Find Nearby Plumbers In Champaign, Illinois

This contractor/plumber business shows mixed performance across multiple locations and technicians. Professionalism scores are solid (76.5) with strong punctuality and communication from many technicians like Matt, Tom, and Keith, though several reviews cite no-shows and poor responsiveness from others (Adrian, Simply Plumbing staff). Project completion is the weakest dimension (71.0), with recurring complaints about abandoned work, incomplete callbacks, and follow-through failures. Experience and technical knowledge are strong (79.5), with consistent praise for diagnostic ability and workmanship quality. Pricing presents significant concerns (68.0), with multiple complaints about overcharging, hidden fees, and quotes substantially higher than competitors. The business appears to operate multiple brands/locations with highly variable service quality.

• CRITICAL: Multiple reviews (Adrian/Simply Plumbing) describe potential fraud patterns—taking service fees without completing work, no-shows without communication, and refusal to return calls. At least 8 reviews allege this behavior across different time periods.
• INCONSISTENT QUALITY: Stark contrast between highly positive reviews (Matt, Tom, Keith, InMotion Mechanical staff) and severely negative ones (Adrian, Simply Plumbing). Suggests either multiple businesses operating under same name or significant quality variance by technician.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS: Recurring pattern of customers reporting overcharges (e.g., $900 for $50 job, $470 for $35-40 thermostat, $1,395 vs. $600 for same work). At least 6 reviews explicitly cite unfair pricing.
• NO-SHOW PATTERN: Multiple reviews from different years (2024, 2022, 2021, 2020, 2014) describe missed appointments with no communication. This is a systemic issue, not isolated incidents.
• CALLBACK FAILURES: At least 12 reviews mention failure to return calls, voicemails going unanswered, or lack of follow-up communication.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEWS: Approximately 20 reviews with no dates (all 5-star, generic praise like 'Matt was professional,' 'great work,' minimal detail) may be artificially generated. These inflate scores artificially.
• WARRANTY COMPANY ISSUES: Multiple reviews indicate problems when customers are referred through home warranty companies (Choice Home Warranty, etc.), suggesting potential conflicts of interest or different service standards.
• INCOMPLETE WORK: Several reviews describe jobs left unfinished, partial repairs, or work that failed shortly after completion (e.g., water heater stand not included, pressure valve leaking within 1 year).

This WW Score of 72.8 should be treated with CAUTION. While the HIGH confidence reflects substantial review volume, the data masks a deeply bifurcated business: some technicians (Matt, Tom, Keith, InMotion staff) deliver excellent service consistently, while others (Adrian, Simply Plumbing associates) show patterns of fraud, no-shows, and overcharging. The ~20 undated 5-star reviews with minimal detail appear artificially generated and inflate the score. Customers should verify which specific technician/location they are hiring and research that individual thoroughly before committing. The business's reliability varies dramatically by technician and location.

Roto-Rooter receives consistently strong marks for professionalism and responsiveness from individual technicians, with hundreds of reviews praising courteous, knowledgeable, and prompt service. However, pricing is the single most damaging dimension across this dataset, with an enormous volume of reviews describing charges as excessive, deceptive, or wildly inconsistent — including numerous accounts of bait-and-switch quoting, undisclosed fees, and charges for incomplete work. Project completion is significantly dragged down by a substantial minority of reviews describing failed repairs, no-shows, abandoned jobs, warranty disputes, and work that made problems worse. Experience scores moderately well overall, as many technicians are praised for skill and problem-solving, but this is offset by recurring accounts of misdiagnosis, wrong equipment, and upselling unnecessary services. The aggregate picture is a company with capable individual technicians but systemic issues around pricing transparency, scheduling reliability, and quality control.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: Multiple reviews appear to be exact or near-exact duplicates (e.g., two identical reviews from 'Paul arrived same day...', two identical 'Zach is the man...', two identical 'Based solely off customer service...', two identical 'Easy to schedule and a quick service...', two identical 'Great service. Would highly recommend!', two identical 'Efficient and effective...', two identical 'Excellent with Armando...', two identical 'Very prompt and helpful! Anthony...', two identical 'My name is Antoinette...'). These duplicates inflate positive scores and have been treated conservatively.
• FAKE REVIEW PATTERNS: A large cluster of reviews dated 1996-2001 consist of single-line responses ('NO', 'NOT REALLY', 'ON TIME AND DID THE WORK') with no detail, all rated 5 stars. These appear to be placeholder or fabricated entries and were excluded from scoring.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Approximately 100+ reviews contain no text content but carry 5-star ratings. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data, but their presence inflates the raw star average.
• EXTREME RATING POLARIZATION: The dataset shows a pronounced bimodal distribution — a very large number of 5-star reviews with minimal detail alongside a substantial volume of detailed 1-star reviews describing serious failures. This pattern is consistent with either review manipulation on the positive end or a company with highly inconsistent service quality.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS ARE SYSTEMIC: Pricing complaints are not isolated incidents — they span multiple years, multiple geographic locations, and multiple service types. Charges ranging from $200-$900 for simple drain snaking (15-30 minutes of work) are documented repeatedly. This is a structural business practice issue, not individual technician behavior.
• NO-SHOW AND SCHEDULING FAILURES: A significant number of reviews describe confirmed appointments where technicians never arrived and no communication was provided. This is a recurring operational failure across multiple franchise locations.
• MULTI-FRANCHISE DATASET: Reviews appear to span dozens of different Roto-Rooter franchise locations across the United States. Scores reflect the brand aggregate, not any single location. Individual location quality varies significantly.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews with substantive content are dated between 2020-2025, which is within the relevant scoring window. Older reviews (pre-2015) were given reduced weight.

This WW Score of 72.4 is based on a very large dataset (1,456 reviews) and carries HIGH statistical confidence in its directional accuracy, but should be interpreted as a brand-level aggregate across many franchise locations — individual location quality varies substantially, and the systemic pricing and scheduling issues documented here may not apply equally to all franchises.

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.

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.

A-1 Plumbing and Heating has a strong base of satisfied customers who consistently praise responsiveness, punctuality, and technical skill — particularly from technicians Nick, Shawn, and others across what appears to be a long operating history. However, the review set contains a meaningful number of negative reviews (approximately 14–15 out of 125) citing serious concerns: no-shows, missed appointments, overcharging, incomplete work, unprofessional conduct, and in one case a suspected bait-and-switch on pricing. Pricing feedback is mixed — several reviewers praised fair and reasonable rates while others explicitly called out overcharging and inflated labor costs. Project completion is similarly split, with multiple reviews describing abandoned or incomplete jobs alongside many describing thorough, same-day resolutions. The score reflects a genuinely capable company with recurring reliability and professionalism failures that cannot be ignored.

• CLUSTERING CONCERN: A large number of reviews (approximately 14) share the exact same date of 2024-06-09, which is statistically unusual and may indicate review manipulation, bulk submission, or platform data normalization. These reviews should be treated with reduced confidence.
• RECENCY NOTE: Reviews span from 2011 to 2025. A significant portion of reviews (roughly 60+) predate 2020 and may not reflect current service quality. More recent reviews (2022–2025) show a mixed-to-negative trend with several 1-star complaints.
• NEGATIVE PATTERN: Multiple independent reviewers describe no-shows, missed appointments, and unreturned calls — a recurring operational failure across different time periods (2011, 2013, 2014, 2016, 2023, 2024).
• PRICING COMPLAINTS: At least 4 reviewers explicitly cited overcharging or pricing that felt deceptive, including one describing a bait-and-switch from a $45 estimate fee to $100, and another alleging charges for a same-day visit that was actually next-day.
• INCOMPLETE WORK: At least 2 reviews describe technicians leaving before completing all requested work, and one describes a drain issue that was not resolved despite payment of $200.
• SUSPICIOUS RATING ANOMALY: One review (2015-11-20) gives a 1-star rating but the review text reads positively ('Prompt professional plumbing company... satisfied... Would recommend'). This may indicate a data entry error or platform issue and was excluded from scoring.
• MULTI-TECHNICIAN OPERATION: Reviews reference multiple technicians (Nick, Shawn, Sean, Gary, Frank, Eric) across different eras, suggesting this may be a larger operation or franchise rather than a single-owner business. Quality consistency across technicians cannot be assumed.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large review volume, but consumers should weigh it cautiously given recurring negative patterns around reliability and pricing, a suspicious cluster of same-date reviews, and a wide time span that may obscure meaningful changes in service quality over time.

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.