Find Nearby Plumbers In Chicago, Illinois

Mike Krejci from Destiny Contractors demonstrates strong performance across all four dimensions based on available reviews. Professionalism is consistently praised with mentions of punctuality, accommodation of customer needs, courteous demeanor, and responsiveness (availability on Sunday, early arrival). Pricing feedback is positive with fair quotes, accurate estimates, and transparent pricing mentioned across multiple reviews. Project completion is solid with all jobs finished promptly and efficiently, including a 1-year warranty offered. Experience is evident through professional problem-solving and quality workmanship. However, the WW Score is based on only 4 reviews, limiting statistical confidence.

• Small sample size: Only 4 reviews analyzed. Score reliability improves significantly with 10+ reviews.
• Potential review pattern concern: All reviews are 5-star ratings with uniformly positive language and no critical feedback. While not definitively fake, the absence of any mixed or negative reviews is atypical and warrants caution.
• Recency mixed: Two reviews from 2023 (October, September) are over 12 months old. Only one review from 2024 (May). More recent data would strengthen confidence.
• Limited negative detail: No reviews mention any problems, delays, or areas for improvement, which is unusual for a real contractor with multiple customers.

This WW Score of 88.3 should be treated with caution due to the small sample size (4 reviews) and the suspiciously uniform 5-star pattern with no critical feedback. While the data points are positive, a minimum of 8-10 reviews with varied ratings would be needed to establish high confidence in this contractor's true performance level.

Don demonstrates strong performance across all measured dimensions. Professionalism is evidenced by responsiveness, honest evaluation, and pleasant demeanor across multiple reviews. Project completion is consistently highlighted with successful repairs and efficient execution, including a complex ejector pump fix that others had failed to resolve. Pricing feedback, while limited to two mentions, indicates fair and reasonable rates that saved customers significant expense. Experience is clearly demonstrated through versatility across plumbing, repairs, and various household tasks, with particular strength in diagnostic and problem-solving ability.

• All four reviews are 5-star ratings with uniformly positive language, which could suggest selection bias or fake reviews, though the specificity of details (dishwasher repair cost, ejector pump issue, picture hanging) provides some authenticity signals
• Sample size is small (n=4); confidence in overall score is limited by low review volume
• Most reviews are older than 12 months (3 of 4 from 2022-2023); only one review from 2023 provides recent performance data

This WW Score should be treated with caution due to the small sample size (4 reviews) and lack of recent data; while the available evidence is positive and specific, a larger and more recent review base would be needed to establish reliable confidence in Don's performance.

All three reviews are highly positive and explicitly praise professionalism, responsiveness, and work quality. Two reviews specifically mention pricing transparency and cost-effectiveness, while all three confirm job completion and follow-through. The contractor demonstrated emergency availability (10pm Friday response, New Year's Day service) and problem-solving ability. However, the small sample size (n=3) and lack of negative feedback limit confidence; no reviews mention any shortcomings or areas for improvement.

• Sample size is very small (3 reviews only) — score reliability is limited
• All reviews are 5-star with uniformly positive language; no critical feedback present
• Two reviews appear to reference different first names (John vs. Justin) — unclear if same contractor or different team members
• One review lacks a date, limiting recency assessment
• No reviews mention warranty, guarantees, or long-term follow-up

This WW Score of 88.3 should be treated with caution due to the very small sample size and absence of any critical or negative feedback; additional reviews are needed to validate this assessment.

Courtesy Plumbing earns strong marks across professionalism, project completion, and technical experience, with an enormous volume of reviews consistently praising punctuality, communication, friendliness, and thorough workmanship from named technicians like Lou, Jack, Jason, Sami, Aaron, Richard, and others. Project completion scores are high, with the vast majority of reviewers confirming jobs were finished correctly, on time, and with proper cleanup, though a small number of reviews describe abandoned follow-through, missed appointments, or work that required callbacks. The pricing dimension is the most contested dimension in the entire review set, with a meaningful cluster of negative reviews explicitly citing overcharging, hidden fees, price inflation, and quotes far above competitors — this materially drags the pricing score down from what would otherwise be a higher overall result. Negative reviews (1-star) account for roughly 8-10% of the total corpus and are specific enough in their complaints (late arrivals, excessive billing, incomplete diagnosis, poor communication on follow-up) to be treated as credible rather than outliers. The WW Score of 79.4 reflects a genuinely strong but imperfect contractor with a well-documented pricing inconsistency problem.

• PRICING CONCERN — HIGH FREQUENCY: A statistically significant number of reviews (approximately 12-15 distinct reviews) explicitly describe pricing as excessive, inconsistent, or containing hidden fees. Complaints include quotes of $850-$900 for jobs completed by others for $300-$450, a $6,800 tankless water heater quote vs. a $2,000 competitor price, $575 for a faucet replacement vs. $260 elsewhere, and $400/hr effective labor rates. This is not a fringe complaint and materially affects the pricing score.
• BLANK REVIEWS — DATA QUALITY: Approximately 20-25 reviews consist of a star rating only with no review text. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence per scoring rules. All were 5-star ratings, which slightly inflates the raw star average but cannot be used to support any dimension score.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews with substantive text span 2013 to June 2025. Reviews from 2020 onward dominate the corpus and were weighted more heavily. Older reviews (pre-2018) were noted but given reduced weight. The most recent reviews (2025) continue to reflect the same patterns as the broader corpus.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW FLAG — LOW CONFIDENCE: One review dated 2024-07-29 (1-star) uses highly generic complaint language covering every possible failure mode simultaneously (late, unskilled, overcharged, unresponsive) with no specific technician name, job type, or verifiable detail. This review pattern is consistent with a fabricated negative review. It was included in scoring but flagged for reduced weight.
• ABANDONED WORK / FOLLOW-THROUGH FAILURES: Multiple 1-star reviews describe specific failures of follow-through — a technician who agreed to a job then never called back over 3 weeks (Dec 2023), a missed appointment with no notice (Oct 2015), a job accepted that the company lacked equipment to complete (Dec 2023 Scottsdale review), and a billing dispute where the owner was unresponsive. These are credible and specific and were factored into the project completion score.
• GEOGRAPHIC SCOPE NOTE: A small number of reviews appear to reference locations outside San Diego (Aurora IL, Scottsdale AZ, Naperville IL, Covina CA, Rancho Cucamonga CA, Phoenix AZ). It is unclear if this is one company with multiple locations or review aggregation across similarly named businesses. Scores were calculated across all reviews as provided but this geographic ambiguity is flagged as a potential data integrity issue.

This WW Score is based on a very large review corpus (295 reviews) with HIGH confidence across all four dimensions, making it one of the more statistically reliable assessments possible — however, the persistent and specific pricing complaints from credible reviewers introduce meaningful uncertainty around the pricing dimension specifically, and prospective customers should request itemized written quotes before authorizing any work.

The overwhelming majority of reviews praise professionalism, punctuality, communication, and friendly demeanor across multiple named technicians including Troy, Adam, Tim, Aaron, Matt, and others, driving a strong but not perfect professionalism score. Pricing receives a moderately positive score — many reviewers explicitly call out fair, reasonable, or competitive pricing and instances where the company saved customers money, but a meaningful cluster of negative reviews cite overcharging, inflated estimates, and refusal to negotiate, which meaningfully pulls the score down. Project completion scores well overall, with most jobs described as completed correctly and on time, but several serious negative reviews describe abandoned work, misdiagnosed problems, warranty disputes, and jobs left incomplete with no follow-up, preventing a top-tier score. Experience is generally rated highly, with many reviewers noting skilled diagnostics, technical knowledge, and quality workmanship, though a handful of reviews describe poor installations, code violations, and misdiagnoses that temper the score. The WW Score of 79.4 reflects a company with a strong positive track record but a non-trivial pattern of serious complaints that prospective customers should weigh carefully.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: The review 'Excellent service!!! The faucet water control handle broke off...' appears twice with dates 2025-06-02 and 2025-05-30 — identical text, likely a duplicate submission or copy-paste fake review.
• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: The review 'I reached out for a couple of repairs I needed and was provided with upfront estimates...' appears twice with dates 2024-08-10 and 2024-07-09 — identical text.
• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: The review 'The only plumber I use (and you should use)...' appears twice with dates 2024-06-06 and 2021-06-30 — identical text.
• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: The review 'I found my plumber for life. This company is very honest...' appears twice with dates 2024-06-06 and 2023-08-06 — identical text.
• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: The review 'I use and recommend Mike The Plumber every time...' appears in near-identical form twice (2025-05-07 and 2024-06-06) with only minor wording differences, suggesting coordinated or recycled review content.
• SUSPICIOUS REVIEW CLUSTER: A large block of reviews all dated exactly 2024-06-06 00:00:00 with no specific timestamps suggests possible bulk import or artificial review injection rather than organic posting.
• SUSPICIOUS REVIEW CLUSTER: A large block of reviews all dated exactly 2023-06-07 00:00:00 with no specific timestamps raises the same concern.
• SUSPICIOUS REVIEW CLUSTER: A large block of reviews all dated exactly 2023-08-07 00:00:00 with no specific timestamps raises the same concern.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Multiple reviews contain no text and only a 5-star rating (at least 8 identified). These provide no usable data and inflate the star average without substantive feedback.
• MULTI-ENTITY CONCERN: Several reviews reference '1st Home and Commercial Services' and HVAC work, which appears to be a different company entirely from Mike the Plumber / Mike & Sons Plumbing LLC. These reviews may have been incorrectly attributed and were excluded from scoring where clearly unrelated.
• SERIOUS NEGATIVE PATTERN: Multiple 1-star reviews describe incomplete work, misdiagnosis, warranty refusal, unapproved charges, no-shows, and unresponsive owners after payment. These are not isolated incidents and span multiple years (2012–2025), suggesting a recurring pattern of post-payment service failure.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS: Several reviewers explicitly describe estimates they considered grossly inflated (e.g., $2,984 vs $400 from a competitor; $6,500 vs $2,500; $1,500/hr equivalent charges), which materially impacts the pricing dimension score.
• OWNER CONDUCT COMPLAINTS: Multiple reviews describe the owner (Mike) as unresponsive after payment, dismissive of complaints, and in one case verbally abusive. This is a notable flag for customer service reliability.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews with specific timestamps are from 2023–2025, providing reasonably current data. However, the bulk-dated clusters (2023-06-07, 2023-08-07, 2024-06-06) make it difficult to assess true recency distribution with confidence.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large volume of reviews, but should be interpreted with caution given confirmed duplicate reviews, suspicious bulk-dated review clusters, blank rating-only submissions, and a consistent pattern of serious post-payment complaints spanning multiple years — prospective customers are strongly advised to read negative reviews in full before hiring.

Rocket Plumbing earns strong marks for professionalism and experience, with the vast majority of reviewers praising friendly, courteous, knowledgeable technicians by name across many years of reviews. Project completion is generally solid, with same-day and next-day service frequently cited, but is meaningfully dragged down by a recurring pattern of no-shows, cancellations, and at least one instance of a toilet left unusable for two weeks without follow-up. Pricing is the weakest dimension: while many reviewers praise fair or transparent pricing, a notable minority explicitly flagged charges as exorbitant (e.g., $389–$644 for drain rodding, $399 for a faucet install, and one customer charged significantly over their quote with no resolution), preventing a higher score. Reliability concerns — particularly for commercial or repeat clients — appear in multiple independent reviews and represent a genuine operational weakness that tempers an otherwise strong reputation.

• RELIABILITY PATTERN: At least 4 independent reviews (1-star and 2-star) cite no-shows, repeated cancellations, or failure to follow up after initial visits — this is a consistent and credible pattern, not isolated incidents.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS: Multiple reviewers across different years explicitly called out pricing as excessive or higher than competitors, including one customer charged over $1,200 vs. their quote with no resolution reported, and another charged more than their gas leak quote.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION (LOW-MODERATE): One review (April 2025, 5-star, 'Jarod Garbor') describes selling an AC and furnace — a service unrelated to plumbing — and reads as a misplaced or potentially fabricated review. It was excluded from scoring. A small number of other reviews use generic praise with no specifics, though most reviews are sufficiently detailed to be credible.
• BLANK REVIEW: One 1-star review (March 2025) contains no text and was excluded from dimension scoring but counted in total reviews analyzed.
• RECENCY NOTE: The review set spans from 2016 to May 2025. The majority of reviews are from 2020 onward. Negative reliability reviews appear in both older (2018–2021) and recent (2024–2025) periods, suggesting the issue has not been fully resolved.
• DISCOUNT-FOR-REVIEW CONCERN: At least one reviewer explicitly noted that Rocket Plumbing offers a discount in exchange for a Google review, which is a conflict of interest that may inflate the overall star rating and review volume.

This WW Score is based on a large, multi-year review set with high mention counts across all four dimensions, making it statistically reliable — however, the score should be interpreted with caution given documented patterns of no-shows and pricing disputes that suggest inconsistent service delivery, particularly for commercial clients and complex jobs.