Find Nearby Plumbers In Chicago, Illinois

This aggregated review set spans multiple companies operating under similar or related names (Action Plumbing, Astro Plumbing, Pirate Plumbing, and individual plumbers like Jeff Satterthwaite), which significantly complicates scoring and reduces reliability. The majority of reviews are positive and praise professionalism, punctuality, and communication, but a substantial minority of negative reviews describe serious failures including fire damage, abandoned work, misdiagnosis, property damage, dishonest billing practices, and chronic non-responsiveness — particularly in the context of American Home Shield warranty work. Pricing feedback is mixed: many reviewers found costs fair or competitive, while others reported inflated fees, hidden charges, and deceptive billing. Project completion is a notable weakness, with multiple reviews citing incomplete jobs, failed callbacks, and work that required correction by other plumbers. Experience scores are dragged down by documented cases of poor workmanship, incorrect diagnoses, and code violations, despite many reviews praising skilled technicians by name.

• MULTI-ENTITY CONCERN: Reviews appear to span multiple distinct businesses (Action Plumbing in multiple states/cities, Astro Plumbing, Pirate Plumbing, Jeff Satterthwaite Plumbing, and others). Scores reflect an aggregated pool that may not represent any single contractor accurately. Consumer should verify which specific entity they are evaluating.
• FAKE REVIEW INDICATORS: A significant number of reviews contain no text (rating only), particularly clustered around dates like 2024-06-09, 2022-06-10, 2021-06-10, and 2015. These blank 5-star reviews inflate the average rating and are treated as non-usable data. Additionally, some reviews use nearly identical phrasing across different dates, suggesting possible review padding.
• SERIOUS NEGATIVE INCIDENTS: At least one review describes Action Plumbing causing a fire that left four families homeless (2024-09-06), with the owner allegedly unresponsive. Another describes a bathtub installation so defective it required full drywall and tile replacement. A third describes a whole-house re-pipe job where lines were not flushed, causing debris damage throughout the home. These are severe outliers that materially affect trustworthiness.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The review about Jake damaging a home during water heater installation (rating 1.0) appears verbatim on two separate dates (2024-06-09 and 2023-10-10). This duplication was counted only once for scoring purposes.
• AHS WARRANTY PATTERN: A recurring pattern of negative reviews involves American Home Shield (AHS) warranty assignments, where the contractor is accused of misdiagnosis, inflated modification fees, non-responsiveness, and claim denial manipulation. This pattern appears across multiple years and locations, suggesting a systemic issue with warranty work specifically.
• RECENCY NOTE: Reviews span from 2001 to 2025. Reviews older than 3 years (pre-2022) were given reduced weight. The most recent reviews (2024-2025) show a mixed but somewhat improved pattern for Astro Plumbing specifically, while Action Plumbing reviews remain mixed across the full date range.
• GEOGRAPHIC DISPERSION: Reviews reference locations including Las Vegas NV, Cleveland OH, Lawrence KS, Corpus Christi TX, Silsbee TX, Kaysville UT, Rhode Island, Indiana, and others. This strongly suggests these are reviews for multiple unrelated businesses sharing similar names, not a single contractor. The WW Score should be interpreted with extreme caution as a result.

This WW Score has LOW reliability for evaluating any single contractor because the review pool almost certainly aggregates multiple unrelated businesses operating under similar names across different states; consumers should independently verify the specific entity they intend to hire and seek reviews specific to that business's location and ownership before making a hiring decision.

Goode Plumbing demonstrates strong technical competence and professionalism, with technicians consistently praised for knowledge, punctuality, and courteous behavior. Project completion rates are solid, with most jobs finished as promised and follow-up service honored. However, pricing emerges as a significant weakness, with numerous customers reporting costs 2-4x higher than competitors for identical work, flat-rate structures that lack transparency, and aggressive upselling tactics. While the company excels at responsiveness and work quality, the persistent pricing complaints across all time periods substantially depress the overall score.

• PRICING PATTERN: Systematic overcharging documented across 140+ reviews. Customers consistently report quotes 50-300% above market rates. Examples: $832 for cartridge replacement (customer did it for $170), $1,700 for ejector pump (online cost ~$360), $967 for frost-proof faucet (part cost <$100).
• TRANSPARENCY ISSUE: Flat-rate pricing model prevents customers from understanding cost breakdown. Company explicitly states 'we do not itemize invoices.' Multiple reviews cite $60 diagnostic fees that are not waived as promised, and surprise charges after estimates.
• SALES PRESSURE: Multiple reviews describe aggressive upselling, high-pressure tactics, and recommendations for unnecessary work. Water heater case where technician pushed $3,000+ tankless system that was inappropriate for customer's setup (confirmed by second opinion).
• DEPOSIT/CANCELLATION PENALTIES: Several customers report $250-$1,000 cancellation fees and non-refundable deposits, with poor communication about terms. One customer charged 10% cancellation penalty ($1,000) despite canceling within 16 hours.
• COMMUNICATION FAILURES: Recurring pattern of unreturned calls, missed appointments without notice, and poor follow-up on promised estimates. One customer called 14 days in a row with no callback regarding warranty claim.
• INCONSISTENT SERVICE QUALITY: While many reviews praise individual technicians, others describe incomplete work, incorrect diagnoses, and jobs that required expensive rework by competitors. One customer paid $1,700 for shower rebuild that damaged the fixture; another paid $1,400 for work that solved nothing.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK - MODERATE: Approximately 35-40% of reviews are 5-star with minimal detail ('Great service!' 'Excellent!' 'Got the job done!'). However, the volume of detailed negative reviews with specific pricing examples and the consistency of complaints across years suggests authentic mixed sentiment rather than review manipulation.
• RECENCY: Reviews span 2014-2025. Pricing complaints are consistent across entire period, suggesting systemic business model rather than temporary issue. Recent reviews (2025) show same patterns as 2017-2020 reviews.

This WW Score of 72.3 is highly reliable given 500 reviews with detailed data across all dimensions. The score accurately reflects a company with genuine technical expertise and professional service delivery undermined by a business model centered on high pricing and aggressive sales tactics. Customers consistently receive quality work but at costs significantly above market rates, with limited transparency and occasional warranty/follow-up issues. The HIGH confidence is warranted by the large sample size and consistency of patterns, though prospective customers should expect to pay premium prices and should obtain multiple quotes before committing.

This aggregated review set spans many years and appears to represent multiple businesses operating under similar or identical names (Royal Flush Plumbing, Pro Plumbing Service, and others), which significantly complicates scoring reliability. The majority of reviews are strongly positive, praising punctuality, communication, professionalism, and technical skill — with many customers citing same-day or emergency responsiveness as a standout quality. However, a meaningful minority of negative reviews (roughly 15-20% of substantive reviews) describe serious issues including no-shows, missed appointments without notification, overcharging without upfront disclosure, incomplete or defective work, and poor customer service when complaints were raised. Pricing is the weakest dimension, with multiple reviewers across different time periods describing charges they felt were excessive, non-transparent, or inconsistent with quoted amounts. Project completion scores are dragged down by recurring complaints about abandoned work, callbacks not honored, and jobs requiring multiple return visits to fix errors.

• MULTI-ENTITY CONCERN: Reviews reference multiple distinct business names including 'Royal Flush Plumbing,' 'Pro Plumbing Service,' and references to individual owner-operators (Jarrod, Steve, Ben, Doug, Ted, Jose, etc.) across different geographic markets (Atlanta GA, Philadelphia PA, Providence RI, Las Vegas NV, Hollister CA, Cleveland OH, Oregon City OR, and others). This dataset almost certainly aggregates reviews from multiple unrelated businesses, severely limiting the reliability of any single composite score.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION: A significant number of reviews contain zero substantive detail — only a star rating or a single generic phrase like 'Great service!' or 'Amazing!' with no specifics. Approximately 60-80 reviews fall into this category. Several clusters of reviews share identical or near-identical dates (e.g., dozens of reviews dated 2025-05-10, 2025-04-10, 2025-03-11, 2025-02-09, 2025-01-10) which is statistically anomalous and suggests possible review manipulation or bulk import artifacts.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: At least one review (Ted and his crew sewer line replacement) appears to be posted twice with identical text and nearly identical dates (2024-07-18). Additionally, two reviews from 2021-09-24 are near-identical complaints about overcharging for a kitchen faucet installation.
• RECENCY NOTE: The dataset spans from approximately 2003 to June 2025. Reviews older than 12 months (pre-June 2024) should be weighted less heavily. The most recent reviews (2025) are predominantly positive, but the volume of blank or generic 5-star reviews in recent months raises authenticity concerns.
• PRICING TRANSPARENCY PATTERN: Multiple independent negative reviews across different years and locations describe a consistent pattern of pricing not disclosed upfront, charges significantly exceeding verbal quotes, and management being unresponsive or dismissive when customers raised billing concerns. This is a recurring structural issue, not isolated incidents.
• NO-SHOW / SCHEDULING PATTERN: A recurring theme across negative reviews spanning 2008 to 2022 involves technicians failing to appear within scheduled windows, no calls to notify customers, and rescheduled appointments also being missed. This pattern appears in enough reviews to be considered a systemic reliability concern rather than isolated incidents.
• WORK QUALITY FAILURES: Several detailed negative reviews describe defective workmanship including broken components attributed to technician error, incomplete jobs, and refusal to return to fix mistakes under warranty. These are high-severity complaints that meaningfully reduce the project completion score.

This WW Score carries LIMITED-to-MODERATE reliability for any single business decision due to strong evidence that the review dataset aggregates multiple unrelated businesses across different markets, combined with a statistically anomalous clustering of blank and generic 5-star reviews that suggests possible review inflation; the score is best interpreted as a broad industry-level benchmark rather than a precise assessment of any one contractor.

This aggregated review set spans multiple businesses operating under similar 'All About Plumbing' or 'Allison Plumbing' names, making direct attribution difficult, but the overall picture is a contractor with a strong positive majority offset by a meaningful minority of serious complaints. Professionalism scores are dragged down by recurring patterns of no-shows, missed appointments, poor communication, and failure to return calls — issues mentioned explicitly across dozens of negative reviews spanning multiple years. Pricing receives a moderate-to-low score because while many customers praise fair and competitive pricing, a notable cluster of reviews describe bait-and-switch tactics, charges added without consent, overcharging seniors, and prices that jumped significantly from quoted amounts. Project completion is similarly mixed: the majority of jobs are described as completed well, but multiple reviews describe abandoned work, callbacks not honored, problems made worse, and in at least two cases customers had to take legal action or dispute charges. Experience scores highest because the technical skill of individual plumbers is frequently praised, with many reviewers noting knowledgeable diagnosis and quality workmanship — though a handful of reviews describe misdiagnosis, broken pipes caused by the plumber, and failed repairs.

• MULTIPLE BUSINESS ENTITIES: Reviews appear to cover several distinct businesses operating under similar names including 'All About Plumbing,' 'All In A Day Plumbing,' 'Allison Plumbing,' and variations. Scores reflect an aggregate and may not represent any single contractor accurately.
• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: At least 6 reviews appear to be near-identical duplicates (e.g., two identical reviews about Ray Buchanan dated 2023-03-25, two identical reviews about the 'ALL ABOUT NOT CARING' experience dated 2024-05-27, two identical reviews about the Troy water hammering job, two identical reviews about the water filtration estimate with Xzavia). This inflates review count and may indicate review manipulation or platform aggregation artifacts.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Approximately 20+ reviews contain no text content and only a 5-star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data. Their presence in high volume is a mild fake-review signal.
• RECENCY NOTE: Reviews span from 2006 to 2025. A significant portion of reviews (roughly 40%) are dated 2022 or earlier, including many from 2019 and before. Older reviews carry reduced weight. The most recent reviews (2024-2025) continue to show both strong positives and serious negatives, suggesting persistent quality inconsistency.
• SERIOUS MISCONDUCT ALLEGATIONS: Multiple reviews allege fraud, unauthorized credit card charges, charging for work not performed, referring customers to fraudulent contractors, and in one case a customer reports winning a court judgment against the company. These are not scored but significantly reduce trust in the overall profile.
• NO-SHOW PATTERN: At least 10 distinct reviews across multiple years describe scheduled appointments where no plumber arrived and no call was made. This is a persistent and documented pattern affecting the professionalism score.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK — MODERATE: The large volume of very short, generic 5-star reviews with no detail (e.g., 'Great service,' 'Excellent,' 'Professional,' 'Fast reliable service') alongside blank-text 5-star entries raises moderate concern about review padding. Confidence is not reduced to LOW given the large volume of detailed genuine reviews, but the inflated positive count should be noted.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large review volume, but moderate trust reliability due to the presence of multiple business entities in the dataset, duplicate reviews, blank reviews, and serious misconduct allegations that suggest the true score for any single contractor may differ materially from this aggregate.

Prestige Plumbing has a large and predominantly positive review base spanning many years, with recurring praise for responsiveness, punctuality, technical skill, and fair pricing across dozens of detailed reviews. However, a meaningful cluster of negative reviews — including serious allegations of price gouging, bait-and-switch pricing, no-shows, abandoned jobs, rude behavior, and poor workmanship — significantly tempers the overall score. Pricing in particular is a split dimension: many customers praised affordability and transparency, while several others explicitly described being charged double quoted amounts, overcharged for unrendered services, or pressured into expensive unnecessary work. Project completion is similarly mixed, with multiple reviews describing technicians who failed to return to finish jobs, ghosted customers after quoting, or left work incomplete. The experience dimension scores highest, as the majority of detailed reviews affirm genuine technical competence, but a handful of reviews describe incorrect diagnoses, faulty repairs, and property damage during work.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: Multiple reviews appear to be exact or near-exact duplicates posted on the same or adjacent dates (e.g., two identical 'Poor quality of work' reviews on 2024-08-22, two identical 'Chico and crew did amazing work' reviews on 2023-01-16 and 2023-01-17, two identical 'Nick was great to deal with' reviews on 2024-05-29, two identical 'Very good job with good workmanshif' reviews on 2024-05-31, two identical 'Did excellent job' reviews on 2024-05-30, two identical 'Everything was fine' reviews on 2024-06-05, two identical 'So professional' reviews on 2024-06-03, two identical 'The plumber did a good job' reviews on 2024-07-22, two identical 'I spoke with Nick' reviews on 2024-08-04, two identical 'I had a great experience with Prestige Plumbing, thanks to Chico' reviews on 2024-09-03 and 2024-09-12, and two identical 'Shout out to Scott' reviews on 2023-12-01). These duplicates inflate the positive review count and reduce reliability.
• FAKE REVIEW PATTERN SUSPECTED: A large cluster of reviews dated exactly 2025-05-10 and 2025-06-02 through 2025-06-08 contain very short, generic, low-detail praise (e.g., 'LUIS IS THE BEST', 'Amazing Work by Luis great service', 'A good job y professional', 'Thank you Christian Correa!'). Several of these contain no substantive detail about the job performed, which is consistent with solicited or incentivized review patterns. Confidence in this recent cluster is reduced.
• BLANK REVIEWS: At least 5 reviews contain no text at all (only a 5-star rating). These were excluded from dimension scoring but counted in total reviews analyzed.
• SERIOUS NEGATIVE ALLEGATIONS: Multiple 1-star reviews allege bait-and-switch pricing (quoted $450, charged $3,550+), double-charging after seeing a veteran's license plate, charging for services not rendered, no-shows on multiple scheduled appointments, ghosting customers after quoting, a technician who refused to complete work and left a mess, and a plumber who called a customer's husband a liar and treated a woman disrespectfully. These are not isolated incidents and span multiple years.
• ROAD CONDUCT COMPLAINTS: At least 3 separate reviews (2020, 2024, 2024) describe reckless or aggressive driving behavior by company vehicle operators, including speeding at 90mph with unsecured loads, cutting lanes, and road rage incidents. While not directly related to plumbing quality, these reflect on company culture and employee conduct.
• MULTI-ENTITY CONCERN: Reviews reference many different named technicians and locations (Hawaii, Florida, California, North Carolina), suggesting this may be a franchise, aggregated listing, or name-shared business rather than a single contractor. Scores should be interpreted with caution as they may reflect multiple distinct operations under one brand name.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent reviews (May-June 2025) are disproportionately short and generic, while the most detailed and credible reviews — both positive and negative — span 2019 through 2024. The 2025 cluster shows hallmarks of a review solicitation campaign and should be weighted lower.

This WW Score carries moderate-to-high data confidence due to the large review volume, but the score itself should be treated with caution given confirmed duplicate reviews, a suspected solicited-review campaign in the most recent period, serious and recurring negative allegations across multiple years, and strong evidence that this listing may aggregate reviews from multiple distinct business entities operating under the same name.

Apex Plumbing has a strong base of loyal, repeat customers who consistently praise individual technicians — particularly Marco, Chas, Geoff, and Brandon — for responsiveness, technical skill, and clear communication. However, the review corpus contains a significant and recurring pattern of serious complaints: overcharging and price opacity appear in at least 15–18 reviews spanning from 2006 to 2025, with multiple customers reporting quotes 2–4x higher than competitors for identical work. Project completion is also meaningfully impacted by several reviews describing incomplete repairs, failed callbacks, abandoned jobs, and at least two allegations of fraudulent credit card charges. Professionalism scores are dragged down by documented incidents of rude technicians, no-shows, ignored voicemails, and one allegation of a threatening technician (Brandon). The experience dimension scores moderately well due to many specific, credible accounts of skilled diagnostic and repair work, but is offset by multiple reviews describing botched jobs requiring third-party correction. The WW Score of 72.1 reflects a company with genuine strengths in responsiveness and technical capability that is consistently undermined by pricing practices and inconsistent follow-through.

• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: Two reviews from 2021-08-05 are word-for-word identical (Chuck/Chas sewer job). One was excluded from scoring to avoid double-counting.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: Two reviews from 2024-06-07 and 2024-03-01 are nearly identical in content (Marco, new to Chicago, toilet and faucet, pricing commentary). Treated as one unique experience.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: Two reviews from 2023-03-24 and 2023-03-23 regarding the sump pump installation are nearly identical. Counted as one negative data point.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: Two reviews from 2021-06-10 and 2020-02-05 describe the same $1,040 sink/garbage disposal complaint with overlapping language. Treated as one incident.
• FRAUD ALLEGATION (2025-05-10): One reviewer explicitly states a fraudulent $1,000 charge appeared on their card after giving payment info to workers. This is a serious unresolved allegation that materially impacts trust.
• FRAUD ALLEGATION (2021-09-20): A reviewer alleges their credit card was charged without authorization after explicitly requesting it not be stored on file, in the context of a $10,000 disputed job.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS ARE SYSTEMIC AND SPAN THE ENTIRE REVIEW HISTORY (2006–2025): At least 15 distinct reviewers across multiple years describe being quoted prices 2–4x higher than competitors for identical work. This is not isolated and represents a structural pattern.
• CALLBACK AND ABANDONMENT FAILURES: Multiple reviews (2016, 2020, 2023, 2025) describe Apex failing to return calls after collecting payment or after initial visits, including one church that was ghosted entirely.
• TECHNICIAN CONDUCT COMPLAINTS: At least 3 reviews describe specific technicians being rude, condescending, or in one case (Brandon, 2023) allegedly threatening a customer who continued to follow up.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent reviews (2024–2025) are mixed, with strong positives for Marco and Chas but also a fraud allegation and a no-show/emergency service failure in May 2025. The company's quality appears inconsistent rather than trending clearly in either direction.
• 5 reviews contained no text (blank body, 5-star rating). These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data.
• EMERGENCY SERVICE RELIABILITY CONCERN: At least 2 reviews (2025-05-10, 2024-01-15) explicitly state that Apex's advertised 24/7 emergency service failed to respond during active water emergencies.

This WW Score of 72.1 is based on a large and diverse review set spanning nearly two decades and carries HIGH statistical confidence in its directional accuracy, but consumers should weight the systemic pricing complaints and fraud allegations heavily when making a hiring decision, as these represent documented risks that positive service reviews do not offset.