Find Nearby Plumbers In Freeburg, Illinois

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.

Darwyn's Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism and technical expertise, with 32 mentions of courteous, knowledgeable technicians and 18 mentions of skilled workmanship. However, the company is significantly hampered by serious project completion issues (15 mentions including no-shows, incomplete work, and unresolved callbacks) and pricing concerns (8 mentions of high costs and questionable upsells). Recent reviews (past 12 months) show a mixed pattern: strong positive feedback alongside critical complaints about professionalism lapses, missed appointments, and aggressive sales tactics. The WW Score of 72.8 reflects competent technical ability undermined by operational reliability and transparency problems.

• CRITICAL: Multiple reviews (2016-2022) document severe project completion failures including no-shows, incomplete work requiring customer follow-up, and unresolved callbacks. These are not isolated incidents.
• PRICING CONCERNS: Several reviews (2015, 2024, 2025) report aggressive upselling, inflated quotes ($450 for $32 part, $2700 for uncertain diagnosis, $8500 for incomplete work), and lack of transparent pricing explanation.
• PROFESSIONALISM INCONSISTENCY: Recent reviews (2025) show stark contrasts—some praise professionalism while others report technicians arriving 2 hours late with no apology, wearing earbuds during consultations, and poor customer communication.
• POTENTIAL REVIEW MANIPULATION: One review (2024-11-11) explicitly alleges the company removes unflattering reviews. This cannot be independently verified but raises credibility concerns.
• RECENCY PATTERN: Most recent reviews (2025, 2024) are heavily positive, but this follows a period (2016-2022) of severe complaints. Recent positive reviews lack specificity compared to detailed negative reviews, suggesting possible selection bias.
• EMPTY REVIEWS: 7 reviews contain no text, only ratings (5.0 or 4.0). These provide no actionable data and may indicate incomplete submissions or review manipulation.
• INCONSISTENT NAMING: Reviews reference 'Darwyn,' 'Darwin,' 'Darwynn,' and 'Ortoryon' inconsistently, creating confusion about technician identity and accountability.

This WW Score should be treated with CAUTION. While the company demonstrates genuine technical competence and professionalism in many recent engagements, a substantial history of project completion failures, pricing disputes, and customer service lapses (documented across multiple years) indicates systemic operational issues. The heavy concentration of positive reviews in the past 6 months, combined with allegations of review removal and multiple empty review entries, suggests the recent score may not fully reflect the company's actual reliability. Prospective customers should prioritize recent detailed reviews and independently verify pricing before engagement.

The Drain Guy LLC shows strong technical competence and project completion capability, with multiple reviews praising workmanship quality and successful problem-solving. Pricing is generally viewed as fair and reasonable. However, professionalism is a significant concern, with two recent negative reviews (2024 and 2022) explicitly citing rudeness, argumentativeness, and poor communication, contrasting sharply with older positive reviews. The 2024 review mentions unexpected roof charges without prior discussion. Recency bias suggests current service quality may be lower than historical reputation.

• RECENCY CONCERN: Two most recent reviews (2024 and 2022) are highly negative, citing rudeness and poor communication, while older reviews (2011-2019) are uniformly positive. This suggests potential service degradation over time.
• COMMUNICATION ISSUE: Multiple reviews mention lack of transparency about scope (roof work not discussed beforehand) and rudeness during interactions.
• OLDER REVIEWS DOMINATE POSITIVE SENTIMENT: Four of five positive reviews are from 2011-2019. Only one recent positive review (July 2024) exists, which is outweighed by the negative review from same month.
• INCONSISTENT SERVICE QUALITY: Stark contrast between 'first class technician' and 'very rude' descriptions suggests either inconsistent service delivery or different technicians with varying professionalism.

This score should be treated with caution due to conflicting signals: strong technical skills are evident, but recent professionalism complaints and communication failures raise concerns about current service quality. The WW Score reflects historical strength, but the trend is concerning and suggests the score may overstate current reliability.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 1 review was analyzed, which falls below the minimum threshold of 3 reviews required for a trustworthy WW Score calculation. The single review describes severe failures in project completion (water softener malfunction, basement flooding, months of unresolved callbacks), poor professionalism (non-responsive, refuses to return), and questionable workmanship. However, a single negative review cannot establish a reliable overall score.

• CRITICAL: Only 1 review provided — insufficient data for reliable scoring
• Review is from 2007 (17+ years old) — extremely dated and not representative of current service quality
• Single review describes catastrophic project failure and complete non-responsiveness to callbacks
• No pricing information mentioned in review
• Cannot assess whether this represents current business practices or if contractor is still operating

This score cannot be trusted for decision-making. A minimum of 3 recent reviews is required to produce a reliable WW Score; only 1 very old review is available.