Find Nearby Plumbers In Crystal Lake, Illinois

Derek and Craig's handyman service demonstrates strong performance across all dimensions. Professionalism is consistently praised with mentions of punctuality, responsiveness, friendly demeanor, and cleanliness. Project completion is reliably documented with multiple reviews confirming jobs finished on time, under budget, and with thorough follow-through. Pricing is explicitly noted as fair and transparent, with customers appreciating cost-saving suggestions. Technical expertise is evident across diverse projects including appliance installation, plumbing repairs, and general handyman work. The service shows particular strength in responsiveness and customer communication.

• Two reviews lack substantive content: one contains only 'zz' and another only 'did a very good job' — these provide minimal evaluative data
• Nine reviews lack date information, limiting ability to assess recency bias; only 2 reviews are dated within the past 12 months (Feb 2024, Oct 2023)
• All 14 reviews are 5-star ratings with uniformly positive language; while not necessarily fake, the complete absence of any critical feedback or lower ratings is unusual and warrants caution
• The concentration of undated reviews (9 of 14) makes it difficult to assess whether this represents current service quality or historical performance

This WW Score of 88.2 should be treated with moderate caution: while the data shows consistent excellence across all dimensions with HIGH confidence levels, the lack of recency information for 64% of reviews and the absence of any critical feedback limits the ability to confirm current service quality. The score reflects strong historical performance but may not fully represent present-day operations.

Air Man receives overwhelmingly positive feedback across professionalism, project completion, and technical experience, with dozens of reviewers praising named technicians for being courteous, punctual, thorough, and knowledgeable. The vast majority of reviews are recent (2025), lending strong recency weight to the positive signals. However, three notable negative reviews — one describing repeated no-shows and an aggressive office rep, one alleging a $300 charge with no resolution, and one detailing a long-running dispute over poor workmanship and dishonest technicians — meaningfully drag scores down, particularly for project completion and pricing transparency. Pricing feedback is mixed: most reviewers describe fair or reasonable pricing, but one review explicitly flags a lack of transparency around service fees and an inability to obtain part numbers, which is a meaningful red flag for the pricing dimension. Overall, the field technicians appear consistently strong, while office/customer service interactions show a pattern of occasional but serious failures.

• Five reviews contain no text at all — only a 5-star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence.
• One review (2025-06-02) appears to be a near-duplicate of a review dated 2022-01-17, with nearly identical wording about 'Tom and his team.' This may indicate a copied or reposted review and has been counted only once for scoring purposes.
• Several reviews from 2025-06-02 all mention the same technician (Damian) on the same date with very brief, generic praise. While not conclusively fake, the clustering pattern warrants mild caution — confidence is not reduced but noted.
• Three 1-star reviews raise serious concerns: one describes repeated no-shows, wrong contact information, and an office rep who became irate and hung up (2024); one describes paying $300 with no repair completed and technicians claiming ignorance of a known part failure (2020); one describes a long dispute involving missed appointments, technician dishonesty, and $450 paid for work the customer felt was ineffective (2018). These are specific, detailed, and credible.
• Many reviews are older than 1 year (2014–2022 range). Recency weighting has been applied, giving greater influence to 2024–2025 reviews. Older negative reviews (2018, 2020) are noted but weighted less heavily than recent ones.
• The pricing dimension score is penalized due to one explicit complaint about undisclosed service fees and refusal to provide part numbers, which directly contradicts the transparency standard expected in this dimension.

This WW Score is based on a substantial volume of reviews with strong recency, and is considered moderately reliable — the field technician performance is well-documented and consistently positive, but recurring office/customer service failures and a small number of detailed negative reviews introduce enough uncertainty to prevent a top-tier score.

Com24 demonstrates strong overall performance across all four dimensions, with particular strengths in professionalism, pricing fairness, and technical expertise. The company excels at responsive communication, punctuality, and delivering quality workmanship at reasonable rates. However, project completion shows slightly lower confidence due to two significant no-show/abandonment incidents (1-star reviews from 2024 and 2019) that directly contradict the otherwise consistent pattern of reliable follow-through. The majority of reviews (14 of 16) are highly positive and detailed, spanning multiple years, which supports the reliability of this assessment.

• Two critical no-show/abandonment incidents (2024-04-22 and 2019-09-25) represent serious project completion failures that significantly impact overall trustworthiness despite overwhelmingly positive reviews elsewhere
• 2024-04-22 review mentions 'Absolute WORSE customer service' from Jenna with 'full screenshots' but provides no detail—this vague complaint lacks specificity but cannot be dismissed given the serious tone
• Most reviews are older than 12 months (12 of 16 reviews predate 2024); only 2 recent reviews available, limiting recency assessment
• High concentration of 5-star reviews (14 of 16) with generally positive language could suggest selection bias, though reviews contain specific details (names, situations, technical issues) that reduce likelihood of fabrication

This WW Score of 82.1 should be treated with moderate caution: while the HIGH confidence is supported by substantial mention counts and detailed review content, the two documented no-show incidents and limited recent data (only 2 reviews from 2024) suggest that current operational reliability may have declined or become inconsistent, warranting direct verification of scheduling practices before engagement.

Matt Yunke's Plumbing demonstrates strong performance across all measured dimensions. Professionalism is consistently praised with rapid response times, clear communication about costs, and courteous demeanor. Project completion is excellent, with jobs finished promptly and thoroughly, including cleanup and follow-up work. Technical skill is evident in complex installations (water heater, well pressure tank, cartridge replacement) and problem-solving under pressure. Pricing is described as competitive and reasonable, though limited explicit detail on value comparisons. All three reviews are recent to moderately recent (2022–2023) and highly positive.

• Small sample size (n=3) limits statistical reliability; recommend collecting more reviews before making major business decisions
• All reviews are 5-star ratings with no critical feedback; while not necessarily fake, this perfect record should be validated with additional independent sources
• Two reviews are over 1 year old (2022); only one review from past 12 months (2023); recency data is limited
• Pricing dimension based on only 2 mentions; confidence in pricing score is LIMITED

This WW Score of 89.3 reflects strong performance but should be treated with caution due to the small sample size (3 reviews) and lack of critical feedback; the score is reliable as a positive indicator but would benefit from additional reviews to confirm consistency and identify any potential weaknesses.

Crystal Clear Plumbing earns strong marks across all four dimensions, with consistent praise for punctuality, courteous staff, and clean workmanship spanning multiple years of reviews. Professionalism is well-documented with numerous reviewers specifically calling out named technicians (Jared, Pedro, Scott, Sonny) as polite, prompt, and communicative. Project completion scores are high, with the vast majority of reviewers confirming jobs were finished correctly and efficiently, though one notable negative review describes a warranty dispute where a repair failed within a month and the company allegedly refused to honor it. Pricing scores are tempered by two negative data points: one reviewer found the $150 service call fee steep, another was charged $200 for 30 minutes with no leak found and no prior disclosure of the minimum charge, and a third was charged $475 for a job they felt should have cost $200 including being billed for the technician's error in ordering the wrong part. Experience scores are strong overall, with multiple reviewers praising technical knowledge and problem-solving, offset slightly by the one instance of a technician needing to 'phone a friend' and replacing the wrong part first.

• 5 reviews contain no text at all — only a 5-star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data.
• A cluster of 10+ reviews share the exact same date (2025-05-10) with no review text or minimal text, which may indicate a batch submission or review solicitation event. Confidence is not reduced since many of these are blank, but the pattern is noted.
• Several older reviews (2015–2020) reference a plumber named 'Jerry' or 'Andrew' who does not appear in recent reviews. This may indicate a change in ownership or key personnel, meaning older reviews may not reflect current service quality.
• One 1-star review (2021) alleges the company refused to honor a 6-month warranty after a repair failed within one month and threatened court action — a serious flag for project completion and business integrity.
• One 1-star review (2021) reports calling 3 times and never receiving a callback, and one 1-star review (2022) reports being told they would be contacted and never hearing back — both flag responsiveness issues.
• One 2-star review (2016) documents being charged for a technician's mistake (wrong part ordered, transportation fees passed to customer) — a pricing transparency concern.
• RECENCY NOTE: Reviews from 2025 and 2024 are predominantly positive and recent. Negative reviews are mostly from 2016–2023. The most recent negative experience is from mid-2023. Recent trend appears positive but the warranty/callback complaints should not be dismissed.

This WW Score is based on a substantial volume of reviews (60 total, 55 with usable data) spanning 2012–2025, giving it HIGH overall confidence, though the score is modestly conservative due to recurring pricing transparency concerns, at least one credible warranty dispute, and documented responsiveness failures in older reviews.

M.A.D. Plumbing demonstrates strong performance across all four dimensions based on four reviews. Professionalism is consistently praised with mentions of punctuality, cleanliness, politeness, and responsiveness across all reviews. Project completion is excellent, with all jobs finished promptly and completely—including complex diagnostics that prevented costly mistakes. Pricing is favorably mentioned in three reviews as reasonable, fair, and competitive. Experience is evident through skilled workmanship, problem-solving (fixing rather than replacing), and technical knowledge. However, the overall confidence is MODERATE rather than HIGH due to the limited sample size of only 4 reviews.

• Small sample size (n=4) limits statistical reliability; recommend collecting more recent reviews for robust scoring
• Three of four reviews are older than 3 years (2019-2020); only one review from 2024 provides recent performance data
• All four reviews are 5-star ratings with no negative feedback; while not necessarily fake, the absence of any critical comments or balanced perspectives is atypical and should be noted
• Generic praise language in some reviews ('great work,' 'highly recommended') without extensive specific detail, though Review 2 provides substantive examples of problem-solving

This WW Score of 88.2 should be treated with caution due to the small sample size and age of most reviews; while the contractor shows strong indicators of quality, a larger and more recent dataset would be needed to establish high confidence in this score.