Find Nearby Plumbers In Champaign, Illinois

This contractor receives strong praise for fair and competitive pricing, with multiple reviewers explicitly noting charges well below market rate and no price gouging. Professionalism scores are pulled down meaningfully by two significant failures: a clerical error that sent a customer to collections without any prior contact, and a technician arriving at the wrong address entirely. Project completion is the most penalized dimension, as one reviewer experienced a failed roof leak repair where the same problem recurred and the company sought additional payment rather than honoring the original fix. On the positive side, several reviewers highlight prompt response times, knowledgeable technicians, and quality workmanship across plumbing and appliance work. The mixed record across both older and more recent reviews suggests inconsistency rather than uniform quality.

• Several reviews are significantly dated: 3 of 8 reviews are from 2016–2018, which is 6–8 years old. These carry reduced weight under recency rules.
• The 1-star review from 2020 (roof leak) describes a clear project completion failure — the same leak recurred and the company sought additional payment, suggesting the original job was not completed correctly.
• The 1-star review from 2016 describes a serious administrative failure — wrong address recorded, no follow-up communication, and the customer was sent to collections over a $112 bill they never received. This reflects poorly on professionalism and internal processes.
• No strong fake review patterns detected, though two reviews (2018 and 2017) are brief and generic with limited specifics. Confidence is not significantly reduced but noted.
• The 2023 review covers microwave installation via Lowes, which may reflect a subcontracted relationship rather than a direct hire — context differs slightly from core plumbing service reviews.

This WW Score is based on 8 reviews spanning 2016–2024, with sufficient dimension coverage to calculate a score, but the presence of two substantive negative reviews and several older reviews means the score should be treated as a moderate-confidence estimate that may not fully reflect current service quality.

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.

Whalen Plumbing shows strong technical competence and reasonable pricing across multiple positive reviews, but a severe professionalism incident significantly impacts the overall score. Three older reviews (2019–2020) praise prompt response, fair pricing, and quality work. However, a 2023 review documents serious professionalism failures: failure to honor an estimate, aggressive collection tactics including harassment on a holiday, multiple threatening calls, and lien threats. This recent incident directly contradicts the positive historical pattern and raises concerns about current business practices.

• CRITICAL: One recent review (June 2023) documents severe professionalism violations including harassment, threatening behavior, and failure to honor estimate. This is a material red flag that contradicts earlier positive reviews.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Three of four reviews are from 2019–2020 (3–5 years old). The most recent review is highly negative, suggesting possible deterioration in service quality or business practices.
• SAMPLE SIZE: Only 4 reviews total limits confidence in the overall score. Additional recent reviews would be needed to determine if the 2023 incident is an outlier or reflects current standards.

This score should be treated with caution due to small sample size and significant recency bias. The 2023 harassment and estimate violation incident is recent and severe enough to warrant serious consideration despite older positive reviews; potential customers should investigate whether this represents current business practices before engaging this contractor.

A-1 Plumbing shows a genuinely mixed track record across these six reviews. Professionalism scores moderately well overall — multiple reviewers praised courteous, responsive service including same-day Saturday availability and a follow-up call — but two reviews describe workers who were unresponsive to callbacks and failed to return as promised, which meaningfully drags the score down. Project completion is the most concerning dimension: two of the five reviews that address it describe incomplete or defective work on the first visit, including crooked piping, a leaking installation, improperly set floats, and a faucet left with hot and cold reversed — though one reviewer noted the crew did eventually return to correct the issues. Experience is similarly split, with skilled problem-solving evident in the sewer line repair but clear workmanship deficiencies noted in the sump pump and faucet installations, one of which involved a teenager doing hands-on work under supervision. Pricing data is extremely limited, with only one reviewer noting that work came in at the low end of the quoted range, making that score low-confidence.

• All reviews are older than 9 years (most recent: 2015-06-03). This score reflects historical performance only and may not represent current service quality.
• Two reviews explicitly describe a pattern of an older supervisor directing a younger worker who performed the hands-on installation — in both cases the workmanship was deficient. This may indicate a systemic training or quality-control issue.
• One reviewer (1-star) reported that A-1 did not answer or return phone calls after a faulty installation, which is a serious professionalism and accountability concern.
• The 3-star reviewer noted the crew admitted to having called a different customer instead of them, suggesting disorganized communication practices.
• Small review sample (6 reviews) limits statistical reliability. Scores should be treated as directional rather than definitive.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability due to the small sample size of 6 reviews, the age of all reviews (2013–2015), and the presence of two substantive negative reviews that reveal specific, recurring workmanship and follow-through issues — treat this score as a cautionary signal rather than a confident endorsement.

This contractor shows significant inconsistency across reviews spanning 2016–2023. While multiple reviews praise technical skill and problem-solving ability (experience dimension scores well at 78), serious concerns emerge around professionalism and pricing. Negative reviews explicitly cite poor follow-up on callbacks, arrogant communication, and aggressive markup practices (parts marked up 100%+). Positive reviews emphasize honesty and fair pricing, but negative reviews directly contradict this, suggesting either inconsistent service delivery or a pattern of escalating issues over time. Project completion is hampered by documented failures to return and fix defects. The contractor appears capable but unreliable in accountability and transparent pricing.

• RECENCY CONCERN: Most reviews are 3–7 years old (2016–2021). Only 2 reviews from 2023 and 2022; both are 1-star complaints about unresolved issues and poor follow-up. Recent trend is negative.
• PATTERN OF UNRESOLVED CALLBACKS: Multiple reviews (2023, 2019) explicitly state the contractor refused or failed to return to fix defects. This is a serious red flag for project completion reliability.
• PRICING INCONSISTENCY: Positive reviews mention 'fair pricing' and 'reasonable rates,' but negative reviews cite double markups on parts and charges significantly above estimates. This suggests either selective honesty or deteriorating business practices over time.
• FAMILY BUSINESS DYNAMICS: Two reviews mention 'son' involvement with concerns about inefficiency and lack of accountability. One review notes the son 'stands around watching' and charged for time spent fetching parts.
• TONE ESCALATION IN NEGATIVE REVIEWS: The most recent negative review (2023) uses language like 'Horrible customer service' and 'Don't waste your time.' The 2019 review states the contractor refused to return, claiming the customer 'complains too much.' This suggests deteriorating customer relations.

This score should be treated with MODERATE confidence. While based on 9 reviews with adequate mention counts, the data is heavily weighted toward older reviews (2016–2021), and the two most recent reviews (2022–2023) are both 1-star with serious unresolved complaints. The contractor's service quality appears to have declined or become inconsistent over time. Potential customers should prioritize the recent negative feedback and request references from jobs completed in the past 12 months.

LD Mechanical shows significant inconsistency in service quality. While three older reviews (2018) praise professionalism, responsiveness, and fair pricing, two more recent reviews (2018, 2023) document serious failures in project completion, follow-through, and customer service. The company failed to complete HVAC repairs across multiple visits, misdiagnosed problems, and ignored customer callbacks. Professionalism scores are dragged down by poor receptionist communication and lack of accountability. Experience appears adequate when work is attempted, but completion failures and inability to solve problems correctly undermine overall trustworthiness.

• RECENCY CONCERN: Three reviews are from November 2018 (5+ years old); only one recent review from December 2023. Older positive reviews may not reflect current operations.
• PATTERN OF FAILURE: Two separate customers reported incomplete work, failed callbacks, and lack of follow-through. This is not isolated—suggests systemic issue.
• MISDIAGNOSIS: Customer paid $300 for incorrect diagnosis and unnecessary part replacement; external contractor identified actual problem as clogged drain.
• CUSTOMER SERVICE BREAKDOWN: Receptionist response ('Can't you just turn off the air conditioning?') indicates poor training and dismissive attitude toward legitimate complaints.
• NO CALLBACK PATTERN: Multiple reviews mention ignored calls and no-shows, suggesting operational/management problems.

This score should be treated with caution due to small sample size (5 reviews) and significant recency bias (3 reviews from 5+ years ago). However, the pattern of project completion failures and customer service breakdowns in recent reviews is concerning and suggests the company may have declined from its earlier reputation.