Find Nearby Plumbers In Aurora, Illinois

Jim Wagner Plumbing demonstrates strong technical competence and professionalism in execution, with many customers praising individual technicians (Kevin, Chris, Greg, Dan, Jason) for their skill, friendliness, and thoroughness. Project completion is generally reliable with same-day or next-day service frequently mentioned. However, pricing is a significant and persistent weakness—numerous reviews explicitly cite overcharging, inflated estimates, and unfair diagnostic fees ($39-$99 charged upfront with no credit toward work). The company shows inconsistency: excellent experiences coexist with complaints about rude technicians, poor communication, missed appointments, and lack of management accountability. Recent reviews (2024-2025) are predominantly positive, but historical patterns reveal systemic pricing and customer service issues.

• PRICING PATTERN: 42 reviews mention pricing concerns. Approximately 30+ reviews explicitly describe the company as a 'rip-off,' 'overpriced,' or cite specific instances of charges 2-3x higher than competitors for identical work. This is the single largest complaint category.
• DIAGNOSTIC FEE CONTROVERSY: Multiple reviews (at least 12) object to the $39-$99 diagnostic fee that is not credited toward repair work, even when customers proceed with the company. This practice is described as 'scam-like' and 'unscrupulous.'
• TECHNICIAN INCONSISTENCY: Named technicians (Kevin, Chris, Greg, Dan, Jason) receive consistent 5-star praise. However, other technicians (Joe, Gus, Greg in one negative review, Brian in one negative review, Dan in one negative review) are cited in 1-star reviews for rudeness, aggression, condescension, and poor work. This suggests significant quality variance by individual.
• COMMUNICATION & FOLLOW-UP FAILURES: At least 8 reviews cite missed callbacks, broken promises to follow up, rude office staff, and failure to return calls despite promises. One review notes the office manager (Julie) was dismissive of complaints.
• APPOINTMENT RELIABILITY: Multiple reviews (at least 6) report late arrivals (1-3 hours past scheduled window) or no-shows, sometimes with inadequate notice or compensation.
• INCOMPLETE WORK & CALLBACKS: Several reviews describe work that failed after completion (e.g., toilet still leaking after $250+ repair, requiring a second service call with additional charges). At least 3 reviews mention being charged separately for issues that should have been identified in the initial visit.
• AGGRESSIVE/RUDE TECHNICIANS: At least 5 reviews describe technicians as rude, condescending, argumentative, or even aggressive (one review mentions a technician 'storming' through the house covered in mud and yelling; another describes a technician as 'shaking and shouting like a crack-head').
• RECENT POSITIVE TREND: Reviews from May 2025 through January 2025 are almost uniformly 5-star with specific praise for named technicians. This contrasts sharply with 2022-2023 reviews which contain multiple 1-star complaints. This may indicate recent management changes or selective review filtering, but cannot be confirmed.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: The May 2025 reviews (most recent) show suspiciously similar phrasing: 'Great service! Came out the same day. Kevin was very nice. Did a thorough job and clean up.' and 'Kevin was great! Highly recommend!' These are generic, lack specifics, and cluster in a short timeframe. However, they are balanced by detailed positive reviews from the same period, so confidence in fake review detection is LIMITED.
• MANAGEMENT ACCOUNTABILITY: Multiple reviews (at least 4) describe attempts to escalate complaints to management or the Wagner family with no response or dismissive handling. One review explicitly states the office manager said she would escalate a complaint but never followed up.
• RECENCY BIAS ALERT: The most recent 20 reviews (May 2025 - January 2025) are predominantly 5-star. The 2022-2023 reviews contain significantly more 1-star complaints. This temporal clustering suggests either genuine improvement or review manipulation. Recommend weighting recent reviews with caution.

This WW Score of 72.8 reflects a company with genuine technical competence and strong individual technician performance, but severely undermined by persistent and widespread pricing complaints, inconsistent service quality, and documented communication failures. The score is reliable at HIGH confidence due to large mention counts across all dimensions (42-68 reviews per dimension), but the company's trustworthiness is substantially lower than the score suggests—customers should expect excellent workmanship from named technicians but should obtain multiple quotes, verify all charges upfront, and be prepared for potential overpricing and poor follow-up if issues arise.

Drain & Plumbing Services demonstrates strong professionalism with responsive communication, punctual arrivals, and courteous staff (particularly Anna, Martin, Austin, and Yuri). However, the company is significantly hampered by recurring issues with project completion and warranty work handling. Multiple reviews document incomplete diagnoses, failed repairs requiring callbacks, and problematic interactions with insurance companies (AHS). Pricing is inconsistent—some customers report fair value while others describe overcharging, hidden fees, and unnecessary upsells. Technical expertise varies by technician; several reviews praise knowledgeable work, but others reveal misdiagnosis (frozen pipes in 90-degree weather, incorrect water heater sizing, unnecessary replacements).

• CRITICAL PATTERN: 12+ reviews explicitly mention American Home Shield (AHS) warranty work with predominantly negative outcomes. Company appears to deprioritize or mishandle warranty calls, with documented refusals to complete work, sudden unavailability claims, and staff instructing technicians not to finish repairs.
• MISDIAGNOSIS CLUSTER: At least 6 reviews document incorrect problem identification (shower clog blamed for garage leak, frozen pipe claim in summer heat, unnecessary pump replacement, wrong water heater size, sewage line missed). This suggests inconsistent technical competency.
• CALLBACK FAILURES: Multiple reviews report incomplete first visits requiring second/third visits, water damage caused by initial work, and promised follow-ups that never occurred.
• PRICING INCONSISTENCY: Reviews show wide variance in pricing fairness. Some praise competitive rates; others report $200-$600 overcharges, hidden diagnostic fees, and pressure to upsell unnecessary work.
• STAFF BEHAVIOR VARIANCE: Positive reviews consistently name specific technicians (Martin, Austin, Yuri, Mike, Sergei); negative reviews often describe rude, dismissive, or accusatory behavior from unnamed staff.
• REMEDIATION REFUSAL: One detailed 2020 review documents company's refusal to remediate sewage damage caused by their own work, offering only partial refunds conditional on signing liability waivers.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most 5-star reviews are from 2018-2020. Recent reviews (2024, 2023) show more critical feedback, suggesting possible service decline.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: Several 5-star reviews use nearly identical phrasing ('great service,' 'highly recommend,' 'will use again') with minimal specificity, though not enough to conclusively flag as fake.

This WW Score of 72.8 should be treated with CAUTION. While the company demonstrates genuine strengths in responsiveness and individual technician quality, the HIGH confidence rating masks a deeply problematic pattern: systematic issues with warranty work, recurring misdiagnosis, incomplete repairs, and inconsistent pricing. The score is pulled down by legitimate structural problems (not just isolated complaints), and customers should be aware that experience quality appears highly dependent on which technician is assigned and whether the work involves insurance claims. The company's recent trajectory suggests declining reliability.

Roto-Rooter scores very strongly on professionalism and technician experience, with hundreds of reviews praising individual technicians by name for being courteous, knowledgeable, communicative, and thorough. Project completion is generally solid, with most jobs resolved same-day or within a short timeframe, though a meaningful minority of reviews describe incomplete work, no-shows, broken promises on follow-up visits, and warranty disputes. The most significant drag on the overall WW Score is pricing, which is the single most-complained-about dimension across the entire review set — dozens of reviewers explicitly describe charges as 'outrageous,' 'ridiculous,' 'a scam,' or triple the price of competitors, with specific dollar amounts cited ranging from $315 for 4 minutes of work to $8,700 for a water heater installation. Several reviews also describe deceptive pricing practices, including quotes that changed after work began, failure to disclose service fees upfront, and pressure tactics targeting vulnerable customers including seniors and non-English speakers.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: A significant number of reviews appear to be exact or near-exact duplicates posted on different dates (e.g., multiple identical reviews for 'Gio,' 'Gabriel,' 'Daniel,' 'Gus,' 'Giovanni,' and others). This inflates the apparent review count and may indicate a review solicitation system that caused customers to submit the same review twice, or potential manipulation. Confidence in raw review count is reduced.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Approximately 150-200 reviews contain no text and only a star rating (almost all 5-star). These provide no usable data for any dimension and were excluded from scoring but inflate the total count.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS ARE SEVERE AND SPECIFIC: Negative pricing reviews are not vague — they cite specific dollar amounts, compare to competitor prices, and describe practices such as quoting after work begins, refusing to honor coupons, and charging elderly or non-English-speaking customers without disclosure. This is a systemic pattern, not isolated incidents.
• SCHEDULING AND NO-SHOW COMPLAINTS: Multiple reviews describe technicians failing to arrive within promised windows, no-call-no-shows, and dispatch communication failures. This is a recurring pattern affecting the project completion score.
• WARRANTY DISPUTES: Several reviews describe Roto-Rooter refusing to honor stated warranties, including a 6-month guarantee and a 30-day guarantee, with customers being charged again for the same recurring issue.
• WORK QUALITY FAILURES: A small but notable number of reviews describe active harm caused by technicians — flooding a kitchen, improperly setting a toilet, changing the wrong pipe, leaving sewage handprints, and damaging property with no accountability.
• PREDATORY PRICING PATTERN: Multiple reviews describe technicians quoting extremely high prices and then reducing them when customers push back, suggesting initial quotes are inflated as a negotiating tactic rather than honest pricing.
• RECENCY: All reviews are dated between approximately May 7, 2025 and June 9, 2025 — all within the past 12 months. Recency weighting is fully applied.

This WW Score is based on an exceptionally large review set and carries HIGH overall confidence, but the score should be interpreted with caution given confirmed duplicate reviews inflating volume, a strong and consistent pattern of severe pricing complaints that meaningfully suppresses the score, and documented instances of incomplete work and warranty non-compliance that suggest the positive technician-level experience does not always translate to a satisfactory overall customer outcome.

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.

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.

Aquatech Sewer and Plumbing has a strong base of positive reviews praising responsiveness, punctuality, and courteous technicians across a large and diverse review pool spanning roughly 2006 to 2025. However, pricing is the single most consistently cited negative theme across the entire review history, with numerous reviewers across multiple years explicitly describing charges as excessive, refusing to provide estimates upfront, and quoting rates that were significantly higher than competitors. Project completion is moderately strong but is meaningfully dragged down by several serious complaints including abandoned jobs, failed repairs requiring return visits, incorrect installations causing gas leaks or continued water damage, and at least one reviewer paying $8,000 and having the contractor fail to show for the final toilet install. Experience scores reasonably well given the volume of praise for skilled diagnostics and quality workmanship, but is tempered by documented cases of incorrect installations and misdiagnosed problems. The most recent reviews (2024-2025) trend more positively than older reviews, suggesting possible improvement in service consistency under the current team.

• PRICING CONCERN: Pricing complaints are the single most recurring negative theme across the entire review history spanning 15+ years. Multiple reviewers across different time periods describe being charged $300-$500+ per hour for simple jobs, refusal to give phone estimates, and final bills significantly exceeding expectations or competitor quotes.
• PROJECT ABANDONMENT: At least 3 reviews explicitly describe the contractor failing to return to complete work or abandoning the customer mid-job, including one reviewer who paid $8,000 and was left without a completed toilet install.
• INSTALLATION ERRORS: Multiple reviews describe serious installation errors including a gas water heater installation with 5 code violations causing a gas leak (confirmed by Nicor), a tankless water heater installed with incorrect valves and venting, and a water softener connected only to bathroom faucets instead of the whole house.
• RELIABILITY PATTERN: Across multiple time periods and technicians (Greg, Amir, TJ, others), a recurring pattern of missed appointments, unreturned calls, and no-shows is documented by multiple independent reviewers.
• BLANK REVIEWS: 25+ reviews contain no text whatsoever, only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data per scoring rules.
• POSSIBLE MULTI-ENTITY REVIEWS: This review pool appears to span multiple technicians (Greg, Amir, Rosen, Smail, Jason, TJ, Nate, Larry, Bruce, Alan, Dan) and possibly multiple business locations or eras. Scores reflect the aggregate entity as presented.
• RECENCY NOTE: Reviews from 2025 and late 2024 are predominantly positive and reference the current team (Amir, Rosen, Smail). Older reviews (pre-2020) contain a higher proportion of negative experiences. Consumers should weight recent reviews more heavily when making a hiring decision.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK — LOW: While the 2025 reviews are uniformly 5-star, they contain specific names, job details, and varied language. No strong pattern of fabrication detected, though the absence of any negative recent reviews warrants mild caution.

This WW Score of 72.4 is based on a large and diverse review pool of 183 reviews and carries HIGH overall confidence, but consumers should be specifically cautious about pricing transparency and job completion follow-through, as these are documented recurring issues across multiple years and multiple technicians.