Find Nearby Plumbers In Cedar Rapids, Iowa

Elite Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism (82.5) with consistent praise for punctuality, courtesy, and responsiveness across 187 mentions. Pricing is competitive and fair (78.0) with 68 mentions highlighting reasonable costs and transparency. However, project completion shows the most concern (72.5) with 142 mentions revealing significant follow-through issues: multiple callbacks not honored, incomplete work requiring repeat visits, poor communication about scheduling, and several instances of abandoned jobs. Experience/skill is solid (80.0) across 95 mentions, with technicians generally demonstrating competence and problem-solving ability. The company's performance is inconsistent—excellent technical work undermined by administrative and follow-through failures.

• CRITICAL: Multiple reviews (15+) document severe project completion failures including abandoned jobs, non-responsive callbacks, and incomplete work requiring other contractors to finish repairs. Examples: septic tank project abandoned 6 months in, water heater installation never completed, faucet replacement never followed up on.
• COMMUNICATION BREAKDOWN: Recurring pattern of unresponsive office staff (Nicole mentioned multiple times), voicemail boxes full, no return calls, and email-only communication causing delays. At least 12 reviews cite inability to reach the company.
• INCONSISTENT QUALITY: Wide variance in service quality depending on technician assigned. Some technicians (Frank, Ryan, Salvador, Dale) consistently praised; others (Stewart, Brandon) associated with poor follow-through and unprofessional behavior.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEWS: Approximately 20 recent reviews (dated None/no date) show suspiciously identical phrasing patterns ('Salvador/Sal was professional,' 'responded immediately,' 'highly recommend') with generic praise and no specific details. These cluster at end of review list and lack dates. Confidence reduced slightly due to this pattern.
• CREDIT CARD FRAUD ALLEGATION: One review (2024-05-26) alleges unauthorized credit card processing without customer authorization—serious compliance concern.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most recent dated reviews (2025) are from Payless Plumbing/different company name. Older Elite Plumbing reviews (2003-2016) show more detailed narratives; recent undated reviews lack specificity, suggesting possible review manipulation or company rebranding.
• WARRANTY COMPANY DISPUTES: Multiple reviews (8+) document conflicts with home warranty companies, suggesting either systemic billing/coverage issues or poor coordination with warranty processes.

This WW Score of 76.8 should be treated with MODERATE-TO-HIGH caution: while professionalism and experience scores are well-supported by extensive mentions, the project completion score is significantly dragged down by documented failures in follow-through and communication. The recent cluster of undated, suspiciously similar positive reviews raises authenticity concerns. Prospective customers should prioritize requesting specific technician assignments (Frank, Ryan, Salvador, Dale show best track records) and establish clear written completion timelines with penalty clauses, as administrative follow-through appears to be the company's primary weakness despite solid technical capability.

Evans Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism with consistent punctuality, courteous technicians, and responsive communication across 48 reviews. Project completion is solid at 78.0, though several negative reviews document incomplete repairs, callback failures, and unresolved issues that temper confidence. Experience/workmanship scores well at 80.0 based on technical knowledge and skill demonstrated. However, pricing emerges as a significant weakness (65.0) with 12 explicit mentions of billing disputes, hidden charges, inflated quotes, and lack of itemized invoices. The company shows bipolar performance: many recent reviews (2024-2025) are uniformly positive, while older reviews (2011-2023) contain serious complaints about billing practices, no-shows, and quality issues. This pattern suggests either genuine operational improvement or potential review manipulation.

• SUSPICIOUS REVIEW PATTERN: 28 reviews with no text content (empty body, 5-star rating only) concentrated in May-June 2025 and scattered dates. This is highly unusual and suggests possible fake/placeholder reviews.
• BIPOLAR PERFORMANCE: Recent reviews (2024-2025) are overwhelmingly 5-star with glowing detail, while older reviews (2011-2023) contain serious complaints about billing fraud, no-shows, and poor workmanship. This stark divergence warrants skepticism.
• BILLING INTEGRITY CONCERNS: Multiple reviews (2024, 2023, 2022, 2019, 2013) document billing disputes, hidden charges, inflated quotes, lack of itemized invoices, and collection threats. This is a pattern, not isolated incidents.
• ONE FAKE/SPAM REVIEW DETECTED: Review dated 2023-07-11 contains incoherent rambling ('your hair is very pretty', 'evan sucks') mixed with unrelated praise—clearly not a legitimate plumbing review.
• QUALITY INCONSISTENCY: Multiple reviews report leaks in newly installed work (2018, 2019), incomplete repairs requiring callbacks (2022), and poor workmanship (2024 Sean review). Suggests quality control issues.
• RECENCY BIAS: 60% of reviews are from 2024-2025. Older reviews (pre-2023) show more critical feedback. Recent surge in 5-star reviews may not reflect historical performance.

This WW Score of 76.8 should be treated with MODERATE-TO-HIGH caution. While recent reviews (2024-2025) are consistently positive and support a higher score, the presence of 28 empty placeholder reviews, stark contrast with older critical reviews, documented billing fraud patterns, and one obvious fake review significantly undermine confidence. The company appears to have improved operationally in 2024-2025, but historical billing practices and quality issues are well-documented. Customers should verify current pricing transparency and request itemized invoices before engaging.

Hanna Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism and technical expertise with consistent positive feedback on punctuality, politeness, and workmanship quality. However, pricing emerges as a significant weakness, with multiple customers reporting unexpectedly high bills, hidden charges (travel time, service fees, machine fees), and quotes that do not match final invoices. Project completion is generally solid with good follow-through, though a few callbacks were not honored promptly. The company shows polarized performance: excellent work quality and customer service in most cases, but serious pricing transparency and fairness issues that have driven away long-term customers.

• PRICING TRANSPARENCY ISSUE: Multiple independent complaints (2025-03-11, 2025-01-10, 2024-06-09 x2, 2022-06-10, 2018-01-14, 2012-06-27) about unexpected charges, hidden fees, and quote-to-invoice discrepancies. This is a pattern, not isolated incidents.
• INCONSISTENT SERVICE QUALITY: Several reviews mention decline in quality over time (2022-06-10: 'quality has gone downhill'; 2020 reviews positive, 2022+ show more complaints). Suggests possible operational changes.
• CALLBACK ISSUES: Review from 2019-07-04 shows poor follow-up on incomplete diagnostics; review from 2023-06-10 shows warranty claim ambiguity and reluctance to honor service without additional fees.
• OLDER REVIEWS (2012-2018): Several negative reviews are 6+ years old but show consistent pricing complaints, suggesting long-standing issue.
• EMPTY REVIEWS: 5 reviews with 5.0 or 4.0 ratings but no text content (2025-04-10, 2022-06-10 x2, 2021-06-10, 2020-06-10). These cannot be analyzed and are excluded from scoring.
• NO FAKE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: While many 5-star reviews exist, they contain specific details (names, job types, timelines), so they appear genuine rather than fabricated.

This WW Score of 76.8 is reliable and should be trusted. It is based on 54 usable reviews with HIGH confidence across all four dimensions. The score accurately reflects a company with strong technical skills and professionalism but significant and recurring pricing fairness issues that materially harm overall trustworthiness. Customers should expect quality work but should obtain detailed written quotes and clarify all fees upfront before engaging this contractor.

Master Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism (82.5) with consistent praise for punctuality, politeness, and responsiveness across 127 mentions. Technical experience and workmanship are solid (80.5) with 94 mentions of knowledgeable, efficient technicians. Project completion is reliable (81.0) with 98 mentions of jobs finished properly and on time. However, pricing is a significant weakness (58.0) with 89 mentions—the company is repeatedly criticized for excessive charges, lack of transparent quotes, and service fees that customers find unjustifiable. This pricing concern substantially depresses the overall WW Score despite strong performance in other dimensions.

• PRICING PATTERN: Systematic complaints about high costs appear throughout the review timeline (2013–2025). Customers report charges 2–5× higher than competitors for identical work. This is not isolated—it is a consistent business model issue.
• SERVICE FEE CONTROVERSY: Multiple reviews (2015–2025) report surprise diagnostic/service fees ($60–$150) that are not waived even when work is declined or misdiagnosed. Customers feel trapped into paying fees regardless of outcome.
• MISDIAGNOSIS & UPSELLING: At least 12 reviews describe situations where technicians recommended expensive replacements (furnaces, water heaters, full system overhauls) that were later proven unnecessary by second opinions. This pattern suggests either incompetence or deliberate upselling.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK—MODERATE: Three identical reviews (Brett & Bill reviews dated 2025-06-08, 2025-06-05, 2025-06-04) use nearly word-for-word phrasing ('very friendly and very informative,' 'keeps things simple,' 'funny short stories'). Two identical Bill reviews (2025-06-07, 2025-06-04) also appear verbatim. Additionally, multiple empty review slots (no text, 5-star rating only) suggest possible review padding. Confidence in recent 5-star reviews is reduced.
• RECENCY BIAS: Most recent reviews (2025, Jan–Jun) are overwhelmingly 5-star with generic praise and minimal detail. Older reviews (2013–2020) contain more specific, critical feedback. Recent reviews may be curated or incentivized.
• INCONSISTENT QUALITY: Some technicians (Brett, Bill, John, Christian, Sean) receive repeated praise; others (unnamed technicians in negative reviews) are described as incompetent or dishonest. Quality appears highly dependent on which technician is assigned.
• WARRANTY & FOLLOW-UP ISSUES: Multiple reviews report that Master Plumbing refuses to honor warranties, re-visit failed repairs without additional charges, or provide after-sales support. This undermines trust in project completion claims.
• COMMUNICATION FAILURES: Several reviews (2016, 2019) describe missed appointments, no-shows, late arrivals with no notification, and unresponsive management. These are isolated but serious incidents.

This WW Score of 72.8 is reliable for professionalism, experience, and completion dimensions (all HIGH confidence, 94–127 mentions each), but the pricing score (58.0) is the most trustworthy finding—it is supported by 89 detailed, specific complaints spanning 12+ years with consistent patterns of overcharging, hidden fees, and misdiagnosis. The company excels at service delivery but systematically overcharges customers; buyers should expect to pay 2–3× market rates and always obtain competing quotes before authorizing work. Recent 5-star reviews show signs of curation and should be weighted lower than older, detailed reviews.

Roto-Rooter receives consistently strong marks for professionalism and responsiveness from individual technicians, with hundreds of reviews praising courteous, knowledgeable, and prompt service. However, pricing is the single most damaging dimension across this dataset, with an enormous volume of reviews describing charges as excessive, deceptive, or wildly inconsistent — including numerous accounts of bait-and-switch quoting, undisclosed fees, and charges for incomplete work. Project completion is significantly dragged down by a substantial minority of reviews describing failed repairs, no-shows, abandoned jobs, warranty disputes, and work that made problems worse. Experience scores moderately well overall, as many technicians are praised for skill and problem-solving, but this is offset by recurring accounts of misdiagnosis, wrong equipment, and upselling unnecessary services. The aggregate picture is a company with capable individual technicians but systemic issues around pricing transparency, scheduling reliability, and quality control.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: Multiple reviews appear to be exact or near-exact duplicates (e.g., two identical reviews from 'Paul arrived same day...', two identical 'Zach is the man...', two identical 'Based solely off customer service...', two identical 'Easy to schedule and a quick service...', two identical 'Great service. Would highly recommend!', two identical 'Efficient and effective...', two identical 'Excellent with Armando...', two identical 'Very prompt and helpful! Anthony...', two identical 'My name is Antoinette...'). These duplicates inflate positive scores and have been treated conservatively.
• FAKE REVIEW PATTERNS: A large cluster of reviews dated 1996-2001 consist of single-line responses ('NO', 'NOT REALLY', 'ON TIME AND DID THE WORK') with no detail, all rated 5 stars. These appear to be placeholder or fabricated entries and were excluded from scoring.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Approximately 100+ reviews contain no text content but carry 5-star ratings. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data, but their presence inflates the raw star average.
• EXTREME RATING POLARIZATION: The dataset shows a pronounced bimodal distribution — a very large number of 5-star reviews with minimal detail alongside a substantial volume of detailed 1-star reviews describing serious failures. This pattern is consistent with either review manipulation on the positive end or a company with highly inconsistent service quality.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS ARE SYSTEMIC: Pricing complaints are not isolated incidents — they span multiple years, multiple geographic locations, and multiple service types. Charges ranging from $200-$900 for simple drain snaking (15-30 minutes of work) are documented repeatedly. This is a structural business practice issue, not individual technician behavior.
• NO-SHOW AND SCHEDULING FAILURES: A significant number of reviews describe confirmed appointments where technicians never arrived and no communication was provided. This is a recurring operational failure across multiple franchise locations.
• MULTI-FRANCHISE DATASET: Reviews appear to span dozens of different Roto-Rooter franchise locations across the United States. Scores reflect the brand aggregate, not any single location. Individual location quality varies significantly.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews with substantive content are dated between 2020-2025, which is within the relevant scoring window. Older reviews (pre-2015) were given reduced weight.

This WW Score of 72.4 is based on a very large dataset (1,456 reviews) and carries HIGH statistical confidence in its directional accuracy, but should be interpreted as a brand-level aggregate across many franchise locations — individual location quality varies substantially, and the systemic pricing and scheduling issues documented here may not apply equally to all franchises.

Quality Plumbing receives strong praise across hundreds of reviews for responsiveness, friendly technicians, and professional demeanor, with many customers citing specific plumbers by name and describing courteous, efficient service. However, a meaningful minority of negative reviews — spread across many years and locations — describe serious concerns including billing disputes (charging for travel time, rounding up hours, marking up parts significantly), failed diagnoses, abandoned or incomplete work, and rude office staff who hung up on customers. Pricing is the weakest dimension: multiple reviewers describe feeling overcharged, discovering parts were marked up 200-300%, or being billed for time the plumber was not on-site. Project completion is also mixed, with several reviews describing jobs left unfinished, return visits that never materialized, or problems that were not resolved after multiple attempts. The experience dimension scores moderately well overall, as most technicians are described as knowledgeable and skilled, but a subset of reviews describe misdiagnoses, amateur-level work, and technicians who could not complete the job.

• FAKE REVIEW RISK — MODERATE: A significant cluster of reviews share identical or near-identical dates (e.g., dozens dated exactly 2024-09-12, 2023-06-10, 2022-06-10, 2021-06-10, 2020-06-10, 2019-06-11, 2018-06-11, 2017-06-11) with very short, generic, undetailed text and all 5-star ratings. This pattern is consistent with bulk review submission and inflates the positive signal. These reviews were counted but treated with reduced evidentiary weight.
• MULTI-LOCATION AGGREGATION RISK — HIGH: Reviews reference locations across at least 8 distinct geographic markets including Seattle WA, Cape Coral/Fort Myers FL, Kansas City MO, Ventura County CA, Honolulu HI, Galveston TX, Denver CO, and Fresno CA. These are almost certainly different businesses operating under the same or similar name 'Quality Plumbing.' Scores reflect the aggregate pool and may not represent any single business accurately.
• BLANK REVIEWS EXCLUDED FROM SCORING: Approximately 30 reviews contained no text (only a star rating). These were excluded from dimension scoring but counted in total reviews analyzed.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of substantive, detailed reviews are from 2020 to 2025, which carry the most weight. Reviews from 2005-2015 are present but represent a smaller share and may reflect different ownership or staffing.
• BILLING COMPLAINTS — RECURRING PATTERN: At least 15 independent reviews across multiple years and locations describe billing practices including charging for drive time, rounding up labor hours, excessive parts markups, and charging for assessments where no work was performed. This is a systemic concern, not isolated incidents.
• INCOMPLETE WORK PATTERN: Multiple reviews describe jobs left unfinished, promises to return that were never honored, and supervisors who never called back after complaints. This meaningfully depresses the project completion score.
• ONE REVIEW APPEARS TO BE FOR A RESTAURANT (Mexican food/tamales) — clearly misattributed and excluded from scoring.
• ONE REVIEW APPEARS TO BE A POLITICAL COMPLAINT about signage outside the business — excluded from scoring as it does not address service quality.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large volume of reviews, but its reliability as a predictor for any single 'Quality Plumbing' location is MODERATE at best, given strong evidence that reviews from multiple unrelated businesses across the United States have been aggregated together, and that a notable share of 5-star reviews show patterns consistent with fake or bulk submissions.