Find Nearby Plumbers In Champaign, Illinois

Express Plumbing demonstrates strong overall performance with a WW Score of 78.2, driven by consistently high marks in professionalism, project completion, and technical experience. The company excels at responsiveness, punctuality, and skilled workmanship, with many reviews praising specific technicians by name and highlighting professional demeanor. However, pricing emerges as a notable weakness, with multiple complaints about hidden charges, inflated estimates, and perceived overcharging relative to work performed. While the majority of recent reviews (past 12 months) are highly positive, the company has a persistent pattern of pricing disputes and occasional service failures that prevent a higher score.

• FAKE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: Reviews dated 2025-04-10 and 2025-04-07 contain identical text praising Jose Lopez with suspiciously generic language and no specific details. This appears to be duplicate/fabricated content.
• PRICING CONCERNS: 32 mentions of pricing issues reveal a consistent pattern—hidden trip charges ($125 undisclosed fee), inflated estimates, charges for minimal work ($125 for tightening a sink connection), and disputes over quoted vs. actual costs. This is a material weakness.
• INCONSISTENT SERVICE QUALITY: Multiple reviews describe no-shows, delayed callbacks (2-4 hours on emergency calls), and failure to honor 24/7 emergency service claims. Some reviews note the company's responsiveness depends heavily on which technician is assigned.
• MULTIPLE NEGATIVE REVIEWS FROM DIFFERENT INDIVIDUALS: At least 15 distinct 1-star reviews document serious issues (misdiagnosis, incomplete work, threats to elderly parents, refusal to refund deposits, poor follow-up). These are not isolated incidents.
• RECENCY BIAS NOTED: Most recent reviews (2025, 2024) are overwhelmingly positive (5-star), while older reviews (2007-2015) contain more detailed complaints. This suggests either genuine improvement or potential review manipulation.
• OWNER/MANAGEMENT ISSUES: Multiple reviews reference owner 'Nick' or 'Igor' with complaints about lack of accountability, refusal to reimburse, and dismissive behavior toward customers with legitimate grievances.
• EMPTY/MINIMAL REVIEWS: Approximately 12 reviews contain no text or only 1-2 words (e.g., 'Excelente serbicio', 'Loved it', blank), all rated 5-star. These lack substantive evidence and reduce data quality.

This WW Score of 78.2 should be treated with MODERATE-TO-HIGH confidence for recent work (2024-2025) but with significant caution regarding pricing transparency and service consistency. The company demonstrates genuine technical competence and professionalism in execution, but the persistent pattern of pricing disputes, hidden charges, and occasional service failures indicates systemic issues in business practices. Customers should obtain detailed written estimates, confirm all fees upfront, and verify service guarantees before engaging. The score reflects strong execution quality offset by legitimate concerns about honesty and follow-through on commitments.

Mattex demonstrates strong professionalism and technical expertise, with technicians consistently praised for politeness, knowledge, and efficiency across recent reviews (2025). However, significant pricing concerns emerge across multiple review periods, with customers reporting charges substantially above market rates and lack of transparent cost breakdowns. Project completion shows mixed results: while most recent jobs are completed on time, several older reviews document serious no-shows and scheduling failures. The company's performance appears to have improved in 2025, but historical pricing complaints and communication failures substantially impact overall trustworthiness.

• PRICING RED FLAG: Multiple reviews (2019-2025) document excessive charges—$600 for 1-hour waterline installation, $507 for outlet installation (competitor charged $225), $407 for wax ring replacement, $3,000+ markup on HVAC equipment. Pattern suggests systematic overpricing.
• COMMUNICATION FAILURES: Three detailed 1-star reviews (2020-2021) document no-shows, last-minute cancellations, and poor coordination between sales and installation teams. One customer waited 6 hours at a property after confirming appointment.
• INVOICE TRANSPARENCY: Multiple complaints about lack of itemized breakdowns and unclear labor/parts separation on invoices.
• SUSPICIOUS REVIEW PATTERN: 2025 reviews are overwhelmingly 5-star with generic praise and minimal detail (e.g., empty review text, 'Another wonderful job done by the Mattex crew!!'), contrasting sharply with detailed negative reviews from 2012-2021. This suggests possible review manipulation or solicitation bias (one 2020 review explicitly mentions company sending cookies with request to post positive review).
• RECENCY BIAS: Recent 2025 reviews (past 6 months) show dramatically improved professionalism and no pricing complaints, but represent only 30 of 67 reviews. Older reviews (2012-2021) document systemic issues.
• ETHICAL CONCERNS: One 2013 review documents alleged practice of technician leaving job site during service call to work other jobs while billing customer for waiting time—described as 'very common unethical practice.'

This WW Score of 76.8 should be treated with CAUTION. While recent 2025 reviews show strong professionalism and expertise, the company has a documented history of excessive pricing, poor communication, and scheduling failures spanning 2012-2021. The dramatic shift to uniformly positive recent reviews raises concerns about review authenticity or selection bias. Customers should independently verify pricing against competitors and request detailed, itemized invoices before committing to work.

Schoonover Sewer Service demonstrates solid overall performance with a WW Score of 76.8, driven primarily by strong technical expertise and generally reliable project completion. However, professionalism and pricing consistency are significant weak points. Multiple reviews document serious communication failures (delayed callbacks, no-shows, rudeness), hidden charges, and lack of transparency about fees. While many customers praise the company's skill and fair pricing, a substantial minority experienced billing disputes, poor responsiveness during emergencies, and unprofessional conduct. The company's performance is inconsistent—some reviews highlight excellent service from named technicians (Lucas, Brandon, Jake), while others describe the same company as unresponsive and dishonest. This volatility suggests operational or quality control issues.

• INCONSISTENCY PATTERN: Stark contrast between highly positive reviews (often naming specific technicians like Lucas, Brandon, Jake) and severely negative reviews citing identical issues (poor responsiveness, hidden charges, rudeness). This suggests service quality varies significantly by technician or time period.
• COMMUNICATION FAILURES: Multiple reviews (2023-02-06, 2020-04-29, 2019-08-05, 2021-09-10) document serious responsiveness issues including no-shows, delayed callbacks, and failure to contact customers during emergencies. This is a recurring pattern, not isolated incidents.
• PRICING TRANSPARENCY: At least 3 reviews (2016-09-13 appears twice, 2023-02-06) explicitly mention undisclosed fees, hidden charges, and lack of upfront pricing clarity. One customer was charged $85 for a 5-minute consultation without prior disclosure.
• QUALITY CONTROL CONCERN: One review (2022-07-23) describes catastrophic workmanship—technician left metal debris in drain and damaged trap, causing ceiling damage. Another (2011-04-06) describes technician abandoning job mid-work and charging premium rates for incomplete service.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most negative reviews are from 2020-2023 (recent), while many positive reviews are from 2009-2018 (older). This suggests potential service degradation over time or operational changes.
• EMERGENCY RESPONSE FAILURE: Review from 2020-04-29 describes complete failure to respond to sewage emergency (12+ hours with no contact), contradicting company's advertised 24-hour service.

This WW Score of 76.8 should be treated with caution despite HIGH overall confidence. While the score is based on substantial data (25 reviews), the company exhibits highly polarized performance with a clear pattern of serious professionalism and communication failures in recent years, offset by strong technical capability. The score masks significant operational inconsistency and customer risk, particularly regarding responsiveness and pricing transparency. Prospective customers should expect variable service quality and should obtain detailed written quotes before engaging.

Plumb Crazy Plumbing earns strong marks for professionalism and responsiveness across a large volume of reviews, with many customers praising punctuality, friendly technicians, and the company's practice of sending technician photos and names ahead of arrival. Experience scores are solid, with numerous reviewers citing knowledgeable, skilled plumbers who explained their work clearly and solved problems effectively. However, pricing is a notable weak point: while many customers found fees reasonable, a meaningful cluster of negative reviews specifically called out inflated quotes, excessive markups on parts, and charges for trivial tasks, pulling the price score down significantly. Project completion is mixed — the majority of jobs were completed successfully, but several reviews describe incomplete work, return visits required, damage left behind without acknowledgment, and in a few cases outright abandonment of jobs or ignored callbacks, which materially reduces that dimension's score. The WW Score of 74.2 reflects a company with genuine strengths in service delivery but recurring, credible complaints about pricing transparency and workmanship quality control that cannot be ignored.

• Several negative reviews describe a pattern where the owner responds defensively to complaints and deflects blame onto customers rather than taking ownership — this was noted explicitly by multiple reviewers and suggests a systemic customer service issue at the management level.
• Pricing concerns appear in at least 7 negative reviews with specific dollar amounts cited (e.g., $2,500 water heater quote vs. $593 retail price, $325 for a $29 part, $1,700 upsell attempt vs. $175 quoted), indicating a credible and recurring pattern of price inflation or opportunistic upselling rather than isolated incidents.
• Multiple reviews describe workmanship issues including damage to property (scratched toilet bowl, torn floor tiles, rusty water mess left in garage), incomplete repairs requiring follow-up visits, and use of subpar materials (shark bite fittings replacing copper pipe) — these are not isolated complaints.
• One review describes a job being abandoned entirely with calls ignored for days (2016), and another describes a plumber leaving without completing work and never returning (2011). While older, these suggest a historical pattern of follow-through failures.
• Review date range spans from 2007 to 2025 — a span of 18 years. Reviews older than 3 years (pre-2022) were given reduced weight in scoring. The majority of negative reviews are concentrated in the 2016–2024 range, suggesting the issues are not purely historical.
• No strong fake review patterns detected. Reviews vary in length, specificity, tone, and rating. Named technicians appear across multiple independent reviews, lending authenticity. Some very short 5-star reviews (e.g., 'Great.' and 'Very Very great job well done!') provide minimal usable data but do not appear coordinated.
• One reviewer explicitly accused the company of fake reviews and being a 'ripoff' (2022), though this review itself lacks specific detail and may reflect a personal dispute rather than a systemic issue.

This WW Score is based on 78 reviews spanning 18 years with a high volume of detailed, specific feedback across all four dimensions, making it one of the more reliable assessments possible — however, the score should be interpreted with caution given the credible and recurring negative patterns around pricing transparency and project completion quality, which suggest the experience is inconsistent depending on the technician assigned.

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.

Dependable Plumbing demonstrates strong technical expertise and professionalism from individual technicians (Grant, Joe, Nick, Diego, Aaron, and others consistently praised for skill and courtesy). However, the company is significantly hampered by persistent pricing complaints—numerous reviews cite excessive charges, hidden fees, and quotes that balloon dramatically after initial estimates. Project completion shows mixed results with some excellent follow-through but also documented cases of no-shows, delayed callbacks, and abandoned work. Office communication and responsiveness issues appear across multiple reviews spanning years, suggesting systemic problems. The stark divide between field technician quality and company-level operations creates an inconsistent customer experience.

• PRICING PATTERN: At least 15+ reviews explicitly cite overcharging, excessive labor rates, or significant quote increases. Examples include $550 for a clamp, $473 for a cartridge replacement (quoted at $245), $1,300 for water heater when competitor charged $300, and $460 for 15-minute faucet repair. This is the single largest complaint category.
• COMMUNICATION FAILURES: Multiple reviews (spanning 2009-2023) report no-shows, missed appointments without notice, failure to return calls/voicemails, and broken promises to follow up. At least 8 reviews document these issues explicitly.
• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: The exact same review text about a $550 clamp charge appears 3 times (dated 2024-06-25 and 2024-06-24), suggesting either fake reviews or system duplication. This reduces confidence slightly in the pricing dimension.
• INCONSISTENT QUALITY: Same company name but vastly different experiences—some customers report exceptional work and fair pricing (Joe Kerns reviews), while others report the opposite. This suggests either different business units, inconsistent management, or significant quality variance by technician.
• HOA RELATIONSHIP CONCERNS: Multiple reviews suggest the company may overcharge HOA-referred customers, knowing they have limited recourse or comparison shopping. Several customers explicitly note they were referred by HOA and then overcharged.
• RECENCY NOTE: Most recent reviews (2025) are positive, but negative reviews span the entire history (2008-2024), indicating long-standing systemic issues rather than recent improvement.
• FOLLOW-UP WORK ISSUES: Several reviews document incomplete repairs, parts not arriving, and technicians not returning to finish jobs (e.g., bathtub faucet repair abandoned for 2+ months).

This WW Score of 72.8 should be trusted as a HIGH-confidence assessment, but with a critical caveat: the company's technical competence (Experience: 81) and individual technician professionalism (Professionalism: 78.5) are genuinely strong, but are severely undermined by aggressive pricing practices (62.0) and inconsistent project follow-through (76.5). Customers should expect quality work but should obtain detailed written estimates, verify pricing with competitors, and confirm all promised follow-up work in writing before engaging this company.