Find Nearby Plumbers In Evanston, Illinois

LJ Brown Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism with consistent praise for punctuality, communication, and courteous service across multiple reviews. However, pricing is a significant concern—while most customers acknowledge fair value, one detailed 2011 review documents severe overcharging ($600+ for botched work) and poor follow-up, substantially lowering the pricing dimension. Project completion shows mixed results: most reviews praise quality and warranty support, but the 2011 complaint details multiple failed repairs and unresolved issues. Experience is solid overall, though the same 2011 review documents incompetent workmanship. The company's age (reviews span 2009–2014) and the presence of one highly detailed negative review create material uncertainty.

• One detailed 1-star review from 2011 documents serious quality failures, overcharging, and poor customer service response—this substantially contradicts the predominantly positive reviews and suggests inconsistent service quality or potential plumber-specific issues.
• All reviews are older than 10 years (2009–2014); no recent data available to assess current performance.
• The 2011 negative review is exceptionally detailed and specific (with dollar amounts, multiple failures, BBB complaint, and owner response), lending it credibility despite being outnumbered by positive reviews.
• Positive reviews, while genuine-sounding, lack the specificity and depth of the negative review, which may reflect selection bias (satisfied customers leave shorter reviews).

This score should be treated with caution due to the presence of one highly credible, detailed negative review documenting serious failures, combined with the age of all data (10+ years old) and lack of recent performance information; the MODERATE overall confidence reflects genuine uncertainty about whether the company's current service quality matches the predominantly positive historical reviews.

Josh-Rooter demonstrates strong technical expertise and generally professional service, with most reviews praising responsiveness, fair pricing, and quality workmanship. However, two significant negative reviews—one alleging rude behavior from the business owner and another claiming incomplete work with poor work ethic—substantially lower confidence in consistency. The majority of positive reviews are older (2020–2021), with only three from 2024, raising recency concerns. While the company excels in emergency response and communication, the documented failures in project completion and professionalism create material risk.

• Two 1-star reviews with serious allegations: one involving alleged owner misconduct (voicemail swearing at customer), another alleging incomplete sewer work and poor work ethic. These are not generic complaints and carry credibility weight.
• Recency concern: 7 of 12 reviews are from 2020–2021; only 3 from 2024. Recent reviews are predominantly positive, but sample size is small.
• No obvious fake review pattern detected, but the stark contrast between 10 five-star reviews and 2 one-star reviews suggests potential polarization in customer experience.
• Project completion dimension scored conservatively due to explicit failure claim in one review (sewer line not fully cleared despite two visits and $250 charge).

This score should be treated with caution. While the majority of reviews are positive and recent data is encouraging, the documented failures in project completion and the serious professionalism allegation create meaningful uncertainty about consistency and reliability. A score of 78.2 reflects strong average performance tempered by material risk factors.

The Craftsmen Group demonstrates strong technical expertise and craftsmanship (85/100), with numerous reviews praising the quality and skill of their work. Professionalism is solid (76/100) with many positive mentions of punctuality, politeness, and communication, though several serious responsiveness failures significantly drag this score down. Project completion is the weakest dimension (68/100), with multiple documented cases of incomplete work, extended timelines, unfinished callbacks, and abandoned projects. Pricing is fair (78/100) based on available feedback, though one major billing dispute and concerns about subcontractor cost overruns create uncertainty. The company excels at technical execution but struggles with follow-through and accountability.

• CRITICAL: Multiple severe responsiveness failures documented. Review from 2018-03-14 describes a 3+ month non-response to warranty issue with photographic evidence. Review from 2014-09-26 documents complete communication breakdown after initial consultation. Review from 2017-12-30 reports 1.5 month non-response to callback request.
• Project completion concerns: Review from 2021-06-25 reports customer dismissed company mid-project due to billing disputes and subcontractor use without disclosure. Review from 2013-12-26 documents 3-month timeline with multiple apologies, subcontractor failures, and incomplete roofer work never addressed.
• Billing transparency issues: Review from 2021-06-25 explicitly warns about unexpected billing practices and subcontractor charges not disclosed upfront. Review from 2013-12-26 mentions mason charged significantly more than estimate without consultation.
• Two reviews marked 'unknown' with ratings (1.0 and 5.0 from 2015) cannot be evaluated for content.
• Recency concern: Most reviews are from 2011-2014 (older than 10 years). Only 2 reviews from 2021 and 2018. Recent data is limited and shows negative trends.
• Pattern inconsistency: Stark contrast between highly detailed positive reviews (mostly older, 2011-2014) and recent reviews (2018-2021) showing serious problems. This suggests either company decline or selection bias in older reviews.

This score should be treated with MODERATE caution. While technical expertise is well-documented with HIGH confidence, the company's responsiveness and project completion track record show serious, documented failures that are not offset by positive reviews. The concentration of older positive reviews versus recent negative reviews suggests potential company decline. Customers should prioritize obtaining detailed written contracts, clear payment terms, and explicit warranties before engaging this contractor.

Flader Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism, technical expertise, and responsiveness across most reviews, with many customers praising punctuality, friendliness, and quality workmanship. However, significant pricing concerns emerge consistently across 23 reviews, with customers reporting inflated labor charges, padded hours, excessive travel fees, and billing practices perceived as deceptive. Project completion is generally solid, though a few reviews cite incomplete work or follow-up issues. The company shows particular strength in emergency response and complex technical problem-solving, but pricing transparency and billing integrity remain substantial weaknesses that materially impact overall trustworthiness.

• PRICING PATTERN: 23 reviews explicitly mention overcharging, padded hours, excessive travel fees, or unfair billing practices. This is a systemic concern, not isolated incidents. Multiple customers report being charged $180-$270/hour labor rates, travel charges not credited against labor, and bills for time spent writing invoices.
• DUPLICATE NEGATIVE REVIEW: The negative review dated 2024-06-09 about the disposal unit emergency appears twice (also dated 2023-12-20), suggesting either a duplicate submission or two similar incidents with identical complaint patterns.
• RECENCY BIAS: Most recent reviews (2024-2025) are overwhelmingly positive (5-star), while older reviews (2010-2018) contain more detailed negative experiences with pricing and billing. This temporal pattern warrants caution—recent reviews may not reflect historical billing practices or may be selectively curated.
• GENERIC PRAISE IN RECENT REVIEWS: Several recent 5-star reviews contain minimal detail (e.g., 'Nice peeps. Good service. Pros.' and 'Great service.'), which reduces their evidentiary weight compared to detailed negative reviews with specific dollar amounts and time documentation.
• CONFLICTING NARRATIVES ON PRICING: Some reviews praise 'fair pricing' and 'reasonable costs,' while others detail egregious overcharges for identical service types. This suggests either inconsistent pricing practices, variable technician billing, or selective customer experiences.
• PROJECT COMPLETION GAPS: Two reviews (2023-06-10) report incomplete work: one customer paid $800 for incomplete sump pit excavation with no callbacks; another was charged $525.50 for work quoted at ~$286 with misleading explanation about two-plumber dispatch.
• CUSTOMER SERVICE INCONSISTENCY: One 2015 review reports being 'cussed out' by office staff, and multiple reviews cite poor callback responsiveness and inflexible management when disputes arise.

This WW Score of 72.8 should be treated with MODERATE confidence. While Flader demonstrates genuine strengths in professionalism, technical expertise, and emergency responsiveness (supported by 42+ mentions), the company is significantly undermined by a persistent and well-documented pattern of aggressive billing practices and pricing opacity across 23 reviews spanning multiple years. The recent surge in 5-star reviews with minimal detail, combined with older reviews containing specific financial grievances, suggests the score may not fully reflect the billing risk customers face. Customers should request detailed written estimates in advance and carefully scrutinize invoices before payment.

Great American Plumbing demonstrates strong technical expertise and generally professional service, with many customers praising responsiveness, fair pricing, and skilled workmanship—particularly from technicians John, Alex, and Ahmed. However, the company's WW Score is significantly impacted by recurring project completion failures: multiple no-shows, ghosting incidents, and one serious incident involving property damage with poor follow-up and refusal to provide insurance information. While the majority of reviews are positive and older (pre-2016), recent reviews (2024-2025) reveal unresolved reliability issues with appointment scheduling and customer communication. The company excels in technical problem-solving but struggles with operational consistency.

• CRITICAL: Multiple no-show and ghosting incidents documented across different time periods (2024, 2016, 2016), indicating systemic scheduling/communication failures rather than isolated incidents.
• CRITICAL: Serious property damage incident (2016-05-04) where plumbers damaged 3 floors in a condo building; company allegedly refused to provide invoice or insurance information and failed to follow up despite multiple contact attempts. This represents major liability and professionalism failure.
• MODERATE: Pricing concerns in 2 reviews (2015-07-25, 2015-06-23) alleging overcharging for emergency situations ($1000 for 3 hours work, 4-hour late arrival, double billing incident). Suggests potential exploitation of urgent situations despite generally fair pricing reputation.
• MODERATE: Unprofessional technician behavior documented (2015-07-25): 4-hour late arrival, poor attitude, complaints about customer's faucet selection, required customer follow-up to ensure quality work.
• MODERATE: Multiple reviews with minimal or no text content ('unknown', '.') from 2015-2017 period (8 reviews) make it difficult to assess actual service quality for those entries; these appear to be placeholder or incomplete submissions.
• MODERATE: Recency concern—most detailed positive reviews are from 2011-2014 (10+ years old). Recent reviews (2024-2025) show deterioration in reliability, suggesting possible operational decline or staffing changes.
• LIMITED: One review (2015-08-07) mentions cancellation and rescheduling, indicating occasional scheduling issues beyond the documented no-shows.

This WW Score should be treated with CAUTION. While the company demonstrates genuine technical expertise and professionalism in execution when they show up, the recurring pattern of no-shows, ghosting, and one serious unresolved property damage incident significantly undermines trust. The score is pulled down by legitimate project completion failures that directly contradict the positive experience narratives. Customers should be aware that booking with this company carries documented risk of appointment failures and that recent reviews (2024-2025) suggest ongoing operational issues despite historical reputation.

Bogie receives strong praise across multiple reviews for his technical expertise, particularly with older plumbing systems, and is consistently described as knowledgeable, meticulous, and reliable. His project completion record appears solid, with reviewers noting creative problem-solving, timely responses, and thorough cleanup. However, a detailed and credible 1-star review raises a serious concern about pricing transparency and ethical billing practices — specifically, charging a full quoted rate for a job that took 40 minutes rather than the several hours originally anticipated. While most reviewers describe his prices as fair or reasonable, the negative review introduces meaningful doubt about consistency in pricing conduct. Professionalism scores are tempered by the same review, which describes Bogie calling back twice to justify his fee rather than offering any resolution.

• One detailed 1-star review alleges significant overcharging relative to the scope of work actually performed, with the contractor charging the maximum quoted price for a job completed in approximately 40 minutes instead of the estimated several hours. This is a credible, specific complaint that materially impacts the pricing and professionalism scores.
• Four of the five reviews are 5-star ratings with generally positive but sometimes brief language. While not conclusively fake, the contrast between the four positive reviews and the one highly detailed negative review warrants caution.
• Most reviews are older than 12 months, with the most recent dating to April 2021. No reviews from the past 12 months are present, limiting insight into current performance. Recency weighting has been applied conservatively.
• Review sample size is very small (5 reviews total). Scores should be interpreted with caution given limited data volume.

This WW Score carries moderate reliability due to the small review sample, the age of most reviews, and one substantive negative review that introduces meaningful uncertainty around pricing ethics and professionalism consistency.