Find Nearby Plumbers In Omaha, Nebraska

Gretna Plumbing demonstrates strong technical competence and professionalism, with consistent praise for communication, responsiveness, and quality workmanship across multiple reviews. However, pricing is a significant and recurring concern—multiple recent reviews (2022) explicitly criticize labor rates as excessive and disproportionate to time spent, with customers feeling overcharged despite acknowledging good service quality. Project completion is solid with no abandoned work reported. The company's score is pulled down substantially by the pricing dimension, which carries meaningful weight and is supported by detailed, credible complaints from recent customers.

• RECENCY CONCERN: Most positive reviews are from 2014–2017 (5–9 years old). The two most recent reviews (2022) are strongly negative and focus on pricing. This temporal pattern suggests service quality may have declined or pricing practices have changed significantly.
• PRICING PATTERN: Four reviews explicitly mention pricing; two are highly critical with specific dollar amounts and calculations. Two older reviews praise fair pricing. This contradiction warrants caution—recent pricing complaints appear credible and detailed, not generic.
• SAMPLE SIZE: Only 7 reviews total limits confidence. Pricing criticism is based on only 4 mentions, though those mentions are detailed and recent.

This score should be treated with MODERATE confidence due to small sample size and a clear temporal divide between older positive reviews and recent negative pricing complaints. The WW Score of 72.8 reflects genuine strengths in professionalism and project completion, but is significantly constrained by credible, recent pricing concerns that appear to represent current business practices rather than isolated incidents.

The majority of recent reviews (2024–2025) paint a strongly positive picture of individual technicians — particularly Avery Heath, Matthew Fuller, Justin Clawson, and Joshua Haston — who are repeatedly praised for professionalism, punctuality, friendliness, and technical knowledge. However, a meaningful cluster of negative reviews raises serious concerns about billing practices, upselling pressure, incomplete work, and poor customer service resolution, which significantly drag down the pricing and project completion scores. The pricing dimension is the weakest area, with multiple reviewers citing extreme costs, hidden credit card fees, a $258 charge for a $25 part, and aggressive upselling toward unnecessary replacements. Project completion is also mixed: several reviews describe jobs left unfinished, failed drain unclogging that was still charged, and a technician who left mid-job. The recency split is notable — nearly all negative reviews are from 2014–2025 (with the billing complaint being April 2025), suggesting some systemic issues persist even as individual technician performance has improved.

• 5 reviews contain no text whatsoever — only a 5-star rating. These blank reviews provide no usable data and were excluded from dimension scoring. Their presence slightly inflates the raw star average.
• A large number of reviews (particularly the 2024–2025 batch) share very similar structure: technician name + 'professional and knowledgeable' + 5 stars. While many appear genuine due to specific details, the volume of near-identical short reviews warrants mild fake review suspicion for the most generic entries.
• Recency warning: All negative reviews are from 2014–2022 except one billing complaint from April 2025, which confirms that billing/pricing issues are not fully resolved. The 2014–2019 negative reviews were given reduced weight but still factored in as they describe systemic patterns (upselling, incomplete work, overcharging) that reappear in the 2025 billing complaint.
• One review describes a technician leaving a job incomplete mid-work and leaving the home in a damaged state (2017). Another describes a technician refusing to return to a customer's home unless they purchased a new water heater (2016). These are serious conduct flags even if older.
• The company's billing department appears to operate independently from field technicians, causing repeated miscommunication about charges — a structural issue flagged in the April 2025 review and echoed in older complaints.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability: the high volume of recent positive reviews establishes genuine technician-level quality, but recurring billing disputes, upselling complaints, and incomplete-job reports across multiple years — including as recently as April 2025 — introduce enough risk that prospective customers should verify pricing in writing before work begins.

Reliable Plumbing and Heating has a strong base of positive reviews praising individual technicians — especially Jerry — for professionalism, punctuality, friendliness, and technical competence. Pricing is generally described as fair and transparent, with multiple reviewers explicitly calling out affordability and honesty. However, the score is meaningfully pulled down by several serious negative reviews: one documents incomplete drywall work after a shower installation that created a mold risk, one describes clock-riding, rude behavior, and floor damage, and one describes a no-show after a confirmed appointment. A 2015 review also noted significant rescheduling delays. These failures in project completion and professionalism are credible and specific, and they cannot be ignored simply because they are outnumbered. The recency spread is also a concern — many positive reviews lack dates entirely, making it impossible to confirm whether the high praise reflects current performance.

• FAKE REVIEW RISK — MODERATE: A significant number of 5-star reviews lack dates entirely (approximately 19 out of 31 reviews have no date). This is unusual and reduces confidence in the authenticity and recency of the positive review pool.
• REPETITIVE LANGUAGE FLAG: Multiple undated 5-star reviews use nearly identical phrasing such as 'very professional and reliable,' 'would definitely hire again,' and 'highly recommend Jerry.' While not conclusive, this pattern warrants caution.
• RECENCY CONCERN: The most recent dated negative review is from October 2024 and describes incomplete work with serious consequences (potential mold from missing drywall). This is the most recent dated review in the dataset and carries elevated weight.
• PROJECT COMPLETION CONCERN: At least two reviews describe incomplete or abandoned work — one involving missing drywall after a shower install, and one describing a no-show after a confirmed appointment. These are specific, credible, and serious.
• RECENCY IMBALANCE: Most dated positive reviews are from 2018–2024, but the majority of undated reviews cannot be placed in time. If many undated reviews are old, the recent negative trend may be more significant than the overall ratio suggests.
• SINGLE REVIEW — 'unknown' content: One review with a 3-star rating and text 'unknown' was excluded from scoring as it contains no usable data.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability — the volume of reviews is reasonable and multiple dimensions have HIGH mention counts, but the large proportion of undated reviews, detectable repetitive phrasing in 5-star reviews, and at least two specific and credible negative reviews (including the most recent dated review) introduce enough uncertainty that this score should be treated as a cautious estimate rather than a definitive quality rating.

McIntosh Plumbing shows strong professionalism in customer interactions, with multiple reviews praising punctuality, friendliness, and responsiveness. However, significant concerns emerge around project completion and follow-through: delayed starts, abandoned estimates without callback, and unresolved issues undermine confidence. Pricing is a red flag based on one explicit complaint about hourly rate calculation. Experience/workmanship is generally praised when work is completed, but inconsistent project management and communication failures suggest operational challenges that impact overall reliability.

• RECENCY CONCERN: Most reviews are 5+ years old (2012-2017). Only 2 reviews from 2022 and none from 2023-2024. Historical data may not reflect current operations.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION: Reviews dated 2015-12-10 (text: '.') and 2014-05-31 (text: 'unknown') appear to be placeholder/spam entries with no substantive content. These were excluded from scoring but indicate data quality issues.
• CRITICAL PROJECT COMPLETION ISSUES: Multiple reviews document serious follow-through failures—estimate given with no callback (2017), 4-month delays before work started with worker complaints and false inspector claims (2016), property damage without notification (2017). These are not isolated incidents.
• PRICING TRANSPARENCY: Single complaint about pro-rated hourly billing suggests potential pricing clarity issues, though limited data prevents full assessment.
• INCONSISTENT SERVICE QUALITY: Stark contrast between positive recent reviews (2022) and multiple serious complaints from 2016-2017 period suggests either significant operational changes or inconsistent service delivery.

This score should be treated with caution due to age of data (most reviews 5+ years old) and serious documented project completion failures that contradict positive professionalism ratings. The WW Score reflects mixed historical performance with notable red flags in follow-through and honesty that warrant verification of current practices before engagement.

Malloy Plumbing shows significant inconsistency across reviews spanning 13 years. While early reviews (2010–2013) praise fair pricing, honest service, and technical competence, later reviews reveal serious professionalism issues including poor responsiveness, missed appointments, and communication failures. A critical 2012 incident involving a water heater explosion and invoice delays, combined with a 2016 complaint about rate discrepancies and uncomfortable customer interactions, indicate deteriorating service quality. The business demonstrates strong technical capability when engaged, but professionalism and follow-through have become unreliable.

• RECENCY CONCERN: Most positive reviews are 8–13 years old (2010–2013). Recent reviews (2016, 2012, 2011) are predominantly negative, suggesting service quality has declined significantly over time.
• PROFESSIONALISM RED FLAG: Multiple reviews cite non-responsiveness, missed appointments, and failure to return calls. Two reviews explicitly state the owner was unpleasant or uncomfortable to work with.
• ACCOUNTABILITY ISSUE: 2012 review describes a water heater explosion allegedly caused by improper backflow valve installation, with the owner denying responsibility and delaying invoice delivery until third parties intervened.
• PRICING INCONSISTENCY: 2016 review documents quoted rate of $85/hour being charged at $94/hour, with owner refusing to honor the quote and citing old invoices as justification.
• COMMUNICATION FAILURE: Multiple reviews (2012, 2013, 2011) report unanswered calls, delayed callbacks (2+ hours for emergency), and failure to follow up on promised deliverables.

This score should be treated with caution due to significant temporal inconsistency in review quality and the apparent decline in service standards over the 13-year review period; the most recent negative reviews (2016, 2012, 2011) suggest current reliability is lower than the overall score indicates, and potential customers should prioritize recent feedback over older positive reviews.

Of the 6 reviews analyzed, only 3 contained usable narrative content — the remaining 3 had no review text and could not be scored. Among the substantive reviews, professionalism was the most consistently praised dimension, with multiple reviewers explicitly noting punctuality, communication, and a professional demeanor. Pricing was mentioned positively in one review, and project completion was supported by references to timely, efficient work. Experience was inferred from repeat usage and praise for problem-solving, though no highly technical detail was provided. All reviews are more than 10 years old, which significantly limits their reliability as a reflection of current service quality.

• 3 out of 6 reviews contain no text ('unknown') — these could not be scored and may represent placeholder or incomplete entries.
• All reviews are dated between 2013 and 2015 — none are within the past 10 years, let alone the past 12 months. This score should not be treated as representative of current performance.
• All rated reviews are 5-star with no negative feedback, which warrants caution, though the small sample size and age of reviews make a fake review pattern inconclusive.
• Sample size of usable reviews (3) is at the minimum threshold — WW Score should be treated as indicative only, not definitive.

This WW Score carries very low reliability due to a small number of usable reviews, complete absence of recent reviews, and three reviews with no text content — prospective customers should seek more current references before making a hiring decision.