Find Nearby Plumbers In Bolingbrook, Illinois

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.

Allmark receives consistently strong feedback across all four scored dimensions, with professionalism being the most frequently praised attribute — reviewers repeatedly highlight punctuality, courteous communication, and willingness to explain work in detail. Pricing is described as fair, reasonable, and transparent with flat-rate quotes mentioned, though no reviewer reported a negative pricing experience, which slightly limits the contrast needed for a higher score. Project completion is well-supported, with multiple reviews noting jobs finished efficiently and on time, and one review acknowledging a minor scheduling delay due to complications on a prior job. Experience is reinforced by references to Mark's 30 years in the business, familiarity with older systems, and confident problem-solving across boiler, plumbing, and drain work. The primary caveat is that the majority of reviews are older than 12 months, with only two falling within the past 12 months from a late-2023 reference point.

• Most reviews are older than 12 months; only 2 reviews (December 2023 and November 2023) are recent. Scores are weighted toward older data and may not reflect current service quality.
• One review (dated 2015-10-29) contains only a period as its text and provides no usable data — excluded from scoring.
• Two reviews dated 2017-08-16 appear to be from the same customer describing the same job in sequence. These were treated as a single reviewer's experience to avoid double-counting.
• All reviews are 5-star ratings with no negative or mixed feedback present. While individual reviews contain specific details that reduce fake review suspicion, the complete absence of any critical feedback across 13 reviews warrants mild caution.

This WW Score carries moderate-to-high reliability for the dimensions scored, supported by specific and detailed reviewer accounts, but should be interpreted with caution given that the bulk of the review base is more than one year old and no negative experiences are represented in the dataset.

Soltwich shows mixed performance across dimensions. Professionalism scores 68 based on 5 mentions—long-term customers praise responsiveness and politeness, but two negative reviews cite poor communication, careless behavior (dropping tools), and unprofessional conduct. Pricing is problematic (60/100, 4 mentions): three reviews praise fair pricing and no upselling, but one detailed complaint alleges aggressive upselling and inflated hourly rates, creating significant tension. Project completion (80/100, 3 mentions) reflects solid follow-through from loyal customers, though the negative reviews suggest incomplete or flawed work. Experience (65/100, 3 mentions) is undermined by a critical review documenting installation errors on a water heater (improper venting, incorrect flue slope) and a plumber with acknowledged vision issues, despite other reviews praising technical knowledge.

• RECENCY BIAS: Four of six reviews are from 2022–2023; two negative reviews are from 2013 and 2015. Older negative reviews may reflect past practices, but they document serious issues (installation errors, aggressive pricing) that warrant caution.
• POLARIZATION: Reviews are heavily polarized (four 5-star, two 1-star). No middle-ground reviews. This suggests either genuinely inconsistent service or different plumber assignments within the company.
• PRICING CONTRADICTION: Positive reviews emphasize fair pricing and no upselling; negative reviews allege aggressive upselling and inflated rates. This inconsistency suggests either service variability or different pricing practices over time.
• TECHNICAL COMPETENCY CONCERN: One detailed review documents specific installation errors (water heater venting, flue slope) and mentions a plumber with vision problems. These are serious quality-of-work issues that reduce confidence in experience dimension.
• SAMPLE SIZE: Only 6 reviews limits statistical confidence. Scores should be treated as directional, not definitive.

This WW Score of 72.3 should be treated with caution. While long-term customer loyalty suggests baseline competence, the polarized review distribution, documented technical errors, and pricing inconsistencies indicate service quality is unpredictable. The score reflects a company in transition or with inconsistent execution across different plumbers. Recommend requesting specific plumber assignment and obtaining detailed written quotes before engaging.

Eugene demonstrates strong responsiveness and fair pricing, with multiple reviews praising quick appointment availability and reasonable rates. However, a critical negative review reveals significant quality control issues: improper valve replacement work (replacing only the knob instead of the entire valve) that required a second plumber to correct, raising serious concerns about technical competence and workmanship standards. While three reviews are highly positive, the detailed technical failure in the 2023 review substantially undermines confidence in his experience level and project completion quality. The mixed performance pattern suggests inconsistent execution.

• CRITICAL: One detailed negative review (2023-02-06) documents improper workmanship on valve replacement—only replaced valve knob instead of entire valve assembly. This is a technical failure that required a second plumber to correct, indicating potential lack of proper training or licensing.
• Three positive reviews (2023-01-11, 2022-12-27, 2022-12-20) are notably enthusiastic but relatively generic in technical detail, though they do contain specific verifiable claims (response times, pricing, punctuality).
• All reviews are from 2022-2023; no recent data available to assess current performance.
• Reviewer in negative review explicitly questioned licensing status, which is a red flag for professional credibility.

This score should be treated with caution due to the small sample size (4 reviews) and a critical documented quality failure that contradicts the positive reviews; the WW Score reflects a mixed performance pattern where responsiveness and pricing are strengths but technical competence and project completion quality are questionable.

The contractor shows genuine strengths in working with older homes and handling specialized plumbing situations, with positive mentions of fair pricing and cleanup. However, the most detailed review raises meaningful concerns about diagnostic sequencing — replacing the most expensive part first rather than performing basic cleaning checks, resulting in unnecessary delays and costs for the customer. The owner did demonstrate responsiveness by assisting via phone on a Saturday night, which partially offsets the technical missteps. Overall, the picture is of a competent but occasionally costly plumber whose workmanship is generally satisfactory but not without procedural lapses. The small review pool and age of most reviews significantly limit confidence in any conclusions drawn.

• Only 6 reviews total, with 2 containing no usable text ('unknown' and '.') — these were excluded from scoring.
• 4 of 6 reviews are older than 5 years; the most recent usable review is from 2021. No reviews from the past 12 months are present, making recency-weighted scoring impossible.
• The detailed 2014 review describes a two-visit scenario where a basic diagnostic step (cleaning/blowing out the line) was skipped in favor of replacing the most expensive component first, suggesting a potential gap in diagnostic thoroughness.
• The second technician left water temperature set to 'max,' indicating a quality-control issue on that visit.
• Sample size is too small to draw reliable conclusions about consistent performance patterns.

This WW Score carries LOW overall reliability due to a very small review pool (6 total, only 4 with usable data), the near-complete absence of recent reviews, and the presence of two content-free placeholder reviews that contributed no scorable information.

Able Sewerage has a strong base of loyal, satisfied customers who consistently praise responsiveness, fair pricing, and pleasant workers — several reviewers note multi-year or even 15-year relationships with the company. However, the review set contains multiple serious negative experiences that meaningfully drag down every dimension: two reviews describe misdiagnosis of plumbing problems that led to unnecessary and costly repair recommendations, one describes repeated no-show appointments with no communication, and one describes a disputed service charge and an unprofessional owner response. Professionalism is mixed — while many reviewers praise attitude and communication, at least three reviews cite poor communication, missed appointments, or dismissive responses. Project completion is the most damaged dimension, with credible accounts of jobs left unresolved, incorrect diagnoses, and work described as a 'bandaid' without disclosure to the customer. Pricing scores moderately well overall, but is undercut by two reviews where customers paid competitors significantly less for the same or better work.

• Several 5-star reviews are brief and generic (e.g., 'Good quality service. Timely response. Professional attitude.') with little specific detail — mild fake review risk, though not conclusive.
• Two reviews (2020 and 2022) describe near-identical patterns: Able misdiagnosed a sewer issue, recommended expensive excavation or pipe replacement costing thousands, and a second company resolved the problem quickly and cheaply. This pattern is a significant credibility concern for the experience dimension.
• One negative reviewer (2021) references an 'unprofessional response' from owner Chris, suggesting a public dispute — this is a reputational flag for professionalism.
• Recency note: Only 5 of 19 reviews are from 2022 or later. The majority of reviews (14) are from 2021 or earlier, with several dating back to 2013–2017. The score should be treated with caution as current performance may differ from historical patterns.
• One review (2016) explicitly describes two cancelled appointments with no notification and blames being given misleading information about scope of work — this is a direct project completion and communication failure.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to review volume, but the score itself should be treated with moderate trust given the age of most reviews, a recurring pattern of misdiagnosis complaints, and documented communication failures that suggest inconsistent service quality.