Find Nearby Plumbers In Madison, Wisconsin

Across four reviews, this contractor demonstrates consistent responsiveness and a customer-first attitude, including handling emergencies promptly and communicating well by phone. Project completion is supported by multiple mentions of issues being resolved quickly and effectively, including a same-day fix of a complex water pressure problem. Pricing received only one explicit mention — described as 'fair' — so the pricing score is conservative and carries low confidence. Technical experience is evidenced by Jesse's fast and accurate diagnosis in one detailed review, though only two reviews speak to skill level directly. Overall the picture is positive but the small review pool limits reliability significantly.

• Only 4 reviews total — WW Score should be treated as preliminary and not fully reliable.
• One review (2017-04-25) is over 7 years old and carries significantly reduced weight under recency rules.
• Three of four reviews are generic in praise with limited specifics, which is a mild flag for low-detail reviews; however, one review (Jesse/water softener) provides concrete detail, reducing fake review concern.
• No negative feedback present across any review — while this could reflect genuine quality, it may also reflect a small and self-selected sample.

This WW Score is based on only 4 reviews, one of which is over 7 years old, making it LOW reliability — more reviews are needed before this score can be trusted as representative of current service quality.

All three reviews speak positively about professionalism, with specific mentions of schedule flexibility, responsiveness, and attitude — including rearranging existing jobs to accommodate urgent situations. Pricing is explicitly called out as fair and reasonable across all three reviews, lending moderate confidence to that dimension. Project completion is supported by all three reviews describing jobs that were finished promptly and successfully, including an emergency sump replacement and a broken faucet repair. Experience is touched on in two reviews through references to fast, competent work, though the descriptions lack deep technical detail, keeping that score conservative. Overall, the picture is consistently positive but the very small review pool limits reliability significantly.

• Only 3 reviews total — WW Score should be treated as preliminary and low-reliability.
• Two of the three reviews are dated 2006, making them approximately 18–19 years old. Only one review (2024) falls within the past 12 months. The older reviews have been given reduced weight per recency rules.
• All three reviews are 5-star ratings with no negative feedback of any kind. While the reviews do contain specific details that reduce fake review suspicion, the uniformly perfect ratings across a small sample warrants caution.
• The 2006 reviews, while specific in detail, cannot be considered representative of current service quality and should be interpreted accordingly.

This WW Score carries LOW overall reliability due to only 3 reviews being available, two of which are nearly two decades old — prospective customers should seek additional recent reviews before drawing firm conclusions about current service quality.

Rafael receives consistently positive feedback across all three reviews, with customers highlighting his responsiveness, speed, and friendly demeanor. Professionalism is supported by mentions of quick scheduling, communication within an hour, and a professional attitude across all three reviews. Pricing is noted favorably in two reviews, with one explicitly stating his cost was much lower than competing plumbers. Project completion is affirmed in all three reviews, with jobs described as finished quickly and efficiently, though no complex or long-term projects are referenced to stress-test follow-through. Experience scores are modest given the limited sample and the relatively small-scale nature of the described jobs.

• Only 3 reviews total — WW Score should be treated as preliminary and not fully reliable.
• All reviews are 5-star with no critical feedback, which is a mild flag, though each review contains specific details that reduce fake review suspicion.
• Two of the three reviews are from 2021, making them over 3 years old at time of analysis. Only one review (2023) falls within a more recent window. Recency is a concern.
• Sample size is too small to detect patterns of fake reviews conclusively, but no strong indicators of fabrication were found.

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 Rafael's current quality or consistency.

This contractor shows mixed performance across limited evidence. Professionalism and pricing are supported by positive mentions emphasizing fairness and honesty, while experience is noted through teaching ability and reliability. However, a critical project completion issue—one of three installations required rework by another plumber due to improper securing and caulking—significantly undermines confidence. The review dataset is small (5 total, 4 usable) with most reviews older than 5 years, limiting the reliability of this assessment.

• RECENCY CONCERN: 4 of 5 reviews are from 2012–2019; only 1 review is from the past 5 years. Current performance cannot be reliably assessed.
• INSUFFICIENT DATA: Only 5 reviews total; confidence in all dimensions is LIMITED due to low mention counts (1–2 per dimension).
• PROJECT COMPLETION RED FLAG: One review explicitly documents a failed installation requiring rework by another plumber. This is a serious quality issue that directly contradicts the generic praise in other reviews.
• GENERIC REVIEW: Review 3 ('Everything went well') provides no specific detail and cannot be reliably scored on any dimension.
• UNUSABLE REVIEW: Review 4 ('unknown') contains no substantive information.

This WW Score should be treated with caution. The dataset is too small and too old to reliably represent current performance, and the documented project completion failure contradicts the overall positive sentiment, suggesting inconsistent quality.

Analysis is based on only 2 usable reviews, both from 2013-2016 (8+ years old). One review explicitly praises punctuality, competitive pricing, and emergency responsiveness. However, the earliest review (2016) reports complete non-responsiveness to a message, indicating serious communication failures. Project completion data is mixed: one review mentions successful water meter work, but the other suggests abandoned communication. The age of reviews and limited sample size severely constrain confidence in this score.

• All reviews are older than 8 years (2013-2016); no recent data available to assess current performance
• One review contains only a rating with no text ('unknown'), providing no actionable data
• Contradictory evidence: one review praises responsiveness while another reports complete non-responsiveness; unclear if this reflects service changes over time or inconsistent performance
• Sample size of 2 usable reviews is insufficient for reliable scoring; recommend collecting more recent reviews before making hiring decisions

This WW Score should be treated with extreme caution due to insufficient recent data (all reviews 8+ years old) and a very small sample size (n=2). The score does not reliably reflect current service quality and should not be used as a primary decision factor.

Bill's Plumbing has a clearly mixed record across all four dimensions. Professionalism is undermined by multiple no-show incidents with no callbacks, a cancelled appointment without notice, and one road-rage-adjacent complaint, though many positive reviews praise punctuality, politeness, and responsiveness. Pricing drew both praise for fairness and criticism for lack of upfront transparency, hidden charges, and a disputed multi-visit billing situation. Project completion is the most concerning dimension: there are multiple documented cases of incomplete or failed first-attempt repairs, flooded property, unresolved leaks requiring multiple visits, and at least two instances of broken verbal commitments about warranty or billing. Experience scores moderately well — several reviewers praised technical knowledge and problem-solving — but is offset by cases where the wrong part was installed, a faucet was replaced with an inferior product without disclosure, and a leak took three visits to correctly diagnose. The overall picture is a contractor with genuine strengths but meaningful and recurring reliability and accountability issues.

• Two reviews dated 2017-02-14 are nearly identical in text and rating (1-star), submitted minutes apart — likely a duplicate submission by the same customer rather than a fake review, but only counted once for scoring purposes.
• Several reviews dated 2022-08-17 share the exact same date and are very brief and generic (e.g., 'We liked them. They were my go to plumbers.', 'They were personable. They have good prices.'). These may be bulk-imported legacy reviews and carry reduced evidentiary weight.
• One review (rated 1.0, dated 2014-07-08) contains only the word 'unknown' and was excluded from scoring as it provides no usable data.
• One 1-star review is based entirely on a road driving incident and contains no information about actual plumbing services — this was noted but given minimal weight in professionalism scoring.
• A significant number of reviews are older than 3 years (many from 2010–2017), and the most recent reviews (2023–2024) are limited in number. Recency weighting was applied, giving more weight to 2023–2024 reviews.
• No-show and appointment cancellation complaints appear in at least 3 separate reviews across different years (2017, 2019, 2022), suggesting a recurring systemic issue rather than isolated incidents.

This WW Score is based on 33 usable reviews spanning nearly two decades, with sufficient mention counts across all four dimensions to achieve HIGH confidence ratings; however, the wide date range, presence of potentially bulk-imported generic reviews, and recurring negative patterns around appointment reliability and billing disputes mean the score should be treated as a reasonable but cautious estimate of current service quality.