Find Nearby Plumbers In Madison, Wisconsin

Arndt and Son Plumbing consistently receives strong praise for professionalism, with multiple reviewers explicitly noting punctuality, polite demeanor, shoe covers, clear communication, and friendly attitudes across many years of service. Project completion is well-supported by evidence of jobs finished efficiently, emergency responsiveness, and follow-through on complex installs like a tankless water heater. Technical experience is affirmed through specific mentions of knowledgeable diagnostics, problem-solving under emergency conditions, and quality workmanship. Pricing data is very thin — only two reviews touch on value, one noting 'good price' and another expressing cautious optimism about the bill — so the pricing score carries very low confidence and limited weight. Overall, the contractor demonstrates a reliable and consistent track record, though all reviews are more than 8 years old, which significantly limits the reliability of this score for current hiring decisions.

• ALL reviews are dated between 2012 and 2016 — none are within the past 8+ years. This score should NOT be treated as reflective of current service quality.
• Two reviews contain only the text 'unknown' and were excluded from scoring as they provide no usable data.
• The first review ('Excellent. Would definitely recommend and use again.') is generic and lacks any specific detail, though it does not appear to be part of a coordinated fake review pattern.
• All 14 reviews are 5-star ratings with no negative or mixed feedback. While the reviews contain enough specific detail to suggest authenticity, the uniformity warrants mild caution.
• No pricing complaints or detailed cost breakdowns appear in any review, making the pricing dimension very weakly supported.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability due to strong mention counts across most dimensions, but should be treated with significant caution given that all reviews are over 8 years old and no recent data exists to confirm whether current service quality matches historical performance.

Stoppleworth Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism with courteous, efficient staff and responsive communication across multiple reviews. Pricing is competitive and transparent, with customers appreciating fair quotes and no upselling. However, project completion reliability is significantly undermined by one critical failure: a leaky faucet repair that failed within months, with poor follow-up service when the customer requested warranty consideration. Technical skill is generally solid, though the completion failure raises concerns about quality consistency. The WW Score of 78.2 reflects strong interpersonal and pricing strengths offset by a serious durability and accountability issue.

• RECENCY CONCERN: Most reviews are 5+ years old (2011-2015). Only 2 of 6 reviews are from 2019 or later, limiting current reliability assessment.
• CRITICAL COMPLETION FAILURE: Review from 2019-10-30 documents a repair that failed within 4 months, with dismissive staff response to warranty request. This is a major red flag for project completion reliability.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: The 2023-05-19 review uses generic superlative language ('absolutely the best', 'can not give a higher recommendation') with no specific details about work performed, service dates, or actual experience. This contrasts with detailed, credible reviews and warrants skepticism.
• INCONSISTENT SERVICE QUALITY: Stark contrast between highly detailed positive reviews (2014, 2011) and the documented failure (2019), suggesting either declining service standards or inconsistent execution.

This score should be treated with caution due to limited recent data (only 2 reviews from past 5 years), a documented project failure with poor customer service response, and one potentially fabricated review. The company's historical professionalism is notable, but the 2019 failure and lack of recent reviews make current reliability assessment unreliable.

White Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism with consistent praise for courteous, punctual technicians (Jake, Chris, Colton, Dustin, Trevor) who communicate clearly and explain work thoroughly. Experience and technical skill are well-documented across multiple reviews. However, pricing is a significant weakness: multiple recent reviews (2025) explicitly criticize high costs, with specific complaints about $4,000 hot water heater quotes, $457 for wax ring replacement, and $300+ drain snaking—substantially above competitor pricing. Project completion shows mixed results: most jobs are completed successfully and on-time, but several older reviews (2023–2024) describe serious failures including forgotten pipe reconnections causing flood damage, no-shows despite scheduling, and poor follow-through. Recent reviews (2025) are predominantly positive, but pricing concerns persist and undermine overall trust.

• PRICING CONCERN: Multiple recent reviews (June 2025) explicitly criticize pricing as significantly higher than competitors. One customer was quoted $4,000 for a hot water heater and reported high-pressure sales tactics. Another noted $457 for wax ring replacement. A third stated $300+ for drain snaking was excessive. This pattern suggests systematic overpricing.
• PROJECT COMPLETION RED FLAGS: Older reviews (2023–2024) describe serious failures: one customer reported technician forgot to reconnect a pipe, causing thousands in flood damage with company refusing to fix the mistake; another reported multiple no-shows despite scheduling and poor communication from owner Jim White; a third described four failed store trips and incorrect parts with customer charged full price despite technician error.
• ESTIMATE/QUOTE CONCERNS: Multiple reviews (2024–2025) report aggressive charging for estimates. One customer with a son on disability was charged $59 for a 'free estimate' that resulted in no work. Another was charged $59 just for a technician to show up and provide an estimate, then quoted $400 for drain snaking.
• RECENCY BIAS: Most recent reviews (April–June 2025) are 5-star with strong praise. Older reviews (2023–2024) contain serious complaints about project failures and communication. This temporal split suggests either significant company improvement or potential review manipulation.
• EMPTY REVIEWS: Four reviews contain no text (only 5-star ratings on 2025-05-26 and 2025-04-10), which is unusual and reduces data quality.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: Several reviews use nearly identical phrasing ('professional,' 'friendly,' 'efficient,' 'highly recommend') with minimal specific detail. However, many reviews do contain specific technician names and detailed scenarios, which mitigates this concern.

This score should be treated with MODERATE confidence. While professionalism and experience scores are well-supported by 16–28 mentions, the pricing score is based on only 9 mentions and reveals a consistent pattern of customer dissatisfaction with costs relative to competitors. The temporal split between recent 5-star reviews and older 1–3 star reviews describing serious project failures (pipe disconnection, no-shows, poor communication) raises questions about consistency and reliability. The company may have improved recently, but pricing concerns persist in the most recent reviews, and the historical pattern of project completion failures cannot be ignored.

Janesville Plumbing demonstrates strong technical skill and generally professional field service, with multiple reviews praising punctuality, courtesy, and workmanship quality. However, significant pricing and billing concerns emerge across multiple reviews, including allegations of double billing, incomplete work orders requiring additional charges, and disputed labor charges. While recent positive reviews (2023) highlight fair pricing and prompt service, older negative reviews (2015, 2022) document serious billing disputes and poor office communication. The company shows inconsistency in customer experience, particularly in billing transparency and administrative follow-through.

• BILLING INTEGRITY CONCERN: Multiple reviews (2022, 2015) allege double billing, incomplete work orders requiring second trips with additional charges, and disputed labor charges. One customer reported being sent to collections despite providing cancelled checks as proof of payment.
• OFFICE COMMUNICATION FAILURE: 2015 review documents poor handling of billing inquiry by office staff (Becky), with owner refusing to discuss the issue and offering discount to dismiss customer rather than explain charges.
• RECENCY BIAS: Most positive reviews are from 2017-2023, while serious allegations appear in 2015 and 2022. Unclear if management/practices have changed or if issues persist.
• INCOMPLETE WORK PATTERN: 2022 review explicitly states work orders are incomplete, requiring second visits and additional billing—suggests systemic issue with initial job scoping.
• MIXED RELIABILITY: Strong field service professionalism contrasts sharply with apparent billing and administrative problems, suggesting disconnect between technicians and office management.

This score should be treated with caution. While field-level professionalism and technical skill appear genuine and consistently praised, serious unresolved allegations of billing fraud and incomplete work undermine overall trustworthiness. The score reflects a company with strong technicians but problematic business practices in billing and administrative accountability. Customers should request detailed written estimates, verify all charges, and document all payments before engaging this contractor.

Handyman Connection demonstrates strong professionalism with consistent punctuality, courteous communication, and clean work practices across 15 reviews. Technical experience is solid with skilled craftsmen handling complex plumbing and installation work. However, project completion reliability is undermined by significant responsiveness failures (multiple unanswered calls/emails, missed appointments) and pricing concerns, with customers reporting unexpected cost overruns and one explicit complaint about rates being unreasonable. The company's performance appears inconsistent—excellent execution when work begins, but poor follow-through on callbacks and communication.

• RECENCY ISSUE: All reviews are from 2006–2010 (13–17 years old). No recent data available. Current performance may differ significantly.
• RESPONSIVENESS CRISIS: Multiple reviews (at least 3) explicitly mention unanswered calls, unreturned messages, and missed appointments. This is a critical weakness in professionalism scoring.
• PRICING INCONSISTENCY: Four reviews mention pricing concerns. Two report unexpected cost overruns (final bill $175 vs. $100 quote; cost higher than expected). One calls pricing a 'rip-off.' One notes cost was lower than estimate but work was incomplete. Pricing transparency is questionable.
• INCOMPLETE WORK: At least one review (2008-10-05) notes that not all work in the estimate was performed, yet cost was higher than expected—suggesting billing issues.
• POSSIBLE FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: Reviews from 2006-03-23 and 2006-01-29 use identical ALL-CAPS formatting with suspiciously generic praise and no specific details. These may be fabricated or template-based. Confidence in professionalism and experience scores reduced slightly due to this pattern.

This WW Score should be treated with caution due to age of data (13–17 years old) and suspected fake reviews. The score reflects historical performance only and may not represent current operations. The company's documented communication and responsiveness failures are serious concerns that outweigh positive execution reviews.

Terrytown Plumbing shows strong professionalism with consistent praise for friendly, courteous, and punctual service across 26 mentions. However, significant concerns emerge around pricing (11 mentions reveal complaints about high hourly rates and unexpected callback fees) and project completion (13 mentions document incomplete work, unresolved issues, and poor follow-through on callbacks). Experience is rated positively where mentioned (8 instances of skilled technical work), but the company's reputation is severely damaged by multiple 1-star reviews from 2013–2021 alleging deceptive practices, poor communication, and aggressive debt collection. Recent reviews (2024–2025) are predominantly 5-star, suggesting possible service improvements, but the historical pattern of serious complaints cannot be ignored.

• SIGNIFICANT TEMPORAL BIAS: 38 of 54 reviews (70%) are from 2024–2025, while 8 severe 1-star reviews cluster in 2013–2021. This creates a stark before/after pattern that may reflect either genuine company reformation or review platform changes.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: Multiple recent reviews (2025, 2024) contain generic praise with minimal specifics ('Excellent service', 'Great job', empty text fields with 5-star ratings). At least 6 reviews have no text content but carry 5-star ratings, which is unusual.
• CRITICAL NEGATIVE REVIEWS: Five 1-star reviews (2013, 2019, 2020, 2021) allege serious misconduct including deceptive billing, aggressive legal action against customers, poor communication, and work that was not completed. One customer reports being sued by the company for $364 after disputing a $150 callback charge for incomplete work.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS: Multiple reviews explicitly cite high hourly rates ($150/hour mentioned), unexpected callback fees, and bills that customers felt were unjustified relative to work performed.
• PROJECT COMPLETION CONCERNS: At least 3 reviews document incomplete work, unresolved leaks, and poor callback service. One customer paid $291 for a leak repair that failed, then was charged an additional $150 for a callback that allegedly did not fix the problem.
• RECENCY MATTERS: If the company has genuinely reformed since 2021, recent positive reviews may be reliable. However, the absence of any critical detail in recent 5-star reviews raises credibility questions.

This WW Score should be treated with CAUTION. While recent reviews (2024–2025) are overwhelmingly positive and suggest improved service, the company's documented history of serious complaints (2013–2021) including deceptive practices, incomplete work, and aggressive debt collection is severe and unresolved. The sharp reversal in review sentiment, combined with generic praise and empty review fields in recent submissions, suggests either genuine reformation or potential review manipulation. Customers should independently verify current service quality and explicitly clarify pricing and callback policies before engaging this contractor.