Find Nearby Plumbers In Aurora, Illinois

Wagner Family Plumbing shows significant inconsistency across all dimensions. While some customers praise fast response times, professional technicians (Glenn, Pat, Melissa), and fair pricing, a substantial number of reviews document serious failures in follow-through, communication, and accountability. Critical issues include multiple instances of no-shows or cancellations without callback, incomplete work requiring multiple visits, failure to honor guarantees, and unprofessional behavior. The company appears to have experienced a decline in service quality over time, with older positive reviews contrasting sharply with more recent negative experiences. Professionalism scores are dragged down by communication failures and rudeness; project completion is severely impacted by abandoned work and broken commitments.

• RECENCY CONCERN: Most reviews are from 2013-2021; only 2 reviews from 2024 and 2023. Historical data may not reflect current operations.
• PATTERN DETECTED: Multiple independent reviews (at least 6) document failure to return calls, no-shows, or cancellations without notification—this is a systemic issue, not isolated incidents.
• QUALITY DECLINE PATTERN: Several long-term customers explicitly state service quality has deteriorated significantly in recent years.
• ACCOUNTABILITY ISSUES: Multiple reviews describe company refusing to honor warranties, guarantees, or acknowledge mistakes (sump pump guarantee, sewer line work, water heater exhaust line).
• BILLING CONCERNS: At least 3 reviews document billing errors or overcharges (double charge, inflated estimates, coupon not honored).
• INCONSISTENT TECHNICIAN QUALITY: Named technicians (Glenn, Pat) receive consistent praise; other unnamed technicians receive harsh criticism for unprofessionalism, lack of due diligence, and dishonesty.

This WW Score of 62.8 should be treated with caution due to significant recency issues (most data is 3+ years old) and a clear pattern of systemic failures in communication and project completion that appear to be ongoing concerns. The score reflects genuine high-confidence data but is based on historical reviews; current service quality may differ. The company shows capability (skilled technicians exist) but demonstrates unreliable follow-through and poor accountability, making it a moderate-to-high-risk choice.

Tim's business shows a stark polarization in customer experience. Positive reviews (5 from 2024, 2019, 2016) consistently praise his honesty, fair pricing, responsiveness, and technical skill. However, negative reviews (4 from 2023, 2022, 2020, 2016) document serious issues: incomplete work, poor communication, quality failures requiring rework, billing discrepancies, and unprofessional behavior. The 2022 and 2020 reviews detail specific problems with plumbing errors, overcharging, and lack of accountability. While Tim excels at customer service and pricing in his best cases, the frequency and severity of project completion failures and professionalism lapses in negative reviews significantly undermine overall reliability.

• POLARIZED REVIEWS: Extreme split between 5-star and 1-star ratings with little middle ground suggests inconsistent service quality or possible different service experiences.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most positive reviews are from 2019 or earlier; negative reviews cluster in 2020-2023, suggesting potential service degradation over time.
• QUALITY CONTROL ISSUES: Multiple reviews document incomplete work, rework required, and technical errors (backwards water lines, forgotten rags in drain, valve failures) indicating skill or quality assurance problems.
• COMMUNICATION FAILURES: Several reviews mention lack of callbacks, no response to emails, and failure to follow up on problems—contradicts claims of responsiveness in positive reviews.
• BILLING DISPUTES: Multiple reviews (2020, 2016) document overcharging, unexpected charges, and discrepancies between quoted and final prices.
• ACCOUNTABILITY GAPS: Negative reviews consistently note Tim's refusal to take responsibility for errors or damages caused by his work.

This WW Score should be treated with caution due to the extreme polarization in reviews and evidence of service inconsistency over time; the score reflects a business in decline with serious unresolved quality and accountability issues that outweigh positive historical performance.

Ace Plumbing receives a polarized set of reviews, with strong praise from loyal repeat customers contrasted sharply by serious complaints about pricing, professionalism, and unresolved property damage. Pricing is the weakest dimension, with multiple reviewers explicitly calling out charges as grossly excessive — one reviewer was quoted $900 for a job others said should cost $275, and another was charged $675 for one hour of work. Professionalism is similarly mixed: while several reviewers praise punctuality and friendliness, one detailed 1-star review describes an uncomfortable in-home interaction, property damage to marble flooring, and a failure to follow through on a promised repair over 90+ days. Project completion scores moderately, as most jobs appear to have been finished, but at least two reviews describe unresolved follow-through issues including an unanswered callback and an unrepaired floor. Positive reviews tend to be older (2015–2018) and somewhat generic, while the most detailed negative reviews are more recent and specific.

• PRICING CONCERN: Multiple independent reviewers explicitly describe pricing as far above market rate. One reviewer called 8 other plumbers post-service and was told $900 was 'absolutely ridiculous' for a job worth $275. Another was charged $675 for one hour of work when competitors quoted $300–$375. This is a significant and recurring pattern.
• UNRESOLVED PROPERTY DAMAGE: One detailed 1-star review (2017) describes severe marble floor damage caused during a toilet install, with a written promise of repair that went unfulfilled for 90+ days. This is a serious project completion and professionalism failure.
• FOLLOW-THROUGH FAILURE: A 3-star review describes a plumber who said he would call back with an estimate and never did, suggesting a pattern of poor follow-through on callbacks.
• RECENCY CONCERN: The majority of positive reviews are from 2015–2022, with only one positive review from the past 12 months (October 2023). The two most recent reviews (2024 and 2023) are split — one 1-star and one 4-star — making recent trend data limited.
• REVIEW AUTHENTICITY: Several positive reviews are brief, generic, and lack specific job details (e.g., 'Good service for the modest prices, extremely friendly'). While not conclusively fake, these reviews carry lower evidentiary weight compared to the detailed negative reviews which include specific dates, job types, and dollar amounts.
• SERVICE CALL FEE CONCERN: Two separate reviewers mention being charged a service/quote fee ($125) without being clearly informed upfront, which raises transparency concerns.

This WW Score is based on 16 reviews spanning 2015–2024 and carries moderate overall reliability; the score is pulled down significantly by multiple detailed, credible negative reviews about pricing and follow-through, and the positive reviews — while numerous — are largely older and less specific, limiting their evidentiary weight.

A-Keveloh Plumbing has a mixed but reviewable record across all four dimensions. Professionalism scores moderately well — multiple reviewers praise punctuality, communication, and pleasant demeanor — but is significantly dragged down by one detailed negative review describing ignored callbacks and evasive behavior after a failed repair. Project completion is the most damaged dimension: the 1-star review documents a pipe repair that failed and caused extensive water damage, with the company refusing accountability and hiding behind a technicality on their warranty window, which is a serious workmanship and follow-through failure. Pricing is a relative bright spot, with three reviewers independently noting reasonable hourly rates and even a senior discount, suggesting genuine value. Experience scores below average due to the documented soldering failure and the implausible excuse offered ('wind moved the pipe inside the wall'), which undermines confidence in technical competence despite positive skill mentions in other reviews.

• RECENCY WARNING: Only one review is within the past 12 months (2021). Two reviews are from 2018, one from 2020, and one from 2013. The most recent data point is over 3 years old at time of analysis, limiting reliability of current performance assessment.
• SERIOUS COMPLAINT FLAG: The 1-star review (Feb 2020) is highly detailed and specific — it names dates, describes the failure mechanism, quantifies damage (150 sq ft drywall, 200 sq ft carpet), and documents the company's response. This review carries significant evidentiary weight and cannot be dismissed.
• WARRANTY EVASION FLAG: The company reportedly refused responsibility by citing a one-year warranty expiration that was only 11 days past, despite evidence the leak had been ongoing for an extended period. This is a material red flag for project completion and professionalism.
• POSITIVE REVIEW PATTERN: The four positive reviews are spread across different years and contain specific details (named technicians, specific jobs, senior discounts, European-size wrenches), which reduces suspicion of fake reviews. These appear genuine.
• LOW SAMPLE SIZE: Only 5 reviews total. While the WW Score can be calculated, conclusions should be treated with caution. A single negative review has outsized influence on the overall score.

This WW Score carries MODERATE reliability overall — the positive reviews appear authentic and specific, but the small sample size and the presence of one heavily detailed, serious complaint about workmanship failure and accountability evasion meaningfully limits confidence in this contractor's consistency.

Four of five reviews are positive and highlight responsiveness, reliability, and quality workmanship, with one reviewer specifically praising John Behm's ability to diagnose problems quickly and communicate costs upfront. However, a 1-star review explicitly warns of a lack of knowledge that cost the customer significantly, which meaningfully drags down the experience dimension and introduces uncertainty across all scores. Pricing is mentioned in only two reviews, both positively, but the low mention count limits confidence in that dimension. The overall picture is cautiously positive but tempered by the serious negative review and the fact that three of the four positive reviews are from 2018–2019, making them over five years old and less reflective of current performance.

• RECENCY WARNING: Three of five reviews are from 2018–2019, more than five years old. Only one review (2023) is within the past two years. Scores may not reflect current service quality.
• NEGATIVE REVIEW FLAG: The 1-star review alleges a serious lack of technical knowledge resulting in significant financial harm to the customer. No specific detail is provided, but the claim is direct and credible enough to warrant caution.
• LOW REVIEW VOLUME: Only 5 total reviews exist. This is an extremely small sample size and the WW Score should be treated as preliminary and unreliable for confident decision-making.
• GENERIC POSITIVE LANGUAGE: Some positive reviews (e.g., 'trustworthy and reliable') use brief, non-specific phrasing with little detail, which slightly reduces their evidentiary weight, though they do not appear to be coordinated fake reviews.

This WW Score carries LOW overall reliability due to a very small review pool of only 5 reviews, a predominantly outdated review set, and one serious negative review alleging technical incompetence — prospective customers should seek additional references before hiring.

Mayer Plumbing shows significant inconsistency across reviews spanning 2012–2020. Professionalism is the primary concern, with multiple explicit complaints about rudeness, verbal abuse, screaming, and unprofessional behavior from ownership, pulling the overall score down substantially. Pricing feedback is mixed—some customers report fair and transparent pricing, while others describe the company as 'overly expensive' and exploitative. Project completion and technical experience are moderately supported by positive reviews citing punctuality, follow-through, and quality workmanship. However, the severe professionalism issues and age of most reviews (majority pre-2017) significantly limit confidence in this assessment.

• RECENCY CONCERN: 6 of 9 reviews are older than 7 years (pre-2017). Only 2 reviews from 2017 onward. Historical data may not reflect current operations.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK: Two reviews (2014-03-30 and 2012-04-01) contain minimal or no substantive content ('.' and 'this com. is bad'), suggesting possible spam or placeholder entries.
• SEVERE PROFESSIONALISM RED FLAGS: Multiple independent reviews (2020, 2017, 2016) describe verbally abusive, rude, and unprofessional behavior from ownership/staff, including screaming, obscenities, and discriminatory comments. This pattern is consistent and credible.
• POLARIZED RATINGS: 5 five-star and 4 one-star reviews with almost no middle ground suggests either highly variable service quality or customer selection bias.
• PRICING INCONSISTENCY: One review explicitly states 'abused' pricing ($350 for 1.5 hours); another praises 'reasonably' priced work. Suggests potential for overcharging or inconsistent pricing practices.

This WW Score should be treated with caution. While based on 7 usable reviews, the majority are older than 7 years, professionalism concerns are severe and consistent across multiple independent recent reviews, and the polarized rating distribution suggests underlying operational or customer service issues. The score reflects real problems but is limited by recency and sample size.