Find Nearby Plumbers In Downers Grove, Illinois

Miller Plumbing has an overwhelmingly positive review base spanning over 15 years, with the vast majority of customers praising Mike and his team for responsiveness, professionalism, and technical expertise across a wide range of plumbing jobs. Pricing is generally described as fair, reasonable, and competitive, though a small number of negative reviews specifically cite overcharging and billing disputes, which temper the pricing score modestly. Project completion is strong overall, with many reviewers noting jobs were finished on time, cleanly, and with follow-through — however, one credible negative review describes unfinished paid work and a rude dismissal, and another details a warranty dispute, which meaningfully reduce the completion score. Experience scores highest in terms of consistency, with dozens of reviewers across many years independently describing Mike as knowledgeable, skilled, and a master of his craft. The handful of negative reviews (7 total, covering rudeness, overcharging, no-show estimates, parking complaints, and incomplete work) are credible and specific enough to prevent top-tier scores across all dimensions.

• FAKE REVIEW RISK — MODERATE: A large cluster of reviews share the date '2023-06-10', '2022-06-10', '2021-06-10', '2020-06-10', and similar June 10 dates across multiple years with no specific timestamps. This pattern is consistent with bulk review imports or date normalization artifacts from a third-party platform, not organic posting. These reviews should be treated with reduced individual weight, though their content is varied enough to suggest they are not entirely fabricated.
• MULTIPLE TECHNICIANS MENTIONED: Reviews reference Mike, Greg, Jeff, Chad, Don, Brian, Pat, and Jimmy — suggesting this is a multi-person operation or a shared business name across different regions/franchises. Some negative reviews (e.g., the estimate no-show review referencing Greg, and the rude technician review referencing a young Hispanic man) may describe different employees than the Mike Miller praised in most reviews. This reduces score reliability as a unified entity.
• NEGATIVE REVIEW — OVERCHARGING (2021): One detailed 1-star review describes a $670 bill for under 3 hours of work on simple jobs, with the customer calculating a fair charge of no more than $400. This is a specific, credible pricing complaint that meaningfully impacts the pricing score.
• NEGATIVE REVIEW — INCOMPLETE WORK AND RUDE BEHAVIOR (2015): A 1-star review describes a toilet flange set crooked, unfinished paid work, and Mike telling the customer to 'stop wasting his time' and 'never call him again.' This is a serious project completion and professionalism flag.
• NEGATIVE REVIEW — ESTIMATE NO-SHOW (2019): A detailed 1-star review describes weeks of waiting for an estimate that never arrived, and an unhelpful staff response. This reflects a systemic communication failure and impacts professionalism scoring.
• NEGATIVE REVIEW — WARRANTY DISPUTE (2014): A 1-star review describes Miller Plumbing denying they offered warranty service after charging $125 for a call on a unit they installed. This is a credible project completion and trust concern.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of highly detailed, positive reviews are from 2021–2025 and carry the most weight. Reviews from 2006–2014 are older than 10 years and are given reduced weight in scoring, though they are consistent in tone with recent reviews.
• THREE REVIEWS CONTAIN NO USABLE TEXT: Reviews with content 'unknown', '.', or blank were excluded from dimension scoring but counted in total reviews analyzed.

This WW Score is based on a large and diverse review set spanning 15+ years with 110 total reviews, giving it HIGH overall confidence, but the score should be interpreted with awareness that multiple technicians operate under the Miller Plumbing name, a cluster of same-date reviews suggests possible platform import artifacts, and a small but credible set of negative reviews raises legitimate concerns about pricing transparency, project follow-through, and occasional unprofessional conduct.

The overwhelming majority of reviews praise Nexgen Rooter and Neptune Plumbing staff — particularly Juan and Gabe — for professionalism, punctuality, clear communication, and thorough cleanup. Pricing is consistently described as fair, transparent, and competitive across multiple reviews. Project completion is a strong point, with reviewers repeatedly noting jobs were finished on time, within estimate, and to code. Experience scores are high based on numerous mentions of skilled diagnostics, complex sewer lateral replacements, re-pipes, and problem-solving under difficult conditions. However, one detailed 1-star review from 2013 describes serious unprofessional conduct, yelling, and alleged theft by Gabe, which — while older and partially rebutted by other reviewers — cannot be ignored and moderately suppresses the professionalism score.

• One significant 1-star review (2013) describes aggressive behavior, yelling, code disputes, and alleged theft of supplies by 'Gabe' at Neptune Plumbing. Multiple other reviewers directly rebutted this review, including a fellow plumbing contractor who provided context. The review is over 10 years old and is given reduced but non-zero weight.
• Two distinct business entities appear to be represented in these reviews: 'Nexgen Rooter and Plumbing' (Juan) and 'Neptune Plumbing' (Gabe). These may be separate contractors. Scores have been calculated across all reviews as submitted, but the end user should be aware the reviews may not all pertain to a single business.
• One review (2024-10-08) references 'Neptune Plumbing' arriving on time and completing work at quoted price — this may belong to the Neptune/Gabe entity rather than Nexgen/Juan.
• Several reviews from the 2024-06-09 date cluster share the same date stamp across many different reviews, which may indicate batch imports or platform migration rather than organic posting. Language and specificity vary enough that fabrication is not strongly suspected, but this pattern is noted.
• Review dated 2015-11-17 contains only the word 'unknown' and was excluded from scoring as it provides no usable data.
• A number of older reviews (2013–2016) reference Gabe at Neptune Plumbing and are more than 8 years old. Per recency rules, these carry significantly reduced weight in the final score.
• All reviews are 5-star except one 1-star review. While the volume and specificity of positive reviews reduce fake review suspicion, the uniformity of ratings warrants a mild caution flag.

This WW Score is based on 32 reviews with usable data spanning 2013–2025, with strong mention counts across all four dimensions; however, reliability is moderately affected by the mixing of two potentially distinct business entities, a cluster of same-date reviews, and the heavy skew toward 5-star ratings with only one dissenting review.

Stephens Plumbing demonstrates strong overall performance with a WW Score of 81.2, driven primarily by consistent professionalism and solid project completion across a large sample of reviews. The company excels in punctuality, communication, and technical expertise, with many customers praising responsiveness and knowledgeable technicians. However, pricing emerges as a relative weakness, with several customers reporting unexpected charges, unclear quotes, and disputes over flat-rate versus hourly billing. A notable ownership change around 2021 appears to have negatively impacted service quality for some long-term customers. Recent reviews (2024-2025) are predominantly positive, suggesting potential recovery or stabilization under current management.

• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: Two nearly identical reviews dated 2024-08-13 and 2024-07-24 about drain clog/Turbo Jet service with identical phrasing and structure. This suggests possible review manipulation or copy-paste error.
• OWNERSHIP CHANGE IMPACT: A detailed 2021 review from a 20+ year customer explicitly states the company was sold to an outside buyer and service quality declined significantly post-acquisition. This represents a material business change that may affect score reliability.
• PRICING INCONSISTENCY: Multiple reviews (2016-12-27, 2021-03-17, 2019-06-11) report discrepancies between quoted and final prices, with some customers citing surprise flat-rate charges not disclosed upfront. This pattern suggests systemic pricing communication issues.
• EMPTY/MINIMAL REVIEWS: Several reviews contain no text or only punctuation (dates 2023-06-10, 2021-06-10, 2015-10-06, 2014-12-18, 2012-03-02), reducing data quality.
• RECENCY BIAS: 45 of 92 reviews (49%) are from 2024-2025, while only 8 reviews (9%) are from 2020 or earlier. Recent reviews skew heavily positive (5-star), which may not reflect historical performance.
• NEGATIVE OUTLIERS: Several 1-star reviews cite serious issues (no-show appointments, rude staff, repeated failed repairs with charges, refusal to service customer), but these are minority cases (5 of 92 = 5.4%).

This WW Score of 81.2 is reliable with HIGH overall confidence due to a large sample size (92 reviews) and consistent mention patterns across all four dimensions. However, the score should be interpreted with awareness that recent reviews (2024-2025) dominate the dataset and may not reflect the company's performance during the 2021-2023 transition period following ownership change. Pricing dimension confidence is MODERATE due to fewer mentions (22) and documented inconsistencies in quote-to-final-cost communication. The duplicate review and empty reviews slightly reduce data integrity but do not materially alter the overall assessment.

Eagle Plumbing demonstrates solid overall performance with a WW Score of 76.8, reflecting a company with genuine strengths but also notable inconsistencies. Professionalism scores 78.5 based on 89 mentions, with many customers praising punctuality, courtesy, and communication—though a significant subset reports rude phone staff, no-shows, and late arrivals. Pricing scores 77.0 across 52 mentions; customers frequently cite fair and reasonable rates, though some object to parts markups and the $100 minimum service call fee. Project Completion scores 75.2 from 78 mentions, revealing a critical weakness: while many jobs are completed successfully, a substantial number of reviews document incomplete work, warranty disputes, poor craftsmanship, and failures requiring callbacks or outside contractors. Experience scores 80.5 from 68 mentions, with strong technical knowledge and problem-solving ability consistently praised, though some reviews cite incompetence or misdiagnosis. The company shows a pattern of excellent work from certain technicians (Jeff, Tim, Victor, Kevin, Bob) alongside poor experiences with others and persistent phone-based customer service issues.

• CRITICAL: Two major negative reviews (Sept 2024, 0.5 and 1.0 stars) document severe project failures on a 4-plex replumbing job—trenched and cracked sewer line covered up without repair, dozens of installation errors, extended timeline (5+ weeks vs. 1.5 weeks promised), sloppy workmanship, and incomplete follow-through. These are detailed, specific, and credible complaints suggesting systemic quality control issues on larger projects.
• PATTERN: Multiple reviews (2013–2021) report no-shows, missed appointment windows, and lack of communication despite scheduled service times. This pattern suggests operational/dispatch issues that persist across years.
• PATTERN: Recurring complaints about rude, dismissive, or sarcastic phone staff (multiple reviews mention 'Steve' and unnamed female receptionist with poor attitude). This is a consistent weak point in customer experience.
• PATTERN: Several reviews document warranty disputes, refusals to honor work guarantees, and demands that customers prove fault before service is provided at no charge.
• CONCERN: Reviews from 2024 show the company still operating, but the Sept 2024 4-plex disaster and earlier major failures suggest quality control remains inconsistent, particularly on complex/large jobs.
• RECENCY: Most recent reviews (2025, 2024) are predominantly 5-star with minimal detail, which may indicate selection bias or review platform changes. However, the Sept 2024 negative reviews are detailed and credible.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK: LOW-MODERATE. Several reviews are blank (5-star with no text) or extremely generic ('Great job,' 'Wonderful,' 'unknown'). However, the majority of reviews contain specific details, named technicians, and varied experiences, suggesting authentic feedback overall. The pattern of detailed negative reviews alongside detailed positive ones supports authenticity.

This WW Score of 76.8 should be treated with MODERATE-TO-HIGH caution: the company demonstrates genuine competence and customer satisfaction in routine jobs and with specific technicians, but exhibits serious inconsistencies in project completion quality, phone-based customer service, and performance on complex/large projects. Customers should expect variable service quality depending on technician assignment and job complexity, and should be prepared for potential communication friction and warranty disputes. The Sept 2024 4-plex failure is particularly concerning and suggests the company may struggle with scope management and quality oversight on larger engagements.

This aggregated review set spans multiple companies operating under similar or related names (Action Plumbing, Astro Plumbing, Pirate Plumbing, and individual plumbers like Jeff Satterthwaite), which significantly complicates scoring and reduces reliability. The majority of reviews are positive and praise professionalism, punctuality, and communication, but a substantial minority of negative reviews describe serious failures including fire damage, abandoned work, misdiagnosis, property damage, dishonest billing practices, and chronic non-responsiveness — particularly in the context of American Home Shield warranty work. Pricing feedback is mixed: many reviewers found costs fair or competitive, while others reported inflated fees, hidden charges, and deceptive billing. Project completion is a notable weakness, with multiple reviews citing incomplete jobs, failed callbacks, and work that required correction by other plumbers. Experience scores are dragged down by documented cases of poor workmanship, incorrect diagnoses, and code violations, despite many reviews praising skilled technicians by name.

• MULTI-ENTITY CONCERN: Reviews appear to span multiple distinct businesses (Action Plumbing in multiple states/cities, Astro Plumbing, Pirate Plumbing, Jeff Satterthwaite Plumbing, and others). Scores reflect an aggregated pool that may not represent any single contractor accurately. Consumer should verify which specific entity they are evaluating.
• FAKE REVIEW INDICATORS: A significant number of reviews contain no text (rating only), particularly clustered around dates like 2024-06-09, 2022-06-10, 2021-06-10, and 2015. These blank 5-star reviews inflate the average rating and are treated as non-usable data. Additionally, some reviews use nearly identical phrasing across different dates, suggesting possible review padding.
• SERIOUS NEGATIVE INCIDENTS: At least one review describes Action Plumbing causing a fire that left four families homeless (2024-09-06), with the owner allegedly unresponsive. Another describes a bathtub installation so defective it required full drywall and tile replacement. A third describes a whole-house re-pipe job where lines were not flushed, causing debris damage throughout the home. These are severe outliers that materially affect trustworthiness.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The review about Jake damaging a home during water heater installation (rating 1.0) appears verbatim on two separate dates (2024-06-09 and 2023-10-10). This duplication was counted only once for scoring purposes.
• AHS WARRANTY PATTERN: A recurring pattern of negative reviews involves American Home Shield (AHS) warranty assignments, where the contractor is accused of misdiagnosis, inflated modification fees, non-responsiveness, and claim denial manipulation. This pattern appears across multiple years and locations, suggesting a systemic issue with warranty work specifically.
• RECENCY NOTE: Reviews span from 2001 to 2025. Reviews older than 3 years (pre-2022) were given reduced weight. The most recent reviews (2024-2025) show a mixed but somewhat improved pattern for Astro Plumbing specifically, while Action Plumbing reviews remain mixed across the full date range.
• GEOGRAPHIC DISPERSION: Reviews reference locations including Las Vegas NV, Cleveland OH, Lawrence KS, Corpus Christi TX, Silsbee TX, Kaysville UT, Rhode Island, Indiana, and others. This strongly suggests these are reviews for multiple unrelated businesses sharing similar names, not a single contractor. The WW Score should be interpreted with extreme caution as a result.

This WW Score has LOW reliability for evaluating any single contractor because the review pool almost certainly aggregates multiple unrelated businesses operating under similar names across different states; consumers should independently verify the specific entity they intend to hire and seek reviews specific to that business's location and ownership before making a hiring decision.

A&M Plumbing receives strong praise across many recent reviews for punctuality, communication, and courteous service, with multiple reviewers explicitly noting on-time arrivals, proactive updates, and above-and-beyond behavior. However, professionalism scores are meaningfully dragged down by two older but detailed reviews describing a contractor (Matt) who gave quotes and then completely failed to show up or communicate, as well as one review citing poor communication during a job. Project completion is the most penalized dimension: there are multiple serious, specific complaints about faulty installations — including leaking dishwashers, sinks, and toilets installed incorrectly, a flooded rec room caused by an improperly secured discharge hose, and an alleged attempt to upsell unnecessary repairs — all of which represent significant workmanship failures. Pricing is generally viewed favorably by those who mention it, with several reviewers calling costs fair or reasonable, though one review describes a high-pressure upsell attempt that undermines this. The experience dimension reflects a split picture: many reviewers praise skill and attention to detail, but the documented installation failures indicate inconsistent technical execution across jobs and possibly across different technicians.

• Three reviews dated 2015–2015 contain only the word 'unknown' with no review text and 5-star ratings — these are not usable for scoring and may represent placeholder or fake entries.
• Two reviews dated 2022-09-30 contain only the word 'Excellent' with identical dates and identical text — possible duplicate or fake reviews; excluded from substantive scoring.
• The review set spans from 2008 to 2024, meaning many reviews are significantly older than 12 months. Reviews from 2013–2018 reference different named technicians (Ty, Matt, Alin) suggesting personnel or ownership changes over time, which limits the reliability of older reviews as indicators of current performance.
• The two most damaging no-show reviews (2015 and 2016) reference a 'Matt' who may no longer be associated with the business. However, they cannot be dismissed without confirmation and are included in scoring with appropriate weight reduction due to age.
• The 2020 review describing multiple simultaneous installation failures (dishwasher, sink, toilet) is highly specific and credible, and significantly impacts the project completion score.
• The 2008 review about the flooded rec room is over 15 years old and has been given minimal weight in scoring due to extreme age, but is noted as a documented workmanship failure.

This WW Score carries HIGH confidence in terms of data volume, but should be interpreted cautiously given the wide date range of reviews, evidence of personnel changes over time, and several specific and credible complaints about installation failures that meaningfully offset the otherwise strong pattern of positive recent feedback.