Find Nearby Plumbers In Waukesha, Wisconsin

TB Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism with responsive communication and punctual service mentioned across multiple reviews. However, a severe 1-star review from June 2024 reveals critical failures in follow-through, communication, and project completion—the customer was left without hot water for over two weeks with no diagnosis or quote provided. Pricing feedback is mixed, with one review noting 'high end' costs while another praised 'great price.' The company shows technical competence in completed jobs but the recent complaint suggests inconsistent execution and accountability. The WW Score reflects strong historical performance undermined by a recent, detailed negative experience indicating systemic communication and follow-through problems.

• RECENCY CONCERN: Four reviews are from November 2022 and January 2023 (1.5–2 years old). The most recent review (August 2024) is generic praise with no specifics. The most detailed and credible review is the 1-star from June 2024, which documents a serious service failure with specific dates and names.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: Multiple 5-star reviews from November 8, 2022 (three reviews posted same day with similar enthusiastic language but varying specificity) and the August 2024 review lack detail and may be inflated. The June 2024 1-star review is highly detailed and credible by contrast.
• CRITICAL SERVICE FAILURE: The June 2024 review documents a 16-day failure to communicate diagnosis, provide quotes, or follow through on warranty claim submission. This is a severe professionalism and project completion failure that contradicts the positive historical reviews.
• INCONSISTENCY ALERT: Stark contrast between glowing older reviews and the recent detailed complaint suggests either significant service degradation or inconsistent quality depending on technician/circumstances.

This score should be treated with caution. While historical reviews suggest competent service, the recent detailed complaint of communication failure and abandonment raises serious concerns about reliability and consistency. The score is pulled down appropriately by the June 2024 incident, but the small sample size (7 reviews) and age of most positive reviews (2+ years) limit confidence. Recent customer experience appears to contradict historical reputation.

The majority of reviews praise Mike and the company for fast response times, courteous behavior, and effective resolution of drain and sewer issues, which drives solid scores across professionalism, project completion, and experience. However, one significant 1-star review describes a rude and dismissive interaction with the business owner, including an offensive comparison made to a customer, which meaningfully pulls down the professionalism score and cannot be ignored. Pricing is mentioned positively in two reviews as fair and reasonable, but the limited mention count means this score carries low confidence. Project completion scores well because multiple reviewers explicitly confirm their problems were resolved, often quickly and with cleanup included. The presence of one strongly negative review among five positive ones introduces meaningful uncertainty and prevents higher scores across the board.

• One 1-star review describes a seriously unprofessional and rude interaction with the business owner, including a dismissive and offensive analogy made to a customer. This is a significant negative signal and has been weighted accordingly.
• Four of the six reviews are older than 12 months, with two dating back to 2017. Recency weighting has been applied; the older reviews carry reduced influence on the final score.
• The small total review count (6) limits statistical reliability. Scores should be interpreted with caution until more recent reviews are available.
• No fake review patterns detected. Reviews vary in detail, tone, and specificity, and include both positive and negative feedback, which supports authenticity.

This WW Score is based on a small and partially dated review set of only 6 reviews, which limits reliability; the score reflects genuine signals but should be treated as a preliminary assessment pending more recent and numerous reviews.

Midwest Plumbing has a generally positive track record across all four dimensions, with consistent praise for responsiveness, professionalism, and fair pricing spanning many years of reviews. Professionalism scores well overall but is tempered by one explicit complaint about a technician arriving in an unacceptably dirty state and a separate serious complaint about a failed installation where the company initially refused to accept responsibility, only resolving the issue after threats of legal action. Project completion is similarly solid but is meaningfully dragged down by that same 2005 complaint involving repeated sewage overflows caused by poor workmanship and a prolonged refusal to fix the root cause. Pricing and experience dimensions are supported by multiple positive mentions including coming in under estimate, competitive pricing, and skilled problem-solving such as avoiding a costly $15K sewer replacement by correctly diagnosing roots rather than a break. The score is moderated by the age of the review pool — the majority of reviews are more than 5 years old, with only 2 reviews from the past 12 months.

• RECENCY WARNING: Only 2 reviews are from the past 12 months (2023). The majority of reviews span 2003–2020, with a heavy cluster in 2009–2017. The WW Score reflects a long historical average and may not represent current service quality.
• TWO REVIEWS CONTAIN NO USABLE TEXT: The reviews dated 2016-01-22 ('unknown') and 2014-06-05 ('..') were excluded from dimension scoring as they contain no actionable information.
• SERIOUS COMPLAINT FLAG: The 2005 review describes a defective installation causing repeated sewage overflows, initial denial of responsibility, and resolution only after threats of legal action. This is a significant workmanship and accountability failure that meaningfully impacts project completion and professionalism scores.
• MINOR PROFESSIONALISM COMPLAINT: One reviewer (2013-10-15) explicitly noted a technician arrived in an extremely dirty and unprofessional appearance, which is a direct negative mention against professionalism.
• PAYMENT TRANSPARENCY ISSUE: One reviewer (2012-10-31) was not informed prior to job completion that the company does not accept credit cards, which is a transparency/communication failure relevant to both professionalism and pricing.
• NO FAKE REVIEW PATTERNS DETECTED: Reviews vary in length, detail, rating, and date. Negative reviews are present. No suspicious identical phrasing was identified.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability — the dimension scores are each supported by multiple mentions giving HIGH confidence per dimension, but the score should be interpreted cautiously given that most reviews are over 5 years old, only 2 reviews are from the past 12 months, and at least one serious unresolved workmanship complaint exists in the historical record.

S & K Plumbing shows strong technical expertise and generally reliable project completion, with positive mentions of problem-solving ability and follow-through on callbacks. However, professionalism is significantly undermined by serious complaints about late arrivals, rude phone staff, and unprofessional behavior from field employees. Pricing is a notable weakness, with explicit complaints about high hourly rates and undisclosed surcharges, though some reviews acknowledge fair value for custom work. The company demonstrates inconsistency: excellent service in some cases contrasts sharply with poor communication and customer service failures in others.

• Significant recency bias: 3 of 6 reviews are from 2015–2018 (5+ years old); only 3 reviews from 2019–2021. Older negative reviews may reflect past issues that have since improved or worsened.
• Stark polarization: 3 five-star reviews vs. 2 one-star reviews with no middle ground. This suggests either highly variable service quality or potential selection bias in review submission.
• Two one-star reviews contain serious allegations: unprofessional behavior (swearing), owner dismissiveness, and service refusal. These are not minor complaints and significantly impact professionalism scoring.
• Pricing complaints are explicit and specific (hourly rate, surcharges) in negative reviews, but positive reviews acknowledge higher pricing as justified by quality. This suggests pricing may be legitimately higher but not transparently communicated upfront.

This score should be treated with caution due to small sample size (6 reviews), significant age of data (half are 5+ years old), and extreme polarization between ratings. The MODERATE overall confidence reflects genuine uncertainty about current service quality and consistency. Recent positive reviews suggest possible improvement, but the lack of recent negative reviews does not confirm this.

Andersen Plumbing Services receives consistently positive feedback across the reviews that contain usable content, with professionalism being the most frequently and clearly mentioned dimension. Reviewers highlight prompt response times, courteous behavior, and going above and beyond — such as the technician photographing completed work for a homeowner unable to inspect it himself. Project completion is supported by references to specific jobs being finished (sump pump repair, pipe rerouting, pipe joint repair) with no complaints of abandoned or incomplete work. Experience is touched on in two reviews with positive but brief mentions of workmanship quality. Pricing is entirely absent from all reviews, so no score can be assigned to that dimension.

• One review (2015-09-16) contains only the word 'unknown' and provides no usable data — excluded from scoring.
• Two of the three usable reviews are significantly dated (2013 and 2017), meaning the majority of evidence is over 7 years old. Only one review is recent (2024).
• With only 3 usable reviews total, the dataset is very small and scores should be treated with caution.
• No pricing information is mentioned in any review — the Pricing dimension cannot be scored.
• No fake review patterns detected, but the small sample size limits reliability.

This WW Score is based on only 3 usable reviews, two of which are more than 7 years old, making the overall score LOW in reliability and should not be treated as a definitive assessment of current service quality.

Audley's Plumbing receives consistently positive feedback across professionalism, with multiple reviewers explicitly noting punctuality, courtesy, and clear communication. Project completion is well-supported, with reviewers describing jobs finished within a day and thorough follow-through including well chlorination, piping, and sewer diagnostics. Experience is affirmed by references to knowledgeable crews, proper material selection, and complex jobs like full house replumbing and well pump replacement. Pricing received only one explicit mention, describing rates as 'the going rate,' which is neutral but insufficient to score confidently. Two reviews contained no usable text and were excluded from scoring.

• 2 of 8 reviews have 'unknown' review text and provide no usable data — these were excluded from all dimension scoring.
• All reviews are rated 5.0 stars with no negative or mixed feedback, which warrants mild caution, though most reviews contain specific details that reduce fake review suspicion.
• RECENCY WARNING: All reviews with usable text are from 2007–2013, with the most recent being over 10 years old. This score may not reflect current service quality.
• Small sample size of 6 usable reviews limits overall reliability of the WW Score.

This WW Score should be treated with caution — while the qualitative signals are positive and specific, all usable reviews are more than a decade old and the sample size is small, making it difficult to assess the contractor's current performance with confidence.