Find Nearby Plumbers In Madison, Wisconsin

Randy (Mergen Plumbing) receives consistently strong praise across all four scored dimensions, with professionalism being the most frequently cited strength — reviewers repeatedly highlight punctuality, communication, honesty, and going above and beyond for clients. Project completion is well-supported, with multiple reviewers noting timely, thorough work and follow-through on callbacks and corrections without being asked. Experience and workmanship are praised in specific, credible terms including problem-solving in unusual conditions and high-quality results. Pricing is mentioned positively in four reviews, with references to affordability relative to competing estimates and even free follow-up visits, though this dimension has moderate rather than high confidence due to fewer explicit mentions.

• All 10 reviews are 5-star ratings with no negative or mixed feedback — this warrants mild caution, though most reviews contain specific, credible details that reduce the likelihood of fabrication.
• One review contains only 'unknown' as text and provides no usable data — it was excluded from scoring.
• All reviews are significantly outdated: the most recent is from December 2015, and the majority are from 2009–2013. No reviews from the past 12 months (or even the past 9 years) are present. Current performance cannot be assessed from this data.
• The absence of any negative feedback across 9 usable reviews, combined with the age of the reviews, means this score reflects historical performance only and should be treated with caution for present-day hiring decisions.

This WW Score is based on 9 usable reviews that are all between 9 and 16 years old, which significantly limits its reliability as an indicator of current contractor performance — the score reflects a historically strong track record but cannot be trusted as a current assessment without recent reviews.

M&M Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism with consistently punctual service, responsive communication, and courteous staff across 156 mentions. Technical expertise and problem-solving ability are well-documented across 112 reviews, with skilled workmanship frequently praised. However, project completion reliability is a concern, with 89 mentions revealing multiple instances of incomplete work, unresolved callbacks, and follow-up issues requiring additional visits. Pricing presents a significant weakness, with 68 mentions indicating frequent customer dissatisfaction—complaints of overcharging, lack of detailed estimates, and prices substantially exceeding quotes are recurring themes. The company excels in responsiveness and technical knowledge but struggles with cost transparency and ensuring work is fully completed on first visit.

• CRITICAL: Multiple severe negative reviews (2021-2016) describe catastrophic failures including $35,000 in flood damage, incomplete bath remodels with persistent leaks over 1+ year, failed inspections requiring redos, and charges 3x quoted amounts. These are not isolated complaints.
• PATTERN: Pricing complaints are consistent across multiple years—customers report being quoted $405 then charged $1,250; quoted $150 then charged $235 four years later; and general pattern of 'way overpriced' for simple jobs. This suggests systemic pricing opacity.
• PATTERN: Project completion failures documented in multiple reviews—second job never completed (2024), bath remodel leak unresolved after 10+ technician visits (2021), incomplete work requiring customer follow-up (2016 repiping project with gaping holes, disconnected dishwasher, broken kitchen light).
• RESPONSIVENESS DECLINE: Recent reviews (2024-2025) show improved responsiveness, but older reviews (2016-2017) document multiple instances of no callback, no-shows, and failure to return voicemails.
• QUALITY VARIANCE: Reviews mention multiple technicians (Marvin, Mike, Matt, Rick, Shell, Ken, Josh, Mark, Herman, Michael) with inconsistent quality—some highly praised, others associated with failures and rude behavior.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK: Approximately 50+ reviews from 2011-2013 have rating of 0.0 with minimal or generic text ('unknown', '.', 'no comments'), suggesting data corruption or placeholder entries rather than authentic reviews. These were excluded from scoring but indicate data quality issues.
• RECENCY BIAS: Most recent reviews (2025, 2024, 2023) are predominantly 5-star with minimal detail. Older reviews (2014-2021) contain more detailed negative feedback. Recent positive trend may reflect selection bias or improved practices, but cannot fully offset documented historical failures.

This WW Score of 78.2 should be treated with MODERATE-TO-HIGH caution: while the company demonstrates genuine strengths in professionalism and technical expertise (supported by 156+ mentions), the score is significantly dragged down by well-documented pricing opacity and project completion failures spanning multiple years. The recent improvement in reviews (2024-2025) is encouraging but does not fully offset the severity of historical complaints involving incomplete work, catastrophic damage claims, and systematic overcharging. Customers should obtain detailed written estimates, verify completion before final payment, and be aware of the company's mixed track record on follow-through.

Triggs Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism with consistent praise for responsiveness, punctuality, and courteous staff across 42 reviews. Technical expertise is well-documented with 26 mentions of skilled workmanship and problem-solving. Project completion is generally reliable (79/100) but marred by several documented scheduling failures and incomplete follow-through on callbacks. Pricing presents the most significant concern: while many reviews cite fair rates, 15 mentions reveal serious billing disputes including double-charging, undisclosed service fees, and labor hour inflation that substantially undermine trust. The company's 35+ year track record and generational customer loyalty are offset by recurring billing integrity issues.

• BILLING INTEGRITY ISSUES: Multiple reviews (2023, 2017, 2018, 2006) document overbilling, double-charging, inflated labor hours, and undisclosed fees. Review from 2017 claims 1.5 hours of work billed as 6 hours ($775). Review from 2023 reports double-billing for same visit plus exorbitant truck charge. Review from 2006 shows invoices sent for other customers' jobs. These are not isolated complaints—pattern suggests systemic billing problems.
• SCHEDULING RELIABILITY: Multiple reviews (2019, 2008, 2007) document missed appointments, no-shows, and failure to communicate delays. One customer drove 2 hours for confirmed appointment that was not in system. Another waited until 1pm for 8am-noon appointment with no call.
• QUALITY INCONSISTENCY: Review from 2008 documents leaking joints that required return visits and damage to sheetrock. Review from 2006 describes incomplete repairs and plumber shutting off water heater/softener without authorization. Experience varies significantly by technician.
• EMPTY/MINIMAL REVIEWS: 11 reviews contain no text or only generic phrases ('unknown', '.', 'Great service...'), limiting data quality.
• RECENCY BIAS: Most detailed negative reviews are older (2006-2019), but 2023 billing complaint is recent and serious. Recent reviews (2025, 2024) are predominantly 5-star with minimal detail, suggesting possible selection bias in recent feedback.

This score should be treated with CAUTION. While Triggs demonstrates genuine strengths in professionalism and technical skill (HIGH confidence), the WW Score is significantly depressed by documented and recurring billing integrity issues that appear systemic rather than isolated. The company's long history and loyal customer base are real, but multiple customers across different years report serious overcharging and billing errors. Prospective customers should request detailed written quotes and carefully verify invoices before payment. The score reflects a company with strong technical capabilities but serious business practice concerns that create material financial risk.

H.J. Pertzborn demonstrates strong professionalism with consistently praised punctuality, communication, and courteous staff across 48 reviews. Technical expertise and workmanship quality are well-documented across 28 reviews, with plumbers frequently noted as knowledgeable and skilled. Project completion is generally reliable (38 mentions), though some historical issues with follow-through and warranty claims exist. Pricing emerges as the weakest dimension (15 mentions, 68/100), with recurring complaints about billing practices, overcharging, hidden fees, and reluctance to honor warranty work. Recent reviews (past 12 months) are predominantly 5-star, but older reviews reveal systemic billing and customer service issues that have apparently persisted.

• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: Three consecutive 5-star reviews with empty text fields (2025-05-10) suggest possible review manipulation or placeholder entries.
• RECENCY BIAS DETECTED: 47 of 67 reviews (70%) are from the past 12 months (2025), with a sharp concentration in April-May 2025. Only 8 reviews predate 2020. This skew toward recent positive reviews may not reflect historical service quality issues documented in 2015-2019 reviews.
• BILLING PRACTICES CONCERN: Multiple independent complaints (2019, 2017, 2018, 2016) document billing disputes, surprise charges, refusal to honor warranties, and aggressive collection practices. This pattern suggests systemic issues rather than isolated incidents.
• INCONSISTENT SERVICE QUALITY: Stark contrast between recent glowing reviews and detailed negative reviews from 2015-2019 describing failed repairs, emergency service failures, and poor follow-up. Unclear if company has genuinely improved or if negative reviewers have simply moved on.
• EMERGENCY SERVICE FAILURES: Two detailed 1-star reviews (2020, 2018) describe complete failure to respond to emergency calls (basement flooding, sump pump failure), with 5+ hour waits and no follow-up.
• WARRANTY/FOLLOW-UP ISSUES: Multiple reviews document refusal to honor warranty work or stand behind defective installations, particularly regarding water softeners and supply valves.

This WW Score of 78.2 should be interpreted with caution due to significant recency bias and potential review manipulation. While recent reviews (2025) consistently praise professionalism and expertise, the score is substantially dragged down by well-documented historical complaints about billing practices, emergency response failures, and warranty disputes from 2015-2019. The company may have improved, but the heavy weighting toward recent 5-star reviews (many with minimal detail) obscures whether systemic issues have been resolved. Pricing dimension is particularly unreliable due to limited mentions (15) and conflicting accounts. Prospective customers should prioritize the detailed negative reviews regarding billing and emergency response over generic recent praise.

EZ Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism and technical expertise, with consistent praise for responsiveness, friendliness, and skilled workmanship across recent reviews. However, the company's project completion score is significantly dragged down by multiple historical complaints (dating back to 2011–2020) regarding no-shows, failure to follow up, missed appointments, and incomplete work requiring multiple callbacks. While recent reviews (2023–2025) show marked improvement and overwhelmingly positive feedback, older negative reviews reveal a pattern of organizational and scheduling issues that cannot be ignored. Pricing is generally perceived as fair and reasonable, though some customers noted higher estimates for certain services. The company appears to have improved substantially in recent years but carries historical reliability concerns.

• CRITICAL: Multiple severe no-show and follow-up failures documented in reviews from 2011–2020, including customers left without water for extended periods and angry confrontations with owner Franklin. These are not isolated incidents but a documented pattern over nearly a decade.
• RECENCY BIAS RISK: The overwhelming majority of positive reviews (45+ of 80) are dated 2023–2025, clustered heavily in June 2024 and later. Earlier reviews (2008–2020) contain significantly more complaints about reliability and professionalism. This suggests either genuine operational improvement or potential review manipulation.
• SUSPICIOUS CLUSTERING: 27 reviews posted on or around 2024-06-09 with nearly identical 5-star ratings and similar phrasing patterns (e.g., 'fast, professional,' 'highly recommend,' 'great work'). While not definitively fake, the concentration and similarity warrant caution.
• EMPTY REVIEWS: 3 reviews contain only a 5-star rating with no text (2025-05-10, 2024-06-09 x2), which cannot be validated for authenticity.
• CONFLICTING NARRATIVES: One 3-star review (2018-03-03) notes that quotes and invoices are not automatically provided unless requested, suggesting potential transparency issues that are not mentioned in recent reviews.
• OWNER CONDUCT CONCERN: A 2020 review documents the owner (Franklin) sending hostile messages to a customer about a 2013 negative review, admitting to poor scheduling and disorganization. This raises questions about accountability and professionalism at leadership level.
• INCOMPLETE WORK DOCUMENTED: Multiple reviews (2011, 2014, 2015, 2016) describe incomplete repairs, multiple callbacks required, and work that took longer than promised. Recent reviews do not mention these issues, but historical pattern is concerning.

This WW Score should be interpreted with significant caution: while recent reviews (past 18 months) are overwhelmingly positive and suggest genuine improvement, the company has a well-documented history of severe reliability and professionalism failures spanning 2011–2020. The dramatic shift in review sentiment coinciding with a clustering of similar reviews in mid-2024 raises questions about data integrity. Customers should be aware that EZ Plumbing may perform well on current jobs but has historically struggled with scheduling, follow-up, and accountability. The score reflects current performance but does not fully capture historical risk.

Professionalism is the strongest dimension, with the overwhelming majority of reviews praising technicians as courteous, prompt, and communicative — including frequent emergency and after-hours responsiveness. Experience scores well overall, with many reviewers noting technicians diagnosed and resolved issues quickly and knowledgeably, though a handful of negative reviews describe operator error, misdiagnosis, and work that had to be redone. Project completion is solid but meaningfully dragged down by several serious complaints: a drain snake left stuck in a pipe at the customer's expense, a $2,200 excavation job that failed to fix the problem, a frozen pipe repair left incomplete, and a toilet that began leaking again within seven months with only a 30-day warranty honored. Pricing is the weakest dimension by a significant margin, with multiple independent reviewers across different time periods explicitly describing quotes as grossly inflated, markups described as 4x fair market value, and one reviewer documenting a $3,200 water heater quote; these are partially offset by reviewers who found pricing fair or reasonable, but the volume and specificity of overcharging complaints is notable.

• FAKE REVIEW RISK — HIGH: A large cluster of reviews dated 2025-05-10 and 2025-06-05 through 2025-06-09 show highly repetitive patterns: extremely short text (e.g., 'Joe was great!', 'Sam was here he did great!', 'Ben L', 'Cullen great work', 'He's a legend.'), near-identical phrasing across multiple reviews, and many with zero specifics about the work performed. Several pairs of reviews appear to reference the same technician on the same date with suspiciously similar wording. These reviews inflate the review count significantly and should be treated with low confidence.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The review praising Ryan for honesty and integrity ('PLUMBERS with HONESTY & INTEGRITY...') appears twice with identical text, dated 2022-08-04, submitted under what appear to be two separate entries.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS ARE SERIOUS AND RECURRING: At least 8 distinct reviews across multiple years (2018–2024) independently describe being quoted prices 2x–4x above market rate, being charged for unnecessary work, or feeling pressured into expensive services. This is not isolated and represents a systemic pattern.
• WORKMANSHIP FAILURES DOCUMENTED: At least 4 reviews describe work that was not completed correctly — a drain snake left stuck in a customer's pipe requiring jackhammering at customer expense, a $2,200 excavation that did not fix the problem, a frozen pipe repair left incomplete with dispatch hanging up on the customer, and a toilet repair that failed within 7 months covered by only a 30-day warranty.
• COMMISSION DECEPTION COMPLAINT: One reviewer explicitly states they were told technicians do not work on commission, then discovered job postings showing commission-based pay, and requested a refund for the $99 visit fee. This raises a trust and transparency concern.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews are from 2025 (within the past 12 months), which is positive for recency weighting. However, the high concentration of very short, generic 5-star reviews in this recent period raises the fake review concern noted above. Older reviews (2018–2022) tend to be more detailed and carry higher individual credibility.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Two reviews contained no text (one rated 4.0, one rated 5.0) and were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large review volume, but should be interpreted cautiously given strong evidence of fake or incentivized short-form reviews inflating the count, a recurring and independently corroborated pattern of pricing complaints, and multiple documented workmanship failures — the true score for an unbiased customer pool may be meaningfully lower than 76.4.