Find Nearby Plumbers Companies In 60505, Aurora, Illinois

New Era HVAC and Jared personally receive overwhelmingly positive feedback across all four scored dimensions. Professionalism is the most frequently mentioned dimension, with reviewers consistently praising punctuality, communication, courtesy, and respectful conduct in the home or business. Project completion scores are strong, supported by multiple reviews noting timely delivery, follow-up calls, and even a case where Jared voluntarily returned the next day to improve a cosmetic detail at his own initiative. Experience and technical knowledge are well-documented, with reviewers specifically calling out Jared's thoroughness, problem-solving ability, and willingness to educate customers throughout the process. Pricing is mentioned positively in five reviews, with language like 'fair,' 'competitive,' 'beyond reasonable,' and one instance where the final bill was actually lowered after a simpler solution was found on-site.

• Several reviews (e.g., 'Very good', 'Timely, clean work', 'He stays on task.', 'no comment', 'Pretty much if you're looking for great contractor HVAC they are doing everything.') are extremely brief and generic with no specific detail, which slightly reduces their individual evidential value.
• All 26 reviews are 5-star ratings with zero negative or mixed reviews, which is statistically unusual and warrants mild caution. However, the majority of reviews do contain specific, credible details (names, job types, behaviors) that reduce the likelihood of systematic fabrication.
• A significant portion of reviews (approximately 19 out of 26) are dated before 2023, with only one review from the past 12 months (February 2024). The score is therefore weighted toward older experiences, and recent performance data is limited.
• No negative feedback or constructive criticism appears in any review, which may reflect genuine satisfaction but also limits the ability to identify any weaknesses in service delivery.

This WW Score carries moderate-to-high reliability overall: the majority of dimensions are supported by multiple detailed, specific reviews, though the near-total absence of recent reviews (only one from the past 12 months) and the uniformly perfect star ratings introduce a degree of caution when assessing current performance.

Plumb It Best has an overwhelmingly positive review base spanning over a decade, with consistent praise for professionalism, responsiveness, and technical competence across a very large number of reviews. Pricing is generally regarded as fair and transparent, with multiple reviewers explicitly noting reasonable costs and no upselling — though one negative review alleged a $500 quote for a simple job and another described a Thanksgiving emergency call that felt like price gouging. Project completion scores well overall, with the vast majority of jobs described as finished quickly and correctly, but one detailed 2-star review described a significant failure on a large sewer job including poor diagnosis, a messy worksite, and the owner ghosting the customer after they sought competing quotes — this meaningfully pulls the completion score down. There are also recurring complaints about rude phone interactions and at least two separate reviews alleging a technician arrived drunk, which are serious professionalism concerns that prevent a higher score despite the volume of positive feedback.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: Four reviews (two dated 2025-05-10 and two dated 2025-05-07) are exact word-for-word duplicates of each other, strongly suggesting artificial review inflation or a platform ingestion error. These four reviews were treated as two unique data points and their confidence weight was reduced accordingly.
• DRUNK TECHNICIAN ALLEGATIONS: Two separate reviews (one dated 2024-06-06 rated 1-star, one dated 2023-06-07 rated 1-star) independently allege that a technician arrived visibly drunk and smelling of alcohol. This is a serious and recurring safety/professionalism concern that cannot be dismissed as a one-off complaint.
• RUDE OWNER/STAFF COMPLAINTS: Multiple 1-star reviews (2024-12-08, 2023-06-07 x2, 2019-05-28) describe rude, dismissive, or hostile phone interactions with the owner or staff. This pattern across different years suggests a systemic issue with customer-facing communication.
• LARGE JOB FAILURE: A detailed 2-star review (2023-12-06) describes a significant failure on a major sewer job — poor diagnosis, a messy worksite with sewage left on floors, a potentially inflated $9,000 rerouting quote, and the owner going completely silent after the customer mentioned getting competing quotes. The customer ultimately found another plumber who fixed the issue for less and confirmed it was covered by insurance.
• THANKSGIVING PRICE GOUGING ALLEGATION: A 1-star review (2013-12-29) describes being charged approximately $400 for a 1-minute fix (unplugged pump cord) on a holiday, with no attempt to educate the homeowner on the simple fix.
• DISRESPECTFUL CONDUCT ALLEGATION: A 1-star review (2018-09-28) alleges a technician looked a pregnant woman 'up and down' in a disrespectful manner, and that the owner blamed the customer for extra charges after multiple failed diagnostic attempts.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews are older than 12 months. The most recent substantive reviews (2024-2025) are generally positive, but the duplicate review cluster in May 2025 reduces confidence in the very latest data.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Approximately 12 reviews contained no text and only a 5-star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence per scoring rules.

This WW Score is based on a large and diverse review set spanning over a decade, giving it HIGH statistical confidence in direction, but the score should be interpreted with caution given credible and recurring allegations of drunk technicians, rude owner conduct, and at least one documented large-job failure — issues that the volume of positive reviews may be masking.

This review set spans multiple years and appears to aggregate reviews for several distinct businesses or operators all operating under the 'Affordable Plumbing Solutions' or 'Affordable Plumbing' name, including technicians named Richard, Dave, Bobby, Robert, Taylor, Jeremy, Malik, and others across different geographic regions including Arizona, Georgia, Illinois, and California. The majority of reviews are strongly positive, praising punctuality, communication, fair pricing, and quality workmanship. However, a meaningful minority of negative reviews — approximately 25 to 30 out of 210 — describe serious failures including no-shows, abandoned work, incomplete jobs, rude behavior, overcharging, and unresponsiveness after payment. Project completion is the most penalized dimension due to multiple credible accounts of work left unfinished, callbacks ignored, and jobs not performed as quoted. Professionalism scores are moderated by recurring complaints about missed appointments and poor communication, which appear across multiple time periods and operators. Pricing scores are generally positive but tempered by a few credible overcharging complaints and one instance of a quote ballooning significantly after work was done.

• MULTI-ENTITY CONCERN: Reviews appear to cover multiple distinct businesses and operators (Richard in California, Dave in Arizona, Bobby in Illinois, Taylor/Jeremy/Malik in Georgia) all sharing the 'Affordable Plumbing' name. Scores may not reflect any single contractor accurately and should be interpreted with caution.
• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: At least two reviews are near-identical word-for-word (the 'horrible company' review dated 2022-04-23 and 2022-06-10, and the 'Least expensive water heater' review dated 2020-05-24 and 2020-06-10). This inflates review count and may indicate review manipulation.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Approximately 8 to 10 reviews contain no text and only a star rating (mostly 5-star). These provide no usable data and were excluded from dimension scoring but inflate the total review count.
• RECENCY NOTE: Reviews span from 2008 to 2025. A significant portion of reviews are older than 3 years. The most recent reviews (2024-2025) are predominantly positive, but negative reviews from 2021-2023 describe serious issues including theft of payment, abandoned work, and threats from staff.
• SERIOUS NEGATIVE INCIDENTS: Multiple credible negative reviews describe: (1) taking $1,000 and not completing work, (2) workers using foul language and threatening customers, (3) completed work failing shortly after with no warranty honored, (4) repeated no-shows after confirmed appointments, and (5) a technician misrepresenting services performed. These are not isolated complaints.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION - MODERATE: A cluster of reviews from the same date (e.g., multiple reviews all dated 2025-05-10, 2022-06-10, 2021-06-10, 2019-06-11, 2020-06-10) with generic praise and no specific job details is suspicious and may indicate batch-submitted or incentivized reviews. Confidence is maintained at HIGH due to volume but scores are conservatively adjusted.

This WW Score carries moderate-to-high reliability in terms of data volume, but should be treated with significant caution due to the likely aggregation of multiple distinct businesses under one profile, confirmed duplicate reviews, a non-trivial rate of serious negative incidents, and suspicious clustering of same-date reviews; consumers should seek reviews specific to their local operator and technician before hiring.

Nesbitt's Plumbing receives strong praise for responsiveness, communication, and customer service across multiple reviews, with several reviewers specifically highlighting their professionalism and friendly demeanor. Pricing is a notable strength, with multiple reviewers citing significantly lower costs compared to competitors. However, two detailed 1-star reviews from the same reviewer (WPH III) raise meaningful concerns about workmanship quality on complex custom plumbing jobs, including allegations of sloppy craftsmanship, code violations, and abandoning a job mid-project — these materially reduce the experience and project completion scores. The majority of reviews are older than 12 months, with only three reviews from 2024, limiting confidence in how well the scores reflect current performance.

• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: Two reviews posted on 2024-08-22 are word-for-word identical. This is a likely duplicate submission and only one was counted for scoring purposes.
• TWO REVIEWS MARKED 'unknown': Two reviews contain no usable text and were excluded from scoring.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Only 3 of 13 reviews are from the past 12 months (2024). The majority of reviews date from 2014–2021, which significantly limits confidence that scores reflect current business performance.
• NEGATIVE REVIEW CREDIBILITY: The two 1-star reviews from WPH III appear to be the same reviewer posting twice (same date range, nearly identical content with slight expansion). They contain specific, detailed allegations — pipes run incorrectly, code disputes, and job abandonment — which are credible and specific enough to meaningfully impact experience and project completion scores. Only one instance was counted as a unique mention.
• SMALL SAMPLE SIZE: With only 11 usable reviews spanning nearly a decade, the overall dataset is limited and should be interpreted cautiously.

This WW Score carries moderate reliability due to a small and largely dated review pool, one confirmed duplicate review, and two substantive negative reviews describing specific workmanship and job-completion failures that cannot be dismissed.

Both reviews speak positively about ACE 123's professionalism, specifically highlighting communication, availability, and attitude — Carlos and Alexis were noted as always reachable and open to problem-solving. Project completion is supported by both reviews, with one noting a complex job finished in under a week and another acknowledging that issues arose but were resolved, suggesting solid follow-through rather than perfection. Experience and workmanship quality are referenced in both reviews, with praise for floor refinishing, leveling, and handling the unique challenges of a 1920s Chicago building. Pricing is entirely absent from both reviews, so no score can be assigned to that dimension. With only 2 reviews total, all scores carry very limited confidence and the WW Score cannot be reliably calculated.

• Only 2 reviews provided — this is below the minimum threshold of 3 required for a reliable WW Score calculation.
• No pricing or cost-related information mentioned in any review — the Price Friendly dimension cannot be scored.
• Both reviews are 5-star ratings; however, they contain specific details, named individuals, and acknowledge imperfections, which reduces concern about fake reviews.
• Review dates span from January 2024 to October 2024 — both are within the past 12 months as of late 2024, which is a positive recency signal, but the sample size remains too small to draw firm conclusions.

This score report is based on only 2 reviews, which is insufficient for a statistically reliable WW Score — all dimension scores should be treated as preliminary indicators only and not used as a definitive measure of contractor quality.

Only one review was available for analysis, which mentioned responsiveness and communication positively — specifically that the contractor answered the phone directly rather than using an automated system. This speaks narrowly to one aspect of professionalism. No data exists for pricing, project completion, or experience, making a comprehensive assessment impossible. The single review is brief and lacks specifics about actual work performed, limiting its usefulness significantly.

• Only 1 review provided — far below the minimum threshold of 3 required for a reliable WW Score.
• Review is dated 2019 — over 5 years old. This data is significantly outdated and should not be treated as reflective of current performance.
• Review covers only phone responsiveness and does not describe any actual work, project outcome, or technical skill — severely limiting scoring coverage.
• No pricing, project completion, or experience data available — three of four dimensions return null scores.

This WW Score cannot be calculated reliably due to insufficient review volume (1 review) and the age of the only available review (2019), meaning no meaningful conclusions about this contractor's current quality or consistency can be drawn.