Find Nearby Plumbers In Wausau, Wisconsin

Frasier's demonstrates strong professionalism and technical expertise with many recent 5-star reviews praising courteous technicians, prompt response, and knowledgeable service. However, the company is significantly undermined by severe pricing concerns, with numerous complaints of dramatically inflated quotes, excessive service charges, and aggressive upselling tactics. Project completion is generally solid when work is performed, but multiple reviews document incomplete diagnostics, failure to follow up on callbacks, and instances where technicians abandoned work. The stark contrast between recent positive reviews (June 2025) and older negative reviews (2013-2021) suggests either significant business practice changes or potential review manipulation. Pricing remains the primary detractor from overall score.

• SUSPICIOUS REVIEW PATTERN: 28 of 71 reviews are dated June 2025 (within 3 days: June 3-9), with 24 being 5-star ratings with minimal detail. This clustering is statistically unusual and suggests potential review manipulation or bulk submission.
• EXTREME RECENCY BIAS: Recent reviews (May-June 2025) are overwhelmingly positive (5-star), while reviews from 2013-2021 are predominantly 1-star with detailed complaints. This dramatic reversal warrants skepticism about recent review authenticity.
• PRICING FRAUD ALLEGATIONS: Multiple reviews (2013-2021) allege predatory pricing, false diagnoses to justify expensive repairs, and targeting of elderly customers. Specific examples include: $2,500 quote for plugged pilot orifice (fixed for $100 elsewhere), $16,000 AC quote, $7,000+ unnecessary replacements, $422 labor for 45-minute faucet replacement.
• CARBON MONOXIDE MISREPRESENTATION: At least 3 detailed reviews document technicians claiming carbon monoxide hazards that were contradicted by fire department readings (0 ppm). Allegations suggest this was used to pressure furnace replacement sales.
• FAILURE TO FOLLOW UP: Multiple reviews report promised callbacks from service managers or installation technicians that never occurred, suggesting systemic communication breakdown.
• GENERIC RECENT REVIEWS: Many June 2025 reviews contain minimal detail (e.g., 'Very happy with technician', 'professional', blank text fields), which is inconsistent with authentic detailed feedback.
• INCONSISTENT QUALITY NARRATIVE: Older reviews from loyal long-term customers (2015-2018) are positive, but 2013-2021 reviews from same era show serious complaints, suggesting either inconsistent service quality or selective review posting.

This WW Score should be treated with CAUTION. While recent reviews (June 2025) show strong professionalism and experience metrics, the suspicious clustering of 28 generic 5-star reviews within 3 days, combined with a decade of detailed 1-star complaints alleging fraud and predatory pricing, suggests the recent positive reviews may not be authentic. The pricing dimension is supported by substantial evidence of overcharging and aggressive upselling across multiple years and customer types. Prospective customers should independently verify pricing with competing contractors and request detailed written estimates before committing to work.

The review set is small (4 reviews) and spans a wide date range (2013–2023), which significantly limits reliability. Professionalism and project completion scores are dragged down substantially by one highly detailed negative review describing three consecutive no-show appointments, a serious failure of follow-through that directly contradicts the positive experiences described in other reviews. The positive reviews highlight strong technical knowledge, helpfulness, and good communication, but these are offset by the severity and specificity of the negative account. Pricing received only one mention — a reference to choosing the cheapest option — which is too thin to draw firm conclusions from.

• Only 4 reviews total — WW Score should be treated as indicative only, not statistically reliable.
• Review date range spans 10 years (2013–2023). Three of four reviews are older than 1 year relative to the most recent review date; only one review is from 2023. Business practices and quality may have changed significantly over this period.
• The 1-star review (2017) describes three consecutive technician no-shows — a severe and specific project completion failure that carries significant weight despite the small sample size.
• No fake review patterns detected. Reviews vary in detail, tone, and rating, which is consistent with authentic feedback.

This WW Score is based on only 4 reviews spanning a decade and should be treated with LOW confidence — it reflects a mixed but data-thin picture that cannot reliably represent the contractor's current performance.

Professionalism scores moderately because while a large number of reviews praise individual technicians as friendly, courteous, punctual, and communicative, a significant and recurring minority describe rude office staff, dispatchers who hung up on customers, failure to notify customers of schedule changes, and at least one technician described as appearing impaired. Pricing is the most heavily penalized dimension: dozens of explicit complaints describe charges of $400–$1,800+ for jobs lasting under an hour, non-transparent fee structures, undisclosed dispatch fees, and quotes that ballooned after work began — with multiple reviewers stating they were charged more than quoted or charged for work that did not fix the problem. Project completion suffers from a meaningful pattern of abandoned or incomplete jobs, repeat visits for the same unresolved issue, parts never ordered, jobs left mid-way, and in several cases customers having to hire a second company to finish what Best Plumbing started. Experience scores in the moderate range because many individual technicians are praised for skill and problem-solving, but a notable subset of negative reviews describe misdiagnosis, wrong parts, broken equipment left behind, and work that made problems worse — suggesting uneven technical quality across the workforce.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: At least two pairs of reviews appear to be near-identical duplicates (the long 'sewer backup on a Sunday' review appears twice on different dates; the 'Fast and prof Service' review appears twice; the 'Professional, Helpful, Communicative' Morgan Hoover review appears twice; the 'Best Plumbing Company is simply the BEST' Trent and Sheldon review appears twice). These duplicates were counted only once per unique text for scoring purposes but inflate the raw review count.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION: A large cluster of reviews dated exactly 2024-06-06 with no review text (rating only, all 5-star) is highly suspicious and suggests possible review padding. These blank reviews were excluded from dimension scoring as they contain no usable data.
• PLATFORM DISCREPANCY NOTED: One reviewer explicitly states the company has a 1.5/5 rating on Consumer Checkbook and a 3.0 on Yelp versus a much higher Google rating, and questions whether positive Google reviews are authentic. This is consistent with the observed pattern of generic, brief 5-star reviews alongside detailed negative reviews.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews with substantive text span from 2006 to June 2025. Reviews from the past 12 months (mid-2024 to mid-2025) include both strong positives and several serious negatives including pricing complaints, incomplete work, and threatening collection behavior, suggesting the issues are ongoing and not historical.
• OWNER CONDUCT FLAG: One reviewer alleges the owner called months after a negative review to offer $100 to remove it, which if accurate represents a serious ethical concern about review integrity.
• BILLING PRACTICE FLAG: Multiple independent reviewers across different years describe the same pattern — undisclosed dispatch/diagnostic fees, no upfront estimates, charges presented only after work is done, and refusal to itemize invoices. This is a systemic pattern, not isolated incidents.
• INCOMPLETE WORK PATTERN: At least 8 distinct reviews describe jobs that were not completed, required multiple return visits for the same issue, or required a second company to finish — a significant project completion risk for prospective customers.
• THREATENING COLLECTIONS FLAG: At least two reviewers describe being threatened with police action or property liens when disputing bills, including in one case for work that did not fix the problem. This is a serious customer service and ethical flag.

This WW Score of 58.3 is based on a very large review set with HIGH confidence across all four dimensions, but prospective customers should weight it cautiously given strong evidence of systematic pricing opacity, a suspicious cluster of blank 5-star reviews that may artificially inflate the overall star average on other platforms, and a recurring pattern of incomplete work and aggressive billing practices documented across multiple years and geographies.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 3 reviews analyzed, all from 2021 (3+ years old). While all reviews praise professionalism, friendliness, and responsiveness, the sample size is too small and recency is severely compromised. Pricing data appears in only 1 review. Experience/workmanship quality is not explicitly discussed in any review. A reliable WW Score requires minimum 5 recent reviews with substantive detail across multiple dimensions.

• CRITICAL: All 3 reviews are from 2021 — over 3 years old. No recent data available.
• CRITICAL: Sample size of 3 is below minimum threshold for reliable scoring.
• All reviews are 5-star with generic praise language ('Great', 'Professional', 'Friendly') — limited specificity on actual work quality or technical skill.
• Experience dimension has zero mentions — no explicit discussion of workmanship quality, technical knowledge, or problem-solving ability.
• Pricing mentioned in only 1 review with vague language ('pleasantly surprised by the bill') — insufficient data for pricing confidence.
• No negative feedback or critical details provided — reviews lack depth and specificity that would validate authenticity.

This score cannot be calculated and should not be used for decision-making. The review pool is too small, too old, and lacks sufficient detail across critical dimensions to produce a trustworthy WW Score. Minimum 5 recent reviews (within 12 months) with substantive detail are required.

With only two reviews spanning five years apart, this contractor's record is deeply mixed and unreliable to score with confidence. The 2019 review describes a serious pattern of misconduct: abandoned work, unresponsive communication, equipment left stuck in a pipe, and alleged financial exploitation of an elderly customer — resulting in a police report. The 2014 review is positive, praising same-day service, speed, and fair pricing for a sewer cleaning job. The negative review carries significantly more evidentiary weight due to its specificity and severity, pulling all dimension scores downward. No reliable WW Score can be calculated from only two reviews.

• SERIOUS MISCONDUCT FLAG: The 2019 review alleges abandonment of a job mid-service, non-responsiveness to calls, and charging for equipment left stuck in a customer's pipe — all hallmarks of predatory contractor behavior.
• ELDERLY EXPLOITATION FLAG: The reviewer explicitly states a police report was filed for an elderly scam involving the named contractor Travis Houk. This is a significant consumer protection concern.
• RECENCY FLAG: The only positive review is from 2014 — over 10 years old — and should be given minimal weight. The more recent 2019 review is the most relevant data point.
• INSUFFICIENT REVIEW COUNT: Only 2 reviews are available. Per WW Score Engine rules, a minimum of 3 reviews is required for a reliable WW Score calculation. All dimension scores should be treated as highly provisional.
• NO FAKE REVIEW PATTERNS DETECTED: The two reviews are stylistically distinct and contain specific operational details, suggesting they are genuine.

This score report has very low reliability — only 2 reviews exist, they are years apart, and the most recent and detailed review describes serious misconduct; no hiring decision should be made based on this data alone.

Both reviews speak positively about Jordan's professionalism, reliability, and responsiveness, which drives the highest dimension score. One review explicitly mentions fair pricing and on-time arrival, supporting modest scores in those areas. Project completion is supported by one review describing a job carried through carefully and successfully. All scores are conservative given the very small sample size of only two reviews, and no WW Score can be reliably calculated with fewer than three reviews.

• Only 2 reviews provided — insufficient data to calculate a reliable WW Score per scoring rules.
• Both reviews are 5-star ratings with no critical feedback, which is expected at this sample size but cannot be assessed for authenticity patterns.
• Review dates span over a year apart (2023-08-18 and 2024-09-30), so recency is not a major concern, but the dataset is too small to draw strong conclusions.
• Scores for pricing, project_completion, and experience are each based on a single mention — treat these with very low confidence.

This score report should not be trusted as a reliable indicator of contractor quality due to the critically small sample size of only 2 reviews; significantly more reviews are needed before any dimension score or overall WW Score can be considered meaningful.