in the majority of cases, the presence of unresolved callback failures and pricing inconsistencies documented in recent reviews indicates real operational gaps that are not reflected in the overall score. The HIGH confidence is driven by volume of mentions, but the recency bias toward older reviews and the severity of documented follow-through failures suggest the true current performance may be lower than 82.1.

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.

Tom's WaterPro demonstrates strong overall performance with particular strengths in professionalism, project completion, and technical expertise. The majority of reviews (15 of 19) are highly positive, praising punctuality, clean work, fair pricing relative to competitors, and reliable follow-through including warranty service. However, two significant negative reviews (2021 and 2009) document serious issues: one involving a $14,000 drain tile replacement that failed to solve the problem, aggressive upselling, and disputed warranty terms; the other describing chronic communication failures and missed appointments. These negative experiences substantially lower confidence in consistency. Pricing feedback is mixed—most reviews praise competitive rates, but one customer felt misled into an expensive solution, and another objected to a $200 estimate fee.

• Two strongly negative reviews (2021 and 2009) describe serious failures in project completion and communication, suggesting inconsistent service quality despite predominantly positive feedback.
• 2021 review alleges misleading diagnosis ($14,000 drain tile replacement that did not solve the problem), aggressive upselling of additional work ($10,000 concrete replacement), and disputed warranty terms ($700/year fee to maintain 'lifetime' warranty). These are material complaints that contradict the 'no hard sell' narrative in positive reviews.
• 2009 review documents chronic communication failures (missed appointments, delayed estimates, unresponsive staff), which directly contradicts claims of professionalism and punctuality in other reviews.
• Most reviews are older than 3 years (13 of 19 from 2017 or earlier). Only 6 reviews are from 2019 onward, limiting recency weight. Recent reviews (2023, 2022) are all positive, but sample size is small.
• Positive reviews show some generic phrasing ('great job,' 'highly recommend,' 'professional') but are generally specific enough (mentions of timelines, warranty terms, competitive pricing, follow-up service) to appear authentic. No strong evidence of fake review patterns.
• One review (2019-07-01) is a single-sentence complaint about a $200 estimate fee with no context; this is unusually brief and may reflect a customer dispute rather than a full service experience.

This WW Score of 79.8 should be treated with MODERATE-TO-HIGH caution: while the majority of reviews are positive and detailed, two serious negative reviews document material failures in diagnosis, pricing transparency, and communication that are not isolated complaints but rather systemic issues. The score reflects genuine strengths in most dimensions, but the presence of these documented failures means this contractor carries meaningful risk. Customers should request detailed written estimates, seek second opinions on expensive recommendations, and clarify warranty terms in writing before engaging.

Ramon and Sons earns strong marks across all four dimensions based on a large volume of reviews, with professionalism and experience being the most consistently praised attributes — customers repeatedly highlight courteous, knowledgeable crews who explain their work clearly and respond quickly. Pricing is generally viewed as fair and competitive against national companies, though a handful of reviews cite price increases mid-job, an overpriced estimate, or hidden scope issues that temper the score. Project completion is solid overall, with many reviewers noting jobs finished on time and within quote, but there are credible negative reviews describing abandoned work after full payment was collected upfront, a stuck rod situation that nearly resulted in a fraudulent $5,800 upsell, and a follow-up promise that was never honored over many months — these are serious flags that meaningfully reduce the completion score. The duplicate review pattern across many entries inflates apparent review volume but does not change the underlying sentiment distribution.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: A large number of reviews appear to be exact or near-exact duplicates posted on the same date with the same text and rating. This significantly inflates the apparent review count. Unique review count is estimated at approximately 75-80 rather than 155. Confidence is maintained at HIGH due to volume of unique substantive reviews, but this pattern warrants caution.
• ABANDONED WORK / PAYMENT FRAUD RISK: At least two independent reviewers (one dated 2019-07-26, one dated 2023-02-24) explicitly state that Ramon accepted full payment upfront and then failed to return to complete the job. This is a serious and recurring pattern that materially lowers the project completion score.
• DISHONEST UPSELL ALLEGATION: One detailed review (2018-03-20) describes Ramon's crew getting their rod stuck and then quoting $5,800 for unnecessary excavation work. The village of Mundelein independently confirmed no damage existed and the rod was removed in 10 minutes. This is a significant integrity concern.
• FOLLOW-THROUGH FAILURE: One reviewer (2018-03-28) documented a months-long pattern of broken promises to replace a tree damaged during work, with repeated no-shows from January through July despite explicit commitments via text message.
• PROPERTY DAMAGE AND MISSING TOOLS: One reviewer (2018-07-04) reported wall damage from careless Sawzall use with no offer to repair drywall, and alleged that two tape measures went missing from their garage during the job.
• PRICING INCONSISTENCY: While most reviewers praise fair pricing, two reviewers explicitly complained about prices being raised mid-job or after work began, and one reviewer received a quote of $3,500 for a job another plumber completed for $120.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent reviews (2024) are positive, but the most serious negative reviews span 2018-2023. The abandoned-work complaints appear in both 2019 and 2023, suggesting this is not an isolated historical issue.
• BLANK OR NEAR-BLANK REVIEWS: Several reviews contain only 'N', '.', or no text at all with a 5-star rating. These were excluded from scoring as they provide no usable data and may be artificially inflating the star average.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large number of substantive reviews, but consumers should weigh it with caution given credible, specific, and recurring allegations of abandoned work after upfront payment, a documented upsell attempt contradicted by municipal inspection, and a significant number of duplicate reviews that inflate the apparent review volume.

BeeZee Plumbing and Electric has a strong overall reputation built on consistent praise for professionalism, responsiveness, punctuality, and technical skill — particularly from plumber Alex, who is mentioned by name across dozens of reviews spanning nearly a decade. Pricing is generally viewed as fair or competitive, though a handful of reviews flag costs as high, and one detailed 2015 review cited significantly overpriced electrical quotes. Project completion is mostly positive, with multiple reviewers noting jobs finished on time and cleanly, but several serious negative reviews — including a disputed $5,800 sewer repair quote, a warranty not honored for months, a failed leak check that caused drywall damage, and a no-show appointment with poor customer service — meaningfully drag this dimension down. Experience scores well overall, with reviewers frequently citing knowledgeable diagnostics, skilled installations, and problem-solving in difficult conditions, though the subcontractor misconduct incident (Ramon & Sons) and the failed electrical inspection in one review introduce some doubt. The score reflects a genuinely capable company with a strong core team but inconsistent quality control across subcontractors and some accountability gaps.

• Two reviews (2018-03-16) appear to be near-identical duplicates of the same negative complaint about a $5,800 sewer repair quote — counted as one unique incident but submitted twice, possibly to amplify impact.
• Several reviews are extremely brief and generic ('well service', 'unknown', 'as ok but', 'Excellent, would recommend to others') with no specific detail — these were given minimal weight in scoring.
• Multiple 'unknown' entries with star ratings but no review text were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data.
• One negative review (2023-06-10, 1 star) describes witnessing a company driver verbally abusing someone in public — this is unverifiable and may not reflect service quality, but is noted as a professionalism concern.
• One review (2022-04-09, 2 stars) explicitly states a warranty was not honored for over 6 months — this is a direct project completion and professionalism flag.
• One review (2014-10-16, 1 star) describes a failed whole-home pressurized leak check that missed an active leak, resulting in property damage and refusal to remediate — a significant experience and accountability flag.
• One review (2014-07-05, 1 star) describes a no-show appointment, no communication, and dismissive customer service from supervisors — a direct professionalism and project completion flag.
• One review (2013-10-26, 1 star) describes a technician refusing to come out and then failing to return a callback — a responsiveness and professionalism flag.
• A large portion of the positive reviews are from 2014–2018 and may not reflect current service quality. Reviews from 2024–2025 are more recent and generally positive for plumbing specifically.
• Several reviews reference electrical work under 'Igor' rather than plumbing under 'Alex' — these are treated as the same business entity but may reflect different service quality across divisions.
• No fake review pattern detected, but the volume of brief, undetailed 5-star reviews warrants mild caution.

This WW Score is based on a large and diverse review set spanning over a decade, giving it HIGH statistical confidence, but consumers should weigh the several substantive negative reviews — particularly around warranty follow-through, subcontractor oversight, and a disputed fraudulent repair quote — before relying solely on the aggregate score.