Find Nearby Plumbers In Freeburg, Illinois

Beloman earns strong marks for professionalism, with the overwhelming majority of reviewers across many years explicitly praising punctuality, courtesy, communication, and technician demeanor. Experience and workmanship are also well-regarded, with multiple reviewers citing knowledgeable technicians, effective problem-solving, and quality installations. Project completion is generally solid but is tempered by a notable negative review describing abandoned duct-cleaning work, an unfulfilled camera inspection promise, and unresolved follow-up — as well as a separate review where the tech failed to fix the problem and no estimate was ever delivered. Pricing is the weakest dimension: while several reviewers describe fair or even excellent value, a meaningful number explicitly call out high costs, one describes tripled part prices, and one long-term customer stated the annual fee had become too expensive to continue. The score reflects a genuinely strong service operation with recurring pricing and occasional follow-through concerns.

• Approximately 18 reviews contain only 'unknown' or are completely blank with no text — these were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data beyond a star rating.
• A large cluster of reviews dated 2025-04-10 and 2025-05-10 share identical date stamps, which may indicate batch-imported or aggregated reviews rather than organic individual submissions. Confidence is not reduced as content varies, but this pattern is noted.
• The review corpus spans from 2008 to 2025. Reviews older than 2022 were given reduced weight in scoring, particularly for pricing and project completion, as service quality and pricing structures may have changed significantly over 10+ years.
• One 1-star review (2022) describes a serious project completion failure: duct work holes left unsealed, a missed appointment by the salesman, a promised camera video never delivered, and no follow-up from management despite assurances — this materially reduced the project completion score.
• One 1-star review (2011) describes a failure to ever submit a quote after a home visit and no response to follow-up calls or emails, indicating a responsiveness and follow-through failure.
• One 1-star review (2010) alleges parts were marked up approximately 4x retail price, which is a significant pricing integrity concern and was weighted in the pricing score.
• One 3-star review (2011) notes the technician did not fix the problem and no replacement estimate was ever provided despite a callback promise.
• The vast majority of reviews are 5-star, which is a pattern consistent with a genuinely well-regarded company but also warrants awareness of potential selection bias in review sourcing.

This WW Score is based on a large and diverse review set spanning 16+ years with strong mention counts across all four dimensions, making it statistically reliable, though users should note that pricing complaints and isolated but serious project completion failures prevent a higher score and reflect real recurring concerns.

Excel Plumbing demonstrates strong overall performance with a WW Score of 82.3, driven by consistently high marks in professionalism (85.2), experience/skill (86.4), and project completion (84.6). The company excels at punctuality, communication, technical knowledge, and work quality, with numerous reviews praising specific technicians like Luke, Yuri, Bob, and Kevin. However, pricing emerges as a notable weakness (72.1), with recurring complaints about high costs, unexpected charges, and perceived overpricing relative to the work performed. While most recent reviews (past 12 months) are highly positive, older reviews reveal persistent pricing concerns and occasional service failures that have not been fully resolved.

• PRICING CONCERNS: Multiple reviews (spanning 2014-2025) report unexpectedly high quotes, hidden charges, and perceived overpricing. Examples include $450 for 20 minutes of drain work, $250 for a simple faucet replacement, $500 for toilet flange/wax ring, and significant quote increases after initial estimates. This pattern suggests systemic pricing transparency issues.
• FAKE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: Reviews dated 2025-06-05 through 2025-06-08 include 3 empty reviews with 5-star ratings and 2 identical reviews with identical phrasing ('I spoke with Lori, who was very friendly and helpful. She got back to me within minutes, fantastic response time. The overall experience was excellent, and the price I was quoted felt great. Highly recommend!') dated 2025-06-07 and 2025-06-05. This suggests potential review manipulation or duplicate submissions.
• SERVICE FAILURES: Several reviews document incomplete work, follow-up failures, and quality issues. Examples include: ejector pump not resealed/reconnected properly (2024-06-15), sewage left on floor after drain cleaning (2023-08-17), sump line misdiagnosis leaving customer worse off (2022-05-04), and multiple instances of plumbers not following up on promised estimates (2020-07-25, 2016-08-08).
• INCONSISTENT QUALITY: While many reviews praise specific technicians, others report poor workmanship from different technicians at the same company, suggesting inconsistent quality control or training standards.
• RECENCY BIAS: The majority of highly positive reviews are from the past 6 months (2025), while older reviews (2014-2022) contain more critical feedback about pricing and service quality. This temporal distribution warrants caution in interpreting the overall score.

This WW Score of 82.3 is reliable for assessing professionalism and technical competence, which are consistently praised across 187+ mentions, but should be interpreted cautiously regarding pricing fairness—the 72.1 pricing score reflects genuine and recurring customer concerns documented across a decade of reviews, and potential review manipulation in recent submissions reduces confidence in the most recent data.

Environmental Plumbing Services demonstrates strong professionalism across communication, punctuality, and courtesy, with 38 reviews explicitly praising these qualities. Pricing is generally perceived as fair and reasonable, though fewer reviews address this dimension. Project completion shows a notable weakness: while most jobs are completed, two significant reviews document serious follow-through failures (abandoned fireplace repair in 2018, unresponsive callbacks in 2005), and one review mentions responsiveness concerns. Technical experience is solid, with multiple reviews highlighting problem-solving ability and knowledge. The company's age (reviews span 2002–2021) and volume of positive feedback suggest reliability, but recent completion issues and older data reduce overall confidence.

• FAKE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: 4 reviews contain only 'unknown' or '.' as text with 5-star ratings (2015-12-08, 2015-11-23, 2015-07-20, 2015-02-19, 2002-10-21). These provide no usable data and suggest possible review manipulation. Confidence reduced accordingly.
• CRITICAL PROJECT COMPLETION ISSUE: Review dated 2018-11-29 (1-star) documents a fireplace repair abandoned 2 years prior with no callback. Review dated 2005-11-05 (2-star) reports 48+ hours without callback after installation problem. These are serious red flags for follow-through.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Majority of reviews are from 2002–2014 (15+ years old). Only 3 reviews from 2018 or later. Recent data is sparse, limiting confidence in current performance.
• RESPONSIVENESS INCONSISTENCY: Review dated 2007-11-30 (2-star) explicitly states concern with 'overall responsiveness' as reason for not hiring. This contradicts the dominant narrative of prompt callbacks in older reviews.

This WW Score of 82.1 should be treated with MODERATE-TO-HIGH caution: professionalism is well-documented and strong, but project completion has documented failures, pricing data is limited, and most reviews are 10+ years old with sparse recent validation. The fake reviews and responsiveness inconsistencies further reduce confidence in the overall reliability of this score.

Arch Plumbing earns strong marks for professionalism and experience across a very large review base, with dozens of customers praising named technicians (Chris, Tony, Alex, Gerson, Ryan, Carlos, Jorge, Enrique, Oscar) for punctuality, friendliness, cleanliness, and technical competence. Pricing scores are tempered by a meaningful cluster of negative reviews citing a non-negotiable $118 dispatch fee, a $275 cartridge replacement, a $641 water line charge billed at triple the estimated hours, and a $525 gas nipple replacement that reviewers felt was exploitative — these are explicit, credible complaints that prevent a higher pricing score. Project completion is the most penalized dimension: multiple reviews describe no-shows, abandoned bids, months-long project delays, incomplete remodel work left unfinished, a permit plan that was lost, and a plumber who failed to diagnose a problem correctly and left without resolving it — these are serious, recurring patterns that meaningfully drag the score down. The majority of reviews are recent (2024–2025), which increases confidence in the current state of the business, though the negative patterns span the full review history suggesting they are not isolated incidents.

• 23 reviews contain no text at all — only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence.
• A cluster of reviews dated 2025-04-10 (approximately 20+ reviews on the same date) is suspicious. While the content varies somewhat, the volume of same-day 5-star reviews with no negative feedback warrants a fake review flag. Confidence in the April 2025 batch is reduced.
• Multiple credible 1-star reviews describe no-shows without notification (2022-02-18, 2022-11-25, 2019-12-19), a pattern of broken promises on bids (2021-01-28), and a major project left incomplete for months with lost permit plans (2024-02-26). These are not isolated incidents and represent a systemic project completion risk.
• Pricing complaints are specific and credible: $118 mandatory dispatch fee with no upfront disclosure, $275 for a shower cartridge swap, $641 for a basic water line, and $525 for a gas nipple replacement. These suggest inconsistent or opaque pricing practices.
• One review (2021-02-11) describes a plumber who failed to diagnose a problem correctly after multiple attempts, blamed the customer, and left the job unresolved — raising a workmanship concern not offset by the volume of positive experience reviews.
• One review (2010-10-14) describes property damage caused by the plumber's work. One review (2013-05-16) describes a roof pipe installation that caused mold damage worth $1,800 that went unresolved for over a year. These are older but serious quality and follow-through failures.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews are from 2024–2025, which is positive for recency weighting. However, negative patterns (no-shows, pricing opacity, incomplete work) appear across all time periods, suggesting they are not legacy issues that have been resolved.

This WW Score is based on a large review set (175 total, 152 with usable data) spanning over a decade, with strong recency weighting toward 2024–2025, and carries HIGH overall confidence — however, the score should be interpreted cautiously given credible and recurring negative patterns in pricing transparency and project completion that are not fully offset by the volume of positive reviews.

Culler Plumbing demonstrates strong overall performance across professionalism, project completion, and experience, with many reviewers praising responsiveness, punctuality, thoroughness, and willingness to go above and beyond. Project completion scores are bolstered by consistent reports of jobs finished on time or same-day, follow-through on difficult installs, and cleanup after work. However, pricing is a notable weak point — multiple reviewers across different years explicitly called out costs as high, one reported a $200 diagnostic charge with no work performed and a coupon not honored, and one detailed a confrontational interaction with the owner over labor rates. Professionalism scores are tempered by two negative reviews describing rude or dismissive behavior from Dennis directly, which cannot be ignored despite the volume of positive feedback. The presence of four 'unknown' reviews from 2016 and several very brief or content-free reviews reduces the usable signal somewhat.

• 4 reviews contain only the word 'unknown' with no usable content — these were excluded from scoring.
• Several reviews are extremely brief (e.g., 'Just as they told me it would.', 'Was quoted a price that seemed fair. Will hire.', '.') and provide no scorable detail — treated as low-signal.
• Recency concern: The majority of reviews are from 2013–2019. Only one review is from 2020 and none from 2021 or later. This score may not reflect current service quality.
• Pricing dimension has a meaningful negative signal: at least 3 separate reviewers across different years explicitly flagged pricing as high or unfair, including one 1-star review citing a $200 charge for 5 minutes of work and a coupon not honored.
• One detailed 1-star review (2014) describes the owner Dennis as rude, sarcastic, and walking out of a customer's home — this is a significant professionalism flag that is weighted against the otherwise positive professionalism mentions.
• No fake review patterns detected — reviews vary in length, detail, and sentiment, and negative reviews are present, which increases authenticity confidence.

This WW Score is based on a moderately large review set with good dimension coverage, but reliability is reduced by the age of most reviews (majority over 3 years old), several content-free submissions, and recurring pricing complaints that suggest a consistent pattern of above-market rates.

Ferguson Bath, Kitchen & Lighting Gallery demonstrates strong expertise and professionalism from individual sales consultants (particularly Phil Stone, Sydney Manning, Lupe, and Laurie Owen), with consistently high marks for product knowledge and design guidance. However, the company suffers from significant operational inconsistencies: follow-through on orders, delivery reliability, and post-sale support are major pain points. Pricing is perceived as high relative to competitors, though some customers report competitive quotes when negotiated. The most damaging pattern is poor responsiveness after purchase—warranty claims, delivery coordination, and customer service deteriorate markedly once payment is received.

• CRITICAL PATTERN: Multiple reviews (15+) explicitly state that customer service quality drops dramatically after payment is received. Customers report unresponsiveness, difficulty reaching representatives, and lack of follow-through on promised support.
• DELIVERY & LOGISTICS FAILURES: Recurring issues with incorrect items shipped, delayed deliveries (sometimes weeks or months beyond promised dates), items left in wrong locations, and poor coordination between sales, warehouse, and delivery teams.
• POST-SALE SUPPORT BREAKDOWN: Numerous complaints about warranty claims being ignored, repair requests going unanswered, and customers being told 'you're on your own' after purchase despite high price points.
• PRICING INCONSISTENCY: Customers report being quoted different prices for identical items, hidden charges (restocking fees, freight charges not disclosed upfront), and prices significantly higher than online retailers or competitors.
• STAFF VARIABILITY: Quality of service is heavily dependent on individual sales representative. Named consultants (Phil Stone, Sydney Manning, Lupe, Laurie Owen, Tim West) receive consistent 5-star praise, but unnamed or other staff receive 1-2 star ratings for same services.
• COMMUNICATION FAILURES: Systematic pattern of unreturned phone calls, unanswered emails, missed appointments, and lack of proactive updates on order status across multiple locations and time periods.
• RESTOCKING FEE DISPUTES: Multiple customers report surprise 25% restocking fees applied to cancelled or returned orders without clear disclosure at point of sale.
• APPLIANCE WARRANTY ISSUES: Several customers spent $6K-$200K on appliances and report that Ferguson refuses to assist with manufacturer warranty claims or post-sale support despite high price premium.
• RECENCY NOTE: Negative patterns persist across entire 20+ year review history (2002-2025), suggesting systemic rather than isolated issues. Recent reviews (2024-2025) show same complaints as older reviews.
• FAKE REVIEW INDICATORS: Multiple reviews with identical 5-star ratings and no text content (empty reviews marked 5.0) appear in clusters on specific dates (2021-06-10, 2023-06-10, 2015-06-26, etc.), suggesting possible review padding. However, substantive negative reviews are detailed and credible, so overall dataset is not fabricated.

This WW Score of 72.8 is reliable and conservative. It reflects a company with genuinely strong product expertise and design consultation (HIGH confidence on Experience and Professionalism dimensions based on 142+ mentions), but significant operational and customer service failures that substantially undermine overall value (HIGH confidence on Project Completion issues based on 89 detailed mentions of delivery, follow-through, and support failures). The score accurately captures a 'excellent showroom and sales consultant experience undermined by poor execution and post-sale abandonment' profile. Customers should expect knowledgeable guidance during selection but should be prepared for delivery delays, communication gaps, and minimal support after payment.