Find Nearby Plumbers In Chicago, Illinois

A Chicago Handyman / Ally Handyman has a strong overall track record across a large volume of reviews, with the vast majority of customers praising punctuality, communication, and responsiveness. Pricing is consistently described as fair and reasonable, with multiple reviewers noting the contractor honored quoted prices and even saved customers money. However, a meaningful cluster of negative reviews — particularly involving Tim — describes serious workmanship failures including a health-hazard sawdust incident, an improperly installed garbage disposal that required a licensed plumber to fix, and an incomplete job with uneven picture hanging and a broken water filter. One review involving Mark describes a worker who abandoned a job mid-project, refused to read instructions, and was rude to the customer. These incidents meaningfully suppress scores across all dimensions, particularly project completion and experience, preventing a higher overall score despite the predominantly positive review base.

• Multiple reviews with no text content (only a rating of 5.0) were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence — these blank or near-blank reviews ('unknown', '.', empty) may inflate the perceived review count without contributing meaningful data.
• Two separate negative reviews from July 2024 describe Tim leaving a sawdust health hazard in a customer's HVAC system after cutting countertop indoors and refusing to clean up. Tim's response review attempts to dismiss this as an outlier, which is a red flag pattern.
• A 2017 review describes a garbage disposal improperly installed by the handyman, requiring a licensed plumber to fix at additional cost — a clear workmanship failure.
• A 2024 negative review describes Mark abandoning a job, refusing to read product instructions, and being dismissive and rude to a female customer — a significant professionalism failure.
• A 2024 review by Tim (3-star) notes an incomplete light fixture job, uneven picture hanging, and an accidentally broken water filter — suggesting inconsistency in quality.
• A 2019 review notes a failure to return a phone call within 48 hours — a responsiveness failure.
• Reviews span from 2016 to 2025, meaning a significant portion of the review base is more than 3 years old. Recency weighting applied: more recent reviews (2024–2025) were given greater influence, and these include both strong positives and the most serious negative incidents.
• The business appears to operate under multiple names (A Chicago Handyman, Ally Handyman) and involves multiple workers (Mark, Tim, Pete, Tony), making it difficult to assess consistency across the team as a whole.
• No strong fake review patterns detected, though the large cluster of undated or same-date 2024-06-09 reviews warrants mild caution — 15+ reviews sharing the exact same date may suggest a batch import or solicited review campaign.

This WW Score is based on a large and diverse review set spanning nearly a decade, giving it HIGH statistical confidence, but the presence of multiple documented workmanship failures, an abandoned job, and a health-hazard incident means the score should be treated as a realistic average rather than a reliable guarantee of quality — customers should vet which team member is assigned to their job.

Martin has a strong and well-documented track record of skilled workmanship across a wide variety of jobs including plumbing, electrical, tiling, carpentry, and general repairs, earning consistently high praise for quality and problem-solving ability. His professionalism score is tempered by a recurring and credible pattern of complaints about unresponsiveness, no-shows, and rude communication — issues raised across multiple independent reviews spanning several years, which meaningfully drag down what would otherwise be a higher score. Pricing is generally viewed as fair and transparent, with multiple reviewers noting he came in under estimate or proactively saved clients money, though one reviewer flagged overcharging and another found rates high for the scope of work. Project completion is strong when Martin does show up, with reviewers consistently noting jobs are finished thoroughly, on time, and with cleanup included, but the no-show and ghosting complaints introduce a meaningful reliability risk that prevents a top-tier score. The volume and time span of reviews (2008–2021) provide high statistical confidence, though the most recent reviews are now several years old and current performance cannot be confirmed.

• RESPONSIVENESS PATTERN — At least 6 independent reviews (2014, 2015 x2, 2016, 2017) explicitly describe Martin failing to return calls, emails, or voicemails, or going completely unresponsive after initial contact. This is a consistent and credible pattern, not isolated incidents.
• NO-SHOW / CANCELLATION PATTERN — Multiple reviews (2017, 2015) describe Martin confirming appointments and then cancelling at the last minute or simply not showing up, with one reviewer noting he was rude when confronted about it.
• RUDE COMMUNICATION — Two reviews (2016, 2011) document Martin responding rudely to pricing questions or customer pushback, including a published email exchange where Martin told a customer to 'try Craigslist' after a pricing disagreement.
• RECENCY CONCERN — The most recent review is from September 2021, now over 3 years ago. The majority of reviews are from 2009–2019. Current performance and business status cannot be verified from this dataset.
• REVIEW DISTRIBUTION — The overwhelming majority of reviews are 5-star, but the negative reviews are specific, detailed, and independently worded, lending them credibility. No fake review pattern detected; negative reviews appear genuine and are consistent with each other.
• PRICING INCONSISTENCY — One reviewer felt overcharged ($100 for 30 minutes of light/painting work), while most others praised affordability. Pricing perception may vary significantly by job type.

This WW Score is based on a large and diverse review set spanning over a decade, giving it high statistical confidence, but the recurring no-show and unresponsiveness complaints are credible and material enough that prospective customers should verify current availability and responsiveness before committing to Martin for time-sensitive work.

Preferred Plumbing earns strong marks across all four dimensions, with professionalism being the most consistently praised attribute — reviewers repeatedly highlight courteous, friendly technicians (Mike, Russ, Miguel, MJ, Brian) who clean up after themselves and communicate clearly. Pricing is generally viewed as fair and reasonable, though two notable negative reviews raise concerns about undisclosed overtime charges and a callback visit being billed separately for an issue the installer should have caught before leaving. Project completion is the weakest dimension: while the majority of jobs are described as completed promptly and correctly, there are credible complaints about a missed appointment with no call, a failed callback after a pipe re-leaked, and a bathtub drain fix that was only temporary — these meaningfully drag the score down. Experience scores well, with multiple reviewers noting skilled, knowledgeable technicians who solved stubborn or complex problems efficiently across a range of plumbing tasks.

• IRRELEVANT REVIEWS DETECTED: At least 6 reviews clearly reference a 'Dr. Johnson' and appear to be for a medical practice, not a plumbing company. These were excluded from scoring as they contain no usable data about Preferred Plumbing.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The detailed review about the black bean garbage disposal incident (MJ initials) appears twice with nearly identical text — once dated 2022-06-10 and once dated 2021-11-30. Only one instance was counted per dimension to avoid score inflation.
• BLANK REVIEWS: At least 6 reviews contain no text whatsoever despite carrying 5-star ratings. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence.
• NEGATIVE SIGNALS ON PROJECT COMPLETION: One reviewer (2012) reported a re-leaking pipe after repair, two missed appointments, and no return calls. A separate reviewer (2022) reported a toilet running immediately after installation with a charge for the callback fix, plus a bathtub drain that failed again weeks after repair. These are material quality and follow-through concerns.
• PRICING TRANSPARENCY CONCERN: One detailed 2-star review (2016) describes being charged $415 in overtime without prior disclosure, with the owner initially deflecting blame onto the customer for not asking. While the owner partially remedied the situation, this pattern of non-disclosure is a notable flag.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of substantive, detailed reviews are from 2020–2025, which is a positive sign. However, the two most serious negative reviews (missed appointments/no callbacks; billing dispute) are from 2012 and 2016 respectively, and may reflect older business practices. More recent negative signals (2022 callback charge, 2021 no-show) suggest some issues persist.
• GENERIC PRAISE: Several short reviews ('Awesome people', 'Great service!!!', 'Reliable and reasonable') lack specifics and contribute limited scoring value. They were noted but weighted minimally.

This WW Score is based on a substantial volume of reviews with usable plumbing-specific content and carries HIGH overall confidence, but consumers should weigh the recurring — if infrequent — complaints about billing transparency, incomplete work, and missed callbacks before making a hiring decision.

Rosso Handyman Services has a strong overall track record across a large review base, with Mo consistently praised for prompt communication, punctuality, and friendly demeanor. The majority of customers report jobs completed fully and on time, often same-day or next-day, across a wide variety of tasks including plumbing, electrical, drywall, and general handyman work. Pricing is generally described as fair and reasonable, though two notable negative reviews raise concerns: one customer felt overcharged and potentially misled about the complexity of a light fixture centering job, and another experienced a complete no-show with no offer to reschedule. These incidents meaningfully temper the otherwise positive picture, particularly for professionalism and project completion. Experience scores are supported by multiple specific mentions of technical competence, problem-solving, and quality workmanship, though the arc-fault breaker incident where Mo arrived with the wrong part introduces a minor caveat.

• Two substantive negative reviews (1-star and 2-star) describe serious professionalism failures: one no-show with no rescheduling offer, and one instance of potential price inflation and defensive behavior when workmanship was questioned. These are not outliers to dismiss.
• One review (2021-10-21) provides no actual service data — the reviewer had not yet hired Mo and was only rating his responsiveness. This review was excluded from dimension scoring as it contains no usable service quality data.
• One review (2021-03-18) similarly covers only a referral interaction with no completed work. Excluded from dimension scoring.
• A mild pattern of generic praise exists across several shorter reviews ('great service,' 'quick response,' 'highly recommend') with no specific details. These are not flagged as definitively fake but do reduce scoring confidence slightly for those individual mentions.
• No confirmed fake review pattern detected overall — the review set contains sufficient specificity, varied language, negative reviews, and a spread of dates to appear largely authentic.
• Review recency is generally good — the majority of reviews fall within 2021–2024, with the most recent dated October 2024. No significant recency concern.

This WW Score is based on 36 reviews spanning approximately three years with strong mention counts across all four dimensions, two credible negative reviews that have been factored into scoring, and no strong indicators of fake review manipulation — the score can be considered moderately reliable, though prospective customers should weigh the no-show and pricing integrity incidents carefully before hiring.

A-1 Patrick's Plumbing & Sewer has a strong overall track record built on consistent praise for technical skill, transparent pricing, and professional communication across a wide range of complex jobs. Multiple reviewers specifically highlighted Patrick's honesty, his willingness to stick to quoted prices even when work exceeded expectations, and his ability to diagnose problems that other plumbers missed. However, two negative reviews meaningfully drag down the scores: one describes Patrick leaving a pipe disconnected and refusing to return after a pricing dispute, and another reports two unreturned calls during an emergency — a serious responsiveness failure. These incidents are not isolated to very old reviews, with the responsiveness complaint dating to late 2023, which carries elevated recency weight. Pricing is generally praised as fair and competitive, but the one instance of a mid-job estimate escalation of 10x introduces a credible concern that prevents a higher score in that dimension.

• One review (2014) describes an abandoned job — pipe left disconnected after a pricing dispute and refusal to return. This is a serious project completion and professionalism failure that is weighted accordingly.
• One review (2023-12-01) reports two unreturned calls during a plumbing emergency with no follow-up. This is a recent responsiveness failure and carries elevated weight due to recency.
• Several older reviews (2016–2018) use enthusiastic but somewhat generic praise. While most include specific details, a small subset lack enough specifics to be fully weighted. No strong fake review pattern detected overall.
• The majority of reviews are older than 12 months. Only 2 reviews fall within the past 12 months (2024-06-24 and 2024-05-01), both positive. The 2023 negative review is the most recent signal of a potential service issue and is treated with elevated recency weight.

This WW Score is based on 19 reviews spanning approximately 10 years, with HIGH mention counts across all four dimensions, making it statistically reliable — however, the presence of two substantive negative reviews (one involving abandoned work, one involving unresponsiveness as recently as late 2023) introduces meaningful uncertainty, and prospective customers should weigh those incidents carefully alongside the otherwise strong positive record.

Central Plumbing receives consistently strong marks across all four dimensions, with professionalism being the most frequently praised attribute — punctuality, friendliness, cleanliness, and responsiveness are cited repeatedly across many reviews spanning multiple years. Pricing is noted positively by several reviewers, including one mention of a payment plan and another explicitly noting no commission-based upselling, which adds credibility to the value claims. Project completion is generally strong, with reviewers describing multi-visit jobs and follow-through, though one significant negative review describes a botched drain unclogging that broke a cable in the pipe, required $1,500 in concrete repair, and resulted in the company still billing $270 for the failed work — this materially drags down both the project completion and experience scores. Technical skill is praised in the majority of reviews, but that one detailed negative incident involving inexperienced handling of a drain cable is a concrete, specific complaint that cannot be dismissed and is weighted accordingly.

• One serious negative review (2021-02-10) describes a cable broken inside a bathtub drain pipe, requiring $1,500 in concrete repair by a third party, followed by Central Plumbing billing $270 for the failed service. This is a specific, credible, and materially negative data point that has been factored into both project_completion and experience scores.
• Several reviews are older than 3 years (2013–2018 range), and the most recent reviews are from 2024. The older reviews may not reflect current service quality. Recency weighting was applied — more recent reviews (2024) were given slightly higher weight.
• A few reviews are brief and generic (e.g., 'Simply the best. Over 10 jobs completed with 100% satisfaction.' and 'Jason and TJ both did a very good job.') with minimal specifics. While not conclusively fake, these contribute limited evidentiary value and were weighted conservatively.
• No reviews mention hidden charges or billing disputes beyond the one negative review, which is a positive signal for pricing transparency.

This WW Score is based on 17 reviews with strong dimension coverage across all four categories, yielding HIGH confidence overall, though the presence of one credible and detailed negative review and several older reviews means the score should be treated as a solid but not unconditional endorsement.