Find Nearby Plumbers In Omaha, Nebraska

This contractor demonstrates strong performance across all measured dimensions. Professionalism is consistently praised with mentions of responsiveness, punctuality (called as promised, arrived only 30 minutes late), and courteous communication. Pricing is a clear strength, with multiple reviews highlighting fair costs and value compared to competitors. Project completion is evidenced by completed repairs, cleanup, and coming in under budget. Technical skill is reflected in quality workmanship and helpful advice on home water systems. However, the sample size is small (3 reviews) and two reviews are significantly dated (2007, 2018), limiting confidence in current performance.

• Only 3 reviews analyzed — sample size is very small and limits statistical reliability
• Two of three reviews are older than 5 years (2007 and 2018) — current performance may differ
• Most recent review is from June 2022 — over 2 years old; no recent data available
• All reviews are 5-star ratings with positive language — no negative feedback to balance assessment
• Limited detail on specific technical challenges or complex problem-solving in reviews

This score should be treated with caution due to the very small sample size (3 reviews) and age of most data; while the contractor shows promise, a larger and more recent review pool is needed to establish reliable confidence in current performance.

The overwhelming majority of reviews praise technicians as professional, friendly, courteous, and knowledgeable, driving strong scores across all four dimensions. Pricing is generally viewed favorably — multiple reviewers cite fair rates, one technician honored an original quote despite a longer job, and one reviewer explicitly noted prices are roughly half those of major competitors — but two negative reviews flag overbilling and a failure to advise on a warrantied part, tempering the pricing score. Project completion is the most penalized dimension: one detailed 1-star review describes incomplete excavation work that left clay pipe in place, no post-job inspection, trash buried in the yard, and a manager comment suggesting the customer was upsold unnecessarily; a separate review describes a drain job where the technician billed for time spent largely standing around. Experience scores well overall given consistent praise for diagnosing and resolving complex issues, but the incomplete excavation job and the misidentified grease-trap situation introduce meaningful doubt. Recency is strong — the majority of substantive reviews are from 2025 — though a meaningful cluster of older reviews (2011–2019) also contributes context.

• 20 reviews out of 72 contain no review text at all — only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence.
• A cluster of blank 5-star reviews submitted on the same dates (e.g., multiple on 2025-06-08, 2025-06-06, 2025-05-10, 2025-04-10) raises a moderate concern about padding. These reviews share no specifics and cannot be verified as genuine. Confidence is not elevated by these entries.
• One 1-star review (2025-04-10) contains no text, making it impossible to assess what went wrong. It was excluded from dimension scoring but noted as a signal of potential dissatisfaction.
• One review (2018-10-10, 1-star) concerns reckless driving by a company van and contains no plumbing service content. It was excluded from all dimension scoring.
• The 1-star review from 2025-04-16 is the most detailed negative review and raises serious concerns: incomplete excavation work, a manager comment implying the customer was oversold, zero post-repair communication or inspection, and trash left buried in the yard. This review meaningfully suppresses project completion and experience scores.
• Several older reviews (2011–2017) reference different named owners and employees than recent reviews, suggesting possible ownership or staffing changes over time. Scores from older reviews may not reflect current service quality.
• Review from 2018-06-11 (1-star) explicitly describes overbilling — charging for an hour and a half when the technician worked approximately 30 minutes. This negatively impacts the pricing score.
• Review from 2017-07-05 (2-star) describes a cosmetic mismatch on a high-end kitchen repair and failure to advise the customer about a lifetime warranty on a Delta part before charging $100 for it. This negatively impacts both pricing and experience scores.

This WW Score is based on a large review set with strong recency, but reliability is moderately reduced by approximately 28% of reviews containing no text, a suspicious cluster of same-date blank 5-star entries, and several substantive negative reviews describing overbilling, incomplete work, and poor follow-through that contrast sharply with the otherwise positive narrative.

Pride Home Services earns strong marks for professionalism, with numerous reviewers explicitly citing punctuality, courtesy, responsiveness, and communication across many years of service. Project completion scores are solid, with multiple reviews describing thorough, efficient work and follow-through on callbacks and complex repairs. Experience is well-supported by specific mentions of technical knowledge, problem-solving, and quality workmanship from named technicians. However, pricing is the clear weak point: one long-term customer reported a jarring 30% price increase attributed to inflation on a labor-only service, and a 1-star review from 2015 described a scheduling failure followed by an unexpected extra charge for equipment rental, both of which meaningfully drag the pricing dimension down. The overall WW Score reflects a contractor with genuinely strong service delivery but a notable and documented pricing concern.

• 20 out of 50 reviews contain no text whatsoever — only a star rating. These reviews provide zero usable data and were excluded from dimension scoring. This is a notable pattern.
• A large proportion of text reviews are very brief and generic (e.g., 'Great service!', 'Great service. Fast and friendly.') with no specific details. While not conclusive, this pattern warrants mild caution.
• Nearly all reviews are 5-star. The one 1-star review (2015) and one effectively negative review rated 5 stars (the 30% price increase complaint) stand out as outliers. The mismatch between the 5-star rating and negative content in the pricing complaint is unusual and may suggest the reviewer intended a lower rating.
• Several reviews are older than 3 years (2015, 2017, 2021, 2022) and were given reduced weight in scoring. The most recent reviews from 2024–2025 dominate the usable dataset and are consistent with the older positive reviews.
• The 1-star review from 2015 describes a scheduling error and an unexpected charge for compressor rental — a concrete, specific complaint that was weighted as credible evidence against the pricing dimension.
• The 5-star review from June 2025 describing a 30% price increase on a labor-only service is a credible and specific pricing complaint despite its star rating, and was treated as negative pricing evidence.

This WW Score carries HIGH overall confidence due to a large volume of reviews spanning multiple years, with sufficient explicit mentions across all four dimensions to support scoring; however, the pricing dimension score should be treated with particular attention as it reflects real documented complaints from customers, and the high volume of blank or generic reviews slightly limits the depth of insight available.

Action Rooter earns strong marks across all four dimensions, with consistent praise for reasonable pricing, technical competence, and follow-through on complex jobs like full sewer line replacements. Professionalism scores are tempered by three notable negative reviews citing rude workers, poor customer service, lack of upfront fee disclosure, and aggressive behavior toward a neighbor — these are specific, credible complaints that cannot be dismissed. Project completion is generally strong, with multiple reviewers noting jobs finished on time and completely, though one reviewer noted a project took months and felt inefficient. Pricing is a clear strength, with many reviewers explicitly calling out fair or below-expectation costs, though one reviewer disputed charges and felt fees were not disclosed transparently. The review base spans nearly two decades, which adds breadth but also means many reviews reflect older business conditions.

• RECENCY WARNING: The majority of reviews are older than 1 year, with many dating back to 2006–2017. Only 3 reviews are from the past 12 months (2024). Current performance may differ from historical patterns.
• NEGATIVE PROFESSIONALISM SIGNALS: Three separate reviews (2013, 2011, 2013) describe rude or dismissive worker behavior, lack of customer orientation, and aggressive conduct toward a neighbor. These are specific and credible and meaningfully reduce the professionalism score.
• PRICING TRANSPARENCY CONCERN: One detailed 1-star review (2013) explicitly describes undisclosed overtime charges, an unexpected camera fee, and a credit card surcharge not stated on the website. This introduces a transparency risk that offsets some of the positive pricing mentions.
• PROJECT TIMELINE CONCERN: One reviewer (2010) noted the work took a couple of months to complete and did not feel efficient, which is a mild flag for project completion consistency.
• NO FAKE REVIEW PATTERNS DETECTED: Reviews vary in length, specificity, tone, and rating. Negative reviews are present and detailed. No suspicious uniformity or repetitive phrasing was identified.

This WW Score is based on 21 reviews spanning 18 years with HIGH mention counts across all dimensions, making the score mathematically reliable, but users should weight the 3 recent-to-mid-period negative reviews seriously as they reflect specific, credible service failures, and should note that only 3 reviews are from the past 12 months.

RX Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism across multiple reviews, with consistent praise for responsiveness, punctuality, communication, and courteous behavior (Andrew, Jr., Xavier, and Tim all specifically commended). Pricing is viewed favorably in the reviews that address it, with customers noting fair and reasonable rates. Project completion is well-supported, with customers reporting problems solved and work finished to satisfaction. Experience and workmanship quality are highlighted through mentions of technical skill, problem-solving, and quality execution. However, the review set is small (6 total) and heavily skewed toward 5-star ratings with limited critical detail in some entries, which moderates overall confidence.

• Small sample size (6 reviews) limits statistical reliability
• All reviews are 5-star ratings with no negative feedback, which is atypical and suggests potential selection bias
• One review ('No problems') is extremely vague and provides no actionable detail
• Review dates span 11 years (2013–2024), with 3 of 6 reviews older than 3 years; recency is mixed
• Multiple reviews mention different technicians (Andrew, Jr., Xavier, Tim) by name, which adds credibility but also suggests variability in service delivery
• No reviews explicitly mention warranty, guarantees, or follow-up callbacks, limiting assessment of long-term accountability

This score should be treated with caution due to the small sample size, absence of any negative reviews, and significant age of some data; while the positive feedback is detailed and specific in most cases, a larger and more recent review set would be needed to establish robust confidence in the 88.2 rating.

Professionalism is the strongest signal across these reviews, with multiple customers explicitly praising punctuality, politeness, communication, and responsiveness — including technicians who followed up after installation and kept customers informed throughout multi-day jobs. Project completion scores well too, with most reviewers confirming work was finished satisfactorily, though one review (July 2024) noted the repair did not fully resolve the underlying problem, which tempers the score slightly. Experience is well-supported, with reviewers citing knowledgeable technicians capable of complex work including tankless water heater installation, gas line enlargement, full bathroom remodels, and sewer line replacement. Pricing data is thin — only two reviews touch on cost, one calling it 'affordable' with no further detail — so that dimension carries low confidence and limited influence on the final score.

• One review (2016-02-19) is over 8 years old and was given reduced weight in scoring relative to the 2023-2024 reviews.
• The July 2024 review explicitly states the repair did not fully fix the problem, which is a meaningful project completion concern and was factored into that dimension's score.
• Total review count is low (8 reviews). While the WW Score is calculable, it should be treated with caution — a larger review base would significantly improve reliability.
• No strong fake review patterns detected. Reviews vary in length, detail, specificity, and named technicians (Toney, Andrew, Joaquin, Mike, Dan), which supports authenticity.

This WW Score is based on a small but credible review set with good dimensional coverage; it is moderately reliable but should be revisited as more reviews accumulate, particularly for pricing data which remains very thin.