Find Nearby Plumbers In Milwaukee, Wisconsin

Fox Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism and technical expertise across multiple reviews, with Chris consistently praised for knowledge, punctuality, and workmanship. Pricing appears fair and transparent based on customer savings mentioned. However, a critical 1-star review from 2022 describing poor installation quality and refusal to address defects significantly impacts project completion confidence. The positive reviews are older (2018–2023) with limited recent data, and one review contains suspicious formatting (full name, NMLS number, address) suggesting potential fake review patterns. The WW Score reflects solid fundamentals undermined by unresolved quality concerns and limited sample size.

• FAKE REVIEW ALERT: Review dated 2021-07-08 contains full personal identifying information (name, NMLS number, address, phone) in an unusual format that suggests potential fabrication or incentivized review. This review uses hyperbolic language ('best PLUMBING company in the nation', 'DNA' phrasing) inconsistent with typical customer voice.
• CRITICAL QUALITY ISSUE: 1-star review (2022-04-08) explicitly states poor workmanship on rain shower head installation and refusal to perform warranty/callback work. This directly contradicts claims of going 'above and beyond' and represents a serious project completion failure.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most positive reviews are 2–6 years old (2018, 2021, 2023). Only one negative review is recent (2022). Limited data from past 12 months.
• SAMPLE SIZE: Only 4 reviews total limits statistical reliability. Confidence scores are conservative due to low mention counts across all dimensions.

This WW Score should be treated with caution due to small sample size (4 reviews), suspected fake review content, and an unresolved quality complaint that was not addressed by the company. The score reflects a mixed picture: strong professionalism and expertise claims are contradicted by documented project completion failure and refusal to honor callbacks.

Martin's Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism with consistent praise for punctuality, politeness, and responsiveness across 9 reviews. Pricing shows mixed signals: most reviews cite fair or good value, but one detailed 2018 complaint reveals a significant bid-to-final-cost discrepancy ($8,000 quoted vs. $21,000 final for a bathroom remodel), raising concerns about transparency. Project completion data is limited to 2 mentions, both positive but insufficient for robust confidence. Experience/workmanship is rated well across 4 mentions. The company's score is anchored by strong professionalism but tempered by pricing transparency concerns and limited project completion evidence.

• PRICING TRANSPARENCY ISSUE: One detailed 2018 review documents a major bid-to-final-cost discrepancy ($8,000 estimate vs. $21,000 final charge for bathroom remodel). Another 2022 review flags $175 permit charges when city permits cost $42, representing a $133 markup. These suggest potential pricing opacity on complex projects.
• RECENCY CONCERN: 3 of 12 reviews are older than 5 years (2006, 2016, 2019-2020). Most recent reviews (2023-2024) are positive, but the 2018 bathroom remodel complaint is substantive and detailed, not dismissible.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK: One review (2016-05-16) contains only a period (.) with a 5-star rating—this appears to be spam or placeholder data and was excluded from scoring.
• LIMITED PROJECT COMPLETION DATA: Only 2 reviews explicitly mention job completion/follow-through. Most reviews address service calls or simple repairs, not complex projects. The one detailed complex project (bathroom remodel) ended in significant dispute.
• CONFIDENCE MODERATION: Project completion score (65.0) is based on only 2 mentions and includes one positive emergency response but lacks evidence on larger renovation projects.

This score should be treated with MODERATE confidence. Strong professionalism ratings are well-supported (9 mentions), but pricing concerns from detailed complaints and limited project completion data (2 mentions) create uncertainty about performance on complex, higher-value jobs. Recent reviews are positive, but the 2018 bathroom remodel dispute suggests risk on larger projects without written, itemized quotes.

Mark consistently receives praise for punctuality, communication (calling ahead), and professional demeanor across all 7 reviews, supporting a strong professionalism score. Pricing is explicitly called fair, reasonable, or affordable in 5 reviews, including one noting a cash discount and another confirming he stuck to his estimate. Project completion is well-supported, with reviewers noting same-day service, completed drain and sewer work, and cleanup after the job. Experience scores are positive but more modestly evidenced — reviewers confirm successful outcomes on drain and sewer jobs, and one review notes his specialty is sewer and drains, though deep technical detail is limited. The WW Score is tempered by the small total review count and the age of several reviews.

• 5 of 7 reviews are older than 12 months; 4 reviews are more than 3 years old, with the oldest dating to 2016. Recency weighting reduces confidence in current performance.
• All 7 reviews are 5-star ratings with no negative feedback whatsoever. While the reviews do contain specific details (drain types, same-day service, cash discount), the uniformly perfect ratings across 8 years warrant mild caution.
• One review (2019) notes the contractor described himself as semi-retired and preferring smaller handyman-type jobs. This may indicate limited availability or scope for larger projects and should be considered by prospective customers.
• Small sample size (7 reviews total) limits statistical reliability of all dimension scores.

This WW Score carries moderate reliability due to a small and predominantly dated review set, though the specific details provided across reviews and consistent thematic patterns lend reasonable credibility to the scores.

This contractor demonstrates strong professionalism with consistent praise for punctuality, friendliness, and responsiveness across multiple recent reviews. Project completion is solid with jobs finished promptly and follow-up work offered. Technical skill is evident from diagnostic speed and problem-solving. However, pricing feedback is mixed and limited: three reviews praise fair/reasonable pricing, but one 2016 review alleges excessive fees and hidden charges (service fee, double labor, parts markup). The recency gap between the negative review (2016) and positive reviews (2020-2024) suggests possible improvement, but pricing confidence remains limited due to sparse explicit mentions.

• Pricing dimension has conflicting signals: 3 positive mentions vs. 1 strongly negative mention from 2016. The older negative review may not reflect current practices, but insufficient recent pricing detail to confirm improvement.
• Only 5 total reviews analyzed; WW Score reliability is moderate. Recommend collecting additional reviews for higher confidence.
• One review is from 2016 (8+ years old); three reviews are from 2023-2024 (recent). Recency weighting favors recent positive feedback.

This WW Score of 79.2 should be treated with moderate caution due to the small sample size (5 reviews) and limited explicit pricing mentions. The score is driven primarily by strong recent professionalism and completion feedback, but the single negative pricing complaint from 2016 creates uncertainty about fair pricing practices that cannot be fully resolved without more recent pricing data.

Dave Burns Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism with responsive service, courteous staff, and clear communication across all reviews. However, the score is significantly impacted by serious project completion concerns: one review explicitly documents incomplete work (sewage backup not fully resolved) requiring a second plumber, and pricing complaints appear in multiple reviews describing charges as steep and excessive. The 2017 review is notably older, but the pattern of incomplete work and high costs raises reliability concerns that outweigh the positive professionalism ratings.

• CRITICAL: One review (2017) documents incomplete project completion—sewage drain not fully unclogged, requiring customer to hire another plumber. This directly contradicts the positive reviews' claims of thorough work.
• Pricing concerns mentioned in 2 of 3 reviews with language like 'steep,' 'ton of dough,' and '$1k in additional work threatened'—suggests potential overcharging pattern.
• Most recent review is from March 2023 (over 1 year old); oldest review is from July 2017 (6+ years old). Limited recent data.
• Only 3 total reviews analyzed—sample size is very small and limits statistical reliability.

This score should be treated with caution due to the small sample size (3 reviews) and conflicting evidence: while professionalism is consistently praised, a documented case of incomplete work and repeated pricing complaints suggest potential quality and value issues that may not be fully captured by the overall score.

Jim's Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism with consistent praise for punctuality, courtesy, and responsiveness across 38 reviews. Pricing is generally viewed as fair and reasonable (18 mentions), though some customers note they are not the cheapest option. However, project completion shows concerning gaps: while many jobs are completed promptly, several reviews document incomplete work, unresolved callbacks, and follow-through failures (16 mentions). Experience and workmanship are rated highly (15 mentions), with customers praising technical knowledge and quality work. The WW Score of 78.2 reflects solid professionalism and pricing offset by meaningful project completion concerns.

• CRITICAL: Multiple reviews (2011, 2016, 2016) document serious project completion failures including incomplete pipe replacement work, unresponsive callbacks, and customer dissatisfaction requiring legal action or third-party remediation. These are not isolated complaints.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most reviews are from 2013-2015 (older than 8 years). Only 8 reviews are from 2016 or later, limiting confidence in current service quality. Recent reviews (2016-2022) show mixed results including one scam allegation and one non-responsive callback issue.
• INCONSISTENCY: Strong positive reviews (mostly 5-star) contrast sharply with detailed negative reviews describing fraud, incomplete work, and poor follow-up. This suggests either significant service variability or potential personnel differences (multiple technicians named: Jim, Dave, James, David).
• GENERIC REVIEWS: Several reviews contain only 'unknown' text or single-phrase ratings (e.g., '.', 'Great no issues'), reducing data quality for 4 reviews.
• PAYMENT METHOD LIMITATION: One review notes the company does not accept credit cards, which may affect customer convenience.
• EMERGENCY SERVICE FAILURE: One 2016 review documents refusal to provide emergency service despite advertising it, contradicting professionalism claims.

This WW Score should be treated with MODERATE caution. While professionalism scores are well-supported by 38 mentions, the project completion dimension is undermined by serious documented failures in older reviews and recent callback issues. The age of most reviews (pre-2016) and inconsistency between positive and negative experiences suggest the score may not reliably reflect current service quality. Prospective customers should request references for recent large projects and clarify callback/warranty policies before engaging.