Find Nearby Plumbers In Buffalo Grove, Illinois

JC Plumbing demonstrates exceptional performance across all four dimensions with consistently high marks. Professionalism is the strongest dimension (94.5), with 87 reviews explicitly praising punctuality, communication, politeness, and responsiveness. Project completion scores 93.0 across 78 mentions, reflecting reliable job finishing, on-time delivery, and follow-through on callbacks. Experience scores 91.5 based on 68 mentions of skilled workmanship, technical knowledge, and problem-solving ability. Pricing is strong at 90.0 across 42 mentions, with customers consistently noting fair, transparent, and competitive rates with no hidden charges. The weighted WW Score of 92.8 reflects a contractor of exceptional quality with very high reliability.

• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: Multiple reviews (at least 2-3) contain nearly identical phrasing and structure, particularly reviews from 2024-06-09 and earlier dates. Examples include repeated use of 'Jaryd and his team,' 'highly recommend,' and identical praise structures. However, these may reflect genuine customer satisfaction with consistent service quality rather than fabricated reviews.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW IDENTIFIED: Review dated 2024-11-05 16:52:35 is nearly word-for-word identical to review dated 2024-11-11, suggesting possible accidental resubmission rather than fraud.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW IDENTIFIED: Review dated 2024-01-02 10:35:04 is identical to review dated 2024-01-02 00:00:00.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW IDENTIFIED: Review dated 2024-06-09 contains two instances of nearly identical text about water heater repair and floor cleaning.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW IDENTIFIED: Review dated 2023-10-19 20:20:37 is identical to review dated 2024-06-09 regarding 'Outstanding expertise and quality work.'
• ONE NEGATIVE REVIEW: A single 1-star review from 2020-11-04 reports condescension and poor communication from a representative. This is the only negative feedback in 101 reviews and may represent a legitimate service failure or isolated incident. The overwhelmingly positive pattern (99 five-star reviews, 1 four-star, 1 one-star) suggests this was an outlier.
• RECENCY BIAS: Approximately 60% of reviews are from 2024 (mostly June 2024 onward), with fewer reviews from 2021-2023 and sparse data from 2019-2020. This concentration may reflect recent business growth or review platform activity rather than historical performance.

This WW Score of 92.8 is highly reliable and should be trusted as a strong indicator of contractor quality. The score is based on 100 usable reviews with all four dimensions supported by 42+ mentions each, resulting in HIGH confidence across the board. However, the presence of duplicate reviews and a potential pattern of similar phrasing warrants a minor caveat: while the overall assessment remains valid, prospective customers should be aware that some reviews may not represent entirely independent customer experiences. The single negative review from 2020 suggests the contractor is not perfect, but the 99:1 positive-to-negative ratio indicates this was likely an isolated incident. The score remains trustworthy for decision-making purposes.

ABV Plumbing earns strong marks across all four dimensions, driven by a large and consistent body of reviews spanning 2019 through mid-2025. Professionalism is the standout dimension, with dozens of reviewers explicitly praising punctuality, courteous behavior, use of shoe covers, mask compliance, and clear communication — including named technicians like Ivo, Hristo, and Wafiq receiving repeated individual praise. Project completion scores are high, with the vast majority of reviewers confirming jobs were finished cleanly, on time, and without callbacks needed, though two reviews (one involving an improper water heater install and one involving a refused service call) introduce minor deductions. Pricing is generally viewed favorably — multiple reviewers cited fair quotes, upfront pricing, and one notable instance where a plumber charged less than the agreed rate after a quick repair — but one 2-star review flagged a $245 labor-only quote as excessive, preventing a higher score. Experience scores well based on numerous mentions of skilled diagnostics, problem-solving on difficult jobs, and technical competence, though the 2021 water heater complaint (citing improper installation requiring a competitor to fix) is a meaningful negative data point that tempers the score.

• 8 reviews contain no text whatsoever — only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence.
• A cluster of reviews dated 2025-05-10 (6 reviews on the same date) and 2025-04-10 (4 reviews on the same date) warrants mild scrutiny. However, the reviews contain varied language, specific technician names, and differing job types, suggesting they are likely legitimate Home Depot installation batch reviews rather than fabricated entries.
• One review (2021-08-04, 1 star) explicitly states ABV improperly installed a water heater and that a competitor had to fix it. This is a significant quality failure and was weighted accordingly in the Experience and Project Completion scores.
• One review (2022-06-09, 1 star) describes a refused service call for an outdoor spigot, citing unclear scope-of-work policies. This reflects a communication or service-scope issue rather than a workmanship failure.
• One review (2023-07-31, 2 stars) flagged a $245 labor-only quote for a one-hour faucet replacement as unreasonable. This was factored into the Pricing score.
• The majority of reviews are from 2024–2025 and are therefore within the recency window. Older reviews (2019–2021) are consistent in tone and were given slightly reduced weight per recency rules.
• Overall review sentiment is overwhelmingly positive (5-star), which is statistically unusual. However, the presence of specific names, job details, and a handful of genuine negative reviews reduces the likelihood of systematic fake review inflation.

This WW Score is based on 101 reviews with usable content spanning approximately six years, with strong recency representation, and carries HIGH overall confidence — though users should note the isolated but serious water heater installation complaint and the pattern of same-day review clusters when making a final hiring decision.

Excel Plumbing demonstrates strong overall performance with a WW Score of 82.3, driven by consistently high marks in professionalism (85.2), experience/skill (86.4), and project completion (84.6). The company excels at punctuality, communication, technical knowledge, and work quality, with numerous reviews praising specific technicians like Luke, Yuri, Bob, and Kevin. However, pricing emerges as a notable weakness (72.1), with recurring complaints about high costs, unexpected charges, and perceived overpricing relative to the work performed. While most recent reviews (past 12 months) are highly positive, older reviews reveal persistent pricing concerns and occasional service failures that have not been fully resolved.

• PRICING CONCERNS: Multiple reviews (spanning 2014-2025) report unexpectedly high quotes, hidden charges, and perceived overpricing. Examples include $450 for 20 minutes of drain work, $250 for a simple faucet replacement, $500 for toilet flange/wax ring, and significant quote increases after initial estimates. This pattern suggests systemic pricing transparency issues.
• FAKE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: Reviews dated 2025-06-05 through 2025-06-08 include 3 empty reviews with 5-star ratings and 2 identical reviews with identical phrasing ('I spoke with Lori, who was very friendly and helpful. She got back to me within minutes, fantastic response time. The overall experience was excellent, and the price I was quoted felt great. Highly recommend!') dated 2025-06-07 and 2025-06-05. This suggests potential review manipulation or duplicate submissions.
• SERVICE FAILURES: Several reviews document incomplete work, follow-up failures, and quality issues. Examples include: ejector pump not resealed/reconnected properly (2024-06-15), sewage left on floor after drain cleaning (2023-08-17), sump line misdiagnosis leaving customer worse off (2022-05-04), and multiple instances of plumbers not following up on promised estimates (2020-07-25, 2016-08-08).
• INCONSISTENT QUALITY: While many reviews praise specific technicians, others report poor workmanship from different technicians at the same company, suggesting inconsistent quality control or training standards.
• RECENCY BIAS: The majority of highly positive reviews are from the past 6 months (2025), while older reviews (2014-2022) contain more critical feedback about pricing and service quality. This temporal distribution warrants caution in interpreting the overall score.

This WW Score of 82.3 is reliable for assessing professionalism and technical competence, which are consistently praised across 187+ mentions, but should be interpreted cautiously regarding pricing fairness—the 72.1 pricing score reflects genuine and recurring customer concerns documented across a decade of reviews, and potential review manipulation in recent submissions reduces confidence in the most recent data.

Excellent Plumbing demonstrates strong overall performance across all dimensions, with particularly high marks for professionalism (86.5) driven by consistent praise for punctuality, courtesy, and responsiveness. Project completion scores (84.8) reflect reliable job finishing and follow-through, though some negative reviews cite incomplete work or callback issues. Experience/skill (85.3) is well-documented with technical competence and problem-solving ability frequently mentioned. Pricing (74.2) is the weakest dimension, with numerous complaints about high costs, unexpected charges, and refusal to honor advertised coupons, though many customers acknowledge fair value despite premium rates. The WW Score of 82.1 reflects a reliable, professional contractor with strong execution but pricing concerns that temper overall satisfaction.

• FAKE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: Multiple reviews (at least 3-4) contain nearly identical phrasing ('Very knowledgeable / Very courteous / Wonderful') with no specific details, all rated 5.0 on same dates (June 2025), suggesting potential review manipulation or template responses.
• DUPLICATE REVIEWS: Two reviews are word-for-word identical (spigot replacement story dated 2025-06-07 and 2025-06-04), indicating possible review duplication.
• MULTIPLE EMPTY REVIEWS: At least 12 reviews contain no text, only 5.0 ratings, which cannot be meaningfully analyzed.
• SIGNIFICANT NEGATIVE OUTLIERS: Several 1-star reviews (2022-07-15, 2022-08-04, 2022-10-15, 2020-08-19) describe serious service failures including no-shows, combative customer service, incomplete work, and non-responsiveness. These are credible detailed complaints that contradict the overwhelmingly positive pattern.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS CLUSTER: Approximately 15-20 reviews explicitly criticize pricing as excessive, with some customers reporting $700-$1000+ charges for routine work. This is a consistent and credible concern across multiple time periods.
• RECENCY BIAS: Majority of reviews are from 2024-2025 (past 12 months), with older reviews (2013-2018) showing similar patterns. Recent reviews are heavily positive, which may reflect selection bias or improved service.
• COUPON/DISCOUNT DISPUTES: Multiple reviews mention refusal to honor advertised coupons or Angie's List discounts, suggesting potential pricing transparency issues.

This WW Score of 82.1 should be treated with MODERATE-TO-HIGH confidence overall, but with important caveats: the professionalism, completion, and experience scores are well-supported by 140+ detailed mentions each and appear reliable; however, the pricing score (74.2) is conservative and may understate customer dissatisfaction given the frequency and intensity of cost complaints. The presence of suspected fake reviews and multiple empty reviews reduces confidence slightly, and the cluster of serious negative incidents (no-shows, combative behavior, incomplete work) suggests the company has experienced significant service failures despite the predominantly positive recent review volume. Prospective customers should expect professional, responsive service but should negotiate pricing carefully and verify all quotes in writing.

Taylor Plumbing demonstrates strong overall performance with a WW Score of 82.1, driven primarily by consistent professionalism (87.3) and technical expertise (88.1) across 32 and 20 mentions respectively. Project completion scores solidly at 84.2 with 18 mentions, indicating reliable follow-through on jobs. However, pricing emerges as a notable weakness at 72.5, with 9 mentions revealing concerns about hidden charges, overtime billing practices, and lack of transparent fee disclosure. Recent reviews (2024-2025) are predominantly positive, but older reviews (2013-2018) contain specific complaints about billing practices and incomplete first-visit repairs that warrant attention.

• PRICING CONCERNS: Multiple reviews (2021, 2018, 2015) explicitly mention hidden charges, inflated overtime fees ($225/hour), travel fees not disclosed upfront, and equipment charges added to invoices without prior notification. One 2018 review specifically states fees were non-transparent.
• DUPLICATE NEGATIVE REVIEW: The store flood complaint appears twice identically (2021-12-15), suggesting either a system error or intentional resubmission, but the complaint is substantive and credible.
• INCOMPLETE WORK: Two reviews (2014, 2021) describe jobs not completed properly on first visit, requiring callbacks and additional charges, raising questions about quality control.
• EMPLOYEE REVIEWS: Multiple reviews appear to be from company employees (2020, 2019), which may introduce bias. These should be weighted with caution despite their positive nature.
• GENERIC/EMPTY REVIEWS: Several reviews contain no text or minimal text ('Great', 'Helpful', '.', 'unknown'), reducing data quality but not indicating fraud.
• OUTLIER NEGATIVE REVIEWS: Three 1-star reviews (2022, 2021, 2015) describe serious issues (document falsification claims, billing disputes, no-show, overcharging). These are credible but represent minority experience.
• RECENCY BIAS: 11 of 56 reviews are from 2024-2025 (recent), and these are almost uniformly 5-star with detailed positive feedback. Older reviews (pre-2020) show more pricing complaints, suggesting possible recent service improvements or review filtering.

This WW Score of 82.1 is reliable with HIGH overall confidence due to substantial mention counts across all dimensions (9-32 mentions per category). However, the pricing dimension should be treated with caution—while based on 9 mentions, these complaints are specific, detailed, and span multiple years, suggesting systemic billing transparency issues that may not be fully resolved. The score reflects a company with strong technical skills and professionalism but documented pricing practices that warrant clarification before engagement.

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.