Find Nearby Plumbers In Kenosha, Wisconsin

Basement Flood Protector earns strong marks across all four dimensions, with professionalism and pricing being particularly well-documented by reviewers. The vast majority of customers praised punctuality, courteous technicians, honest communication, and transparent pricing with no upselling — a recurring and credible theme across many independent reviews. Project completion scores are solid but tempered by one detailed 1-star review describing repeated failed exterior waterproofing attempts, unprofessional crew behavior, and substandard workmanship, which cannot be dismissed. Experience scores reflect consistently positive feedback on technical knowledge and problem-solving, including instances where technicians saved customers money by correctly diagnosing issues others missed, though the negative review raises legitimate concerns about quality control on more complex exterior jobs. Overall, the score reflects a company with a strong track record on standard sump pump and interior work, but with a meaningful flag on exterior waterproofing reliability.

• Four reviews (2022-06-10 and 2023-06-10) contain no review text whatsoever — only a 5-star rating. These provide no usable data and were excluded from dimension scoring.
• One detailed 1-star review (2019-05-31) describes serious workmanship failures on exterior waterproofing, unprofessional crew conduct including unauthorized use of customer property, and dismissive management response to complaints. This is a significant negative signal and was weighted accordingly.
• One 2-star review (2009-12-17) mentions a technician arriving two hours late, corroborating that punctuality is not universally consistent despite many positive mentions.
• A 4-star review (2011-08-18) references a prior 1-star complaint about crew behavior (inappropriate conduct on property), which was later partially resolved by owner outreach — suggesting occasional crew conduct issues.
• Several reviews are more than 5 years old (2009–2017), which reduces their relevance to current performance. The most recent substantive reviews (2021–2025) are generally positive, but the sample of recent detailed reviews is relatively small.
• No suspected fake review patterns detected — reviews vary in length, detail, writing style, and include specific technician names and job descriptions, which supports authenticity.

This WW Score is based on a meaningful volume of reviews with usable data spanning over a decade, and carries HIGH overall confidence, though users should note that the single detailed negative review about exterior waterproofing represents a credible and unresolved concern that meaningfully constrains the score.

Southeast Plumbing demonstrates strong performance across all dimensions, with particular strength in professionalism and project completion. Sam and his team consistently show up promptly, communicate clearly, and complete work as promised or ahead of schedule. Pricing is generally competitive and transparent, though one review noted high costs. Workmanship quality is consistently praised with attention to detail and customer education. The primary concern is that all reviews are from 2011–2014 (9–13 years old), limiting recency assessment.

• CRITICAL RECENCY ISSUE: All 9 usable reviews are from 2011–2014. No reviews from the past 12 months or even past 5 years. This severely limits the reliability of this score for current service quality assessment.
• Two reviews contain only 'unknown' text with 5-star ratings, providing no usable data.
• While reviews are detailed and specific (not obviously fake), the extreme age of the dataset makes it impossible to assess whether this contractor is still operating or maintains the same service standards.

This WW Score should be treated with caution: while the available data is detailed and consistent, all reviews are 9+ years old, making it impossible to assess current service quality or whether the business is still actively operating under the same standards.

SOS Plumbing Services demonstrates strong performance across all measured dimensions. Professionalism is evidenced by responsive scheduling, punctuality, and excellent communication from both field staff (Chris) and office personnel (Yvette). Project completion is consistently reliable, with same-day/next-day service, follow-through on callbacks, and successful coordination with other trades. Technical competence is reflected in quality installations and problem-solving (e.g., sourcing compatible parts on-site). Pricing feedback is limited but positive. All reviews are from March 2021, which is over 3 years old and limits recency assessment.

• All 6 reviews are from March 2021 (3+ years old). No recent reviews provided. Current service quality cannot be assessed.
• Pricing dimension based on only 2 mentions—limited evidence of consistent pricing practices.
• Review sample size is small (n=6). Recommend collecting additional recent reviews for more robust scoring.
• One review ('Exceeded my expectations') provides no specific details—cannot verify claims independently.

This WW Score of 88.2 should be treated with caution due to small sample size, age of reviews (all from 2021), and limited pricing data. The score reflects strong historical performance but does not indicate current service quality.

All three reviews explicitly praise Rey and his team across all four dimensions. Professionalism is highlighted through punctuality, communication, attitude, and customer care (7 a.m. callback, explanations, humor). Pricing is consistently described as fair, reasonable, and offering excellent value compared to competitors. Project completion is evidenced by on-time delivery, attention to detail (drain relocation), and follow-through on callbacks. Experience is demonstrated through topnotch workmanship, technical knowledge of industrial and residential work, and problem-solving ability. However, all reviews are older than 12 months (2012, 2017), which limits confidence in current operational standards.

• All three reviews are significantly dated (2012 and 2017), with no recent reviews provided. Current service quality cannot be reliably assessed.
• Review language shows some patterns of enthusiastic praise (all 5-star ratings, extensive capitalization and exclamation marks in review 2), though each review contains specific, distinct examples that suggest authenticity rather than fabrication.
• Sample size is very small (n=3). Scores should be treated as preliminary and not definitive.

This WW Score of 88.2 is based on limited and dated data; while the three reviews are detailed and specific, the absence of recent feedback and small sample size mean this score should be treated as a preliminary indicator rather than a current assessment of service quality.

Jensen Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism with consistent praise for responsiveness, punctuality, and courteous staff across 38 reviews. Technical expertise is well-documented with 22 mentions of skilled workmanship and problem-solving. However, project completion reliability is mixed (28 mentions, 76.3 score) with several documented instances of missed appointments, incomplete work, and follow-through failures. Pricing presents the most significant concern (12 mentions, 71.4 score), with multiple complaints about unexpected cost increases, high service call fees, and perceived overcharging during emergencies, though some reviews praise competitive rates. The company excels in emergency response and technical skill but struggles with communication consistency and pricing transparency.

• PRICING VOLATILITY: Multiple reviews (2021-03-02, 2021-03-08, 2022-11-29, 2023-08-11) document significant pricing disputes, unexpected cost increases, and aggressive collection practices. One customer reported being charged $1,500 for 10 inches of pipe replacement; another paid $175 for a diagnostic call with no work performed.
• PROJECT COMPLETION FAILURES: Three detailed negative reviews (2021-03-08, 2020-10-15, 2021-03-02) describe missed appointments without notification, incomplete work, and failure to follow through on promised callbacks. One customer waited weeks for a water fountain installation with multiple no-shows.
• COMMUNICATION BREAKDOWN: 2022-11-29 review documents systematic communication failures—customer not informed of delays, rescheduling, or inspection scheduling; Todd only communicated promptly when payment was overdue.
• RECENCY BIAS NOTED: Most recent reviews (2024-2025, 38 of 56 reviews) are overwhelmingly 5-star with minimal critical detail, while older reviews (2018-2022) contain more substantive complaints. This temporal clustering warrants caution.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: Multiple recent 5-star reviews use similar phrasing ('highly recommend,' 'professional,' 'responsive,' 'great experience') with minimal specificity. However, older reviews provide detailed narratives, suggesting genuine variation rather than systematic fabrication.
• ETHICAL CONCERNS: 2021-12-16 review alleges Todd uses city inspector calls as intimidation tactic. 2021-03-02 review questions 'ethical business practices' during emergency situations with exorbitant pricing.

This WW Score of 78.2 should be treated with MODERATE-TO-HIGH caution: while professionalism and experience scores are well-supported by 38+ mentions, the pricing dimension (only 12 mentions) and project completion reliability (multiple documented failures) significantly drag the overall score. The stark contrast between recent glowing reviews and older detailed complaints suggests either genuine business improvement or review recency bias. Customers should prioritize obtaining detailed written quotes and clear communication agreements before engaging this company, particularly for complex or emergency work.

United Mechanical demonstrates strong professionalism, experience, and project completion capabilities, with consistent praise for timely service, knowledgeable technicians, and quality workmanship. However, pricing emerges as a significant weakness, with multiple customers reporting overcharges, unexpected fees, travel charges, and billing discrepancies that contradict the company's reputation for honesty. While many long-term customers express loyalty and satisfaction, the pricing complaints are specific, detailed, and span multiple years, suggesting systemic issues rather than isolated incidents. The company excels at technical competence and customer interaction but struggles with transparent and fair pricing practices.

• PRICING PATTERN: At least 10 reviews explicitly cite overcharging, hidden fees, unexpected charges, or billing disputes. Examples include: $669 for a relay replacement, $368.65 vs. ~$200 quoted, $250 refrigerant charge without permission, $409 after-hours minimum, $1035 for 4 hours of work. This is a material and recurring concern.
• RECENCY BIAS: Most negative reviews (pricing complaints, service failures) cluster in 2013-2021. Recent reviews (2024-2025) are predominantly positive. This may reflect either company improvement or selection bias in recent reviewers.
• EMPTY REVIEWS: 13 reviews contain no text (only ratings). These were counted but provided no substantive data for scoring.
• DUPLICATE REVIEWS: The review dated 2017-11-15 and 2018-06-11 about 'dream home' with black mold and broken pipes appear to be identical or near-identical, suggesting possible review manipulation or data duplication.
• CONTRACTOR MODEL CONCERN: One 2024 review explicitly states technicians are contracted, not employees, and must pay 'truck fees' to United Mechanical. This business model may contribute to pricing pressures and quality inconsistency.
• INTEGRITY CONCERNS: Multiple reviews (2013, 2014, 2016) cite lack of transparency, failure to disclose cheaper alternatives (e.g., city services), and billing for time spent in truck after work completion.
• INCONSISTENT SERVICE QUALITY: Reviews mention variability in technician quality and professionalism depending on which technician is assigned, suggesting inconsistent training or oversight.

This WW Score of 76.8 is reliable at HIGH confidence due to 75 reviews with substantive data, but the score masks a critical bifurcation: the company excels in professionalism and technical competence but has a documented pattern of pricing disputes and billing practices that undermine customer trust. Prospective customers should expect quality work but should obtain detailed written quotes and clarify all fees upfront before engaging services.