Find Nearby Plumbers In Glenview, Illinois

The reviews consistently highlight strong professionalism, with multiple reviewers praising punctuality, courtesy, friendliness, and responsiveness across several years of service. Pricing is frequently described as fair and reasonable, with one reviewer specifically noting the contractor actively tries to minimize customer costs. Project completion signals are positive but less explicitly detailed — most reviewers indicate work was finished as planned and on time, and one reviewer notably states problems were never repeated, suggesting reliable first-time resolution. Experience is supported by references to years in the plumbing business, effective problem-solving in complex situations, and consistently high-quality workmanship. However, all reviews are significantly outdated, with the most recent dating to late 2016 and the majority from 2012–2015, which substantially limits the reliability of this score for assessing current performance.

• ALL REVIEWS ARE OUTDATED: The most recent review is from October 2016 — over 8 years ago. No reviews from the past 12 months exist. This score reflects historical performance only and should not be treated as indicative of current service quality.
• ONE UNUSABLE REVIEW: The review with text 'unknown' (2015-02-04) was excluded from scoring as it contains no usable information.
• ONE VAGUE REVIEW: 'It went very well.' (2012-01-27) provides no specific dimension data and was not counted toward any dimension score.
• MULTIPLE CONTRACTORS NAMED: Reviews reference 'Connor/Conner Reeves,' 'Bob,' and 'Mark Reeves' — it is unclear whether these are the same business or different individuals operating under one listing. This inconsistency raises questions about review attribution accuracy.
• POTENTIAL GENERIC PRAISE PATTERN: Several reviews are brief and non-specific (e.g., 'prompt, courteous, and professional, at a fair and reasonable price'). While not conclusively fake, the lack of detail in some reviews reduces evidentiary weight.
• ALL RATINGS ARE 5-STAR: Every review with a rating is 5.0 out of 5.0, which warrants mild caution, though the volume is too small to definitively flag as manipulation.

This WW Score carries LOW-TO-MODERATE reliability due to the complete absence of recent reviews, ambiguity around which contractor(s) are being reviewed, and a small total review count — prospective customers should seek current references before making a hiring decision.

AD Rooter performs consistently well across all four scored dimensions based on a small but coherent set of reviews. Professionalism is a clear strength, with multiple reviewers noting punctuality, courteous communication, and responsiveness during after-hours and emergency situations. Project completion is equally strong, with reviewers explicitly describing jobs that were diagnosed, completed, and cleaned up in a single visit rather than requiring return trips. Experience is supported by references to accurate diagnosis, technical knowledge around isolation valves, sump pump drains, and septic systems. Pricing receives a modest score due to limited explicit mentions — only two reviews reference price, and neither provides enough detail to assess transparency or fairness beyond general satisfaction.

• All 4 reviews are 5-star ratings with no critical feedback — this warrants caution, though the reviews do contain specific details (named technician 'Mark', specific job types, situational context) that reduce the likelihood of fabrication.
• All reviews are dated between 2017 and 2019 — none fall within the past 12 months. This score may not reflect current service quality and should be treated as potentially outdated.
• Sample size of only 4 reviews is insufficient to establish high confidence in any dimension. Scores should be interpreted as directional indicators only.

This WW Score carries LOW overall reliability due to a very small review sample (4 reviews), all of which are more than 5 years old, making it difficult to assess the contractor's current performance with confidence.

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.

AP Plumbing receives broadly positive marks for professionalism and technician demeanor — the majority of substantive reviews praise individual technicians as courteous, punctual, and communicative — but this is heavily counterbalanced by a very large volume of serious pricing complaints spanning the entire review history. Pricing is the single most-mentioned dimension and is overwhelmingly negative: dozens of reviewers across many years describe charges they consider grossly inflated for simple jobs (e.g., $400+ for a 15-minute faucet swap, $800–$2,000 to clear a drain, $1,200+ for a garbage disposal install), and multiple reviewers explicitly accuse the company of targeting elderly or vulnerable customers. Project completion is moderate: most jobs are finished, but there are meaningful complaints about return visits for the same problem, abandoned work orders, no-shows, and at least one case of a gas leak caused by improper installation. Technical experience is generally rated positively by satisfied customers, though several reviews describe technicians who failed to diagnose problems that were quickly found by others, undermining confidence in consistency.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: Multiple reviews appear to be exact word-for-word duplicates posted on different dates within the same week (e.g., the Kendal Rosa review from 2025-06-09 and 2025-06-06 are identical; the 'On their second trip back' 1-star review appears twice; the 'KendL was very professional' review appears twice; the 'Really enjoyed my experience with Kendal Rosa' review appears twice; the 'David was great' review appears twice; the 'Kendal solved the issue' review appears twice; the 'Honest work done well' review appears twice). This is a strong indicator of review manipulation or platform duplication artifacts. Confidence in the June 2025 review cluster is reduced.
• LARGE VOLUME OF BLANK REVIEWS: Approximately 20+ reviews contain no text and only a 5-star rating. These provide no usable data and were excluded from dimension scoring. Their presence in high concentration around specific date clusters (June 2025, May 2025) is consistent with fake review padding patterns.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS ARE SYSTEMIC AND SPAN OVER 15 YEARS (2006–2025): This is not an isolated pattern. Dozens of independent reviewers across multiple platforms and time periods describe the same core complaint — high flat-rate pricing, $89 dispatch fees, and charges perceived as exploitative for short or simple jobs. This is a structural business practice, not an anomaly.
• MANAGEMENT CONDUCT COMPLAINTS: Multiple reviews specifically name a manager ('Jason') as rude, dismissive, and unwilling to resolve legitimate complaints. One review describes a gas leak caused by improper installation followed by inadequate customer service response. These are serious operational red flags.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent reviews (2025) are heavily skewed toward 5-star ratings, many of which are blank or duplicated. Reviews from 2019–2024 contain a disproportionately high volume of 1-star pricing and professionalism complaints. The recent positive cluster should be treated with skepticism given the duplication evidence.
• ELDERLY TARGETING ALLEGATIONS: At least four independent reviews explicitly state that AP Plumbing took financial advantage of elderly or fixed-income customers. This is a serious reputational and ethical flag.
• INCOMPLETE WORK / CALLBACK FAILURES: Multiple reviews describe jobs that were not fixed on the first visit, return visits that introduced new problems, and instances where the company refused to honor callbacks without additional dispatch fees.

This WW Score is based on a very large review set spanning over 15 years and carries HIGH statistical confidence in its dimensions, but the score should be interpreted cautiously given strong evidence of duplicate and blank review padding in recent months, systemic pricing complaints that are deeply consistent across independent reviewers, and serious isolated incidents involving gas leaks, abandoned work, and alleged elder financial exploitation.

Bill's HVAC receives strong praise in several reviews for knowledgeable technicians, punctual arrivals, and thorough workmanship — particularly from John and Jake, who are named positively across multiple reviews. However, the dataset contains significant negative signals that cannot be ignored: two 1-star reviews cite complete abandonment of a job mid-process, one describes a no-show with no apology or accountability, and a third flags a tech error with no corrective follow-through offered by customer service. Project completion is the most concerning dimension, as multiple reviews describe work that was either left unfinished, avoided, or required callbacks. Professionalism scores are dragged down by the no-call no-show and the dismissive customer service response. Pricing and value are mentioned positively in limited reviews, earning a modest but low-confidence score.

• Three of the seven reviews are 1-star and describe serious service failures including job abandonment, no-show without apology, and refusal to take accountability for a technician error.
• The most recent review is from May 2023; four of the seven reviews are from 2015–2016, making the majority of the dataset over 7 years old. Recency weighting significantly limits reliability of the overall picture.
• No fake review patterns detected — reviews contain specific names, dates, job types, and varied language consistent with genuine customer experiences.
• The positive reviews skew older (2019–2020) with only one recent positive review (2023), which may indicate a decline or improvement in service quality that cannot be confirmed with this sample size.

This WW Score carries moderate reliability due to a small review sample of 7, a majority of reviews older than 12 months, and a meaningful split between strongly positive and strongly negative experiences that suggests inconsistent service quality rather than a clear overall trend.