Find Nearby Plumbers In Addison, Illinois

ABV Plumbing earns strong marks across all four dimensions, driven by a large and consistent body of reviews spanning 2019 through mid-2025. Professionalism is the standout dimension, with dozens of reviewers explicitly praising punctuality, courteous behavior, use of shoe covers, mask compliance, and clear communication — including named technicians like Ivo, Hristo, and Wafiq receiving repeated individual praise. Project completion scores are high, with the vast majority of reviewers confirming jobs were finished cleanly, on time, and without callbacks needed, though two reviews (one involving an improper water heater install and one involving a refused service call) introduce minor deductions. Pricing is generally viewed favorably — multiple reviewers cited fair quotes, upfront pricing, and one notable instance where a plumber charged less than the agreed rate after a quick repair — but one 2-star review flagged a $245 labor-only quote as excessive, preventing a higher score. Experience scores well based on numerous mentions of skilled diagnostics, problem-solving on difficult jobs, and technical competence, though the 2021 water heater complaint (citing improper installation requiring a competitor to fix) is a meaningful negative data point that tempers the score.

• 8 reviews contain no text whatsoever — only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence.
• A cluster of reviews dated 2025-05-10 (6 reviews on the same date) and 2025-04-10 (4 reviews on the same date) warrants mild scrutiny. However, the reviews contain varied language, specific technician names, and differing job types, suggesting they are likely legitimate Home Depot installation batch reviews rather than fabricated entries.
• One review (2021-08-04, 1 star) explicitly states ABV improperly installed a water heater and that a competitor had to fix it. This is a significant quality failure and was weighted accordingly in the Experience and Project Completion scores.
• One review (2022-06-09, 1 star) describes a refused service call for an outdoor spigot, citing unclear scope-of-work policies. This reflects a communication or service-scope issue rather than a workmanship failure.
• One review (2023-07-31, 2 stars) flagged a $245 labor-only quote for a one-hour faucet replacement as unreasonable. This was factored into the Pricing score.
• The majority of reviews are from 2024–2025 and are therefore within the recency window. Older reviews (2019–2021) are consistent in tone and were given slightly reduced weight per recency rules.
• Overall review sentiment is overwhelmingly positive (5-star), which is statistically unusual. However, the presence of specific names, job details, and a handful of genuine negative reviews reduces the likelihood of systematic fake review inflation.

This WW Score is based on 101 reviews with usable content spanning approximately six years, with strong recency representation, and carries HIGH overall confidence — though users should note the isolated but serious water heater installation complaint and the pattern of same-day review clusters when making a final hiring decision.

G&G Plumbing demonstrates strong performance across all measured dimensions. Professionalism is consistently praised with mentions of same-day responsiveness, quick arrival, and courteous service across all four reviews. Project completion is solid, with all jobs finished on time and thoroughly cleaned up. Experience and workmanship are highlighted through successful repairs of complex issues (sewer main, drain pipe, garbage disposal). Pricing is mentioned positively but only in 2 reviews, limiting confidence in that dimension. The small sample size (4 reviews) and lack of any negative feedback warrant a MODERATE overall confidence rating.

• Small sample size (4 reviews) limits statistical reliability
• All reviews are 5-star ratings with no critical feedback — consider whether this represents genuine consensus or potential selection bias
• Most recent review is from April 2024; oldest is from September 2022 — recency is acceptable but sample spans nearly 2 years
• No explicit mention of pricing details or transparency in quotes; only 2 mentions of 'fair pricing' without specifics

This score should be treated with caution due to the small sample size (4 reviews) and absence of any negative feedback, which may not fully represent the contractor's performance across all customer interactions.

This contractor demonstrates strong professionalism with consistent mentions of responsiveness, punctuality, and courteous behavior across multiple reviews. Project completion is reliable, with jobs finished on time and cleanup performed. Pricing is perceived as fair and reasonable by customers who mentioned it. Technical skill and knowledge are evident from customer descriptions of quality workmanship and problem-solving. However, the review dataset is heavily weighted toward older reviews (most from 2021 and earlier), with only 2 reviews from the past 12 months, which limits confidence in current performance consistency.

• Recency concern: 10 of 13 reviews are from 2021 or earlier; only 2 reviews from past 12 months (March 2024 and December 2023). Current service quality cannot be reliably assessed.
• Potential duplicate review detected: Two identical reviews dated 2022-02-26 with text 'Very professional and quick.' This may indicate data entry error or review manipulation.
• One review contains only 'unknown' as text with 5-star rating (2015-11-17), providing no substantive data.
• High concentration of 5-star ratings (12 of 13) with limited negative feedback may suggest selection bias in review platform or customer base, though specific positive details are present in most reviews.

This score should be treated with moderate caution due to significant recency bias in the dataset; while historical performance appears strong, only 2 recent reviews provide current performance indicators, making it difficult to assess whether this contractor maintains the same standards today.

Plumbing Solutions has a large and broadly positive review base, with the majority of customers praising responsiveness, punctuality, and technician knowledge across many named individuals including Jacob, Otto, Ed, Andres, Brian, and others. However, a meaningful minority of negative reviews — spanning the full date range of the dataset — consistently cite serious concerns: significantly inflated pricing (multiple reviewers report quotes 2–10x higher than competitors), failure to follow up or return calls, incomplete or failed repairs requiring callbacks, and in several cases rude or threatening behavior from owners or staff. The pricing dimension is the weakest, dragged down by numerous credible, specific complaints about overcharging for simple jobs and lack of pricing transparency. Project completion scores moderately well overall but is tempered by documented cases of abandoned work, unresolved permits, and repairs that failed within days or weeks. Professionalism scores reflect a split picture: many technicians are praised warmly, but office and owner conduct generates a recurring pattern of serious complaints.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: Multiple reviews appear to be exact or near-exact duplicates posted on the same or adjacent dates (e.g., two identical reviews for 'Jake was excellent' on 2025-06-02, two identical reviews for 'Matt installed a new kitchen sink disposal' on 2025-05-19, two identical reviews for 'Enrique was exceptionally helpful' on 2025-05-19, two identical reviews for 'I am a contractor remodeling a bathroom' on 2025-06-02, two identical reviews for 'Another excellent experience with Plumbing Solutions' on 2025-06-03, two identical reviews for 'I never met him' on 2025-05-26, two identical reviews for 'Very Professional, answered questions when asked' on 2025-05-26, two identical reviews for 'Otto Maldonado and his crew' on 2025-10-28, two identical reviews for 'Otto with PLUMBING SOLUTIONS' on 2025-06-23, two identical reviews for 'Highly recommend Plumbing Solutions. Jacob is punctual' on different dates). This pattern of duplicated 5-star reviews is a strong indicator of review manipulation or platform aggregation artifacts and reduces confidence in the positive review pool.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Approximately 20+ reviews contain no text and only a 5-star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data but inflate the apparent star average.
• PRICING CONCERNS — CREDIBLE AND SPECIFIC: Multiple independent reviewers across different years and locations cite specific dollar amounts that appear grossly inflated compared to competitor quotes: $1,200 estimate for a garbage disposal and snake vs. $100 actual fix; $1,500+ estimate for a P-trap vs. $300–400 actual; $670 for a toilet reset with no new toilet; $520 for a $10 part and 15 minutes of work; $3,500 tankless water heater at 2x+ retail markup; $1,045 for 4 feet of pipe. These are not vague complaints — they are specific, detailed, and corroborated across many reviewers.
• OWNER/MANAGEMENT CONDUCT: Multiple reviews across different years describe the owner or management as rude, threatening, or dismissive when complaints were raised. One reviewer describes being shouted at and threatened with a lien; another describes the owner threatening to 'come settle it in person'; another describes being told 'stop the dramatics and pay the bill.' This is a recurring pattern, not an isolated incident.
• FOLLOW-UP AND COMMUNICATION FAILURES: A recurring theme in negative reviews is failure to return calls, respond to messages, or follow through on scheduled appointments. This spans from 2012 through 2025, suggesting a systemic issue rather than isolated incidents.
• INCOMPLETE OR FAILED REPAIRS: Several reviews document repairs that failed within days or weeks, with the company then refusing to honor warranties or return to fix the issue without additional charges. One reviewer documents a $1,300 repair that did not fix the problem, followed by a demand for $435 more.
• RECENCY NOTE: The dataset spans from 2005 to June 2025. Reviews from 2025 and 2024 are given higher weight. Negative patterns (pricing, communication failures, incomplete work) appear consistently across all time periods, suggesting these are not historical issues that have been resolved.
• AGGREGATION NOTE: This review set appears to aggregate reviews from multiple platforms and possibly multiple business entities operating under the 'Plumbing Solutions' name across different geographic regions (references to Smyrna, Dedham MA, Wichita, Nashville, Chicago, California, etc.). Scores should be interpreted with caution as they may reflect more than one business.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large review volume, but the score itself should be treated with caution given confirmed duplicate reviews, strong evidence of pricing manipulation complaints, recurring owner conduct issues, and the likelihood that this dataset aggregates reviews from multiple distinct business entities operating under the same or similar name.

All Suburban Emergency Plumbing has a long track record of responsive, professional service backed by many loyal repeat customers spanning 10–20+ years. The majority of detailed reviews praise promptness, courteous technicians, and solid workmanship on sump pumps, sewer rodding, and water heater installations. However, a meaningful cluster of negative reviews — particularly from 2016–2023 — consistently cite a rude and confrontational phone receptionist (identified as the owner's wife), which significantly drags down the professionalism score. Additional concerns include one incident of a technician leaving a job incomplete and demanding a service fee, a complaint about substandard repair quality and uncleaned worksite, and a recurring pattern of drain rodding failing within days requiring callbacks. Pricing is generally viewed as fair to competitive, though one reviewer felt overcharged for builder-grade equipment and another was surprised by the cost relative to the simplicity of the repair.

• RECENCY CONCERN: The majority of detailed, substantive reviews are from 2009–2017. Reviews from 2024 and 2023 are very few (2 reviews), making it difficult to assess current service quality with confidence.
• LOW-CONTENT REVIEWS: Approximately 12 reviews contain only 'unknown', '.', or single generic sentences (e.g., 'Good work performance', 'The project went well', 'Very well'). These provide no usable dimension data and were excluded from scoring.
• RECURRING COMPLAINT PATTERN: At least 3 independent reviews (2016–2017) specifically and consistently describe the same phone receptionist as rude, belligerent, and unprofessional. This is a credible, corroborated pattern — not an isolated incident.
• CALLBACK FAILURE: Two separate reviewers (Oct 2017) reported drain rodding failed within one week and required a return visit, suggesting possible quality control issues on sewer rodding jobs.
• INCOMPLETE JOB INCIDENT: One reviewer (2023, 1-star) describes a technician who arrived without the required part, partially disassembled the water heater, left with the customer's component, and demanded a $90 service fee without completing any work — a serious professionalism and project completion concern.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — LOW LEVEL: Several older 5-star reviews (2003–2006) are marked 'unknown' with no review text. While not definitively fake, they contribute no usable data and inflate the raw star average. No strong evidence of coordinated fake reviews among the detailed reviews.
• SCORE IMPACT NOTE: The professionalism score was conservatively reduced due to the weight of multiple corroborated negative experiences with phone staff and one serious on-site conduct complaint, even though the majority of field technician interactions were rated positively.

This WW Score is based on 57 reviews spanning over 20 years, with HIGH mention counts across all four dimensions, but reliability is moderately reduced by the age of most substantive reviews, a cluster of credible negative professionalism complaints, and approximately 12 reviews that contained no usable content.

This aggregated review set spans multiple companies operating under similar or related names (Action Plumbing, Astro Plumbing, Pirate Plumbing, and individual plumbers like Jeff Satterthwaite), which significantly complicates scoring and reduces reliability. The majority of reviews are positive and praise professionalism, punctuality, and communication, but a substantial minority of negative reviews describe serious failures including fire damage, abandoned work, misdiagnosis, property damage, dishonest billing practices, and chronic non-responsiveness — particularly in the context of American Home Shield warranty work. Pricing feedback is mixed: many reviewers found costs fair or competitive, while others reported inflated fees, hidden charges, and deceptive billing. Project completion is a notable weakness, with multiple reviews citing incomplete jobs, failed callbacks, and work that required correction by other plumbers. Experience scores are dragged down by documented cases of poor workmanship, incorrect diagnoses, and code violations, despite many reviews praising skilled technicians by name.

• MULTI-ENTITY CONCERN: Reviews appear to span multiple distinct businesses (Action Plumbing in multiple states/cities, Astro Plumbing, Pirate Plumbing, Jeff Satterthwaite Plumbing, and others). Scores reflect an aggregated pool that may not represent any single contractor accurately. Consumer should verify which specific entity they are evaluating.
• FAKE REVIEW INDICATORS: A significant number of reviews contain no text (rating only), particularly clustered around dates like 2024-06-09, 2022-06-10, 2021-06-10, and 2015. These blank 5-star reviews inflate the average rating and are treated as non-usable data. Additionally, some reviews use nearly identical phrasing across different dates, suggesting possible review padding.
• SERIOUS NEGATIVE INCIDENTS: At least one review describes Action Plumbing causing a fire that left four families homeless (2024-09-06), with the owner allegedly unresponsive. Another describes a bathtub installation so defective it required full drywall and tile replacement. A third describes a whole-house re-pipe job where lines were not flushed, causing debris damage throughout the home. These are severe outliers that materially affect trustworthiness.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The review about Jake damaging a home during water heater installation (rating 1.0) appears verbatim on two separate dates (2024-06-09 and 2023-10-10). This duplication was counted only once for scoring purposes.
• AHS WARRANTY PATTERN: A recurring pattern of negative reviews involves American Home Shield (AHS) warranty assignments, where the contractor is accused of misdiagnosis, inflated modification fees, non-responsiveness, and claim denial manipulation. This pattern appears across multiple years and locations, suggesting a systemic issue with warranty work specifically.
• RECENCY NOTE: Reviews span from 2001 to 2025. Reviews older than 3 years (pre-2022) were given reduced weight. The most recent reviews (2024-2025) show a mixed but somewhat improved pattern for Astro Plumbing specifically, while Action Plumbing reviews remain mixed across the full date range.
• GEOGRAPHIC DISPERSION: Reviews reference locations including Las Vegas NV, Cleveland OH, Lawrence KS, Corpus Christi TX, Silsbee TX, Kaysville UT, Rhode Island, Indiana, and others. This strongly suggests these are reviews for multiple unrelated businesses sharing similar names, not a single contractor. The WW Score should be interpreted with extreme caution as a result.

This WW Score has LOW reliability for evaluating any single contractor because the review pool almost certainly aggregates multiple unrelated businesses operating under similar names across different states; consumers should independently verify the specific entity they intend to hire and seek reviews specific to that business's location and ownership before making a hiring decision.