Find Nearby Plumbers In Oshkosh, Wisconsin

Koch Plumbing demonstrates strong overall performance driven by consistently professional conduct, reliable project completion, and solid technical expertise. Professionalism is the standout dimension with 11 mentions highlighting punctuality, friendly demeanor, communication, and responsiveness. Project completion is equally strong with 10 mentions confirming jobs finished on time and to specification. Pricing shows more variability—while emergency rates and most quotes are praised as reasonable, one 2016 review explicitly cited hidden costs and higher-than-anticipated expenses, preventing a higher score. The contractor's skill level and problem-solving ability are well-documented across multiple reviews. Most reviews are older than 12 months, which slightly limits recency confidence.

• Two reviews contain only 'unknown' text with 5-star ratings (2015-06-22, 2014-06-30)—these provide no usable data and suggest possible placeholder or incomplete entries
• Review dataset is heavily skewed toward older reviews (13 of 15 from 2014–2018); only 2 reviews from 2020 or later, limiting assessment of current service quality
• One negative pricing signal in 2016 review mentions 'hidden costs' and materials markup, contrasting with otherwise positive pricing feedback; this suggests pricing transparency may occasionally be an issue
• High concentration of 5-star ratings (12 of 13 usable reviews) with limited critical detail in some reviews could indicate selection bias, though specific details in longer reviews appear genuine

This WW Score of 87.2 is reliable for assessing historical performance, but should be treated with caution regarding current service delivery due to the age of most reviews (2013–2018); recent performance data is insufficient to confirm whether current standards match the documented track record.

D&S Plumbing has an overwhelmingly positive review history spanning nearly two decades, with the vast majority of customers praising punctuality, responsiveness, friendliness, and technical competence across a wide range of plumbing jobs. Pricing is consistently described as reasonable, fair, and competitive — with multiple reviewers noting they beat competitor quotes significantly, and at least one technician offering a discounted rate based on a customer's financial situation. Project completion scores are strong but tempered by a small but credible cluster of negative reviews describing abandoned work, missed commitments, billing disputes, and at least one serious incident where a plumber's error caused flooding and required insurance litigation. Experience scores are high, with numerous reviewers citing technicians who diagnosed problems accurately, explained work clearly, and resolved complex issues efficiently. The negative reviews, while a minority, are specific and detailed enough to prevent top-tier scores in project completion and professionalism.

• NEGATIVE REVIEW — SERIOUS WORKMANSHIP FAILURE (2022): One reviewer reported that a plumber failed to cap a pipe, causing the home to flood. D&S reportedly declined to accept responsibility, forcing the customer's insurer (Allstate) to pursue legal action and settle. This is a significant liability and integrity concern.
• NEGATIVE REVIEW — BILLING DISPUTE (2021): A customer alleged being charged for 3 hours of labor when camera footage showed technicians were only on-site for 1.5 hours at $120/hour. This is a credible and specific fraud allegation that materially impacts the pricing and professionalism scores.
• NEGATIVE REVIEW — ABANDONED JOB / SCOPE DISPUTE (2024): A commercial customer reported D&S failed to meet a deadline critical to a business inspection, completed only half the quoted job, then claimed the remainder was out of scope — effectively doubling the price. They also left a mess. This is a serious project completion failure.
• NEGATIVE REVIEW — UNRESPONSIVE / NO-SHOW (2017): A customer reported never hearing back from D&S after initial contact and had to hire another plumber for a sump pump replacement.
• NEGATIVE REVIEW — ABANDONED JOB (2014): A customer reported being told daily that the plumber would arrive, then receiving no further contact for over a month and a half, leaving a sewer line unrepaired.
• NEGATIVE REVIEW — POOR COMMUNICATION / SCHEDULING (2010): A customer reported being given vague scheduling commitments, receiving no callbacks, and ultimately hiring another plumber.
• NEGATIVE REVIEW — POSSIBLE DISCRIMINATION CONCERN (2023): A reviewer reported being told D&S was 'not accepting new clients' immediately after spelling their non-American name, after initially being offered an appointment. This is a reputational concern worth noting.
• NEGATIVE REVIEW — OFFICE RUDENESS (2018): One reviewer noted the office staff was 'quite rude' while praising the technician's work quality.
• NEGATIVE REVIEW — DANGEROUS MISDIAGNOSIS (2019): A technician reportedly told a customer nothing could be done about a sewer gas smell and suggested bleach. Another company later confirmed it was toxic sewage gas. This is a serious safety and competence concern.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews (approximately 60+) are from 2025 and 2024, which is positive for recency weighting. However, several of the most serious negative reviews (flooding incident, billing fraud allegation, dangerous misdiagnosis) span 2019–2024, indicating these are not isolated historical anomalies.
• FAKE REVIEW AWARENESS: A small number of reviews are extremely brief and generic (e.g., 'Great service great people', 'Awesome and honest', 'unknown', blank text with 5 stars). These contribute minimal signal. No large-scale coordinated fake review pattern was detected, but 3–4 reviews with no substantive content were excluded from dimension scoring.
• SCORE MODERATION APPLIED: Due to the presence of multiple specific, credible negative reviews covering billing fraud, workmanship failure causing property damage, abandoned jobs, and a dangerous misdiagnosis, scores have been conservatively moderated downward from what the volume of positive reviews alone would suggest.

This WW Score is based on a large and diverse review set spanning 2006–2025 with strong recency, and is considered moderately reliable — the high volume of positive reviews is genuine and consistent, but several specific and credible negative reviews involving serious issues (flooding caused by technician error, billing disputes, abandoned jobs, and a dangerous misdiagnosis) introduce meaningful uncertainty, particularly around project completion and professionalism.

Watters Plumbing demonstrates strong overall performance with a WW Score of 81.2, driven by consistently high marks in professionalism, experience, and project completion. The company excels in punctuality, communication, and technical skill, with numerous customers praising specific technicians (Dylan, Cletus, Al, Brian, Jared) for their knowledge and courteous demeanor. However, pricing emerges as a notable weakness, with multiple customers citing high costs, unexpected charges, and payment disputes. Several significant negative reviews document serious issues including poor craftsmanship in new construction, unresponsive management, and miscommunication about pricing terms. While the majority of recent reviews (2024-2025) are highly positive, older reviews reveal persistent quality control and customer service inconsistencies.

• PRICING CONCERNS: Multiple reviews (2024-2025) report overpricing, unexpected charges, and aggressive payment collection practices. One customer reported a $1,500 quote vs. competitor's $1,300 for identical work. Payment disputes and down-payment demands appear in at least 3 reviews.
• QUALITY CONTROL INCONSISTENCY: Significant disparity between positive and negative reviews suggests inconsistent workmanship. A 5-year construction review (2024-06-09) documents multiple defects: missing insulation, failed backfill, exposed tubing, failed sump pump, failed lift station pump, and improper drain installation. Another construction review (2018-12-18) reports under-cabinet leaks, slow drains, and refusal to address issues.
• RESPONSIVENESS ISSUES: Multiple reviews document poor follow-up and communication failures. One 2018 review reports 2-month delay with no callback after initial consultation. Another 2020 review reports cancellation miscommunication and emergency service denial due to staff hunting.
• MANAGEMENT RESPONSIVENESS: Several reviews indicate owner/management does not return calls or follow up on complaints, particularly regarding estimate delays and service issues.
• EMPTY/MINIMAL REVIEWS: 4 reviews contain no text (only ratings of 5.0 or 4.0), reducing data quality slightly.
• RECENCY BIAS NOTED: Most recent reviews (2024-2025) are overwhelmingly positive (5-star), while older reviews (2008-2020) show more balanced criticism. This may reflect improved operations or selection bias in recent review submissions.
• TECHNICIAN VARIABILITY: Reviews frequently praise specific technicians by name (Dylan, Cletus, Al, Brian, Jared, Phil, Rod) while criticizing unnamed technicians, suggesting significant performance variation across staff.

This WW Score of 81.2 is reliable for recent work (2024-2025) where professionalism and experience are consistently strong, but customers should be cautious about pricing expectations and should obtain detailed written quotes with clear payment terms before committing. The company's track record on complex projects and new construction work shows quality control concerns that warrant careful vetting and detailed contracts.

Maverick Pumping demonstrates strong professionalism across multiple reviews, with consistent praise for punctuality, responsiveness, and courteous service. Project completion is reliable, with jobs finished promptly and efficiently without reported issues. Technical knowledge and problem-solving ability are evident in customer descriptions of workers explaining pipe conditions and handling complex situations. However, pricing is never discussed in any review, and the experience dimension is supported by only two explicit mentions of skill and knowledge. The score reflects solid performance on documented dimensions, though limited data on cost-value prevents a higher overall rating.

• Review #2 contains only a period with no substantive content—treated as unusable data
• Reviews span 11 years (2009–2020); only 1 review from past 12 months, limiting recency assessment
• No pricing or value-for-money feedback in any review—cannot assess Price Friendly dimension
• Small sample size (3 usable reviews) limits statistical confidence; all reviews are 5-star with positive tone, though each contains specific details that reduce suspicion of fabrication

This score should be treated with caution due to the small sample size (3 usable reviews) and lack of recent data; however, the reviews contain specific, credible details that support the ratings for professionalism and project completion. The complete absence of pricing feedback is a notable gap.

Thomas Plumbing demonstrates strong overall performance with particular strengths in project completion and professionalism. The company excels at responsiveness, same-day/next-day service, and technical competency across multiple technicians (David, Dean, Cody, Patrick, Jerry, etc.). However, pricing emerges as a notable weakness, with multiple complaints about bait-and-switch tactics, inflated labor charges, and quotes that don't match final bills. While most recent reviews (2024-2025) are highly positive, older reviews reveal recurring issues with pricing transparency and occasional quality control problems. The company shows good recovery practices when issues are escalated to ownership.

• PRICING CONCERNS: Multiple explicit complaints about dishonest pricing practices including bait-and-switch quotes (2023, 2020), inflated labor hour billing (2020), and quote discrepancies. This pattern appears across different time periods and suggests systemic pricing issues rather than isolated incidents.
• QUALITY CONTROL INCONSISTENCY: Several reviews document poor workmanship requiring callbacks or rework (loose faucet installation 2020, failed toilet installation 2019, incomplete reverse osmosis work 2014). Quality appears highly dependent on which technician is assigned.
• RECENCY BIAS: Reviews from 2024-2025 are overwhelmingly 5-star with minimal detail, while older reviews (2010-2020) show more balanced feedback with specific complaints. Recent reviews lack the specificity and critical detail of older reviews, suggesting possible review selection bias.
• OWNER BEHAVIOR CONCERNS: Multiple reviews document defensive or dismissive responses from ownership when quality issues are raised (2020 faucet installation, 2019 toilet installation, 2011 jetted tub). Owner initially denied workmanship issues before eventually conceding.
• INCONSISTENT SERVICE DELIVERY: No-show appointment (2018), multiple callback requirements (2020), and technician knowledge gaps (2014) indicate operational inconsistencies despite strong recent performance.
• GENERIC RECENT REVIEWS: Several 2024-2025 reviews contain minimal detail or are entirely blank, reducing confidence in their authenticity.

This WW Score of 78.2 should be treated with moderate caution. While recent reviews (past 12 months) are uniformly positive and support a higher score, the company's documented history of pricing disputes, quality control issues, and defensive ownership responses suggests customers should verify pricing in writing before work begins and carefully inspect completed work. The score reflects strong technical capability and responsiveness but is tempered by legitimate concerns about transparency and consistency.

Roto-Rooter receives consistently strong praise for technician professionalism, friendliness, and communication, with hundreds of reviews citing courteous, knowledgeable, and prompt service. However, pricing is a major and recurring pain point: dozens of reviewers explicitly describe charges as excessive, shocking, or outright predatory, with specific complaints ranging from $400+ for a single drain snake to $1,600+ for incomplete work, significantly dragging down the pricing dimension. Project completion is mixed — the majority of jobs are completed successfully and often same-day, but a meaningful minority of reviews describe incomplete work, no-shows, failed repairs requiring follow-up by other companies, and jobs left in worse condition than found. Technician skill and experience scores well overall, but is undermined by a notable subset of reviews describing misdiagnosis, incompetent repairs, and technicians who appeared uncertain or unqualified for the task at hand.

• PRICING CONCERN: Pricing is the single most negatively reviewed dimension. Dozens of reviews across multiple years and locations explicitly cite charges of $400–$1,600+ for basic drain cleaning or simple repairs as excessive, with multiple reviewers stating they found the same work done for 50–75% less elsewhere.
• PROJECT COMPLETION FAILURES: A significant number of reviews describe jobs that were not completed, required multiple return visits, or were left in worse condition. Several reviews describe technicians abandoning jobs mid-work, failing to reconnect appliances, or leaving hazardous conditions.
• NO-SHOW AND SCHEDULING FAILURES: A recurring pattern of no-shows, missed appointment windows without notification, and poor dispatcher communication appears across multiple years and locations. This is a systemic operational issue.
• MISDIAGNOSIS PATTERN: Multiple reviews describe technicians recommending expensive repairs (e.g., $3,000–$10,000 excavations) that were later found unnecessary by other plumbers who resolved the issue quickly and cheaply.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK — MODERATE: A cluster of reviews dated 2025-06-07 and 2025-06-02 share very similar short-form praise structures (e.g., 'Justin was awesome', 'Great Job Mo!', 'Justin saved our lives today!') with minimal detail. Several appear to be from the same franchise location and may reflect solicited or incentivized reviews. Confidence in the high-end scores is slightly reduced as a result.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Approximately 60–70 reviews contain no text and only a star rating (mostly 5-star). These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews with substantive text are from 2024–2025 and are within the past 12 months. Older reviews (2013–2020) show similar patterns of both praise and complaints, suggesting these issues are long-standing and not improving significantly over time.
• GEOGRAPHIC VARIANCE: Reviews appear to span many different Roto-Rooter franchise locations across the US. Scores reflect aggregate performance across all locations, which may mask significant variation between individual franchises.

This WW Score is based on a very large review set (600+ reviews) with HIGH confidence across all four dimensions, making the aggregate score statistically robust; however, the score should be interpreted cautiously because it aggregates performance across many distinct franchise locations, and individual location quality varies dramatically — some franchises consistently earn 5-star praise while others generate repeated complaints about pricing, no-shows, and incomplete work.