Find Nearby Plumbers In Milwaukee, Wisconsin

Jesse and Brew City Rooter receive consistently positive feedback across professionalism, with multiple reviewers explicitly noting punctuality, friendliness, and professional conduct. Project completion is supported by several reviews describing problems being resolved quickly and thoroughly, including one notable case where Jesse succeeded where another plumbing company had failed. Experience and technical knowledge are referenced in a few reviews, including the use of a camera to diagnose the issue and being described as knowledgeable. Pricing is entirely absent from all reviews, so no score could be assigned for that dimension. The overall score is tempered by the small review pool and the lack of specific detail in several reviews.

• Only 7 total reviews analyzed — sample size is very small and limits statistical reliability.
• Several reviews are extremely brief and generic (e.g., 'Jesse is THE BEST!', 'Punctual. Quality work', 'Great customer serve and very knowledgeable') with little specific detail, which reduces confidence in those individual data points.
• All 7 reviews are 5-star ratings with no negative or mixed feedback — while not conclusive, this pattern warrants mild caution.
• 5 of 7 reviews have no date provided, making it impossible to assess recency for the majority of the review set. Only 2 reviews are confirmed recent (May–June 2025).
• No pricing or cost-related information was mentioned in any review — the Pricing dimension cannot be scored.

This WW Score should be treated as a preliminary positive signal only — the small review pool, absence of dates on most reviews, lack of pricing data, and several vague reviews mean the score carries limited statistical weight and should not be considered fully representative of long-term performance.

Al receives consistently strong praise across all four dimensions from every reviewer. Professionalism stands out, with multiple reviewers explicitly noting his politeness, friendliness, honesty, and communication — including a follow-up visit to ensure satisfaction. Pricing is described as fair and transparent, with upfront cost breakdowns mentioned in one review. Project completion is well-supported, with reviewers noting work was finished correctly, guaranteed, and followed through on. Experience is reinforced by a notably difficult slab-pipe repair tackled successfully, and references to skill and knowledge across multiple reviews.

• All 4 reviews are 5-star ratings with no negative feedback — while the reviews contain specific details that reduce fake review suspicion, the uniformly perfect ratings warrant mild caution.
• Review volume is very low (4 reviews total) — scores are based on limited data and should be treated with caution.
• Two of the four reviews are from 2022 or earlier, and one is from 2018 — no reviews from the past 12 months are present, meaning recency cannot be confirmed. Performance may have changed.
• The 2018 review lacks specific job details and reads somewhat generically, though it does name specific traits (professional, knowledgeable, friendly, personable).

This WW Score carries limited reliability due to a very small review sample of only 4 reviews, all of which are over two years old, and the absence of any recent feedback to confirm current performance standards.

Milwaukee Drain Cleaning shows genuine strengths in responsiveness and timeliness, with multiple reviewers noting early or prompt arrivals and quick turnaround on jobs. However, pricing is a notable concern: two separate reviews raise issues around unexpected charges, a travel fee that contradicts the company website, and a perception of upselling on-site, which meaningfully drags down the pricing dimension. Professionalism is mixed — most customers found the technicians personable and communicative, but the pricing disputes suggest inconsistent transparency. Experience scores moderately well, with reviewers noting knowledgeable advice and effective problem resolution, though one reviewer felt the diagnostic visit was unhelpful and overpriced. Overall, the score reflects a contractor with real positives but meaningful red flags around pricing honesty.

• One review (2019-12-27) is vague, generic, and lacks any specific detail ('Perfect in Every way. Professional and very outgoing. AAA+++++') — this pattern is consistent with a potentially inauthentic or low-effort review and was weighted conservatively.
• Two reviews explicitly cite pricing inconsistencies: one flags a travel charge that contradicts the company's own website 'No Travel Charge' policy, and another describes an on-site upsell. This is a credible and specific concern, not a one-off complaint.
• Review base is very small (6 reviews total), spanning 2019–2024. Only 3 reviews are from the past 12 months (2023–2024), limiting recency confidence.
• The two 1-star reviews contain specific, verifiable details (dates, dollar amounts, named policies) and are treated as credible negative signals.

This WW Score is based on only 6 reviews spanning five years and should be treated as a preliminary signal only — a larger and more recent review sample would be needed to assess this contractor with meaningful confidence.

Professionalism is mixed: two positive reviews praise Mike as friendly, respectful, and professional, but one review — the most recent — describes a complete failure to respond to a prospective customer's text, which is a meaningful red flag for responsiveness. Project completion scores moderately; the two completed jobs were described as thorough and well-executed, with one reviewer noting the work exceeded the quality of the original installation. Experience scores positively but with limited confidence, as only two reviews speak to skill and problem-solving ability. Pricing was not mentioned in any review, so that dimension cannot be scored. The overall WW Score is tempered by the unresponsiveness complaint and the small, older review sample.

• Only 3 reviews total — sample size is very small and the WW Score should be treated with significant caution.
• All three reviews are from 2018–2022; none are within the past 12 months. The score may not reflect current service quality.
• One review (2022) explicitly describes a failure to respond to a text inquiry, which directly contradicts the 'no job too big or small' claim and negatively impacts professionalism and responsiveness scoring.
• No pricing information was mentioned in any review — the pricing dimension cannot be evaluated at all.

This WW Score has LOW reliability due to only 3 reviews, all of which are over 2 years old, a complete absence of pricing data, and one review documenting a significant responsiveness failure that offsets the two positive experiences.

All Star Heating receives generally positive feedback for professionalism and friendliness, with multiple reviewers noting technicians were prompt, courteous, and knowledgeable. However, one notable negative review describes a technician who was disinterested and failed to diagnose an obvious crack in a reservoir, requiring a second visit from a competitor to resolve the issue — a meaningful mark against both experience and project completion. Pricing is mentioned positively in a few reviews, suggesting reasonable value, but the sample is small. The review set spans nearly a decade of history, with the most recent reviews being from 2021 and 2019, and the most critical reviews dating from 2012 and 2013, which tempers but does not eliminate concern. Overall, the score reflects a contractor with a solid baseline but a documented quality-control failure that cannot be ignored.

• Only 6 reviews total — sample size is very small and limits statistical reliability of all dimension scores.
• Review dates span from 2012 to 2021 — the majority of reviews are older than 3 years, and only one review falls within the past 12 months (relative to the most recent date of 2021-08-03). Recency weighting significantly limits confidence.
• The 1-star review from 2013 describes a clear project completion failure: technician missed an obvious defect, requiring a competitor to complete the repair. This is weighted negatively in both project_completion and experience scores.
• No fake review patterns detected — reviews vary in tone, detail level, rating, and date, suggesting authentic submissions.

This WW Score should be treated as LOW reliability due to the very small review sample (6 reviews), wide date range spanning nearly a decade, and the presence of a substantive negative review describing a diagnostic failure — consumers should seek additional recent references before making a hiring decision.

Rexpert/Reupert Plumbing has a small but mixed review record. Three positive reviews highlight responsive communication, same-day or timely arrival, accurate diagnosis, and clean job completion — all strong indicators of a capable and professional operation. However, one review (from 2015) describes a plumber abandoning an appointment downtown due to parking inconvenience, which is a meaningful professionalism failure that cannot be ignored. Pricing was mentioned positively in two reviews, with one customer noting the cost was exactly as expected and that a detailed invoice was provided. The overall picture is cautiously positive but limited by the very small sample size and one notable negative incident.

• Very small sample size (4 reviews total) — WW Score should be treated as preliminary and not fully reliable.
• One review (2015) describes a plumber canceling an appointment due to parking, citing it was 'not worth his while' — a significant professionalism concern.
• Three of the four reviews are from 2021–2022, and the most recent is over two years old as of 2024. No recent reviews are available to confirm current service quality.
• The oldest negative review (2015) is nearly a decade old and may not reflect current business practices, but it is the only negative data point and cannot be dismissed.
• Business name is spelled inconsistently across reviews ('Rexpert' vs 'Reupert') — this may indicate different reviewers referencing the same business casually, but worth noting.

This WW Score carries LIMITED overall reliability due to only 4 reviews, no reviews within the past 12 months, and one documented professionalism failure that meaningfully offsets the otherwise positive feedback.