Find Nearby Plumbers In Chicago, Illinois

Good Guys Emergency Plumbers demonstrates strong professionalism and technical expertise, with consistently praised responsiveness, punctuality, and skilled workmanship across 80 reviews. However, the company is significantly hampered by persistent pricing concerns and project completion issues. Multiple customers report hidden charges, inflated quotes, and incomplete work requiring callbacks. While individual technicians (Ray, Dominic, David, Joe) receive high praise for their knowledge and demeanor, systemic problems with follow-through, communication after initial service, and transparent pricing substantially reduce overall trustworthiness. The company excels in emergency response but struggles with accountability and fair value delivery.

• PRICING INCONSISTENCY: Multiple reviews (2023-01-14, 2023-03-08, 2022-04-15, 2023-01-14) report significant hidden charges, unapproved add-ons, and quotes that escalate dramatically during service. One customer paid $2,695 instead of quoted $1,745; another paid $500 for a $55 part. This pattern suggests systemic pricing opacity.
• INCOMPLETE WORK & NO FOLLOW-UP: At least 6 reviews (2024-02-05, 2023-09-24, 2023-03-08, 2022-11-13, 2021-06-28, 2021-05-15) report unresolved issues, failed callbacks, missed appointments, or abandoned work. Ray specifically mentioned multiple times as unreliable for follow-up and scheduling.
• INCONSISTENT QUALITY BY TECHNICIAN: Reviews show stark contrast between highly-rated technicians (Dominic, David, Ray M., Joe) and poor service from others. This suggests quality control issues and inconsistent training.
• NO-SHOW PATTERN: Multiple reviews (2021-07-31, 2021-05-15, 2020-07-22) describe missed appointments, no-shows, and failure to respond to confirmation calls despite 24/7 claims.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most negative reviews cluster in 2020-2023 period. Recent reviews (2024) show mixed results. Trend suggests ongoing operational issues despite company's longevity.
• EMERGENCY SERVICE PREMIUM: Several reviews note high emergency fees ($185-$325+) which, while disclosed, may inflate perceived value and contribute to pricing complaints.

This WW Score of 76.8 should be trusted with caution: while the HIGH confidence reflects substantial review volume, the company exhibits a troubling pattern of pricing opacity, incomplete work, and inconsistent follow-through that directly contradicts its strong professionalism and technical expertise ratings. Customers should expect excellent initial service and diagnosis but should obtain detailed written quotes, confirm all charges in advance, and verify completion before final payment.

Ace Drain and Sewer Experts has a strong base of positive reviews praising responsiveness, professionalism, and technical competence, with many customers highlighting same-day or next-day service and knowledgeable technicians like Rich, Bobby, and Danny. However, three substantive 1-star reviews meaningfully drag down the scores across all dimensions: one customer was never provided a quote after a site visit, one detailed a pattern of incomplete work, ghosting on a promised refund, and failure to perform all charged services, and one described significant price inflation with marked-up materials and a changing quote. Pricing in particular is a mixed signal — several reviewers praised fair or reasonable pricing while one provided detailed evidence of inflated charges totaling hundreds of dollars above market rates. Project completion is similarly mixed, with most jobs completed well but at least two reviews describing work that was not fully or properly finished. The overall picture is a capable crew that performs well in the majority of cases but has documented lapses in pricing transparency and follow-through that cannot be ignored.

• Three credible 1-star reviews with specific, detailed complaints about pricing inflation, incomplete work, failure to refund, and ghosting — these are not vague and carry significant weight.
• One reviewer (2023-05-11) provided itemized invoice details alleging a $600 charge for a $418 pump plus excessive labor markups, and reported the company quickly offered a $200 reduction when challenged — a pattern consistent with opportunistic overcharging.
• One reviewer (2021-12-07) reported the company failed to fix the problem, did not perform all charged services (scoping), required a deposit, provided no itemized receipt, and then stopped answering calls regarding a promised partial refund.
• One reviewer (2024-02-24) reported a contractor visited for a quote and never followed up despite a phone call — indicating responsiveness issues may be inconsistent.
• No strong fake review patterns detected; positive reviews contain specific names, job details, and varied language. However, a cluster of 5-star reviews in June–July 2021 with similar phrasing ('highly recommend,' 'responsive,' 'professional') warrants mild caution, though most include enough specific detail to be considered credible.
• Several positive reviews are from 2021 or earlier (more than 3 years ago as of 2024); the most recent reviews include both a strong positive (2023-12) and a notable negative (2024-02), suggesting performance may be inconsistent over time.

This WW Score is based on 29 reviews with high mention counts across all four dimensions, making it statistically reliable, but the presence of three detailed and credible negative reviews — covering pricing fraud, incomplete work, and non-responsiveness — means the score should be treated as a realistic average rather than a ceiling, and prospective customers should request itemized quotes in writing before work begins.

Rescue Plumbing earns strong marks for professionalism and experience, with the vast majority of reviewers praising named technicians — particularly Javier, Dex, Logan, Pete, and Victor — for punctuality, clear communication, friendliness, and technical competence. Project completion is generally solid, with most jobs described as finished same-day or next-day, though a meaningful minority of negative reviews cite incomplete work, abandoned jobs, or issues recurring shortly after service. Pricing is the most consistently flagged concern across the review corpus: multiple reviewers across different years describe charges as significantly above market rate, inconsistent quoting between teams, and refusal to provide phone estimates — a pattern that materially drags the pricing score down. The overall WW Score of 74.2 reflects a company with genuinely skilled and professional field staff offset by a recurring and credible pricing transparency problem.

• PRICING CONCERN — HIGH FREQUENCY: At least 12 distinct reviews across multiple years explicitly describe pricing as excessive, inconsistent, or non-transparent. Specific complaints include: $725 for main sewer rodding, $499 for a cartridge replacement, $1,000 for a basic toilet fix requiring 4 visits, $700+ for a faucet replacement after a $375 quote, and $15,000–$18,000 estimates later resolved for under $2,000 by another plumber. This is a systemic pattern, not isolated incidents.
• INCONSISTENT QUOTING: Multiple reviewers report being given one price by one team and a significantly higher price by a different team for the same job. This suggests non-standardized pricing practices.
• PROJECT COMPLETION FAILURES: At least 4 reviews describe work that was not completed, abandoned mid-job, or required multiple return visits to fix the original problem. One review describes a gas leak emergency where the technician refused to enter. One describes a job abandoned with a dismissive text message.
• TECHNICIAN CONDUCT COMPLAINTS: Several reviews describe specific technicians as rude, dismissive, or aggressive — including one who insulted a building maintenance manager, one described as 'extremely rude and nasty,' and one who allegedly attempted to charge double the agreed price.
• BLANK AND MINIMAL REVIEWS: Approximately 20 reviews contain no text (blank or single punctuation mark) and were excluded from dimension scoring. These inflate the total review count without providing usable data.
• RECENCY NOTE: The review corpus spans from 2004 to June 2025. Reviews from 2012–2019 are sparse and some are very generic. The bulk of substantive reviews are from 2022–2025 and were weighted more heavily. Older reviews (pre-2020) were treated as low-weight context only.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW PATTERN — MODERATE SUSPICION: A cluster of reviews dated exactly '2023-06-10' and '2022-06-10' share identical date stamps across many entries, with some being very short and generic (e.g., 'Great service!', 'Pete and Noah', 'Nice guys and great work!'). While not conclusive, the identical date clustering and lack of specificity in some of these reviews warrants caution. Confidence is not reduced to LIMITED because the majority of reviews are detailed and specific, but this pattern is flagged.
• PAID REVIEW DISCLOSURE: One reviewer explicitly disclosed their review was paid for, which raises integrity concerns about the overall review pool.

This WW Score is based on a large and diverse review corpus with HIGH confidence across all four dimensions; however, the score should be interpreted with caution given credible and recurring evidence of inconsistent pricing, occasional project abandonment, and a cluster of suspiciously generic same-date reviews that may artificially inflate the positive signal.

Netzel Plumbing has a strong and well-documented track record of professionalism, with the vast majority of reviewers praising punctuality, courteous demeanor, clear communication, and responsiveness across many years of reviews. Pricing is consistently described as reasonable, competitive, and often below competing quotes, with several reviewers noting that final bills came in under estimate — a meaningful trust signal. However, project completion is the most significant drag on the score: at least four separate reviewers across different years describe being ghosted after initial visits or quotes, with repeated unanswered calls and abandoned work — a serious and recurring pattern that cannot be dismissed. Experience scores are generally strong, with many reviewers praising diagnostic skill and technical knowledge, though a handful of reviews describe instances of incorrect repairs, incomplete diagnosis, or work not up to code. The combination of strong day-to-day performance and a clear, recurring failure mode around follow-through and responsiveness produces a score that reflects genuine quality tempered by meaningful reliability risk.

• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: Two reviews dated 2025-02-09 and 2025-02-06 are word-for-word identical ('Netzel always arrives on time. Their plumbers are courteous, professional, explain everything in detail and are reasonably priced. We've used them for years.'). This is a strong indicator of a fake or manipulated review. Both were noted but treated as a single data point for scoring purposes.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: Two reviews dated 2021-12-30 are nearly word-for-word identical (the long negative toilet repair review). These appear to be the same reviewer posting twice, possibly on different platforms. Treated as a single data point.
• RECURRING GHOSTING PATTERN: At least four distinct reviewers (2024-08-15, 2023-06-08, 2019-10-31, 2010-09-19) explicitly describe being unable to reach Netzel after initial contact or mid-project, with unreturned calls over multiple days or weeks. One reviewer was left mid-job without water and gas. This is a systemic project completion risk, not isolated incidents.
• HOMOPHOBIC CONDUCT ALLEGATION: One reviewer (2014-08-11) alleges a discriminatory note was written on a work order referencing the customer's sexual orientation. The company's long-term loyal customers dispute this characterization, but the allegation is noted as it reflects on professionalism.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews with substantive detail are from 2010–2023. Only a small number of reviews are from the past 12 months (2024–2025), and one of those is a suspected duplicate. The ghosting complaints span multiple years including 2024, suggesting the responsiveness issue has not been resolved.
• RATING INFLATION RISK: Eight reviews consist of no text at all (blank body, rating only). These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data. Their presence slightly inflates the raw star average without contributing evidence.
• CODE VIOLATION ALLEGATION: One reviewer (2014-04-14) alleges Netzel performed a repair not up to plumbing code (copper-to-iron pipe without brass fitting) and knowingly left it in place. The reviewer also claims the company name was purchased and original founders are no longer involved. This allegation could not be verified but is flagged as a serious workmanship concern.

This WW Score is based on a large volume of reviews spanning over 15 years and carries HIGH statistical confidence in its dimensions, but consumers should weight the recurring ghosting and mid-project abandonment complaints heavily, as these represent a documented and repeated failure mode that could result in significant disruption to plumbing projects.

Andersen Plumbing & Heating earns strong marks for technical experience and project completion, with the vast majority of reviewers praising knowledgeable technicians who resolved issues efficiently and followed through on jobs. Professionalism scores are meaningfully dragged down by a recurring pattern of complaints about the owner Chad's rude and dismissive responses to dissatisfied customers, as well as at least two notable communication failures involving missed appointment windows and inadequate follow-up. Pricing is the weakest dimension: while many reviewers describe fair or competitive pricing, a significant cluster of reviews explicitly calls out excessive charges, opaque billing, and quotes that felt exploitative — including a $239 charge for doing nothing, a $1,200+ quote for minor shutoff replacements, and a $500 quote for a garbage disposal reset. Project completion is generally strong but is tempered by a few cases of incomplete diagnostics, a tech arriving without proper equipment, and one allegation of a stolen part. Overall, the field technicians consistently receive praise while the owner and office communication represent the company's most significant liability.

• OWNER CONDUCT PATTERN: Multiple independent reviewers (at least 4) explicitly describe the owner Chad as rude, insulting, or retaliatory when customers raise billing concerns. This is a systemic flag, not an isolated incident.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS: At least 6 reviews raise specific, credible concerns about overcharging, non-transparent billing, or quotes far above market rate. This materially suppresses the pricing score.
• COMMUNICATION FAILURES: At least 3 reviews describe significant failures in appointment communication — missed windows without notice, unanswered questions about hours/costs, and a service contract holder being told no one was available despite priority status.
• ALLEGED MISCONDUCT: One reviewer (Nov 2023) alleges a technician removed a water connector from their home without permission. Another (Aug 2021) alleges a technician falsely claimed a garbage disposal would not fit to avoid installing it. These are serious allegations that could not be verified but are noted.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK — LOW: No strong evidence of coordinated fake reviews. Most positive reviews include specific technician names, job details, and varied language. The volume of detailed negative reviews also supports authenticity of the overall corpus.
• RECENCY NOTE: All reviews fall between 2019 and 2024. The most recent 12 months (mid-2023 to mid-2024) include both strong positives and the most pointed negative reviews, suggesting the issues are ongoing rather than historical.
• OWNER REVIEW REPORTING: One reviewer explicitly states the owner has flagged over 150 negative reviews on Yelp, which if accurate would represent a significant attempt to suppress critical feedback and may mean the true negative review rate is higher than visible.

This WW Score is based on 75 reviews spanning 2019–2024 with high mention counts across all four dimensions, making the score statistically reliable; however, the score should be interpreted cautiously given credible and recurring allegations of owner misconduct, non-transparent pricing, and possible suppression of negative reviews.

Black's Plumbing has a strong base of positive reviews praising punctuality, honest pricing, and technical competence across a wide range of jobs including drain rodding, sewer line repair, and well system diagnostics. Pricing transparency is a recurring strength, with multiple reviewers specifically noting that final charges matched quotes and that prices were reasonable or even generous. However, there are several credible negative reviews describing serious reliability failures — including a no-call/no-show pattern across multiple reviewers, one instance of abandoned incomplete work after payment, and one complaint about rude and condescending behavior — which meaningfully drag down the professionalism and project completion scores. The volume of reviews spans over a decade, meaning recent performance (2024–2025) is represented by only a handful of reviews, one of which is a 1-star complaint about non-responsiveness. Overall the contractor appears capable and honest when engaged, but has a documented pattern of communication and follow-through failures that prospective customers should weigh carefully.

• 6 reviews contain only 'unknown' or are completely blank — these were excluded from scoring as they provide no usable data.
• Multiple reviews from 2018-06-11 share the exact same date, which may indicate batch-imported or artificially clustered reviews. Treat those entries with moderate skepticism.
• At least 3 independent reviewers (2017, 2025, and one undated) explicitly report non-responsiveness or failure to return calls — this is a recurring and credible pattern, not an isolated complaint.
• One reviewer (2024) reports work left incomplete after full payment, with the contractor subsequently going silent — a serious project completion red flag.
• One reviewer (2017) reports rude and condescending behavior, which is an outlier but corroborates the 2025 negative review about non-responsiveness.
• One 1-star review (2018) complains about holiday pricing of $750 for a rodding job — this may reflect legitimate surge pricing rather than deceptive practice, but is noted.
• One 3-star review (2016) mentions being charged extra for concrete refill beyond the original scope — a minor transparency concern.
• The majority of reviews are older than 3 years. Only 4 reviews are from 2024–2025, limiting confidence in current performance. Recency weighting applied conservatively.
• No clearly fake review patterns detected, but the cluster of same-date 5-star reviews in 2018 and 2019 warrants mild caution.

This WW Score is based on a substantial review set (50 reviews, 44 usable) spanning 12 years, giving HIGH statistical confidence in the score directionally, but prospective customers should note that recent reviews are sparse and include a credible non-responsiveness complaint, meaning current performance may differ from the historical average reflected here.