Find Nearby Plumbers In Aurora, Illinois

Michels Plumbing earns strong marks across professionalism, project completion, and experience, with dozens of reviewers explicitly praising punctuality, responsiveness, courteous technicians, and high-quality workmanship across a wide variety of jobs spanning many years. The most consistent drag on the overall score is pricing: a notable and recurring thread across multiple independent reviews — spanning from 2008 through 2025 — describes the company as expensive or pricey, with two negative reviews specifically citing billing concerns including a charge perceived as excessive and a complaint about nickel-and-diming without a written estimate. Project completion is generally strong, though one negative review alleged a technician caused electrical damage and concealed it, and another cited poor follow-through on a customer complaint letter. The long tenure of the business and repeat-customer loyalty across 10–20+ year relationships lend credibility to the positive signals, but the pricing dimension meaningfully suppresses the WW Score.

• 10 reviews contain no text whatsoever (blank or single-punctuation entries) and were excluded from dimension scoring; their star ratings were noted but provide no usable qualitative data.
• Several reviews use very similar phrasing around outdoor hose bib replacement and Bryan/Bryan's name — two reviews (April 2024 and June 2024) appear nearly identical in content and structure, describing the same job type, same technician, and same inline turnoff recommendation. These may represent duplicate or coached reviews and were treated with caution.
• The review corpus spans 2007–2025, meaning a significant portion of reviews are more than 5 years old. Recency weighting was applied; reviews from 2024–2025 were given higher weight in scoring.
• One 1-star review (January 2020) alleges a technician caused electrical damage and concealed it from the customer, and that management (Matt) took no ownership. This is a serious workmanship and customer service flag.
• One 1-star review (May 2019) warns explicitly to get a written estimate due to unexpected charges. One 1-star review (March 2013) describes a $131 charge for under 10 minutes of work as excessive. These pricing complaints are independent and span multiple years, lending credibility to the pricing concern.
• One 1-star review (June 2014) describes a technician scratching a sink, removing an old faucet without permission, and the company ignoring a written complaint letter — a customer service and accountability concern.
• One 1-star review (June 2016) cites a rude interaction regarding a billing policy change, though this is an isolated complaint about policy rather than workmanship.

This WW Score is based on a large, multi-year review set with HIGH confidence across all four dimensions, making it statistically reliable; however, the recurring independent pricing complaints and at least one serious workmanship-concealment allegation introduce meaningful uncertainty, and prospective customers should request written estimates and verify current practices before engaging.

Aquaduct Plumbing earns strong marks for professionalism, with the overwhelming majority of reviewers praising courteous, communicative, and timely technicians — particularly Jason and Mike by name. Pricing is generally viewed as fair and transparent, with multiple reviewers noting no upselling and upfront quotes, though a handful of negative reviews cite surprise charges, non-itemized receipts, and a perception that costs ran higher than expected. Project completion is where the most serious concerns emerge: several 1-star reviews describe incomplete or incorrect work (wrong-sized water heater installed, mismatched sink materials that leaked, a drain issue not properly resolved, and a toilet installation linked to mold damage), as well as communication failures that caused jobs to be abandoned or delayed. Experience scores are solid overall given the volume of praise for knowledgeable diagnostics and problem-solving, but are tempered by credible accounts of a technician unfamiliar with water softeners, advice contradicting manufacturer manuals, and a faulty shut-off valve the owner refused to warranty. The WW Score reflects a genuinely capable and well-regarded company that has meaningful quality-control and accountability gaps that prospective customers should weigh carefully.

• Nine 1-star reviews are present across the review set, several containing detailed, specific, and credible complaints about workmanship quality, incorrect installations, unresolved callbacks, and poor customer service — these are not generic and carry significant evidentiary weight.
• One review (Rating: 1.0, Date: 2024-06-09) contains no text and was excluded from dimension scoring as it provides no usable data.
• Two reviews appear to describe the same complainant (mismatched sink materials, leaking plastic assembly) — one a shorter version and one a detailed edit/response. These were treated as a single reviewer's account to avoid double-counting the negative signal.
• A cluster of reviews dated 2024-06-09 (approximately 10 reviews) share the same date, which may indicate batch posting or imported reviews. While their content is varied enough to not suggest fabrication, this pattern warrants mild caution.
• Several highly positive reviews are brief and generic (e.g., 'Great service and experience', 'Always nice, thorough, easy to work with') with no specific details. These were counted for professionalism mentions but given reduced weight in scoring due to lack of specificity.
• The review corpus spans 2015 to 2025. Reviews older than 2023 were given reduced weight in scoring. The negative reviews are distributed across multiple years including recent ones (2024–2025), suggesting the quality-control issues are not isolated to an older period.
• The 1-star review alleging a wrong-size water heater installation with no callback (2023) and the 1-star review alleging a faulty shut-off valve with contradictory maintenance advice (2024) are particularly credible due to their specificity and technical detail — these meaningfully suppress the project completion and experience scores.

This WW Score is based on a large and diverse review set (75 reviews spanning a decade) with HIGH confidence across all four dimensions, but prospective customers should treat the score as a moderate-confidence signal for project completion and experience specifically, given the presence of multiple detailed and credible negative accounts describing installation errors, unresolved warranty claims, and inconsistent technical knowledge.

Accurate Plumbing of Illinois receives strong praise across most dimensions, with many reviewers highlighting prompt responsiveness, fair and transparent pricing, and quality workmanship from Mike and Javier. Pricing is a consistent strength, with multiple reviewers noting costs were significantly lower than competitors and free of hidden charges. However, professionalism and project completion scores are meaningfully dragged down by a recurring pattern of unanswered calls and no-call-no-shows across multiple reviews spanning 2014 to 2024, indicating a persistent responsiveness problem. One review also describes an unresolved workmanship issue where the contractor refused to return to assess a problem, which negatively impacts both project completion and experience scores. The business performs well when they do show up, but the failure-to-respond pattern is a documented and repeated concern.

• 6 reviews contain no text — only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence.
• At least 4 negative reviews (1-star) explicitly cite failure to return calls or no-shows: June 2024, June 2020, June 2015, and a 2017 review citing being stood up twice. This is a recurring and documented pattern across multiple years, not an isolated incident.
• One 1-star review (Feb 2014) describes a workmanship dispute where the contractor refused to return to assess a potential installation error, charging extra instead — this is a project completion and experience concern.
• Several 5-star reviews use very similar phrasing ('highly recommend,' 'fair price,' 'quick response') with minimal specifics, particularly among reviews dated 2023-06-10 and 2020-06-10 with no review text. While not conclusive, this warrants mild fake review suspicion for the blank-text reviews.
• A significant portion of reviews are older than 3 years (pre-2022). Recency weighting was applied — the 2024 reviews carry more weight, and the 2024 negative review confirms the responsiveness issue is still active.
• The 2017 review mentioning being stood up twice with no notice and forgotten follow-up on a part represents a serious project completion failure.

This WW Score is based on a reasonably large review set with HIGH confidence across all dimensions, but should be interpreted cautiously due to a documented and recurring pattern of unresponsiveness and no-shows that spans from 2014 through 2024, suggesting this is a systemic issue rather than an anomaly.

Guthrie Plumbing demonstrates strong performance across all four dimensions. Professionalism is consistently praised with mentions of punctuality, politeness, responsiveness, and personable staff across all five reviews. Pricing is highlighted as competitive and fair in four reviews, with explicit mentions of honesty and reasonable rates. Project completion is solid, with jobs finished on time and on budget, including emergency same-day service. Experience is evident through skilled workmanship and technical knowledge, though mentioned less frequently. The primary limitation is the small sample size (5 reviews) and recency skew—three reviews are from 2016–2018, with only two from 2024.

• Small sample size (5 reviews) limits statistical confidence; recommend collecting more recent reviews for robust assessment
• Significant recency gap: 60% of reviews are from 2016–2018; only 40% from 2024. Older reviews may not reflect current service standards
• All reviews are 5-star ratings with uniformly positive language; no negative feedback or critical detail present. While not conclusive evidence of fake reviews, the absence of any critical perspective is atypical and warrants caution
• Generic praise patterns observed (e.g., 'honest and reliable,' 'best plumber') without specific technical details in some reviews, though others do provide concrete examples (emergency response, specific staff names)

This score should be treated with moderate caution due to the small sample size and heavy skew toward older reviews; the uniformly positive 5-star pattern without critical feedback reduces confidence slightly, though specific details in recent reviews (Tyson, Brandon, emergency response) provide some grounding in reality.

Hagerty & Sons Plumbing demonstrates strong performance across all measured dimensions based on three reviews spanning 2018–2021. Professionalism is consistently praised, with reviewers highlighting punctuality (same-day service, next-day response), clear communication, and courteous staff (Todd and Bill named positively). Pricing is noted as competitive and fair with no hidden charges or pressure tactics. Project completion is solid, with jobs finished completely and follow-through honored. Technical expertise is evident in problem-solving and knowledge of non-standard installations. However, the sample size is small (n=3) and all reviews are older than 2 years, limiting confidence in current performance.

• All three reviews are 3+ years old (2018–2021); no recent data available to assess current service quality
• Small sample size (n=3) limits statistical reliability; recommend collecting more recent reviews before making high-confidence decisions
• Review from 2018-12-05 is notably longer and more detailed than others, which is normal but does not indicate fabrication

This WW Score of 88.2 should be treated with caution due to the small sample size and age of reviews; it reflects strong historical performance but does not reliably predict current service quality without more recent data.

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.