Find Nearby Plumbers In Davenport, Iowa

Budget Drain & Sewer Cleaning receives overwhelmingly positive feedback across all four scored dimensions, with professionalism being the most frequently praised attribute — reviewers consistently highlight punctuality, courteous technicians, clear communication, and same-day or next-morning responsiveness. Pricing is a notable strength, with multiple reviewers explicitly comparing Budget favorably against competitors and praising the absence of holiday or weekend surcharges. Project completion scores well, with the vast majority of reviews confirming jobs were finished quickly and thoroughly, including cleanup; one older 2-star review noted a missed diagnosis (cracked toilet tank), and one review described a technician needing to return the next day, though no charge was applied for the callback. Experience is well-supported by mentions of knowledgeable technicians who explained issues clearly, solved multi-year problems, and in one case resolved a frozen drain issue over the phone. The single negative review (2018) and one ambiguous callback situation (2014) prevent a perfect score but do not materially undermine the strong overall pattern.

• 6 reviews contain no text at all (only a star rating) and were excluded from dimension scoring — these inflate the total review count without providing usable data.
• One review is labeled 'unknown' with no text and was excluded from scoring.
• A large cluster of reviews share the date '2024-06-09' — 10 reviews posted on the exact same date is statistically unusual and may suggest a solicited review campaign or batch import from another platform. Confidence is not reduced significantly given the variety of specific details across those reviews, but this pattern is flagged for transparency.
• The review corpus spans 2012–2025, meaning a substantial portion of reviews (roughly 25–30%) are more than 3 years old. Recency weighting was applied by giving greater interpretive weight to 2024–2025 reviews, which remain consistently positive.
• One 2-star review (2018-02-08) noted the technician failed to identify a cracked toilet tank during a service call. This is a legitimate negative data point and was factored into the experience and project completion scores.
• All ratings are 5.0 except for one 2-star review. While the individual review content is varied and specific enough to suggest authenticity, the near-universal 5-star pattern warrants mild caution.

This WW Score is based on a large, multi-year review set with strong mention counts across all four dimensions and sufficient specific detail to support HIGH confidence ratings; the score is considered reliable, though the anomalous same-date cluster and absence of any critical reviews beyond one should be noted by the reader.

B&B Drain Tech receives overwhelmingly positive feedback on professionalism, with dozens of reviews praising technicians by name for being polite, punctual, communicative, and thorough. Experience and technical knowledge are also well-regarded, with multiple reviewers noting that B&B correctly diagnosed problems that other companies (notably Roto-Rooter) had failed to resolve. Project completion is the weakest dimension: at least three reviews describe jobs that required multiple return visits, one instance of work left incomplete (plumbing not reassembled), and one serious complaint about sewage being back-washed into a crawl space with no remediation offered. Pricing receives mixed signals — one reviewer explicitly praised transparent pricing and no surprise charges, while others paid $450–$500 across multiple visits for problems not fully resolved on the first attempt, dragging the pricing score down. The overall picture is a strong service provider with a meaningful but minority pattern of incomplete or repeated-service failures.

• Two reviews have completely blank review text but carry 5-star ratings (dated 2025-02-09). These are likely fake or placeholder reviews and have been excluded from usable data.
• A cluster of reviews from 2025-02-09 all praise technician 'Aaron' or the team 'Steve and Sal' with very similar structure and timing. While individual details differ enough to suggest authenticity, the volume and date clustering warrants mild caution.
• Several older reviews (2016–2019) are more than 5 years old and carry significantly less weight in scoring. The score is primarily driven by 2024–2025 reviews.
• One review (dated 2024-09-27, 1-star) describes a serious workmanship failure — sewage back-washed into a crawl space — and alleges the company refused to take responsibility. This is a significant project completion and experience flag.
• One review (dated 2023-04-24, 1-star) describes being charged three times (~$500 total) for the same unresolved issue, indicating a pattern of incomplete work and no warranty/callback policy. This materially reduces the project completion score.
• One review (dated 2025-05-10, 3-star) describes a persistent drain issue across multiple visits, a technician suggesting an unsupervised key lockbox arrangement to an elderly female customer, and an inability to respond on a holiday. This raises both professionalism and project completion concerns.
• One review (dated 2016-09-19, 1-star) describes a technician arriving without proper equipment, charging for time to retrieve it, and leaving plumbing disassembled. Though old, it corroborates a recurring pattern of incomplete work.

This WW Score is based on 49 usable reviews spanning 2016–2025, with strong data density in the most recent 12 months, making the professionalism and experience scores highly reliable; however, the project completion score should be treated with caution given a documented minority pattern of multi-visit failures, unresolved issues, and at least one serious workmanship complaint that the company allegedly declined to address.

Mallard Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism across multiple dimensions, with consistent praise for responsiveness, punctuality, politeness, and communication. Project completion is solid with timely work and thorough follow-through, though one review noted extended timelines requiring multiple trips. Technical expertise and problem-solving ability are well-documented. Pricing presents a mixed picture: while several reviews cite fair and reasonable rates with no hidden charges, one detailed review explicitly states costs were 'on the high side,' creating moderate uncertainty in this dimension. The overall WW Score of 87.2 reflects reliable, professional service with minor pricing concerns.

• Two reviews (2015-08-28 and 2014-09-04) contain only ratings with 'unknown' text and provide no usable data for scoring.
• All 14 reviews are dated 2015 or earlier; the most recent substantive review is from August 2014. This is a significant recency concern—no reviews from the past 9+ years limits confidence in current service quality.
• All reviews are 5-star ratings. While not necessarily fake, the complete absence of any critical or lower ratings is unusual and may indicate selection bias or incomplete review data.
• The contractor's unusual background (Ph.D. in history) is mentioned in one review but does not directly impact scoring dimensions.

This score should be treated with caution due to the age of reviews (all pre-2015) and lack of recent customer feedback; while the available data shows strong performance, current service quality cannot be reliably assessed from this dataset alone.

Rapid Response / All Drain draws overwhelmingly positive feedback across professionalism, speed of response, and technical competence, with many reviewers specifically praising named technicians like Jerry, Dalton, David, and others for being courteous, knowledgeable, and thorough. Project completion scores well overall, with numerous accounts of jobs finished quickly and correctly — including cases where other companies had failed — but is meaningfully dragged down by several credible negative reviews describing no-shows, abandoned cleanups, and unresolved work. Pricing is a mixed picture: many reviewers call costs fair or reasonable, but at least three reviews explicitly cite prices as excessive or far above competitors, preventing a high pricing score. The review pool spans from 2006 to 2025, meaning a significant portion of reviews are more than one year old and may not reflect current service quality; however, recent 2024–2025 reviews remain largely positive. Overall the score reflects a contractor with genuine strengths but a documented pattern of reliability failures that cannot be ignored.

• 9 reviews contained no text at all (only a star rating) and were excluded from dimension scoring — these inflate the apparent review count without providing usable data.
• One review (2022-08-03) describing a plumber arriving 'loaded with weeds, an AK-47, a Glock 19, and a Miller light' is almost certainly fabricated or a troll review and was excluded from scoring.
• One review (2024-07-15) appears to have its full text duplicated within the same review entry, suggesting a copy-paste artifact rather than a genuine separate submission.
• Several reviews reference different company names (All Drain, Rapid Response Sewer and Drain, Roupers All Drain Inc.) suggesting this review pool may aggregate reviews across multiple related but distinct business entities or ownership periods, which reduces comparability.
• Multiple no-show complaints (2024-06-09 one-star, 2018-08-07 one-star, 2015-09-24 two-star) represent a consistent pattern of appointment reliability failures that is a material risk signal.
• One negative review (2022-10-28) describes incomplete cleanup, a broken furnace hose left disconnected, and three ignored callback promises — a serious project completion failure.
• One negative review (2017-01-26) describes cracked pipe caused by technician, failure to confirm the original clog was cleared, and refusal to return — another serious workmanship and completion failure.
• A large portion of reviews (roughly 25+) predate 2023 and some go back to 2006–2012, significantly limiting their relevance to current service quality. Recent 2024–2025 reviews are predominantly positive but the older negative reviews still factor into the historical record.
• No fake review pattern detected among the positive reviews — most contain specific details, named technicians, and situational context that suggest authenticity.

This WW Score is based on a large and diverse review pool spanning nearly two decades, giving it HIGH statistical confidence in direction, but consumers should weight the 2024–2025 reviews most heavily and treat the documented no-show and incomplete-work complaints as genuine risk factors rather than outliers.

TMI demonstrates strong professionalism and technical expertise across most recent reviews, with technicians consistently praised for knowledge, politeness, and efficiency. Project completion is generally solid with most jobs finished on time and to customer satisfaction. However, pricing emerges as a significant weakness, with multiple customers citing high costs, perceived price gouging, and unfavorable comparisons to competitors. The company shows a stark divide between recent 5-star reviews (predominantly from 2025 and late 2024) and older negative reviews (2013-2022) citing service failures, poor follow-up, and warranty disputes. This temporal pattern warrants caution.

• SUSPICIOUS REVIEW PATTERN: 38 of 56 reviews are dated 2025-06-02 to 2025-06-08 (within 7 days), with 35 being 5-star ratings with minimal detail. This clustering is highly unusual and suggests potential review manipulation or bulk submission.
• GENERIC PRAISE: Many recent reviews use nearly identical phrasing ('very professional,' 'knowledgeable,' 'friendly') with minimal specific detail about actual work performed, raising authenticity concerns.
• TEMPORAL DIVIDE: Stark contrast between recent glowing reviews and older reviews (2013-2022) containing serious complaints about misdiagnosis, poor follow-up, pricing disputes, and warranty issues. This suggests either significant company improvement or review authenticity issues.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS: Multiple credible older reviews (2018-2020) document high pricing, price gouging allegations, and unfavorable cost comparisons. Recent reviews mention pricing positively but lack detail.
• SERVICE FAILURES IN HISTORY: Older reviews document incomplete work (dampers at YMCA), misdiagnosis (multiple different problems identified on same unit), and poor customer service (16 days without hot water, no follow-up).
• EMPTY REVIEWS: 3 reviews contain only 5-star ratings with no text, reducing data quality.

This WW Score should be treated with CAUTION. While recent reviews show strong professionalism and experience scores, the suspicious clustering of 38 nearly-identical 5-star reviews within a single week, combined with a stark historical pattern of serious service and pricing complaints, suggests the recent data may not be fully reliable. The pricing dimension is supported by credible negative evidence from multiple older reviews. Recommend independent verification before making service decisions, particularly regarding pricing transparency and warranty terms.

Eagle Plumbing demonstrates solid overall performance with a WW Score of 76.8, reflecting a company with genuine strengths but also notable inconsistencies. Professionalism scores 78.5 based on 89 mentions, with many customers praising punctuality, courtesy, and communication—though a significant subset reports rude phone staff, no-shows, and late arrivals. Pricing scores 77.0 across 52 mentions; customers frequently cite fair and reasonable rates, though some object to parts markups and the $100 minimum service call fee. Project Completion scores 75.2 from 78 mentions, revealing a critical weakness: while many jobs are completed successfully, a substantial number of reviews document incomplete work, warranty disputes, poor craftsmanship, and failures requiring callbacks or outside contractors. Experience scores 80.5 from 68 mentions, with strong technical knowledge and problem-solving ability consistently praised, though some reviews cite incompetence or misdiagnosis. The company shows a pattern of excellent work from certain technicians (Jeff, Tim, Victor, Kevin, Bob) alongside poor experiences with others and persistent phone-based customer service issues.

• CRITICAL: Two major negative reviews (Sept 2024, 0.5 and 1.0 stars) document severe project failures on a 4-plex replumbing job—trenched and cracked sewer line covered up without repair, dozens of installation errors, extended timeline (5+ weeks vs. 1.5 weeks promised), sloppy workmanship, and incomplete follow-through. These are detailed, specific, and credible complaints suggesting systemic quality control issues on larger projects.
• PATTERN: Multiple reviews (2013–2021) report no-shows, missed appointment windows, and lack of communication despite scheduled service times. This pattern suggests operational/dispatch issues that persist across years.
• PATTERN: Recurring complaints about rude, dismissive, or sarcastic phone staff (multiple reviews mention 'Steve' and unnamed female receptionist with poor attitude). This is a consistent weak point in customer experience.
• PATTERN: Several reviews document warranty disputes, refusals to honor work guarantees, and demands that customers prove fault before service is provided at no charge.
• CONCERN: Reviews from 2024 show the company still operating, but the Sept 2024 4-plex disaster and earlier major failures suggest quality control remains inconsistent, particularly on complex/large jobs.
• RECENCY: Most recent reviews (2025, 2024) are predominantly 5-star with minimal detail, which may indicate selection bias or review platform changes. However, the Sept 2024 negative reviews are detailed and credible.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK: LOW-MODERATE. Several reviews are blank (5-star with no text) or extremely generic ('Great job,' 'Wonderful,' 'unknown'). However, the majority of reviews contain specific details, named technicians, and varied experiences, suggesting authentic feedback overall. The pattern of detailed negative reviews alongside detailed positive ones supports authenticity.

This WW Score of 76.8 should be treated with MODERATE-TO-HIGH caution: the company demonstrates genuine competence and customer satisfaction in routine jobs and with specific technicians, but exhibits serious inconsistencies in project completion quality, phone-based customer service, and performance on complex/large projects. Customers should expect variable service quality depending on technician assignment and job complexity, and should be prepared for potential communication friction and warranty disputes. The Sept 2024 4-plex failure is particularly concerning and suggests the company may struggle with scope management and quality oversight on larger engagements.