Find Nearby Plumbers In Glen Ellyn, 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.

Boss Plumbing (Joe) earns strong marks across all four dimensions, driven by an overwhelming volume of reviews praising his responsiveness, punctuality, friendliness, and same-day or emergency availability. Project completion scores are very high, with the vast majority of reviewers confirming jobs were finished promptly and correctly, including on holidays and weekends. Experience scores are bolstered by repeated mentions of fast and accurate diagnosis, technical knowledge across a wide range of plumbing issues, and willingness to educate customers. Pricing scores are solid but modestly reduced due to three notable negative reviews: one describing a dramatic and undisclosed cost escalation from $275 to $1,950, one calling a $600 camera fee a rip-off, and one customer who felt the service was rushed and overpriced with no callback empathy after a repeat clog within two weeks. There is also one review citing a significant scheduling failure where Joe never showed up across multiple agreed-upon dates, which tempers the otherwise exceptional professionalism score slightly.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: At least 4 reviews appear to be near-identical or exact duplicates posted on different dates (e.g., the 'Joe has helped us numerous times' bathtub faucet review appears on 2022-06-10 and 2022-01-20; the 'One of our pipes was leaking' toilet review appears on 2022-06-10 and 2021-12-30; the 'Our family has worked with Joe' pump review appears on 2022-06-10 and 2021-09-06; the 'Soon after moving into a new townhouse' water heater review appears on 2022-06-10 and 2022-02-12; the 'Great work. Good price.' review appears on 2023-06-10 and 2018-07-27). These duplicates may inflate review count and were treated as single data points for scoring purposes.
• BLANK OR NEAR-BLANK REVIEWS: Several reviews contain no text content (just a rating of 5.0) or only a period/dot. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data.
• NEGATIVE REVIEW FLAGS: Three reviews (ratings of 1, 2, and 3 stars) raise legitimate concerns: (1) a 2017 1-star review citing repeated no-shows and poor scheduling reliability; (2) a 2018 2-star review citing rushed work, damage to property, a dishonest crew member, and a repeat clog within two weeks with no goodwill callback; (3) a 2015 3-star review citing a cost that ballooned from $275 to $1,950 without upfront disclosure. A 2015 2-star review also flags a $600 camera fee as excessive.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews are from 2022 or earlier. While there is a healthy cluster of recent reviews from late 2024 through mid-2025, a significant portion of the review base is 3–10+ years old. Recent reviews remain consistently positive, suggesting sustained quality, but older reviews carry less weight per scoring rules.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK — MODERATE: The presence of exact duplicate reviews posted months apart under what appear to be the same accounts, combined with a large number of very short generic 5-star reviews with no specifics, raises a moderate concern about review authenticity. Confidence is not reduced to LOW given the large volume of detailed, specific, and credible reviews that clearly outweigh the suspicious ones, but users should be aware of this pattern.

This WW Score is based on a large and diverse review set (125 reviews) spanning over a decade, with HIGH confidence across all four dimensions; however, the presence of duplicate reviews, several blank reviews, and a small but credible cluster of negative reviews citing pricing transparency issues, scheduling failures, and rushed workmanship means the score should be treated as a strong but not unconditional endorsement — prospective customers are advised to confirm pricing in writing upfront and verify scheduling commitments explicitly.

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.

JR Plumbing demonstrates strong technical expertise and generally fair pricing, with most customers praising quick response times and quality workmanship. However, project completion reliability is significantly undermined by two severe failures: one where work was not completed at all and the customer was charged ($160 for unfinished repairs), and another where the owner failed to show up for an emergency callback, leaving a customer without service for 4+ days. While 8 of 12 reviews are highly positive and date-stamped, the two critical failures in project follow-through and accountability substantially lower overall trustworthiness despite strong professionalism and experience scores.

• CRITICAL: Two 1-star reviews document severe project completion failures—incomplete work with charges assessed (2021) and complete no-show on emergency callback (2019). These are not minor issues but represent fundamental business failures.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most positive reviews are from 2012–2018 (6+ years old). Only 3 reviews are from 2021 or later, and the two most recent dated reviews (2023 and 2021) include one 5-star and one 1-star, suggesting inconsistent service quality over time.
• REVIEW QUALITY: One review dated 2015-05-14 contains only 'unknown' as text—this appears to be a placeholder or corrupted entry and carries no analytical value.
• PATTERN ALERT: The 2021 1-star review explicitly states the owner performed the failed work himself, raising questions about owner-level competence and quality control. This contradicts the positive reviews praising 'Frank' for excellent service.
• CONFIDENCE LIMITATION: While mention counts are adequate (5–8 per dimension), the extreme polarity (8 five-star, 2 one-star with no middle ratings) and age of most positive reviews suggest the current service quality may not match historical reputation.

This score should be treated with caution. While the numerical WW Score of 72.8 reflects adequate professionalism and experience, the two documented catastrophic failures in project completion—particularly the owner's own failed work and subsequent no-show—represent material risks that a score alone cannot fully capture. The age of most positive reviews (6+ years) further limits confidence in current service reliability. Prospective customers should heavily weight the recent 1-star reviews and request references from jobs completed in the past 12 months.

The contractor shows genuine strengths in working with older homes and handling specialized plumbing situations, with positive mentions of fair pricing and cleanup. However, the most detailed review raises meaningful concerns about diagnostic sequencing — replacing the most expensive part first rather than performing basic cleaning checks, resulting in unnecessary delays and costs for the customer. The owner did demonstrate responsiveness by assisting via phone on a Saturday night, which partially offsets the technical missteps. Overall, the picture is of a competent but occasionally costly plumber whose workmanship is generally satisfactory but not without procedural lapses. The small review pool and age of most reviews significantly limit confidence in any conclusions drawn.

• Only 6 reviews total, with 2 containing no usable text ('unknown' and '.') — these were excluded from scoring.
• 4 of 6 reviews are older than 5 years; the most recent usable review is from 2021. No reviews from the past 12 months are present, making recency-weighted scoring impossible.
• The detailed 2014 review describes a two-visit scenario where a basic diagnostic step (cleaning/blowing out the line) was skipped in favor of replacing the most expensive component first, suggesting a potential gap in diagnostic thoroughness.
• The second technician left water temperature set to 'max,' indicating a quality-control issue on that visit.
• Sample size is too small to draw reliable conclusions about consistent performance patterns.

This WW Score carries LOW overall reliability due to a very small review pool (6 total, only 4 with usable data), the near-complete absence of recent reviews, and the presence of two content-free placeholder reviews that contributed no scorable information.