Find Nearby Plumbers In Chicago, Illinois

Moody Plumbing has a deeply polarized review profile spanning over a decade. On the positive side, a large number of reviewers praise individual technicians and the owner Joe for being professional, courteous, knowledgeable, and responsive — with many repeat customers citing consistent quality. However, pricing is the single most damaging dimension: a substantial and recurring pattern of complaints about price gouging, bait-and-switch quoting, undisclosed price increases, charging for incomplete or failed work, and billing disputes significantly drags down the pricing score. Project completion is also mixed — while many jobs are completed well and on time, there are notable failures including abandoned work, unresolved callbacks, jobs that required multiple return visits, and at least one allegation of a $100,000 job left unfinished. Experience scores moderately well overall, with many reviewers citing skilled diagnostics and quality workmanship, but offset by incidents of technicians unable to identify basic problems, improper installations, and damage left unrepaired. The overall WW Score of 68.4 reflects a contractor with genuine strengths in professionalism and technical skill but serious, repeated, and credible concerns around pricing transparency and job follow-through.

• PRICING CONCERN — HIGH SEVERITY: Multiple independent reviewers across different years (2013–2024) describe bait-and-switch pricing, undisclosed price increases, charging for service calls when no work was performed, and billing significantly above quoted amounts. This is a consistent and credible pattern, not isolated incidents.
• PROJECT COMPLETION FAILURES: At least 3 reviews describe jobs that were not completed or required multiple return visits to fix the same problem. One review alleges a $100,000 job was abandoned entirely. Another describes a toilet repair that was never resolved despite multiple technician visits totaling $550.
• CUSTOMER SERVICE COMPLAINTS: Multiple reviews cite rude or dismissive office staff, failure to return calls, missed appointments without notification, and unapologetic responses to legitimate complaints. This is a recurring theme across multiple years.
• DAMAGE WITHOUT REMEDIATION: At least two reviews describe physical damage caused during service (scratched toilet, cracked attic panel, knocked-out recessed light, improperly cut drywall) that was not repaired or acknowledged by the company.
• RECENCY NOTE: Reviews span from 2010 to 2024. The most recent reviews (2023–2024) continue to show both strong positive and strong negative experiences, indicating the mixed quality profile is ongoing and not improving consistently.
• NO FAKE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: Reviews vary significantly in length, detail, specificity, tone, and rating. Named technicians (Joe, Tom, Martin, AJ, Matt, Wayne, Mario, Angel, Jared, Sebastian, Victor, Marc, Ronnie, Rich, Jim, Seb, Edison) appear across many reviews, lending authenticity. No coordinated fake review pattern identified.
• SCORE CONFIDENCE NOTE: Despite HIGH confidence labels due to mention volume, the pricing score of 52 should be treated as a serious warning signal. The volume and specificity of pricing complaints across many years is unusually high for a contractor with otherwise positive workmanship reviews.

This WW Score is based on 110 reviews spanning 14 years with high mention counts across all four dimensions, making it statistically reliable — however, the deeply polarized nature of the reviews means the score masks significant risk, particularly around pricing transparency and job completion, and prospective customers should read negative reviews carefully before hiring.

Priority Plumbing has a deeply mixed record across all four dimensions. On the positive side, many reviewers praise specific technicians (Doug, Paul, Rey, Steve, Chuck) for punctuality, friendliness, technical skill, and quality workmanship — particularly on water softener and filter installations. However, a significant cluster of negative reviews — spanning multiple years — describes no-shows, broken property that was not disclosed or repaired, overcharging, incomplete work requiring a second plumber, and outright rude or dismissive behavior from ownership. Pricing is similarly split: several reviewers call it fair or even a bargain, while others describe feeling overcharged or encountering opaque pricing. Project completion is the most concerning dimension, with multiple reviews describing abandoned jobs, wrong pipe placement, unresolved callbacks, and work that caused downstream damage. The score reflects this genuine tension between a capable crew on good days and a pattern of serious service failures on bad ones.

• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The review by 'Doug and Betty were great to work with...' (SpringWell install) appears twice with identical text on 2024-05-14, once with a timestamp and once without. Only one instance was counted for scoring.
• NEAR-DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The 2024-03-15 review about a Springwell water softener and carbon monoxide leak is nearly identical in language to the 2024-06-09 review. These may represent the same reviewer submitting twice or a copied review. Treated as one unique data point for scoring.
• REVIEW 'SAME AS ABOVE' (2011-10-03) and 'unknown' (2016-01-22) contain no usable content and were excluded from dimension scoring.
• SPAN OF REVIEWS IS VERY WIDE: Reviews range from 2007 to 2024. Reviews older than 2022 (approximately 35+ reviews) were given reduced weight, as they may not reflect current business practices, staffing, or ownership.
• SERIOUS NEGATIVE INCIDENTS NOTED: At least one review describes $100,000 in property damage attributed to the company's work, with the company denying responsibility (2019). Another describes employees breaking property and concealing it with silicone (2015). Another describes the owner cursing at customers (2013). These are high-severity flags that meaningfully suppress the project completion and professionalism scores.
• NO-SHOW AND ABANDONMENT PATTERN: Multiple reviews across different years (2016, 2023, 2019, 2013) describe the company failing to show up for scheduled appointments or failing to follow through on estimates, suggesting a recurring reliability issue.
• MOST RECENT REVIEWS (2024) ARE PREDOMINANTLY POSITIVE AND SPECIFIC: The 2024 reviews appear genuine with specific technician names, job details, and varied language. No fake review pattern detected in recent reviews.
• OLDER NEGATIVE REVIEWS MAY REFLECT DIFFERENT STAFF OR OWNERSHIP: Several negative reviews reference 'Paul' as owner, while recent positive reviews reference 'Doug' as owner, suggesting possible ownership or staffing changes over time. This context was noted but scores were not adjusted speculatively.

This WW Score is based on 60 reviews spanning 17 years with high mention counts across all dimensions, giving it statistical breadth, but the wide time range, duplicate entries, and several high-severity negative incidents (property damage, no-shows, disputed workmanship) introduce meaningful uncertainty — the score should be treated as a fair average that masks significant variance in customer outcomes.

RB Plumbing has a deeply mixed record across its review history. On the positive side, many older reviews praise Ruben and his team for skilled diagnostics, quality workmanship, transparent communication, and fair pricing — with multiple reviewers citing specific technical problems solved efficiently and honestly. However, a significant cluster of negative reviews — including recent ones from 2023 and 2025 — describe a pattern of unanswered calls, no-shows without follow-up, and at least one instance of a disputed service charge that suggests billing integrity concerns. Professionalism and project completion scores are dragged down substantially by repeated responsiveness failures and one confirmed no-show. Pricing scores are moderate because while many reviewers praised value, at least two noted prices felt high and one review flagged a questionable $125 charge for minor work. The experience dimension scores highest because when the company does show up, the technical quality of work is consistently praised across many reviews.

• Four reviews have no text content — only a 5-star rating with no written feedback. These blank reviews provide no usable data and were excluded from dimension scoring. Their presence slightly inflates the raw star average.
• Two reviews (2022-12-05 and 2023-06-10) contain nearly identical text about an unanswered outdoor leak inquiry. This may represent a duplicate submission by the same reviewer or a copy-paste error, and has been treated as a single unique complaint for scoring purposes.
• Recency concern: The most recent reviews (2023–2025) skew negative, with complaints about no-shows, unanswered calls, and a disputed billing incident. This suggests a possible decline in service quality or responsiveness compared to the stronger reviews from 2015–2021. Recent performance should be weighted more heavily by prospective customers.
• One review (2011-11-06) alleges warranty fraud — installing substandard equipment and then charging for warranty repairs. This is a serious allegation but is isolated, old, and unverified.
• One review (2012-02-01) cites a price estimate $250 higher than a competitor and reports a dismissive attitude when questioned. This is consistent with the 2025 billing complaint and suggests occasional pricing transparency issues.

This WW Score is based on 30 reviews with usable content spanning 2010–2025 and carries HIGH data confidence, but prospective customers should weigh the recent negative trend heavily — multiple 2023–2025 reviews describe responsiveness failures that suggest the company's current operational reliability may be meaningfully lower than its historical reputation.

Able Sewerage has a strong base of loyal, satisfied customers who consistently praise responsiveness, fair pricing, and pleasant workers — several reviewers note multi-year or even 15-year relationships with the company. However, the review set contains multiple serious negative experiences that meaningfully drag down every dimension: two reviews describe misdiagnosis of plumbing problems that led to unnecessary and costly repair recommendations, one describes repeated no-show appointments with no communication, and one describes a disputed service charge and an unprofessional owner response. Professionalism is mixed — while many reviewers praise attitude and communication, at least three reviews cite poor communication, missed appointments, or dismissive responses. Project completion is the most damaged dimension, with credible accounts of jobs left unresolved, incorrect diagnoses, and work described as a 'bandaid' without disclosure to the customer. Pricing scores moderately well overall, but is undercut by two reviews where customers paid competitors significantly less for the same or better work.

• Several 5-star reviews are brief and generic (e.g., 'Good quality service. Timely response. Professional attitude.') with little specific detail — mild fake review risk, though not conclusive.
• Two reviews (2020 and 2022) describe near-identical patterns: Able misdiagnosed a sewer issue, recommended expensive excavation or pipe replacement costing thousands, and a second company resolved the problem quickly and cheaply. This pattern is a significant credibility concern for the experience dimension.
• One negative reviewer (2021) references an 'unprofessional response' from owner Chris, suggesting a public dispute — this is a reputational flag for professionalism.
• Recency note: Only 5 of 19 reviews are from 2022 or later. The majority of reviews (14) are from 2021 or earlier, with several dating back to 2013–2017. The score should be treated with caution as current performance may differ from historical patterns.
• One review (2016) explicitly describes two cancelled appointments with no notification and blames being given misleading information about scope of work — this is a direct project completion and communication failure.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to review volume, but the score itself should be treated with moderate trust given the age of most reviews, a recurring pattern of misdiagnosis complaints, and documented communication failures that suggest inconsistent service quality.

Paul the Plumber operates across what appears to be multiple similarly-named businesses or franchises, generating a very large and mixed review pool spanning roughly 2004 to 2025. Professionalism scores moderately well — the majority of positive reviews praise punctuality, communication, courteous technicians, and clean workmanship — but is significantly dragged down by a recurring pattern of no-shows, missed callbacks, rescheduling without notice, and in some cases rude office staff. Pricing is the single most damaging dimension: an exceptionally high volume of detailed negative reviews describe charges that are 3x to 10x market rate for simple jobs, refusal to provide itemized bills, flat-rate pricing that is not disclosed upfront, and a documented pattern of targeting elderly and vulnerable customers with inflated quotes. Project completion is generally positive for jobs that are actually completed, with many reviewers noting efficient and thorough work, but is undermined by multiple accounts of abandoned estimates, unresolved callbacks, and in some cases work that had to be redone by other plumbers. Experience scores reasonably well among positive reviewers who describe skilled diagnostics and quality workmanship, but is offset by multiple accounts of misdiagnosis, incorrect installations, and technicians who had to call supervisors mid-job.

• PRICING PREDATION PATTERN: An unusually high volume of detailed, specific negative reviews — spanning multiple years and geographic locations — describe charges of $700–$5,500 for jobs that competitors completed for $100–$800. This is not isolated; it is a systemic pattern across dozens of independent reviewers.
• ELDERLY TARGETING: Multiple independent reviewers explicitly state the company exploited elderly or vulnerable customers (80+ year olds, widows, new homeowners) with inflated quotes and refusal to provide itemized bills. This is a serious ethical flag.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — MODERATE: A significant cluster of reviews dated 2021-06-10, 2022-06-10, 2023-06-10, 2024-06-09, and 2025-05-10 share identical or near-identical dates with no specific job details, suggesting possible review solicitation campaigns or batch submissions. Many of these are blank (no text, only a 5-star rating) and should be treated as low-signal.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Approximately 30–40 reviews contain no text whatsoever — only a star rating (almost all 5-star). These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence per scoring rules.
• MULTI-ENTITY AMBIGUITY: Reviews reference multiple named technicians, multiple geographic locations (NH, NE, IL, TX, MA, CO, MN), and multiple business names (Paul the Plumber, Paul's Way Home Services, Paul's Way). It is likely these reviews aggregate multiple similarly-named businesses, which reduces the reliability of any single composite score.
• NO-SHOW AND CALLBACK FAILURE PATTERN: Multiple reviews across different years describe Paul or his team scheduling appointments and failing to appear or return calls, sometimes causing customers to take time off work unnecessarily. This is a recurring professionalism failure.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews are from 2024–2025 and carry full weight. Reviews from 2009–2018 are present but given reduced interpretive weight in narrative assessment. The pricing complaints are consistent across all time periods.
• ITEMIZED BILLING REFUSAL: Multiple reviewers report being denied itemized bills when requested, which is a transparency red flag and consistent with the pricing concerns.

This WW Score of 68.2 is based on a very large review pool and carries HIGH statistical confidence in its direction, but should be interpreted cautiously due to likely multi-entity aggregation, a documented pattern of price gouging complaints, suspected review solicitation inflating the 5-star count, and serious ethical concerns around billing practices — prospective customers are strongly advised to obtain itemized quotes in writing before authorizing any work.

John's Plumbing demonstrates strong technical competence and professionalism from individual technicians, with many reviews praising punctuality, friendliness, and quality workmanship. However, the company is significantly undermined by persistent pricing concerns—numerous customers report excessive charges, inflated hourly rates, undisclosed fees, and billing for time not worked. Project completion issues include scheduling failures, no-shows, and incomplete work requiring callbacks. The company shows a stark divide between field technician quality and office/management accountability, with many negative reviews citing poor follow-up and unresponsive management when disputes arise.

• CRITICAL PRICING PATTERN: At least 25+ reviews explicitly cite overcharging, inflated rates ($185-$225/hour), billing for unworked time, and unauthorized parts charges. This is the single largest complaint category and suggests systemic pricing practices rather than isolated incidents.
• OWNERSHIP CHANGE NOTED: One detailed 5-star review (2023-02-06) explicitly references new ownership since May 2022 and asks readers to give the company a fair chance. However, negative pricing and scheduling reviews continue post-May 2022, indicating issues persist under new management.
• NO-SHOW AND SCHEDULING FAILURES: Multiple reviews (2020-07-31, 2020-06-29, 2019-10-23, 2017-03-24, 2016-10-17, 2015-01-22, 2014-11-01, 2013-09-16) document no-shows, broken promises, and failure to return calls. This pattern spans years and multiple ownership periods.
• INCOMPLETE WORK: Several reviews report jobs left unfinished, leaks after repair, or work that failed shortly after completion (2023-05-25, 2024-09-27, 2016-10-17, 2012-09-19).
• OFFICE VS. FIELD DISCONNECT: Review from 2023-09-04 explicitly notes 'night and day' difference between excellent field technicians and poor office communication/management. This pattern appears in multiple reviews.
• DIAGNOSTIC OVERREACH: Multiple reviews (2023-07-16, 2024-02-21, 2013-05-25) report technicians recommending expensive solutions (whole-house repiping, $9,000 jobs) that other plumbers later identified as unnecessary or vastly overpriced.
• RECENT NEGATIVE REVIEWS: Negative reviews continue through 2024 (June, August, September, October), indicating problems are ongoing and not resolved by management changes.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK - LOW: While many recent reviews are uniformly 5-star with generic praise, they contain specific technician names, detailed scenarios, and varied language patterns. The negative reviews are highly detailed and credible. No strong evidence of fake positive reviews, but the volume of recent 5-stars vs. older mixed reviews warrants noting.

This WW Score of 68.2 is reliable and conservative. The company excels in technical execution and individual technician professionalism (78.5 experience score) but is severely compromised by systematic pricing practices that customers perceive as exploitative and by recurring scheduling/follow-up failures. The HIGH confidence across all dimensions is based on 47-89 mentions per category, providing robust data. However, the score reflects a company with significant structural problems in billing transparency and management accountability that offset strong field-level performance. Customers should expect quality work but should obtain detailed written estimates, verify all charges, and be prepared to dispute bills.