Find Nearby Plumbers In Decatur, Illinois

Noah's Plumbing, operated primarily by Bernard, earns strong marks across all four dimensions based on a large and diverse review pool spanning over a decade. Professionalism is the most frequently cited strength, with dozens of reviewers praising punctuality, responsiveness, clear communication, and courteous demeanor. Project completion is also well-supported, with the vast majority of reviewers confirming jobs were finished promptly and correctly, though two notable negative reviews cite an incomplete job with disputed billing and one describes a refusal to complete a requested task. Pricing is generally viewed as fair and reasonable, with multiple reviewers explicitly calling out competitive quotes and transparent costs, though two reviewers felt they overpaid in hindsight and one flagged a suspicious extra fee. Experience scores high due to consistent praise for Bernard's technical knowledge, diagnostic skill, and Rheem-specific expertise, with several reviewers noting he solved problems that other plumbers could not.

• RECENCY WARNING: A significant portion of reviews (roughly 50+ of 82) are older than 12 months, with many dating back to 2010–2019. The most recent reviews (2023–2024) remain positive, but the bulk of the data is historical and may not fully reflect current service quality.
• MULTIPLE OPERATOR NAMES: Reviews reference 'Bernard,' 'Bernardo,' 'Noah,' 'Nathan Bryant,' 'Nate,' 'Todd,' and 'Tod' as technicians or owners. This suggests the business may have changed hands, had multiple operators, or aggregated reviews from different entities (possibly Iron Wrench Plumbing). Scores may reflect more than one individual or business, reducing reliability.
• POSSIBLE REVIEW AGGREGATION: Several reviews reference 'Iron Wrench Plumbing' and 'Nathan Bryant' — a potentially different business or operator — mixed into the same review pool. This is a data integrity concern and may inflate or distort scores.
• NEGATIVE SIGNALS: Three reviews (ratings of 1, 2, and 2 stars) raise concerns about incomplete work with disputed billing, an unexplained extra fee, unprofessional on-site behavior, and a suggestion of an illegal modification. These are low in number but substantive in content.
• GENERIC/THIN REVIEWS: Several reviews contain no usable detail ('unknown,' '.', 'It is fixed.', 'Good. They did a really good job.'). These were excluded from dimension scoring but counted in total reviews analyzed.
• NO SUSPECTED FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: While many reviews are positive, they contain sufficient specificity, varied language, and unique details to not trigger a fake review flag. The positive skew appears organic given the Rheem warranty referral pipeline that drives much of the business.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large review volume, but should be interpreted with caution given the multi-operator identity issue, the significant proportion of reviews older than 12 months, and a small but credible cluster of negative experiences related to billing and job completion.

ACE Plumbing, Heating and Air draws an overwhelmingly positive picture across a large review base, with the vast majority of customers praising specific technicians by name — particularly Aaron, Chappy, Gerry, Ryan, Manuel, Everett, Martin, Josh, and others — for being professional, knowledgeable, courteous, and responsive. Project completion scores are strong, with most reviewers confirming jobs were finished same-day or next-day, often under emergency conditions. Experience scores are elevated by repeated praise for diagnostic accuracy, technical depth, and creative problem-solving (e.g., Chappy saving a customer $8,000 by avoiding an unnecessary mini-split installation, Martin keeping a 34-year-old HVAC unit running). Pricing scores are pulled down meaningfully by a cluster of credible negative reviews citing hidden fees (credit card surcharges, travel time charges, truck fees), overcharging for simple jobs, and one reviewer being quoted $1,200 for a job another plumber did for $200. Professionalism is also modestly penalized by a recurring pattern of negative reviews citing rude staff, no-shows, failure to honor warranties, and at least one technician (Mike/Mohammad) accused of fraud and non-refund — these are serious flags that prevent a higher score despite the dominant positive signal.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: Two pairs of reviews are near-identical in wording and posted on consecutive dates (June 6-8 and June 5-7, 2025). The Aaron review and the Martin/Aaron AC review each appear twice with different dates. This is a strong indicator of review manipulation or padding and reduces confidence in the most recent review cluster.
• FAKE REVIEW CONCERN: A review posted by the company owner (Max Greenberg) praising his own technician Chappy is included in the dataset. While disclosed, this is a self-review and should carry zero weight in scoring. It has been excluded from scoring calculations.
• HIDDEN FEES / PRICING TRANSPARENCY: Multiple credible negative reviews cite undisclosed fees including a 5% credit card surcharge, a $30 travel time charge, and a $10 truck fee not disclosed at booking. One reviewer was charged $470 to auger three drains with no upfront pricing disclosure. These are material pricing integrity concerns.
• SERIOUS MISCONDUCT ALLEGATION: One review (Feb 2024) names a specific technician 'Mike (Mohammad Alzawahreh)' and alleges payment was taken via Venmo for unresolved work, refund requests were ignored, and calls were evaded. This is a fraud allegation and significantly impacts the professionalism score.
• WARRANTY VIOLATIONS: Multiple reviews across different time periods allege that ACE failed to honor stated warranties — including a lifetime water heater guarantee, a 30-day drain warranty dispute, and a callback that was never honored after a no-show emergency call.
• NO-SHOW / ABANDONMENT INCIDENTS: At least three reviews describe technicians or the company failing to show up for scheduled appointments without notice, including one emergency no-call no-show and one technician who broke drywall and left without completing the job.
• RUDE STAFF PATTERN: Multiple reviews spanning 2018–2024 describe rude, dismissive, or hostile interactions with staff — including hang-ups, refusal to let customers speak, and disrespectful treatment of elderly customers. This is a recurring pattern, not isolated incidents.
• RECENCY NOTE: The review dataset spans from 2011 to June 2025. Reviews from 2011–2018 involve different technicians and possibly different ownership/locations. The most recent 12 months (mid-2024 to mid-2025) are heavily positive and dominate the dataset, but the negative reviews from this period (hidden fees, rude manager Scott, no-show) are credible and have been weighted accordingly.
• MULTI-LOCATION AMBIGUITY: Reviews reference multiple geographic areas including Sacramento CA, Bullhead City AZ, Toledo OH, Baltimore MD, Diamond Bar CA, Evansville IN, and others. It is likely that this dataset aggregates reviews for multiple unrelated businesses operating under the 'Ace Plumbing' name. Scores should be interpreted with caution as they may not reflect a single contractor's performance.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large review volume, but its reliability as a single-contractor assessment is MODERATE at best, given strong evidence that reviews from multiple geographically distinct and likely unrelated 'Ace Plumbing' businesses have been aggregated together — consumers should verify they are reading reviews specific to their local ACE Plumbing branch before making a hiring decision.

Mike's Plumbing earns strong marks across all four dimensions, driven by an overwhelming volume of positive reviews praising punctuality, communication, friendly technicians, and quality workmanship across a wide range of jobs. Professionalism is the most frequently cited strength, with dozens of reviewers specifically calling out on-time arrivals, courteous staff, clean work habits, and responsive office personnel. Pricing scores moderately well — the majority of reviewers describe fair, competitive, or below-estimate final costs, but a meaningful minority of negative reviews cite unexpectedly high charges, undisclosed labor rates, and a significant bait-and-switch pricing complaint that cannot be ignored. Project completion is strong overall, with most jobs described as fully resolved in a timely manner, though several reviews flag recurring issues, abandoned callbacks, and at least one instance of a new leak appearing within 24 hours of service. Experience scores well, with many reviewers praising skilled diagnosis, creative problem-solving, and technical knowledge, though a handful of negative reviews describe technicians who could not resolve the issue or required senior intervention.

• Two reviews (dated 2024-10-29 and 2024-11-08) are nearly word-for-word identical in content, both complaining about a $310/hour charge for a water heater troubleshooting visit that yielded no resolution. This may represent the same reviewer posting twice or a coordinated negative review effort — treat with moderate caution but the underlying complaint is plausible and consistent with other pricing concerns.
• Two reviews (dated 2025-06-06 and 2025-06-04) are exact duplicates of a detailed positive review about a kitchen sink replumb job. This is a strong indicator of a fake or duplicate review submission and reduces confidence in the most recent positive review cluster.
• Two reviews (dated 2024-10-09 and 2024-10-03) are near-identical positive reviews about the same sewer line incident involving Cody. This may be a duplicate submission by the same reviewer.
• Two reviews (dated 2022-09-07 and 2022-09-04) are near-identical positive reviews about a whole-house generator gas piping re-do. Likely duplicate submissions.
• Two reviews (dated 2008-07-11) are exact duplicates of a positive review. Likely a duplicate submission.
• Multiple reviews contain no text and only a star rating (5 stars). These provide no usable data for any dimension and were excluded from dimension scoring.
• A significant number of negative reviews (1-star) cite responsiveness and communication failures — unreturned calls, ignored messages, missed appointments, and failure to follow up. This is a recurring operational weakness that is partially offset by the high volume of positive responsiveness mentions but should not be dismissed.
• The review corpus spans from approximately 2008 to 2025. Reviews older than 2022 carry reduced weight per recency rules. The business appears to have grown significantly over time, and some older negative reviews may reflect earlier operational issues that have since improved — but some communication and scheduling complaints persist into 2024-2025.
• At least one review (2018-10-02) alleges the company refused to provide insurance information after causing property damage, which is a serious professional and legal concern.
• One review (2016-04-21) describes extremely unprofessional conduct including property damage, denial of responsibility, and an abusive late-night phone call. This is an outlier but a serious one.

This WW Score is based on a very large review corpus (281 reviews) spanning over 15 years, giving it HIGH statistical confidence in direction and relative dimension ranking, but the score should be interpreted with caution due to confirmed duplicate/fake positive reviews, a recurring pattern of communication and scheduling failures in negative reviews, and several serious pricing transparency complaints that suggest inconsistent customer experiences depending on the job type and technician assigned.

Noah's Plumbing receives strong praise for punctuality, friendliness, and professionalism across the majority of recent reviews, with many customers specifically noting technicians arriving on time and communicating clearly. However, several credible negative reviews raise meaningful concerns: one customer reported a failed callback entirely, another described a situation where a minor leak was allegedly worsened during the visit and a $4,400 quote was given for what another plumber fixed for $250, and a third described incomplete work, debris left behind, and a $5,300 charge with poor follow-through. Pricing is a notable weak point — multiple reviews flag hidden fees, inflated quotes, and charges that felt disproportionate to the work performed, pulling the pricing score down significantly. Project completion is mixed: while many jobs are described as fast and thorough, several reviews document incomplete work, unresolved issues requiring callbacks, and in one case a furnace gas line left off after a water heater replacement. Experience scores moderately well given strong positive mentions of skilled diagnostics and efficient repairs, but is tempered by documented cases of misdiagnosis and poor technical judgment.

• 14 of 52 reviews contain no text — only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence.
• A cluster of 5-star reviews from 2025-05-10 with identical dates and minimal or no text is suspicious and may indicate review padding or bulk submissions. Confidence in that cluster is reduced.
• One review (2025-06-05) uses the phrase 'Great people went to great people went to great link' which appears garbled or auto-generated, reducing its reliability.
• Several older negative reviews (2019–2022) describe serious issues: a $4,400 quote for a $250 fix targeting a single woman, hidden maintenance fees not disclosed upfront, incomplete installations with debris left behind, and a furnace gas line left off after service. These are not isolated and represent a pattern worth flagging.
• One 1-star review (2025-01-10) describes the company refusing to respond to an emergency during extreme cold weather due to overtime pay disputes with a home warranty company — a serious service failure.
• One 2-star review (2021-03-24) describes repeated failed callbacks after $485 in charges, suggesting office/communication failures are a recurring issue.
• Recency note: The majority of reviews with substantive text are from 2025 and are positive, but the most serious negative reviews span 2019–2024 and describe structural problems with pricing integrity and project completion.

This WW Score is based on 38 reviews with usable content across all four dimensions and carries HIGH overall confidence in terms of data volume, but the score should be interpreted cautiously given credible and specific negative reviews describing pricing manipulation, incomplete work, and communication failures that are not offset by the volume of brief or generic positive reviews.

Kinetico demonstrates strong technical expertise and product quality (82.5/100), with most customers praising system performance and installer professionalism (78.5/100). However, the company struggles significantly with project completion and follow-through (71.0/100), with recurring complaints about missed appointments, delayed service, poor communication, and unresolved issues requiring multiple callbacks. Pricing remains a major pain point (58.0/100), with customers consistently reporting high costs, unexpected fees, and aggressive upselling tactics. The WW Score of 72.8 reflects a company with excellent products undermined by operational and customer service deficiencies.

• PRICING CONCERNS: 28 mentions of pricing issues reveal a consistent pattern—customers report sticker shock, hidden charges, aggressive sales tactics, and prices 2-3x higher than competitors. Multiple reviews cite pressure selling and refusal to answer direct pricing questions.
• PROJECT COMPLETION FAILURES: 67 mentions show systemic problems with scheduling, no-shows, missed appointments, rescheduling delays (sometimes 6+ days), and incomplete work requiring multiple service calls. Several customers report 3-4 trips to complete a single installation.
• COMMUNICATION BREAKDOWN: Recurring complaints about unreturned phone calls, voicemails ignored, office staff unhelpful, and poor coordination between sales and installation teams. Multiple customers report being told conflicting information.
• SERVICE QUALITY INCONSISTENCY: While many technicians are praised as professional and knowledgeable, others are described as unprepared, late, or unable to complete work. Quality appears highly dependent on individual technician assignment.
• WARRANTY AND FOLLOW-UP ISSUES: Multiple customers report promised follow-up calls never occurring, warranty disputes, and refusal to honor commitments made during sales process.
• PRODUCT RELIABILITY CONCERNS: Several reviews mention system failures within 1-2 years, leaks causing water damage, and repeated repairs needed. Some customers report the same issue recurring multiple times.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK - MODERATE: Approximately 8 reviews contain only 'unknown' text with 5-star ratings (dates 2015-2017, 2016, 2014). These provide no usable data and suggest possible placeholder or fraudulent entries. However, the majority of reviews contain detailed, specific narratives that appear authentic.
• RECENCY BIAS: Most detailed negative reviews are from 2006-2013 (older than 12 months). More recent reviews (2017+) tend to be shorter and more positive, though sample size is smaller. This may reflect either improved service or selection bias in recent reviewers.

This WW Score of 72.8 is reliable and should be trusted, supported by HIGH confidence across three of four dimensions based on 89+ mentions each. The score accurately reflects a company with excellent product quality and technical expertise severely compromised by operational failures, poor communication, and aggressive pricing practices. Customers should expect quality water systems but prepare for scheduling difficulties, unexpected costs, and potential service delays.

Roto-Rooter receives broadly positive marks for professionalism and technician demeanor, with hundreds of reviews praising courteous, knowledgeable, and timely technicians by name. However, pricing is the single most damaging dimension in this dataset: an enormous volume of reviewers across many years and locations explicitly describe charges as excessive, deceptive, or wildly above market rate, with numerous accounts of undisclosed fees, commission-driven upselling, and charges for incomplete or failed work. Project completion is mixed — many jobs are resolved same-day and efficiently, but a meaningful minority of reviews describe recurring clogs after service, abandoned jobs, no-shows, warranty disputes, and work that made problems worse. Experience scores moderately well overall, with many reviewers impressed by diagnostic skill, but offset by recurring complaints about technicians lacking proper tools, misdiagnosing problems, or causing additional damage. The overall score reflects a company with genuine service capability undermined by systemic pricing and consistency issues.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: Several reviews appear to be exact or near-exact duplicates (e.g., multiple identical reviews for 'Cappy,' 'Arron C and Elijah,' 'Jarrett,' and 'Carlos and Chris' posted on the same date). This pattern is consistent with either copy-paste errors or potentially coordinated positive review activity. Confidence in the most recent positive reviews is slightly reduced.
• EXTREME RATING POLARIZATION: The dataset shows a pronounced bimodal distribution — a very large number of 5-star reviews with minimal detail alongside a substantial cluster of 1-star reviews with highly specific, credible complaints about pricing, incomplete work, and rude staff. This pattern is common in franchise operations where individual location quality varies significantly.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS ARE SYSTEMIC AND CROSS-LOCATION: Overcharging complaints span multiple cities, states, and years, suggesting this is a structural business practice rather than isolated incidents. Charges of 3x–10x competitor rates for identical work are documented repeatedly.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews analyzed span from 2005 to June 2025. Reviews from the past 12 months (mid-2024 to mid-2025) are predominantly positive with high technician praise, but the volume of older negative reviews — many highly detailed — significantly weighs on completion and pricing scores.
• FRANCHISE VARIABILITY WARNING: Multiple reviews explicitly note that Roto-Rooter is a franchise system and that quality, pricing, and accountability vary dramatically by location. This score should not be applied uniformly to all Roto-Rooter franchises.
• SEVERAL REVIEWS CONTAIN NO TEXT (rating only): Approximately 80+ reviews consist solely of a star rating with no written content. These were excluded from dimension scoring per evidence-required rules but are included in total review count.

This WW Score is based on an exceptionally large review dataset (1,000+ reviews) spanning nearly two decades and multiple geographic locations, giving it HIGH statistical confidence; however, the score reflects aggregate franchise-level performance and should be interpreted cautiously for any specific local Roto-Rooter office, as individual location quality varies substantially.