Find Nearby Plumbers In Milwaukee, Wisconsin

Budiac Plumbing shows generally positive signals in professionalism and communication, with two detailed reviews praising responsiveness, scheduling ease, and thorough explanations of work performed. Project completion and experience scores are moderately positive but rest on very limited data. However, a 1-star review explicitly calls out overcharging and a failure to provide adequate information to the customer, which significantly drags down the pricing dimension and introduces a meaningful concern about transparency. With only 3 reviews spanning nearly a decade, confidence in any dimension is low and the WW Score should be treated with caution.

• Only 3 reviews total — WW Score is at the minimum threshold for calculation and should be treated as highly unreliable.
• Review dates span from 2013 to 2021 — the most recent review is over 3 years old and the oldest is over 10 years old. No recent data is available to reflect current service quality.
• The 1-star review from 2013 explicitly flags overcharging and lack of transparency, which is a serious concern even though it is the oldest review.
• The two 5-star reviews lack specificity in some areas (e.g., Review 1 is very brief and generic), which slightly reduces confidence in those positive signals, though Review 2 is detailed and credible.
• No reviews from the past 12 months — recency weighting cannot be applied favorably.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews spanning over 8 years, with no data from the past 3+ years, making it insufficient to reliably assess the contractor's current quality or consistency.

Carl's Plumbing presents a deeply divided picture across its review history. Positive reviews — concentrated more heavily in recent years (2024–2025) — frequently praise individual technicians by name (Chris, T, Tony, Sam) for punctuality, friendliness, and competent work, particularly through home warranty assignments. However, a substantial volume of negative reviews spanning 2014–2025 describes serious and recurring failures: rude office staff, abandoned or incomplete jobs, disputed and hidden charges, work done incorrectly requiring callbacks, and outright hostile interactions with management. Pricing concerns are significant, with multiple reviewers alleging unnecessary upsells, undisclosed fees, and charges collected for work never performed. Project completion is the most damaged dimension, with multiple accounts of jobs left unfinished for weeks or months, failed repairs requiring re-visits, and at least one case where a city inspector rejected an installation. The company appears to be under new management as of approximately mid-2024, and recent reviews do trend more positively, but the long tail of serious complaints prevents a high score.

• RECENCY SPLIT: Reviews from 2024–2025 are noticeably more positive than reviews from 2014–2023. The company claims new management as of ~mid-2024. Scores are modestly adjusted to reflect this trend but older negative reviews are not discarded as they reflect documented patterns.
• SUSPECTED GENERIC REVIEWS: Multiple reviews contain only 'unknown', blank text, or single-word entries (e.g., 'went great', '....') with 5-star ratings and no substantive detail. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The review praising Carl's for fixing a leaking pipe and a water pressure issue for free appears verbatim twice (once dated 2024-06-09 and once dated 2023-10-05). This may indicate a copy-paste error or a manipulated review. Counted only once for scoring purposes.
• OFFICE STAFF PATTERN: A recurring and consistent complaint across multiple independent reviews spanning many years involves rude, dismissive, or hostile front-office staff — including hanging up on customers, threatening fees, and refusing to escalate to management. This is a structural concern, not isolated incidents.
• FRAUDULENT BILLING ALLEGATIONS: Multiple reviewers allege charges were collected for services never rendered, parts returned without notice with restocking fees charged, and in one case a job was filed as completed with the home warranty company despite the contractor never entering the property. These are serious integrity flags.
• WORKMANSHIP FAILURES: At least two reviews describe work that failed shortly after completion or was done incorrectly (gas leak left unresolved, toilet connection re-leaking, city inspector rejecting boiler installation). These directly impact the experience and project completion scores.
• RACIST CONDUCT ALLEGATION: One reviewer (2019) alleges a technician made racist comments during a service visit. This is noted as a serious conduct flag, though it is a single account.

This WW Score is based on a large and diverse review set spanning nearly two decades and carries HIGH statistical confidence in its dimensions, but the score should be interpreted cautiously given the stark split between positive recent reviews and a long, well-documented history of serious complaints about billing practices, incomplete work, and unprofessional office conduct.

PJ's Plumbing presents a deeply divided picture across all four dimensions. Professionalism is the most contested dimension: while many reviewers praise responsiveness, friendliness, and prompt arrival — often citing specific technicians like Scott, Pete, Cole, and Erik — a substantial number of negative reviews describe the owner Paul as rude, condescending, and dismissive when disputes arise, dragging the score down significantly. Pricing is the weakest dimension, with multiple detailed, credible complaints about unexplained 'project billing,' charges for work not performed, rates far exceeding quoted amounts, and refusals to provide cost breakdowns — including reports filed with Wisconsin DATCP and Consumer Protection Services. Project completion is mixed: many jobs are described as completed quickly and correctly, but several reviews document incomplete work, warranty refusals, incorrect installations not remedied, no-shows after scheduling, and jobs left in worse condition than before. Experience scores moderately; individual technicians frequently receive praise for skill and knowledge, but there are credible accounts of incorrect installations, undertrained staff, and failure to diagnose problems correctly, preventing a higher score.

• SUSPECTED FAKE REVIEWS: Several reviews (notably the April 2025 and August 2024 cluster) are extremely brief, generic, and lack any specific detail ('Perfect services and perfect work done!', 'Best In town', 'Had one of the best plumbing service experiences till date', 'Very co operative plumber'). These appear to be low-effort, possibly inauthentic reviews and were given reduced weight in scoring.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The review beginning 'The guys at P.J.'s Plumbing are top-notch...' appears verbatim twice — once dated 2025-05-10 and once dated 2024-10-12. This was counted only once for scoring purposes.
• DUPLICATE CONTENT DETECTED: The review about a gas dryer valve leak ('Noticed a small gas leak during maintenance on a dryer...') appears to be a near-duplicate of the first review in the 2025-05-10 entry ('PJ's plumbing had someone out within 4 hours to replace the valve'). Treated as one mention.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS ARE SERIOUS AND SPECIFIC: Multiple reviewers filed formal complaints with Wisconsin DATCP and Consumer Protection Services regarding overcharging. One reviewer documented being charged $627.90 after being quoted $160/hr. Another was billed $3,045 for a water heater with no cost breakdown provided. Another was charged $896.70 for under 1.5 hours of work. These are not vague complaints — they include dollar amounts, dates, and regulatory filings.
• WARRANTY AND CALLBACK FAILURES: At least 5 reviews describe PJ's refusing to honor their own warranty or correct their own installation errors without additional charges. This is a significant pattern affecting both professionalism and project completion scores.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most negative and detailed reviews span 2021–2024, meaning they are recent and highly relevant. Positive reviews are spread across all years but the recent positive reviews (2024–2025) include several suspected low-quality or fake entries, reducing their reliability.
• OWNER CONDUCT PATTERN: Multiple independent reviewers describe the owner Paul specifically as rude, dismissive, threatening liens, hanging up on customers, and refusing to negotiate on disputed bills. This is a consistent behavioral pattern across many years and multiple reviewers, not isolated incidents.
• ONE REVIEW (dated 2024-06-09, 1-star, about driving behavior and a restaurant) appears to be a dispute unrelated to plumbing services and was excluded from dimension scoring.

This WW Score is based on a large volume of reviews (63 total) spanning over a decade, with HIGH mention counts across all four dimensions, making the score statistically reliable — however, the presence of suspected fake positive reviews and a strong pattern of serious, specific, and formally-reported negative experiences means the true service quality is likely at or below the calculated score, and prospective customers should exercise significant caution.

This is a franchise brand with hundreds of locations, and the review pool reflects wildly inconsistent quality across different operators and technicians. Professionalism scores are dragged down significantly by a large volume of reviews describing rude, condescending, or outright hostile technicians and office staff, though many positive reviews praise specific named technicians as courteous and professional. Pricing is the most damaging dimension: an enormous number of reviews describe a bait-and-switch pattern where a low advertised rate (often $49) is used to gain entry, followed by aggressive upselling to hydro-jetting, camera inspections, and pipe replacement at prices reviewers consistently describe as two to ten times market rate. Project completion is mixed — many jobs are completed satisfactorily and quickly, but a significant minority of reviews describe incomplete work, warranty refusals, no-shows, and jobs that required a second company to actually fix the problem. Experience scores reflect genuine skill from certain technicians but are undermined by repeated accounts of misdiagnosis, fabricated damage, and work that failed within days or weeks.

• STRONG BAIT-AND-SWITCH PATTERN DETECTED: Dozens of independent reviews across multiple years and locations describe an identical pattern — low advertised price ($49 drain special) used to gain entry, followed by claims the snake cannot work and escalating upsells to hydro-jetting ($500-$1200), camera inspection, and full pipe replacement ($3,000-$15,000+). This is a systemic business practice, not isolated incidents.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — POSITIVE SIDE: A notable cluster of short, generic 5-star reviews with no detail (e.g., 'Good experience', 'Great service!', 'You guys great!', blank text with 5 stars) appear throughout the dataset, many dated in close proximity. These lack specificity and are consistent with review padding. Confidence in the positive score pool is reduced accordingly.
• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: Multiple reviews appear to be exact duplicates submitted on the same or adjacent dates (e.g., identical text for 'Many other contractors proposed to snake the sewer line', 'Very Pleased with results', 'Did a great job excellent work', 'Prompt, polite, professional', etc.). This inflates the apparent review count and may indicate manipulation.
• MULTI-LOCATION FRANCHISE ISSUE: Reviews clearly reference dozens of different geographic locations (Sacramento, Orange County, Reno, Framingham MA, Spartanburg SC, Baton Rouge, etc.) and different named technicians. This is not a single contractor — it is a franchise brand. Scores reflect the aggregate brand, not any single operator. Individual location quality varies enormously.
• SERIOUS FRAUD ALLEGATIONS: Multiple reviews allege criminal-level conduct including: charging for work not performed, fabricating damage on camera footage, partnering with restoration companies (Bolmer Restoration named repeatedly) to generate fraudulent insurance claims, opening credit cards in customers' names, placing mechanics liens on homes, and targeting elderly and vulnerable customers. One review references a revoked NV business license and cancelled contractor license.
• WARRANTY REFUSAL PATTERN: Multiple reviews describe the company refusing to honor stated warranties when problems recurred within the warranty period, often citing new reasons to charge again.
• NO-SHOW AND SCHEDULING FAILURE PATTERN: A significant number of reviews describe confirmed appointments where technicians never arrived and calls were not returned, sometimes leaving customers without water or sewage service for days.
• RECENCY NOTE: The review dataset spans from approximately 2010 to June 2025. Reviews from the past 12 months (mid-2024 to mid-2025) show a continued mix of strong positives for specific named technicians and serious negatives for pricing and scam-like upselling, suggesting the pattern has not materially changed. More recent reviews were weighted slightly higher in scoring.

This WW Score of 58.2 should be treated with MODERATE-TO-LOW trust as a hiring signal: while it accurately reflects the deeply polarized nature of this franchise brand, the score is based on a mixed pool that includes suspected fake positive reviews, duplicate submissions, and reviews from dozens of geographically distinct franchise locations — meaning the score does not reliably predict the quality of any single local operator, and the systemic pricing and upselling complaints documented across hundreds of independent reviews represent a material risk that any prospective customer should investigate carefully before engaging this company.

The review corpus spans nearly two decades and reveals a deeply polarized customer base. Professionalism scores are dragged down significantly by repeated accounts of rude, condescending, or dishonest technicians, no-shows, and poor communication from management, even though a meaningful subset of reviewers praised individual plumbers as courteous and punctual. Pricing is the single most damaging dimension: an overwhelming majority of reviewers — across all time periods and locations — explicitly describe charges as exorbitant, far above market rate, and in several cases potentially predatory, particularly toward elderly or first-time homeowners. Project completion is mixed: many jobs were finished satisfactorily, but a notable number of reviews describe repeat failures, unresolved callbacks, abandoned work, failed inspections, and warranty disputes. Technical experience is similarly split, with some reviewers praising problem-solving ability while others describe sloppy workmanship, incorrect installations, and technicians who misdiagnosed problems that other plumbers resolved cheaply and quickly.

• PRICING CONCERN: Pricing complaints are the single most consistent theme across the entire review set, spanning 2005–2024, with dozens of reviewers independently describing charges as 2x–5x market rate. This is a strong and credible pattern, not an outlier.
• PREDATORY PRICING PATTERN: Multiple reviews describe a specific pattern of verbal low quotes followed by significantly higher charges on final invoices, upselling unnecessary work, and targeting vulnerable customers (elderly, emergency situations, first-time homeowners).
• FAKE/THIN REVIEW FLAG: Approximately 12 reviews consist solely of 'unknown' text with a star rating and provide zero usable data. These were excluded from scoring. Their presence inflates the raw review count and may represent padding.
• FAKE/THIN REVIEW FLAG: Several 5-star reviews contain only a period ('.') as text with no detail. These were excluded from scoring as they provide no verifiable information.
• GENERIC PRAISE FLAG: A cluster of short 5-star reviews (e.g., 'excellent very friendly', 'Very professional very friendly') lack any specifics and follow a suspiciously similar pattern. Confidence in these is reduced.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent detailed negative review (October 2024) describes the same predatory pricing and billing opacity patterns seen in reviews going back to 2006, suggesting these are systemic and ongoing issues rather than isolated incidents.
• MULTI-LOCATION ISSUE: Reviews appear to reference multiple Ben Franklin Plumbing franchise locations across different states (Florida, Ohio, New Jersey, etc.). Scores reflect the aggregate brand experience but individual franchise quality may vary significantly.
• MANAGEMENT CONDUCT: Multiple reviews specifically call out owner-level or management-level misconduct including threats, yelling, hanging up on customers, and refusing to honor warranties — this is a serious flag beyond technician-level issues.
• WORKMANSHIP FAILURES: At least 4 reviews describe installations that failed shortly after completion, including a gas leak from incorrect installation, cracked pipes, failed sump pumps, and leaking faucets — indicating quality control issues at the technical level.

This WW Score is based on 88 reviews with a large proportion containing substantive detail, spanning nearly 20 years, and the HIGH confidence rating across all four dimensions reflects strong evidentiary support — however, the multi-franchise nature of the reviews means this score represents a brand-level aggregate and prospective customers should seek location-specific reviews before hiring.

Kettle Moraine exhibits significant inconsistency across service quality and pricing practices. While professionalism and technical expertise receive moderate-to-good marks (particularly for courteous technicians and knowledgeable service reps), the company is severely hampered by aggressive pricing practices, hidden charges, and questionable diagnostic tactics. Multiple reviews document price gouging (36% parts markup, $600 misdiagnosis later reduced to $140, $462 diagnostic fees for simple capacitor replacement), inconsistent messaging about free estimates, and sales-driven recommendations for unnecessary equipment. Project completion issues include incomplete work (furnace not moved as quoted, AC unit half-filled with refrigerant) and poor follow-up. Positive reviews tend to be older (2015–2019) or focus on individual technician courtesy rather than overall value.

• PRICING PATTERN: Multiple independent reviews (2024, 2020, 2019) document aggressive upselling, hidden diagnostic charges, and price gouging. This is not isolated—it appears systemic.
• DIAGNOSTIC INTEGRITY: At least 3 reviews describe questionable diagnostic practices: deliberately turning off thermostat to justify $600 repair, misdiagnosing a shorted connector as a $2000 control board issue, and charging $320 diagnostic fee for a unit that was already working.
• INCOMPLETE WORK: Two reviews document incomplete installations (furnace not relocated as quoted, AC unit not properly charged with refrigerant).
• MESSAGING INCONSISTENCY: Conflicting statements about 'free estimates'—one employee said they honor Lowes pricing; another said free estimates only apply to new HVAC systems, not service calls.
• RECENCY BIAS: Positive reviews cluster in 2015–2019 and 2021. Most recent reviews (2024, 2023) are negative, suggesting service quality or practices may have deteriorated.
• FOLLOW-UP FAILURES: Multiple reviews cite failure to return calls, no follow-up after initial diagnosis, and poor responsiveness to customer concerns.

This WW Score should be treated with caution. While based on 20 reviews with adequate mention counts, the data reveals a company with deeply polarized customer experiences: older reviews and those praising individual technicians are positive, but recent reviews and those addressing pricing/diagnostics are overwhelmingly negative. The pattern of pricing complaints across multiple independent reviews suggests systemic issues rather than isolated incidents. A potential customer should prioritize recent reviews and pricing transparency before engaging this contractor.