Find Nearby Plumbers In Milwaukee, Wisconsin

With only two reviews, the data is too limited to draw reliable conclusions. The positive review from 2020 highlights strong professionalism, responsiveness, and exceptional pricing — Tom came out quickly, undercut competitors significantly, and even charged less than his original quote. However, the negative review from 2018 raises a serious technical concern: a missing dielectric union between copper and steel pipes, which is a fundamental installation error that led to premature water heater failure. Compounding this, the contractor allegedly failed to respond to multiple follow-up calls, which is a significant mark against both professionalism and project completion. The conflicting signals across just two reviews make it impossible to establish a trustworthy overall score.

• Only 2 reviews total — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• The 2018 negative review describes a technically incorrect installation (missing dielectric union between copper and steel pipe), which is a basic plumbing code and best-practice requirement. This suggests a potential gap in technical knowledge or quality control.
• The contractor allegedly did not return multiple phone calls after a faulty installation, which is a serious responsiveness and accountability concern.
• The two reviews are separated by over 2 years (2018 and 2020), making it difficult to assess consistency or improvement over time.
• The positive review is now over 4 years old (2020) and the negative review is over 6 years old (2018). Neither review falls within the past 12 months, significantly reducing their relevance to current performance.

This score report is based on only 2 reviews, both older than 4 years, and should be considered highly unreliable — no meaningful conclusions about current contractor quality can be drawn from this data alone.

The two reviews present a sharply divided picture. The 2013 review is highly detailed and damning: the crew destroyed a toilet and refused to take financial responsibility, offered only $20 toward a $200+ replacement, charged full rate for a job they damaged, and one plumber later left an incoherent, profanity-laced voicemail — all of which severely drags down professionalism, project completion, and experience scores. The 2011 review is brief and positive, praising professionalism, pricing, and responsiveness, but lacks any specific detail. Because only two reviews exist and they directly contradict each other, no reliable WW Score can be produced. The negative review is substantially more detailed and credible, and it also generated a BBB complaint that went unanswered, which further weighs against the contractor.

• Only 2 reviews total — far below the minimum threshold of 3 for a reliable WW Score calculation.
• The 2011 positive review is extremely brief and generic with no specific details, raising concerns about its evidentiary value.
• The 2013 negative review is highly detailed and corroborated by a BBB complaint filing, lending it significantly more credibility.
• Both reviews are over 10 years old (2011 and 2013) — no recent data exists. Current contractor quality is entirely unknown.
• A BBB complaint was filed per the negative review and reportedly went unanswered — this is a serious flag regarding accountability.
• Alleged unprofessional after-hours voicemail containing profanities was reported — if accurate, this represents a severe professionalism violation.

This WW Score report should not be trusted for decision-making purposes: only 2 reviews exist, both are over a decade old, they directly contradict each other, and the sole detailed review describes serious misconduct including property damage, financial evasion, and an unanswered BBB complaint.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 2 reviews analyzed. Both reviews document severe professionalism failures including disrespectful behavior, use of racial slurs, and unprofessional conduct. One review explicitly states poor quality work and incomplete job requiring another plumber. No pricing information provided in either review. Data is too limited and too recent (2021) to establish a reliable WW Score.

• CRITICAL: Both reviews document use of racial slurs and severe disrespectful behavior toward customers. This represents serious professional misconduct.
• Only 2 reviews available — insufficient sample size for reliable scoring (minimum 3 required).
• Reviews are from 2021 (2-3 years old) — no recent data available to assess current performance.
• No pricing dimension data available across any reviews.
• One review explicitly states incomplete work requiring another plumber to finish the job.

This assessment cannot be considered reliable due to insufficient review volume (only 2 reviews) and age of data (2021). However, the documented pattern of racial slurs and disrespectful behavior represents serious professional misconduct that warrants extreme caution regardless of sample size.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 2 reviews were analyzed, which falls below the minimum threshold of 3 reviews needed for a reliable WW Score calculation. The reviews present sharply contradictory experiences: one 1-star review from 2018 citing rude communication and technical inadequacy, and one 5-star review from 2015 praising speed and cleanliness. Both reviews are older than 12 months, limiting recency relevance. The extreme polarity and small sample size prevent confident scoring.

• INSUFFICIENT SAMPLE SIZE: Only 2 reviews analyzed; minimum 3 required for reliable WW Score calculation.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Both reviews are older than 12 months (2015 and 2018); no recent data available.
• EXTREME POLARITY: Reviews are contradictory (1-star vs 5-star) with no middle-ground reviews to establish pattern.
• LIMITED MENTIONS: Each dimension mentioned in only 2 reviews, resulting in LIMITED confidence across all scored dimensions.

This analysis cannot produce a reliable WW Score due to insufficient review volume (n=2) and age of reviews (7+ years old). Any scoring would be speculative and should not be used for decision-making.

Only two reviews exist, making any scoring highly unreliable. The negative review is particularly serious, describing multiple plumbing failures — pin holes in valves, copper piping defects, and poor connections — resulting in over $20,000 in damage on a new home build, with the contractor refusing accountability. The positive review praises customer service and honesty across three repeat jobs but provides no technical detail to counter the workmanship concerns raised. The stark contrast between the two reviews and the severity of the failure described in the 1-star review pulls all dimension scores down significantly. All scores should be treated with extreme caution given the minimal sample size.

• Only 2 reviews total — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Both reviews are older than 1 year (2017 and 2018) — no recent data available to assess current performance.
• The 1-star review describes serious structural plumbing failures causing $20,000+ in property damage, which is a significant safety and quality red flag.
• Contractor reportedly denied responsibility for documented failures — this is a major accountability concern.
• The 5-star review is positive but lacks specific technical detail, limiting its ability to offset the severity of the negative review.
• With only one review per sentiment polarity, no pattern analysis is possible and scores carry very low evidentiary weight.

This WW Score report is highly unreliable due to only 2 reviews being available, both of which are over 6 years old, and the presence of a serious unresolved workmanship complaint — prospective customers should seek significantly more current and numerous reviews before making a hiring decision.

Both reviews speak positively about Eddie's responsiveness and follow-through, with one reviewer noting same-day service and urgency, and the other describing a multi-year relationship built on trust. Pricing is mentioned explicitly as 'very fair' in one review, supporting a modest positive pricing score. Project completion is supported by references to repairs being completed, a successful refurbished unit recommendation, and the contractor standing by his installations. Experience is reflected in Eddie's ability to diagnose a failing dishwasher over time and recommend an appropriate solution, though the technical depth described is limited. All scores are conservative due to the very small review sample.

• Only 2 reviews provided — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Both reviews are dated 2018–2019, meaning all data is more than 5 years old. Recent performance cannot be assessed.
• Review sample is too small to detect fake review patterns, but no obvious red flags such as identical phrasing were observed.
• All scores carry LIMITED confidence and should be treated as directional only, not definitive.

This score profile is based on only 2 reviews, both over 5 years old, making it insufficient to reliably assess current contractor performance — treat all dimension scores as preliminary indicators only.