Find Nearby Plumbers Companies In 61802, Champaign, Illinois

Artisan Plumbing earns strong marks for professionalism and experience across a large and diverse review base spanning over a decade, with many customers praising punctuality, communication, courteous technicians, and skilled problem-solving. However, pricing is a meaningful drag on the overall score: multiple reviewers across different years explicitly flagged high hourly rates, unexpected equipment/diagnosis fees, and significant parts markups, with one reviewer citing a $285 part sold for $56–69 at retail and another calling the company a 'huge rip-off.' Project completion is mixed — the majority of jobs were finished well, but there are credible, detailed accounts of abandoned follow-through: one customer was ghosted after paying for a camera inspection and never received a quote, another waited months for a promised estimate with no response, a gas leak went undetected for two months after an uninspected installation, and one technician no-showed entirely. These are not minor complaints — they represent a pattern of follow-through failures that meaningfully tempers an otherwise solid reputation. The business clearly delivers excellent service in many cases, but the inconsistency in pricing transparency and job follow-through prevents a higher score.

• 9 reviews contain no text at all — only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: Two reviews with nearly identical text about a pressure tank leak (dated 2024-09-12 and 2024-08-18) appear to be the same review submitted twice. Only one instance was counted in scoring.
• PRICING CONCERNS — RECURRING PATTERN: Multiple independent reviewers across different years (2017, 2019, 2020, 2022, 2024) explicitly flagged high labor rates, unexpected snake/equipment fees, diagnosis charges on top of completed work, and large parts markups. This is not isolated and reduces confidence in pricing fairness claims made in positive reviews.
• PROJECT COMPLETION FAILURES — RECURRING PATTERN: At least three detailed, credible negative reviews describe being ghosted after paying for diagnostic work (2019, 2023), a no-show with no follow-up (2022), and a gas leak left undetected for two months due to a missed county inspection (2025). These are serious completion and safety concerns.
• RECENCY NOTE: The review base spans 2013–2025. Reviews older than 2022 carry reduced weight. The most recent reviews (2024–2025) are generally positive but include the gas leak incident and the Kenny misdiagnosis complaint, suggesting quality inconsistency persists.
• One 1-star review (2024-08-10) describes the office becoming defensive when workmanship concerns were raised, an admitted incorrect installation that was never remedied, and undisclosed premium parts pricing. This aligns with other pricing and follow-through complaints and is treated as credible.
• No strong evidence of fake reviews detected. The review set contains specific names, dates, job types, and a realistic mix of positive and negative experiences. Language varies sufficiently across reviews.

This WW Score is based on 85 reviews spanning 12 years with strong mention counts across all four dimensions, making it statistically reliable — however, consumers should weigh the recurring and independently corroborated concerns about pricing transparency and job follow-through before hiring, as these patterns appear across multiple years and reviewers.

Quality Plumbing receives strong praise across hundreds of reviews for responsiveness, friendly technicians, and professional demeanor, with many customers citing specific plumbers by name and describing courteous, efficient service. However, a meaningful minority of negative reviews — spread across many years and locations — describe serious concerns including billing disputes (charging for travel time, rounding up hours, marking up parts significantly), failed diagnoses, abandoned or incomplete work, and rude office staff who hung up on customers. Pricing is the weakest dimension: multiple reviewers describe feeling overcharged, discovering parts were marked up 200-300%, or being billed for time the plumber was not on-site. Project completion is also mixed, with several reviews describing jobs left unfinished, return visits that never materialized, or problems that were not resolved after multiple attempts. The experience dimension scores moderately well overall, as most technicians are described as knowledgeable and skilled, but a subset of reviews describe misdiagnoses, amateur-level work, and technicians who could not complete the job.

• FAKE REVIEW RISK — MODERATE: A significant cluster of reviews share identical or near-identical dates (e.g., dozens dated exactly 2024-09-12, 2023-06-10, 2022-06-10, 2021-06-10, 2020-06-10, 2019-06-11, 2018-06-11, 2017-06-11) with very short, generic, undetailed text and all 5-star ratings. This pattern is consistent with bulk review submission and inflates the positive signal. These reviews were counted but treated with reduced evidentiary weight.
• MULTI-LOCATION AGGREGATION RISK — HIGH: Reviews reference locations across at least 8 distinct geographic markets including Seattle WA, Cape Coral/Fort Myers FL, Kansas City MO, Ventura County CA, Honolulu HI, Galveston TX, Denver CO, and Fresno CA. These are almost certainly different businesses operating under the same or similar name 'Quality Plumbing.' Scores reflect the aggregate pool and may not represent any single business accurately.
• BLANK REVIEWS EXCLUDED FROM SCORING: Approximately 30 reviews contained no text (only a star rating). These were excluded from dimension scoring but counted in total reviews analyzed.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of substantive, detailed reviews are from 2020 to 2025, which carry the most weight. Reviews from 2005-2015 are present but represent a smaller share and may reflect different ownership or staffing.
• BILLING COMPLAINTS — RECURRING PATTERN: At least 15 independent reviews across multiple years and locations describe billing practices including charging for drive time, rounding up labor hours, excessive parts markups, and charging for assessments where no work was performed. This is a systemic concern, not isolated incidents.
• INCOMPLETE WORK PATTERN: Multiple reviews describe jobs left unfinished, promises to return that were never honored, and supervisors who never called back after complaints. This meaningfully depresses the project completion score.
• ONE REVIEW APPEARS TO BE FOR A RESTAURANT (Mexican food/tamales) — clearly misattributed and excluded from scoring.
• ONE REVIEW APPEARS TO BE A POLITICAL COMPLAINT about signage outside the business — excluded from scoring as it does not address service quality.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large volume of reviews, but its reliability as a predictor for any single 'Quality Plumbing' location is MODERATE at best, given strong evidence that reviews from multiple unrelated businesses across the United States have been aggregated together, and that a notable share of 5-star reviews show patterns consistent with fake or bulk submissions.

Mr. Rooter Plumbing of Champaign has a deeply mixed record across all four dimensions. Professionalism scores moderately well overall — many individual technicians (Javae, Christyan, Adam, Chris, Jay, Tim) are praised repeatedly for friendliness, communication, and courtesy, but this is significantly offset by serious complaints about rude managers, a dismissive supervisor (Michael V.), and a pattern of broken promises around follow-through and callbacks. Project completion is the most damaging dimension: multiple reviews describe jobs left incomplete, incorrect diagnoses leading to unnecessary upsells, broken fixtures left unrepaired, holes left in properties, and a $3,450 case where the problem was never solved. Pricing draws consistent criticism — several reviewers felt overcharged, encountered unexpected add-on costs, or were billed incorrectly, though a minority found pricing fair or reasonable. Experience is similarly split: standout technicians demonstrate genuine skill and problem-solving ability, but others (notably Michael V. and JT) showed alarming incompetence, including not knowing how to locate a water shutoff valve and misdiagnosing sewer problems repeatedly at significant customer expense.

• FAKE REVIEW CONCERN: A cluster of 5-star reviews dated 2025-05-26 and 2025-06-02 share near-identical structure — short, generic praise with minimal detail, several with no text at all (blank reviews rated 5 stars). This pattern is suspicious and these reviews were weighted conservatively.
• BLANK REVIEWS: At least 4 reviews contain no text whatsoever (only a star rating). These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data.
• RECENCY NOTE: Reviews span from 2009 to 2025. A significant portion of negative reviews are recent (2024–2025), suggesting possible decline in service quality or management issues. Recent negative reviews were weighted more heavily.
• STAFF INCONSISTENCY: A stark and recurring pattern exists between highly praised individual technicians (Adam, Javae, Christyan, Chris, Jay, Tim) and poorly reviewed supervisors/managers (Michael V., JT, Timothy, Brad, Joe Walters). This suggests systemic management and quality-control problems rather than isolated incidents.
• FINANCIAL MISCONDUCT ALLEGATIONS: Multiple reviews allege unauthorized credit card charges ($6,800 duplicate charge), refusal to refund for unperformed or failed work ($3,450 and $9,000+ cases), and threats of property liens. These are serious red flags beyond normal service complaints.
• FOLLOW-THROUGH FAILURES: At least 4 separate reviews describe the company failing to return calls, missing appointments, or abandoning jobs mid-project — a consistent pattern that heavily penalizes the project completion score.
• OLDER REVIEWS (pre-2019): Several positive reviews date back to 2009–2016 and may reflect a different ownership era or staffing. These were given reduced weight relative to more recent reviews.
• TWO REVIEWS (2013) appear to reference a service area availability issue rather than actual service experience and were excluded from dimension scoring.

This WW Score of 71.2 is based on a large review set with HIGH mention counts across all dimensions, but should be interpreted cautiously — the score is pulled upward by numerous glowing reviews of specific technicians while masking serious, credible, and detailed complaints about management conduct, billing integrity, and project abandonment that represent meaningful risk to prospective customers.

Urbana Plumbing & Heating demonstrates strong technical expertise and generally reliable project completion, with multiple reviews praising responsiveness, knowledge, and thorough workmanship. However, pricing emerges as a significant weakness, with three detailed complaints about excessive charges (faucet/wax seal at $1,149, garbage disposal markup, and refusal to honor guarantees on customer-supplied parts). Professionalism is mixed: many reviews highlight courtesy and communication, but two recent reviews (2022) document poor customer service interactions and condescending behavior. The company's long-standing reputation (30+ years) is undermined by recent pricing and attitude concerns that suggest potential deterioration in service standards.

• PRICING CONCERN: Three separate reviews (2022, 2021, 2017 context) explicitly detail aggressive pricing practices, including $1,149 for simple faucet/wax seal replacement, markup on garbage disposal, and refusal to guarantee work on customer-supplied parts. This pattern suggests systematic overcharging rather than isolated incidents.
• PROFESSIONALISM INCONSISTENCY: Two 1-star reviews from September 2022 document unprofessional behavior (condescending tone, laughing at shocked customer) that directly contradicts positive reviews. This suggests recent deterioration or inconsistent service quality depending on which technician responds.
• RECENCY BIAS: Most positive reviews are from 2013-2021 (older than 1 year). The two most recent detailed reviews (Sept 2022) are both 1-star with serious complaints about pricing and attitude. This temporal pattern suggests declining service quality.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: Several 5-star reviews use nearly identical phrasing ('very knowledgeable,' 'reasonable price,' 'wore a mask,' 'cleaned up') across different reviewers and years, which may indicate fabricated or template-based reviews. However, the detailed negative reviews appear authentic and specific.
• INCONSISTENT PRICING NARRATIVE: Positive reviews mention 'reasonable prices' while negative reviews document extreme overcharges for identical services (faucet installation). This suggests either selective pricing based on customer perception or dishonest quoting practices.

This WW Score should be treated with caution due to conflicting evidence: while technical competence and responsiveness are well-documented across multiple reviews, recent complaints about pricing practices and unprofessional behavior (both from 2022) suggest the company may not be as trustworthy as its historical reputation indicates. The score reflects a company in transition with serious pricing and attitude concerns that outweigh its technical strengths.

Next Level Plumbing presents a deeply polarized review profile. A substantial portion of positive reviews praise individual technicians — particularly Matthew, Evan, Ethan, Michael, and Byron — for punctuality, friendliness, and competence, which lifts professionalism and experience scores. However, a significant and detailed cluster of 1-star reviews describes serious failures: abandoned jobs, no-call/no-shows, unresolved leaks after multiple visits, poor communication, and in several cases allegations of fraudulent billing and check re-cashing. Pricing is a consistent pain point across both positive and negative reviewers, with multiple customers citing sticker shock, price gouging, and charges far exceeding market rates for simple repairs. Project completion is heavily penalized by numerous accounts of work left incomplete, problems made worse, and technicians failing to return as promised.

• FAKE REVIEW CONCERN: A notable number of reviews consist solely of emoji, single words ('good', 'Awesome'), or blank text with 5-star ratings — these provide no usable data and inflate the apparent star average without substantive evidence.
• FAKE REVIEW CONCERN: One reviewer explicitly alleges that positive reviews are fake and originate from California and Arizona, which is consistent with the geographic pattern of some generic 5-star reviews that lack any specific detail about the job, technician, or location.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The 1-star review alleging the owner cashed the same check twice (owner is a thief) appears verbatim twice in the dataset — once dated 2024-06-09 and once dated 2024-05-31. This was counted once for scoring purposes.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The detailed 1-star AHS review about a still-active leak and cash payment appears verbatim twice — dated 2024-06-09 and 2024-05-20. Counted once for scoring purposes.
• SERIOUS MISCONDUCT ALLEGATIONS: Multiple independent reviewers allege the company abandoned jobs mid-repair, left homes with sewage flooding, refused refunds, encouraged cash payments to avoid credit card disputes, and in one case the owner is accused of re-cashing a previously cashed check.
• HOME WARRANTY PATTERN: A disproportionate share of negative reviews involve customers assigned through home warranty companies (AHS, First American, HSA, Old Republic). This may indicate the company performs differently for warranty-assigned vs. direct customers, or that warranty work creates systemic communication and billing conflicts.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent reviews (2025) are predominantly positive with named technicians and specific details, suggesting possible improvement in service quality or a shift in the customer base being served. However, the volume of detailed negative reviews from 2023-2024 is too significant to discount.
• WIDE DATE RANGE: Reviews span from 2012 to 2025. Reviews older than 3 years (pre-2022) were given reduced weight as they may not reflect current operations. The business appears to have changed significantly over time.
• ONE REVIEW APPEARS UNRELATED: One review mentions 'Optimal plumbing' and states it was not Next Level Plumbing — this review was excluded from scoring as it likely belongs to a different company.

This WW Score of 62.1 is based on a large review set and carries HIGH data confidence, but the score should be interpreted cautiously given the extreme bimodal distribution — the company has genuinely excellent individual technicians alongside documented patterns of abandoned work, billing disputes, and communication failures that represent serious risk to prospective customers.

The three reviews present a mixed picture of this contractor. One review is a clear failure — the customer paid $423 and the plumbing issue was left unresolved, which heavily drags down project completion and professionalism scores. The 5-star review praises professionalism, timeliness, and pricing but lacks specific detail, reducing its evidentiary weight. The 4-star review from 2014 is the most detailed and positive, highlighting friendly workers, good technical explanation, and a successful outcome, though it notes difficulty reaching the business at times. Overall, the contractor shows some genuine capability but has at least one documented case of charging for incomplete work, which is a serious concern.

• Only 3 reviews total — WW Score is statistically unreliable and should be treated with significant caution.
• One review documents a clear project failure: customer paid $423 and the issue remained unresolved the following day.
• The 5-star review (2020) is somewhat generic with no specific job details, which slightly reduces its credibility, though it does not appear to be an obvious fake.
• The most detailed positive review (4-star) is from 2014 — over 10 years old — and should be given significantly reduced weight relative to more recent reviews.
• Recency concern: Only one review is from the past 5 years (2020), and the most negative review (2021) is the most recent, suggesting possible decline in service quality over time.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews spanning 7 years and should be considered highly unreliable — do not use this score as a primary basis for hiring decisions without seeking additional references or more recent reviews.