Find Nearby Plumbers In Aurora, Illinois

Craftsman Plumbing scores strongly on professionalism, with the vast majority of reviewers praising punctuality, communication, friendliness, and respectful behavior across a large and consistent technician roster including Monty, Cameron, Isaac, Zach, Dusty, Drew, Brendan, and Arthur. Experience and project completion also score well, with numerous reviewers citing skilled diagnostics, thorough inspections, same-day fixes, and honored warranties — including a notable callback where warranty work was performed at no charge. However, pricing is the single most damaging dimension: at least 12 reviews explicitly describe charges as outrageous, unethical, or grossly overpriced, with specific examples including $934 to install a customer-supplied faucet, $900 to set a toilet, $14,000 quoted for a water heater replacement, $16,900 for a single bathroom re-plumb, and $483 for a 5-minute part installation — dragging the pricing score down significantly. There is also one confirmed scheduling failure (no-show) and one complaint about a lack of warranty disclosure, which modestly reduce the project completion score. Overall, Craftsman Plumbing delivers high-quality, professional work but operates a flat-rate pricing model that a substantial minority of customers find exploitative and non-transparent.

• PRICING CONCERN — HIGH SEVERITY: At least 12 reviews across multiple years explicitly cite extreme overpricing. Specific examples: $934 for a customer-supplied faucet install (40 min), $900 to set a toilet, $1,000 for a 15-minute job, $630 to connect a gas range (10 min), $640 for a 35-minute copper pipe repair, $483 for a 5-minute part install, $14,000 quoted for a water heater (competitor did it for ~$4,000), $16,900 bid for a single bathroom re-plumb vs. a $2,000 competitor bid, and $3,800 to replace one shower valve. This is a systemic pattern, not isolated incidents.
• FLAT-RATE PRICING MODEL: Multiple reviews note that pricing is not disclosed until the technician is on-site, and that the 'price book' leaves no room for negotiation. One reviewer explicitly stated they would not return because of this practice. This is a transparency concern.
• SCHEDULING FAILURE: One review (2022-06-03) documents a confirmed no-show with no adequate remedy offered by ownership. One older review (2021-05-28) also cites a no-show. These are isolated but notable.
• POSSIBLE FAKE OR INCENTIVIZED REVIEWS — MODERATE SUSPICION: Several undated reviews (likely from Thumbtack) use very similar phrasing patterns ('great to work with,' 'on time, transparent, and professional,' 'will definitely use again') with minimal specifics. Two reviews from 2023-10-22 and 2023-11-10 are unusually long, effusive, and stylistically similar — both describe the experience as 'fun' and reference humor, which is atypical and may suggest templated or incentivized content. Confidence is not reduced materially given the large volume of clearly genuine reviews, but these entries are flagged.
• RECENCY NOTE: Reviews span from 2014 to 2025. The most recent 12 months (mid-2024 to mid-2025) contain a strong mix of both highly positive and highly negative pricing reviews, suggesting the pricing issue is ongoing and not historical. Older reviews (2014–2018) tend to describe pricing more favorably, indicating pricing practices may have changed significantly over time.
• ONE BLANK REVIEW: One review (2025-06-06, rating 4.0) contained no text and was excluded from dimensional scoring but counted in total reviews analyzed.
• WARRANTY INCONSISTENCY: One reviewer (2025-03-11) was told the company has no formal warranty, only an informal promise to return within 'a few days or a week.' Other reviews and the company's own marketing reference warranties. This inconsistency is a concern.

This WW Score is based on a large and diverse review set spanning over a decade and is considered highly reliable in its directional assessment — Craftsman Plumbing delivers genuinely skilled, professional work but has a well-documented and recurring pattern of pricing that a significant minority of customers describe as exploitative, which materially suppresses the overall score and should be a primary consideration for any prospective customer.

River City Plumbing scores well on professionalism and experience, with a large volume of reviews praising courteous, knowledgeable technicians who communicate clearly and clean up after themselves. However, pricing is a significant and recurring concern — multiple independent reviewers across different time periods explicitly describe overcharging, surprise cost increases mid-job, billing for hours not worked, and failure to provide invoices, driving the pricing score sharply down. Project completion is mixed: the majority of jobs are finished satisfactorily, but there are credible, detailed complaints about abandoned work, warranty denials, unpermitted commercial work, and jobs left incomplete after bankruptcy. The high volume of reviews provides strong statistical confidence, but the score is tempered by a meaningful minority of serious negative experiences that cannot be dismissed.

• DUPLICATE REVIEW PATTERN: A large number of reviews appear to be submitted twice with identical or near-identical text and the same date, artificially inflating the review count. Affected pairs span multiple time periods (2021–2023). This is a significant data integrity concern and the effective unique review count is substantially lower than 285.
• SUSPECTED REVIEW PADDING: Several reviews consist only of a star rating with no text (blank reviews), contributing nothing to scoring but inflating total count. These were excluded from dimension scoring.
• PRICING CONCERN — RECURRING AND CREDIBLE: Multiple unrelated reviewers across different years explicitly describe price gouging, surprise mid-job cost increases of 50%+, charges for hours not worked, failure to provide receipts/invoices, and rates far above market average. This is not isolated and materially impacts the pricing score.
• PROJECT COMPLETION CONCERN: One reviewer states the company 'filed for bankruptcy and never finished the job,' leaving an unfinished shower. Another describes a commercial job where permits were never pulled, work was left incomplete, and the company went silent. A third describes a warranty denial after being told the warranty was one year. These are serious completion failures.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — LOW SEVERITY: A subset of 5-star reviews are extremely generic ('Great service!', 'GREAT', 'DID A GREAT JOB', 'Excellent') with no specifics. While not conclusive, combined with the duplicate pattern, this warrants caution.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews with substantive content are from 2021–2025, which is within the relevant scoring window. However, some negative reviews date to 2019–2022 and may reflect prior management or staffing. Recent 2025 reviews are predominantly positive, suggesting possible improvement in service quality.
• IDENTICAL NEGATIVE REVIEW DUPLICATION: The detailed 1-star slab leak review (rating 2.0, $35,000 job) appears submitted four times with identical or near-identical text. This was counted as one unique complaint for scoring purposes.
• COMMERCIAL JOB FAILURE: One detailed 1-star review describes unpermitted commercial plumbing work, mid-job extortion attempt for additional $3,800, project taking 2 weeks instead of 2-3 days, incomplete cleanup, and the company going silent — a multi-dimensional failure across professionalism, completion, and experience.

This WW Score carries HIGH statistical confidence due to the large volume of reviews, but consumers should treat the pricing dimension with particular caution given the volume and specificity of overcharging complaints, and should independently verify project completion track record for large or commercial jobs before hiring.

Mendel Plumbing and Heating scores strongly on professionalism and experience, with a large volume of reviews consistently praising technicians as courteous, knowledgeable, punctual, and thorough. Project completion is also generally positive, with most jobs described as finished correctly and efficiently, though a small number of reviews cite abandoned or incomplete work, a failed unclogging job, and one instance of a technician refusing a task. The most significant drag on the overall WW Score is pricing, which is the single most-complained-about dimension across the review history — multiple reviewers across many years describe labor rates as extremely high, markups on parts as excessive, and fees as opaque or unexpected, with several explicitly stating they found comparable work for 25–50% less elsewhere. While many satisfied customers acknowledge the premium pricing as acceptable given quality, the volume and consistency of pricing complaints is too substantial to ignore and materially lowers the score.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: Several reviews appear to be near-identical duplicates posted on different dates (e.g., the detailed Nick C. AC maintenance review appears verbatim on both 2025-06-08 and 2025-06-05; the Jake sales review appears on 2025-06-07 and 2025-06-04; the Bruce furnace review appears on 2025-06-07 and 2025-06-04; the Jake budget review appears on 2025-06-07 and 2025-06-04; 'Very good job' and 'Great service' appear multiple times). These duplicates were not double-counted in scoring but suggest possible review manipulation or a platform import error. Confidence is not reduced for individual dimensions since the underlying unique content is still substantial, but this pattern warrants caution.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS ARE PERSISTENT AND SPAN MULTIPLE YEARS (2015–2024): At least 15–18 distinct reviews explicitly cite overpricing, excessive labor rates, high parts markups, or hidden/unexpected fees. This is not a one-off complaint but a recurring pattern across a long time horizon.
• SEVERAL BLANK REVIEWS WITH 5-STAR RATINGS: Approximately 15–18 reviews contain no text whatsoever but carry a 5-star rating. These provide no usable data and were excluded from dimension scoring. Their presence in volume could artificially inflate star averages on external platforms.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of detailed, substantive reviews are from 2025 and 2024, which is positive. However, pricing complaints also appear in recent reviews (2024), indicating the issue has not been resolved over time.
• ONE REVIEW (2019-06-15, 1-star) describes a technician failing to clear a clog after charging $600, with a different plumber resolving the same issue in 15 minutes for $250 — this is a notable project completion and competence failure.
• ONE REVIEW (2019-11-12, 1-star) describes incomplete workmanship (sump pump lid not properly sealed) and poor follow-up customer service, suggesting occasional quality control lapses.
• ONE REVIEW (2023-11-11, 2-star) notes a technician refused to work on a garbage disposal, citing it was 'not a handyman job' — a project completion concern.
• ONE REVIEW (2019-07-12, 3-star) describes Mendel canceling a confirmed appointment late in the day, leaving the customer without service — a reliability and project completion concern.

This WW Score is based on a large and diverse review set spanning over a decade, with strong data across all four dimensions, making it one of the more reliable assessments possible — however, the confirmed presence of duplicate reviews and a significant volume of blank 5-star ratings introduce a moderate inflation risk to external star averages, and the persistent pricing complaints are well-evidenced enough to be treated as a genuine and ongoing characteristic of this contractor rather than outlier noise.

Royal Plumbing has a large and long-running review history with a clear majority of positive experiences, particularly around punctuality, courteous technicians, and competent workmanship on water heater and sump pump installations. However, the score is meaningfully pulled down by a recurring pattern of serious complaints: multiple reviews cite poor or non-existent follow-up communication, rude or dismissive office staff, and in several cases outright unprofessional or dangerous on-site behavior including one allegation of a plumber appearing intoxicated and another of a missing credit card. Pricing received mixed signals — several reviewers praised affordability and fair quotes, while others described significant overcharging and hidden add-on costs. Project completion is generally solid but undermined by a few notable failures including incomplete rodding work, an improperly installed water heater left out of code for over a decade, and one instance of a technician leaving without resolving the issue. The score reflects a contractor with genuine competence among certain technicians but inconsistent quality control and a troubling pattern of poor customer service when problems arise.

• 17 reviews contain no text at all — only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence.
• Several reviews use generic phrases like 'Would highly recommend' or 'Excellent service!' with no supporting detail. These were counted toward overall sentiment but not scored against specific dimensions.
• Multiple reviews reference the same named technicians (Alex, Larry, Danny, Bob, CJ) suggesting a small team — individual technician quality varies significantly and scores may not reflect the full team uniformly.
• One 1-star review (2020) alleges a plumber arrived under the influence of alcohol and that a credit card went missing during the visit. This is a serious safety and integrity flag.
• One 1-star review (2014) documents a water heater installed out of code in 2003 that was never corrected — a workmanship and liability concern.
• One 1-star review (2022) describes two weeks of phone tag to schedule, no resolution after three follow-up calls, and an invoice that misrepresented the work performed.
• One 1-star review (2016) describes a plumber appearing intoxicated, office staff denying the complaint, the owner refusing to speak with the customer, and the secretary stating they did not need the customer's business.
• One 1-star review (2017) describes deliberate underperformance on sewer rodding — using only a tip blade instead of a root cutter — which was confirmed by a neighbor's experience with the same crew.
• One 1-star review (2018) describes a quote five times higher than four competing bids with no justification.
• One 1-star review (2018) describes an installer becoming aggressive about unexpected add-on charges and the homeowner asking him to leave.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of detailed, substantive reviews are from 2013–2020. Reviews from 2021–2025 are mostly brief or text-free. The most recent reviews with meaningful content (2025) are positive, but the sample is thin for the past 12 months.
• No confirmed fake review patterns detected, but several 5-star text-free entries and vague one-liners reduce the usable data pool significantly.

This WW Score is based on a large review set spanning nearly two decades, giving it HIGH statistical confidence in direction, but the score should be interpreted cautiously given the severity of some negative incidents, the high proportion of text-free reviews, and the lack of recent detailed reviews to confirm whether service quality has improved or declined.

RJ Kuhn Plumbing demonstrates genuine technical competence and a strong track record of solving difficult problems — multiple reviewers praised specific technicians like Todd, Greg, Rob, and Eric for skilled diagnostics and thorough workmanship. Professionalism scores are dragged down meaningfully by a recurring pattern of no-shows, missed scheduled appointments, and poor customer service responses when things went wrong, including at least four separate reviews citing being ghosted or abandoned. Pricing is the weakest dimension: multiple detailed reviews across several years document charges significantly above market rate, surprise upcharges beyond quoted prices, and markups on parts that reviewers found excessive — this is a consistent and credible pattern, not isolated complaints. Project completion is mixed: many jobs were completed well and on time, but there are credible accounts of incomplete fixes, a misinstalled disposal that caused downstream costs, and a sewer job that recurred within a month with drains left unchecked. The score reflects a company with real capability but inconsistent execution and a pricing model that generates repeated dissatisfaction.

• Seven reviews contain no text — only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence.
• Two 1-star reviews dated 2024-08-13 allege dangerous driving behavior by employees (giving the middle finger to a child, using a vehicle as a weapon, attempting to run someone off the road). These are serious conduct allegations but cannot be verified from review text alone. They are noted as a flag and factored into the professionalism score.
• Pricing complaints are consistent and span from 2013 to 2023, suggesting a long-standing structural issue rather than isolated incidents. Multiple reviewers provided specific dollar figures and comparisons to market rates, lending these complaints high credibility.
• At least four separate reviews cite no-show or scheduling failures (2013, 2017, 2019, 2024), indicating a recurring operational problem with appointment reliability.
• The 2024-06-09 negative review about the garbage disposal misinstallation describes a pattern of deflection and denial before reimbursement — this is a customer service conduct flag.
• The 2021 negative review describes technicians showing customers a completely black, unviewable camera feed and claiming the drain was clear — this is a potential workmanship integrity concern.
• Recency note: The majority of negative reviews with specific detail are spread across 2013–2024, suggesting these are not isolated historical issues. Positive reviews are more numerous but many lack specific detail. Most recent reviews (2024–2025) are predominantly positive, which is a mild favorable signal but does not override the documented pattern of complaints.
• No strong fake review pattern detected, though several 5-star reviews are generic and brief. The presence of detailed negative reviews with specific names, dates, dollar amounts, and outcomes increases overall credibility of the review pool.

This WW Score is based on 55 reviews with usable content spanning 2011–2025 and carries HIGH overall confidence; the score of 72.1 reflects a company with genuine technical skill but meaningful and recurring weaknesses in pricing transparency, scheduling reliability, and customer service recovery that prospective customers should weigh carefully.

Aspect Plumbing has a strong base of positive reviews praising responsiveness, technical knowledge, and fair pricing, particularly from the 2014–2016 period when the business appeared most active and consistent. However, a meaningful cluster of negative reviews — including a dangerous sewer gas situation with no follow-up, an alleged bait-and-switch on pump quality, property damage that went unaddressed, a rude phone interaction, and multiple instances of unreturned calls — significantly tempers the overall score. Project completion is the most penalized dimension because several reviews explicitly describe abandoned callbacks, unresolved issues after payment, and poor follow-through, which is the highest-weighted dimension. Professionalism scores moderately well due to the volume of positive mentions, but is dragged down by documented incidents of rudeness, poor communication, and unprofessional on-site behavior by at least one technician. The most recent reviews (2022–2023) are mixed, with one strong positive and one serious unresolved complaint, suggesting inconsistency persists into recent years.

• Multiple reviews from 2014–2016 share very similar phrasing and structure (e.g., 'knowledgeable,' 'professional,' 'fair price,' 'highly recommend'), which may indicate some degree of review solicitation or coached responses, though specificity in many reviews reduces outright fake review concern.
• A disproportionate number of 5-star reviews are clustered in 2015–2016 with minimal critical detail, which warrants mild skepticism about organic distribution.
• At least 6 reviews explicitly describe serious service failures: unresolved sewer gas hazard post-installation (2022), alleged installation of inferior pump while charging premium prices (2017), property damage with no follow-up (2016), unreturned emergency calls (2017), rude phone behavior (2019), and a technician making complaints in a customer's home (2018).
• The 1-star review from 2022 describing a dangerous sewer gas situation with no callback is particularly serious and recent — this is a safety and liability concern that should weigh heavily.
• Most high-volume positive reviews are older than 5 years (pre-2019). Only 3 reviews are from 2022 or later, and the picture from recent years is mixed.
• One review (2019-03-04, 1 star) appears to be a response to a reply rather than an original service review, making its context ambiguous, though the complaint about rudeness is consistent with other negative reviews.

This WW Score is based on a substantial volume of reviews (50) and carries HIGH statistical confidence, but the score should be interpreted cautiously given documented safety failures, unresolved complaints, and the fact that the majority of positive reviews are more than 5 years old — recent performance indicators are insufficient to confirm current service quality.