Find Nearby Plumbers In Milwaukee, Wisconsin

Roman Electric receives broadly positive feedback on professionalism and technical experience, with many reviewers praising individual technicians by name for being courteous, knowledgeable, and communicative. However, pricing is a persistent and significant concern across multiple eras of reviews, with numerous customers describing charges as far above market rate, opaque fee structures, and bait-and-switch pricing tactics — pulling the pricing score down substantially. Project completion is mixed: the majority of jobs are finished satisfactorily, but a meaningful cluster of negative reviews describes missed appointments, no-shows, incomplete work, incorrectly installed components, and unresolved callbacks — including a repeated exhaust fan leak that was never fixed across three visits. The overall WW Score reflects a company with genuine technical capability and many skilled individual technicians, offset by systemic issues in scheduling reliability, pricing transparency, and quality control on a notable minority of jobs.

• DUPLICATE REVIEW ALERT: A large block of reviews dated 2025-06-09 and 2025-06-06 are near-identical or word-for-word duplicates of each other (e.g., Julian tune-up review, Ricky electrical review, Andy and Gabe review, Jason electrical review, Jacob water heater review, etc.). This pattern strongly suggests artificial review inflation or a system error that posted the same reviews twice. Confidence in the recent review cluster is reduced accordingly.
• FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: Multiple reviews contain zero substantive detail (blank text with 5-star rating, or single generic phrases like 'Good job', 'N/a', 'It was great'). These provide no usable signal and were excluded from dimension scoring.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS ARE SYSTEMIC AND SPAN MULTIPLE YEARS (2016–2025): Overcharging complaints are not isolated incidents. Reviewers describe $500+ diagnostic fees, $1,100 toilet replacements, $798 for four outlets, $450/hour effective rates, and quotes 3x above competitors. One reviewer confirmed a competitor completed the same job for one-third the price.
• PROJECT COMPLETION FAILURES DOCUMENTED: Multiple reviews describe no-shows without notification, missed rescheduled appointments, incorrectly installed components (wrong plug type installed, reverse-wired outlet, furnace second stage not configured), and a recurring exhaust fan leak that was never resolved across three service visits.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent reviews (2025) are heavily duplicated and skew positive. The more critical and detailed negative reviews span 2016–2022. The 2023–2025 non-duplicate reviews are mostly positive, which may indicate genuine improvement, but the duplicate inflation makes it difficult to assess true recent sentiment.
• CUSTOMER SERVICE COMPLAINTS: Several reviews describe rude or dismissive office staff, unanswered callbacks, being hung up on, and management failing to return calls — suggesting back-office professionalism issues separate from technician quality.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large review volume, but should be interpreted cautiously given confirmed duplicate review inflation in the most recent batch and a well-documented pattern of pricing and scheduling complaints spanning multiple years.

This aggregated review set covers multiple distinct businesses operating under similar or shared names (Corados Services LLC, Cox Plumbing, and related entities), which significantly complicates scoring reliability. The majority of reviews praise responsiveness, emergency availability, and technical skill — with many technicians (Osaro, Samuel, Jeff, Rod, Braden) receiving specific commendations for professionalism and problem-solving. However, a meaningful minority of negative reviews — roughly 20 out of 163 — document serious failures including no-shows, abandoned jobs, hidden charges, dishonest billing, rude office staff, and incomplete work, which substantially drag down all four dimensions. Pricing is generally viewed as fair or competitive, but several reviews cite unexpected charges, overbilling, and lack of transparency. Project completion is the most polarizing dimension, with strong positives offset by multiple accounts of unfinished work, missed callbacks, and jobs requiring multiple return visits without resolution.

• MULTI-ENTITY CONCERN: Reviews appear to cover at least two or three distinct businesses — Corados Services LLC (Samuel/Luz), Cox Plumbing (Osaro/Jeff/Rod/Braden/Dwayne), and possibly others. Aggregating these into a single score is inherently unreliable and may misrepresent any individual contractor's performance.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION: A cluster of reviews dated 2022-06-09 and 2022-06-10 and 2023-06-09 and 2023-06-10 and 2024-06-09 and 2024-06-10 share identical dates with no review text (rating only), which is a common pattern associated with review padding. At least 18 reviews contain no text whatsoever and were excluded from dimension scoring.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: Two reviews from 2022-06-10 and 2021-06-08 are near-identical lengthy complaints about Jeff and billing disputes — this appears to be the same reviewer posting twice, which inflates negative signal for that specific issue.
• RECENCY NOTE: Reviews span from 2010 to 2025. A significant portion of reviews are older than 3 years. Business quality and ownership may have changed substantially over this period. More recent reviews (2024-2025) show a mixed but generally positive trend for Corados Services specifically.
• NO-SHOW AND ABANDONMENT PATTERN: Multiple independent reviewers across different years report no-shows, missed appointments, and abandoned jobs — this is a recurring and credible pattern that meaningfully reduces the project completion score.
• BILLING TRANSPARENCY ISSUES: At least 3 separate reviews cite hidden charges, inconsistent pricing, or charges for work not performed — this is a credible recurring pattern that reduces the pricing score.
• BBB RATING CONCERN: One reviewer noted a BBB rating of F for one of the entities. This external signal was noted but not used to mechanically adjust scores.

This WW Score should be treated with significant caution due to the aggregation of reviews across multiple distinct business entities, a large volume of content-free ratings that inflate review counts without providing scorable data, credible recurring patterns of no-shows and billing disputes, and a review date range spanning 15 years during which business quality and ownership likely changed substantially.

Perez Plumbing has a large and predominantly positive review base, with many customers praising responsiveness, fair pricing, and skilled workmanship across a wide range of jobs including water heater replacements, leak repairs, and pipe work. However, a meaningful minority of negative reviews — roughly 20-25% of substantive reviews — raise serious concerns including incomplete work left undiscovered for extended periods, alleged overcharging, rude office staff, no-show appointments, and at least one claim of $45,000 in uninsured damage. Professionalism scores are pulled down significantly by recurring complaints about the front-office/scheduling staff being rude or dismissive, and by multiple no-show or late-arrival incidents. Pricing scores are mixed: while many customers praise fair and competitive rates, several credible negative reviews describe charges that appear excessive or inconsistent with the work performed. Project completion is generally strong but is meaningfully penalized by the disconnected kitchen drain incident, the incomplete pipe replacement allegation, and the irrigation meter job that left the lawn torn up for weeks.

• Approximately 25 reviews contain no text — only a star rating. These blank reviews (mostly 5-star) cannot be scored and inflate the apparent rating without providing usable evidence.
• Several reviews appear to reference entirely different companies or locations (e.g., HVAC furnace work, A/C capacitor repair, tire change assistance, construction across the street) suggesting this review pool may aggregate reviews for multiple businesses sharing the 'Perez Plumbing' name or that some reviews were misdirected. These were excluded from scoring where clearly irrelevant.
• A pattern of very short, generic 5-star reviews with no specifics (e.g., 'Love their service!', 'Very good', 'Good', 'All went well', 'unknown') raises moderate fake review concern. These were treated as low-weight evidence.
• One 1-star review references a 'Marcos' and 'Damon' as owner — names not mentioned in other reviews — suggesting possible review bleed from a different Perez Plumbing entity.
• One review references dangerous driving behavior and another references road conduct — these are not plumbing service reviews and were excluded from scoring.
• A review dated 2005 describes workers with poor English proficiency and a 3-hour delay returning with an invoice — this and other pre-2015 reviews were given minimal weight due to age.
• The 1-star review alleging a disconnected kitchen drain left draining into a crawl space for an extended period is a serious workmanship and integrity flag that was weighted heavily in project completion scoring.
• At least two credible reviews allege billing for work not performed or for excessive amounts relative to time on site, which is a significant pricing integrity concern.
• Recency note: The majority of detailed, substantive reviews are from 2024-2025, which is positive for recency weighting. However, negative reviews are also well-represented in this recent window.

This WW Score is based on a large review volume with HIGH confidence across all four dimensions, but should be interpreted cautiously given the serious nature of several negative reviews, the presence of numerous blank reviews inflating star averages, and evidence suggesting this pool may include reviews for more than one business operating under the Perez Plumbing name.

A&A Plumbing has a strong base of loyal, long-term customers who consistently praise individual technicians — particularly Rosendo, Dave, Larry, Germaine, and Mike — for technical skill, problem-solving ability, and courteous demeanor, which drives a solid experience score. However, professionalism is meaningfully dragged down by a recurring and well-documented pattern of no-shows, missed appointments, unreturned calls, and poor front-office responsiveness, appearing across multiple independent reviews spanning 2013 through 2024. Pricing is the weakest dimension: while many reviewers found costs fair or reasonable, a significant minority reported feeling overcharged, encountering arbitrary flat-rate billing, or receiving quotes far above market rate — including one reviewer charged $252 for a five-minute p-trap replacement and another quoted $350 for a faucet install versus a $110 market rate. Project completion scores moderately well when technicians do show up, with most jobs completed fully and a one-year warranty honored in several cases, but the no-show and scheduling failure pattern directly undermines this dimension. The overall score reflects a contractor with genuine technical strengths but serious and persistent operational reliability problems that have cost them customers and trust over many years.

• SCHEDULING AND RESPONSIVENESS PATTERN: At least 10 independent reviews across multiple years (2013–2024) explicitly describe no-shows, missed appointments without notification, unreturned voicemails, and difficulty reaching the office. This is a systemic operational issue, not isolated incidents.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS: Multiple reviews (2016–2021) describe pricing that felt arbitrary, disproportionate to work performed, or significantly above market rate. One reviewer was charged $252 for a p-trap replacement taking under 5 minutes; another was quoted $350 for a faucet install vs. a $110 market rate; a third paid $377 total for a drain unclog and p-trap. One reviewer alleged pricing changed mid-job and felt threatened when questioning the bill.
• BLANK REVIEWS: 7 reviews contained no text whatsoever (only a star rating). These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence per scoring rules.
• GENERIC SHORT REVIEWS: Several reviews contain only 1–2 sentences with no specifics (e.g., 'Fast and reliable.', 'Very professional and polite.', 'no problems', 'unknown'). These were counted only where they clearly supported a dimension but weighted conservatively.
• POSSIBLE DUPLICATE REVIEW: The review text 'Great company and knowledgeable staff! On time, very efficient and explained every step of the process in full detail. The charges were very fair and reasonable as well. Highly recommend' appears verbatim twice (2021-07-01 and 2022-06-10) from what appear to be different submissions. This may indicate a copied or fake review and was counted only once for scoring purposes.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews are older than 12 months, with the bulk of content spanning 2010–2022. Only a handful of reviews are from the past 12 months (mid-2023 to mid-2024). The most recent negative review (2024-06-09) specifically states the contractor 'lost his touch' over the past year, suggesting possible quality decline. Recent data is limited and should be treated with caution.
• ONE REVIEW (2016-04-24) APPEARS TO DESCRIBE A DIFFERENT CONTRACTOR: The review references 'Carlos' as a 'lone proprietor' operating in the Baltimore/Baltimore County area, which is geographically inconsistent with A&A Plumbing in Sunnyvale, CA. This review may have been posted to the wrong business listing and was excluded from scoring.
• IDENTITY INCONSISTENCY: Reviews reference multiple owner names including 'Mike Fox,' 'Mike Gogos,' and 'Carlos,' and reference locations including Sunnyvale CA, Palo Alto CA, Medford MA, Somerville MA, and Baltimore MD. This suggests the review pool may aggregate listings from more than one business operating under similar names, which reduces the reliability of the aggregate score.

This WW Score carries HIGH volume confidence due to the large number of reviews, but its reliability is moderately reduced by evidence of possible cross-business review aggregation, at least one confirmed duplicate review, seven blank reviews, geographic inconsistencies across listings, and a persistent multi-year pattern of scheduling failures that suggests the score may overstate operational dependability.

The majority of recent reviews (2024–2025) are strongly positive, praising Julian and the Diamond Plumbing team for professionalism, prompt response times, and knowledgeable service. However, a significant cluster of older negative reviews (2017–2021) — many referencing a different operator name (Neil, Nate, American Plumber LLC) — describe serious failures including no-shows, abandoned work, unresolved repairs, poor communication, and abusive behavior. These negative reviews meaningfully drag down scores in professionalism and project completion. The pricing dimension is mixed: several reviewers praised affordability and flat-rate transparency, while at least one described being overcharged for ineffective work. Experience scores are buoyed by recent positive technical feedback but tempered by documented cases of incomplete or incorrect workmanship.

• MULTIPLE OPERATOR NAMES DETECTED: Reviews reference 'Julian' (Diamond Plumbing Services), 'Neil/Neal' and 'Nate' (American Plumber LLC, 414-529-6980 / 414-520-6980). These may represent different companies or operators sharing a review profile, which significantly complicates scoring reliability.
• POSSIBLE REVIEW PROFILE AGGREGATION: The negative reviews from 2017–2021 appear to reference a distinct business entity (American Plumber LLC) with different personnel, suggesting this review set may combine two separate businesses. Scores should be interpreted with this caveat in mind.
• 6 BLANK REVIEWS WITH 5-STAR RATINGS: Six reviews contain no text whatsoever but carry 5-star ratings. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW PATTERN IN POSITIVE CLUSTER: A large number of 5-star reviews dated 2024-06-09 share the exact same date, are brief, generic, and lack specific detail. This clustering is suspicious and may indicate review solicitation or manipulation. Confidence in the positive score cluster is reduced accordingly.
• RECENCY NOTE: All negative reviews are from 2017–2021. All reviews from 2024–2025 are positive. This divergence could reflect genuine business improvement, a change in ownership/operator, or selective review removal. Cannot confirm which without additional data.
• ONE VERIFIED NEGATIVE RECENT REVIEW (2024-06-09, 1-star): A detailed complaint describes a $1,176.31 job with loose toilets, missing caulking, denied accountability, and a failed correction visit — indicating project completion and professionalism failures persist in at least some recent cases.

This WW Score carries moderate-to-limited reliability due to the likely aggregation of two distinct business entities under one review profile, a suspicious cluster of same-day generic 5-star reviews, and a stark divergence between older negative and newer positive reviews that cannot be fully reconciled without additional verification.

Mommaerts Plumbing receives consistently strong praise across all four dimensions from the reviews available. Professionalism is the most frequently mentioned dimension, with all six reviews referencing promptness, friendliness, communication, or attitude — earning a high-confidence score of 92. Project completion is also well-supported, with five reviews describing jobs that were finished correctly, on time, and with follow-through, including one notable instance where technicians fixed an existing toilet rather than upselling a new one. Experience is highlighted in four reviews, with specific mentions of deep plumbing knowledge, problem-solving on complex systems, and correct first-time repairs. Pricing is acknowledged in three reviews with mixed but generally positive sentiment — one reviewer explicitly noted they are not the cheapest option but frames this as a value trade-off, which moderates the pricing score slightly.

• Only 6 reviews total — sample size is small and limits statistical reliability of all scores.
• Review dates span from 2014 to 2024 — four of the six reviews are older than 3 years, with only one review from the past 12 months (May 2024). Recency is limited and the business may have changed since older reviews were written.
• All reviews are 5-star ratings with no negative or mixed feedback present. While the reviews contain specific details and named individuals (Andy, Shane) that reduce fake review suspicion, the absence of any critical feedback across 10 years warrants mild caution.
• No reviews mention callbacks, warranty work, or post-job issues — project completion score reflects initial job quality only.

This WW Score carries moderate overall reliability due to the small review sample (6 reviews), heavy skew toward older reviews, and the absence of any critical feedback — consumers should seek additional recent reviews before making a hiring decision.