Find Nearby Plumbers In Cedar Rapids, Iowa

Rabe Hardware receives mixed signals across the three reviews analyzed. Professionalism is a split picture: two reviewers praise communication and staff conduct highly, while the negative reviewer describes a frustrating runaround with staff refusing manager escalation and failing to return calls — a serious professionalism failure that pulls the score down significantly. Pricing is the most damaged dimension, with one reviewer experiencing a billing discrepancy where a quoted price of $1,100 ballooned to over $2,000 on the final bill, and management denying any quote was ever given; this is a significant red flag that heavily penalizes the pricing score despite one other reviewer expressing trust in the company's fairness. Project completion scores moderately well, with two reviewers confirming work was completed fully and cleanly, though the sample is too small to be confident. Technical experience appears solid based on the furnace and multi-system installation reviews, but again the sample is very limited.

• BILLING DISPUTE FLAG: One reviewer explicitly describes a quoted price of $1,100 that became a $2,000+ bill, with staff denying any quote was given. This suggests either a serious internal communication failure or deceptive billing practices. Prospective customers should obtain all quotes in writing.
• ESCALATION REFUSAL FLAG: The negative reviewer reports being denied access to a manager on multiple calls, which is a significant customer service and professionalism concern.
• SMALL SAMPLE WARNING: Only 3 reviews were analyzed. No dimension reaches the 5-mention threshold for HIGH confidence. All scores should be treated as preliminary and directional only.
• RECENCY NOTE: All three reviews are from 2018 to 2021, meaning none fall within the past 12 months relative to a typical 2024 analysis date. Current performance may differ from what is reflected here.
• NO FAKE REVIEW PATTERNS DETECTED: Reviews vary significantly in tone, detail, length, and rating, suggesting authentic authorship.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews, all older than 12 months, and should be considered low-reliability — the score is directionally useful but should not be treated as a definitive assessment of Rabe Hardware's current quality or practices.

This review set aggregates feedback across what appears to be multiple contractors and companies all operating under or associated with the 'ASAP Plumbing' name, which significantly complicates scoring. Positive reviews — many centered on individual plumbers named Bruce, Jerry, and Anthony — consistently praise punctuality, friendliness, fair pricing, and quality workmanship, driving scores upward across all dimensions. However, a substantial cluster of serious negative reviews describes abandoned work, dangerous code violations, dishonest upselling, rude behavior, and jobs left incomplete or improperly executed, pulling scores down considerably. The water heater installation failure described in two separate reviews (likely the same incident) is a particularly damaging data point for both project completion and experience. Overall, the score reflects a deeply mixed contractor profile where individual technician quality varies enormously and company-level accountability is a recurring concern.

• MULTIPLE ENTITIES WARNING: Reviews appear to reference several distinct contractors and possibly multiple separate businesses all using the 'ASAP Plumbing' name across different geographic regions (California, Kansas, Virginia, etc.). Scores should not be interpreted as reflecting a single unified business.
• BLANK/EMPTY REVIEWS: At least 7 reviews contained no text content (only a rating of 5.0). These were excluded from dimension scoring but counted in total reviews. Their uniformly positive ratings with zero detail raise concerns about authenticity.
• SUSPECTED FAKE OR LOW-QUALITY REVIEWS: Several reviews consist of only a period ('.'), 'unknown', or a single generic sentence with no specifics. These add no usable data and inflate the raw star average artificially.
• RECENCY NOTE: Reviews span from 2002 to 2024. A significant number of reviews predate 2020 and were given reduced weight. The most recent negative reviews (2023–2024) include a dangerous water heater installation failure and an abandoned job with no follow-up, which are weighted more heavily.
• SERIOUS SAFETY INCIDENT: One review (2002) describes a boiler flue installation that was not up to code, caused carbon monoxide leakage, triggered a fire department response, and was subsequently repaired improperly. Another (2024) describes an oversized water heater installed without a drip pan in a confined space, leading to unit failure within a month. These are significant safety and competence red flags.
• ABANDONED WORK PATTERN: Multiple reviews describe jobs that were started but never completed, with the company becoming unreachable afterward. This is a recurring pattern across different time periods and locations.
• PRICING CONCERN: At least two reviews describe charges of approximately $1,800 for water heater installations that resulted in immediate failure, followed by demands for an additional $580 without proper diagnosis. One review describes a $5,200 quote that a second plumber resolved for $160.
• HIDDEN FEES: One reviewer noted an undisclosed 3.5% credit card surcharge revealed only after work was completed.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large volume of reviews, but its reliability as a guide to any single contractor is LOW because the reviews almost certainly reflect multiple distinct businesses and individual plumbers operating under similar or identical trade names across different regions — consumers should verify which specific entity and technician they are hiring before relying on this score.

1st Response Plumbing has a strong base of satisfied customers who consistently praise responsiveness, same-day availability, and courteous service — particularly from named technicians like Jared, Derek, and Mac. However, the review set contains multiple serious negative reviews that significantly temper each dimension: no-shows and failure to return calls directly undermine professionalism and project completion scores, while several reviewers explicitly called out overcharging, hidden fees, and prices far above competitor quotes on pricing. Experience is similarly mixed, with glowing praise for diagnostic skill in some reviews directly contradicted by others describing substandard workmanship, improperly installed toilets, sloppy pipe routing, and work that required correction by other contractors. The most severe negative review alleges theft of $1,000, installation of a used water heater sold as new, and a police report being filed, which is a significant red flag for both experience and project completion. Taken together, the score reflects a contractor with genuine strengths in responsiveness but meaningful and documented weaknesses across all four dimensions.

• SERIOUS ALLEGATION: One reviewer (2022-08-19) alleges the company took $1,000, left the job incomplete, installed a used water heater represented as new, caused $3,000 in additional damage, and that a police report was filed. This is unverified but materially impacts project completion and experience scores.
• SERIOUS ALLEGATION: One reviewer (2019-02-01) alleges the owner did incomplete and dangerous work on a furnace after a house fire, abandoned the job, and that a subsequent inspector found the partial work nearly caused another fire. Note: this review references a furnace, which may be outside the plumber's scope, but the abandonment and safety concern are noted.
• NO-SHOW / RESPONSIVENESS FAILURES: At least two reviews (2023-12-01 and 2023-06-10) explicitly describe the contractor failing to show up at scheduled times or failing to return calls entirely, including during an emergency. This directly and negatively impacts professionalism and project completion scores.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS: Multiple reviews flag pricing concerns — one reviewer (2018-06-11) was charged $217.60 for under 40 minutes of labor and found two competitors quoted $75–$100 for the same work. Another reviewer (2016-04-23) alleges being quoted five times the price charged to a neighbor for the same system, and describes charges for a branded collar as deceptive. Another (2014-03-13) reports being charged $70 over the quoted estimate with the contractor denying the quote was ever given.
• WORKMANSHIP COMPLAINTS: Two reviews (2015-06-12 and 2014-09-22) — which appear to be near-identical in content and may represent the same reviewer posting twice — describe poor pipe routing, lack of craftsmanship, and work that required a second contractor to fix. Even if treated as one unique complaint, the substance is credible and specific.
• POSSIBLE DUPLICATE REVIEW: The reviews dated 2015-06-12 and 2014-09-22 contain nearly identical text describing the same pipe-routing and vent stack complaint. These may be the same reviewer posting on two platforms or at two times. Counted as one unique negative data point for scoring purposes.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Eight reviews contain no text (only a star rating of 5.0). These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence per Rule 1 and Rule 2. They may inflate the visible star average without contributing meaningful information.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of negative reviews with serious allegations are from 2014–2022. The most recent reviews (2024) are positive. However, the 2023 no-show and non-response complaints are recent enough to remain relevant. Positive trend in recency is noted but does not override the weight of documented serious complaints.
• POSSIBLE FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: Several reviews (particularly from 2013) are generic, lack specific detail, and read as promotional (e.g., 'Best plumber around,' 'They will be the last plumber you will need to call'). These are treated with reduced confidence and weighted conservatively.

This WW Score is based on 44 reviews with usable content spanning approximately 11 years and carries HIGH confidence in its directional accuracy, but prospective customers should weigh the serious unresolved allegations of theft, job abandonment, and dangerous workmanship before engaging this contractor.

Edwards Plumbing & Heating shows significant inconsistency in service quality. While many recent reviews (June 2025 and May 2025) praise individual technicians for professionalism, friendliness, and technical skill, a substantial body of older reviews (2023-2020) document serious failures in project completion, follow-through, and pricing transparency. The company exhibits strong individual technician performance but weak management accountability, with multiple complaints about missed appointments, no-shows, unresponsive managers, and hidden charges. Pricing concerns appear consistently across reviews, with customers reporting unexpected fees, overcharges, and inflated quotes. The WW Score of 62.8 reflects this polarized pattern: excellent frontline service undermined by systemic operational and financial issues.

• CRITICAL: Suspected fake review pattern detected. Multiple reviews show identical text repeated verbatim across different dates (e.g., Cameron review appears 2x on 2025-06-09, Scott review appears 3x on 2025-06-05, Roy review appears 2x on 2025-06-04, Jackie review appears 2x on 2025-06-03, Kamryn reviews appear 2x on 2025-06-02, Jose review appears 2x on 2025-05-10, Billy Burnett review appears 2x on 2025-05-10, Nathan reviews appear 2x on 2025-05-10, Scott responsive review appears 2x on 2025-05-10, David review appears 2x on 2025-05-10, Daniel review appears 2x on 2025-05-10, Jose Castro helpful review appears 2x on 2025-05-10, Billy Burnette prompt review appears 2x on 2025-05-10, Jose above and beyond appears 2x on 2025-05-10, thermostat review appears 2x on 2025-05-10). This duplication pattern suggests artificial inflation of positive reviews and significantly reduces confidence in recent 2025 data.
• SEVERE: Multiple credible allegations of unethical business practices including alleged theft (sump pump case, May 2025), fraudulent pricing (macerating pump scam, June 2024), property damage without accountability (basement backup, August 2023), faulty repairs creating safety hazards (gas leak repairs, August 2023), and non-completion of promised work (shut-off valve replacement, September 2024).
• PATTERN: Consistent complaints about unresponsive management, missed appointments, no-shows without notification, and failure to honor commitments across multiple years (2023-2024).
• PRICING CONCERN: Multiple reviews document hidden charges, unexpected fees, inflated quotes, and lack of transparency. Two separate customers reported being charged significantly more than quoted or discovering additional fees at billing time.
• RECENCY BIAS: Recent reviews (June-May 2025) are overwhelmingly positive with many duplicates, while reviews from 2023-2024 and earlier show serious systemic problems. The dramatic shift suggests either genuine recent improvement or review manipulation. Given the duplication pattern, manipulation is suspected.
• SAFETY ISSUE: One review documents a gas leak repair that created a dangerous condition (3 inches from previous repair, dumping gas into furnace) that could have caused explosion.

This WW Score should be treated with CAUTION. While the calculated score of 62.8 reflects genuine mixed performance, the recent review data (2025) shows strong evidence of duplication and potential manipulation, which artificially inflates the professionalism and experience dimensions. The older, non-duplicated reviews (2023-2024 and earlier) reveal serious systemic issues with project completion, management accountability, and pricing ethics. A more conservative assessment would weight the documented failures in project completion and pricing more heavily, suggesting the true operational score is likely 10-15 points lower than calculated. Customers should independently verify current operational practices and management responsiveness before engaging this company.

Benjamin Franklin Plumbing receives consistently strong marks for professionalism, punctuality, and technical competence from a large volume of reviewers, with many customers praising courteous, knowledgeable technicians who arrive on time and explain their work clearly. However, pricing is the single most dominant negative theme across thousands of reviews, with an extraordinary number of customers reporting charges that are two to five times higher than competing plumbers for identical work — a pattern so consistent and widespread it significantly drags down the overall score. Project completion is mixed: while most jobs are finished correctly, a meaningful minority of reviews describe incomplete work, warranty disputes, no-shows, and situations where problems were not resolved on the first visit. Experience scores are moderate-to-good, with many technicians demonstrating genuine expertise, but offset by recurring reports of misdiagnosis, unnecessary upselling, and technicians who appeared to lack knowledge for the specific job at hand.

• PRICING CONCERN — Extreme and consistent overpricing is the single most reported issue across this review set, spanning thousands of individual reviews across multiple years and franchise locations. Customers routinely report paying 2x–5x the market rate for standard jobs. This is not isolated; it appears to be a systemic franchise pricing model.
• UPSELLING PATTERN — A very large number of reviews describe aggressive or misleading upselling tactics, including recommending unnecessary full replacements instead of repairs, inflated estimates that drop significantly when the customer pushes back, and high-pressure sales pitches for service contracts.
• FRANCHISE INCONSISTENCY — Reviews span many different franchise locations operating under the Benjamin Franklin Plumbing brand. Quality, pricing, and professionalism vary significantly by location, making aggregate scores less reliable for any single location.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK — A significant portion of reviews (estimated 15–20%) contain no text and only a 5-star rating. These blank 5-star reviews are a known pattern associated with review padding. Confidence in the positive score distribution is reduced accordingly.
• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED — Multiple reviews appear to be exact duplicates (identical text, same or adjacent dates), suggesting possible review manipulation or system errors in the data set.
• WARRANTY AND FOLLOW-THROUGH ISSUES — Dozens of reviews describe warranty disputes, failure to honor service agreements, no-call no-shows on scheduled return visits, and management that was unresponsive to complaints — indicating systemic customer service failures beyond individual technician performance.
• ELDERLY AND VULNERABLE CUSTOMER EXPLOITATION — Multiple reviews explicitly describe situations where elderly or vulnerable customers were quoted prices far above market rate, with some reviewers alleging deliberate targeting of people who lacked knowledge to push back.
• RECENCY NOTE — Reviews span from approximately 2004 to June 2025. The most recent reviews (2025) continue to show the same pricing complaints and mixed service quality as older reviews, suggesting no meaningful improvement over time.

This WW Score is based on an exceptionally large review dataset and carries HIGH statistical confidence in its directional accuracy; however, the score should be interpreted with caution because it aggregates multiple franchise locations under one brand, a significant volume of blank 5-star reviews artificially inflates the raw rating, and the pricing dimension — which is overwhelmingly negative — is the most reliable and consistent signal in the entire dataset.

This aggregated review set spans multiple businesses and individual operators all operating under or associated with the 'Mr. Plumber' name across different regions and time periods, making direct comparison difficult but revealing a deeply polarized reputation. Professionalism scores are dragged down significantly by a large volume of explicit complaints about rudeness, no-shows, broken appointments, and dismissive customer service — including multiple accounts of technicians yelling at customers, slamming doors, and hanging up on home warranty representatives. Pricing is the single most-criticized dimension, with dozens of reviewers citing charges 2x to 5x higher than competitors for identical work, non-itemized invoices, and aggressive upselling tactics; a minority of reviewers — particularly those dealing with individual operators like Oscar, Jeff, and Rick — praised fair and transparent pricing. Project completion suffers from a notable pattern of abandoned jobs, failed callbacks, work left incomplete for weeks or months, and instances where problems were made worse rather than fixed. Experience scores are moderate-positive, as many positive reviews do cite skilled diagnosis and quality workmanship from specific named technicians, but are offset by multiple accounts of misdiagnosis, incorrect parts installation, and damage caused during service.

• MULTI-ENTITY CONCERN: These reviews appear to aggregate multiple distinct businesses and sole operators all using the 'Mr. Plumber' name across different U.S. regions (Georgia, New Jersey, Oklahoma, California, New York, Indiana, Tennessee, etc.). Scores reflect a blended profile and should not be applied to any single operator without filtering by location.
• SUSPECTED FAKE REVIEWS: A significant cluster of 5-star reviews — particularly those dated 2025-05-07, 2025-05-10, and 2025-05-19 with no review text — are blank ratings only and provide zero usable data. Several other 5-star reviews are near-identical in phrasing (e.g., two reviews from 2025-05-07 and 2025-05-10 are word-for-word duplicates for 'Michael'). These have been excluded from scoring but inflate the raw star average.
• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: At least two pairs of reviews are near-verbatim duplicates submitted on consecutive or same dates (the 'Michael' gas line reviews dated 2025-05-07 and 2025-05-10; the rude technician reviews dated 2023-08-09 and 2023-08-10). These were counted as single mentions.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent reviews (2025) are predominantly 5-star with minimal text, while the most detailed and substantive negative reviews span 2018–2024. The oldest reviews (2005–2013) skew positive but reflect a different era of the business. Recency weighting was applied conservatively.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Approximately 30+ reviews contained no text and only a star rating. These were excluded from all dimension scoring as they provide no evidence per Rule 1.
• IRRELEVANT REVIEW: One review (dated 2021-06-07, 5 stars) references a healthcare provider ('very helpful with my daughter and son... ADHD and learning disabilities') and is clearly posted to the wrong business. It was excluded entirely.
• PRICING PATTERN: A recurring pattern of non-itemized invoices, refusal to provide cost breakdowns, and prices dropping significantly when customers push back strongly suggests systematic price gouging practices at certain franchise or affiliate locations, particularly those associated with Coolray/Mr. Plumber in the Atlanta, GA market.
• ABANDONED WORK PATTERN: Multiple independent reviews describe technicians starting jobs, leaving for parts, and never returning — sometimes for months. This pattern appears across different named technicians and locations, suggesting a systemic operational failure rather than isolated incidents.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large review volume, but its practical reliability is MODERATE at best because the dataset aggregates multiple distinct businesses operating under the same trade name across different regions and time periods — consumers should filter reviews by their specific geographic location and verify the operator before relying on this blended score.