Find Nearby Plumbers In Calumet City, Illinois

G&G Construction demonstrates strong performance across all measured dimensions. Project completion is consistently reliable with all four reviews explicitly confirming jobs were finished as promised, with attention to detail and cleanup. Professionalism is evident through punctuality, communication, and courteous behavior noted in three reviews. Technical skill and problem-solving ability are demonstrated across drywall installation, plumbing repairs, and fixture replacements. Pricing is described as fair and transparent in two reviews with no hidden charges reported. The WW Score of 89.3 reflects solid contractor performance, though the small sample size (4 reviews) and age of most reviews (3 of 4 from 2020) warrant moderate confidence.

• Small sample size: Only 4 reviews analyzed. Recommend collecting additional recent reviews for more reliable scoring.
• Recency concern: 3 of 4 reviews are from 2020 (3-4 years old). Only 1 review from 2022. Current performance may differ.
• All reviews are 5-star ratings with no negative feedback. While not necessarily fake, this perfect rating distribution limits ability to assess weaknesses or validate consistency.
• Limited pricing data: Only 2 reviews mention pricing. Insufficient to fully validate price-friendly dimension.

This WW Score should be treated as preliminary and moderately trustworthy. The small sample size and age of most reviews limit confidence; additional recent reviews are needed to validate this score reliably.

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.

Harris Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism and technical expertise, with consistent praise for punctuality, courtesy, and skilled workmanship across 42 and 26 mentions respectively. However, pricing emerges as a significant weakness, with multiple detailed complaints about excessive charges, lack of transparent quotes, and perceived gouging (18 mentions). Project completion shows moderate reliability with several instances of abandoned jobs, incomplete work, and follow-up failures, though many jobs are completed satisfactorily. The company exhibits high variability in service quality and customer experience, suggesting inconsistent execution or personnel performance.

• CRITICAL: Multiple credible reports of abandoned jobs and non-responsiveness (reviews from 2024-03-01, 2018-05-22, 2018-01-29, 2016-05-02). These are serious red flags indicating potential systemic issues with follow-through and accountability.
• PRICING CONCERNS: Detailed complaints about overcharging appear consistently across multiple years (2023-08-05: $1,300 for 2.5-hour water heater install; 2015-04-11: $560 for vanity connections; 2014-05-22: $650 for minor toilet work). These are specific, quantified grievances, not vague complaints.
• QUALITY CONTROL ISSUES: Multiple reviews cite defective workmanship requiring callbacks or rework (2021-01-05: improper installation of recirculation system; 2020-10-22: leak from improperly tightened valves causing water damage; 2020-06-10: non-functioning sink handle and leaking bathtub handle).
• CUSTOMER SERVICE INCONSISTENCY: Stark contrast between glowing reviews praising Alicia, Steve, Jason, and others versus scathing reviews citing rude staff (Michelle), unresponsiveness, and dismissive behavior. Suggests significant personnel-dependent variability.
• RECENCY PATTERN: Most recent negative reviews (2024, 2023) involve non-responsiveness and abandoned work, while older reviews (2005-2011) are uniformly positive. This may indicate business decline or change in ownership/management.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: Several reviews from 2021-06-10 and 2019-06-11 are suspiciously clustered on identical dates with generic praise. However, these are balanced by detailed, specific positive reviews, so confidence in fake review detection is limited.

This score should be treated with CAUTION. While the company demonstrates genuine strengths in professionalism and technical skill (supported by high-mention counts), the presence of multiple credible reports of abandoned jobs, significant pricing disputes, and quality control failures indicates serious operational risks. The wide variance in customer experience and the pattern of recent negative reviews suggest the company may be unreliable for critical work. Recommend obtaining detailed written quotes, checking recent references, and considering alternative providers for high-value projects.

Weinberg Plumbing shows significant inconsistency across reviews spanning 2008–2021. While multiple reviews praise professionalism, skill, and fair pricing (particularly from 2012–2017), a substantial cluster of negative reviews from 2013–2015 document serious failures: no-shows, cancelled appointments without alternatives, incomplete work, and refusal to address problems. Recent reviews (2021) are positive, but the historical pattern of service failures and customer service breakdowns significantly impacts overall confidence. The company appears capable of excellent work but has demonstrated unreliable execution and poor accountability.

• RECENCY CONCERN: Most reviews are 8+ years old (2008–2017). Only 1 review from past 12 months (2021), which is positive but insufficient to establish current reliability.
• POLARIZED PATTERN: Strong bimodal distribution—5-star reviews (9 reviews) vs. 1-star reviews (4 reviews) with minimal middle ground. This suggests either inconsistent service quality or different customer expectations.
• MULTIPLE NO-SHOW INCIDENTS: Three separate reviews document appointment cancellations and no-shows (2013–2014), indicating systemic scheduling/communication problems during that period.
• INCOMPLETE WORK DOCUMENTED: Multiple reviews cite unfinished repairs, incorrect installations, or problems that recurred shortly after service (2015 rusted metal issue, 2015 toilet leak, 2008 incomplete repair).
• DEFENSIVE REVIEW DETECTED: 2012 review explicitly dismisses negative reviews as 'competition trying to give negative reviews'—this is a red flag for potential bias or fake positive review activity.
• ACCOUNTABILITY ISSUES: At least two reviews document refusal to address problems or admit responsibility (2015 rusted metal incident, 2008 incomplete work refusal).

This score should be treated with CAUTION. While recent positive reviews and multiple high-quality testimonials suggest the company is capable of excellent work, the documented pattern of no-shows, incomplete repairs, and poor customer service accountability from 2013–2015, combined with the age of most data and the polarized review distribution, significantly undermines confidence in consistency. The single recent positive review is insufficient to confirm that past problems have been resolved.

Three of the five reviews contained usable detail. Professionalism was the best-supported dimension, with multiple reviewers explicitly praising politeness, promptness, and the owner Rob's communication style and willingness to explain options. Pricing received a positive mention in one review describing the charge as 'the best price for the job,' but this is a single data point and must be treated conservatively. Project completion and experience were touched on briefly — phrases like 'quickly and well' and references to Rob being 'knowledgeable' and showing 'different options' provide limited but positive signals. Overall the picture is positive, but the very small number of substantive reviews means this score carries low reliability.

• Two reviews dated 2016-07-09 contain only the text 'unknown' and provide zero usable data — these were excluded from scoring.
• Only 3 of 5 reviews contained any scorable content, making the dataset very thin.
• All reviews with content are 5-star ratings; while not conclusive, the absence of any critical feedback across a small sample warrants caution.
• Most reviews are older than 1 year (oldest usable review: 2020-01-14, most recent: 2021-04-10) — recency is a concern as no recent reviews are present to confirm current service quality.
• Review 'Quickly and well.' is extremely brief and generic, offering minimal verifiable detail.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews with usable content, all dated between 2020 and 2021, and should be treated as a preliminary indicator only — significantly more recent and detailed reviews are needed before this score can be considered reliable.

Professionalism is the strongest and most consistently mentioned dimension, with multiple reviewers praising responsiveness, punctuality, communication, and polite demeanor across several reviews. Project completion scores well, with reviewers noting jobs were seen through to resolution — including weekend and emergency callbacks — though the small total review count limits confidence. Pricing is mentioned positively in a few reviews, with one reviewer explicitly calling the price fair for a large Sunday job and another noting reasonable pricing, but the limited mentions keep this score conservative. Experience is supported by references to diagnosing complex issues, explaining the process, and delivering quality workmanship, though again the low review volume constrains confidence. One review (the window-cleaning review) appears to be for an entirely different type of business and was treated as non-applicable to plumbing-specific scoring.

• One review (dated 2016-09-06) describes a window-cleaning service with a crew of three and references Angie's List coupons — this is almost certainly a misattributed review for a different business entirely and was excluded from dimension scoring.
• One review (dated 2014-10-22) contains only the word 'unknown' with no usable content and was excluded from all scoring.
• All reviews are rated 5.0 stars with no negative or mixed feedback, which warrants mild fake-review awareness caution, though most reviews do contain specific, credible details that reduce this concern.
• All reviews are older than 12 months — the most recent plumbing-relevant review dates to January 2018, making this data significantly outdated. Current performance cannot be reliably inferred.
• Total usable review count is very low (7 reviews, with only 6 fully applicable to plumbing). Scores should be treated as directional only.

This WW Score carries LOW overall reliability due to the very small number of usable reviews, the complete absence of any negative feedback across all ratings, the presence of one clearly misattributed review, and the fact that all reviews are more than six years old — meaning this score should not be used as a confident indicator of current contractor quality.