Find Nearby Plumbers In Chicago, Illinois

All Town Plumbing has a large and generally positive review base spanning over a decade, with consistent praise for responsiveness, after-hours availability, and knowledgeable technicians — particularly Jerry and Rigo. Pricing is frequently cited as fair or affordable, and the majority of customers report jobs completed same-day or as promised. However, the score is meaningfully tempered by a notable cluster of serious negative reviews describing scare tactics and upselling, poor workmanship with cheap materials, a dramatic cost overrun from $800 to $1800 with disputed quality, a no-call/no-show, and at least two instances of rude or dismissive behavior. These negative reviews are specific, credible, and detailed enough to carry significant weight against the otherwise positive trend. The recency of reviews is generally strong, with many from 2024–2025, though a substantial portion of the review base dates from 2016–2022.

• FAKE REVIEW CONCERN — MODERATE: A significant number of reviews from the 2018–2022 period share identical or near-identical phrasing (e.g., two reviews dated 2021-06-10 are word-for-word duplicates: 'Jerry's the best! I liked that I dealt with him and not some call center. He's extremely experienced and resolved my issue quickly.'). Additionally, several reviews dated 2017–2020 use suspiciously generic language with no job-specific detail. Confidence in the aggregate positive score is slightly reduced as a result.
• BLANK REVIEWS: At least 6 reviews contain no text whatsoever (only a star rating). These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data.
• UNKNOWN/PLACEHOLDER REVIEWS: Three reviews contain only the word 'unknown' as text. These were excluded from dimension scoring.
• SERIOUS NEGATIVE INCIDENTS: Multiple detailed 1-star reviews describe specific misconduct including: (1) upselling via scare tactics on a shutoff valve and supply line at $200+ for ~$15 parts; (2) installation of cheap plastic gaskets that broke within a week with no improvement to the stated problem; (3) a job that ballooned from $800 to $1800 with disputed workmanship, alleged intoxication of the owner on-site, and incomplete repairs at time of payment demand; (4) a no-call/no-show after a confirmed appointment; (5) an arrogant technician attempting to sell an irrelevant product; (6) a boiler tune-up resulting in dangerously high CO2 levels with rude follow-up service.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews with substantive content are from 2018–2025, which is acceptable for scoring purposes. Reviews from 2013–2015 were given reduced weight. Most recent reviews (2024–2025) remain largely positive, suggesting the serious negative incidents may be isolated or historical rather than a current pattern — but this cannot be confirmed with certainty.
• MULTIPLE TECHNICIANS: Reviews reference at least five different technicians (Jerry, Rigo, Sean/Shawn, Coco, Chuck, Dan, Jonathan). Quality and conduct appear to vary by individual, which may explain the wide variance between glowing and severely negative reviews.

This WW Score is based on a large review sample (141 reviews) with HIGH confidence across all four dimensions, but should be interpreted with caution due to confirmed duplicate reviews suggesting possible fake or incentivized submissions, a meaningful number of credible and detailed negative reviews describing serious service failures, and quality variance across multiple technicians — consumers should read negative reviews carefully before hiring.

Lincoln Park Rooter consistently earns strong marks for professionalism, with numerous reviewers praising specific technicians — particularly Danny K, Raul, Daniel, Ryan, and Jonathan — for punctuality, clear communication, and courteous demeanor. Project completion scores are also high, with multiple reviews confirming jobs were finished thoroughly, on time, and in some cases under difficult conditions such as a three-month pipe disaster in a multi-unit building. Experience scores are solid, with reviewers frequently noting technicians' technical knowledge, diagnostic ability, and willingness to educate customers on prevention. However, the pricing dimension is notably dragged down by three credible negative reviews describing a deceptive 'free estimate' policy that resulted in a surprise $75 dispatch fee, and one reviewer citing quotes 5x higher than competitors — these are serious red flags that meaningfully lower the pricing score. The overall WW Score reflects a company with genuinely strong field technicians but a pricing transparency problem that cannot be ignored.

• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The 1-star review citing the '$75 dispatch fee bait-and-switch' appears verbatim twice (dated 2024-06-09 and 2024-05-14). This was counted as one unique complaint to avoid double-penalizing, but the duplication is noted.
• PRICING TRANSPARENCY CONCERN: Three separate reviewers (1-star ratings) explicitly describe being misled about a free estimate policy and encountering a $75 dispatch fee. One reviewer also cited quotes 5x higher than competitors. This is a consistent and credible pattern, not an isolated incident.
• 6 REVIEWS HAD NO TEXT: Six reviews contained only a star rating (all 5-star) with no written content. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence per scoring rules.
• POSSIBLE FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: A small number of very short, generic 5-star reviews (e.g., 'Professional, quick and friendly service', 'good serve', 'Quick, professinal, and detailed!', 'Excelen work as well as customer service') contain no specifics, no technician names, and no job details. These were given reduced weight in scoring. The misspellings in some may indicate rushed or inauthentic submissions.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews are dated between June 2024 and May 2025, which is within the past 12 months. A small number date to late 2024 and early 2024. Overall recency is good and no significant downward trend was detected.

This WW Score is based on a reasonably large and mostly recent review set with HIGH confidence across all four dimensions; however, the pricing score should be treated with particular seriousness given the consistent, specific, and credible complaints about deceptive dispatch fee practices, and prospective customers are strongly advised to confirm all fee structures in writing before scheduling.

D&L Sewer Service, led by Travis, earns strong marks across pricing, experience, and workmanship, with numerous reviewers explicitly praising fair and even surprisingly low charges, skilled problem-solving, and high-quality completed work. Professionalism scores are pulled down meaningfully by a recurring and serious pattern: at least four reviews (including two from the past 12 months) describe no-call, no-show appointments where Travis or the business failed to appear, failed to communicate delays, and in some cases never responded to follow-up contact at all. Project completion is similarly impacted because these no-shows represent outright failures to deliver on scheduled commitments, not merely minor delays. The pricing and experience dimensions remain the strongest areas, with consistent, specific, and credible praise across a large number of reviews. The no-show pattern is the single most significant risk factor for prospective customers and materially limits the overall WW Score despite otherwise excellent feedback.

• SERIOUS RELIABILITY CONCERN: At least 4 reviews explicitly describe no-call, no-show incidents where Travis failed to appear for a scheduled appointment and did not communicate. Two of these are from 2023 and two from 2024, indicating this is a persistent and ongoing pattern, not an isolated incident.
• RECENCY NOTE: The two most recent negative reviews (October 2024 and July 2024) both describe no-show/no-communication failures, suggesting this problem has not been resolved and may be worsening.
• POSSIBLE FAKE REVIEW CONCERN (MINOR): Several 5-star reviews use very similar generic phrasing ('honest, professional, knowledgeable, fair pricing') with limited job-specific detail. However, enough reviews contain specific job descriptions, dates, and named details (Travis, specific equipment, multi-visit accounts) to suggest the review base is largely authentic. Confidence is not significantly reduced but noted.
• ONE PRE-SERVICE REVIEW INCLUDED: One review (June 21, 2024) was submitted before service was completed. The reviewer later updated it with post-service detail, so it was counted as usable data, but the initial pre-service portion was not scored.
• RECENCY WEIGHTING APPLIED: The majority of reviews are from 2023-2024 and are within or near the 12-month window, so recency weighting did not significantly alter scoring. Older reviews (2023) were given slightly reduced weight where they conflicted with more recent data.

This WW Score is based on a substantial volume of reviews with high data density across all four dimensions, making the score statistically reliable; however, the confirmed and recurring no-show pattern documented in multiple independent reviews represents a genuine operational risk that prospective customers should weigh heavily before scheduling.

Badger Plumbing earns strong marks across most dimensions, with consistent praise for responsiveness, reasonable pricing, and technical skill across dozens of reviews spanning nearly a decade. The majority of customers highlight prompt callbacks, friendly demeanor, and fair rates, which anchor the professionalism and pricing scores. However, two serious negative reviews — one involving an unreturned deposit and abandoned work, and another involving a repair that failed within six months with no warranty follow-through — meaningfully drag down the project completion and professionalism scores. A third mixed review flags the use of an inexperienced technician billed at full rate without disclosure, further tempering the experience score. These are not minor complaints and represent genuine reliability risks that prevent higher scores despite the volume of positive feedback.

• SERIOUS FLAG — Project Abandonment: One reviewer (2019-05-30) reports that Nick accepted a 10% deposit for a sewer line job, never returned to complete the work, never returned the deposit, and required legal action. This is a significant trust and completion concern.
• SERIOUS FLAG — Warranty Non-Compliance: One reviewer (2023-01-24) reports that a toilet repair assembly failed within 6 months and Badger refused to honor the work without charging a new service call fee, indicating inconsistent warranty/callback policy.
• MODERATE FLAG — Ghost Communication: One reviewer (2019-11-30) reports that Nick promised to inspect a water heater issue and then went completely silent despite repeated texts and calls. This is a pattern concern when combined with the deposit abandonment review.
• MODERATE FLAG — Inexperienced Technician Billed at Full Rate: One reviewer (2015-10-21) describes being sent an apparent rookie who took far longer than expected and lacked basic knowledge, while being charged a full hourly rate with no prior disclosure.
• NOTE — Review Span: Reviews range from 2014 to 2024. The majority of reviews are older than 12 months (cutoff: mid-2023). Only 2 reviews fall within the most recent 12-month window, limiting confidence in current service quality.
• NOTE — Possible Inconsistency in Service Quality: Multiple technicians are mentioned (Nick, Mike, Tom). Negative reviews cluster around Nick specifically, while Mike and Tom receive predominantly positive feedback. This may indicate uneven quality across team members rather than a uniform service standard.
• NOTE — No suspected fake reviews detected. Reviews contain specific details, varied language, named individuals, and include both positive and negative experiences, which supports authenticity.

This WW Score is based on a solid volume of 33 reviews with high mention counts across all four dimensions, but should be interpreted with caution due to three substantive negative reviews involving abandoned work, a retained deposit, and a failed warranty response — issues that represent material risks beyond what the numerical score alone conveys.

Pressure Pro has a strong track record of completing water pressure jobs effectively, often saving customers from costly re-piping, and the vast majority of reviewers praise the quality of work and reasonable pricing. Punctuality and responsiveness are frequently highlighted positives, with many customers noting same-day or next-day service and on-time arrivals. However, professionalism is meaningfully dragged down by three credible, detailed negative reviews describing hostile, discourteous, and dismissive behavior from Jay — including hanging up on a prospective customer, walking off a job over a shoe-removal request, and an accusatory callback tone — which cannot be dismissed as outliers. These incidents are corroborated across multiple reviewers and span several years, suggesting a recurring pattern rather than isolated incidents. Pricing is a consistent strength, with multiple reviewers explicitly noting rates well below competing plumbers and fair prorating of hourly charges.

• Three detailed 1-star reviews (2018, 2022, 2016) describe specific incidents of hostile or discourteous behavior by Jay, including hanging up on a customer, abandoning a job over a shoe-removal request, and an accusatory callback. These are credible and specific, not generic complaints.
• One review (2016-06-27) is suspiciously vague — 'Simply the best! The 5 star reviews are well deserved.' — with no specific detail. This review was excluded from dimension scoring as it provides no usable data.
• The review corpus spans 2010–2024, meaning the majority of reviews are more than 3 years old. Only 3 reviews are from 2022 or later, limiting confidence in current service quality. Recency weighting applied conservatively.
• The negative reviews specifically name a pattern of communication hostility (aggressive callbacks, failure to return calls promptly) that partially contradicts the positive reviews praising responsiveness. Both patterns appear genuine and reflect inconsistency rather than fake reviews.
• No clear fake review patterns detected overall; most positive reviews include specific details (price, time taken, floor of building, nature of problem) that suggest authenticity.

This WW Score is based on a reasonably sized review set with high mention counts across all dimensions, but should be treated with moderate caution due to the multi-year age of most reviews, a small cluster of highly credible negative professionalism incidents, and notable inconsistency in Jay's interpersonal conduct that may affect individual customer experiences.

Kevin Szabo Jr Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism with punctual arrivals, courteous staff, and clear communication across 187 mentions. Technical experience is solid with 142 mentions of skilled workmanship and problem-solving. Project completion is generally reliable (156 mentions), though some callbacks and follow-up issues are noted. Pricing is the weakest dimension (68.0/100) with 52 explicit mentions—customers frequently report high costs, surprise charges, credit card fees (3%), and expensive estimates ($89-$92.50), though some praise fair pricing. The company shows inconsistency: many 5-star reviews contrast sharply with serious complaints about no-shows, unresponsiveness, signature forgery, and incomplete work requiring multiple visits.

• PRICING CONCERNS: Multiple reviews cite high labor costs ($450 for $150 disposal, $7,500 labor quote vs. $1,800 competitor, $600 for pilot light relight, $425 for 20-min drain work). Credit card surcharge (3%) and estimate fees ($89-$92.50) not always disclosed upfront.
• RESPONSIVENESS ISSUES: Several reviews report unreturned calls, missed appointments, and no-shows despite confirmed scheduling. One customer waited 5 days with no water; another left 2 messages 3 days apart with no callback.
• SERIOUS ETHICAL CONCERNS: One 1-star review alleges signature forgery on a check and dismissive owner response ('What's the big deal?'). Police report filed. Another review mentions gang/hate symbols on work vehicles.
• INCOMPLETE/REPEAT WORK: Multiple reviews describe problems requiring 2-4 return visits (clogged drain recurred next day, ejector pump issues recurring, water heater defects requiring 3 replacements, ceiling damage from initial work never repaired).
• ESTIMATE INCONSISTENCY: Estimates vary wildly ($2k vs. $12k for same job; $1,500 competitor vs. $9,000 Szabo for sump pit). Some customers report being pressured or quoted differently based on gender.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: Approximately 40-50 reviews from 2023-06-10 and 2024-06-09 show identical or near-identical phrasing ('great job,' 'highly recommend,' minimal detail), some with blank text fields, suggesting possible bulk/automated posting. Reduces confidence slightly but HIGH confidence maintained due to volume of detailed, specific negative reviews that appear authentic.
• QUALITY INCONSISTENCY: Same company receives both 'best plumber ever' and 'worst experience' reviews, suggesting high variability in technician quality or service delivery.
• WATER DAMAGE/LIABILITY: One review describes installation error causing basement flooding; company promised repair but drywaller no-showed twice and company became unresponsive.

This WW Score of 78.2 is reliable but reflects a company with significant inconsistency: strong technical skills and professionalism in ~70% of engagements, but serious gaps in pricing transparency, responsiveness, and follow-through in ~15-20% of cases. The pricing dimension (68.0) is particularly concerning given explicit complaints about overcharging and hidden fees. Customers should obtain multiple quotes, confirm all fees in writing, and consider the company's mixed track record on callbacks and appointment reliability before committing.