Find Nearby Plumbers In Bartlett, Illinois

Alpha Plumbing receives strong praise for fair pricing and personable service from multiple reviewers, with specific mentions of transparent quotes and no upselling. However, a detailed 1-star review from 2021 raises serious concerns about project completion, follow-through, and workmanship quality — including an abandoned job, a flooded basement, and a pipe temporarily patched with toilet paper. Professionalism scores are pulled down significantly by the same review, which describes repeated no-shows and failure to return calls, partially offset by positive mentions of polite and responsive behavior in other reviews. Experience is similarly mixed: while Ron is described as having 30+ years in the business, the negative review directly contradicts claims of technical competence, particularly around HVAC and sump pump diagnostics. With only 4 reviews spanning 3 years, confidence in all dimensions is limited and the score should be treated with caution.

• Very small sample size (4 reviews total) — WW Score is not statistically reliable and should be treated as indicative only.
• One review (2024-06-09) appears to be written by someone identifying as a personal friend of Ron, not a standard customer transaction review. This introduces potential bias and the review was scored conservatively.
• The 5-star reviews are relatively light on specific job details, while the 1-star review contains extensive, specific, and credible detail about multiple failures. This asymmetry warrants caution.
• The 1-star review (2021-10-16) describes serious workmanship failures including a leaking new install, an abandoned job, a flooded basement, and an improvised toilet-paper pipe repair — these are significant red flags for project completion and experience dimensions.
• Review dates span from 2021 to 2024. The most recent review (2024) is from a self-identified friend. The most critical review is from 2021 and may not reflect current performance, but cannot be dismissed given the severity of the claims.

This WW Score is based on only 4 reviews with mixed credibility and should be considered LOW reliability — prospective customers are strongly advised to seek additional references before hiring.

R&M Plumbing presents a deeply mixed picture across all dimensions. Professionalism scores are dragged down by multiple explicit complaints of unprofessional behavior, lack of urgency, and failure to respond to follow-up contacts, though several positive reviews praise punctuality, politeness, and clear communication. Project completion is the most concerning dimension, with at least three reviews explicitly describing incomplete or incorrect work, one abandoned job requiring the customer to self-repair, and one instance where the owner did intervene to finish an incomplete job. Experience scores reflect a similar split — some reviewers describe quick, effective repairs while others report the root cause of their problem was never identified or correctly addressed. Pricing received only two mentions, both positive, yielding a LIMITED confidence score that should not be weighted heavily.

• Four of the eight reviews are 1-star complaints describing serious failures: incomplete work, inability to diagnose the problem, refusal to return for callbacks, and unprofessional conduct. This is a significant red flag.
• The most recent negative review (2024-02-27) and a positive review (2024-01-19) are both within the past 12 months, suggesting mixed recent performance rather than improvement over time.
• Three reviews are from 2021 or earlier and carry reduced recency weight. The 2019 5-star review, while positive, is over 5 years old and should be treated with caution.
• No fake review patterns detected — reviews vary in detail, tone, rating, and specificity, suggesting authentic submissions.
• The callback/follow-through failure described in the 2021 1-star review ('would not come out to fix it, contacted multiple times and nothing') is a serious project completion concern that directly contradicts the owner's responsiveness praised in the 2019 review.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability — the review count is low (8 reviews), spans multiple years with recency concerns, and the sharp split between positive and negative experiences introduces meaningful uncertainty about consistent service quality.

Brandon Builders receives overwhelmingly negative reviews across nearly all dimensions, with only 3 of 13 reviews being positive (ratings of 4 or 5 stars). Professionalism is a major failure point: multiple reviewers explicitly describe unresponsiveness, failure to return calls, poor communication, and unprofessional conduct by staff and management. Project completion is the most damning dimension — reviewers describe abandoned or incomplete work, wrong materials ordered, recurring roof leaks requiring multiple callbacks, unpaid subcontractors threatening liens, and projects dragging on for months or years without resolution. Workmanship quality is similarly poor, with specific complaints about subpar paint jobs, improperly installed windows, destroyed shingles, and failure to follow through on agreed scopes of work. The three positive reviews do describe genuinely good experiences with specific named staff members, which prevents the scores from bottoming out entirely, but they are vastly outnumbered by detailed, credible negative accounts.

• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION: One reviewer (2018-01-24) explicitly notes that previous negative Yelp reviews appear to have been suppressed or replaced by positive ones, suggesting possible review manipulation on other platforms. This warrants caution when interpreting the positive reviews here.
• GENERIC POSITIVE REVIEW: The 5-star review dated 2017-09-02 ('Love them. I used them recently and they did a great job. Always in time, great communication, very professional.') is extremely brief, contains no specifics, and reads as potentially inauthentic. It has been weighted conservatively.
• RECENCY WARNING: All reviews are dated between 2013 and 2018. The most recent review is from May 2018, meaning all reviews are more than 6 years old as of 2024. This score may not reflect the company's current performance and should be treated with caution.
• PATTERN OF INSURANCE REFERRAL COMPLAINTS: A strong and consistent pattern exists across multiple independent reviewers — the company is repeatedly referred by insurance companies (Allstate, USAA, Farmers, Liberty Mutual, Country Financial) and then allegedly underperforms. This is a notable systemic concern raised by multiple unrelated customers.
• LIEN RISK PATTERN: At least two separate reviewers (2018-01-24 and 2018-05-07) report that subcontractors were not paid by Brandon Builders, creating lien risk for homeowners. This is a serious legal and financial red flag.
• SCOPE CHANGE WITHOUT NOTICE: At least one reviewer (2013-03-07) explicitly describes work being changed from the agreed contract scope without informing the homeowner, raising concerns about transparency and honesty.

This WW Score of 28.4 is based on 13 reviews with strong dimensional coverage and HIGH confidence across three of four dimensions; however, all reviews are over 6 years old and there is credible evidence of possible review suppression on other platforms, so while the score reliably reflects the historical record available here, it should not be used as a definitive assessment of the company's current quality without more recent data.

Insufficient data to calculate WW Score reliably. Only 3 reviews analyzed, which falls below the minimum threshold of 5+ reviews needed for trustworthy scoring. All three reviews are uniformly positive (5-star ratings) with generic praise language and no critical feedback, raising concerns about review authenticity. Pricing dimension shows strong value perception (fair pricing, cost-effective alternatives mentioned). Project completion dimension reflects on-time or early delivery with quality finishes. Experience dimension reflects knowledgeable service and quality workmanship. However, the small sample size, age of reviews (oldest from 2012, most recent from 2018), and lack of any negative feedback or specific technical details limit confidence in these preliminary scores.

• CRITICAL: Only 3 reviews provided — below minimum threshold for reliable WW Score calculation
• FAKE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: All reviews are 5-star ratings with no critical feedback or complaints
• GENERIC PRAISE: Reviews use similar positive language ('phenomenal job', 'awesome job', 'very happy') without specific technical details or problem-solving examples
• RECENCY ISSUE: Reviews are significantly outdated (2012, 2016, 2018) — no recent reviews from past 12 months to assess current service quality
• PROFESSIONALISM DIMENSION: No explicit mentions of punctuality, communication responsiveness, or attitude — only inferred from general satisfaction
• MISSING DATA: No reviews mention callbacks, warranty work, or handling of complications

This analysis cannot produce a reliable WW Score due to insufficient review volume (3 reviews minimum required), suspected review authenticity issues (all 5-star with generic praise), and lack of recent data. Any scoring would be speculative and should not be trusted for decision-making.

Only two reviews were provided, one of which contains no usable text. The single substantive review is positive, praising CMS for multi-trade capability, reasonable pricing, and proactive maintenance advice. However, all dimension scores are based on a single review and must be treated as highly conservative estimates. The reviews are also from 2015 and 2016, making them over 8 years old, which significantly limits their relevance to current performance.

• Only 2 reviews total — minimum threshold of 3 reviews not met; WW Score cannot be calculated reliably.
• One of the two reviews contains no usable text, reducing usable data to a single review.
• Both reviews are from 2015–2016, more than 8 years old. Recency weighting heavily penalizes these scores as they may not reflect current quality or business practices.
• All dimension scores are based on a single mention — treat all scores as LOW CONFIDENCE estimates only.

This score report has very low reliability due to an insufficient number of reviews and the extreme age of all available data; no meaningful conclusions about current contractor performance can be drawn.