Find Nearby Plumbers In Chicago, Illinois

Accurate Plumbing & Heating receives strong praise across professionalism, responsiveness, and cleanup habits from the majority of reviewers, with many citing specific technicians by name and describing positive repeat experiences over many years. However, four notable negative reviews meaningfully drag down scores: one describes a misdiagnosis costing $1,500 with no refund, one describes being charged for an incomplete repair with no follow-through or callback, one describes clock-milking and leaving the job site dirty with work unfinished, and one alleges gas pipes were incorrectly installed in a faucet. Pricing is a mixed dimension — several reviewers praised fair and transparent pricing, while others felt overcharged or charged for unresolved issues. Project completion is the most penalized dimension due to multiple credible accounts of jobs left incomplete or problems not resolved after payment. The score reflects a contractor with a genuinely strong track record for most customers but with a meaningful minority of serious service failures that cannot be ignored.

• Two reviews (2024-08-13 and 2024-07-13) appear to be near-identical duplicates of the same review by 'Mark S.' about a Saturday water heater replacement — one may be a duplicate submission; only one was counted for scoring purposes.
• Two reviews contain no text at all (Rating: 5.0, Dates: 2023-06-10 and 2022-06-10) — these were excluded from dimensional scoring as they provide no usable evidence.
• One review (2022-06-10, 'The service is very precious as it mentioned...') is vague and generic with no specifics — treated as low-signal and given minimal weight.
• The 2016 one-star review alleging gas pipes were installed in a faucet was disputed in detail by a credible 2018 reviewer with 32 years of trades experience; this specific claim was treated with reduced weight but the underlying professionalism concern was retained.
• A significant portion of reviews are older than 3 years (pre-2022), which reduces their relevance to current service quality. Recent reviews (2024–2025) include both strong positives and serious negatives, suggesting inconsistency persists.
• The 2024-06-09 one-star review (Javier, unfinished cartridge repair, no callback, BBB complaint ignored) is a serious project completion and professionalism failure that was weighted heavily given its recency and specificity.

This WW Score is based on 36 reviews with usable data spanning 2010–2025, with sufficient mention volume across all four dimensions to produce HIGH confidence ratings; however, the presence of multiple credible, specific negative reviews — including misdiagnosis, incomplete work, billing disputes, and unresponsive follow-up — means the score should be trusted as a realistic mid-range assessment rather than a top-tier endorsement.

Mr. Burris earns strong marks for technical knowledge and experience, with numerous reviewers across many years praising his ability to diagnose and solve problems that other plumbers could not, often at a fraction of the cost. His responsiveness and same-day service are consistently highlighted as standout strengths, and his pricing is generally regarded as fair and reasonable. However, the score is meaningfully pulled down by a recurring pattern of project completion failures: multiple negative reviews describe work that was not properly completed, no-shows, failure to return after promising to do so, and at least one instance of charging for a problem that was not fixed. There are also credible concerns about pricing transparency, with one reviewer describing a bait-and-switch on quoted fees. A serious harassment allegation from one reviewer regarding attempts to suppress a negative review, combined with a reported BBB 'F' rating, further tempers confidence in the overall picture.

• INCOMPLETE WORK / NO-SHOW PATTERN: At least 4 negative reviews (2018-05-31, 2021-01-05, 2021-08-31, 2015-11-21) describe Mr. Burris failing to return after promising to do so, abandoning jobs mid-service, or leaving without completing the work. This is a meaningful and consistent pattern that significantly impacts the project completion score.
• PRICING TRANSPARENCY CONCERN: One reviewer (2011-11-25) explicitly describes being quoted $90 then charged $135 with a vague explanation, constituting a credible hidden-charge complaint. One reviewer (2021-08-31) paid $165 for a problem that was not fixed and was denied a refund.
• REVIEW SUPPRESSION / HARASSMENT ALLEGATION: One reviewer (2019-02-20) provides a detailed account of Mr. Burris repeatedly contacting them via Yelp messages and physical mail to pressure removal of a negative review, and threatening a defamation lawsuit. This is a serious flag regarding business conduct and review integrity.
• LICENSING CONCERN: The same 2019 reviewer states Mr. Burris holds a handyman license rather than a plumbing contractor license, and that he refused to provide licensing information when asked. This has not been independently verified from the reviews but is a notable consumer concern.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews with usable data are from 2017 onward, with a strong cluster in 2019-2023. The two oldest reviews (2010, 2011) are given reduced weight. The most recent reviews (2022-2023) are predominantly positive, but the negative completion-related reviews span 2015 through 2021, suggesting the issue is not isolated to an early period.
• POSSIBLE REVIEW AUTHENTICITY CONCERN: The overwhelming majority of reviews are 5-star with broadly similar praise (same-day service, knowledgeable, reasonable price). While many contain specific details that suggest authenticity, the near-uniform positivity warrants mild caution. The negative reviews are notably more specific and detailed, which lends them credibility.
• BBB RATING: One reviewer (2011-11-25) states the business holds an 'F' rating with the Better Business Bureau. This cannot be verified from reviews alone but is flagged as a consumer warning.

This WW Score is based on 37 reviews spanning approximately 13 years and carries HIGH data confidence due to volume, but consumers should weigh the recurring project completion failures and review suppression allegation seriously before hiring, as these represent credible and specific negative patterns that the high volume of positive reviews does not fully offset.

All Suburban Plumbing has a strong foundation of positive reviews praising responsiveness, professionalism, and technical skill, with many customers highlighting specific plumbers by name and describing thorough, knowledgeable service. However, the score is meaningfully pulled down by a recurring pattern of serious complaints: no-shows, ghosting after multiple follow-up calls, and broken promises to return — a pattern appearing across at least 3 recent reviews (2022–2023) suggesting a decline in reliability. Pricing is a notable weak point, with at least two reviews describing significant discrepancies between quoted and final charges, including one instance of a flat rate being raised by $220 after the fact. Project completion suffers from documented cases of work left incomplete or made worse, including one review where post-service plumbing was more damaged than before. The contrast between older glowing reviews and more recent negative ones suggests a possible deterioration in service quality over time.

• RECENCY CONCERN: A cluster of negative reviews from 2022–2023 describes ghosting, no-shows, and failure to return calls — a pattern not present in older reviews. This suggests possible service quality decline in recent years and these reviews are weighted more heavily.
• PRICING INTEGRITY CONCERN: At least two reviews explicitly describe being charged more than the quoted price, including one flat-rate quote that was increased by $220 with minimal justification. One review also flagged a $1,300 estimate that a second plumber resolved for free.
• PROJECT COMPLETION CONCERN: One review (2016) explicitly states the plumber left the plumbing in worse condition than before the visit, requiring a second plumber to fix the damage.
• RESPONSIVENESS DECLINE: Multiple reviews from 2022–2023 describe leaving 4–6 voicemails with no callback, being ghosted after purchasing recommended parts, and being told to wait indefinitely — contrasting sharply with older reviews praising fast response.
• POSSIBLE REVIEW QUALITY NOTE: Several older 5-star reviews (2013–2015) use very enthusiastic, superlative language with limited specific detail. While not conclusively fake, they are treated with slightly reduced weight given the lack of verifiable specifics.
• ONE REVIEW ANOMALY: The review dated 2021-06-15 states 'I would hardly recommend this company' despite a 5-star rating and otherwise positive tone — this appears to be a typo for 'highly' but introduces minor ambiguity and was treated cautiously.

This WW Score is based on 35 reviews spanning over a decade and carries HIGH data confidence, but the score should be interpreted with caution given a clear pattern of service deterioration in the most recent 2022–2023 reviews, pricing inconsistencies, and at least one documented case of work that worsened the customer's situation.

R. DiFoggio & Sam Plumbing earns strong marks for professionalism and experience across a large number of reviews, with many customers praising named technicians like Dave H., Andrew, and others for being courteous, knowledgeable, and thorough. Project completion is generally solid, with most jobs described as fully resolved, though two notable negative reviews cite incomplete or botched work and a failure to follow up on complaints. Pricing is the weakest dimension: while several reviewers describe fees as reasonable, there are multiple credible complaints about overbilling, charging overtime without clear disclosure, and a disputed invoice involving an elderly customer — these drag the pricing score down significantly. The overall picture is of a capable company with strong technicians but inconsistent billing practices and occasional lapses in accountability.

• PRICING CONCERNS: At least 3 reviews (1-star overtime charge complaint, 3-star smoke break overbilling, 2-star disputed 2-hour invoice for 45-minute job) raise credible and specific concerns about billing transparency and fairness. These are not vague complaints — they include specific dollar amounts and time details.
• FOLLOW-THROUGH FAILURES: Two reviews explicitly describe the company failing to return calls after service complaints, which negatively impacts both professionalism and project completion scores.
• RECENCY NOTE: Several high-scoring reviews date from 2014–2019, which is more than 5 years old. Reviews from 2023–2024 are more limited in number. The most recent reviews (2023–2024) are generally positive, but the sample is small.
• NO FAKE REVIEW FLAG: Reviews vary in length, detail, tone, and rating (1–5 stars), with specific technician names and job descriptions. No strong pattern of fake reviews detected. Review set appears authentic.
• NEGATIVE REVIEW PATTERN: Three 1-star and one 2-star review all contain specific, credible details. These are not dismissed as outliers — they meaningfully affect the pricing and project completion scores.

This WW Score is based on 28 reviews with strong dimension coverage and HIGH confidence across all four dimensions; however, the score should be treated with moderate caution due to credible and specific billing complaints that suggest inconsistent pricing practices, and the fact that a meaningful portion of positive reviews are more than 5 years old.

Chicago Sewer Experts demonstrates strong technical expertise and professionalism from individual technicians, with many reviews praising specific employees' knowledge and courtesy. However, the company is significantly hampered by systemic operational issues: chronic scheduling failures, missed appointments without notice, poor communication from dispatchers, and inconsistent follow-through on promised work. Pricing concerns are substantial, with multiple customers reporting unexpected charges, dramatic price increases mid-project, and quotes that appear inflated relative to actual work performed. While project completion rates are moderate when work begins, numerous reviews document abandoned jobs, incomplete work, and failure to honor commitments to return and finish tasks.

• CRITICAL: Severe scheduling dysfunction — at least 15 reviews document missed appointments, no-shows, rescheduling without notice, and failure to call customers back. This is a systemic problem, not isolated incidents.
• CRITICAL: Pricing integrity issues — multiple reviews report bait-and-switch pricing ($85 quoted, $185 charged), dramatic mid-project cost increases, and quotes that are 2-3x higher than competitors for identical work. At least 12 reviews explicitly mention pricing concerns.
• CRITICAL: Incomplete project completion — at least 8 reviews document promised follow-up work never completed (e.g., filling dirt back in yard, finishing landscaping, returning for callbacks). Customers report being pressured to pay balances on incomplete work.
• Pattern of dispatcher/customer service failures — multiple reviews describe rude, dismissive, or unhelpful phone staff; automated responses that frustrate customers; and failure to relay messages to management.
• Inconsistent quality control — some technicians receive high praise; others are described as unknowledgeable, unable to diagnose problems correctly, or unwilling to complete assigned work.
• Potential misdiagnosis pattern — at least 4 reviews document technicians providing incorrect diagnoses that were corrected by competitors (e.g., claiming pipes need replacement when simple cleaning sufficed).
• Recency concern: Most negative reviews cluster in 2023-2024, suggesting recent deterioration in service quality or operational management.

This WW Score of 72.8 should be interpreted with caution: while the company employs skilled technicians and has delivered quality work in many cases, the high frequency of scheduling failures, pricing disputes, and incomplete project follow-through represent serious red flags that significantly undermine overall trustworthiness. The score reflects a company with strong technical capability but poor operational execution and customer service practices.

The Plumbing Doctor demonstrates solid technical expertise and responsiveness, with strong marks for knowledgeable work and quick service. However, the company is significantly hampered by serious professionalism and reliability issues, including multiple no-shows, poor communication, rude behavior, and inconsistent follow-through. Pricing concerns are substantial, with numerous complaints about overcharging, hidden fees, and quotes significantly higher than competitors. While many customers report positive experiences with specific technicians (Brandon, Kelly, Garrett, Jon), the business shows a troubling pattern of inconsistency and customer service failures that prevent a higher overall score.

• CRITICAL: Multiple reviews (15+) report no-shows and failure to honor scheduled appointments, with some customers taking time off work only to be ghosted. This is a severe professionalism issue.
• CRITICAL: Pricing complaints are extensive and specific. One customer was quoted $1,000+ more than competitors; another paid $1,400 for work a handyman later completed for $50. The company appears to use selective pricing based on perceived customer wealth.
• CRITICAL: One review alleges discriminatory pricing practices targeting Asian American customers and women, suggesting potential bias in quote generation.
• CRITICAL: Multiple reviews report rude, condescending, or dismissive behavior from owner/staff, including use of offensive language (one review mentions racial slurs).
• PATTERN: Inconsistent quality and follow-through. Same company name appears across multiple locations/operators with vastly different service levels, suggesting either franchise issues or multiple unrelated businesses using similar names.
• PATTERN: Several reviews indicate work was not completed correctly on first visit, requiring callbacks. Some customers report being charged for callbacks that should have been warranty work.
• PATTERN: Communication issues are pervasive—delayed responses, refusal to provide estimates, demanding cash-only payment despite advertising credit card acceptance.
• PATTERN: One negative review from 2024-08-12 explicitly questions the authenticity of positive reviews on the platform, suggesting possible fake review activity. However, the volume and specificity of negative reviews (with detailed accounts of overcharging, no-shows, and poor workmanship) suggests genuine customer dissatisfaction.
• RECENCY: Most recent reviews (2025) show mixed results. The most recent negative review (2025-06-04) documents a $1,000+ overcharge relative to competitors, indicating pricing issues persist.
• DATA QUALITY: Reviews span from 1997 to 2025. Very old reviews (pre-2005) are generic and lack detail. Recent reviews (2024-2025) are more specific and credible. The company appears to have operated under multiple names/locations, making it difficult to assess if this is one business or several.

This WW Score of 72.8 should be treated with caution. While the score reflects genuine strengths in technical expertise and responsiveness, it masks serious and recurring problems with professionalism, pricing transparency, and reliability. The high volume of detailed negative reviews documenting no-shows, overcharging, and poor communication suggests the company has systemic operational issues. Customers should be aware that positive experiences appear highly dependent on which technician is assigned and that pricing may vary dramatically based on perceived customer demographics. The company's inconsistent service delivery and communication failures represent material risks that a single numerical score cannot adequately capture.