Find Nearby Plumbers In Franklin Park, Illinois

ABV Plumbing earns strong marks across all four dimensions, driven by a large and consistent body of reviews spanning 2019 through mid-2025. Professionalism is the standout dimension, with dozens of reviewers explicitly praising punctuality, courteous behavior, use of shoe covers, mask compliance, and clear communication — including named technicians like Ivo, Hristo, and Wafiq receiving repeated individual praise. Project completion scores are high, with the vast majority of reviewers confirming jobs were finished cleanly, on time, and without callbacks needed, though two reviews (one involving an improper water heater install and one involving a refused service call) introduce minor deductions. Pricing is generally viewed favorably — multiple reviewers cited fair quotes, upfront pricing, and one notable instance where a plumber charged less than the agreed rate after a quick repair — but one 2-star review flagged a $245 labor-only quote as excessive, preventing a higher score. Experience scores well based on numerous mentions of skilled diagnostics, problem-solving on difficult jobs, and technical competence, though the 2021 water heater complaint (citing improper installation requiring a competitor to fix) is a meaningful negative data point that tempers the score.

• 8 reviews contain no text whatsoever — only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence.
• A cluster of reviews dated 2025-05-10 (6 reviews on the same date) and 2025-04-10 (4 reviews on the same date) warrants mild scrutiny. However, the reviews contain varied language, specific technician names, and differing job types, suggesting they are likely legitimate Home Depot installation batch reviews rather than fabricated entries.
• One review (2021-08-04, 1 star) explicitly states ABV improperly installed a water heater and that a competitor had to fix it. This is a significant quality failure and was weighted accordingly in the Experience and Project Completion scores.
• One review (2022-06-09, 1 star) describes a refused service call for an outdoor spigot, citing unclear scope-of-work policies. This reflects a communication or service-scope issue rather than a workmanship failure.
• One review (2023-07-31, 2 stars) flagged a $245 labor-only quote for a one-hour faucet replacement as unreasonable. This was factored into the Pricing score.
• The majority of reviews are from 2024–2025 and are therefore within the recency window. Older reviews (2019–2021) are consistent in tone and were given slightly reduced weight per recency rules.
• Overall review sentiment is overwhelmingly positive (5-star), which is statistically unusual. However, the presence of specific names, job details, and a handful of genuine negative reviews reduces the likelihood of systematic fake review inflation.

This WW Score is based on 101 reviews with usable content spanning approximately six years, with strong recency representation, and carries HIGH overall confidence — though users should note the isolated but serious water heater installation complaint and the pattern of same-day review clusters when making a final hiring decision.

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.

Bob consistently receives strong praise across all four dimensions, with professionalism being the most frequently and explicitly mentioned quality — punctuality, responsiveness, and courteous attitude appear in nearly every review. Pricing is described as reasonable or fair in four reviews, supporting a solid but not exceptional price-friendly score. Project completion is well-supported, with multiple reviewers noting jobs were finished on time, efficiently, and to a high standard, including one longer multi-month project completed with consistent daily effort. Experience and workmanship quality are explicitly praised in several reviews, with specific mentions of carpentry skill, attention to detail, and quality outcomes. The primary caveat is that all reviews are more than 10 years old, which significantly limits the reliability of this score for assessing current performance.

• ALL 9 REVIEWS ARE OLDER THAN 10 YEARS (range: 2010–2014). This score reflects historical performance only and should not be treated as indicative of current quality or availability.
• All reviews are 5-star ratings with no negative or mixed feedback. While the reviews contain specific details and varied language that reduce fake review suspicion, the uniformly perfect ratings across a decade warrant mild caution.
• One review (2010) explicitly notes the reviewer hired Bob because he was the husband of her best friend, introducing a potential personal bias that may inflate that review's positivity.
• Review volume is low (9 total). Confidence in the WW Score is limited by both the small sample size and the age of all reviews.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability due to consistent and specific reviewer feedback across dimensions, but should be treated with significant caution given that all reviews are over 10 years old and no recent performance data is available.

Professionalism is the strongest and most consistently mentioned dimension, with multiple reviewers praising responsiveness, punctuality, communication, and polite demeanor across several reviews. Project completion scores well, with reviewers noting jobs were seen through to resolution — including weekend and emergency callbacks — though the small total review count limits confidence. Pricing is mentioned positively in a few reviews, with one reviewer explicitly calling the price fair for a large Sunday job and another noting reasonable pricing, but the limited mentions keep this score conservative. Experience is supported by references to diagnosing complex issues, explaining the process, and delivering quality workmanship, though again the low review volume constrains confidence. One review (the window-cleaning review) appears to be for an entirely different type of business and was treated as non-applicable to plumbing-specific scoring.

• One review (dated 2016-09-06) describes a window-cleaning service with a crew of three and references Angie's List coupons — this is almost certainly a misattributed review for a different business entirely and was excluded from dimension scoring.
• One review (dated 2014-10-22) contains only the word 'unknown' with no usable content and was excluded from all scoring.
• All reviews are rated 5.0 stars with no negative or mixed feedback, which warrants mild fake-review awareness caution, though most reviews do contain specific, credible details that reduce this concern.
• All reviews are older than 12 months — the most recent plumbing-relevant review dates to January 2018, making this data significantly outdated. Current performance cannot be reliably inferred.
• Total usable review count is very low (7 reviews, with only 6 fully applicable to plumbing). Scores should be treated as directional only.

This WW Score carries LOW overall reliability due to the very small number of usable reviews, the complete absence of any negative feedback across all ratings, the presence of one clearly misattributed review, and the fact that all reviews are more than six years old — meaning this score should not be used as a confident indicator of current contractor quality.

Able Sewerage has a strong base of loyal, satisfied customers who consistently praise responsiveness, fair pricing, and pleasant workers — several reviewers note multi-year or even 15-year relationships with the company. However, the review set contains multiple serious negative experiences that meaningfully drag down every dimension: two reviews describe misdiagnosis of plumbing problems that led to unnecessary and costly repair recommendations, one describes repeated no-show appointments with no communication, and one describes a disputed service charge and an unprofessional owner response. Professionalism is mixed — while many reviewers praise attitude and communication, at least three reviews cite poor communication, missed appointments, or dismissive responses. Project completion is the most damaged dimension, with credible accounts of jobs left unresolved, incorrect diagnoses, and work described as a 'bandaid' without disclosure to the customer. Pricing scores moderately well overall, but is undercut by two reviews where customers paid competitors significantly less for the same or better work.

• Several 5-star reviews are brief and generic (e.g., 'Good quality service. Timely response. Professional attitude.') with little specific detail — mild fake review risk, though not conclusive.
• Two reviews (2020 and 2022) describe near-identical patterns: Able misdiagnosed a sewer issue, recommended expensive excavation or pipe replacement costing thousands, and a second company resolved the problem quickly and cheaply. This pattern is a significant credibility concern for the experience dimension.
• One negative reviewer (2021) references an 'unprofessional response' from owner Chris, suggesting a public dispute — this is a reputational flag for professionalism.
• Recency note: Only 5 of 19 reviews are from 2022 or later. The majority of reviews (14) are from 2021 or earlier, with several dating back to 2013–2017. The score should be treated with caution as current performance may differ from historical patterns.
• One review (2016) explicitly describes two cancelled appointments with no notification and blames being given misleading information about scope of work — this is a direct project completion and communication failure.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to review volume, but the score itself should be treated with moderate trust given the age of most reviews, a recurring pattern of misdiagnosis complaints, and documented communication failures that suggest inconsistent service quality.