Find Nearby Plumbers In Evanston, Illinois

Niv demonstrates strong professionalism across all three reviews, with consistent praise for punctuality, responsiveness, communication, and pleasant demeanor. Project completion is solid, with all jobs finished successfully and follow-up advice provided. Technical skill is evident in the camera inspection and root removal work, though experience mentions are limited. Pricing feedback is minimal (one mention) but positive, noting reasonable costs compared to competitors. The small sample size (3 reviews) and age of reviews (oldest from 2016) limit confidence, though consistency across all three is encouraging.

• All three reviews are older than 5 years (2016-2018); no recent reviews available to assess current service quality
• Very small sample size (n=3) limits statistical reliability; recommend collecting more recent reviews before making major decisions
• Pricing dimension based on only 1 mention; insufficient data for confident pricing assessment

This WW Score of 88.2 should be treated with caution due to the small sample size and age of reviews; while the available data is consistently positive, more recent reviews are needed to confirm current service standards.

Lucke Plumbing demonstrates solid technical competence and generally reliable service delivery, with strong marks for experience and project completion. However, the company exhibits significant inconsistency in professionalism—particularly in responsiveness and communication—and faces persistent criticism regarding pricing transparency and fairness. While many customers report excellent experiences with specific technicians (Dave, Bruce, Scott, Marc), others describe poor follow-up, unresponsiveness to callbacks, and what they perceive as overcharging. The company's 90-day warranty policy and occasional refusal to honor work beyond that window have generated notable dissatisfaction. Recent reviews (past 2 years) show more positive sentiment, but older reviews reveal chronic communication and accountability issues.

• PRICING CONCERNS: Multiple reviews (at least 12) explicitly criticize pricing as excessive, with specific complaints about $245-$450 for routine tasks, $250/hour rates, and parts marked up 10-15x retail cost. This is a material weakness.
• COMMUNICATION FAILURES: At least 15 reviews document failure to return calls, provide estimates, or follow up on promised callbacks. This pattern spans from 2006 to 2018, suggesting systemic issues.
• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: Two identical reviews from 2018-08-17 (interior designer complaint) and two nearly identical reviews from 2018-06-11 and 2018-03-05 (sewer backup complaint) suggest possible data duplication rather than fake reviews.
• INCONSISTENT SERVICE QUALITY: Multiple reviews describe different outcomes for similar jobs, with quality heavily dependent on which technician was assigned. This indicates variable training or oversight.
• WARRANTY DISPUTES: At least 3 reviews cite the 90-day warranty policy as unreasonably restrictive and cite refusal to address defects beyond that window.
• MAJOR PROJECT FAILURES: One detailed 2016 review documents extensive failures across a major bathroom/kitchen remodel (6 different plumbers, incomplete work, recurring leaks 18 months later), suggesting serious quality control issues on complex projects.
• RECENCY BIAS NOTED: Reviews from 2020-2025 are predominantly 5-star with minimal detail. Reviews from 2006-2018 contain more substantive criticism. This may reflect selection bias in recent reviews or genuine service improvement.
• EMPTY/MINIMAL REVIEWS: Approximately 20 reviews contain no text or only generic phrases ('unknown', '.', 'As noted above'), reducing data quality.

This WW Score of 76.2 should be treated with MODERATE-TO-HIGH confidence for routine service calls but with CAUTION for large projects or price-sensitive customers. The company excels in technical execution and responsiveness for straightforward jobs but has documented weaknesses in communication, pricing transparency, and accountability on complex work. Recent reviews are more positive, but historical patterns suggest these issues may recur. Customers should obtain detailed written estimates, clarify warranty terms upfront, and consider the specific technician assignment if possible.

Miracle Plumbing has a strong base of satisfied customers who consistently praise responsiveness, same-day service, and friendly technicians — particularly Kirk, Lee, Liran, and Trevor. However, a meaningful cluster of 1-star reviews raises serious concerns: multiple reviewers independently report cash-only payment demands made out to individuals rather than the company, no receipts issued, price changes after arrival, abandoned work (with an ROC citation noted), and refusal to stand behind faulty workmanship including a toilet that leaked into a neighboring unit and a scorched kitchen floor. Pricing is a split dimension — many customers praise fair and reasonable rates, while several others describe being quoted inflated prices, pressured, or feeling scammed. Project completion is dragged down by at least two credible accounts of incomplete or defective work and one documented job abandonment. The overall score reflects genuine quality in many interactions but is tempered significantly by recurring, specific, and credible negative patterns that cannot be dismissed.

• CASH-ONLY PAYMENT PATTERN: Multiple independent 1-star reviewers report being asked to write checks or pay cash made out to an individual's name rather than the company, with no receipts provided. This is a significant red flag for business legitimacy and consumer protection.
• ABANDONED JOB / ROC CITATION: One reviewer explicitly states Kirk abandoned a residential rough-in job mid-project, resulting in a citation from the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (ROC). This is a serious project completion failure.
• FAULTY WORKMANSHIP NOT REMEDIED: At least two reviewers report defective work (leaking toilet causing damage to neighboring unit, scorched kitchen floor) where the company refused to take responsibility or provide compensation.
• PRICE SWITCHING: Multiple reviewers report being quoted one price over the phone and given a higher price on arrival, or prices being cut in half only after the customer refused — suggesting inconsistent or manipulative pricing practices.
• POSSIBLE FAKE REVIEW INFLATION: A large number of reviews (18+) contain zero text with only a 5-star rating. These blank reviews provide no usable data and may artificially inflate the star average. Additionally, some positive reviews use very generic language with no specifics.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The review from 'Liran' regarding an ejector pump replacement appears nearly verbatim across two separate review entries (dated 2024-09-12 and 2024-08-31), suggesting a possible duplicate submission or copied review.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews with substantive content are from 2021–2025 and are weighted accordingly. Negative reviews span from 2018 through 2024, indicating these are not isolated historical incidents but a recurring pattern.
• INSURANCE CONCERN: One reviewer states they repeatedly asked for the name of the company's insurance carrier and believes the company may be uninsured. This could not be verified from reviews alone but warrants caution.

This WW Score is based on a large review set (125 reviews) with HIGH data confidence across all four dimensions, but the score should be interpreted cautiously given a consistent and credible pattern of serious operational complaints — including cash-only transactions, no receipts, price manipulation, abandoned work, and unresolved workmanship defects — that meaningfully offset the volume of positive feedback.

Roto-Rooter scores very strongly on professionalism and technician experience, with hundreds of reviews praising individual technicians by name for being courteous, knowledgeable, communicative, and thorough. Project completion is generally solid, with most jobs resolved same-day or within a short timeframe, though a meaningful minority of reviews describe incomplete work, no-shows, broken promises on follow-up visits, and warranty disputes. The most significant drag on the overall WW Score is pricing, which is the single most-complained-about dimension across the entire review set — dozens of reviewers explicitly describe charges as 'outrageous,' 'ridiculous,' 'a scam,' or triple the price of competitors, with specific dollar amounts cited ranging from $315 for 4 minutes of work to $8,700 for a water heater installation. Several reviews also describe deceptive pricing practices, including quotes that changed after work began, failure to disclose service fees upfront, and pressure tactics targeting vulnerable customers including seniors and non-English speakers.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: A significant number of reviews appear to be exact or near-exact duplicates posted on different dates (e.g., multiple identical reviews for 'Gio,' 'Gabriel,' 'Daniel,' 'Gus,' 'Giovanni,' and others). This inflates the apparent review count and may indicate a review solicitation system that caused customers to submit the same review twice, or potential manipulation. Confidence in raw review count is reduced.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Approximately 150-200 reviews contain no text and only a star rating (almost all 5-star). These provide no usable data for any dimension and were excluded from scoring but inflate the total count.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS ARE SEVERE AND SPECIFIC: Negative pricing reviews are not vague — they cite specific dollar amounts, compare to competitor prices, and describe practices such as quoting after work begins, refusing to honor coupons, and charging elderly or non-English-speaking customers without disclosure. This is a systemic pattern, not isolated incidents.
• SCHEDULING AND NO-SHOW COMPLAINTS: Multiple reviews describe technicians failing to arrive within promised windows, no-call-no-shows, and dispatch communication failures. This is a recurring pattern affecting the project completion score.
• WARRANTY DISPUTES: Several reviews describe Roto-Rooter refusing to honor stated warranties, including a 6-month guarantee and a 30-day guarantee, with customers being charged again for the same recurring issue.
• WORK QUALITY FAILURES: A small but notable number of reviews describe active harm caused by technicians — flooding a kitchen, improperly setting a toilet, changing the wrong pipe, leaving sewage handprints, and damaging property with no accountability.
• PREDATORY PRICING PATTERN: Multiple reviews describe technicians quoting extremely high prices and then reducing them when customers push back, suggesting initial quotes are inflated as a negotiating tactic rather than honest pricing.
• RECENCY: All reviews are dated between approximately May 7, 2025 and June 9, 2025 — all within the past 12 months. Recency weighting is fully applied.

This WW Score is based on an exceptionally large review set and carries HIGH overall confidence, but the score should be interpreted with caution given confirmed duplicate reviews inflating volume, a strong and consistent pattern of severe pricing complaints that meaningfully suppresses the score, and documented instances of incomplete work and warranty non-compliance that suggest the positive technician-level experience does not always translate to a satisfactory overall customer outcome.

Goode Plumbing demonstrates strong technical competence and professionalism, with technicians consistently praised for knowledge, punctuality, and courteous behavior. Project completion rates are solid, with most jobs finished as promised and follow-up service honored. However, pricing emerges as a significant weakness, with numerous customers reporting costs 2-4x higher than competitors for identical work, flat-rate structures that lack transparency, and aggressive upselling tactics. While the company excels at responsiveness and work quality, the persistent pricing complaints across all time periods substantially depress the overall score.

• PRICING PATTERN: Systematic overcharging documented across 140+ reviews. Customers consistently report quotes 50-300% above market rates. Examples: $832 for cartridge replacement (customer did it for $170), $1,700 for ejector pump (online cost ~$360), $967 for frost-proof faucet (part cost <$100).
• TRANSPARENCY ISSUE: Flat-rate pricing model prevents customers from understanding cost breakdown. Company explicitly states 'we do not itemize invoices.' Multiple reviews cite $60 diagnostic fees that are not waived as promised, and surprise charges after estimates.
• SALES PRESSURE: Multiple reviews describe aggressive upselling, high-pressure tactics, and recommendations for unnecessary work. Water heater case where technician pushed $3,000+ tankless system that was inappropriate for customer's setup (confirmed by second opinion).
• DEPOSIT/CANCELLATION PENALTIES: Several customers report $250-$1,000 cancellation fees and non-refundable deposits, with poor communication about terms. One customer charged 10% cancellation penalty ($1,000) despite canceling within 16 hours.
• COMMUNICATION FAILURES: Recurring pattern of unreturned calls, missed appointments without notice, and poor follow-up on promised estimates. One customer called 14 days in a row with no callback regarding warranty claim.
• INCONSISTENT SERVICE QUALITY: While many reviews praise individual technicians, others describe incomplete work, incorrect diagnoses, and jobs that required expensive rework by competitors. One customer paid $1,700 for shower rebuild that damaged the fixture; another paid $1,400 for work that solved nothing.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK - MODERATE: Approximately 35-40% of reviews are 5-star with minimal detail ('Great service!' 'Excellent!' 'Got the job done!'). However, the volume of detailed negative reviews with specific pricing examples and the consistency of complaints across years suggests authentic mixed sentiment rather than review manipulation.
• RECENCY: Reviews span 2014-2025. Pricing complaints are consistent across entire period, suggesting systemic business model rather than temporary issue. Recent reviews (2025) show same patterns as 2017-2020 reviews.

This WW Score of 72.3 is highly reliable given 500 reviews with detailed data across all dimensions. The score accurately reflects a company with genuine technical expertise and professional service delivery undermined by a business model centered on high pricing and aggressive sales tactics. Customers consistently receive quality work but at costs significantly above market rates, with limited transparency and occasional warranty/follow-up issues. The HIGH confidence is warranted by the large sample size and consistency of patterns, though prospective customers should expect to pay premium prices and should obtain multiple quotes before committing.

Bill's Plumbing receives strong praise for individual technicians — Kurt, Victor, Jimmy, James, and Shawn are repeatedly cited as knowledgeable, courteous, and efficient — which drives solid scores in professionalism and experience. However, a persistent and serious pattern of complaints about office/reception staff being rude, dismissive, or outright hostile significantly drags down the professionalism score. Pricing is a notable weak point: multiple reviewers across different years report being quoted one price and charged a higher amount, undisclosed service fees, and at least one instance of what appears to be price gouging on a holiday weekend. Project completion is mixed — many jobs are completed well, but several reviews describe incomplete work, failed rodding, unresolved callbacks, and one significant contract dispute involving a $11,320 job where promised follow-through never materialized. The overall picture is a company with skilled field technicians undermined by inconsistent office practices and recurring billing transparency issues.

• 17 reviews contain no text (rating only) and were excluded from dimensional scoring — this is an unusually high proportion (21%) and may indicate review padding or solicited ratings without genuine feedback.
• Pricing complaints are systemic and span multiple years (2010–2024): at least 7 reviews explicitly describe being charged more than quoted or discovering undisclosed service fees. This is a recurring structural issue, not isolated incidents.
• Office/receptionist rudeness is flagged in at least 6 independent reviews across different years, suggesting a persistent cultural or staffing problem at the administrative level.
• One review (2023) describes a technician (Shawn S.) being verbally aggressive and dismissive toward a customer in their own home, and a subsequent failure to honor callback work without charging extra — this is a serious professionalism red flag.
• One review (2019) describes a $11,320 contract where promised follow-up work was never completed and the company refused to assist — a significant project completion failure.
• One review (2022) alleges price gouging of an elderly customer ($3,200 for a basic water heater over a holiday weekend) with refusal to itemize labor hours.
• Recency note: The majority of positive reviews are from 2024–2025 and may reflect genuine improvement, but negative reviews from 2022–2023 are also recent enough to remain relevant. Older negative reviews (2010–2019) are given reduced weight but show long-standing patterns.
• No fake review pattern detected — reviews vary in length, detail, tone, and include both positive and negative content with specific technician names and job descriptions.

This WW Score is based on a large and diverse review set spanning over a decade, with sufficient mentions across all four dimensions to carry HIGH confidence; however, the score should be interpreted cautiously given systemic billing transparency issues and recurring office staff complaints that represent genuine, documented risks to the customer experience.