Find Nearby Plumbers In Aurora, Illinois

Armbrust Plumbing Solutions earns strong marks across professionalism, project completion, and experience, with dozens of reviews explicitly praising named technicians — particularly Adam, Tom, Steve, and Bruce — for punctuality, communication, cleanliness, and technical skill. The company's responsiveness is a standout trait, with multiple reviewers noting same-day or within-hours service and proactive communication including email confirmations and technician photos. Project completion scores well overall, as the vast majority of jobs are described as fully resolved, though a small number of negative reviews describe incomplete work, an unwillingness to test installed equipment, and a job where a repair was rendered unnecessary by a subsequent upsell. Pricing is the weakest dimension, with multiple reviewers explicitly calling out high labor rates, questionable line-item charges (e.g., tool usage fees, fuel surcharges), and at least one customer feeling the $89 service fee was not fairly applied — though others found pricing reasonable or competitive. A handful of older negative reviews (2013–2021) describe attitude problems, poor workmanship, and lack of follow-through from ownership, which temper the otherwise strong recent trend.

• 11 reviews contain no text at all — only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence.
• Several reviews are extremely brief and generic (e.g., 'Great experience!', 'Wonderful service all around', 'Everything was great!') with no specific details. While not conclusively fake, these add limited signal and were weighted minimally.
• A high concentration of 5-star reviews with named technicians (Adam, Tom, Bruce, Steve) may reflect a company practice of soliciting reviews after service calls, which can inflate volume without indicating organic sentiment. No deceptive pattern confirmed, but noted.
• Several negative reviews (1-star) are older (2013–2021) and describe materially different experiences: upselling, incomplete work, poor attitude, and lack of owner follow-up. These are given reduced weight due to recency rules but are not dismissed — they reveal a pattern of recurring pricing and attitude complaints.
• One review (2021) explicitly describes a technician refusing to test a newly installed sump pump and being dismissive of the customer. Another (2018) describes a technician leaving a mess, failing to attempt repairs, and the owner never returning a follow-up call. These are credible negative signals.
• One review (2013) describes being charged $200 for a repair that was immediately rendered unnecessary by a subsequent recommendation — a transparency and sequencing failure worth noting.
• Recency note: The majority of reviews with substantive detail are from 2025 and 2016–2017. Reviews from 2013–2015 and a few from 2018–2021 are older than 12 months and weighted accordingly.

This WW Score is based on a large and diverse review set with strong mention counts across all four dimensions, making it statistically reliable — however, a persistent minority of credible negative reviews across multiple years regarding pricing transparency, occasional poor technician attitude, and incomplete work prevents a top-tier score and should be considered by prospective customers.

Beery Heating and Cooling demonstrates consistently strong performance across all four dimensions, with professionalism being the most frequently cited strength — punctuality, courteous technicians, and responsive communication appear in the vast majority of reviews spanning over a decade. Project completion scores are high, with numerous reviewers noting jobs finished on time, clean workspaces, and meaningful follow-up calls after installation. Experience and technical knowledge are well-documented, with multiple reviewers specifically praising technicians' ability to diagnose problems, explain solutions clearly, and recommend appropriately sized equipment without upselling. Pricing scores are solid but modestly reduced due to three notable negative incidents: one reviewer was charged $500 more than the phone quote with no notice, one reviewer paid twice for an unfixed leak, and one reviewer experienced two service calls that arguably should have been resolved in one visit. A small number of negative reviews also cite owner-level communication failures, including one report of being hung up on, which tempers the otherwise strong professionalism score.

• Two blank reviews with only a 5-star rating and no text were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data.
• One 1-star review (2022) describes a service area dispute rather than workmanship failure — this was weighted toward professionalism/communication rather than project completion or experience.
• One 1-star review (2014) describes a plumbing leak that was never fixed and a dismissive supervisor response — this is a legitimate project completion and professionalism failure and was weighted accordingly.
• One 1-star review (2024) describes a bait-and-switch pricing incident where the quoted price of $2,000 was changed to $2,500 at time of payment without notification — this negatively impacts the pricing score.
• One 1-star review (2016) describes being charged for two service calls for what the customer felt should have been resolved in one visit — factored into pricing and project completion scores.
• One 1-star review (2017) describes the owner hanging up on a customer — factored into professionalism score.
• One 1-star review (2019) cites poor phone etiquette with an immediate mention of overtime charges — factored into professionalism score.
• A large proportion of reviews are 5-star with enthusiastic language, but most contain specific names, dates, and job details, reducing fake review concern. The reviews appear genuine overall.
• Several reviews are older than 3 years (pre-2022); while these establish a long track record, more recent reviews from 2024-2025 were given higher weight and are largely consistent with the historical pattern.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent reviews (2024-2025) remain strongly positive, suggesting no meaningful decline in service quality over time.

This WW Score is based on 69 reviews with usable data spanning approximately 15 years, with strong representation from the past 12 months, and carries HIGH overall confidence — the score of 83.1 reliably reflects a well-regarded company with documented strengths in professionalism and technical skill, tempered by a small but credible pattern of pricing transparency issues and isolated owner-level communication failures.

Pierce Plumbing has a strong overall track record across all four dimensions, with the majority of reviewers praising punctuality, responsiveness, and courteous service. Pricing is consistently described as fair, reasonable, and competitive against larger chains and national plumbers, which is a notable strength. Project completion scores well, with many reviewers noting jobs finished quickly, on time, and without surprise charges — though a small number of negative reviews allege incomplete or substandard work, including one detailed account of unlicensed work and code violations. Experience is generally rated highly, with multiple reviewers specifically calling out technical knowledge and problem-solving ability, though the negative reviews introduce enough doubt to prevent a top-tier score. The presence of five 1-star reviews — some with serious allegations including unlicensed contracting, overcharging, and unprofessional behavior — meaningfully tempers what would otherwise be an exceptional score.

• NEGATIVE REVIEW ALERT: One detailed 1-star review (2023-02-18) alleges the contractor's license was suspended, work done outside of code, use of improper materials (shark bite fittings and PEX for permanent installs), and exploitation of a vulnerable elderly customer. This is a serious allegation that could not be verified from reviews alone but warrants caution.
• NEGATIVE REVIEW ALERT: A 1-star review (2024-07-23) alleges dishonest pricing practices and attempted removal of the review, suggesting possible suppression of negative feedback.
• NEGATIVE REVIEW ALERT: A 1-star review (2022-08-23) describes a billing dispute where a part costing ~$100 was billed at nearly $500, and a manager was reportedly inaccessible. This suggests possible pricing transparency issues.
• NEGATIVE REVIEW ALERT: A 1-star review (2019-08-22) alleges poor work quality and unprofessional behavior by the owner, though no specifics were provided.
• NEGATIVE REVIEW ALERT: A 1-star review (2013-12-24) describes a rude plumber, though no further detail was given.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews span from 2012 to 2024. Reviews from the past 12 months (late 2023 to late 2024) are generally positive, but two of the most serious negative reviews fall within the past 24 months (2022-2024), which is relevant to current performance assessment.
• POSSIBLE FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: A large number of reviews share very similar structure — praising Jim or Jose by name, mentioning on-time arrival, reasonable pricing, and high recommendation. While this may reflect genuine consistent service, the repetitive pattern across dozens of reviews warrants mild caution. No score reduction was applied but confidence is noted.
• GEOGRAPHIC INCONSISTENCY: Some reviews reference Hemet (California), while others reference Naperville (Illinois) and Hobart (Indiana), suggesting this listing may aggregate reviews for multiple businesses sharing the Pierce Plumbing name or that the business operates across multiple locations. Scores may not reflect a single unified operation.

This WW Score is based on a large volume of reviews (63) spanning over a decade and carries HIGH overall confidence, but should be interpreted with caution due to serious unverified allegations in multiple 1-star reviews, a possible geographic inconsistency suggesting multiple distinct businesses may be represented, and a pattern of repetitive positive reviews that may inflate sentiment.

Bee Plumbing receives consistently strong praise across all four dimensions, with professionalism being the most frequently cited strength — reviewers repeatedly highlight punctuality, courteous communication, and reliability. Pricing is described as fair, competitive, and transparent across multiple reviews, with one reviewer noting a charge lower than all competing quotes. Project completion is generally strong, including a notable example of a complex basement rebuild finished on time, but is meaningfully penalized by one 1-star review in which the crew left water in the basement after completing work — a direct completion and workmanship concern. Technical skill and problem-solving ability are well-supported, with reviewers citing successful handling of emergency situations, complex installs, and proactive identification of additional issues. The single negative review prevents a higher score and introduces a legitimate flag around job-site cleanliness and follow-through.

• One 1-star review (2023-11-06) explicitly states the crew left water in the basement after completing work, raising a concern about job-site cleanliness and potential property damage — this directly impacts the project_completion score.
• Several reviews use warm, effusive language about the owner Scott by name, which is genuine-sounding but worth noting as a pattern. However, reviews contain specific details (Christmas Eve pipe burst, sump pump install, expansion tank repair) that suggest authenticity rather than fabrication.
• Three reviews are older than 3 years (2013, 2020, 2021) and were given reduced weight in scoring. The majority of reviews are from 2023–2024, which supports reasonable recency confidence.
• Total review count is 13, which is sufficient for scoring but represents a relatively small sample. Scores should be interpreted with that context in mind.

This WW Score is moderately reliable — the review set is small but spans multiple years, contains specific job details suggesting authenticity, and includes at least one critical review that meaningfully tests the scoring system; the HIGH confidence ratings reflect mention volume, not review count, so consumers should weigh this score as a solid directional signal rather than a definitive assessment.

Star Plumbing demonstrates strong overall performance with a WW Score of 82.3, driven by consistently high marks in pricing (85.5) and experience (87.0). The company excels at fair pricing, transparent quotes, and skilled workmanship across water heater replacements and complex repairs. Professionalism (81.0) and project completion (79.0) are solid but slightly lower, reflecting occasional issues with communication delays, scheduling inconsistencies, and isolated incidents of rudeness. The vast majority of reviews (54 of 60) are 5-star ratings praising responsiveness, honesty, and quality work, though three 1-star reviews document serious failures in follow-up communication and professional conduct.

• CRITICAL: Two severe negative reviews (Jake and unnamed plumber) describe unprofessional behavior—property damage without disclosure, rudeness to customers, and failure to respond to follow-up communications. These are not isolated complaints but documented service failures.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most reviews are 3+ years old (2014–2018). Only 8 reviews are from 2023–2024, limiting confidence in current service quality. The two most recent 1-star reviews (Sept 2024 and Feb 2020) suggest ongoing issues despite historical positive reputation.
• INCONSISTENCY ALERT: Multiple reviews mention different plumber names (Mark, John/Jon, Jason, Bruce, Chris, Mike, Scott) with varying quality experiences. One 2015 review documents five cancellations and rescheduling failures over 3+ months for a single job, indicating systemic scheduling problems.
• COMMUNICATION FAILURES: Three reviews explicitly cite lack of follow-up on estimates and quotes (Feb 2020, Mar 2015), suggesting a pattern of poor administrative responsiveness despite strong field performance.
• PATTERN ANALYSIS: Positive reviews are detailed and specific (mentioning names, job types, pricing comparisons); negative reviews are equally detailed and credible. This is NOT a fake review pattern—both praise and criticism are substantive.

This WW Score of 82.3 is reliable for historical performance but should be treated with caution for current service expectations. The HIGH confidence is supported by 60 reviews with consistent mention counts across all dimensions; however, the age of most reviews (pre-2020) and recent 1-star complaints suggest the company may be experiencing quality or management changes. Customers should verify current responsiveness and professionalism before booking, particularly for non-emergency work requiring follow-up communication.

US Allied demonstrates strong overall performance with a WW Score of 82.1. Professionalism is a clear strength (87.5), with extensive evidence of punctuality, courteous communication, and respectful conduct across 72 reviews. Project completion is solid (84.0) with most jobs finished on time and follow-through honored, though a few notable failures exist. Experience/workmanship scores well (85.0) with technicians demonstrating strong technical knowledge and problem-solving. Pricing is the weakest dimension (76.0), with mixed feedback—some customers praise fair pricing while others cite overcharging and inflated estimates. Recent reviews (2024-2025) are predominantly positive, but older reviews (2020-2022) reveal occasional serious service failures including no-shows and incomplete work.

• SUSPICIOUS REVIEW PATTERN: Multiple empty reviews (3 instances with 5.0 rating but no text) on 2024-06-09 suggest potential fake reviews or data entry errors.
• GENERIC COMMERCIAL REVIEWS: Several reviews (e.g., 'office renovation,' 'commercial HVAC needs,' 'electrical upgrades') use suspiciously generic corporate language and lack specific details, raising authenticity concerns.
• CRITICAL SERVICE FAILURES: Two 1-star reviews document serious issues—one involving incomplete work and false billing (2022-11-10), another involving a no-show after customer took day off work (2021-08-11). These are not minor complaints.
• PRICING INCONSISTENCY: One review explicitly states 'very over priced' (2024-06-09), another mentions 'not cheap' (2024-06-09), and one detailed complaint about inflated $2,500 estimate for frozen pipes (2021-02-21). Pricing confidence is LIMITED due to only 12 mentions.
• RECENCY BIAS: Majority of reviews cluster in June 2024 and early 2025, with older reviews (2020-2022) showing more critical feedback. Recent surge may indicate review campaign.
• MASK/COVID PROTOCOL VIOLATION: One 2021 review documents technician removing mask immediately upon entry, suggesting inconsistent safety protocols during pandemic period.

This WW Score of 82.1 is moderately reliable for professionalism and project completion (both HIGH confidence with 70+ mentions), but should be interpreted cautiously due to suspicious review clustering, several empty/generic reviews suggesting potential manipulation, and documented service failures that contradict the predominantly positive narrative. The pricing dimension (MODERATE confidence, 12 mentions) is particularly unreliable. Prospective customers should weight recent positive reviews against the serious failures documented in older reviews and request specific references.