Find Nearby Plumbers In Omaha, Nebraska

ASAP Appliance and Plumbing presents a deeply split profile. A substantial cluster of positive reviews praises named technicians — Shane, Edward, Cesar, John, Daniel, Chris M. — for being knowledgeable, friendly, punctual, and thorough, with several reviewers noting same-day or next-day responsiveness. However, a significant number of negative reviews describe serious failures across all dimensions: missed appointments, incomplete or botched repairs, incorrect diagnoses, refusal to honor warranty work, overcharging, and in one case a dangerous gas leak caused by improper installation. Pricing complaints are notable, with one reviewer receiving a $1,235 estimate for work quoted at $400 elsewhere, and multiple reviewers feeling overcharged for unresolved problems. Project completion is the most damaged dimension, with multiple reviews describing jobs left unfinished, parts never arriving, return visits that still failed to fix the problem, and at least one case of physical damage (scratched floors, burnt washing machine box) caused during service.

• 6 reviews contain no text — only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data.
• Several 5-star reviews are very brief and generic (e.g., 'Quick service. Very professional', 'We only use these guys. They've never done us wrong. Use them.') with no specific details. These may inflate positive sentiment and were scored conservatively.
• Two reviews (2024-05-15 and 2024-04-30) appear to describe the same service call (tankless water heater, same complaints about pipe complaining, no diagnostics performed, $150 charge). This may represent a duplicate review from the same customer and was counted as one incident to avoid double-weighting.
• One review (2017-02-06) describes a gas leak caused by an improperly installed hot water heater — a serious safety incident. This is a significant red flag for workmanship quality on plumbing installations.
• One review (2024-03-13) describes a technician who left the main water shutoff off after a botched repair and caused physical damage to the washing machine box. The reviewer mentioned consulting an attorney.
• One review (2018-11-08) alleges the company bid $100,000 for unnecessary work and did not complete work they claimed to have done — a potential fraud allegation.
• One review (2018-09-05) alleges the company removes negative reviews from Google, which if true would indicate review manipulation and means the positive review pool may be artificially inflated.
• The majority of strongly negative reviews span 2017–2024, indicating these are not isolated historical incidents but a recurring pattern across multiple years.
• Recency note: Reviews from the past 12 months (mid-2024 to mid-2025) are mixed — several strong positives but also the tankless water heater complaints and the burnt washing machine box incident, suggesting quality issues persist into the most recent period.

This WW Score is based on 51 reviews with usable content and carries HIGH data confidence due to mention volume, but the score itself should be treated with caution given credible allegations of review suppression, a recurring pattern of negative outcomes across multiple years, and serious safety and fraud-related complaints that cannot be dismissed.

A. Raymond Plumbing presents a deeply mixed picture across all four dimensions. Professionalism is the most frequently mentioned dimension and is sharply divided: a core group of technicians — particularly Nathanael, Dana, and Derek (in positive contexts) — are praised repeatedly for courtesy, punctuality, and communication, while multiple negative reviews describe dismissive attitudes, a plumber who walked off a job, and a pattern of ignoring customer concerns and damage complaints. Project completion is similarly split, with several reviews praising fast, thorough work including cleanup, but offset by serious complaints about abandoned jobs, unresolved damage (cut sprinkler lines, cracked concrete, destroyed yards), and failure to follow through on commitments. Pricing drew notable criticism, including a charge of $2,500 just for a diagnostic and a complaint about charging for an estimate, though a few reviewers found pricing reasonable. Experience scores moderately, with skilled technicians praised in positive reviews but countered by accounts of a plumber arriving with broken equipment, failing to perform stated work, and misdiagnosing issues.

• 9 reviews contain no text — only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence.
• There is a possible duplicate review: the 1-star complaint about Derek refusing to wait for a washing machine to be moved appears twice with nearly identical text (dated 2024-06-09 and 2023-11-25). Only one instance was counted per dimension to avoid double-weighting.
• Several 5-star reviews are very brief and generic (e.g., 'Fast and efficient!', 'Mike was awesome', 'Fast, expert service') with no specific detail. These were counted for sentiment but treated as low-evidential for dimension scoring.
• A recurring pattern of property damage complaints (cut sprinkler lines, cracked concrete, destroyed yard, cut electrical wire) combined with the owner reportedly dismissing or ignoring all of them suggests a systemic issue with accountability, not isolated incidents.
• Review date range spans 2016 to 2025. Reviews older than 2 years (pre-2023) were given reduced weight. The most recent reviews (2024–2025) still show both strong positives and serious negatives, indicating the mixed quality pattern is ongoing.
• The 1-star review from 2016 regarding water theft was noted but given minimal weight due to age and the fact that it describes conduct by on-site workers at a neighboring construction site rather than a direct service interaction.

This WW Score is based on 43 reviews with usable content spanning nearly a decade, with sufficient volume for HIGH confidence, but the extreme polarization between glowing and severely negative reviews means the score of 62.1 should be interpreted cautiously — this contractor delivers excellent results with certain technicians and very poor outcomes with others, making individual technician assignment a significant risk factor for any customer.

Metro Plumbing receives generally positive marks for professionalism, with multiple reviewers citing courteous, on-time, and communicative technicians across many years of reviews. However, pricing is a notable weak point: two separate reviewers explicitly called out overcharging or deceptive billing practices, and one detailed review described a significant upcharge for a minor additional task that soured an otherwise positive experience. Project completion is mostly positive, with jobs generally described as finished and functional, but one review (the 2013 home warranty case) involved a plumber who declined to fix the core issue and was later found to have misdiagnosed it. Experience scores moderately well, with several reviewers praising quality workmanship and technical knowledge, though the misdiagnosis incident and the 2019 drain-plunging complaint temper that score meaningfully.

• Several reviews are extremely old (2004–2006) and carry very low relevance to current business quality; these were included in counts but should be treated with caution.
• The 'unknown' review (2005) with a 5-star rating and no text was excluded from usable data as it provides no scorable information.
• Reviews from 2004 use all-caps formatting and are extremely brief, which may indicate a different review collection system rather than fake reviews, but they add minimal signal.
• The most recent negative review (2019) and the 2013 home warranty review both describe potential deceptive or exploitative pricing behavior — this is a meaningful pattern across different time periods.
• Only one review is from the past 12 months (June 2024), making it difficult to assess current business performance with confidence. The majority of reviews are 4–20 years old.
• No fake review pattern detected, but the review set is sparse and heavily skewed toward older dates, significantly limiting reliability.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability due to the heavy concentration of very old reviews (most predating 2020), a thin recent review base of only one review in the past 12 months, and documented pricing complaints that suggest inconsistent billing practices across multiple independent reviewers.

Frazier shows strong technical expertise and generally professional service interactions, with multiple customers praising knowledgeable technicians and courteous behavior. However, significant project completion issues emerge across multiple reviews: incomplete work requiring callbacks, failure to complete requested tasks, and unresolved technical problems. Pricing is generally perceived as fair, though service-side fees for follow-up work create customer frustration. The company appears to have experienced a decline in service quality, with recent reviews (2022) indicating serious deterioration under new management, contrasting sharply with positive experiences from 2016–2018.

• RECENCY CONCERN: Most positive reviews are from 2016–2020; most recent review (2022) is severely negative and explicitly cites 'new management' as cause for decline
• PROJECT COMPLETION RED FLAG: Multiple reviews document incomplete work, skipped critical steps, unfinished requested tasks, and multiple callbacks required
• SERVICE FOLLOW-UP ISSUE: Customers report being charged additional service fees for completing originally requested work, creating trust and fairness concerns
• TEMPORAL QUALITY SHIFT: Clear pattern suggesting service quality degradation over time, particularly post-2020

This score should be treated with caution due to significant temporal variation in service quality and explicit evidence of management change affecting operations; the 2022 review suggests current performance may be substantially lower than the calculated score reflects.

This contractor shows significant inconsistency across projects. Professionalism scores are mixed: some reviews praise punctuality and courtesy, while others report complete communication breakdown and abandonment of work. Project completion is the weakest dimension, with one major job containing multiple code violations and poor workmanship, plus documented instances of non-responsiveness after payment. Pricing appears fair when work is completed properly, but the contractor's skill level varies considerably. The most recent detailed review (2017) reveals serious technical failures that required a second plumber to correct, substantially lowering overall confidence.

• CRITICAL: Most recent detailed review (2017) documents severe project failures including code violations, improper installations, and non-responsiveness after $7,500 payment received. This is the most recent substantive feedback and indicates deterioration.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Positive reviews are from 2004-2015 (9-20 years old). The most recent review is negative and detailed (2017). This suggests past performance may not reflect current service quality.
• COMMUNICATION FAILURE: Two separate reviews (2017 and 2005) explicitly mention contractor refusing/failing to return calls and texts, indicating a pattern of poor responsiveness.
• QUALITY CONTROL: 2017 review documents multiple technical failures (shower drains too high, toilet rough not to code, kitchen plumbing too high, water filter leaking) that required a second plumber to identify and correct.
• INCOMPLETE WORK: 2017 review shows work was not completed to code and contractor became unresponsive after receiving $7,500 with $500 balance outstanding.

This score should be treated with caution due to significant recency bias in negative feedback and a clear pattern of deteriorating service quality over time; the most recent detailed review documents serious failures that contradict older positive reviews, suggesting current reliability is substantially lower than historical performance.

Tritz Plumbing shows significant inconsistency across all dimensions. While many customers praise individual technicians (Kevin, Mark, Brandon, Ron, Mike) for technical skill and friendliness, the company suffers from severe professionalism issues including rude office staff, missed appointments, late arrivals, and unprofessional technician behavior (yelling, abusive conduct). Project completion is undermined by repeated failures to diagnose problems correctly, incomplete repairs requiring multiple callbacks, and work that exacerbates rather than solves issues. Pricing feedback is mixed—some customers report fair, transparent pricing while others describe shocking overcharges and inflated estimates. The company's inconsistency suggests quality depends heavily on which technician is assigned.

• CRITICAL: Multiple reviews describe identical or near-identical negative patterns across different time periods (rude owner/office staff, missed appointments, failed diagnostics, inflated billing), suggesting systemic operational problems rather than isolated incidents.
• FAKE REVIEW CONCERN: Several reviews from 2023-06-10 are suspiciously generic with minimal detail (e.g., 'Great service', 'Great service and fast', blank reviews rated 5-star). These appear to be placeholder or artificially generated reviews and reduce confidence in the positive signal.
• SERIOUS ALLEGATIONS: Multiple customers allege intentional overcharging, misdiagnosis leading to unnecessary work, and deliberate upselling. Two detailed reviews describe nearly identical scenarios (sewer line work, inflated estimates, competitor solved problem for half the price). One customer explicitly states 'THESE GUYS ARE STRAIGHT UP CROOKED.'
• OWNER CONDUCT: Multiple reviews report the owner being rude, condescending, and hanging up on customers during complaint calls. This suggests poor complaint resolution and management accountability.
• RECENCY BIAS: Most negative reviews are from 2021-2025 (recent), while many positive reviews are from 2015-2018 (older). This suggests the company's quality has deteriorated significantly over time.
• TECHNICIAN INCONSISTENCY: Reviews explicitly contrast excellent technicians (Mark, Kevin, Brandon, Ron) with abusive/incompetent ones (Eric, unnamed technicians). This indicates severe quality control and hiring/training issues.
• SAFETY CONCERN: One review describes a technician spraying sewer water on a customer. Another describes technician banging on walls and screaming at customers.

This WW Score should be treated with CAUTION. While based on 59 usable reviews, the company exhibits extreme inconsistency—some customers report excellent experiences while others describe what they characterize as fraud or gross incompetence. The presence of systemic complaints about office staff rudeness, missed appointments, failed diagnostics, and inflated billing across multiple years suggests these are not isolated incidents. The score of 62.8 reflects this polarization but may understate risk for customers, as the negative reviews often involve significant financial loss and unresolved problems. Customers should request specific technicians by name (Mark, Kevin, Brandon, Ron) if possible and obtain second opinions on major work estimates.