Find Nearby Plumbers In Chicago, Illinois

Excellent Plumbing demonstrates strong overall performance across all dimensions, with particularly high marks for professionalism (86.5) driven by consistent praise for punctuality, courtesy, and responsiveness. Project completion scores (84.8) reflect reliable job finishing and follow-through, though some negative reviews cite incomplete work or callback issues. Experience/skill (85.3) is well-documented with technical competence and problem-solving ability frequently mentioned. Pricing (74.2) is the weakest dimension, with numerous complaints about high costs, unexpected charges, and refusal to honor advertised coupons, though many customers acknowledge fair value despite premium rates. The WW Score of 82.1 reflects a reliable, professional contractor with strong execution but pricing concerns that temper overall satisfaction.

• FAKE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: Multiple reviews (at least 3-4) contain nearly identical phrasing ('Very knowledgeable / Very courteous / Wonderful') with no specific details, all rated 5.0 on same dates (June 2025), suggesting potential review manipulation or template responses.
• DUPLICATE REVIEWS: Two reviews are word-for-word identical (spigot replacement story dated 2025-06-07 and 2025-06-04), indicating possible review duplication.
• MULTIPLE EMPTY REVIEWS: At least 12 reviews contain no text, only 5.0 ratings, which cannot be meaningfully analyzed.
• SIGNIFICANT NEGATIVE OUTLIERS: Several 1-star reviews (2022-07-15, 2022-08-04, 2022-10-15, 2020-08-19) describe serious service failures including no-shows, combative customer service, incomplete work, and non-responsiveness. These are credible detailed complaints that contradict the overwhelmingly positive pattern.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS CLUSTER: Approximately 15-20 reviews explicitly criticize pricing as excessive, with some customers reporting $700-$1000+ charges for routine work. This is a consistent and credible concern across multiple time periods.
• RECENCY BIAS: Majority of reviews are from 2024-2025 (past 12 months), with older reviews (2013-2018) showing similar patterns. Recent reviews are heavily positive, which may reflect selection bias or improved service.
• COUPON/DISCOUNT DISPUTES: Multiple reviews mention refusal to honor advertised coupons or Angie's List discounts, suggesting potential pricing transparency issues.

This WW Score of 82.1 should be treated with MODERATE-TO-HIGH confidence overall, but with important caveats: the professionalism, completion, and experience scores are well-supported by 140+ detailed mentions each and appear reliable; however, the pricing score (74.2) is conservative and may understate customer dissatisfaction given the frequency and intensity of cost complaints. The presence of suspected fake reviews and multiple empty reviews reduces confidence slightly, and the cluster of serious negative incidents (no-shows, combative behavior, incomplete work) suggests the company has experienced significant service failures despite the predominantly positive recent review volume. Prospective customers should expect professional, responsive service but should negotiate pricing carefully and verify all quotes in writing.

Ed's Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism with consistently punctual arrivals, excellent communication, and courteous demeanor across 78 reviews. Technical expertise and workmanship quality are highly regarded (88.0 score, 52 mentions), with customers praising problem-solving ability and knowledge. However, project completion reliability is the primary concern (76.5 score, 68 mentions), with multiple documented instances of no-shows, rescheduling failures, and incomplete work—most notably a 2017 case where a sewer line was left partially cleared and a 2023 case involving multiple missed appointments. Pricing is perceived as fair to reasonable (81.0 score, 32 mentions), though some customers note higher costs. The business appears to struggle with capacity management and follow-through on commitments despite strong technical capabilities.

• CRITICAL: Multiple no-show and rescheduling failures documented across different time periods (2023, 2019, 2016, 2012). Pattern suggests systemic scheduling/reliability issues independent of individual incidents.
• CRITICAL: 2017 review documents incomplete work with deceptive billing—customer charged for full job despite sewer line only partially cleared, leading to immediate backup and flooding. Customer reported Ed refused callback without additional payment.
• CRITICAL: 2023 review details four separate missed appointments over 4 weeks with inconsistent excuses (damaged phone, schedule conflicts, no communication). Suggests accountability issues.
• MODERATE: Three reviews with minimal/generic text ('.' or 'unknown') rated 5.0 (2016-07-17, 2016-07-15, 2016-06-03, 2016-04-20, 2015-07-01) may indicate fake or placeholder reviews, though not conclusive.
• MODERATE: Capacity constraints acknowledged in multiple reviews (2012, 2017) where Ed is 'very busy' causing delays. This is a structural business limitation affecting reliability.
• LIMITED: One 2015 review documents inadequate diagnosis—Ed tightened toilet tank fitting but missed overflow valve issue, resulting in $1,000+ insurance claim and rate increase two weeks later.
• LIMITED: 2017 review documents electrical safety hazard (sump pump cord rigged without proper length) that Ed did not disclose to customer, creating code violation and safety risk.
• RECENCY NOTE: Most reviews are 5+ years old (2011-2017). Recent reviews (2023-2024) show both exceptional service (same-day emergency response) and severe reliability failures (multiple no-shows). Current performance trajectory unclear.

This WW Score of 82.1 should be treated with caution: while Ed's technical expertise and professionalism are genuinely strong (HIGH confidence), the project completion dimension is significantly undermined by documented no-shows, incomplete work, and deceptive billing practices that recur across multiple years, suggesting systemic rather than isolated issues. The score reflects a contractor with excellent skills but serious reliability and accountability problems that directly contradict stated commitments.

Flush Plumbing demonstrates strong overall performance across all four dimensions, with particular strengths in professionalism (84.5) and technical experience (85.0). The company excels at responsiveness, punctuality, and communication, with numerous reviews praising quick callbacks and on-time arrivals. Pricing is generally perceived as fair and competitive (81.0), though some customers noted premium charges for emergency/weekend services. Project completion scores (80.5) reflect mostly successful job execution, though a notable subset of reviews (approximately 8-10) document scheduling failures and no-shows that significantly impact reliability. The company's technical expertise is well-documented across complex sewer work, diagnostics, and problem-solving.

• SCHEDULING RELIABILITY CONCERN: Approximately 8-10 reviews (6-8% of total) document serious scheduling failures including no-shows, forgotten appointments, and failure to notify customers of delays. Reviews from 2018-2019 and 2017 show patterns of customers taking time off work only to be stood up. This is a material weakness despite overall positive sentiment.
• RECENCY BIAS: Approximately 70% of reviews are from 2024-2025 (past 12 months), while negative scheduling reviews cluster in 2015-2019. Recent reviews are overwhelmingly positive (5-star), suggesting either improved operations or potential review selection bias.
• EMERGENCY PRICING SENSITIVITY: Multiple reviews note significantly higher charges for weekend/emergency services. Some customers expressed frustration with pricing that appeared to exploit urgency (e.g., Saturday disposal replacement at 'exorbitant' rates, emergency sump pump calls). This may indicate pricing strategy targets emergency situations.
• INCONSISTENT CREW QUALITY: Several reviews note performance varies depending on which crew members are assigned. Owner Darron receives consistent praise, but some reviews indicate other technicians delivered substandard work or poor communication.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: The 2021-2025 reviews show unusually high concentration of 5-star ratings with generic praise language ('highly recommend,' 'great job,' 'professional'). However, the presence of detailed negative reviews and specific incident descriptions suggests authentic mixed feedback rather than fabricated reviews.
• FOLLOW-UP INCONSISTENCY: One 2021 review documents poor follow-up on a deleted camera inspection, though the review was later edited to note the owner (Darren) eventually resolved it. This suggests inconsistent customer service recovery processes.

This WW Score of 82.1 is reliable and well-supported by 127 reviews with HIGH confidence across all dimensions, but should be interpreted with caution regarding project completion reliability—while most jobs are completed successfully, a documented pattern of scheduling failures (6-8% of reviews) indicates the company struggles with appointment management and customer notification, which may not be fully reflected in the overall score.

This plumbing contractor demonstrates strong professionalism with consistently punctual arrivals, excellent communication, and courteous behavior across 89 reviews. Project completion is reliable with most jobs finished on time and to specification across 72 mentions. Technical expertise is evident with skilled problem-solving and quality workmanship noted in 68 reviews. However, pricing presents a significant concern: while many customers report fair pricing, a notable cluster of negative reviews (6 reviews with explicit pricing complaints) describe overcharges ranging from $100-$650 above fair market rates, with some customers reporting 2-5x markup on parts and labor. This pricing inconsistency substantially reduces the overall score despite strong performance in other dimensions.

• PRICING INCONSISTENCY DETECTED: Multiple reviews (2025-06-01, 2024-06-20, 2021-10-08, 2021-04-28, 2018-06-25, 2018-12-17) report significantly inflated pricing—markups of $100-$850 above fair market rates. This suggests either inconsistent pricing practices or selective overcharging of certain customers.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: Approximately 30 reviews from 2025-04-09 and 2025-03-10 contain minimal detail, generic praise, or are blank (5-star ratings with no text). While not conclusively fake, the clustering of identical dates with sparse content warrants caution. These reviews lack the specificity and narrative detail present in authentic reviews.
• RECENCY BIAS: Majority of detailed positive reviews are from 2025 (recent), while negative pricing reviews span 2018-2021 (older). Recent reviews may not reflect current pricing practices, but historical pattern suggests systemic pricing issues.
• CONFLICTING NARRATIVES ON PRICING: Some reviews explicitly praise 'fair pricing' and 'reasonable rates,' while others describe the same company as charging double or triple market rates for identical services. This contradiction suggests either highly variable pricing or selective customer targeting.
• ASSISTANT BEHAVIOR CONCERN: One 2024-06-20 review reports the plumber was 'extremely rude to his assistant,' which contradicts the otherwise professional demeanor described in other reviews.

This WW Score of 82.1 should be treated with MODERATE-TO-HIGH confidence for professionalism and project completion, but MODERATE confidence overall due to significant and recurring pricing complaints that are not adequately offset by positive reviews. The contractor excels in responsiveness, technical skill, and job completion, but the pricing dimension is unreliable and suggests customers should obtain multiple quotes and clarify all costs in writing before engaging services.

Splash Plumber demonstrates strong overall performance across all four dimensions, with particular strengths in experience/technical knowledge (86.0) and pricing fairness (85.0). Professionalism is solid at 84.0, reflecting consistent positive feedback on punctuality, communication, and attitude. Project completion scores lower at 78.0, driven by multiple documented instances of poor follow-through, unresponsiveness to callbacks, and incomplete work—particularly concerning given the 35% weight on this dimension. The company shows a pattern of excellent initial service followed by communication breakdowns on follow-up work. Despite these gaps, the high volume of mentions across all dimensions (42–89 reviews per category) provides strong confidence in the scoring.

• CRITICAL: Multiple reviews document ghosting and non-responsiveness after initial contact or after job completion. At least 7 reviews explicitly mention Tom or the team failing to return calls, texts, or follow up on promised callbacks (dates: 2024-06-09, 2023-08-31, 2021-08-25, 2021-07-08, 2020-06-10, 2020-04-26, 2019-05-25, 2018-08-10). This is a systemic issue that directly contradicts the professionalism and project completion scores.
• PATTERN DETECTED: One review (2017-12-04) describes a severe service failure involving incomplete work, a hole left in a wall for over a year, and alleged ghosting. Another review (2020-03-20) reports being charged three times for the same unresolved issue, suggesting diagnostic or follow-through problems.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most reviews are from 2017–2021 (older than 3 years). Only ~15 reviews are from 2024–2025. Recent reviews (2025-03-11, 2024-11-11, 2024-06-09) are positive, but the volume of recent data is limited.
• INCONSISTENCY: The company receives both 5-star reviews praising responsiveness and 1-star reviews criticizing non-responsiveness. This suggests either inconsistent service quality or that responsiveness may depend on workload/scheduling pressure.
• EMPTY REVIEWS: Two reviews contain only a 5-star rating with no text (2022-06-10, 2020-06-10, 2019-06-11). These provide no actionable data but do not appear to be fake—likely incomplete submissions.
• PROJECT COMPLETION RED FLAG: Review from 2021-07-08 explicitly states 'The communication to get things scheduled was non-existent. I had to send 3-5 texts just to get one response back.' This directly undermines the high professionalism score and suggests communication issues are tied to scheduling/project management, not just initial contact.

This WW Score of 82.1 should be treated with caution despite HIGH overall confidence. While the volume of mentions is robust, there is a documented pattern of communication and follow-up failures that contradicts the strong professionalism and project completion scores. The company appears to deliver excellent initial service and technical work but struggles with responsiveness on callbacks and follow-through. Prospective customers should be aware that positive reviews often come from single-job experiences, while negative reviews frequently cite unresolved issues and ghosting on follow-up work. The score reflects strong technical capability but masks a significant operational weakness in project management and customer communication.

CJ Plumbing demonstrates strong overall performance with particular strengths in professionalism, project completion, and technical expertise. The company excels at responsiveness, punctuality, and skilled workmanship, with numerous customers praising Dmitry's communication and Lenny's technical abilities. However, pricing emerges as a notable weakness, with multiple customers expressing concern about hourly rates ($250-$275/hour) and feeling overcharged relative to work performed. Two negative reviews from 2022 and one from 2019 cite communication failures and scheduling issues, though most recent reviews (past 18 months) are overwhelmingly positive. The company's willingness to provide honest advice (e.g., recommending customers use handymen for simple jobs) adds credibility.

• PRICING CONCERN: Multiple reviews (at least 5) explicitly mention high hourly rates ($250-$275/hour minimum) and feeling overcharged. Two detailed complaints (Oct 2024, Oct 2024) describe situations where customers felt the company charged excessive labor for simple tasks or failed to explore cost-effective alternatives before billing.
• QUALITY INCONSISTENCY: One recent review (Nov 2024) reports a pipe repair that failed within 8 months and the company refused warranty coverage, contradicting the company's stated commitment to standing behind work.
• COMMUNICATION FAILURES: Two 2022 reviews document poor communication—one citing ghosting after a dispute proposal, another describing vague estimates and slow email follow-up. A 2019 review reports a no-show appointment.
• RECENCY BIAS: The vast majority of positive reviews are from 2021-2024 (approximately 85 reviews). Older reviews (2010-2019) are sparse but consistently positive, suggesting either a change in business practices or a shift in review platform usage.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: While not conclusive, the extremely high concentration of 5-star reviews (approximately 88 out of 100) with similar praise language ("highly recommend," "professional," "responsive") warrants caution. However, reviews contain sufficient specific detail (names of technicians, specific problems, pricing details) to suggest authenticity rather than fabrication.

This WW Score of 82.1 is reliable for assessing professionalism and project completion (both HIGH confidence with 70+ mentions), but should be interpreted cautiously regarding pricing, where LIMITED-to-MODERATE confidence data suggests the company may overcharge relative to work performed. Recent negative reviews and pricing complaints warrant consideration before engaging this contractor for price-sensitive projects.