Find Nearby Plumbers In Kenosha, Wisconsin

All four reviews paint a consistently positive picture across every dimension. Professionalism stands out strongly, with Keith demonstrating exceptional compassion and follow-through in the wedding ring recovery case, prompt communication in the water heater job, and rapid response in the emergency drain repair. Pricing is explicitly praised in three reviews, including one customer noting savings of roughly $500 compared to competing quotes. Project completion is well-supported, with jobs described as finished effectively and Keith even returning voluntarily the next morning to resolve an outstanding issue. Experience is evidenced by Keith's technical problem-solving — scoping pipes, cutting through to retrieve a ring, fast water heater installation, and drain cleaning with inspection guidance — all suggesting solid workmanship. The overall score is tempered by the very small review pool and the age of two reviews (2020), which reduces reliability.

• Only 4 reviews total — this is a very small sample size and the WW Score should be treated as preliminary and not fully representative.
• Two of the four reviews are from 2020 (over 4 years old). Only one review is from the past 12 months (February 2024). Recency weighting significantly limits confidence in current performance.
• All reviews are 5-star ratings. While the review content is specific and detailed enough to reduce fake review suspicion, the uniformly perfect ratings with a small sample warrants caution.
• No negative feedback or constructive criticism appears in any review, which is statistically unusual even for high-quality contractors. This may reflect selection bias in the reviews available.

This WW Score carries LIMITED overall reliability due to the very small review pool of only 4 reviews, two of which are over four years old, making it difficult to assess the contractor's current and consistent performance with confidence.

Andersen Plumbing Services receives consistently positive feedback across the reviews that contain usable content, with professionalism being the most frequently and clearly mentioned dimension. Reviewers highlight prompt response times, courteous behavior, and going above and beyond — such as the technician photographing completed work for a homeowner unable to inspect it himself. Project completion is supported by references to specific jobs being finished (sump pump repair, pipe rerouting, pipe joint repair) with no complaints of abandoned or incomplete work. Experience is touched on in two reviews with positive but brief mentions of workmanship quality. Pricing is entirely absent from all reviews, so no score can be assigned to that dimension.

• One review (2015-09-16) contains only the word 'unknown' and provides no usable data — excluded from scoring.
• Two of the three usable reviews are significantly dated (2013 and 2017), meaning the majority of evidence is over 7 years old. Only one review is recent (2024).
• With only 3 usable reviews total, the dataset is very small and scores should be treated with caution.
• No pricing information is mentioned in any review — the Pricing dimension cannot be scored.
• No fake review patterns detected, but the small sample size limits reliability.

This WW Score is based on only 3 usable reviews, two of which are more than 7 years old, making the overall score LOW in reliability and should not be treated as a definitive assessment of current service quality.

All three reviews speak positively about Bracker Pump and Well's technical expertise and ability to complete jobs successfully, including a multi-step well recertification process that required follow-up treatment and inspection approval. Professionalism is noted across reviews with mentions of being nice to work with and responsive, though one reviewer noted difficulty reaching them by phone — a mild but notable concern. Experience and project completion are consistently praised, with specific details about well rebuilding and water safety remediation lending credibility. Pricing was never mentioned in any review, so that dimension could not be scored. The overall score is moderately positive but should be treated with caution given the very small review sample and the age of two of the three reviews.

• Only 3 reviews available — WW Score is at the minimum threshold for calculation and should be treated as low reliability.
• Two of three reviews are older than 12 months (2021 and 2019), with only one review from the past 12 months (2024). Recent performance data is very limited.
• Pricing dimension has zero data — 15% of the weighted score formula could not be evaluated.
• One reviewer noted difficulty reaching the contractor by phone, which is a minor professionalism concern that slightly reduced the professionalism score.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews, two of which are over 3 years old, making it a low-reliability snapshot that should not be used as a definitive assessment of current service quality.

The contractor demonstrates strong professionalism with mentions of punctuality, cleanliness, and responsiveness across multiple reviews. Experience is supported by references to skilled work and problem-solving on drainage repairs. Pricing appears reasonable based on one explicit mention. Project completion is evidenced by completed downspout and drainage work. However, the overall score is constrained by the very small sample size (4 reviews) and lack of detailed, substantive feedback beyond generic praise.

• SUSPICIOUS PATTERN: All 4 reviews are 5-star ratings with minimal detail and generic language ('excellent', 'fabulous', 'great'). Two reviews share identical date/timestamp (2024-04-30), suggesting possible batch posting or fake reviews.
• INSUFFICIENT DETAIL: Reviews lack specific project descriptions, timelines, or concrete examples that would validate claims. Generic praise without specifics raises authenticity concerns.
• VERY SMALL SAMPLE: Only 4 reviews total limits statistical reliability and confidence in any dimension.

This score should be treated with significant caution due to the small sample size, suspicious review patterns (identical timestamps, generic language), and lack of substantive detail. Additional independent reviews are strongly recommended before making a hiring decision.

Plumbing Gurus shows positive signals across all four dimensions, but the review base is very small at only 3 reviews, limiting reliability. Professionalism is the best-supported dimension, with all three reviews touching on responsiveness, communication, and attitude — including a notable late-night availability mention and a repeat customer endorsement. Pricing is mentioned in only one review as 'fair,' which is insufficient to draw strong conclusions. Project completion is referenced in two reviews, both indicating successful job outcomes, but neither provides detail on timeliness or follow-through beyond the immediate visit. Experience is similarly supported by two reviews referencing clear explanations and effective unclogging work, suggesting competence but not enough data to score with confidence.

• Only 3 reviews total — WW Score should be treated as preliminary and not fully reliable.
• All 3 reviews are 5-star ratings with no negative feedback of any kind. While this could reflect genuine quality, it also warrants caution as there is no critical balance.
• Two reviews are somewhat generic in praise ('treat you like family,' 'nightmare to a dream') with limited specifics, which slightly raises concern about review authenticity, though one review (Sheena's) is detailed and credible.
• No reviews older than 12 months were provided, so recency weighting is not a concern, but the small sample size remains the primary limitation.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews and should be considered a very early-stage signal — meaningful patterns cannot be established until at least 8–10 reviews with substantive detail are available.

The review set is small (4 reviews) and spans a wide date range (2019–2024), which limits reliability. Three older positive reviews praise Jordan and the Countryside team for technical knowledge, problem-solving on complex septic situations, clear communication, and delivering work within budget with no hidden costs. However, the most recent review (February 2024) is a detailed 1-star account alleging dishonest pricing behavior — specifically, a voided contract after a price-match agreement was invoked — as well as concerning contract terms including a 50% non-refundable deposit and open-ended hourly rates for ancillary work. This single recent negative review significantly drags down the professionalism and pricing dimensions, and carries extra weight under the recency rule. Experience scores relatively higher because multiple reviewers independently cited technical skill and knowledge, but the overall picture is mixed and should be treated with caution.

• RECENCY CONCERN: The only review from the past 12 months (2024-02-29) is a detailed 1-star complaint. The three positive reviews are all from 2019–2020, making them 4–5 years old. Per recency rules, the negative review carries disproportionate weight.
• SMALL SAMPLE SIZE: Only 4 reviews total. WW Score cannot be considered statistically reliable with this volume of data.
• CONTRACT TERMS FLAG: The 2024 reviewer raised specific, detailed concerns about contract structure — 50% non-refundable deposit, open-ended hourly rates for subcontracted work, and an alleged voided price-match agreement. These are substantive business practice concerns, not vague complaints.
• NO FAKE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: The three positive reviews, while favorable, contain specific details (village/county coordination, mound system installation, drainage work) that suggest genuine experiences rather than fabricated reviews. No identical phrasing detected.

This WW Score is based on only 4 reviews spanning 5 years, with the sole recent review being a serious negative complaint — treat this score as a preliminary signal only and seek additional current references before making a hiring decision.