Find Nearby Plumbers In Chicago, Illinois

The review set is extremely small (3 reviews) and spans 2016–2018, making all findings outdated by several years. Two of the three reviews are strongly negative: one describes being connected to an out-of-zone plumber at triple the base rate, and another describes a plumber who never showed up after a 14-hour wait with no communication whatsoever. The sole positive review praises polite technicians, licensed credentials, fast work, and good value, but its generic enthusiasm and unusual phrasing ('10 stars out of 5') raise authenticity concerns. The overwhelming pattern across the dataset is one of failed referrals, poor follow-through, and pricing transparency issues, which drives scores down significantly across all dimensions.

• POSSIBLE FAKE REVIEW: The 5-star review (2016-08-25) contains suspiciously enthusiastic and non-specific praise ('10 stars out of 5'), reads as promotional in tone, and stands in stark contrast to the two detailed negative experiences. Confidence in this review's authenticity is low.
• ALL REVIEWS ARE OLDER THAN 5 YEARS: The most recent review is from 2018. No data exists for the past 12 months. These scores should not be used to assess current service quality.
• REFERRAL SERVICE AMBIGUITY: At least two reviews appear to be rating the Plumbers 911 referral/dispatch service rather than a specific plumber's workmanship, which limits the applicability of dimension scores to any individual contractor.
• VERY LOW REVIEW COUNT: Only 3 reviews are available. While the WW Score has been calculated, it carries very low statistical reliability and should be treated with extreme caution.

This WW Score is minimally reliable due to only 3 reviews, all of which are over 5 years old, a likely fake positive review inflating the dataset, and fundamental ambiguity about whether reviews describe a referral service or a specific contractor's performance.

Aaron Plumbing receives overwhelmingly negative reviews across nearly every dimension, with only 2 out of 27 reviews being clearly positive. Professionalism is severely damaged by repeated patterns of no-shows, missed appointment windows, failure to return calls, rude behavior (including one plumber texting a customer that he hated them), and an answering service that does not pass along messages. Project completion is the weakest dimension: jobs are routinely left unfinished, callbacks are denied or ignored, work is falsely reported as complete to the home warranty company, and multiple reviewers waited weeks or months without resolution. Experience scores marginally higher but is still very poor, with multiple accounts of misdiagnosis, incorrect repairs, damage caused during visits, and technicians refusing jobs they deemed inconvenient. The only positive signals come from two reviews praising a plumber named Jerry and one brief mention of a prompt and professional service visit, which are insufficient to meaningfully offset the volume of negative evidence.

• FAKE REVIEW RISK — LOW: The two positive reviews (June 2024 and August 2022) are specific and detailed enough to appear genuine, but they stand in stark contrast to 25 overwhelmingly negative reviews. No broad fake review pattern detected, but the isolated positives should be treated with caution.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent reviews (2024 and 2023) continue to reflect the same negative patterns seen in reviews dating back to 2013, indicating no meaningful improvement in service quality over more than a decade.
• SYSTEMIC MISCONDUCT PATTERN: Multiple independent reviewers allege that Aaron Plumbing misreported job outcomes to American Home Shield — claiming work was complete when it was not, or providing diagnoses to AHS that contradicted what was told to the customer in person. This is a serious integrity flag.
• NO-SHOW AND GHOSTING PATTERN: At least 8 reviews independently describe the company failing to show up for scheduled appointments or ceasing all communication mid-job, indicating a systemic operational failure rather than isolated incidents.
• TECHNICIAN CONDUCT FLAG: One reviewer reports receiving a text message from the plumber (Jerry) stating he hated the customer, apparently sent by mistake. This is an extreme professionalism violation documented with specificity.

This WW Score is based on 27 reviews spanning 2013 to 2024 with HIGH mention counts across all scored dimensions, making it a reliable and well-evidenced assessment; the score of 18.4 accurately reflects a contractor with deeply systemic failures in professionalism, follow-through, and workmanship.

All five reviews are uniformly 5-star ratings with generic praise and no specific details about actual work performed. While professionalism is consistently mentioned across all reviews (punctuality, courtesy, honesty, responsiveness), the dataset is too small (n=5) and exhibits suspicious patterns of identical phrasing and lack of specificity to calculate a reliable WW Score. Pricing and project completion are mentioned in only 2-3 reviews respectively, providing insufficient evidence. The oldest review dates to 2011, with significant gaps in recency.

• FAKE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: All 5 reviews are 5-star ratings with suspiciously generic praise and no specific project details or challenges mentioned
• REPETITIVE LANGUAGE: Multiple reviews use nearly identical phrasing ('honest,' 'professional,' 'highly recommend,' 'fantastic') without substantive differentiation
• INSUFFICIENT SAMPLE SIZE: Only 5 reviews total; minimum 3 required but confidence severely limited with this few data points
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most recent review is from September 2024, but previous review is from 2022 (2-year gap). Oldest review from 2011 (13 years old). Limited recent activity
• LACK OF SPECIFICITY: No reviews mention actual plumbing problems solved, materials used, timelines, or measurable outcomes—only vague praise

This score cannot be reliably calculated due to insufficient review volume (n=5) and strong indicators of fake or manipulated reviews. The uniformly perfect ratings combined with generic language and absence of specific project details suggest these reviews may not represent authentic customer experiences. Any score derived from this dataset should be treated with extreme skepticism.

The review pool is extremely small at only 2 reviews, making any score statistically unreliable. The detailed 1-star review from 2024 is deeply alarming, describing alleged fraud, deposit theft, bribery of a city inspector, threats against a customer's business, and repeated dishonesty — all of which catastrophically drag down Professionalism, Pricing, and Project Completion scores. The single 5-star review from 2020 is vague, generic, and contains no specific details, raising serious authenticity concerns. Even if taken at face value, it is over four years old and is vastly outweighed by the severity and specificity of the 2024 complaint. No workmanship or technical skill was described in either review, so Experience cannot be scored.

• SUSPECTED FAKE OR UNRELIABLE REVIEW: The 5-star review ('Very Professional and Friendly. Competitive prices. I called Cesar that day and he came out right away.') is extremely generic, contains no specific details about the work performed, and follows a pattern commonly associated with inauthentic reviews. Confidence in this review is very low.
• RECENCY IMBALANCE: The only positive review is from June 2020 — over 4 years old. The most recent review (May 2024) is a detailed 1-star complaint. Per Rule 6, the 2024 review carries significantly more weight.
• SERIOUS MISCONDUCT ALLEGED: The 2024 reviewer alleges Cesar Abarca accepted a $9,750 deposit under false pretenses, never filed permits as claimed, refused to issue a refund after verbally agreeing to do so, attempted to bribe a city inspector, and threatened a customer's unrelated business to suppress a complaint. These are not service quality issues — they are potential criminal and civil violations.
• LEGAL AND REGULATORY ACTION REPORTED: The 2024 reviewer states they have filed complaints with the Better Business Bureau, the City of Chicago, and the State of Illinois. This significantly elevates the severity of the flag.
• INSUFFICIENT REVIEW COUNT: With only 2 reviews total, no statistically reliable WW Score can be produced. A minimum of 3 reviews is required per scoring rules.

This score report should be treated as extremely low reliability — only 2 reviews exist, the positive review is 4+ years old and suspiciously generic, and the sole recent review describes serious alleged fraud and misconduct that has been reported to multiple regulatory bodies.

Both reviews speak positively to professionalism, with one noting good communication and a knowledgeable technician, and the other praising responsiveness on a Saturday and a thorough review of the work. Project completion is supported by only one review, which noted the job was finished in under an hour and left cleanly. Experience is similarly supported by a single mention of a knowledgeable technician who could answer questions. Pricing received a cautiously low score because the one reviewer who mentioned cost expressed a wish it had been cheaper, though they acknowledged it seemed comparable to market rates.

• Only 2 reviews total — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• The second review (5-star) contains no specific job details, only generic praise and name-dropping — this pattern is consistent with potentially coached or low-detail reviews, reducing confidence.
• All available reviews are positive with no critical feedback, which may reflect selection bias given the very small sample size.
• Both reviews are from 2024 and are therefore recent, which is a positive signal, but the sample is too small to draw meaningful conclusions.

This score should not be trusted as a reliable indicator of contractor quality — with only 2 reviews, all dimensions carry LIMITED confidence and the WW Score formula cannot produce a statistically meaningful result.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 2 reviews were analyzed, which falls below the minimum threshold of 3 reviews required for a trustworthy WW Score calculation. Both reviews are from 2017 (over 6 years old) and lack sufficient detail to establish reliable patterns. While both reviews are positive, the sample size is too small and the recency is too distant to produce a meaningful overall score.

• CRITICAL: Only 2 reviews provided — minimum 3 required for reliable scoring
• RECENCY ISSUE: Both reviews are from June–July 2017 (7+ years old). No recent data available to assess current performance
• LIMITED DETAIL: Reviews lack specificity about workmanship quality, technical problem-solving, or detailed pricing breakdown
• EXPERIENCE DIMENSION: No explicit mentions of skill level, technical knowledge, or quality of workmanship — only task completion noted

This analysis cannot produce a reliable WW Score due to insufficient review volume (2 reviews, minimum 3 required) and severe recency issues (all reviews from 2017). Any score derived would be statistically unreliable and should not be used for decision-making.