Find Nearby Plumbers In Bolingbrook, Illinois

Mike of Hydro Tech demonstrates strong performance across all dimensions, with particularly consistent praise for professionalism (22 mentions) and project completion (20 mentions). Customers repeatedly highlight his responsiveness, punctuality, communication, and follow-through on complex jobs. Pricing is fairly represented as transparent and fair across 8 mentions, though fewer reviews explicitly address cost. Technical skill and problem-solving ability are well-documented across 16 mentions, with customers noting his thoroughness and ability to diagnose issues creatively. One negative review (1-star) alleges unnecessary drain service was performed, which slightly tempers the otherwise exceptional ratings but does not substantially alter the overall assessment given the volume of positive evidence.

• 25 of 26 reviews are 5-star ratings with only 1 negative review, which is statistically unusual and warrants caution. However, the positive reviews contain specific, detailed examples (basement flooding response, boiler replacement, water pressure issues, emergency Sunday calls) that suggest authenticity rather than generic praise.
• Approximately 15 reviews lack date information, making it impossible to assess recency. The 5 dated reviews span 2017–2022, indicating older data. Current performance cannot be verified.
• One review mentions 'Hydro Tech Max' while others reference 'Hydro Tech' or just 'Mike'—possible name variation or rebranding, but does not indicate fake reviews.
• The single 1-star review (unneeded drain service) provides legitimate critical feedback and adds credibility to the dataset by showing it is not artificially curated.

This WW Score of 88.2 is reliable for assessing Mike's historical performance based on documented customer experiences, but should be treated as a snapshot of past work rather than a guarantee of current service, given that most reviews lack recent dates and cannot confirm ongoing consistency.

Frank receives consistently strong praise across all four scored dimensions, with professionalism being the most frequently and enthusiastically mentioned quality — nearly every reviewer highlights his punctuality, responsiveness, honesty, and friendly communication style. Pricing is noted favorably in the majority of reviews, with multiple reviewers specifically calling out fair, reasonable, or affordable rates, and one notable instance where Frank refused payment when he could not resolve a problem. Project completion scores well based on repeated references to jobs being finished correctly and efficiently, follow-through on multiple visits, and no reviewer reporting abandoned or incomplete work. Experience is well-supported by mentions of problem-solving ability, technical knowledge, and quality workmanship across a variety of plumbing tasks. The primary caveat is that the majority of reviews are older than 12 months, with only two reviews from 2023–2024, which moderately limits confidence in how current this performance picture is.

• RECENCY WARNING: 9 of 11 reviews are older than 12 months; 7 reviews are from 2018 or earlier, with two dating back to 2009 and 2012. The score is heavily influenced by older data and may not reflect current performance.
• FAKE REVIEW CHECK: No strong indicators of fake reviews detected. Reviews vary in length, detail, and writing style. Specific job types (toilet replacement, sump pump, dishwasher drain, etc.) are mentioned, lending authenticity. All reviews are 5-star, which warrants mild caution, but the specificity and variety of content reduces suspicion significantly.
• SMALL SAMPLE WARNING: Only 11 total reviews span approximately 15 years of business activity, which is a low volume. While all dimensions reach HIGH confidence thresholds by mention count, the absolute sample size limits broader reliability.

This WW Score is moderately reliable for general contractor quality assessment, but should be interpreted cautiously given that the majority of supporting reviews are more than five years old and the total review volume across 15 years is low.

Mark Kolecke Plumbing demonstrates strong performance across all four dimensions with consistently high mention counts and confidence levels. Professionalism is a standout strength, with 14 reviews explicitly praising punctuality, communication, courtesy, and responsiveness—including same-day emergency service and rapid text responses. Pricing receives equally strong marks (88.0) across 12 mentions, with customers repeatedly describing his rates as 'fair,' 'reasonable,' and better than competitors, with no hidden charges reported. Project completion scores 86.0 based on 13 mentions of timely work, thorough follow-up, and problem-solving. Experience is validated by 11 mentions of skilled workmanship, technical knowledge, and the ability to solve complex problems others deemed impossible. However, two critical negative reviews (1-star ratings from 2021 and 2018) significantly impact overall trust: one involved a serious gas leak safety issue with inadequate apology, and another involved failure to return calls. These incidents, though numerically small, carry substantial weight due to their severity.

• CRITICAL SAFETY INCIDENT: August 2018 review documents a gas leak from improper valve installation that posed risk to pregnant customer and unborn child. Plumber allegedly discouraged calling gas company and refused to apologize or offer compensation. This is a serious professional liability issue.
• COMMUNICATION FAILURE: September 2021 review reports plumber failed to return two callback attempts after providing free estimate, resulting in lost business. Pattern suggests inconsistent follow-through despite strong communication reputation elsewhere.
• RECENCY CONCERN: 13 of 18 reviews are from 2018 or earlier (72%). Only 5 reviews from 2020 onward. Recent data is limited, making it difficult to assess current service quality.
• REVIEW AGE: Oldest reviews are 6+ years old. Business practices and personnel may have changed significantly since 2015-2017 reviews.

This WW Score of 87.2 should be treated with MODERATE-TO-HIGH caution: while the volume and consistency of positive reviews is substantial, the two severe negative incidents (safety violation and communication failure) are not offset by the positive majority, and the dataset is heavily weighted toward reviews older than 3 years, limiting current reliability.

Patrick demonstrates strong overall performance across all dimensions, with particular strength in technical expertise and professionalism. The majority of reviews (17 of 20) are highly positive, praising his responsiveness, quality workmanship, and fair pricing. However, two significant negative reviews—one alleging discriminatory behavior and another detailing poor service, billing practices, and incomplete work—substantially impact the score. The 2016 spa installation review is particularly detailed and credible, describing specific failures in problem-solving and professional conduct. These outliers prevent a higher score despite the predominance of positive feedback.

• Two credible negative reviews (2023 and 2016) present serious concerns: alleged discriminatory behavior and documented service failures with billing disputes. These are not minor complaints and warrant consideration.
• One blank 1-star review (2021-06-10) provides no usable data but suggests dissatisfaction.
• Most reviews are older than 3 years (15 of 20 from 2017 or earlier). Only 1 review from past 12 months. Recency is limited.
• The 2016 spa review is highly detailed and credible—the reviewer demonstrates technical knowledge and provides specific, verifiable claims about Patrick's conduct, billing practices, and incomplete work. This carries significant weight.
• No pattern of fake reviews detected. Positive reviews contain specific details (drain repair technique, fixture types, electrical issues identified, pricing transparency). Negative reviews are also detailed and credible.

This score should be treated with moderate caution. While the majority of reviews are positive and detailed, the presence of two serious negative reviews—particularly the well-documented 2016 service failure and billing dispute—indicates inconsistent service quality. The lack of recent reviews (only 1 in past 12 months) limits confidence in current performance. The score of 82.3 reflects strong historical performance tempered by documented failures and limited recent data.

OC Restoration receives consistently strong praise across all four scored dimensions, with professionalism being the most frequently and enthusiastically cited quality — reviewers highlight punctuality, communication, respectfulness of the home, and willingness to answer questions at length. Project completion is well-supported, with multiple reviewers noting thorough cleanup, timely execution, and follow-through on complex jobs such as mold remediation and attic work. Experience and workmanship are affirmed across diverse service types including mold remediation, electrical work, duct cleaning, and tree services, suggesting a broad and capable crew. Pricing is noted positively in three reviews as reasonable and fair, though one reviewer explicitly could not speak to cost, keeping pricing confidence at MODERATE. The overall picture is of a reliable, high-quality contractor, though the small review pool and age of most reviews (2021–2022) temper full confidence.

• All 7 reviews are 5-star ratings with no negative feedback whatsoever — while individual reviews contain specific details that reduce fake review suspicion, the uniformity warrants mild caution.
• Only 1 review falls within the past 12 months (February 2023); the remaining 6 reviews are from 2021–2022, meaning recency data is limited and current performance cannot be fully confirmed.
• Review pool is small (7 reviews total), which limits statistical reliability of all dimension scores regardless of confidence labels.
• One review (tree services, May 2022) appears to describe a different service category than the others and may not reflect the core contractor/restoration business being evaluated.

This WW Score carries moderate overall reliability due to the small review pool, the age of most reviews, and the absence of any critical or mixed feedback — prospective customers should seek more recent references before making a hiring decision.

All Suburban Emergency Plumbing has a long track record of responsive, professional service backed by many loyal repeat customers spanning 10–20+ years. The majority of detailed reviews praise promptness, courteous technicians, and solid workmanship on sump pumps, sewer rodding, and water heater installations. However, a meaningful cluster of negative reviews — particularly from 2016–2023 — consistently cite a rude and confrontational phone receptionist (identified as the owner's wife), which significantly drags down the professionalism score. Additional concerns include one incident of a technician leaving a job incomplete and demanding a service fee, a complaint about substandard repair quality and uncleaned worksite, and a recurring pattern of drain rodding failing within days requiring callbacks. Pricing is generally viewed as fair to competitive, though one reviewer felt overcharged for builder-grade equipment and another was surprised by the cost relative to the simplicity of the repair.

• RECENCY CONCERN: The majority of detailed, substantive reviews are from 2009–2017. Reviews from 2024 and 2023 are very few (2 reviews), making it difficult to assess current service quality with confidence.
• LOW-CONTENT REVIEWS: Approximately 12 reviews contain only 'unknown', '.', or single generic sentences (e.g., 'Good work performance', 'The project went well', 'Very well'). These provide no usable dimension data and were excluded from scoring.
• RECURRING COMPLAINT PATTERN: At least 3 independent reviews (2016–2017) specifically and consistently describe the same phone receptionist as rude, belligerent, and unprofessional. This is a credible, corroborated pattern — not an isolated incident.
• CALLBACK FAILURE: Two separate reviewers (Oct 2017) reported drain rodding failed within one week and required a return visit, suggesting possible quality control issues on sewer rodding jobs.
• INCOMPLETE JOB INCIDENT: One reviewer (2023, 1-star) describes a technician who arrived without the required part, partially disassembled the water heater, left with the customer's component, and demanded a $90 service fee without completing any work — a serious professionalism and project completion concern.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — LOW LEVEL: Several older 5-star reviews (2003–2006) are marked 'unknown' with no review text. While not definitively fake, they contribute no usable data and inflate the raw star average. No strong evidence of coordinated fake reviews among the detailed reviews.
• SCORE IMPACT NOTE: The professionalism score was conservatively reduced due to the weight of multiple corroborated negative experiences with phone staff and one serious on-site conduct complaint, even though the majority of field technician interactions were rated positively.

This WW Score is based on 57 reviews spanning over 20 years, with HIGH mention counts across all four dimensions, but reliability is moderately reduced by the age of most substantive reviews, a cluster of credible negative professionalism complaints, and approximately 12 reviews that contained no usable content.