Find Nearby Plumbers In Dekalb, Illinois

John Gottfried demonstrates exceptional performance across all measured dimensions. All three reviews explicitly praise his responsiveness (same-day/next-day service), professionalism (courteous, humble demeanor, thorough work), transparent and fair pricing with no hidden charges, and reliable project completion with quality workmanship. Two reviews specifically mention his 20+ years of experience and technical expertise. The consistency of praise across independent reviewers and the specificity of examples (emergency Friday night service, 60-foot pipe job completed without overcharge, basement cleanup) suggest genuine customer satisfaction rather than generic endorsement.

• All three reviews are 5-star ratings with uniformly positive language; however, each contains specific, verifiable details (dates, job types, pricing behavior, hours worked) that suggest authentic experiences rather than fabricated reviews
• Review dates span 2018–2021 (3+ years old); no recent reviews provided to assess current service quality
• Sample size is small (n=3); while confidence is moderate-to-high for individual dimensions, broader market validation would strengthen reliability

This WW Score of 91.7 is trustworthy within the scope of available data, but is based on only three reviews spanning several years with no recent activity; recommend seeking additional current reviews before making a high-stakes decision.

Steve Clark Plumbing demonstrates exceptional professionalism across all five reviews, with consistent praise for responsiveness, communication, politeness, and punctuality. The contractor shows strong technical expertise and problem-solving ability, evidenced by detailed project work (sump pump installation, bathroom/laundry replumbing) and customer education. Pricing is characterized as reasonable and fair across multiple mentions, though limited explicit detail on transparency. Project completion is solid with no reports of abandoned work or missed callbacks. The long-term customer relationships and decade-plus loyalty suggest sustained reliability.

• All five reviews are 5-star ratings with uniformly positive language; however, this appears authentic rather than fabricated, as reviews contain specific project details, names (Steve and Jesse), and varied dates spanning 3+ years
• Two reviews are older than 12 months (2021), which slightly reduces recency weight, but three recent reviews (2023-2024) provide current validation
• Limited explicit mention of pricing transparency or quote details; 'reasonable price' and 'great price' are subjective without supporting evidence of competitive rates or itemized quotes

This WW Score of 89.3 is highly reliable, supported by five detailed reviews with consistent themes across professionalism, experience, and completion. The contractor's long-term customer retention and specific project examples provide strong evidence of sustained quality.

Simply Sewer demonstrates strong performance across all four dimensions with consistently high marks. Professionalism is evidenced by quick response times, politeness, respectfulness, and cleanliness (7 mentions). Pricing is a clear strength with multiple reviews explicitly praising fair and reasonable rates, with one customer noting savings of thousands of dollars versus competitors (8 mentions). Project completion is solid with jobs finished quickly, thoroughly, and with follow-through on guarantees (8 mentions). Experience is reflected in technical problem-solving ability, with the team successfully handling complex underground issues that defeated other plumbers (6 mentions). The WW Score of 88.2 reflects a reliable, competent contractor with strong customer satisfaction.

• All 9 reviews are 5-star ratings with no negative feedback or critical comments — this is unusual and warrants caution
• Two reviews (2024-06-18 and 2024-06-12) use nearly identical phrasing ('best I've ever', 'fairly priced', 'go-to') and were posted 6 days apart, suggesting possible review manipulation
• Four reviews are older than 3 years (2021, 2020, 2019, 2018), limiting recency signal; only 2 reviews from past 12 months
• Generic praise language appears in multiple reviews without specific technical details (e.g., 'amazing', 'best', 'saved the day') — pattern consistent with potential fake reviews
• No negative reviews or complaints present despite 9 reviews — statistically improbable for any service business

While the WW Score of 88.2 is supported by HIGH confidence across all dimensions, the absence of any critical feedback, clustering of 5-star ratings, suspicious review timing patterns, and age of most reviews suggest this score should be treated with moderate caution; recommend seeking independent verification or recent customer references before making a major decision.

C&H Plumbing earns strong marks across all four dimensions, with consistent praise for punctuality, polite technicians, and skilled workmanship spanning over a decade of reviews. Pricing is repeatedly described as reasonable or fair, and the majority of jobs are described as completed efficiently and correctly the first time. However, a meaningful cluster of negative reviews — spanning 2009 through 2019 — specifically cite failure to return calls, including at least two emergency situations where customers were left without a response for hours or never heard back at all; this materially suppresses the professionalism and project completion scores. Recent reviews from 2021 onward show no recurrence of the callback complaints, suggesting possible operational improvement, but the historical pattern cannot be ignored and is weighted accordingly.

• CALLBACK FAILURE PATTERN: At least 5 reviews (2009, 2011 x2, 2012, 2019) explicitly report that C&H Plumbing never returned calls — including during plumbing emergencies. This is a serious reliability concern and has been factored into professionalism and project completion scores.
• RECENCY NOTE: The callback failure reviews are concentrated between 2009–2019. Reviews from 2021 onward do not repeat this complaint, which may indicate improvement. However, the 2019 emergency non-response review is recent enough to remain a meaningful flag.
• BLANK/MINIMAL REVIEWS: 4 reviews contained no text (only a rating) and were excluded from dimension scoring. Additionally, several reviews contained only 1–2 generic words (e.g., 'unknown', 'Good work, quick') and contributed minimally to scoring.
• POSSIBLE RECENCY SKEW: A significant portion of reviews (roughly 30%) are dated 2021 or earlier, with some going back to 2008. Older reviews were given reduced weight in scoring, particularly those predating 2020.
• NO FAKE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: While the majority of reviews are 5-star, the reviews contain specific names (Ernie, Derek, Hart, Steve, Joseph), specific job descriptions, and varied language. No strong indicators of coordinated fake reviews were found.
• PAYMENT METHOD NOTE: One reviewer flagged that C&H only accepts cash or check, which may be a practical concern for some customers but was not scored as it does not directly reflect pricing fairness.

This WW Score is based on 68 reviews spanning approximately 17 years and carries HIGH overall confidence due to strong mention counts across all dimensions; however, the documented history of unreturned calls — including during emergencies — represents a verified operational weakness that prospective customers should weigh carefully alongside the otherwise strong performance record.

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.

This contractor demonstrates strong professionalism with consistently praised punctuality, communication, and friendly demeanor across 98 reviews. Project completion is solid with 87 mentions of timely, thorough work and follow-through. Technical expertise is well-documented across 72 reviews, with customers frequently noting knowledgeable problem-solving and quality workmanship. However, pricing emerges as a notable weakness with only 28 mentions but significant concerns: one customer paid 4x the quoted price, another experienced a $725 bill against a $150-500 estimate, and a third incurred $1,000 in charges across 4 trips for work that should have cost $300. These pricing issues, combined with one serious project failure (septic tank damage with refusal to take responsibility), temper an otherwise strong profile.

• PRICING INCONSISTENCY: Multiple reviews (2025-05-26, 2010-02-09, 2021-03-14) report significant overcharges or quote-to-final-price discrepancies, suggesting potential pricing opacity or scope creep issues.
• SERIOUS PROJECT FAILURE: One 1-star review (2023-08-14) documents septic tank damage, worker negligence, refusal of accountability, and aggressive upselling ($250 repair charge for damage caused by contractor). This is a critical service failure.
• RECENCY BIAS: 70% of reviews are from 2021 onwards, with heavy concentration in 2025 (35 reviews). Older reviews (2008-2014) are uniformly positive with minimal detail, suggesting possible selection bias or review platform changes.
• GENERIC REVIEWS: Approximately 15 reviews contain minimal detail (e.g., 'Great customer service', 'Nice guys', 'Good', 'unknown') or are blank, reducing data quality.
• CONTRACTOR NAME INCONSISTENCY: Reviews reference multiple names (Andrew, Jesus, Kaelin, Lawrence, Zach, Riley, Francisca, Chuy, Derrick, Ben) suggesting either multiple locations/franchises or name variations for same entity. This creates ambiguity about whether all reviews apply to same business.

This score should be treated with MODERATE-TO-HIGH confidence for professionalism and project completion, but MODERATE confidence overall due to significant pricing concerns documented in multiple reviews and one serious project failure with accountability issues. The contractor excels in responsiveness and technical skill but demonstrates inconsistent pricing practices that warrant careful quote verification before engagement.