Find Nearby Plumbers In Madison, Wisconsin

Mark's Reddi Rooter demonstrates strong overall performance across all dimensions. Professionalism is a clear strength, with 52 mentions highlighting punctuality, courteous technicians, responsiveness, and excellent communication. Project completion is consistently reliable with 48 mentions of jobs finished properly and on time, though three negative reviews flag scheduling failures and incomplete cleanup. Pricing receives moderate support (15 mentions) with most customers praising fair rates, but one detailed complaint about excessive labor charges ($185 for a $7 parts job) tempers confidence. Experience is well-documented across 35 mentions, with customers consistently praising technical knowledge, problem-solving ability, and quality workmanship. The company's strength lies in emergency responsiveness and drain-cleaning expertise.

• Three empty/blank reviews (5-star ratings with no text) suggest potential review manipulation or incomplete submissions
• One 1-star review ('Drive like idiots') lacks substantive detail and may be unrelated to core service quality
• Pricing dimension shows conflicting signals: majority praise affordability, but one detailed 2024 review documents significant markup (parts $7, charged $73.72; labor $185 for simple faucet seat replacement). This suggests potential pricing inconsistency or upselling on non-emergency work
• Two negative reviews (1-star and 2-star) from 2016-2017 document serious issues: missed appointment requiring customer to take off work twice, and property damage (broken teacup, mess left behind). These are older but indicate systemic risks in scheduling and cleanup protocols
• One 3-star review (2024) mentions 'slight lack of professionalism in demeanor' despite prompt service, suggesting occasional inconsistency in technician courtesy
• Most reviews cluster in 2023-2025 (recent) and 2020-2021 (pandemic era), with sparse data from 2014-2019, making trend analysis limited

This WW Score of 84.2 is reliable and should be trusted for general guidance. The score is based on 72 usable reviews with strong mention counts across all dimensions (35-52 mentions each), yielding HIGH confidence overall. However, the pricing dimension (15 mentions, MODERATE confidence) and documented scheduling/cleanup failures warrant caution: customers should verify pricing transparency upfront and confirm appointment confirmations, particularly for non-emergency work. The company excels at emergency drain service but shows occasional inconsistency in routine work execution and billing practices.

KJM Plumbing demonstrates strong performance across all four dimensions. Professionalism is consistently praised with 24 mentions highlighting punctuality, communication, friendliness, and responsiveness. Pricing receives strong marks (85.0) across 16 mentions, with customers repeatedly noting fair, reasonable, and competitive rates with no hidden charges. Project completion is solid (88.0) with 22 mentions confirming timely work, thorough cleanup, and follow-through on commitments. Experience scores 87.0 based on 18 mentions of skilled workmanship, technical knowledge, and quality installations. However, one 1-star review from March 2024 alleges unethical business practices (threatening municipal complaints to coerce business), which significantly impacts overall trustworthiness despite being a single outlier.

• CRITICAL: One 1-star review (2024-03-27) alleges serious unethical conduct—threatening false municipal complaints to strongarm customers into using services. This is a severe allegation that contradicts the overwhelmingly positive pattern and warrants investigation.
• POTENTIAL DUPLICATE REVIEWS: Reviews dated 2023-01-26 appear nearly identical (water heater replacement, same-day service, Kurt praised). This may indicate duplicate submission rather than fake reviews, but reduces unique data points slightly.
• RECENCY CONCERN: 17 of 30 reviews are from 2021 or earlier (56%). Only 4 reviews are from 2024. Recent data is limited, making current performance assessment less certain.
• REVIEW VOLUME SKEW: 29 of 30 reviews are 5-star ratings. The single 1-star review is a dramatic outlier. While this could reflect genuine quality, the extreme skew warrants caution about selection bias or review filtering.

This score should be treated with MODERATE-TO-HIGH caution. While the numerical score of 82.1 is supported by abundant positive mentions across all dimensions with HIGH confidence, the single serious allegation of unethical conduct (false municipal complaints) in the most recent negative review (March 2024) creates significant reputational risk that the aggregate score does not fully capture. The overwhelming 5-star dominance and age of most reviews (pre-2024) suggest either genuinely excellent service or potential review selection bias. Recommend independent verification of the March 2024 complaint before engaging this contractor.

Duncan Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism with consistently punctual service, courteous technicians, and responsive office staff across 142 mentions. Technical expertise and problem-solving ability are well-documented across 89 reviews, with technicians frequently praised for knowledge and skill. Project completion is solid at 82.5, though some reviews mention incomplete follow-ups or callbacks not honored. However, pricing emerges as a significant weakness (68.0 score), with 47 explicit mentions of high costs, aggressive task-based billing, and customer complaints about overcharging relative to market rates. The company's strength in service quality is substantially offset by widespread pricing concerns.

• PRICING PATTERN: Multiple reviews (at least 15+) explicitly cite excessive pricing, with customers reporting Duncan's quotes being 2-5x higher than competitors for identical work. This is the most consistent negative theme across the dataset.
• TASK-BASED BILLING CONCERN: Several detailed reviews describe aggressive 'per-task' pricing model that appears to inflate costs significantly. One customer paid $870/hour equivalent for a 30-minute diagnostic; another paid $1,252 for one hour of work.
• INCONSISTENT SERVICE QUALITY: While most reviews are highly positive, a subset (approximately 8-10 reviews) describe poor diagnostics, incomplete repairs requiring callbacks, or failure to identify root causes on first visit.
• RECENCY BIAS: Approximately 60% of reviews are from 2024-2025 (past 12 months), showing recent strong performance. However, pricing complaints appear consistently across all time periods, suggesting this is a structural business practice rather than a recent issue.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW RISK - LIMITED: While most reviews contain specific details and varied language, a small cluster of 3-4 reviews from 2025-06 use nearly identical phrasing ('Frank is the best,' 'amazing job,' 'excellent work'). However, the vast majority of reviews show authentic variation and specificity, so overall fake review risk is LOW.
• CALLBACK/FOLLOW-UP ISSUES: At least 3-4 reviews mention difficulty reaching the company for follow-up service or unresolved issues after initial visit, suggesting potential project completion gaps in specific cases.

This WW Score of 81.2 is highly reliable given the large sample size (227 reviews) and consistent data across all dimensions. However, the score masks a critical trade-off: Duncan Plumbing excels in professionalism and expertise but is widely perceived as significantly overpriced relative to competitors. Customers should expect excellent service quality but should obtain multiple quotes and be prepared for costs substantially above market rates. The HIGH overall confidence reflects robust data, but prospective customers should weight the pricing dimension heavily in their decision-making.

Gene's Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism with consistent punctuality, courteous communication, and responsive service across 28 mentions. Technical expertise is evident with skilled diagnostics and quality workmanship noted in 18 reviews. Pricing is generally fair and transparent (15 mentions), though one customer noted lack of upfront disclosure about minimum charges. Project completion shows the most significant weakness: while most jobs are completed successfully, there are 4 documented instances of no-shows, failure to return calls, or abandoned work after initial assessment, substantially lowering this dimension's score despite 22 total mentions of completion-related activity.

• CRITICAL: Four severe project completion failures documented: (1) No-show on 2017-04-24 with no apology or rescheduling; (2) Abandoned job on 2016-07-06 after ordering parts, no callback despite two customer calls; (3) Incomplete water heater installation on 2017-06-29 with poor cleanup; (4) Unresolved tankless water heater issue 2010-03-09 with months of non-responsiveness and BBB complaint filed. These are not isolated incidents but a pattern.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most reviews are 5+ years old (2004-2014). Only 8 reviews from 2015 onward. Recent data is limited, making current reliability assessment difficult.
• FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: Seven reviews contain only 'unknown' text with 5-star ratings (2016-03-03, 2016-01-18, 2015-12-25, 2015-08-12, 2015-06-11, 2015-05-14, 2015-03-26, 2014-08-19). These provide no substantive information and suggest data quality issues. Additionally, one review is just a period '.' (2014-03-28). Confidence reduced accordingly.
• INCONSISTENT SERVICE QUALITY: Multiple reviews mention excellent service from named technicians (Larry, Steve, John, Gene), but quality appears highly dependent on which technician is assigned. Some customers report 15+ years of satisfaction while others experience complete abandonment.
• PRICING TRANSPARENCY ISSUE: 2014-08-15 review notes customer was not informed upfront about $110 minimum charge for soldering work despite 'free estimate' claim. This suggests inconsistent pricing communication practices.

This score should be treated with CAUTION. While the numerical WW Score of 81.2 appears solid, it is heavily weighted by older reviews (2004-2014) and masks a serious pattern of project abandonment and non-responsiveness in 4 documented cases. The presence of 7 'unknown' reviews and 1 minimal-text review raises data quality concerns. Recent performance data is insufficient (only 8 reviews since 2015). Recommend contacting recent customers directly and requesting references from the past 12 months before engaging this contractor for significant work.

Advantage Plumbing earns strong marks for professionalism and experience, with a large volume of reviewers explicitly praising technicians by name for being courteous, communicative, knowledgeable, and thorough. Project completion scores well overall, with many reviews confirming jobs were finished correctly and on time, including emergency calls handled same-day or after hours. However, the pricing dimension is meaningfully dragged down by a recurring pattern of negative reviews citing unexpectedly high charges, opaque 'package pricing,' quotes that did not match final bills, and at least one reviewer finding a comparable job done for 85% less elsewhere. Project completion is also modestly penalized by multiple credible complaints describing no-shows, abandoned work, jobs requiring multiple return visits, and in a few cases work left incomplete for weeks or months. The score reflects a genuinely capable company with strong technicians but inconsistent pricing transparency and occasional serious follow-through failures.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: A significant number of reviews appear to be exact duplicates submitted on the same date (e.g., the Andrew/dishwasher review, the Jimmy/copper pipe review, the Tom/professional review, the Allen/great service review, and many others). These duplicates inflate the apparent review count and suggest possible platform ingestion errors or review manipulation. Duplicate entries were identified and counted only once per unique review for scoring purposes.
• ALL 5-STAR PATTERN WITH GENERIC PRAISE: A notable subset of reviews consist solely of blank text with a 5-star rating, or extremely brief generic phrases ('Great guys', 'Excellent', 'Just plain helpful!'). These provide no scorable data and inflate the star average without substantive evidence.
• NEGATIVE REVIEW CREDIBILITY: Multiple 1-star reviews contain specific, detailed, and credible complaints including: a no-show appointment with disputed follow-up communication (March 2025), a job abandoned mid-completion with a 3-week wait to finish (June 2024), a bad repair job with refusal to remedy and no-contact behavior (July 2024), a $7,000 job allegedly not done to code (2013), an 8-month septic installation delay (2013), and a pricing dispute involving a quote that doubled at time of service. These are not generic complaints and meaningfully reduce confidence in consistency.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews are from 2024-2025 and are recent. A smaller subset dates back to 2006-2021. Older negative reviews (2013 septic nightmare, 2009 backwards faucet installation) are given reduced weight but are noted as they reflect on long-term patterns. Recent negative reviews (2024-2025 no-shows, abandoned jobs) are given full weight.
• POSSIBLE MULTI-LOCATION OR MULTI-ENTITY AGGREGATION: Reviews reference multiple distinct owner names (Heath, Mike, Danny, Ari) and geographically diverse locations (Niles IL, Florida, San Francisco, Nashville TN, Omaha NE, Texas). This strongly suggests these reviews may be aggregated from multiple distinct businesses operating under the 'Advantage Plumbing' name. Scores should be interpreted with caution as they may not reflect a single contractor's performance.
• PRICING TRANSPARENCY CONCERN: Multiple independent reviewers across different years describe final bills significantly exceeding quoted prices, opaque 'package pricing' that prevents cost breakdowns, and pressure-sales tactics. This is a consistent enough pattern to warrant a materially reduced pricing score rather than treating it as isolated incidents.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large volume of substantive reviews, but should be interpreted cautiously given strong evidence of duplicate review submissions, possible multi-entity aggregation across geographically distinct businesses, and a consistent minority of credible negative reviews describing pricing opacity, no-shows, and incomplete work that the majority of generic 5-star reviews may obscure.

Havey Plumbing demonstrates strong performance across all four dimensions based on consistent positive feedback. Professionalism is evidenced by responsive communication, friendly demeanor, cleanliness, and customer comfort across all reviews. Project completion is solid with jobs finished on time, callbacks honored, and work completed thoroughly. Pricing is described as competitive, fair, and transparent with no hidden charges. Experience is reflected in skilled problem-solving, technical knowledge (locating complex leaks), and quality workmanship. However, the sample size is small (4 reviews) and all are older than 3 years, limiting confidence in current performance.

• All four reviews are dated 2016–2020; no recent reviews from past 12 months available. Current service quality cannot be verified.
• All reviews are 5-star ratings with no negative feedback. While not necessarily fake, the absence of any critical detail or minor complaints is atypical and should be noted.
• Sample size is very small (n=4). Scores are based on limited mention counts (3–4 per dimension), reducing statistical reliability.
• Review #3 is notably detailed and specific (names, timeline, problem-solving narrative), which increases credibility. Reviews #1, #2, and #4 are more generic in praise but still contain specific details (responsiveness, cleanliness, pricing discussion).

This WW Score of 91.3 should be treated with caution due to small sample size, age of reviews (all pre-2021), and lack of recent performance data. The score reflects strong historical performance but cannot reliably predict current service quality without more recent feedback.