Find Nearby Plumbers In Chicago, Illinois

Discount Plumbing Chicago demonstrates strong professionalism and technical skill across multiple reviews, with technicians consistently praised for punctuality, friendliness, and efficient work. However, pricing presents a significant concern: while some customers report competitive and fair rates, one detailed review explicitly states a quote three times higher than competitors, citing pressure tactics and potential overcharging. Project completion is generally solid with timely work and good cleanup, though one critical failure involved a no-show for a scheduled inspection. The WW Score of 73.8 reflects reliable execution and professional demeanor offset by serious pricing inconsistency and reliability gaps.

• PRICING INCONSISTENCY: Stark contradiction between reviews praising 'reasonable prices' and 'significantly lower' estimates versus one detailed complaint of quotes '3x higher than anyone else.' This suggests either inconsistent pricing practices or selective targeting of customers.
• NO-SHOW INCIDENT: One review reports complete failure to appear for a scheduled inspection appointment, indicating potential reliability issues in scheduling/dispatch.
• LIMITED SAMPLE SIZE: Only 8 reviews analyzed; score reliability would improve substantially with 15+ reviews.
• RECENCY SKEW: Most reviews are from mid-2023 or earlier; only 1 review from 2024. Current service quality may differ from historical pattern.

This WW Score should be treated with caution due to small sample size, significant pricing contradictions, and a critical no-show incident that suggests operational inconsistency; the score reflects mixed performance rather than reliable excellence.

Infinity Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism and technical expertise, with many customers praising punctuality, communication, and skilled workmanship. However, the company is significantly hampered by serious project completion and follow-through issues, including multiple reports of no-shows, failure to return calls, incomplete work, and broken promises to return for callbacks. Pricing feedback is mixed, with some customers reporting fair value while others claim overcharging and incomplete work at premium rates. The pattern of communication breakdowns and abandoned follow-up work substantially undermines overall reliability despite strong initial service quality.

• CRITICAL: Multiple independent reports (at least 6 reviews) of no-shows, failure to return phone calls, and ghosting customers—this is a systemic communication/reliability problem, not isolated incidents
• CRITICAL: At least 4 reviews explicitly mention broken promises to return for callbacks or follow-up work, suggesting a pattern of abandonment after initial job
• CRITICAL: Multiple reports of incomplete work (unfinished rodding, unfilled cement cracks, unsolved sewer smell after $27k+ investment) paired with full or near-full charges
• SUSPICIOUS PATTERN: 8 reviews from 2024-06-09 with minimal detail (some completely blank text, one-liners like 'Great job also alerted me to a new problem') suggest potential fake/template reviews inflating ratings
• PRICING CONCERNS: At least 3 detailed complaints of overcharging ($2000 for incomplete work, $1050 for unfinished job, $265 for 20-minute incomplete service vs $80 elsewhere), though some customers report fair pricing
• RECENCY ISSUE: Most detailed negative reviews are from 2018-2020, but recent 2024-2025 reviews show the no-show/communication problem persists (October 2024, April 2025)
• QUALITY INCONSISTENCY: Work quality appears solid when completed, but follow-through and accountability are severely lacking

This WW Score should be treated with CAUTION. While the numerical score of 72.8 reflects strong technical professionalism and experience, it masks a critical systemic failure in project completion and customer communication that multiple independent reviews document over a 7-year period. The company's inability or unwillingness to return calls, honor callbacks, and complete promised work represents a material risk that outweighs the positive technical ratings. Customers should expect professional initial service but should be prepared for potential abandonment and communication blackouts if issues arise post-job.

Kerrigan Plumbing shows a mixed reputation with significant polarization in customer experiences. Professionalism scores moderately well (76.5) with consistent praise for courteous, knowledgeable technicians and responsive service, though some complaints about missed appointments and poor communication exist. The pricing dimension is the primary weakness (58.0), with numerous complaints about unexpected charges, overbilling, commute time charges, and lack of transparency—this is the most frequently cited negative factor. Project completion is solid (75.0) with most jobs finished properly, though some follow-up issues and unresolved problems are documented. Experience/workmanship is strong (80.0) with technical competence generally acknowledged even by dissatisfied customers. The company's reputation has deteriorated over time, with older reviews (2009-2011) more positive and recent reviews (2017-2025) showing increased complaints about billing practices.

• SUSPICIOUS REVIEW DETECTED: The 2024-06-09 review titled 'F J Kerrigan Plumbing Co. is a standout choice...' exhibits hallmarks of a fake or planted review—it is excessively long, uses generic marketing language ('standout choice,' 'one-stop solution'), contains no specific customer details or project names, and reads like promotional copy rather than authentic customer experience. This review was excluded from scoring weight consideration.
• POLARIZED RATING PATTERN: 24 five-star reviews vs. 13 one-star reviews with very few middle ratings (only 2 two-star, 1 three-star, 1 four-star). This extreme bimodal distribution suggests either genuinely inconsistent service quality or review manipulation.
• BILLING COMPLAINTS ARE HABITUAL: Multiple independent reviews (2024-11-01, 2020-02-13, 2017-08-09, 2015-08-10, 2012-12-21, 2011-01-30) cite nearly identical issues: unexpected high charges, lack of transparency about costs, commute time billing, and poor responsiveness to billing disputes. This pattern is too consistent to dismiss as isolated incidents.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most negative reviews cluster in 2012-2020 period, with some recent complaints (2024-11-01, 2025-01-10). Positive reviews are distributed across all time periods but include the suspicious 2024-06-09 review. Recent data (past 12 months) shows 3 reviews: 2 positive (5-star), 1 extremely negative (1-star with detailed billing fraud allegation).
• COMMUNICATION FAILURES: Multiple reviews document ignored voicemails, unreturned calls, unresponsive office staff, and missed appointment windows. This suggests systemic customer service issues beyond individual technician performance.

This WW Score should be treated with MODERATE confidence. While the sample size is adequate (45 reviews), the extreme polarization, documented billing complaints across multiple years, one detected suspicious review, and significant recency concerns limit reliability. The score of 71.2 reflects genuine technical competence undermined by serious pricing transparency and customer service issues. Prospective customers should specifically request detailed written estimates and clarify all charges before work begins.

All three reviews speak positively to professionalism, noting timely responses, early or on-time arrivals, and courteous communication. Project completion is consistently affirmed across all reviews, with mentions of jobs finished in a timely manner and proper cleanup. Pricing is referenced in two reviews as reasonable and fair, supporting a solid but conservatively scored pricing dimension. Experience is touched on in two reviews, with one explicitly calling the technician knowledgeable and skilled. Overall the picture is positive, but the very small review pool limits confidence significantly.

• Only 3 reviews total — WW Score should be treated as preliminary and not fully reliable.
• One review dates from January 2020, which is over 4 years old and carries reduced weight relative to the 2023 and 2024 reviews.
• No negative feedback present across any review — while this is a positive signal, it may also reflect a small and potentially self-selected sample rather than a comprehensive performance record.
• Review language is varied and specific enough that fake review patterns are not suspected, but the sample size is too small to draw firm conclusions.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews spanning a 4-year period, which is insufficient to establish high confidence — treat this score as a preliminary indicator only and seek additional data points before making a hiring decision.

Joe receives consistently strong praise across all five reviews for professionalism, with multiple reviewers explicitly citing punctuality, reliability, courtesy, and ease of communication. Project completion is well-supported, with reviewers noting he works until the job is done and follows through completely. His technical experience is affirmed across a variety of plumbing tasks including drain clearing, toilet installation, and garbage disposal work. Pricing is mentioned in only one review, so the pricing score carries very limited weight. The overall WW Score is tempered by the small review pool and the age of the reviews, all of which are between 7 and 10 years old.

• All 5 reviews are rated 5.0 stars with no negative feedback of any kind — this warrants mild caution, though the reviews do contain specific details and varied language that reduce fake review suspicion.
• RECENCY WARNING: All reviews are dated between 2014 and 2017. The most recent review is approximately 8 years old. This score may not reflect current service quality.
• Small sample size of only 5 reviews significantly limits the reliability of this score. Confidence factors are reduced accordingly.

This WW Score should be treated with caution — while the reviews are specific and credible in tone, the sample size is very small and all reviews are over 7 years old, making it difficult to assess Joe's current service quality with confidence.

Professionalism is the strongest and most consistently mentioned dimension, with multiple reviewers praising responsiveness, punctuality, communication, and polite demeanor across several reviews. Project completion scores well, with reviewers noting jobs were seen through to resolution — including weekend and emergency callbacks — though the small total review count limits confidence. Pricing is mentioned positively in a few reviews, with one reviewer explicitly calling the price fair for a large Sunday job and another noting reasonable pricing, but the limited mentions keep this score conservative. Experience is supported by references to diagnosing complex issues, explaining the process, and delivering quality workmanship, though again the low review volume constrains confidence. One review (the window-cleaning review) appears to be for an entirely different type of business and was treated as non-applicable to plumbing-specific scoring.

• One review (dated 2016-09-06) describes a window-cleaning service with a crew of three and references Angie's List coupons — this is almost certainly a misattributed review for a different business entirely and was excluded from dimension scoring.
• One review (dated 2014-10-22) contains only the word 'unknown' with no usable content and was excluded from all scoring.
• All reviews are rated 5.0 stars with no negative or mixed feedback, which warrants mild fake-review awareness caution, though most reviews do contain specific, credible details that reduce this concern.
• All reviews are older than 12 months — the most recent plumbing-relevant review dates to January 2018, making this data significantly outdated. Current performance cannot be reliably inferred.
• Total usable review count is very low (7 reviews, with only 6 fully applicable to plumbing). Scores should be treated as directional only.

This WW Score carries LOW overall reliability due to the very small number of usable reviews, the complete absence of any negative feedback across all ratings, the presence of one clearly misattributed review, and the fact that all reviews are more than six years old — meaning this score should not be used as a confident indicator of current contractor quality.