Find Nearby Plumbers In Wausau, Wisconsin

Premier/First Choice Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism with consistent praise for punctuality, courtesy, and responsiveness across 58 reviews. Pricing is generally viewed favorably at 81.0, with customers noting fair and reasonable rates, though some discrepancies between quotes and final bills were noted. Project completion scores lower at 72.0 due to significant quality control issues documented in multiple detailed complaints involving incomplete work, poor communication about scope, uncapped pipes causing water damage, loose fixtures, and unresolved clogs. Experience ratings of 78.5 reflect mixed technical competency—many reviews praise skill and problem-solving, but several detail failures in workmanship, lack of inspection, and inability to complete jobs properly on first attempt.

• CRITICAL: One extremely detailed negative review (dated 2024-06-09) documents systematic failures across multiple dimensions: uncapped drain pipes causing kitchen flooding, loose shower fixtures, partially clogged drains with water leakage, poor communication about scope of work, and inability to handle heavy equipment. This review is highly specific and credible, not generic.
• Multiple reviews mention communication failures: poor notification about invasive work (wall cutting), disconnected phone calls during quotes, manager avoiding refund calls, and lack of transparency about work scope.
• Quality control concerns: Several reviews document incomplete work requiring callbacks or additional plumber visits (e.g., toilet not filling properly days after install, clogged drain not actually fixed by previous plumber).
• Inconsistency in service quality: Same company receives both 5-star reviews praising specific technicians and 1-star reviews from same time period documenting poor work. This suggests highly variable performance depending on which technician is assigned.
• Several reviews appear to be for 'First Choice Plumbing' mixed with 'Premier Plumbing'—these may be different companies or locations, creating potential data contamination.
• One review (dated 2024-03-25) praises 'First Choice Plumbing' and 'Robbie' but appears to be for a different company entirely based on context.
• Multiple empty or minimal reviews ('unknown', '.') reduce data quality but do not appear to be fake—likely system artifacts.
• Recency bias: Most detailed negative reviews are from 2024 (recent), while many generic 5-star reviews are from 2014-2015, suggesting possible quality decline over time or increased scrutiny in recent reviews.

This WW Score of 76.8 should be treated with MODERATE confidence. While the company demonstrates genuine strengths in professionalism and responsiveness, the presence of multiple detailed, credible complaints about project completion failures—particularly the comprehensive 2024 remodel disaster—indicates real quality control issues that offset positive reviews. The score reflects a company with friendly, punctual staff but inconsistent workmanship and follow-through. Customers should verify specific technician assignments and obtain detailed written scope agreements before hiring.

Acro receives consistently positive feedback across professionalism, project completion, and experience, with multiple reviewers praising punctuality, friendly demeanor, and thorough workmanship. Pricing is generally viewed as fair and reasonable, though one notable negative review from 2008 describes a billing dispute involving unrequested material upgrades and a disputed two-hour labor charge for roughly 30 minutes of on-site work, which meaningfully pulls the pricing score down. Project completion is strong overall, with reviewers noting jobs were finished efficiently, areas were cleaned up, and problems were resolved without unnecessary disruption. The experience dimension is supported by several reviews highlighting effective problem-solving and quality results across varied plumbing tasks. It is important to note that the majority of reviews are more than three years old, with only one review from within the past three years, which limits confidence in how well this score reflects current performance.

• RECENCY WARNING: Only 1 of 9 reviews is from the past 3 years (2022). The remaining 8 reviews range from 2008 to 2017, making it difficult to assess current service quality with confidence.
• PRICING CONCERN: One reviewer (2008) explicitly described feeling cheated due to unrequested pipe replacement billed at full material cost plus two hours of labor for approximately 30 minutes of work. The owner's response was described as dismissive. This is a concrete negative data point, not merely an absence of praise.
• REVIEW VOLUME: With only 9 total reviews spanning 14 years, the dataset is thin. Scores should be treated as directional rather than definitive.
• NO FAKE REVIEW PATTERNS DETECTED: Reviews vary in detail, tone, writing style, and rating, and include one critical review. No suspicious uniformity was identified.

This WW Score carries moderate overall reliability due to a small review pool and significant recency gaps — prospective customers should seek more current references before making a hiring decision.

B & D Plumbing & Heating has a mixed but generally positive track record across a very small review set. Professionalism is the most discussed dimension but is dragged down significantly by one explicit review describing an employee as 'extremely unprofessional and rude,' which cannot be ignored. Pricing feedback is consistently positive across three reviews, with multiple mentions of reasonable or cheaper-than-expected charges. Project completion is somewhat concerning — one reviewer noted the crew did not show up as scheduled and required a follow-up call before work was completed, suggesting reliability issues. Experience scores moderately well, with specific technical work (dual water heater setup, general plumbing and heating) described positively, though the sample is too small to draw firm conclusions.

• Very small review set (6 total) spanning 2008–2022 — the majority of reviews are more than 5 years old and should be weighted with caution as they may not reflect current service quality.
• One review (2016) contains a serious professionalism complaint describing an employee as 'extremely unprofessional and rude' — this is a meaningful negative signal given the small sample size.
• One review (2009) explicitly describes a missed appointment with no prior communication, indicating a project completion/reliability concern.
• One review contains what appears to be a copy-pasted business description with a personal cell phone number embedded — this is unusual and may indicate a self-promotional or non-organic review rather than a genuine customer experience.
• Review recency is poor — only one review is from the past 3 years (2022), making it difficult to assess current service quality with any confidence.

This WW Score should be treated as LOW RELIABILITY due to the very small number of reviews (6), the wide date range spanning 14 years, a likely non-organic review, and at least two explicit negative signals around professionalism and scheduling — prospective customers should seek more current references before hiring.

River Valley Plumbing shows a mixed but generally positive track record across a small review set. Professionalism scores reasonably well, with multiple reviewers praising Terry specifically for punctuality, responsiveness, and pleasant demeanor, though one reviewer noted a plumber appeared rushed and another described a prolonged communication failure after a cracked toilet delivery. Project completion is the most concerning dimension: one review describes a wobbly, improperly installed toilet and carpet staining, and another explicitly states work was not completed to code and required a second contractor to fix — these are serious failures that meaningfully drag the score down. Pricing feedback is generally positive, with multiple reviewers noting fair or good prices and one reviewer highlighting cost-saving advice, though the 'buy cheap, buy twice' comment from the code-violation review introduces a cautionary note. Experience is similarly split, with strong praise for Terry's skill and problem-solving in several reviews contrasted sharply against documented workmanship failures in two others.

• Two reviews explicitly document serious workmanship failures: one citing work not completed to code requiring a second contractor, and one citing a loose/wobbly toilet installation and carpet staining — these are significant quality red flags.
• The positive reviews are heavily associated with a single named technician (Terry), suggesting quality may be inconsistent across different plumbers sent by the company.
• Four of the six reviews are dated 2020 or earlier, with only one review from the past 12 months (April 2024). The score should be interpreted cautiously given the limited recent data.
• The review base is very small (6 reviews total), which limits statistical reliability. Scores are directional but should not be treated as definitive.
• No strong fake review patterns detected; reviews contain specific details, varied language, and include both positive and negative experiences, suggesting authenticity.

This WW Score is based on only 6 reviews spanning nearly a decade, with just one review from the past 12 months, making it a low-volume and partially outdated signal — treat it as directional guidance rather than a confident assessment of current service quality.

Best-1 Plumbing has a long history of positive reviews praising punctuality, friendliness, and responsiveness, particularly under what appears to be prior ownership or management. However, the most recent substantive reviews (2014–2024) introduce serious concerns: a 2024 review details misdiagnosis, unnecessary parts replacement, warranty disputes, and poor communication under new ownership, while a 2015 review describes an inexperienced plumber, ignored work orders, and a complete failure to follow through on major jobs. Pricing was generally viewed as fair and transparent in older reviews, but the 2024 warranty billing dispute undermines that dimension. Project completion is the most damaged dimension, with multiple reviews citing incomplete work, no callbacks, and unresolved issues. The overall score is significantly pulled down by the recency-weighted negative reviews, which reflect a pattern of decline from the company's earlier reputation.

• 12 reviews contain only 'unknown', '.', or single-word text with no usable content — these were excluded from scoring but inflate the total review count.
• The majority of substantive positive reviews are from 2009–2013, which is more than 10 years old. These carry reduced weight under recency rules.
• Only 3 reviews are from 2020 or later, and 2 of those are negative (1-star). The most recent detailed review (2024) is strongly negative and describes systemic issues under new ownership.
• Several older 5-star reviews use very generic praise with no specifics ('Great!', 'Very well.', 'best one great people') — these may reflect low-effort or low-reliability submissions.
• The 2024 review explicitly states the company is under new ownership, suggesting the historical positive reviews may not reflect current business practices. Scores should be interpreted with this transition in mind.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability: while mention counts are sufficient to generate scores, the heavy skew of usable positive reviews toward dates older than 5–10 years, combined with a pattern of decline visible in recent reviews and a noted ownership change, means the score likely overstates current service quality.

Southport Home Services shows significant inconsistency across reviews, with strong positive feedback on professionalism and technical expertise offset by serious concerns about project completion, follow-through, and pricing transparency. While many customers praise politeness, punctuality, and knowledgeable technicians, multiple reviews document incomplete work, poor communication about delays, billing disputes, and failure to honor callbacks. Pricing complaints appear frequently, with customers reporting overcharges, unnecessary upsells, and lack of transparency. The company demonstrates capability but struggles with accountability and customer service consistency.

• RECENCY BIAS: Most negative reviews are from 2015-2021; most recent reviews (2024, 2022) are predominantly 5-star. This suggests either significant company improvement or potential selection bias in recent reviewers.
• PATTERN OF INCOMPLETE WORK: Multiple reviews (2021, 2017, 2015) document unfinished projects, delayed callbacks, and poor communication about scope changes. This is a recurring theme.
• PRICING TRANSPARENCY ISSUES: At least 8 reviews mention overcharging, unnecessary work recommendations, or lack of upfront pricing clarity. One reviewer reported being charged for 3 hours of work when technician was present 1.5 hours.
• CALLBACK AND FOLLOW-UP FAILURES: Several reviews document failure to return calls, provide quotes, or complete promised work (2019, 2017, 2015).
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: Recent 5-star reviews (2024, 2022) contain very similar language ('went above and beyond,' 'left area cleaner,' 'polite and friendly,' 'knowledgeable'). While not conclusive, this warrants caution.
• QUALITY CONTROL VARIANCE: Same company receives both 'excellent workmanship' and 'improper installation causing floods' reviews, suggesting inconsistent technician quality or training.

This score should be treated with MODERATE confidence due to significant polarization in reviews and recency bias favoring the company; the WW Score of 68.2 reflects real concerns about project completion and pricing practices documented in multiple detailed complaints, but recent positive reviews suggest possible improvement—recommend requesting references from jobs completed in past 12 months before engaging.