Find Nearby Plumbers In Bartlett, Illinois

This aggregated review set spans many years and appears to represent multiple businesses operating under similar or identical names (Royal Flush Plumbing, Pro Plumbing Service, and others), which significantly complicates scoring reliability. The majority of reviews are strongly positive, praising punctuality, communication, professionalism, and technical skill — with many customers citing same-day or emergency responsiveness as a standout quality. However, a meaningful minority of negative reviews (roughly 15-20% of substantive reviews) describe serious issues including no-shows, missed appointments without notification, overcharging without upfront disclosure, incomplete or defective work, and poor customer service when complaints were raised. Pricing is the weakest dimension, with multiple reviewers across different time periods describing charges they felt were excessive, non-transparent, or inconsistent with quoted amounts. Project completion scores are dragged down by recurring complaints about abandoned work, callbacks not honored, and jobs requiring multiple return visits to fix errors.

• MULTI-ENTITY CONCERN: Reviews reference multiple distinct business names including 'Royal Flush Plumbing,' 'Pro Plumbing Service,' and references to individual owner-operators (Jarrod, Steve, Ben, Doug, Ted, Jose, etc.) across different geographic markets (Atlanta GA, Philadelphia PA, Providence RI, Las Vegas NV, Hollister CA, Cleveland OH, Oregon City OR, and others). This dataset almost certainly aggregates reviews from multiple unrelated businesses, severely limiting the reliability of any single composite score.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION: A significant number of reviews contain zero substantive detail — only a star rating or a single generic phrase like 'Great service!' or 'Amazing!' with no specifics. Approximately 60-80 reviews fall into this category. Several clusters of reviews share identical or near-identical dates (e.g., dozens of reviews dated 2025-05-10, 2025-04-10, 2025-03-11, 2025-02-09, 2025-01-10) which is statistically anomalous and suggests possible review manipulation or bulk import artifacts.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: At least one review (Ted and his crew sewer line replacement) appears to be posted twice with identical text and nearly identical dates (2024-07-18). Additionally, two reviews from 2021-09-24 are near-identical complaints about overcharging for a kitchen faucet installation.
• RECENCY NOTE: The dataset spans from approximately 2003 to June 2025. Reviews older than 12 months (pre-June 2024) should be weighted less heavily. The most recent reviews (2025) are predominantly positive, but the volume of blank or generic 5-star reviews in recent months raises authenticity concerns.
• PRICING TRANSPARENCY PATTERN: Multiple independent negative reviews across different years and locations describe a consistent pattern of pricing not disclosed upfront, charges significantly exceeding verbal quotes, and management being unresponsive or dismissive when customers raised billing concerns. This is a recurring structural issue, not isolated incidents.
• NO-SHOW / SCHEDULING PATTERN: A recurring theme across negative reviews spanning 2008 to 2022 involves technicians failing to appear within scheduled windows, no calls to notify customers, and rescheduled appointments also being missed. This pattern appears in enough reviews to be considered a systemic reliability concern rather than isolated incidents.
• WORK QUALITY FAILURES: Several detailed negative reviews describe defective workmanship including broken components attributed to technician error, incomplete jobs, and refusal to return to fix mistakes under warranty. These are high-severity complaints that meaningfully reduce the project completion score.

This WW Score carries LIMITED-to-MODERATE reliability for any single business decision due to strong evidence that the review dataset aggregates multiple unrelated businesses across different markets, combined with a statistically anomalous clustering of blank and generic 5-star reviews that suggests possible review inflation; the score is best interpreted as a broad industry-level benchmark rather than a precise assessment of any one contractor.

This aggregated review set spans multiple businesses operating under similar 'All About Plumbing' or 'Allison Plumbing' names, making direct attribution difficult, but the overall picture is a contractor with a strong positive majority offset by a meaningful minority of serious complaints. Professionalism scores are dragged down by recurring patterns of no-shows, missed appointments, poor communication, and failure to return calls — issues mentioned explicitly across dozens of negative reviews spanning multiple years. Pricing receives a moderate-to-low score because while many customers praise fair and competitive pricing, a notable cluster of reviews describe bait-and-switch tactics, charges added without consent, overcharging seniors, and prices that jumped significantly from quoted amounts. Project completion is similarly mixed: the majority of jobs are described as completed well, but multiple reviews describe abandoned work, callbacks not honored, problems made worse, and in at least two cases customers had to take legal action or dispute charges. Experience scores highest because the technical skill of individual plumbers is frequently praised, with many reviewers noting knowledgeable diagnosis and quality workmanship — though a handful of reviews describe misdiagnosis, broken pipes caused by the plumber, and failed repairs.

• MULTIPLE BUSINESS ENTITIES: Reviews appear to cover several distinct businesses operating under similar names including 'All About Plumbing,' 'All In A Day Plumbing,' 'Allison Plumbing,' and variations. Scores reflect an aggregate and may not represent any single contractor accurately.
• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: At least 6 reviews appear to be near-identical duplicates (e.g., two identical reviews about Ray Buchanan dated 2023-03-25, two identical reviews about the 'ALL ABOUT NOT CARING' experience dated 2024-05-27, two identical reviews about the Troy water hammering job, two identical reviews about the water filtration estimate with Xzavia). This inflates review count and may indicate review manipulation or platform aggregation artifacts.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Approximately 20+ reviews contain no text content and only a 5-star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data. Their presence in high volume is a mild fake-review signal.
• RECENCY NOTE: Reviews span from 2006 to 2025. A significant portion of reviews (roughly 40%) are dated 2022 or earlier, including many from 2019 and before. Older reviews carry reduced weight. The most recent reviews (2024-2025) continue to show both strong positives and serious negatives, suggesting persistent quality inconsistency.
• SERIOUS MISCONDUCT ALLEGATIONS: Multiple reviews allege fraud, unauthorized credit card charges, charging for work not performed, referring customers to fraudulent contractors, and in one case a customer reports winning a court judgment against the company. These are not scored but significantly reduce trust in the overall profile.
• NO-SHOW PATTERN: At least 10 distinct reviews across multiple years describe scheduled appointments where no plumber arrived and no call was made. This is a persistent and documented pattern affecting the professionalism score.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK — MODERATE: The large volume of very short, generic 5-star reviews with no detail (e.g., 'Great service,' 'Excellent,' 'Professional,' 'Fast reliable service') alongside blank-text 5-star entries raises moderate concern about review padding. Confidence is not reduced to LOW given the large volume of detailed genuine reviews, but the inflated positive count should be noted.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large review volume, but moderate trust reliability due to the presence of multiple business entities in the dataset, duplicate reviews, blank reviews, and serious misconduct allegations that suggest the true score for any single contractor may differ materially from this aggregate.

Alexander Plumbing earns strong marks for technical skill and workmanship, with numerous reviewers praising knowledgeable technicians like Paul, Adam, and Patrick who go above and beyond to fully resolve problems and explain their work clearly. Professionalism scores are pulled down significantly by a recurring pattern of complaints about rude, dismissive, or explosive behavior — primarily attributed to the owner — spanning multiple years and multiple independent reviewers, which cannot be dismissed as isolated incidents. Project completion is similarly mixed: many reviews praise same-day or next-day responsiveness and thorough job completion, but several credible negative reviews describe no-shows, cancelled appointments without notice, and at least one case of abandoned work mid-project. Pricing is the most contested dimension, with a meaningful minority of reviewers describing charges they felt were excessive or inconsistent with quoted amounts, while the majority found pricing fair or reasonable. The overall picture is a company with genuinely skilled technicians and strong operational capability, undermined by inconsistent customer-facing behavior and reliability issues that have persisted across many years.

• ATTITUDE/TEMPERAMENT PATTERN: At least 6 independent reviews across different years (2016, 2017, 2019, 2021) describe the owner or a senior figure as rude, dismissive, explosive, or having a 'bad attitude.' This is a consistent and credible pattern, not isolated complaints.
• NO-SHOW / ABANDONMENT PATTERN: At least 4 reviews describe scheduled appointments where the plumber never showed and never called (2015, 2016, 2018, 2021). One review describes work being abandoned mid-project after multiple visits.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS: Three reviews explicitly describe feeling overcharged — one citing $187.50 for 11 minutes of work, another citing ~$700 for one hour with minimal materials, and another citing $400 as excessive for a simple shower valve. These are specific and credible.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: Two reviews dated 2017-12-16 appear to be near-identical in content (Rheem water heater refusal). These may represent the same reviewer submitting twice or a copied review. One was excluded from scoring to avoid double-counting.
• BLANK REVIEWS: 8 reviews contained no text (only a star rating). These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of negative reviews are from 2013–2021, while the majority of positive reviews are from 2024–2025. This may indicate genuine improvement in service quality over time, or it may reflect a shift in review demographics. Scores were weighted toward more recent reviews but older negatives were not discarded as the patterns they describe (attitude, no-shows) have some corroboration in the 2021 period.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — LOW: Several 2025 reviews share similar phrasing ('prompt, professional, reasonable') but most contain specific names, job details, and narrative context. No strong evidence of coordinated fake reviews, though the uniformly 5-star recent cluster warrants mild caution.
• ONE 1-STAR REVIEW (2021) describes a detailed, specific incident of a flapper chain left with too much slack causing a recurring problem, and an explosive owner response when the customer called back. The level of technical specificity and narrative detail makes this review credible.

This WW Score is based on a large and diverse review set spanning over 15 years, with HIGH confidence across all four dimensions due to strong mention counts; however, the score should be interpreted cautiously given a documented and recurring pattern of owner temperament issues and no-show incidents that meaningfully offset the otherwise strong technical performance of the field crew.

A&M Plumbing receives strong praise across many recent reviews for punctuality, communication, and courteous service, with multiple reviewers explicitly noting on-time arrivals, proactive updates, and above-and-beyond behavior. However, professionalism scores are meaningfully dragged down by two older but detailed reviews describing a contractor (Matt) who gave quotes and then completely failed to show up or communicate, as well as one review citing poor communication during a job. Project completion is the most penalized dimension: there are multiple serious, specific complaints about faulty installations — including leaking dishwashers, sinks, and toilets installed incorrectly, a flooded rec room caused by an improperly secured discharge hose, and an alleged attempt to upsell unnecessary repairs — all of which represent significant workmanship failures. Pricing is generally viewed favorably by those who mention it, with several reviewers calling costs fair or reasonable, though one review describes a high-pressure upsell attempt that undermines this. The experience dimension reflects a split picture: many reviewers praise skill and attention to detail, but the documented installation failures indicate inconsistent technical execution across jobs and possibly across different technicians.

• Three reviews dated 2015–2015 contain only the word 'unknown' with no review text and 5-star ratings — these are not usable for scoring and may represent placeholder or fake entries.
• Two reviews dated 2022-09-30 contain only the word 'Excellent' with identical dates and identical text — possible duplicate or fake reviews; excluded from substantive scoring.
• The review set spans from 2008 to 2024, meaning many reviews are significantly older than 12 months. Reviews from 2013–2018 reference different named technicians (Ty, Matt, Alin) suggesting personnel or ownership changes over time, which limits the reliability of older reviews as indicators of current performance.
• The two most damaging no-show reviews (2015 and 2016) reference a 'Matt' who may no longer be associated with the business. However, they cannot be dismissed without confirmation and are included in scoring with appropriate weight reduction due to age.
• The 2020 review describing multiple simultaneous installation failures (dishwasher, sink, toilet) is highly specific and credible, and significantly impacts the project completion score.
• The 2008 review about the flooded rec room is over 15 years old and has been given minimal weight in scoring due to extreme age, but is noted as a documented workmanship failure.

This WW Score carries HIGH confidence in terms of data volume, but should be interpreted cautiously given the wide date range of reviews, evidence of personnel changes over time, and several specific and credible complaints about installation failures that meaningfully offset the otherwise strong pattern of positive recent feedback.

Bob consistently receives strong praise across all four dimensions, with professionalism being the most frequently and explicitly mentioned quality — punctuality, responsiveness, and courteous attitude appear in nearly every review. Pricing is described as reasonable or fair in four reviews, supporting a solid but not exceptional price-friendly score. Project completion is well-supported, with multiple reviewers noting jobs were finished on time, efficiently, and to a high standard, including one longer multi-month project completed with consistent daily effort. Experience and workmanship quality are explicitly praised in several reviews, with specific mentions of carpentry skill, attention to detail, and quality outcomes. The primary caveat is that all reviews are more than 10 years old, which significantly limits the reliability of this score for assessing current performance.

• ALL 9 REVIEWS ARE OLDER THAN 10 YEARS (range: 2010–2014). This score reflects historical performance only and should not be treated as indicative of current quality or availability.
• All reviews are 5-star ratings with no negative or mixed feedback. While the reviews contain specific details and varied language that reduce fake review suspicion, the uniformly perfect ratings across a decade warrant mild caution.
• One review (2010) explicitly notes the reviewer hired Bob because he was the husband of her best friend, introducing a potential personal bias that may inflate that review's positivity.
• Review volume is low (9 total). Confidence in the WW Score is limited by both the small sample size and the age of all reviews.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability due to consistent and specific reviewer feedback across dimensions, but should be treated with significant caution given that all reviews are over 10 years old and no recent performance data is available.

Bob Beer Plumbing receives consistently strong marks across professionalism, with multiple reviewers explicitly citing punctuality, responsiveness, communication, and courteous demeanor. Project completion is well-supported, with reviewers describing jobs finished cleanly, on time, and with no surprises relative to estimates. Experience is affirmed through references to knowledgeable problem-solving, such as recommending an iron filter over a water softener based on a water sample, and quality workmanship on full-house replumbing. Pricing receives a slightly lower score due to one reviewer explicitly noting the rate of $150/hr as 'a bit on the spendy side,' though another reviewer described pricing as reasonable and transparent with no hidden charges. The overall picture is of a reliable, skilled, and professional contractor, though the age of most reviews significantly limits confidence in current performance.

• RECENCY WARNING: All 11 reviews are older than 7 years as of 2024. The most recent review is from April 2017. There is no data from the past 12 months, and the majority of reviews are from 2009–2013. Current performance cannot be reliably inferred from this dataset.
• 2 reviews contain only the text 'unknown' or 'Excellent!' with no usable detail. These were excluded from dimension scoring.
• All reviews are 5-star ratings. While the detailed reviews appear genuine and specific, the uniformity of ratings warrants mild caution. No fake review pattern was definitively detected, but the absence of any critical feedback across all reviews is noted.
• Small total review count (11) with only 9 usable reviews limits statistical reliability of all dimension scores.

This WW Score should be treated with LIMITED-to-MODERATE trust due to the advanced age of all reviews, the small sample size, and the complete absence of any recent feedback — the score reflects historical performance only and may not represent current service quality.