Find Nearby Plumbers In Glenview, Illinois

Doc Mechanical demonstrates exceptional performance across all four dimensions. Professionalism is consistently praised with 11 mentions highlighting punctuality, communication, responsiveness, and courteous staff behavior. Project completion is nearly universal with 12 mentions confirming jobs finished completely, on-time delivery, and follow-through on callbacks. Pricing receives strong marks from 7 mentions emphasizing fair, transparent, and reasonable rates without upselling. Experience is validated through 9 mentions of skilled workmanship, technical knowledge, and problem-solving ability. The company's willingness to take harder approaches (opening ceilings instead of floors) and proactive recommendations demonstrate genuine expertise.

• All 13 reviews are 5-star ratings with no negative feedback—this is statistically unusual and warrants caution. However, reviews contain specific details (names: Eddie, Brian, Erin, Pat, Chuck, Mary Kate; specific problems: frozen pipes, burst pipes, clogged drains, water heater issues; specific actions taken), which suggests authenticity rather than fake reviews.
• Review dates span 2017–2024 with most reviews (8 of 13) from 2019 or earlier. Only 3 reviews are from the past 12 months (2024, 2023). Older reviews may not reflect current service levels.
• No negative reviews or complaints present—while consistency is positive, absence of any critical feedback across 13 reviews is atypical and suggests possible selection bias in review platform or customer base.

This WW Score of 92.3 is highly reliable based on 13 reviews with consistent, detailed, and specific praise across all dimensions. However, the complete absence of negative feedback and concentration of older reviews (pre-2023) suggest caution: the score reflects historical performance well but may not fully represent current service quality. Recommend treating this as a strong indicator of past excellence with the caveat that very recent performance (past 6 months) has limited review coverage.

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.

Simply Sewers demonstrates strong overall performance across all dimensions, with particular strength in professionalism and project completion. The company excels at responsiveness, punctuality, and technical competence, with multiple reviews praising same-day or next-day service and knowledgeable technicians. Pricing is generally perceived as fair and reasonable, though one detailed 2018 review raised concerns about a $450 charge with questionable itemization, and another 2024 review noted they are 'expensive' despite other positive attributes. The owner (Nick) has shown integrity by personally addressing service failures. Most reviews are recent (2024-2025), lending strong recency weight to the score.

• Cluster of 4 empty reviews (no text) dated 2024-06-09 and 2023-06-10 reduces data quality slightly but does not suggest fraud
• One significant negative review (1-star, 2018) describing a $450 charge with alleged undisclosed degreaser and lack of warranty; this is a legitimate outlier complaint that appropriately lowers pricing confidence
• High concentration of 5-star reviews (48 of 54) is typical for a well-regarded local service business but warrants noting; however, reviews contain specific details (names, dates, problem types, outcomes) that suggest authenticity rather than fake reviews
• Recency bias present: majority of detailed reviews are from 2024-2025; older reviews (2018-2022) are fewer but include both very positive and one very negative experience
• One review (2024-06-09) explicitly states 'expensive' while rating 4-star, indicating pricing perception varies even among satisfied customers

This WW Score of 84.2 is highly reliable, based on 50 usable reviews with strong recency (most from past 12 months) and consistent mention patterns across all dimensions. The score reflects genuine strengths in professionalism and completion, tempered by legitimate pricing concerns documented in specific reviews. This company should be considered trustworthy for plumbing/sewer work, though customers should expect premium pricing and request detailed itemization before service.

Mergenthaler Plumbing has a strong overall reputation built on decades of customer relationships, with professionalism and responsiveness being the most consistently praised attributes across a large volume of reviews. Eugene and Mike (the owner) are repeatedly cited by name for being knowledgeable, courteous, and thorough, which elevates the experience and professionalism scores. However, several negative reviews raise meaningful concerns: a $10,000 job left with an unresolved landscaping dispute, allegations of sloppy workmanship and corner-cutting on a bathroom rehab, a technician who left mid-interaction without explanation, and complaints about undisclosed service call fees and high pricing relative to competitors. Pricing scores are tempered by recurring complaints about service call charges not disclosed upfront and at least one instance of a quote significantly higher than a competitor. Project completion scores reflect mostly positive outcomes but are pulled down by the unfinished mound dispute and the 2010 review alleging systematic shortcuts on a major rehab job.

• Two identical reviews exist (Rating: 1.0, Date: 2001-05-06) with identical text 'THEYRE TERRIBLE, THEY SHOULD BE OUT OF BUSINESS. THEY BOTCHED THE JOB COMPLETELY.' — these appear to be duplicate submissions and were counted as one unique data point to avoid double-weighting.
• Two reviews (Date: 2015-08-19 and 2015-09-02) contain only placeholder text ('wled' and 'unknown') with no usable content — these were excluded from scoring.
• One review (Date: 2014-02-05) contains only a period '.' with no usable content — excluded from scoring.
• Several older reviews (pre-2015) describe serious workmanship concerns including improper drywall installation in a bathroom, triple wax rings used as a shortcut, and an owner described as smug and dismissive — these are significant quality flags even if older.
• The majority of highly positive reviews are recent (2024–2025) and older negative reviews may reflect past staff or practices; however, the recency weighting does not eliminate the pattern of corner-cutting allegations.
• No clear fake review pattern detected beyond the duplicate 2001 entries; most positive reviews contain specific names, job details, and varied language suggesting authenticity.

This WW Score is based on a substantial volume of reviews spanning over two decades and carries HIGH overall confidence, but consumers should weigh the recurring negative themes around undisclosed fees, disputed job completion, and historical workmanship shortcuts when making a hiring decision.

Roto-Rooter receives broadly positive marks for professionalism and technician demeanor, with hundreds of reviews praising courteous, knowledgeable, and timely technicians by name. However, pricing is the single most damaging dimension in this dataset: an enormous volume of reviewers across many years and locations explicitly describe charges as excessive, deceptive, or wildly above market rate, with numerous accounts of undisclosed fees, commission-driven upselling, and charges for incomplete or failed work. Project completion is mixed — many jobs are resolved same-day and efficiently, but a meaningful minority of reviews describe recurring clogs after service, abandoned jobs, no-shows, warranty disputes, and work that made problems worse. Experience scores moderately well overall, with many reviewers impressed by diagnostic skill, but offset by recurring complaints about technicians lacking proper tools, misdiagnosing problems, or causing additional damage. The overall score reflects a company with genuine service capability undermined by systemic pricing and consistency issues.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: Several reviews appear to be exact or near-exact duplicates (e.g., multiple identical reviews for 'Cappy,' 'Arron C and Elijah,' 'Jarrett,' and 'Carlos and Chris' posted on the same date). This pattern is consistent with either copy-paste errors or potentially coordinated positive review activity. Confidence in the most recent positive reviews is slightly reduced.
• EXTREME RATING POLARIZATION: The dataset shows a pronounced bimodal distribution — a very large number of 5-star reviews with minimal detail alongside a substantial cluster of 1-star reviews with highly specific, credible complaints about pricing, incomplete work, and rude staff. This pattern is common in franchise operations where individual location quality varies significantly.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS ARE SYSTEMIC AND CROSS-LOCATION: Overcharging complaints span multiple cities, states, and years, suggesting this is a structural business practice rather than isolated incidents. Charges of 3x–10x competitor rates for identical work are documented repeatedly.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews analyzed span from 2005 to June 2025. Reviews from the past 12 months (mid-2024 to mid-2025) are predominantly positive with high technician praise, but the volume of older negative reviews — many highly detailed — significantly weighs on completion and pricing scores.
• FRANCHISE VARIABILITY WARNING: Multiple reviews explicitly note that Roto-Rooter is a franchise system and that quality, pricing, and accountability vary dramatically by location. This score should not be applied uniformly to all Roto-Rooter franchises.
• SEVERAL REVIEWS CONTAIN NO TEXT (rating only): Approximately 80+ reviews consist solely of a star rating with no written content. These were excluded from dimension scoring per evidence-required rules but are included in total review count.

This WW Score is based on an exceptionally large review dataset (1,000+ reviews) spanning nearly two decades and multiple geographic locations, giving it HIGH statistical confidence; however, the score reflects aggregate franchise-level performance and should be interpreted cautiously for any specific local Roto-Rooter office, as individual location quality varies substantially.

AA Service Co. earns strong marks for professionalism and technician experience, with dozens of reviews praising named technicians for being courteous, thorough, communicative, and knowledgeable. However, pricing is a significant and recurring concern — multiple reviewers across different years describe unexpected charges, lack of cost transparency, flat-rate billing with no itemization, and quotes dramatically higher than competitors, pulling the pricing dimension well below average. Project completion is mixed: many routine maintenance visits are completed satisfactorily, but there are credible complaints about technicians leaving without completing work, missed appointments, a month-long delay on a new unit installation, and a post-service boiler failure with no warranty support. The high volume of positive reviews is tempered by a consistent pattern of serious negative experiences that span multiple years and service types.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: A full block of reviews dated 2025-06-09 appears to be repeated verbatim on 2025-06-06, and again partially on 2025-06-05 and 2025-06-04. This is a strong indicator of review manipulation or a platform data error. Duplicate entries were counted only once per unique review text to avoid score inflation.
• FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: The cluster of June 2025 reviews is heavily generic, many consisting of only a technician name and a brief positive phrase with no specifics. Several are blank (rating only, no text). This pattern is consistent with solicited or incentivized reviews.
• PRICING CONCERNS ARE SYSTEMIC AND MULTI-YEAR: Negative pricing reviews span from 2015 through 2025, describing overcharging, hidden fees, no itemized receipts, flat-rate billing that disadvantages consumers, and quotes far exceeding competitors. This is not isolated and significantly suppresses the pricing score.
• PROJECT COMPLETION FAILURES: Multiple reviews describe technicians arriving and refusing to complete work, a customer waiting over a month for a new unit installation, a boiler failing shortly after service with no warranty honored, and a $2,700 hydrojetting job that left pipes still clogged with video withheld from the customer.
• MANAGEMENT AND CUSTOMER SERVICE COMPLAINTS: Several reviews cite inability to reach management, unanswered callbacks, dismissive responses to complaints, and a pattern of pushing unnecessary replacements — suggesting systemic issues beyond individual technician performance.
• RECENCY NOTE: The bulk of reviews are from 2025 and appear to be solicited post-service feedback, which skews positive. The more detailed and critical reviews tend to come from 2016–2023 and carry higher informational weight despite being older.
• ONE REVIEW (dated 2019-09-13) appears to be from a former employee describing internal workplace issues, not a customer experience. This review was excluded from scoring as it does not reflect service quality.

This WW Score is based on a high volume of reviews but should be interpreted cautiously due to confirmed duplicate review entries, strong indicators of solicited or generic positive reviews in the most recent period, and a consistent multi-year pattern of serious pricing and project completion complaints that meaningfully offset the otherwise strong technician-level professionalism and experience ratings.