Find Nearby Plumbers In Waukesha, Wisconsin

Badger Plumbing earns strong marks across most dimensions, with consistent praise for responsiveness, reasonable pricing, and technical skill across dozens of reviews spanning nearly a decade. The majority of customers highlight prompt callbacks, friendly demeanor, and fair rates, which anchor the professionalism and pricing scores. However, two serious negative reviews — one involving an unreturned deposit and abandoned work, and another involving a repair that failed within six months with no warranty follow-through — meaningfully drag down the project completion and professionalism scores. A third mixed review flags the use of an inexperienced technician billed at full rate without disclosure, further tempering the experience score. These are not minor complaints and represent genuine reliability risks that prevent higher scores despite the volume of positive feedback.

• SERIOUS FLAG — Project Abandonment: One reviewer (2019-05-30) reports that Nick accepted a 10% deposit for a sewer line job, never returned to complete the work, never returned the deposit, and required legal action. This is a significant trust and completion concern.
• SERIOUS FLAG — Warranty Non-Compliance: One reviewer (2023-01-24) reports that a toilet repair assembly failed within 6 months and Badger refused to honor the work without charging a new service call fee, indicating inconsistent warranty/callback policy.
• MODERATE FLAG — Ghost Communication: One reviewer (2019-11-30) reports that Nick promised to inspect a water heater issue and then went completely silent despite repeated texts and calls. This is a pattern concern when combined with the deposit abandonment review.
• MODERATE FLAG — Inexperienced Technician Billed at Full Rate: One reviewer (2015-10-21) describes being sent an apparent rookie who took far longer than expected and lacked basic knowledge, while being charged a full hourly rate with no prior disclosure.
• NOTE — Review Span: Reviews range from 2014 to 2024. The majority of reviews are older than 12 months (cutoff: mid-2023). Only 2 reviews fall within the most recent 12-month window, limiting confidence in current service quality.
• NOTE — Possible Inconsistency in Service Quality: Multiple technicians are mentioned (Nick, Mike, Tom). Negative reviews cluster around Nick specifically, while Mike and Tom receive predominantly positive feedback. This may indicate uneven quality across team members rather than a uniform service standard.
• NOTE — No suspected fake reviews detected. Reviews contain specific details, varied language, named individuals, and include both positive and negative experiences, which supports authenticity.

This WW Score is based on a solid volume of 33 reviews with high mention counts across all four dimensions, but should be interpreted with caution due to three substantive negative reviews involving abandoned work, a retained deposit, and a failed warranty response — issues that represent material risks beyond what the numerical score alone conveys.

Plumbing Solutions has a large and broadly positive review base, with the majority of customers praising responsiveness, punctuality, and technician knowledge across many named individuals including Jacob, Otto, Ed, Andres, Brian, and others. However, a meaningful minority of negative reviews — spanning the full date range of the dataset — consistently cite serious concerns: significantly inflated pricing (multiple reviewers report quotes 2–10x higher than competitors), failure to follow up or return calls, incomplete or failed repairs requiring callbacks, and in several cases rude or threatening behavior from owners or staff. The pricing dimension is the weakest, dragged down by numerous credible, specific complaints about overcharging for simple jobs and lack of pricing transparency. Project completion scores moderately well overall but is tempered by documented cases of abandoned work, unresolved permits, and repairs that failed within days or weeks. Professionalism scores reflect a split picture: many technicians are praised warmly, but office and owner conduct generates a recurring pattern of serious complaints.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: Multiple reviews appear to be exact or near-exact duplicates posted on the same or adjacent dates (e.g., two identical reviews for 'Jake was excellent' on 2025-06-02, two identical reviews for 'Matt installed a new kitchen sink disposal' on 2025-05-19, two identical reviews for 'Enrique was exceptionally helpful' on 2025-05-19, two identical reviews for 'I am a contractor remodeling a bathroom' on 2025-06-02, two identical reviews for 'Another excellent experience with Plumbing Solutions' on 2025-06-03, two identical reviews for 'I never met him' on 2025-05-26, two identical reviews for 'Very Professional, answered questions when asked' on 2025-05-26, two identical reviews for 'Otto Maldonado and his crew' on 2025-10-28, two identical reviews for 'Otto with PLUMBING SOLUTIONS' on 2025-06-23, two identical reviews for 'Highly recommend Plumbing Solutions. Jacob is punctual' on different dates). This pattern of duplicated 5-star reviews is a strong indicator of review manipulation or platform aggregation artifacts and reduces confidence in the positive review pool.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Approximately 20+ reviews contain no text and only a 5-star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data but inflate the apparent star average.
• PRICING CONCERNS — CREDIBLE AND SPECIFIC: Multiple independent reviewers across different years and locations cite specific dollar amounts that appear grossly inflated compared to competitor quotes: $1,200 estimate for a garbage disposal and snake vs. $100 actual fix; $1,500+ estimate for a P-trap vs. $300–400 actual; $670 for a toilet reset with no new toilet; $520 for a $10 part and 15 minutes of work; $3,500 tankless water heater at 2x+ retail markup; $1,045 for 4 feet of pipe. These are not vague complaints — they are specific, detailed, and corroborated across many reviewers.
• OWNER/MANAGEMENT CONDUCT: Multiple reviews across different years describe the owner or management as rude, threatening, or dismissive when complaints were raised. One reviewer describes being shouted at and threatened with a lien; another describes the owner threatening to 'come settle it in person'; another describes being told 'stop the dramatics and pay the bill.' This is a recurring pattern, not an isolated incident.
• FOLLOW-UP AND COMMUNICATION FAILURES: A recurring theme in negative reviews is failure to return calls, respond to messages, or follow through on scheduled appointments. This spans from 2012 through 2025, suggesting a systemic issue rather than isolated incidents.
• INCOMPLETE OR FAILED REPAIRS: Several reviews document repairs that failed within days or weeks, with the company then refusing to honor warranties or return to fix the issue without additional charges. One reviewer documents a $1,300 repair that did not fix the problem, followed by a demand for $435 more.
• RECENCY NOTE: The dataset spans from 2005 to June 2025. Reviews from 2025 and 2024 are given higher weight. Negative patterns (pricing, communication failures, incomplete work) appear consistently across all time periods, suggesting these are not historical issues that have been resolved.
• AGGREGATION NOTE: This review set appears to aggregate reviews from multiple platforms and possibly multiple business entities operating under the 'Plumbing Solutions' name across different geographic regions (references to Smyrna, Dedham MA, Wichita, Nashville, Chicago, California, etc.). Scores should be interpreted with caution as they may reflect more than one business.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large review volume, but the score itself should be treated with caution given confirmed duplicate reviews, strong evidence of pricing manipulation complaints, recurring owner conduct issues, and the likelihood that this dataset aggregates reviews from multiple distinct business entities operating under the same or similar name.

Works Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism and technical expertise, with technicians consistently praised for punctuality, courtesy, and knowledge. However, the company is significantly hampered by widespread pricing concerns—numerous reviews explicitly cite overcharging, inflated quotes, and aggressive upselling tactics that substantially undermine customer trust. Project completion is generally solid, though some callbacks and warranty issues are documented. The WW Score of 72.8 reflects a company with genuine technical competence undermined by serious business practice concerns, particularly around transparency and fair pricing.

• PRICING PATTERN: 42 reviews explicitly mention pricing issues. A consistent theme emerges: diagnostic fees ($49–$69), inflated labor rates (often 2–3x market rate), aggressive upselling to premium options, and vague itemization. Multiple customers report paying $400–$2,800 for jobs competitors completed for $70–$500. This is not isolated—it is systemic.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK - MODERATE: Approximately 15–20 reviews contain generic praise with minimal specifics ('Great experience,' 'Excellent service,' empty text fields with 5-star ratings). However, the majority of 5-star reviews include detailed narratives with technician names and specific work descriptions, suggesting these are authentic. The generic reviews may inflate the score slightly but do not appear to be coordinated fake campaigns.
• NEGATIVE REVIEW CREDIBILITY: Negative reviews are highly detailed, specific, and often include follow-up interactions (e.g., disputes, warranty refusals, second opinions from other plumbers). These reviews cite concrete evidence: receipt comparisons, technician admissions of equipment failure, and corroborating quotes from competitors. This pattern suggests negative reviews are credible.
• WARRANTY & FOLLOW-UP ISSUES: Multiple reviews report difficulty obtaining promised warranties, delayed callbacks, and refusal to honor guarantees. One customer waited over a year for warranty paperwork; another was threatened with legal action after disputing a charge.
• RECENCY BIAS: Most recent reviews (2024–2025) show a mix of 5-star and 1-star ratings with consistent pricing complaints. Older reviews (2013–2016) are predominantly 5-star with fewer pricing mentions, suggesting either a shift in company practices or increased customer awareness of market rates.
• INCONSISTENT QUALITY: Some technicians (Dominic, Travis, Eduardo, Omar) receive repeated praise across multiple reviews. Others appear in isolated complaints. This suggests quality varies significantly by technician or that some staff may be more prone to aggressive upselling.

This WW Score of 72.8 is reliable and should be trusted. The score is based on 125 reviews with high confidence across all dimensions. However, the score masks a critical business practice issue: while technical competence is genuine (HIGH confidence), pricing practices are systematically problematic (HIGH confidence based on 42 explicit mentions). Customers should expect quality work but should obtain multiple quotes and scrutinize itemization carefully before engaging this company.

Premier Plumbing draws a large volume of positive reviews praising individual technicians by name for professionalism, communication, punctuality, and technical skill, which drives reasonably strong scores in professionalism and experience. However, a meaningful minority of negative reviews — spanning the full date range of the dataset — document serious concerns including missed appointments with no communication, incorrect diagnoses charged at full price, abandoned work, and billing disputes, which significantly tempers all dimension scores. Pricing is the weakest dimension: multiple reviewers across different years describe charges they considered excessive, hidden fees, bait-and-switch quoting, and charges for work not performed, pulling the pricing score well below average. Project completion is also mixed, with several reviews describing jobs left incomplete, recurring problems not resolved, and callbacks that were never honored. The overall WW Score of 72.1 reflects a company with genuine strengths in individual technician quality but persistent systemic issues in billing transparency, communication, and follow-through.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: Three reviews dated 2016-05-03 and 2016-05-05 are nearly word-for-word identical regarding a boiler/Rinnai/Trane installation. These appear to be duplicate submissions of the same review and were counted only once for scoring purposes.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Approximately 10 reviews contain no text and only a star rating (all 5-star). These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence per scoring rules.
• MULTI-ENTITY CONCERN: The review corpus appears to aggregate reviews from multiple businesses operating under similar 'Premier Plumbing' names across different geographic markets (Texas, California, South Carolina, Iowa, etc.). This significantly reduces the reliability of the aggregate score as it may not reflect a single contractor's performance.
• RECENCY NOTE: Negative reviews are distributed across the full date range (2006–2025), indicating that communication failures, no-shows, and billing disputes are not isolated incidents but recurring patterns over many years.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK — LOW-MODERATE: A subset of 5-star reviews from 2021–2023 use generic praise with no specifics ('Great company,' 'Always good service,' 'Excellent service'). These add minimal evidentiary weight and were not used to inflate dimension scores.
• ABANDONED WORK: At least two reviews explicitly describe technicians removing fixtures or cutting into walls and then not returning to complete the job, which is a serious project completion red flag.
• BILLING INTEGRITY CONCERNS: Multiple independent reviewers across different years describe being charged for work not performed, incorrect diagnoses billed as repairs, and prices significantly higher than competing quotes for identical work.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large review volume, but its reliability as a reflection of any single contractor is MODERATE at best, given strong evidence that reviews span multiple unrelated businesses operating under the 'Premier Plumbing' name across different states, and that recurring negative patterns in billing, communication, and project completion are documented consistently across many years.

Alexander Plumbing earns strong marks for technical skill and workmanship, with numerous reviewers praising knowledgeable technicians like Paul, Adam, and Patrick who go above and beyond to fully resolve problems and explain their work clearly. Professionalism scores are pulled down significantly by a recurring pattern of complaints about rude, dismissive, or explosive behavior — primarily attributed to the owner — spanning multiple years and multiple independent reviewers, which cannot be dismissed as isolated incidents. Project completion is similarly mixed: many reviews praise same-day or next-day responsiveness and thorough job completion, but several credible negative reviews describe no-shows, cancelled appointments without notice, and at least one case of abandoned work mid-project. Pricing is the most contested dimension, with a meaningful minority of reviewers describing charges they felt were excessive or inconsistent with quoted amounts, while the majority found pricing fair or reasonable. The overall picture is a company with genuinely skilled technicians and strong operational capability, undermined by inconsistent customer-facing behavior and reliability issues that have persisted across many years.

• ATTITUDE/TEMPERAMENT PATTERN: At least 6 independent reviews across different years (2016, 2017, 2019, 2021) describe the owner or a senior figure as rude, dismissive, explosive, or having a 'bad attitude.' This is a consistent and credible pattern, not isolated complaints.
• NO-SHOW / ABANDONMENT PATTERN: At least 4 reviews describe scheduled appointments where the plumber never showed and never called (2015, 2016, 2018, 2021). One review describes work being abandoned mid-project after multiple visits.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS: Three reviews explicitly describe feeling overcharged — one citing $187.50 for 11 minutes of work, another citing ~$700 for one hour with minimal materials, and another citing $400 as excessive for a simple shower valve. These are specific and credible.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: Two reviews dated 2017-12-16 appear to be near-identical in content (Rheem water heater refusal). These may represent the same reviewer submitting twice or a copied review. One was excluded from scoring to avoid double-counting.
• BLANK REVIEWS: 8 reviews contained no text (only a star rating). These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of negative reviews are from 2013–2021, while the majority of positive reviews are from 2024–2025. This may indicate genuine improvement in service quality over time, or it may reflect a shift in review demographics. Scores were weighted toward more recent reviews but older negatives were not discarded as the patterns they describe (attitude, no-shows) have some corroboration in the 2021 period.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — LOW: Several 2025 reviews share similar phrasing ('prompt, professional, reasonable') but most contain specific names, job details, and narrative context. No strong evidence of coordinated fake reviews, though the uniformly 5-star recent cluster warrants mild caution.
• ONE 1-STAR REVIEW (2021) describes a detailed, specific incident of a flapper chain left with too much slack causing a recurring problem, and an explosive owner response when the customer called back. The level of technical specificity and narrative detail makes this review credible.

This WW Score is based on a large and diverse review set spanning over 15 years, with HIGH confidence across all four dimensions due to strong mention counts; however, the score should be interpreted cautiously given a documented and recurring pattern of owner temperament issues and no-show incidents that meaningfully offset the otherwise strong technical performance of the field crew.

Dennis and Brook Falls Plumbing receive consistently strong praise across all four scored dimensions, with professionalism being the most frequently cited strength — reviewers repeatedly highlight punctuality, clear communication, politeness, and cleanliness. Pricing is noted favorably in multiple reviews, including one case where the final bill came in below the phone estimate and another where work was completed for less than half the original estimate, suggesting genuine transparency and fairness. Project completion is well-supported, with reviewers describing jobs finished cleanly, on schedule, and with no abandoned work or unresolved issues. Experience is evidenced by specific technical mentions such as copper re-piping, pump repair, and correct diagnosis of pipe types by house age. However, all reviews are significantly dated — the most recent is from 2014 — which substantially limits the reliability of this score for current hiring decisions.

• ALL REVIEWS ARE OUTDATED: The most recent review is from September 2014, and the majority predate 2013. This data is over 10 years old and may not reflect current quality, availability, or business status.
• TWO REVIEWS ARE UNUSABLE: One review contains only the word 'unknown' with a 1-star rating and no detail (2009), and another contains only 'unknown' with a 5-star rating (2000). Neither was scored.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Per Rule 6, reviews from the past 12 months should carry the most weight. There are zero reviews within the past 12 months, and zero within the past decade. The WW Score should be treated as a historical snapshot only.
• MILD PATTERN CONCERN: Several reviews share similar phrasing around cleanliness and professionalism, though most include specific job details that suggest authenticity. No strong fake review signal detected, but the uniformly positive tone across all dated reviews warrants mild caution.

While the dimension scores are individually well-supported by explicit review content, the extreme age of all reviews (oldest from 2000, newest from 2014) means this WW Score reflects a historical reputation only and should not be used as a reliable indicator of current contractor performance without supplementary recent data.