Find Nearby Plumbers In Omaha, Nebraska

Liberty Plumbing demonstrates strong overall performance with a WW Score of 82.3, driven primarily by exceptional professionalism (86.5) across hundreds of reviews praising punctuality, communication, and courteous technicians. Project completion scores (81.8) are solid, though tempered by multiple reports of incomplete work, delayed callbacks, and follow-up issues. Experience ratings (84.1) reflect consistent technical competence and problem-solving ability. Pricing (76.2) emerges as the weakest dimension, with recurring complaints about unexpected charges, price gouging, and lack of transparency despite many positive comments about fair rates. The company shows significant variability in service quality and follow-through.

• PRICING CONCERNS: Multiple reviews (2016-06-28, 2017-10-30, 2022-03-17, 2022-08-03) document substantial overcharges, price gouging, and lack of transparency. Customers report being quoted one price then charged significantly more, or charged for parts at 5-7x retail cost. This pattern suggests inconsistent pricing practices.
• PROJECT COMPLETION ISSUES: Several reviews (2023-08-14, 2023-08-12, 2023-10-03, 2023-10-02, 2020-01-14) report incomplete work, abandoned projects, failure to return for callbacks, and lack of follow-through. One customer waited 3+ months for faucet installation with no resolution.
• COMMUNICATION FAILURES: Multiple reports (2022-07-06, 2022-08-19, 2017-10-03, 2017-10-02, 2019-08-18) of no-shows, missed appointments, failure to return calls, and unprofessional phone interactions with owners.
• QUALITY INCONSISTENCY: Reviews show wide variance in technician quality and work outcomes. Some technicians praised extensively; others criticized for incomplete diagnostics, poor installations, or damage (2016-11-16 chimney liner damage, 2016-05-16 worsened drain problem).
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: Approximately 15-20 reviews from 2021-2025 show nearly identical phrasing ('on time, professional, friendly, clean, efficient') with minimal specific details. While not conclusive, this warrants caution in weighting recent reviews.
• DEPOSIT/PAYMENT PRACTICES: Review from 2022-08-03 documents aggressive deposit collection ($59 driver fee kept regardless), demands for 20% down payment upfront, and refusal to accept standard payment methods. Raises consumer protection concerns.
• PERMIT/COMPLIANCE ISSUES: Review from 2023-02-07 reports customer charged for permit that was never pulled or inspected, with no follow-up from company despite multiple contact attempts.

This WW Score of 82.3 should be treated with MODERATE-TO-HIGH caution: while professionalism and experience dimensions are well-supported by extensive data, the pricing dimension is significantly undermined by documented overcharge patterns, and project completion reliability is compromised by multiple reports of abandoned work and failed callbacks. The company appears capable of excellent service but demonstrates inconsistent follow-through and pricing transparency that creates material risk for customers. Recent reviews show potential fake review clustering that may inflate current ratings.

Heritage Plumbing demonstrates strong overall performance with particular strengths in professionalism and technical expertise. The company excels at punctuality, communication, and skilled workmanship, with 98 mentions of professional conduct and 64 mentions of quality technical work. Project completion is reliable with 76 mentions of timely, thorough job execution. However, pricing emerges as a notable weakness with only 32 mentions and a lower score of 73.0, reflecting customer concerns about overcharging, high service fees, and pricing transparency. Recent reviews (2024-2025) are overwhelmingly positive, but older reviews (2006-2018) contain several serious complaints about unresponsiveness, project abandonment, and unprofessional behavior from certain technicians.

• SIGNIFICANT QUALITY VARIANCE: Multiple negative reviews from 2015-2018 describe serious issues including project abandonment ($8,000+ unpaid work), non-responsiveness, and unprofessional conduct. These contrast sharply with recent 2024-2025 reviews which are nearly universally 5-star. This suggests either significant company restructuring or potential review manipulation.
• PRICING CONCERNS: 11 reviews explicitly mention overcharging or high prices (e.g., $520 for 50-minute job, $456.37 for disposal installation, $225 for toilet flapper replacement, $150 estimate fee for refused work). This pattern indicates systematic pricing issues despite overall positive service ratings.
• FAKE REVIEW INDICATORS: 6 reviews contain only ratings with no text or minimal text ('unknown', 'Great!!!!!!', 'no answer from them'). Additionally, 3 reviews are completely blank with only 5-star ratings. These appear to be placeholder or artificially inflated entries.
• RECENCY BIAS: 65% of reviews are from 2024-2025 (all 5-star with detailed praise), while negative reviews cluster in 2015-2018 and 2019-2020. The dramatic shift suggests either genuine improvement or review platform changes. Older reviews contain credible complaints about abandonment and non-responsiveness.
• PERSONNEL INCONSISTENCY: Reviews mention multiple technicians (Ben, Victor, Tony, Tommy, Rick, Gene, Travis, Eric, Rusty, Phillip, Dylan, Rodney Speake) with vastly different quality levels. One technician (Rick/Rodney Speake) appears in multiple serious complaints (project abandonment, overcharging, conspiracy rants, retaliation). This suggests quality control issues or personnel turnover.
• SERIOUS CONDUCT ISSUES: One 2018 review describes a technician engaging in aggressive political rants and conspiracy theories, then abandoning the job. Another 2017 review alleges retaliation against a customer who didn't award a bid. These are red flags for workplace culture and screening.
• RESPONSIVENESS PROBLEMS: Multiple reviews from 2018-2020 describe failure to return calls/emails despite promises of 'great service.' This contradicts the recent 2024-2025 narrative of excellent responsiveness.

This WW Score of 82.3 should be treated with CAUTION. While recent 2024-2025 reviews (65% of dataset) are consistently excellent and suggest genuine current quality, the presence of serious historical complaints (project abandonment, non-responsiveness, overcharging, unprofessional conduct), combined with suspicious review patterns (blank entries, sudden quality shift, multiple technician names), indicates the score may not fully reflect the company's actual reliability. The pricing dimension (73.0) is well-supported by credible complaints and should be weighted heavily in decision-making. Recommend requesting detailed references from recent clients and clarifying pricing structure before engagement.

Master Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism and technical expertise across most reviews, with technicians consistently praised for punctuality, communication, and knowledgeable work. However, the company shows significant inconsistency in project completion and follow-through, with multiple serious complaints about no-shows, abandoned work, poor callbacks, and unresolved issues. Pricing feedback is mixed—some customers report fair and reasonable rates, while others cite high costs or unexpected charges. Recent reviews (2025) are overwhelmingly positive, but older reviews reveal systemic problems with accountability and customer service that appear partially resolved over time.

• CRITICAL: Multiple severe project completion failures documented—no-shows on scheduled appointments (2022, 2015, 2008), work left incomplete (2022, 2008), and technicians ghosting customers after payment (2022, 2009). These are not isolated incidents.
• CRITICAL: Serious follow-up and callback failures—customers reporting inability to reach company for warranty issues, repairs, and damage assessment (2022, 2009, 2008). One customer reported manager hanging up phone (2023).
• PATTERN: Significant quality control issues in older reviews—incorrect installations, damaged property during jobs, undersized systems, and poor workmanship that required re-repair by other companies (2022, 2008, 2007).
• RECENCY BIAS DETECTED: Reviews from 2025 and late 2024 are almost uniformly 5-star with generic praise and minimal specifics. Reviews from 2022-2023 show serious complaints. This suggests either significant operational changes or potential review manipulation in recent period.
• PRICING INCONSISTENCY: Multiple complaints about unexpected charges, high hourly rates ($175/hour noted as surprise), and quotes that don't match final bills (2008, 2015). Some customers report fair pricing; others report being overcharged.
• MULTIPLE TECHNICIAN NAMES: Reviews mention many different technicians (Doug, Meir, Jim, Kyle, Steve, Scott, etc.), making it difficult to assess whether issues are company-wide or individual. Quality appears highly variable by technician.
• FAKE REVIEW INDICATORS: Recent reviews (2025) contain repetitive structure, minimal detail, and suspiciously consistent 5-star ratings with vague praise ('Great service,' 'awesome,' 'highly recommend'). Multiple blank/minimal-text 5-star reviews suggest possible review padding.
• GEOGRAPHIC INCONSISTENCY: Reviews reference multiple locations (San Francisco, Boise, Idaho, Mountain View, etc.), suggesting either multiple locations or franchises with inconsistent quality standards.

This WW Score should be treated with MODERATE-TO-HIGH caution. While recent 2025 reviews are uniformly positive, historical data (2022-2023) reveals serious systemic issues with project completion, follow-through, and customer service that directly contradict the current narrative. The company may have improved significantly, but the recent review pattern shows signs of potential manipulation (generic praise, minimal detail, high concentration of 5-stars). Customers should verify current operational practices independently and request specific technician references before committing to major work.

Major Drain demonstrates strong overall performance across all dimensions, with particular strength in professionalism (86.5) where technicians consistently arrive on time, communicate clearly, and treat customers with courtesy. Pricing scores well (81.0) with customers frequently praising fair rates and transparent quotes, though some isolated complaints about hidden charges and billing practices exist. Project completion (79.5) shows solid execution with most jobs finished promptly, though a notable minority of reviews report incomplete work, follow-up issues, and callback problems. Experience (84.0) reflects strong technical knowledge and problem-solving ability, with technicians demonstrating expertise in diagnostics and repairs. The company's reputation for honesty—particularly in avoiding unnecessary upsells—is a consistent positive theme.

• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: Multiple reviews contain nearly identical phrasing regarding 'honesty,' 'transparency,' and 'no upsells' (e.g., reviews from 2025-05-19, 2025-05-26, 2025-03-11). While these may reflect genuine customer sentiment, the repetitive language warrants caution.
• RECENCY BIAS: Approximately 40% of reviews are from the past 6 months (2025), with a sharp concentration in May-June 2025. Older reviews (2013-2017) show more critical detail and occasional negative experiences. Recent reviews are predominantly 5-star with less substantive detail.
• NEGATIVE OUTLIERS: Several 1-star reviews (2024, 2023, 2021, 2018, 2017) describe serious issues including incomplete work, billing disputes, poor cleanup, and unresponsive management. One review mentions legal action and lien threats. These suggest systemic problems in specific areas (follow-up, billing transparency, quality control).
• BILLING INCONSISTENCY: Multiple reviews mention confusion or dissatisfaction with pricing structure, fuel charges, and itemization. Some customers felt double-charged or surprised by final bills despite initial quotes.
• QUALITY CONTROL VARIANCE: Negative reviews often involve specific technicians (Chad, RL, Ryan in some contexts) suggesting inconsistent training or quality standards across staff.
• INCOMPLETE WORK DOCUMENTED: At least 4 reviews explicitly state work was not completed on first visit or required callbacks, contradicting the strong project completion narrative in positive reviews.

This WW Score of 82.3 is reliable with HIGH overall confidence due to the large sample size (150 reviews) and consistent mention counts across all dimensions (67-98 mentions each). However, the score should be interpreted cautiously: the recent concentration of 5-star reviews with generic praise, combined with documented negative experiences involving billing disputes and incomplete work, suggests the company's actual performance may be more variable than the high score indicates. The company excels in customer-facing professionalism and initial responsiveness but shows weakness in follow-through, billing transparency, and conflict resolution. Prospective customers should prioritize getting detailed written estimates and clarifying billing terms upfront.

Drain Daddy demonstrates strong overall performance across all dimensions, with particular strength in project completion (86.0) and professionalism (84.5). The company excels at responsiveness, punctuality, and follow-through on warranty commitments. Pricing is generally perceived as fair and competitive (78.0), though some customers note it is not the absolute lowest. Technical skill and workmanship are consistently praised (85.5). However, two significant negative reviews from 2016-2018 detailing unprofessional conduct, unsanitary practices, and billing disputes create material concerns that prevent a higher overall score despite the overwhelmingly positive majority.

• Two highly detailed negative reviews (1-star ratings from 2016-07-29 and 2018-08-07) describe serious professionalism issues including unsanitary work practices, aggressive billing tactics, and poor customer service. These are specific and credible complaints that contradict the predominantly positive pattern.
• Review from 2016-07-29 alleges dirty work practices, improper handling of customer belongings, sewage contamination of carpet, and unfair blame assignment for building-wide plumbing issues. This review is detailed and includes reference to supporting documentation.
• Review from 2018-08-07 complains of excessive pricing ($130 for 2-minute drain clearing) and aggressive payment demands (4-day payment deadline). While the customer's tone is hostile, the complaint about pricing for minimal work is substantive.
• Multiple reviews from 2013-2016 period (older than 12 months) comprise approximately 70% of dataset. More recent reviews (2024, 2022) are uniformly 5-star with limited detail, which could suggest selection bias in what gets posted recently.
• Three reviews marked 'unknown' with 5-star ratings lack any substantive content and cannot be meaningfully evaluated.
• One review (2013-06-20) explicitly states 'you have to keep an eye on him because he tries to cut corners,' suggesting potential quality control issues.
• One review (2013-05-15, 3-star) reports overcharging and refusal to apply senior discount until customer negotiated, indicating possible pricing integrity concerns.
• Recency concern: Only 3 reviews from past 12 months (2024, 2022 dates), all 5-star. Bulk of data is 8-12 years old, limiting current reliability assessment.

This WW Score of 82.3 should be treated with MODERATE-to-HIGH caution. While the majority of reviews (98 of 100) are positive and detailed, the presence of two credible, specific negative reviews describing serious professionalism and billing issues creates legitimate concerns about consistency. The dataset is heavily weighted toward reviews from 2011-2016 (70+ reviews), making current performance assessment difficult. Recent reviews (past 12 months) are limited to 3 entries, all 5-star with minimal detail. The score reflects strong historical performance but may not accurately represent current service quality or consistency. Prospective customers should review the detailed negative complaints from 2016-2018 before engaging this contractor.

Schroeder Plumbing demonstrates strong overall performance across all dimensions, with particular strength in professionalism and technical expertise. The company excels at punctuality, communication, and courteous service, as evidenced by 62 mentions praising these attributes. Project completion is reliable with 58 mentions of timely, thorough work. Pricing is generally perceived as fair and competitive (35 mentions), though some customers note rates are slightly higher than competitors—a trade-off they accept for quality. Technical skill and problem-solving ability are consistently highlighted across 48 mentions. However, the company has 6 negative reviews (7.5% of total) citing scheduling failures, communication lapses, and one significant customer service dispute, which moderately tempers the otherwise strong reputation.

• Six negative reviews (2022-08-24, 2021-12-22, 2021-11-21, 2021-04-21, 2020-12-11, 2020-08-11) indicate recurring issues with scheduling reliability, communication delays, and customer service responsiveness. These are not isolated incidents.
• One detailed negative review (2022-08-24) describes a complex project dispute involving installation errors, lack of problem-solving support, and alleged unprofessional behavior by lead technician. This suggests potential quality control issues on larger/complex jobs.
• Two reviews (2021-12-22, 2021-11-21) allege harassment and vindictive behavior by owner Emily, including false reviews posted on competitor platforms. These claims, if accurate, represent serious ethical concerns.
• One review (2020-12-11) reports a main line cleaning that failed within one week, suggesting potential quality issues with certain service types.
• Recency note: Most reviews are from 2019-2024, with strong concentration in 2021-2024. Negative reviews cluster in 2020-2022 period; more recent reviews (2024) are uniformly positive, suggesting possible service improvements.
• No evidence of fake review patterns detected. Reviews show specific details, varied writing styles, and authentic customer experiences both positive and negative.

This WW Score of 82.3 is highly reliable, based on 80 reviews with substantial mention counts across all dimensions (35-62 mentions each). The score accurately reflects a company with strong technical competence and professionalism but with documented scheduling and communication vulnerabilities that affect approximately 7-8% of customers. The score should be trusted as a fair representation of typical customer experience, though prospective customers should be aware of the scheduling risk and confirm appointment confirmations in advance.