Find Nearby Plumbers In Crystal Lake, Illinois

Lewis Plumbing demonstrates strong technical expertise and workmanship (78.5/100), with many customers praising skilled technicians and quality repairs. Professionalism is moderate (72.5/100), with consistent mentions of punctuality and friendly staff, but significant communication and responsiveness issues undermine this score. Project completion is problematic (71.0/100), with numerous reports of missed appointments, incomplete work, and poor follow-through. Pricing is the most critical weakness (52.0/100), with extensive complaints about high hourly rates ($120-$150+), inflated markups on parts (200-400%), travel time charges, and lack of transparent estimates. The company shows a stark divide between positive recent reviews (2025) and negative historical patterns, suggesting either recent operational changes or review manipulation.

• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: Recent reviews (June 2025 and May 2025) show suspiciously uniform 5-star ratings with generic praise and minimal specificity. Multiple reviews use nearly identical phrasing ('fantastic,' 'professional,' 'highly recommend') without substantive detail. This contrasts sharply with older, more detailed reviews.
• SEVERE PRICING COMPLAINTS: 42 mentions of pricing issues reveal systematic overcharging practices including: hourly rates of $120-$150+, 200-400% markups on parts, charges for travel time, $1 minimum charges, and lack of upfront estimates. Multiple customers report feeling 'gouged' or 'cheated.'
• COMMUNICATION & RESPONSIVENESS CRISIS: Extensive pattern of unanswered calls, unreturned voicemails, missed appointments, and no-shows, particularly with American Home Shield (AHS) warranty work. This appears to be a systemic office management issue.
• QUALITY CONTROL INCONSISTENCY: While many reviews praise workmanship, others report incomplete repairs, incorrect installations (reversed water lines, upside-down valves), and multiple return visits to fix initial errors.
• AMERICAN HOME SHIELD PATTERN: Disproportionate number of negative reviews from AHS customers, suggesting the company may deprioritize warranty work or have poor coordination with AHS.
• RECENCY BIAS ALERT: 25+ reviews from 2025 and late 2024 are predominantly 5-star with minimal detail, while 2020-2023 reviews are more balanced and detailed. This temporal clustering warrants skepticism about recent ratings.
• OWNER ACCOUNTABILITY: Multiple reviews cite owner (Martin/Matthew) as defensive, unwilling to admit fault, and dismissive of customer concerns. One customer reported owner threatened legal action over a legitimate complaint.

This WW Score of 68.2 should be treated with MODERATE-TO-HIGH caution: while the score reflects genuine data from 152 reviews, the recent clustering of suspiciously generic 5-star reviews (2025) suggests possible manipulation, and the stark historical pattern of communication failures and pricing complaints indicates systemic operational issues that may not be fully captured by the recent positive surge. Customers should independently verify current service quality and request detailed written estimates before engaging this company.

Master Tech Service Corp presents a deeply polarized review profile with significant quality and ethical concerns. While the company demonstrates technical competence and occasionally delivers excellent service (particularly under owner Ryan's direct involvement), systematic issues emerge across professionalism, pricing transparency, and project completion. The company exhibits a troubling pattern of aggressive upselling, misdiagnosis to justify unnecessary replacements, and poor responsiveness. Pricing practices are consistently flagged as exploitative, with markups of 300-1600% on parts. Customer service deteriorates markedly when warranty claims are involved, suggesting potential incentive misalignment. Recent reviews (2024-2025) show marked improvement under new leadership, but historical pattern of deceptive practices and unethical behavior significantly undermines overall trustworthiness.

• CRITICAL: Systematic pattern of deceptive diagnostic practices—multiple independent reviews confirm technicians misdiagnose issues to justify expensive replacements (e.g., claiming mold/biological growth when none exists, oversizing units, recommending unnecessary compressor replacements when only capacitors needed repair). This pattern spans 2015-2020 with high consistency.
• CRITICAL: Extreme price gouging on parts—documented cases of 300-1600% markups (e.g., $20 part charged as $325, $25 part charged as $320, $120 part quoted as $650). This is not market variation; it is systematic overcharging.
• CRITICAL: Warranty claim manipulation—multiple reviews indicate company refuses service or provides substandard diagnostics when claims are warranty-covered, suggesting financial incentive to deny coverage. Company has been accused of writing false reports to warranty companies to deny claims.
• CRITICAL: Unethical behavior toward vulnerable customers—documented cases of targeting single women, widows, and elderly customers with false mold claims and unnecessary replacements. One review explicitly states company refused service based on customer race.
• CRITICAL: Refusal to honor warranties and service agreements—multiple documented cases where company denied warranty coverage, refused callbacks, or demanded payment for warranty work. One customer reported company demanded removal of negative review before agreeing to service.
• CRITICAL: Responsiveness failures—numerous reviews document company refusing to return calls, hanging up on customers, being unavailable for scheduled appointments, and leaving customers without service for weeks during emergencies.
• MODERATE: Fake review pattern detected—reviews dated 2025-06-02 and 2025-05-30 contain identical generic praise ('Excellent service', 'Best HVAC company in the metroplex! Always great service!!!') with no specifics. However, most recent reviews (2024-2025) appear authentic with detailed narratives.
• MODERATE: Recency bias—company appears to have undergone management change (new owner/leadership mentioned in 2017-2019 reviews). Recent reviews (2024-2025) show significant improvement in professionalism and ethics. However, 8+ years of documented misconduct (2015-2023) cannot be ignored.
• MODERATE: Inconsistent quality tied to personnel—reviews consistently praise specific technicians (Ryan, Mark, Victor, Torrey) while condemning others. This suggests quality control issues and inconsistent training.
• LIMITED: Plumbing vs. HVAC quality gap—company appears to have worse reputation for plumbing work than HVAC. Multiple plumbing reviews cite incompetence and dishonesty; HVAC reviews more mixed.

This WW Score of 62.8 should be treated with caution and interpreted as a company in transition: the score reflects a weighted average across 227 reviews spanning 16 years, but masks a critical inflection point. Pre-2023 reviews (approximately 60% of dataset) document systematic deception, price gouging, and unethical practices that would warrant a score below 50. Post-2024 reviews (approximately 15% of dataset) show marked improvement under apparent new leadership, with scores approaching 80+. The company's historical pattern of targeting vulnerable customers, manipulating warranty claims, and refusing service is severe enough that potential customers should demand recent references and written warranties before engaging. Trust should be earned incrementally through consistent recent performance, not assumed based on this aggregate score.

Mr. Rooter of McHenry County presents a deeply polarized review profile. A substantial number of positive reviews praise individual technicians — particularly Jordan, Luis, Konnor, Kyle, and Andrew — for friendliness, punctuality, and effective repairs, which lifts professionalism and project completion scores modestly. However, a significant and detailed body of negative reviews describes serious recurring issues: overcharging and opaque pricing, work that failed shortly after completion, unlicensed or inexperienced technicians, abandoned jobs, unreturned calls from ownership, and in multiple cases alleged fraudulent upselling of unnecessary services. Pricing is the weakest dimension, with numerous reviewers explicitly stating they were charged double or more compared to competitors for identical work, and several describing bait-and-switch or undisclosed billing practices. Project completion is also significantly dragged down by multiple accounts of jobs left unfinished, problems recurring within days, and callbacks not honored without additional charges.

• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The 1-star review dated 2025-06-08 and 2025-06-05 are word-for-word identical — this appears to be a duplicate submission and was counted only once for scoring purposes.
• SUSPECTED FAKE OR INCENTIVIZED REVIEWS: A large cluster of reviews dated exactly 2024-06-06 (approximately 40+ reviews) contains an unusually high proportion of very short, generic 5-star reviews with no substantive detail (e.g., blank text with 5 stars, 'Great place, great service!', 'Great job recommend'). This pattern is consistent with review solicitation campaigns or padding. These were down-weighted in confidence assessment.
• SUSPECTED FAKE OR INCENTIVIZED REVIEWS: A cluster of reviews dated exactly 2020-05-19 contains multiple near-identical short 5-star reviews with generic phrasing ('They were polite and professional', 'They did fantastic. It was good. They were fine.') — likely solicited or fabricated reviews.
• OWNER RESPONSIVENESS CONCERN: Multiple independent reviewers across different years (2019, 2020, 2022, 2023) explicitly state that owner Jeff Fendt failed to return calls after complaints — a systemic pattern, not isolated incidents.
• SAFETY CONCERN: One review (2025-06-08) alleges employees were placed in excavation holes without proper shoring, which if accurate represents a serious workplace safety violation.
• UNLICENSED TECHNICIAN ALLEGATION: One reviewer (2024-09-09) explicitly states they were sent a technician who was not licensed to perform plumbing work.
• FRAUD ALLEGATIONS: Multiple reviewers across different years allege fraudulent upselling — recommending unnecessary repairs, inflating quotes for insurance jobs, and substituting cheaper parts than quoted. These are serious and recurring, not isolated.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent reviews (2025) continue to show both positive and strongly negative experiences, indicating the mixed quality pattern has not resolved over time. Older reviews (pre-2018) skew more positive but carry less weight given recency rules.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large review volume, but the score itself should be interpreted cautiously given strong evidence of review padding with generic 5-star entries, recurring fraud and overcharging allegations from detailed and credible negative reviewers, and a systemic pattern of owner non-responsiveness to complaints — the true quality experience for a given customer may vary significantly depending on which technician is dispatched.

All Family Plumbing presents a deeply mixed picture across all four dimensions. On the positive side, a substantial number of older reviews (pre-2022) describe courteous, knowledgeable technicians, fair pricing, and jobs completed thoroughly — including emergency responses and complex sewer/pipe work. However, more recent reviews (2022–2025) reveal a troubling pattern of no-shows, repeated cancellations without notice, hidden charges added after job completion, and at least one instance of an estimate fee collected with no follow-through. Professionalism is further undermined by multiple independent reports of aggressive and dangerous driving behavior by company vehicle operators, which, while not directly plumbing-related, reflects on the company's culture and employee conduct. Project completion scores are dragged down significantly by credible accounts of jobs not finished, repeat service calls for the same unresolved issues, and a failure to honor callbacks. Pricing scores are mixed — several reviewers praised fair and transparent pricing, while others explicitly described bait-and-switch tactics and undisclosed charges added post-completion.

• RECENCY CONCERN: The most recent reviews (2022–2025) skew heavily negative, suggesting a possible decline in service quality over time. Older positive reviews (2010–2018) should be weighted less heavily.
• DRIVING/CONDUCT COMPLAINTS: At least 4 reviews (2023–2024) describe dangerous or aggressive driving by company vehicle operators, including road rage incidents and threats. While not plumbing-related, this reflects on company culture and employee vetting.
• HIDDEN CHARGES FLAG: At least 2 credible reviews explicitly describe pricing bait-and-switch — quoted one price, charged significantly more after job completion with fabricated add-ons. This is a serious consumer protection concern.
• NO-SHOW / RELIABILITY PATTERN: At least 4 reviews describe repeated appointment cancellations, no-shows without notice, and failure to return calls — a consistent operational failure pattern in recent years.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The review 'Can't recommend them highly enough. Installed a tankless water heater...' appears verbatim twice under different dates (2020 and 2021). This may indicate a fake or duplicated review submission.
• BLANK REVIEWS: At least 4 reviews contain no text content (rating only). These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data.
• ESTIMATE FEE COMPLAINT: One reviewer reports paying an $80 estimate fee with no estimate ever delivered, suggesting possible deceptive business practices.
• WORK QUALITY CONCERN: One review describes a plumber recommending a $1,100 water heater replacement for a problem that was ultimately solved with a $12 dip tube — raising questions about upselling or diagnostic competence.
• POSSIBLE FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: Several 5-star reviews from the 2013–2015 era are extremely brief and generic ('It is a small business owner that is well worth definitely using', 'unknown') with no specifics. These were scored conservatively.

This WW Score is based on a large review set (57 reviews) spanning over a decade, giving it statistical breadth, but the strong negative trend in recent reviews (2022–2025) and the presence of duplicate, blank, and suspiciously generic reviews reduce confidence in the score as a reflection of current service quality — prospective customers should weight recent negative reviews heavily.

Ron's Tidy Tank exhibits significant inconsistency across service quality and customer outcomes. While many reviews (particularly older ones from 2013-2018) praise professionalism, responsiveness, and technical skill, a troubling pattern of recent negative experiences (2019-2024) reveals serious issues with project completion, damage to property, poor emergency response, and inadequate compensation for mistakes. The company appears to have deteriorated under new ownership, with multiple customers reporting broken equipment left unfixed, property damage (foundation cracks, unnecessary yard excavation), and refusal to honor commitments or provide refunds. Pricing transparency is also inconsistent, with some customers reporting hidden fees and deceptive billing practices.

• OWNERSHIP CHANGE IMPACT: Multiple reviews explicitly note deterioration after company changed ownership. Recent reviews (2019-2024) are predominantly negative, while older reviews (2013-2018) are predominantly positive. This suggests a significant operational decline.
• PATTERN OF PROPERTY DAMAGE: At least 4 reviews document damage caused by technicians (broken water spigot, destroyed hostas, foundation cracks, unnecessary yard excavation) with inadequate or refused compensation.
• EMERGENCY SERVICE FAILURES: Multiple reviews (2019-2024) report refusal to provide emergency service, poor emergency response times, and lack of professional courtesy during critical situations.
• INCOMPLETE REPAIRS: Several customers report repeated service calls for the same issue without resolution, suggesting inadequate diagnostic or repair work.
• INCONSISTENT PRICING PRACTICES: Reviews report hidden fees, deceptive quoting ($75 inspection becoming $200 bill), and lack of transparency about service charges.
• CUSTOMER SERVICE ISSUES: Multiple reports of rude staff (Valerie, Jim), unprofessional communication, refusal to help, and one threat to release credit card information.
• RECENCY BIAS CRITICAL: Reviews from 2013-2018 average ~4.7 stars with praise for professionalism and reliability. Reviews from 2019-2024 average ~1.8 stars with complaints about damage, incomplete work, and poor service. This 3-point swing is substantial and reflects real operational decline.

This WW Score should be treated with CAUTION. While the overall score of 68.2 reflects the mixed dataset, the dramatic deterioration in service quality post-2019 suggests the company's current performance is significantly worse than the historical average. Customers seeking service today should weight recent negative reviews (2019-2024) much more heavily than older positive reviews, as they reflect the company under current ownership. The pattern of property damage, incomplete repairs, and poor emergency response in recent reviews is particularly concerning and suggests elevated risk.

Montes Solutions Plumbing has a mixed but concerning record across the 8 reviews analyzed. Positive reviews highlight professionalism, punctuality, communication, and fair pricing on several projects, including a complex commercial salon build and a major sewer repair. However, two significant negative reviews — one alleging dishonest upselling of a $10,000 unnecessary repair and another claiming $35,000 of work had to be redone by a different contractor — substantially drag down scores across all dimensions. The project completion dimension is particularly impacted, as one reviewer explicitly states the job was not completed and another paid a large sum only to need remediation work. The presence of both glowing and deeply critical reviews suggests real variability in customer outcomes rather than consistent service quality.

• Two serious negative reviews allege dishonesty and failed workmanship: one claims Armando falsely diagnosed a collapsed sewer line to upsell a $10,000 repair that was not needed, and another claims $35,000 of work had to be redone by a different plumber.
• Most positive reviews are from 2016–2019, with only one positive review from 2024. The business's recent track record cannot be reliably assessed from this dataset.
• Several positive reviews use generic praise ('highly recommend,' 'very professional') with limited specifics, which slightly reduces confidence in those reviews, though some do include detailed project descriptions.
• The single 2024 review is positive but brief and covers only a routine drain clearing — it does not offset the weight of the serious negative allegations.
• Small sample size of 8 reviews limits statistical reliability. Scores should be treated with caution.

This WW Score carries LIMITED overall reliability due to the small review pool (8 reviews), the age of most reviews (majority from 2016–2019), and two serious unresolved allegations of dishonesty and poor workmanship that represent significant risk signals for prospective customers.