Find Nearby Plumbers Companies In 61820, Champaign, Illinois

Richard demonstrates strong professionalism across multiple reviews, with consistent praise for communication, politeness, and responsiveness. Pricing is generally described as fair and transparent, though one 2018 review raised concerns about undisclosed service charges that significantly damaged trust. Project completion is solid with multiple mentions of work being done quickly and thoroughly. Technical skill and problem-solving ability are evident across diverse project types. The 2018 negative review is substantially older and appears isolated; more recent reviews (2023-2024) consistently reinforce positive patterns.

• One significantly negative review from 2018 (1.0 stars) alleges undisclosed $65 service charge and suggests discriminatory pricing targeting young foreigners. This review is 6+ years old but represents a serious professionalism/pricing concern that cannot be ignored.
• Most positive reviews are from 2023-2024 (3 of 5 usable reviews), suggesting either improved practices or potential selection bias in recent feedback.
• Review from 2014 is 10 years old and should be weighted less heavily in current assessment.

This score is moderately reliable but carries meaningful uncertainty due to the isolated but serious 2018 complaint about pricing transparency and potential discriminatory practices. Recent reviews (past 12 months) are consistently positive and support the higher score, but the historical incident warrants caution and suggests verifying pricing terms explicitly in writing before engagement.

Sullivan Plumbing demonstrates strong overall performance across all dimensions, with particular strength in project completion (86.5) and professionalism (85.2). The company excels at punctuality, responsiveness, communication, and technical competence, with many customers praising specific technicians by name and expressing loyalty. However, pricing emerges as a consistent concern, with a notably lower score (73.8) driven by frequent complaints about high labor rates, lack of itemized invoices, and perceived overcharging relative to work performed. Despite pricing friction, the company maintains solid execution and customer satisfaction.

• PRICING COMPLAINTS ARE SUBSTANTIAL: 68 mentions of pricing issues reveal a pattern of customer dissatisfaction. Multiple reviews cite $300-$500+ per hour labor rates, lack of transparent billing, and charges perceived as excessive relative to time spent. This is the single largest source of negative feedback.
• NEGATIVE REVIEWS CLUSTER AROUND SPECIFIC ISSUES: Several 1-star reviews allege misdiagnosis (well pump/pressure tank case), poor follow-up on callbacks, unprofessional front desk behavior, and one case of alleged deliberate overcharging ($3,000+ for a $1,177 part). These are isolated but serious incidents.
• INCONSISTENT SERVICE QUALITY: A small number of reviews report poor workmanship (toilet installation errors, improper drain diagnosis, ceiling holes cut unnecessarily), suggesting quality control variability across technicians.
• CALLBACK AND FOLLOW-UP ISSUES: Multiple reviews mention delayed callbacks, failure to return calls, and broken promises to schedule follow-up work, indicating potential operational/communication gaps.
• RECENCY BIAS NOTED: Most recent reviews (2025, 2024) are overwhelmingly positive (5-star), while older reviews (2011-2020) show more balanced feedback with legitimate complaints. Recent reviews may reflect improved operations or potential review filtering.
• GENERIC PRAISE DETECTED: A small number of recent reviews contain unusually generic, enthusiastic language with minimal specific detail (e.g., 'Excellent,' 'Amazing job! Very happy overall!'), which could indicate fake or incentivized reviews, though this is not pervasive.

This WW Score of 82.1 is reliable and well-supported by 250 reviews with high mention counts across all dimensions. However, the score masks a significant pricing-quality tension: customers consistently praise workmanship and professionalism but express frustration with costs and billing transparency. The company's true value proposition depends heavily on whether customers prioritize quality execution (where Sullivan scores well) or cost-effectiveness (where it scores poorly). Prospective customers should request itemized quotes and clarify labor rates upfront before committing.

True Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism with consistently punctual technicians, courteous communication, and responsive scheduling across 187 mentions. Project completion is reliable with most jobs finished on time and callbacks honored, supported by 156 mentions. Technical expertise is solid with skilled diagnosticians and quality workmanship noted in 142 reviews. However, pricing emerges as a significant weakness: 89 mentions reveal recurring complaints about markups ranging from 3-5x fair market value, excessive service call fees ($25-$75 for estimates), and quotes perceived as inflated or dishonest. While individual technicians are frequently praised, the company's pricing structure and post-ownership (November 2023) service quality decline are persistent concerns that suppress the overall score.

• PRICING PATTERN: Systematic overcharging documented across multiple reviews. Examples include $831 for a $65 cartridge replacement, $486 for a $5 copper elbow (15 min work), $900 for a $30 toilet flange, and $1200 for 3 hours emergency work. This pattern suggests either intentional markup strategy or poor cost estimation practices.
• OWNERSHIP CHANGE IMPACT: Multiple long-term customers (10+ years) report significant service quality decline after November 2023 ownership change. Pre-2023 reviews are predominantly 5-star; post-2023 shows increased 1-2 star ratings for communication, scheduling, and pricing issues.
• SERVICE FEE CONTROVERSY: Repeated complaints about $25-$75 diagnostic/estimate fees, particularly when quotes are not accepted. Some customers report being charged for estimates on jobs exceeding $10,000.
• COMMUNICATION INCONSISTENCY: Several reviews cite delayed follow-ups (3 weeks without estimate), missed callbacks, failed appointment notifications, and rescheduling without proper notice. This contrasts sharply with earlier reviews praising responsiveness.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK - LIMITED: While most reviews appear genuine with specific details, there is a cluster of 15-20 very brief, generic 5-star reviews with minimal detail (e.g., empty text fields, single sentences like 'Great service!!') dated 2025-06-02 to 2025-06-09. These lack specificity and may inflate recent ratings artificially.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Reviews from past 6 months (2025) show higher concentration of 5-star ratings with less detail, while 2024-2023 reviews contain more balanced criticism. This temporal pattern warrants caution in weighting recent scores.
• INCONSISTENT QUALITY: Multiple reviews document technician-to-technician variance. Some technicians (Derek, Ryan, Cody, Sam, Chris) are specifically requested and praised; others are criticized for poor communication or sloppy work. This suggests inconsistent training or quality control.

This WW Score of 78.2 is reliable for assessing professionalism and project completion (both HIGH confidence with 150+ mentions each), but the pricing dimension (68.0, HIGH confidence with 89 mentions) is the primary driver of the lower overall score and reflects genuine, documented customer dissatisfaction with value-for-money. The post-November 2023 ownership change has materially impacted service consistency; customers should weight pre-2023 reviews more heavily for historical baseline and expect potential pricing negotiations. The cluster of generic 5-star reviews in June 2025 suggests recent rating inflation and should be discounted.

Roto-Rooter receives broadly positive marks for professionalism and technician demeanor, with hundreds of reviews praising courteous, knowledgeable, and timely technicians by name. However, pricing is the single most damaging dimension in this dataset: an enormous volume of reviewers across many years and locations explicitly describe charges as excessive, deceptive, or wildly above market rate, with numerous accounts of undisclosed fees, commission-driven upselling, and charges for incomplete or failed work. Project completion is mixed — many jobs are resolved same-day and efficiently, but a meaningful minority of reviews describe recurring clogs after service, abandoned jobs, no-shows, warranty disputes, and work that made problems worse. Experience scores moderately well overall, with many reviewers impressed by diagnostic skill, but offset by recurring complaints about technicians lacking proper tools, misdiagnosing problems, or causing additional damage. The overall score reflects a company with genuine service capability undermined by systemic pricing and consistency issues.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: Several reviews appear to be exact or near-exact duplicates (e.g., multiple identical reviews for 'Cappy,' 'Arron C and Elijah,' 'Jarrett,' and 'Carlos and Chris' posted on the same date). This pattern is consistent with either copy-paste errors or potentially coordinated positive review activity. Confidence in the most recent positive reviews is slightly reduced.
• EXTREME RATING POLARIZATION: The dataset shows a pronounced bimodal distribution — a very large number of 5-star reviews with minimal detail alongside a substantial cluster of 1-star reviews with highly specific, credible complaints about pricing, incomplete work, and rude staff. This pattern is common in franchise operations where individual location quality varies significantly.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS ARE SYSTEMIC AND CROSS-LOCATION: Overcharging complaints span multiple cities, states, and years, suggesting this is a structural business practice rather than isolated incidents. Charges of 3x–10x competitor rates for identical work are documented repeatedly.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews analyzed span from 2005 to June 2025. Reviews from the past 12 months (mid-2024 to mid-2025) are predominantly positive with high technician praise, but the volume of older negative reviews — many highly detailed — significantly weighs on completion and pricing scores.
• FRANCHISE VARIABILITY WARNING: Multiple reviews explicitly note that Roto-Rooter is a franchise system and that quality, pricing, and accountability vary dramatically by location. This score should not be applied uniformly to all Roto-Rooter franchises.
• SEVERAL REVIEWS CONTAIN NO TEXT (rating only): Approximately 80+ reviews consist solely of a star rating with no written content. These were excluded from dimension scoring per evidence-required rules but are included in total review count.

This WW Score is based on an exceptionally large review dataset (1,000+ reviews) spanning nearly two decades and multiple geographic locations, giving it HIGH statistical confidence; however, the score reflects aggregate franchise-level performance and should be interpreted cautiously for any specific local Roto-Rooter office, as individual location quality varies substantially.

Simmons Plumbing shows mixed performance across dimensions. Professionalism is inconsistent—praised for responsiveness and thoroughness by some, but criticized for excessive talking and poor time management by others. Pricing perception is divided: some found rates reasonable while one customer felt overcharged relative to actual work performed. Project completion shows concerns, with one review reporting a faucet failure within a month of work. Technical skill is acknowledged as solid, though execution quality is questioned. The business operates as a one-man shop with administrative weaknesses (delayed billing). Overall score reflects moderate confidence due to limited review volume and conflicting customer experiences.

• Significant review age: all reviews are 10+ years old (2010-2014), limiting relevance to current service quality
• Conflicting customer experiences: one 5-star review praising work quality vs. one 1-star review reporting premature faucet failure and dissatisfaction with pricing/labor allocation
• Pricing transparency concern: customer perception of hourly rate ($80/hr) vs. perceived value differs sharply between reviews
• Quality control issue: one review explicitly reports defective work (dripping faucet) within one month of completion
• Administrative weakness noted: delayed billing suggests poor business operations

This score should be treated with caution due to very limited and outdated review data (5 reviews, all 10+ years old), conflicting customer experiences, and unresolved quality concerns. Current service quality cannot be reliably assessed from this dataset.

C and S Plumbing has a generally positive track record across most dimensions, with strong marks for responsiveness, communication, and follow-through — multiple reviewers noted callbacks honored, punctual arrivals, and cleanup after work. However, pricing is a recurring concern: at least three reviewers explicitly called the contractor expensive or pricey, and one highly detailed 1-star review describes a serious billing dispute involving two hours of charged labor for a Home Depot run, along with a threatening demand to 'pay up or I'll pull it all out,' which significantly drags down the professionalism and pricing scores. Experience and workmanship are generally praised, with one reviewer noting Clarence is a master plumber who delivers high-quality results. The single negative review, while old (2004), is specific, credible, and serious enough to warrant meaningful score reductions in professionalism and pricing.

• 4 reviews contain only 'unknown' or 'See above' as text — these provide no usable data and were excluded from scoring.
• The majority of reviews are significantly outdated: 12 of 15 reviews are from 2018 or earlier, with 10 predating 2015. Only 1 review is from the past 3 years (2022). Current performance cannot be reliably assessed.
• The 1-star review from 2004 describes a serious professionalism and billing ethics violation — threatening to remove installed work unless paid — which is a significant red flag even accounting for its age.
• Multiple reviewers independently flagged pricing as high or expensive, suggesting this is a consistent pattern rather than an isolated complaint.
• No fake review patterns detected — reviews vary in length, detail, and tone, and include one negative review, which supports authenticity.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability: while there are enough reviews to calculate a score, the overwhelming majority are more than 5 years old, limiting confidence in how well this score reflects the contractor's current performance.