Find Nearby Plumbers In Evanston, Illinois

Bratschi Plumbing presents a deeply divided picture across its reviews. Positive reviewers consistently praise punctuality, courteous staff, and professional demeanor, while multiple negative reviewers describe billing practices they characterize as dishonest — charging for unproductive service calls, billing for callbacks on faulty work, and sending unpaid bills to collections. Pricing is the most consistently criticized dimension, with multiple reviewers citing charges that were dramatically higher than competitors and billing for time that did not reflect actual work performed. Project completion is also a concern, with at least two reviews explicitly describing work that was not completed correctly the first time or not completed at all. Experience scores are mixed — positive reviewers describe knowledgeable, skilled plumbers, while negative reviewers describe misidentified parts and work that required correction.

• Most reviews are older than 1 year — the most recent review is from July 2021, but the majority cluster between 2012 and 2017. Only one review is within the past 5 years. Score reliability for current performance is reduced.
• Billing practices flagged across multiple independent reviews: charging for unproductive service calls, billing for callbacks on defective work, and use of collections for disputed bills. This is a consistent pattern, not an isolated complaint.
• One reviewer explicitly states Bratschi charged for work they did not perform. Another states they were billed at a full hourly rate for a 5-minute visit. These are serious integrity concerns that weigh heavily on the pricing and professionalism scores.
• No fake review patterns detected — positive and negative reviews contain specific details, named individuals, and distinct scenarios, suggesting authentic authorship across the review set.

This WW Score is based on 8 reviews spanning nearly a decade, with limited recent data; the score reflects a genuinely contested reputation and should be treated as a moderate-confidence signal that warrants caution, particularly regarding pricing transparency and billing practices.

Amazing Plumbing has a deeply polarized review profile: a core of loyal customers praise responsiveness, technical skill, and follow-through on difficult jobs, while a substantial number of negative reviews describe serious pricing transparency issues, overcharging, refusal to provide itemized bills, and incomplete or faulty work requiring return visits. Pricing is the weakest dimension, with multiple independent reviewers citing charges they considered exploitative — including a $450 gasket replacement, $480 for toilet flappers, $975 for under-two-hours of work, and quotes double those of competitors. Project completion is mixed: some jobs were resolved expertly after others failed, but several reviews describe recurring leaks never resolved, work that created new problems, and poor cleanup. Professionalism scores are dragged down significantly by reports of harassment for payment, refusal to accept credit cards, failure to return calls, and blaming customers for plumber errors. Experience scores are moderate — there are genuine examples of skilled diagnostics and emergency response, but also credible accounts of incorrect installations and pushed clogs.

• IRRELEVANT REVIEWS DETECTED: At least 7 reviews appear to be for a medical practice (Randolph Primary Care) and are completely unrelated to plumbing services. These were excluded from scoring.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The 1-star review dated 2023-06-10 ('Charged me $175 for water leak investigation...') appears to be an exact duplicate of the review dated 2022-10-19 with identical text. Only one instance was counted.
• BLANK/EMPTY REVIEWS: Two reviews contained no text (one 5-star dated 2021-06-10, one 1-star dated 2020-06-10). These were excluded from scoring as they provide no usable data.
• RECENCY WARNING: The majority of substantive reviews are from 2012–2022. Only 2 reviews are from the past 12 months (2024–2025), and both are vague with no specific detail. The most recent detailed reviews skew negative.
• FAKE REVIEW CONCERN — GENERIC POSITIVES: Several 5-star reviews contain no specific detail ('Great service 10/10', 'Good service', 'Great job, honest guy!') and cannot be verified as genuine. These were given minimal weight in scoring.
• PATTERN OF PRICING COMPLAINTS: At least 7 independent reviewers across different years raised nearly identical concerns about opaque pricing, refusal to provide itemized bills, cash-only payment demands, and charges perceived as exploitative. This is a consistent and credible pattern, not isolated incidents.
• PATTERN OF CALLBACK FAILURES: Multiple reviewers noted the contractor failed to return calls as promised, requiring customers to follow up repeatedly — a consistent professionalism concern.

This WW Score is based on a substantial number of plumbing-specific reviews spanning over a decade and carries MODERATE overall confidence; the score meaningfully reflects a contractor with genuine technical capability but a well-documented and recurring pattern of pricing opacity and professionalism issues that prospective customers should weigh seriously.

Brasero Plumbing presents a mixed picture across only three reviews. The two positive reviews highlight strong responsiveness, cleanliness, and solid technical execution by Darius on drain and faucet work. However, the negative review is a serious drag on all dimensions — the plumber abandoned the job mid-diagnosis, refused to communicate findings, and then attempted to upsell the same customer hours later, which reflects poorly on both professionalism and project completion. Pricing is similarly mixed, with one reviewer finding the quote acceptable and another being quoted an arguably high $600 for four drain uncloggings. With only three reviews, no dimension can be scored with high confidence, and the single negative review carries significant weight.

• Very small sample size (3 reviews only) — WW Score should be treated as highly provisional and unreliable for decision-making.
• The negative review describes a serious professionalism and ethics concern: mid-job abandonment, refusal to communicate diagnosis, and an apparent upsell attempt on the same visit — this pattern warrants caution.
• All three reviews are from mid-2023; no reviews outside this narrow window are available, making it impossible to assess consistency over time.
• No fake review patterns detected — reviews contain specific details, varied language, and include both positive and negative experiences.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews and should be considered highly unreliable — a minimum of 8–10 reviews would be needed to draw meaningful conclusions about this contractor's overall quality.

Matt's record is deeply mixed and heavily skewed by a detailed, credible 1-star review from 2020 describing two no-shows, poor communication, ghosting after a callback request, and a repair that made a problem worse. This single review carries significant weight because it is specific, detailed, and covers multiple dimensions negatively. Older 5-star reviews from 2016–2019 do praise his technical skill, affordability, and reliability, but these are now 5–8 years old and cannot be considered current indicators of performance. The most recent review from 2024 is incomplete and unresolved, adding further uncertainty. The net result is a contractor whose historical strengths in experience and problem-solving are undermined by serious and documented professionalism and follow-through failures.

• RECENCY WARNING: The majority of positive reviews are from 2016–2019, making them 5–8 years old. Only one review is from the past 12 months (2024) and it is incomplete/unresolved. The score should not be treated as reflective of current performance.
• SERIOUS RELIABILITY CONCERN: The 2020 1-star review is highly detailed and credible, documenting two no-shows, ghosting, a failed repair, and overcharging. This is not a vague complaint and significantly drags down professionalism and project completion scores.
• INCOMPLETE REVIEW: The 2024 review (3-star) explicitly states it is a preliminary review pending follow-up. No outcome data is available from this review and it was excluded from dimension scoring.
• LOW REVIEW VOLUME: Only 7 total reviews across a multi-year span. This is insufficient to establish a reliable performance baseline, and confidence in all scores is reduced accordingly.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW CONCERN (MINOR): The two 5-star reviews from August 2019 (posted within 19 days of each other) use somewhat similar generic praise language ('reliable,' 'knowledgeable,' 'prompt'). While not conclusive, this warrants mild caution.

This WW Score has LOW overall reliability due to very few reviews, a wide date range spanning 8 years, a critical unresolved 2024 review, and a heavily negative 2020 review that directly contradicts the older positive pattern — prospective customers should seek more current references before hiring.

Both reviews paint a deeply concerning picture of this contractor's operations. Professionalism is severely undermined by a complete absence of planning, no written contracts provided to the customer, and a pattern of last-minute decision-making that frustrated even the contractor's own subcontractors. Project completion is the most alarming dimension — one job was abandoned entirely after the contractor was fired, and the second review describes an ongoing lack of timeline, no plan of action, and the customer being forced to babysit the work. The one partial bright spot is a single mention of quality craftsmanship on a bathroom floor, which prevents the experience score from bottoming out entirely, though an unlevel electrical switch installation in the same job tempers that praise significantly.

• Only 2 reviews total — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold rules.
• Both reviews are dated 2021–2022, making them over 2 years old. No recent reviews are available to assess current performance.
• The pattern across both reviews is consistent and independently corroborated, suggesting these are genuine accounts rather than fake reviews — however the small sample size means no strong conclusions can be drawn.
• Subcontractor dissatisfaction mentioned explicitly in Review 1 — this may indicate systemic organizational or management problems beyond a single incident.
• Customer in Review 2 reports never receiving a written contract, which is a significant legal and consumer protection concern.

This score assessment carries very low reliability due to only 2 available reviews, both of which are over 2 years old, providing insufficient data to draw confident conclusions about this contractor's current quality or consistency.

Both reviews speak positively to Gail's professionalism, describing him as prompt, responsive, pleasant, and communicative with customers. One review explicitly mentions fair pricing, and the same review notes the job was completed thoroughly without invasive work, with the plumber staying until the problem was fully resolved. Technical skill and knowledge are referenced in both reviews, with one describing him as knowing 'anything there is to know about plumbing' and the other noting he quickly assessed and explained the problem. However, with only two reviews — both over 10 years old — confidence across all dimensions is severely limited and scores should be treated with significant caution.

• Only 2 reviews provided — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Both reviews are significantly outdated: dated 2011 and 2014, making them over 10 years old. They carry very low recency weight and may not reflect current service quality.
• Review 1 is a composite review written by the property owner quoting their renter — this is a single review event, not two independent data points, and has been counted as one mention accordingly.
• Both reviews are 5-star with generally positive but non-specific language in Review 2 ('knows anything there is to know about plumbing'). While not conclusively fake, the lack of specifics in Review 2 reduces its evidentiary value.
• Pricing score is based on a single mention and should be treated as highly speculative.

This WW Score report has very low reliability due to only 2 reviews being available, all of which are more than 10 years old, providing insufficient and outdated data to draw meaningful conclusions about current service quality.