Find Nearby Plumbers In Kenosha, Wisconsin

Drains R Us demonstrates strong professionalism, project completion, and technical expertise across most reviews, with consistent praise for punctuality, communication, and workmanship quality. However, pricing emerges as a significant weakness, with numerous customers reporting substantial overcharges, predatory pricing practices, and quotes 2-4x higher than competitors for identical work. While many reviews highlight honest, fair pricing and excellent customer service, the frequency and severity of pricing complaints—particularly targeting vulnerable customers (elderly, uninformed homeowners)—substantially reduces overall trustworthiness. The company shows inconsistency: some technicians (Wayne, Arch, Nick, Robert) receive exceptional praise, while others (Tony in particular) are associated with aggressive sales tactics and poor workmanship.

• PRICING PATTERN ALERT: At least 18 reviews explicitly cite overcharging, predatory pricing, or quotes 2-4x market rate. Examples include $850 for a 2-hour job (others quoted $250-400), $3000 for a simple water heater/faucet replacement, $500+ for flange replacement, $1200 for incomplete drain work. This is not isolated—it is systematic.
• TECHNICIAN INCONSISTENCY: 'Tony' appears in multiple negative reviews (aggressive sales, poor workmanship, incomplete jobs, rude behavior, overcharging). Other technicians (Wayne, Arch, Nick, Robert, Bill) receive consistently high praise. Quality and ethics vary dramatically by individual.
• AGGRESSIVE SALES TACTICS: Multiple reviews describe high-pressure sales, fast-talking, intimidation with technical jargon, and refusal to provide written estimates or guarantees. One customer reported Tony pressured them to start work without a written estimate and then charged $500 for incomplete work.
• POOR WORKMANSHIP INCIDENTS: Several reviews document incomplete jobs, water damage caused by technician error (forgotten water line reconnection), loose fixtures, and callbacks that were refused or charged separately. One customer had to fix the technician's work themselves.
• ELDERLY TARGETING: Two separate reviews (2016) describe charging elderly customers $300 for a simple trap cleaning after unnecessarily recommending roof work. This pattern suggests exploitation of vulnerable populations.
• NO FAKE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: While many 5-star reviews are brief, they contain specific names, situations, and details. The negative reviews are detailed and credible. The mix of genuine praise and serious complaints appears authentic, not fabricated.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most recent reviews (2025, 2024) show continued pricing complaints and service inconsistency, indicating problems are ongoing, not historical.

This WW Score of 74.2 should be trusted with HIGH confidence due to large sample size (176 reviews) and consistent data patterns, but customers should be aware that while the company demonstrates strong technical capability and professionalism in many cases, systematic overcharging and technician inconsistency create substantial risk. Obtain multiple quotes before engaging, request written estimates with guarantees, and specifically request experienced technicians like Wayne or Arch if available. Avoid situations where you lack knowledge of fair pricing, as the company appears to exploit information asymmetry.

Roger J. Schwab Plumbing receives strong praise across many reviews for fast response times, friendly technicians (particularly Josh, Andrew/Andy, and Marco), and solid workmanship on a variety of jobs including sump pumps, water heaters, and drain clearing. However, professionalism is meaningfully dragged down by multiple credible complaints: a rude technician who laughed at a customer's questions, a failure to return calls on at least two occasions, an argumentative owner response to a long-term customer's repeated equipment failures, and a customer service representative who reportedly hung up on a caller. Pricing is the weakest dimension, with three separate reviews — including two corroborating accounts from family members — alleging that an 87-year-old woman was charged $961 to replace a toilet with no alternatives offered, roughly double competitor quotes; one positive pricing mention and one general 'good value' comment partially offset this but do not neutralize the concern. Project completion scores moderately well, with most jobs described as completed promptly and correctly, though one negative review documents a multi-month saga of repeated sump pump failures and poor follow-through by the owner.

• 13 reviews contain no text whatsoever — only a star rating. These have been excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence.
• Three separate reviews allege the same incident: an elderly woman charged ~$961 for a toilet replacement with no choices offered, approximately double competitor quotes. Two of these reviews appear to be from different family members describing the same event. This is a credible and serious pricing concern, not a fake review pattern.
• One review (2021) contains no spaces between words ('Greatcompany.Reliable,professionalservice...'), suggesting possible formatting corruption or a non-native submission. It was treated with reduced weight.
• Several reviews are 5+ years old (2007, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017). These were given reduced weight in scoring relative to reviews from 2023–2025.
• The majority of recent reviews (2024–2025) are positive, but two of the most detailed negative reviews (rude technician, no-callback) also fall within the past 12 months, indicating the professionalism issues are not purely historical.
• No clear fake review pattern detected. Reviews vary in length, specificity, named technicians, and sentiment. The mix of 1-star and 5-star reviews with specific details supports authenticity.

This WW Score is based on 35 reviews with usable text content across a multi-year period and carries HIGH overall confidence, though consumers should weigh the recurring pricing complaint about the toilet replacement and the documented responsiveness failures seriously before hiring.

PSP Plumbing and Pablo personally receive strong praise across multiple reviews for responsiveness, punctuality, and courteous communication, which drives a solid but not exceptional professionalism score. However, two significant negative incidents — a driver allegedly yelling at a customer and child, and a pricing quote of $400 for a thermostat that a competitor completed for under $200 — meaningfully drag down both professionalism and pricing scores. Pricing is the weakest dimension: while several reviewers praise reasonable costs and competitive quotes, two separate reviews describe quotes that were dramatically higher than competitors, suggesting inconsistent pricing practices. Project completion scores well, with multiple reviewers confirming jobs were finished completely, cleanly, and with good follow-through, including bonus work like unclogging a toilet during another job. Experience is rated positively across the board, with reviewers citing technical knowledge, problem-solving, and a long-term professional relationship spanning 15 years, though the thermostat incident raises integrity concerns that temper this score.

• PRICING INCONSISTENCY FLAG: Two reviews (1-star, 2021 and 1-star, 2020) describe quotes significantly above market rate — $2,200 vs. a competitor's $850 for a main line blockage, and $400 for a thermostat vs. a competitor's under $200. This is a material concern and not an isolated incident.
• PROFESSIONALISM CONCERN: The 2024 review alleges a company driver nearly struck a customer and her child and then yelled at them. The company reportedly did not confirm or deny the incident, which reflects poorly on customer service and accountability.
• INTEGRITY CONCERN: The 2020 thermostat review alleges the contractor attempted to charge a female homeowner an inflated price, suggesting possible predatory pricing behavior. This is a serious allegation supported by documented text evidence per the reviewer.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent negative review is from August 2024. The majority of positive reviews are from 2019–2020, meaning the positive sentiment may not reflect current service quality. Only one positive review (2023) is within the past two years.
• POSSIBLE REVIEW PATTERN: Several 5-star reviews from 2019 use similarly enthusiastic but generic language ('highly recommend,' 'excellent job,' 'quick to respond'). While not conclusive, this warrants mild caution. No score reduction applied, but confidence is noted.
• SCOPE NOTE: One review references HVAC work (thermostat), which may fall outside core plumbing services. It was included as it reflects on the contractor's pricing integrity and professionalism.

This WW Score is based on 16 reviews spanning 2019–2024 with sufficient mention volume across all four dimensions, yielding HIGH confidence in the score structure, but the presence of credible negative reviews — including a 2024 incident and documented pricing concerns — means the score of 74.2 should be treated as a realistic mid-range assessment rather than a strong endorsement.

Aqua Doctor Plumbing has a large and predominantly positive review base, with the majority of customers praising professionalism, responsiveness, and fair pricing — particularly for technicians like Uncle Rob, Chris, and Paul. However, a meaningful cluster of 1-star reviews raises serious concerns: multiple customers reported misdiagnosis of sewer issues with inflated repair quotes, at least two reported gas leaks left after work was completed, one detailed a repipe job with four leaks and owner threats, and several reported no-call/no-show incidents and ignored communications. These negative reviews describe patterns of predatory upselling and poor workmanship on larger jobs, which significantly tempers the otherwise strong positive signal. The score reflects a company that performs well on routine and smaller jobs but carries documented risk on complex projects and follow-through.

• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION: Several reviews use nearly identical phrasing (e.g., two reviews dated 2023-08-30 and 2024-06-09 are word-for-word identical: 'Wonderful experience with Uncle Rob at Aqua Doctor! Pricing was very good and service was quick and professional...'). Two reviews dated 2018-09-10 are also near-identical. Two reviews dated 2018-11-09 are word-for-word duplicates. This pattern of duplicated reviews is a strong indicator of review manipulation and reduces confidence in the overall positive signal.
• WORKMANSHIP FAILURES: At least 3 reviews explicitly report gas leaks left after completed work (2022-07-28, 2022-02-20, 2018-09-10 context). One reviewer (2022-07-28) confirmed via a second plumber that the gas leak originated from a line Aqua Doctor touched.
• PREDATORY UPSELLING PATTERN: Multiple 1-star reviews (2021-01-11, 2020-09-20, 2019-11-17, 2024-03-23) describe a consistent pattern of claiming pipes are broken or irreparable to justify large repair quotes, which were later disproven by other plumbers who completed the work easily and cheaply.
• NO-CALL/NO-SHOW INCIDENTS: At least 3 reviews (2019-11-05, 2020-05-28, 2020-05-18) report missed appointments with no communication, and one review (2020-08-25) reports never receiving any response after inquiry.
• OWNER CONDUCT COMPLAINT: One detailed review (2022-02-20) describes the owner threatening legal action and using profane language when a customer requested a 2-week payment delay after the job ran over schedule.
• ILLEGAL CONTRACT PRACTICES ALLEGED: One review (2023-01-30) alleges the company used paperwork without the legally required 3-day cancellation clause and has reportedly been filed with the Attorney General and BBB.
• RECENCY NOTE: Reviews span from 2012 to 2025. The majority of negative reviews are concentrated between 2019 and 2024. Positive reviews are present throughout but the duplicate/fake review pattern is most prominent in the 2023-2025 range, which warrants caution when weighting recent positive sentiment.
• BLANK/CONTENT-FREE REVIEWS: Several reviews contain no text (only a rating), including a 1-star review with no explanation. These were excluded from dimension scoring but counted in total reviews analyzed.
• DRIVING COMPLAINT REVIEWS: Two reviews (2023-09-14, 2022-06-15) are complaints about dangerous driving by company trucks and contain no plumbing service data. These were excluded from dimension scoring.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large review volume, but the score itself should be treated with caution given confirmed duplicate/fake reviews inflating positive sentiment, a documented pattern of misdiagnosis and upselling on larger jobs, and multiple reports of post-service gas leaks — consumers should exercise particular care when hiring this company for complex or large-scale plumbing projects.

Roto-Rooter scores very strongly on professionalism and technician experience, with hundreds of reviews praising individual technicians by name for being courteous, knowledgeable, communicative, and thorough. Project completion is generally solid, with most jobs resolved same-day or within a short timeframe, though a meaningful minority of reviews describe incomplete work, no-shows, broken promises on follow-up visits, and warranty disputes. The most significant drag on the overall WW Score is pricing, which is the single most-complained-about dimension across the entire review set — dozens of reviewers explicitly describe charges as 'outrageous,' 'ridiculous,' 'a scam,' or triple the price of competitors, with specific dollar amounts cited ranging from $315 for 4 minutes of work to $8,700 for a water heater installation. Several reviews also describe deceptive pricing practices, including quotes that changed after work began, failure to disclose service fees upfront, and pressure tactics targeting vulnerable customers including seniors and non-English speakers.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: A significant number of reviews appear to be exact or near-exact duplicates posted on different dates (e.g., multiple identical reviews for 'Gio,' 'Gabriel,' 'Daniel,' 'Gus,' 'Giovanni,' and others). This inflates the apparent review count and may indicate a review solicitation system that caused customers to submit the same review twice, or potential manipulation. Confidence in raw review count is reduced.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Approximately 150-200 reviews contain no text and only a star rating (almost all 5-star). These provide no usable data for any dimension and were excluded from scoring but inflate the total count.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS ARE SEVERE AND SPECIFIC: Negative pricing reviews are not vague — they cite specific dollar amounts, compare to competitor prices, and describe practices such as quoting after work begins, refusing to honor coupons, and charging elderly or non-English-speaking customers without disclosure. This is a systemic pattern, not isolated incidents.
• SCHEDULING AND NO-SHOW COMPLAINTS: Multiple reviews describe technicians failing to arrive within promised windows, no-call-no-shows, and dispatch communication failures. This is a recurring pattern affecting the project completion score.
• WARRANTY DISPUTES: Several reviews describe Roto-Rooter refusing to honor stated warranties, including a 6-month guarantee and a 30-day guarantee, with customers being charged again for the same recurring issue.
• WORK QUALITY FAILURES: A small but notable number of reviews describe active harm caused by technicians — flooding a kitchen, improperly setting a toilet, changing the wrong pipe, leaving sewage handprints, and damaging property with no accountability.
• PREDATORY PRICING PATTERN: Multiple reviews describe technicians quoting extremely high prices and then reducing them when customers push back, suggesting initial quotes are inflated as a negotiating tactic rather than honest pricing.
• RECENCY: All reviews are dated between approximately May 7, 2025 and June 9, 2025 — all within the past 12 months. Recency weighting is fully applied.

This WW Score is based on an exceptionally large review set and carries HIGH overall confidence, but the score should be interpreted with caution given confirmed duplicate reviews inflating volume, a strong and consistent pattern of severe pricing complaints that meaningfully suppresses the score, and documented instances of incomplete work and warranty non-compliance that suggest the positive technician-level experience does not always translate to a satisfactory overall customer outcome.

All Plumbing has a large and long-running review history that reveals a genuinely mixed picture. Professionalism scores moderately well overall — the majority of reviewers praise courteous, communicative technicians — but a meaningful minority of reviews (roughly 20-25%) describe serious failures including no-shows without notification, rude staff, language barriers preventing communication, and outright dismissive management responses to complaints. Pricing is the weakest dimension: multiple detailed negative reviews describe charges that reviewers found significantly above market rate, inconsistent quoting, billing disputes, and instances where customers felt taken advantage of, including a vulnerable elderly customer; while many positive reviews mention fair or reasonable pricing, the volume and specificity of pricing complaints prevents a high score. Project completion is similarly split — many reviews praise efficient, same-day or next-day resolution, but a notable cluster of reviews describes incomplete work, misdiagnoses requiring a second company, abandoned jobs, and failure to follow up on callbacks. Experience scores slightly higher because the majority of reviewers who comment on technical skill are positive, with several reviews specifically praising expert diagnosis and problem-solving, though a handful of reviews describe outright incompetence or incorrect diagnoses that cost customers additional money.

• VOLUME AND SPAN WARNING: Reviews span from approximately 2009 to 2025 across what appears to be multiple distinct contractor entities or franchise locations (references to Angel Miranda in Vallejo CA, Kabir/Kewin in Arlington VA, Shaban/Apex on Thumbtack, and others). Scores may reflect an aggregated pool of different businesses operating under similar or related names rather than a single contractor. This significantly reduces the reliability of any single composite score.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — UNDATED REVIEWS: Approximately 16 reviews have no date (listed as 'None'). Several of these are suspiciously brief, generic, and uniformly 5-star with vague praise ('Super professional', 'Great experience', 'Ali is great to work with'). These undated reviews show patterns consistent with solicited or fabricated reviews and have been treated with reduced weight.
• BLANK/CONTENT-FREE REVIEWS: Approximately 10 reviews contain no text whatsoever (only a star rating). These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent dated reviews (2025) are predominantly positive and short-form, while many of the most detailed negative reviews date from 2013–2021. The score reflects the full corpus; if only 2024–2025 reviews are considered, professionalism and completion scores would be modestly higher.
• MANAGEMENT/CUSTOMER SERVICE PATTERN: Multiple independent reviews across different years describe the same pattern of rude or dismissive management responses when complaints are raised. This is a systemic flag, not isolated incidents.
• PRICING INCONSISTENCY FLAG: Several reviews describe being quoted one price and then charged significantly more upon job completion, or discovering post-service that the work was unnecessary or overpriced. This pattern appears across multiple years and locations.

This WW Score carries HIGH statistical confidence due to the large review volume, but its practical reliability is MODERATE at best because the reviews appear to span multiple distinct contractor entities or locations operating under related names, making it impossible to attribute all scores to a single business with certainty.