Find Nearby Plumbers In Arlington Heights, Illinois

LZ Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism and technical expertise across most reviews, with consistent praise for punctuality, responsiveness, and skilled workmanship. Pricing is generally viewed favorably as fair and reasonable. However, project completion reliability is undermined by two serious negative reviews: one describing failure to respond after incomplete work (2-year follow-up issue) and another alleging damage to customer property with no follow-up. These incidents significantly lower confidence in long-term accountability despite the overwhelming majority of positive feedback.

• Two critical negative reviews (1-star ratings from 2024-06-17 and 2023-06-10) describe serious service failures: incomplete work with no follow-up communication and alleged damage to customer property. These are not minor complaints and substantially impact project completion reliability.
• Two empty reviews (no text, ratings 1.0 and 5.0 from 2022-06-10) provide no usable data and were excluded from analysis.
• One empty 5-star review (2022-06-10) excluded from analysis.
• Cluster of reviews from 2021-06-10 (8 reviews on same date) and 2019-06-11 (5 reviews on same date) suggests possible batch posting, though review content is sufficiently varied and specific to avoid flagging as fake.
• Review from 2023-06-10 alleging exploitation of senior citizen is particularly serious and raises concerns about service quality control and accountability.
• Most reviews are older than 12 months (majority from 2019-2021); only 5 reviews from past 12 months, limiting recency weight.

This score should be treated with moderate caution. While the volume of positive reviews and HIGH confidence in professionalism and experience are genuine, the two serious negative incidents—particularly the unresolved follow-up issue and alleged property damage—indicate real accountability gaps that are not fully captured by the overall score. Recent reviews (past 12 months) are limited, making it difficult to assess whether service quality has improved or declined.

Lynden demonstrates strong technical skill and generally professional service, with most reviews praising punctuality, communication, and quality workmanship. However, two significant negative reviews reveal serious communication failures during follow-up work and quote requests, including extended ghosting periods. While the most recent dated review (May 2025) is highly positive, the pattern of responsiveness issues and one unresolved callback complaint temper the overall score. The high volume of positive reviews suggests these are exceptions rather than the norm, but they are serious enough to prevent a higher score.

• Two critical negative reviews (1-star and 4-star with downgrade) document severe communication breakdowns: one customer was ghosted for over 1 month on a water softener quote; another experienced 7-8 unanswered calls/texts after pump installation failure. While the second reviewer upgraded to 4-stars after eventual callback and family emergency explanation, the pattern suggests inconsistent responsiveness under pressure.
• Majority of reviews (17 of 23) lack dates, making recency assessment difficult. Only 3 reviews have confirmed dates within past 12 months (Oct 2024, May 2025, Nov 2023). This limits ability to assess whether communication issues have been resolved.
• High concentration of 5-star reviews with generic praise language ('highly recommend,' 'great job,' 'professional') without specific technical details raises minor concern about review authenticity, though the presence of detailed negative reviews and one nuanced 4-star review with explanation suggests genuine mixed feedback rather than fake reviews.
• Project completion score reduced due to documented callback failures and unmet quote deadlines, despite most completed jobs being well-executed.

This score should be treated with moderate-to-high confidence for general service quality, but customers should be aware of documented communication risks during complex jobs or follow-up work; the score reflects strong technical ability undermined by inconsistent responsiveness.

Rick's Sewer and Plumbing scores strongly across all four dimensions, with consistent praise for punctuality, clear communication, and professional demeanor spanning multiple years of reviews. Project completion is a particular strength — reviewers repeatedly note that Rick's succeeded where other companies failed, clearing blockages without unnecessary excavation and honoring quoted timelines. Technical experience is well-evidenced through camera inspections, hydro jetting, sewer reconnections, and proactive maintenance advice. Pricing scores are tempered by one credible 1-star review alleging that a $225 quote for a main line rod-out was applied to a 5-minute bathtub unclog, which represents a meaningful ethical concern around pricing transparency. The remaining pricing mentions are largely positive, with several reviewers explicitly noting costs came in at or below estimate.

• One 1-star review (2017-01-06) alleges price gouging: a $225 main-line quote was charged for a 5-minute bathtub fix. This is a specific, credible complaint and meaningfully drags the pricing score down.
• Several reviews are older than 5 years (2015–2019), and the most recent review is from March 2023. The review cadence has slowed significantly — only 2 reviews in the past 3 years. Recency confidence is moderate.
• No strong fake-review patterns detected. Reviews vary in length, detail, and specificity. Phrasing is not repetitive. No flag raised for authenticity.
• The 1-star reviewer notes Rick's was operating as a subcontractor for R&S Plumbing in that instance, which may indicate the negative experience involved a third-party arrangement rather than a direct Rick's engagement — context worth noting but not sufficient to dismiss the complaint.

This WW Score is based on 13 reviews with usable data across all four dimensions, all with HIGH confidence, making it a reasonably reliable snapshot — though the slowing review cadence since 2020 and one substantive pricing complaint introduce enough uncertainty that the score should be treated as a solid but not definitive indicator of current service quality.

Tim at Know-Howe demonstrates strong performance across all dimensions. Professionalism is consistently praised with explicit mentions of punctuality, courteous communication, clear explanations, and appointment confirmation across multiple reviews. Project completion is excellent, with reviews highlighting thorough work, multiple successful projects, and reliable follow-through. Experience is well-documented through descriptions of technical skill, problem-solving ability, and honest assessment of job scope. Pricing is described as fair and reasonable, though one review notes he is 'probably not the cheapest,' suggesting value-for-money rather than lowest-cost positioning.

• All 6 reviews are 5-star ratings with uniformly positive language, which could suggest selection bias or fake reviews, though specific technical details (ghost flushing, flange repair, sump pump installation) provide some authenticity
• Review dates span 2019–2024 with most recent review from July 2024, providing reasonable recency; however, the oldest review is from 2019 (5 years old)
• Limited sample size (6 reviews) reduces statistical reliability despite high individual confidence scores
• Pricing dimension based on only 3 mentions, with one review explicitly stating 'probably not the cheapest,' which tempers the 78 score

This WW Score of 89.2 should be treated with moderate caution due to the small sample size (6 reviews) and uniformly positive ratings, though specific technical details and consistent messaging across reviews suggest genuine customer satisfaction rather than fabricated feedback.

All four reviews explicitly praise responsiveness, efficiency, and customer service, supporting a strong professionalism score of 90. Pricing is consistently described as fair and reasonable across three reviews, yielding a score of 85. Project completion is evidenced by four reviews detailing successful problem resolution, including emergency weekend service and follow-up work, scoring 90. Technical skill and problem-solving ability are mentioned in three reviews, supporting an experience score of 88. However, the small sample size (4 reviews) and age of the oldest review (2015) limit overall confidence to MODERATE.

• Small sample size (4 reviews) limits statistical reliability
• Oldest review dates to 2015; only 1 review from past 12 months (2023)
• All reviews are 5-star ratings with uniformly positive language; no negative feedback or specific criticisms present
• Generic praise phrases ('highly recommended,' 'great work') appear across multiple reviews, though specifics are provided (response times, emergency service, pricing fairness)

This score should be treated with caution due to the small sample size and recency bias; the single recent review (2023) aligns with older reviews, suggesting consistency, but more recent data is needed to confirm current performance standards.

Fazio Plumbing demonstrates strong performance across all measured dimensions. Professionalism is consistently praised with explicit mentions of punctuality, politeness, pleasant demeanor, and neat work across all three reviews. Project completion is excellent, with all jobs finished promptly and without issues. Technical experience is evident through successful water heater replacement, sink/countertop plumbing work, and dishwasher reset with clean, knowledgeable execution. Pricing receives moderate support—while two reviews acknowledge fair value and good warranty, one notes they were 'not the least expensive,' suggesting premium positioning rather than budget-friendly service. All reviews are 5-star ratings with specific, detailed praise.

• All three reviews are 5-star ratings with uniformly positive language and no critical feedback—this is atypical and warrants caution
• Two reviews are significantly dated (2010 and 2012), limiting relevance to current service quality; only one review is from the past decade (2020)
• Sample size is very small (n=3), which limits statistical reliability despite positive sentiment
• No negative or mixed reviews present to provide balanced perspective on potential weaknesses

This WW Score of 88.3 should be treated with caution due to the small sample size (3 reviews), age of two reviews (10+ years old), and absence of any critical feedback or mixed ratings that would provide balance and validation.