Find Nearby Plumbers In Bloomington, Illinois

CK Brush Plumbing shows mixed performance across dimensions. Professionalism scores 68 based on 5 mentions reflecting both strong communication and responsiveness (Cole's service, quick 2-hour response) alongside serious failures (no-shows, lack of follow-up communication). Project completion scores 65 due to multiple documented instances of incomplete work, abandoned jobs, and failed callbacks, though some jobs were completed successfully. Experience scores 85 based on demonstrated technical skill and problem-solving ability (wedding ring recovery, disposal replacement). Pricing is rated favorably at 80 but mentioned in only 2 reviews. The company's reliability has deteriorated significantly over time, with recent reviews (2024, 2023) showing both excellence and critical failures, while older reviews (2015, 2019, 2021) show inconsistency.

• RECENCY CONCERN: One highly negative review from 2015 is 9+ years old and may not reflect current operations; however, a critical 1-star review from January 2024 shows similar patterns (no-shows, poor communication), suggesting systemic issues persist.
• INCONSISTENCY PATTERN: Company demonstrates stark inconsistency—same customer had 'great experiences before' but recent service involved 3 no-shows and complete communication breakdown. This suggests operational or staffing instability.
• COMMUNICATION FAILURE: Two 1-star reviews (2024 and 2015) both cite failure to return calls and honor commitments. This is a recurring theme despite positive reviews praising responsiveness.
• SAMPLE SIZE: Only 6 reviews limits confidence; however, the pattern of failures is explicit and documented, not assumed.

This WW Score of 72.3 should be treated with MODERATE confidence due to small sample size (6 reviews) and significant inconsistency in service quality; the score reflects genuine strengths in technical skill and occasional excellent service, but is heavily weighted down by documented failures in project completion and follow-through that appear to be systemic rather than isolated incidents.

The reviews are few but generally positive. The standout review from Mike's customer describes excellent craftsmanship, strong problem-solving ability, and a durable, attractive finished product — contributing meaningfully to the experience and project completion scores. The two identical duplicate reviews ('It was fine. He did a good job') provide minimal usable signal and were counted as one unique data point. Pricing was not mentioned in any review, so that dimension could not be scored. Overall, the contractor appears competent and delivers completed work, but the evidence base is too thin to draw firm conclusions.

• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: Two reviews share identical text ('It was fine. He did a good job') with the same rating (4.0) and date (2023-04-05). This is a likely duplicate submission and was treated as a single review for scoring purposes.
• VERY LOW REVIEW VOLUME: Only 4 reviews total (3 unique), which is insufficient for high-confidence scoring across any dimension.
• PRICING DIMENSION: No reviews mention cost, value, or pricing in any form — this dimension could not be scored.
• ALL REVIEWS ARE FROM 2023: No reviews from the past 12 months (relative to a 2024/2025 evaluation date), meaning recency weighting is a concern and current performance cannot be confirmed.

This WW Score should be treated with low confidence — the extremely small and partially duplicated review set means the score reflects only a narrow snapshot of this contractor's work and cannot be considered statistically reliable.

Redbird Plumbing has a deeply polarized review history spanning over a decade. Positive reviews consistently praise fast response times, friendly technicians, reasonable pricing, and quality workmanship — with many customers describing them as their go-to plumber for years. However, a substantial and recurring pattern of negative reviews describes a serious reliability problem: the owner Chris repeatedly fails to show up for scheduled appointments, does not return calls, and in several documented cases became verbally hostile or dismissive when customers raised concerns. Project completion is significantly dragged down by multiple credible accounts of abandoned work, unresolved warranty callbacks, unkept promises of refunds, and at least one case of a job left incomplete for over two years. Pricing scores well among those who received service, but the inability to even reach the company or have them follow through undermines the overall value proposition.

• RELIABILITY PATTERN — CRITICAL: At least 15 distinct reviews across multiple years (2013–2025) describe the owner Chris failing to show up for scheduled appointments without notice or callback. This is a systemic operational failure, not isolated incidents.
• FOLLOW-THROUGH FAILURES: Multiple reviews describe promises made (refunds, return visits, estimates, warranty work) that were never honored. At least 3 reviews mention refund disputes that escalated to BBB or Attorney General complaints.
• OWNER CONDUCT: Multiple reviews describe the owner becoming verbally aggressive, dismissive, or insulting when customers raised complaints. One review documents the owner calling a customer 'ignorant and an idiot.' Another describes being told to 'let me talk to your husband' in a dismissive manner.
• BLANK/UNKNOWN REVIEWS: Approximately 25 reviews contain no text (blank, 'unknown', '.', or 'OK'/'Good' with no detail). These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data.
• POSSIBLE REVIEW CLUSTERING: A cluster of 8 one-star reviews all dated 2024-06-09 with minimal or no text is suspicious and may represent a coordinated negative review campaign. These were weighted conservatively — only those with substantive text were used for dimension scoring.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent reviews (2024–2025) show a mixed but slightly improved pattern, with several strong positive reviews from named technicians (Josh, Hunter, Kaedon). However, the 1-star review from March 2025 describing bizarre owner behavior and a $1,700 charge for a self-caused problem is a recent red flag.
• TEMPORAL SPLIT: Reviews from 2014–2016 are overwhelmingly positive and detailed, suggesting the business was stronger in its earlier years. The ratio of negative-to-positive reviews has increased noticeably from 2017 onward.
• NO-SHOW PATTERN SPANS ENTIRE REVIEW HISTORY: No-show and non-response complaints appear in 2013, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023, and 2024 — indicating this is a persistent structural problem, not a temporary issue.

This WW Score is based on a large review set (155 reviews) with HIGH data confidence across all four dimensions, but the score should be interpreted cautiously: the business demonstrates a well-documented, multi-year pattern of appointment no-shows and non-responsiveness that directly undermines the project completion and professionalism scores, and prospective customers should weigh this systemic risk heavily before hiring.

Beacon Plumbing scores reasonably well on professionalism and experience at the technician level, with a large volume of reviews praising individual techs by name for being friendly, knowledgeable, punctual, and communicative. However, pricing is a serious and recurring problem: dozens of independent reviewers across multiple years describe charges they consider grossly excessive, hidden fees, undisclosed trip charges, and quotes that were dramatically higher than competitors who completed the same work successfully. Project completion is mixed — the majority of jobs are finished, but a meaningful number of reviews describe work that failed to resolve the issue, required callbacks, or was abandoned, and in several cases a second company fixed the problem cheaply after Beacon could not or would not. Management conduct is flagged in multiple negative reviews as aggressive, dismissive, or threatening when customers raised billing disputes, which significantly drags down the professionalism score from what individual technicians would otherwise earn. The WW Score of 62.4 reflects a company with capable field staff undermined by a systemic pricing and customer-service culture problem.

• SUSPECTED FAKE OR SOLICITED REVIEWS: Multiple reviews are near-identical in phrasing (e.g., two reviews dated 2025-06-08 and 2025-06-06 are word-for-word duplicates: 'Tony & Victor saved the day by fixing our dryer vent and sharing much knowledge and expertise. It was a tricky job in a cramped space but they made it happen!'). Additionally, one reviewer explicitly disclosed that the technician (Robert W.) had them write a review while he watched and photographed it before completing the transaction — a coercive review-solicitation practice. Several other reviews are extremely brief and generic (e.g., 'Tony and Victor were awesome', 'Tony and Victor were great', repeated across many entries with no specifics), which is consistent with on-site solicitation. Confidence in the aggregate positive score is reduced accordingly.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS ARE SEVERE AND SYSTEMIC: At least 25-30 reviews independently describe pricing as excessive, hidden, or deceptive. Specific complaints include: $10,500 for a tankless water heater replacement; $835 charged for no work performed; $700+ charged without authorization; $6,148 for a backflow preventer valve; $1,100 for 1.5 hours of work; $2,700 for a job estimated at $500 elsewhere; $9,000 bid vs. $1,000 completed by another company; $25,000 sewer replacement recommended when a $400 snaking by a competitor resolved the issue. This is not isolated — it is a pattern.
• MANAGEMENT CONDUCT FLAGGED: Multiple reviewers describe aggressive, threatening, or dismissive behavior from managers when billing disputes were raised. One reviewer describes a manager who 'used intimidation to try and silence my complaint' and was 'interrupting' and 'accusing.' Another describes a manager who 'laughed' at a customer complaint. Another describes a senior manager who was 'extremely rude, argumentative and condescending.' This is a significant reputational and operational risk.
• MISDIAGNOSIS AND UNNECESSARY WORK PATTERN: At least 6-8 reviews describe Beacon recommending expensive excavation, full replacements, or major repairs that a second-opinion plumber resolved quickly and cheaply (e.g., snaking roots for $400 vs. $10,000+ excavation quote; calcium buildup cleared in 5 minutes vs. full pipe replacement recommendation; sewer scope showing 'multiple failures' vs. competitor scope showing no issues). This pattern suggests either systemic upselling or inadequate diagnostic skill.
• INCOMPLETE WORK AND FAILED CALLBACKS: Several reviews describe jobs that were not completed, issues that recurred shortly after service, or promised callbacks that never came. One reviewer paid $1,172 for a furnace that was never fixed. Another paid $835 with the toilet still clogged when the tech left. A backflow valve leak was declared 'stabilized' but was not fixed, and the follow-up call never came.
• REVIEW RECENCY: The majority of reviews are from 2022 through mid-2025, with strong representation in the past 12 months. The negative pricing and management conduct complaints are present across all time periods, suggesting these are not isolated historical issues but ongoing operational patterns.
• BLANK REVIEWS WITH 5-STAR RATINGS: At least 6 reviews contain no text whatsoever but carry 5-star ratings. These provide no usable data and inflate the raw star average without contributing meaningful evidence of quality.

This WW Score of 62.4 is based on a very large review set (281 reviews) and carries HIGH statistical confidence in its directional accuracy; however, the score should be interpreted with caution given confirmed evidence of coerced and duplicate reviews inflating the positive signal, and the true pricing and project-completion performance is likely worse than even this score reflects for customers who do not research alternatives before signing work orders.

Summers Plumbing Heating & Cooling receives a WW Score of 62.3, reflecting a company with significant strengths in professionalism and technical expertise, but serious concerns around pricing and project completion reliability. Technicians are consistently praised for friendliness, knowledge, and courteous behavior (75.2 professionalism score). However, the company is heavily criticized for aggressive pricing practices, with numerous customers reporting markups of 200-400% on parts and labor, and widespread complaints about high-pressure sales tactics. Project completion issues are substantial, with many reviews documenting incomplete work, multiple service calls needed for the same problem, and scheduling cancellations that inconvenience customers. The company's reputation is further damaged by allegations of dishonest diagnostics designed to sell unnecessary replacements.

• PRICING FRAUD PATTERN: Extensive evidence of systematic overcharging. Multiple reviews document parts marked up 300-400% (e.g., $2 capacitor charged at $98-$268; $15 fill valve charged at $261; $10 part charged at $190). This pattern appears deliberate and company-wide, not isolated incidents.
• DISHONEST DIAGNOSTICS: Numerous credible reports of technicians recommending unnecessary replacements (furnaces, AC units, water heaters) that were later found to be functioning properly by second opinions. Pattern suggests sales-driven diagnostics rather than honest assessment.
• AGGRESSIVE SALES TACTICS: Multiple reviews describe high-pressure sales, bait-and-switch offers (free service calls with hidden fees), and manipulation of elderly customers. One review documented a technician deliberately disabling a furnace during inspection to justify replacement sales.
• POOR PROJECT COMPLETION: Significant number of reviews (198 mentions) document incomplete work, requiring multiple service calls for same issue, or work that failed within weeks. Some customers report 5-15 service calls for problems that should have been resolved in one visit.
• SCHEDULING UNRELIABILITY: Chronic pattern of last-minute cancellations, missed appointments, and failure to honor scheduled service windows. Customers report taking time off work only to be cancelled hours before appointment.
• FAKE REVIEW INDICATORS: Approximately 80-100 reviews contain minimal detail, generic praise with no specifics, or single-word/punctuation-only responses (e.g., '.' or '...'). These appear to be placeholder or artificially generated reviews. However, the volume of detailed negative reviews with specific dollar amounts and dates suggests the negative reviews are authentic.
• MANAGEMENT UNRESPONSIVENESS: Multiple reviews document failure of management to return calls, honor warranties, or address complaints. Pattern suggests systemic customer service failure at administrative level.
• WARRANTY VIOLATIONS: Several reviews document company refusing to honor stated warranties or charging diagnostic fees that contradict warranty terms.
• RECENCY NOTE: Most reviews are from 2013-2025, with significant concentration in 2024-2025. Recent reviews show same patterns as older reviews, indicating no improvement over time.

This WW Score should be treated with HIGH confidence due to the large sample size (1,000 reviews) and consistency of patterns across multiple dimensions and time periods. However, the score masks a deeply problematic company: while individual technicians are often professional and skilled, the company's business model appears built on aggressive upselling, dishonest diagnostics, and systematic overcharging. The 62.3 score reflects this contradiction—good execution on service delivery undermined by poor pricing practices and completion reliability. Customers should expect professional service but should obtain multiple quotes, verify diagnoses independently, and be prepared for significantly higher costs than competitors charge for identical work.

D&R Plumbing receives strong praise for responsiveness, availability, and personal kindness — Richard is frequently cited as going above and beyond, including free phone consultations and late-night emergency calls. However, the company carries a significant and recurring pattern of pricing complaints spanning from 2015 through 2024, with multiple reviewers alleging charges far above quoted estimates, cash-only pressure tactics, and what several describe as exploitation of customers in emergency situations. Project completion is mixed: many jobs are completed quickly and well, but there are credible accounts of no-call/no-shows, warranty disputes, and at least one case where work allegedly was not performed as charged. The professionalism score is dragged down by multiple reviews citing rude behavior, condescension, and deceptive communication, even as the majority of reviewers describe Richard as friendly and helpful.

• PRICING CONCERN — HIGH SEVERITY: At least 8 separate reviews across 2015–2024 allege overcharging, hidden fees, or prices far exceeding initial quotes. This is a consistent, multi-year pattern and not isolated incidents.
• CASH-ONLY PRESSURE TACTIC: Two independent reviewers (2019, 2017) allege being pressured to pay cash only, with one reviewer noting the receipt showed credit cards were accepted — suggesting deliberate deception.
• ELDERLY EXPLOITATION ALLEGATION: One reviewer (2021) alleges a senior citizen was charged $1,885 for approximately 2 hours of work, describing it as 'elderly abuse' and 'robbery.' The owner reportedly negotiated down only after being confronted.
• WORK NOT PERFORMED AS CHARGED: One detailed 2024 review alleges D&R charged for replacing a pipe to the house connection but a subsequent plumber found the original pipe was not replaced — a serious allegation of fraud.
• NO-CALL/NO-SHOW PATTERN: At least two reviews cite missed or significantly late appointments with no proactive communication from the company.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — MODERATE: A cluster of 15+ reviews share the same date of 2024-06-09 with no specific timestamps, which is unusual and may indicate batch-imported or solicited reviews. These reviews are generally positive but many lack specific detail. Confidence in the positive review cluster is reduced.
• TWO BLANK REVIEWS: Two reviews contain no text and only a 5-star rating — these were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data.
• RECENCY NOTE: Negative reviews span from 2015 to 2024, indicating pricing and conduct issues are not historical anomalies but an ongoing concern. The most recent 1-star review is from July 2024.
• OWNER RESPONSE BEHAVIOR: At least one reviewer references the owner responding to negative reviews in an unprofessional or condescending manner, which is itself a professionalism concern.

This WW Score is based on a large review set (68 reviews) spanning 2015–2025 and carries HIGH overall confidence in its dimensions, but prospective customers should weigh the pricing score heavily — the repeated, detailed, and multi-year allegations of overcharging and deceptive billing practices represent a material risk that the aggregate score alone does not fully convey.