Find Nearby Plumbers In Gurnee, Illinois

Ernie Peterson Plumbing demonstrates strong overall performance with a WW Score of 82.1, driven by consistently high marks in professionalism, project completion, and technical experience. The company excels in punctuality, communication, and workmanship quality, with numerous reviews praising specific technicians (Keith, Phil, Steve, Chuck) for their courteous demeanor and efficient problem-solving. However, pricing emerges as a notable weakness, with multiple customers citing significant cost increases over time, unexpected service call charges, and labor rates perceived as excessive compared to competitors. While most recent reviews (past 12 months) are highly positive, older reviews reveal recurring pricing concerns and occasional communication lapses that warrant attention.

• PRICING VOLATILITY: Multiple reviews document substantial price increases over time (e.g., $187 in 2014 vs. $387 in 2017 for same service; $250 quote vs. $545 final bill). This pattern suggests either aggressive pricing strategy or lack of transparent upfront quoting.
• EMPTY REVIEWS: 11 reviews contain no text (only 5-star ratings), limiting data quality. These may indicate automated or incomplete submissions.
• NEGATIVE OUTLIERS: Three 1-star reviews from 2024 and 2023 cite unprofessional behavior (rude employee, refusal to quote, poor communication), contrasting sharply with predominantly positive feedback. One 2024 review describes a staff member as 'bluntly unprofessional' and unwilling to provide quotes despite company website claims.
• QUOTE DISPUTES: Two separate 1-star reviews (2023, 2018) report failure to provide estimates after service calls, with customers charged for consultations without work performed.
• RECENCY BIAS NOTED: Most recent reviews (2025, 2024) are uniformly 5-star with detailed praise, while older reviews (2017-2018) contain more balanced criticism. This shift may reflect improved operations or review selection bias.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: Several 5-star reviews from 2022-2025 are extremely brief or generic ('Awesome work,' 'Great service') with minimal specificity, though this is offset by numerous detailed, credible reviews with specific technician names and problem descriptions.

This WW Score of 82.1 is reliable and should be trusted, supported by HIGH confidence across three of four dimensions based on 42+ mentions each for professionalism and project completion. However, the pricing score (72.0, MODERATE confidence) is a material concern that significantly impacts overall trustworthiness—customers should expect to negotiate or obtain detailed written quotes before committing. The presence of recent negative reviews citing unprofessional behavior suggests inconsistent service quality across staff, warranting request for specific technicians when booking.

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.

All Family Plumbing presents a deeply mixed picture across all four dimensions. On the positive side, a substantial number of older reviews (pre-2022) describe courteous, knowledgeable technicians, fair pricing, and jobs completed thoroughly — including emergency responses and complex sewer/pipe work. However, more recent reviews (2022–2025) reveal a troubling pattern of no-shows, repeated cancellations without notice, hidden charges added after job completion, and at least one instance of an estimate fee collected with no follow-through. Professionalism is further undermined by multiple independent reports of aggressive and dangerous driving behavior by company vehicle operators, which, while not directly plumbing-related, reflects on the company's culture and employee conduct. Project completion scores are dragged down significantly by credible accounts of jobs not finished, repeat service calls for the same unresolved issues, and a failure to honor callbacks. Pricing scores are mixed — several reviewers praised fair and transparent pricing, while others explicitly described bait-and-switch tactics and undisclosed charges added post-completion.

• RECENCY CONCERN: The most recent reviews (2022–2025) skew heavily negative, suggesting a possible decline in service quality over time. Older positive reviews (2010–2018) should be weighted less heavily.
• DRIVING/CONDUCT COMPLAINTS: At least 4 reviews (2023–2024) describe dangerous or aggressive driving by company vehicle operators, including road rage incidents and threats. While not plumbing-related, this reflects on company culture and employee vetting.
• HIDDEN CHARGES FLAG: At least 2 credible reviews explicitly describe pricing bait-and-switch — quoted one price, charged significantly more after job completion with fabricated add-ons. This is a serious consumer protection concern.
• NO-SHOW / RELIABILITY PATTERN: At least 4 reviews describe repeated appointment cancellations, no-shows without notice, and failure to return calls — a consistent operational failure pattern in recent years.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The review 'Can't recommend them highly enough. Installed a tankless water heater...' appears verbatim twice under different dates (2020 and 2021). This may indicate a fake or duplicated review submission.
• BLANK REVIEWS: At least 4 reviews contain no text content (rating only). These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data.
• ESTIMATE FEE COMPLAINT: One reviewer reports paying an $80 estimate fee with no estimate ever delivered, suggesting possible deceptive business practices.
• WORK QUALITY CONCERN: One review describes a plumber recommending a $1,100 water heater replacement for a problem that was ultimately solved with a $12 dip tube — raising questions about upselling or diagnostic competence.
• POSSIBLE FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: Several 5-star reviews from the 2013–2015 era are extremely brief and generic ('It is a small business owner that is well worth definitely using', 'unknown') with no specifics. These were scored conservatively.

This WW Score is based on a large review set (57 reviews) spanning over a decade, giving it statistical breadth, but the strong negative trend in recent reviews (2022–2025) and the presence of duplicate, blank, and suspiciously generic reviews reduce confidence in the score as a reflection of current service quality — prospective customers should weight recent negative reviews heavily.

Both reviews describe a completed basement finishing project and speak positively about communication, updates, and customer satisfaction, supporting moderate professionalism and project completion scores. One review explicitly mentions reasonable pricing and superior craftsmanship, providing limited but positive signals for those dimensions. However, with only 2 reviews total, no dimension reaches even a MODERATE confidence level, and no WW Score can be reliably calculated. All reviews are from 2020, meaning they are over 4 years old and may not reflect current performance. The positive tone is noted but cannot be weighted heavily given the extremely small sample size.

• Only 2 reviews provided — insufficient data to calculate a reliable WW Score per scoring rules.
• Both reviews are from 2020 (4+ years old) and do not reflect recent performance. Recency weighting is a concern.
• Both reviews are 5-star with broadly positive language. While not conclusively fake, the small sample and uniformly glowing tone warrant caution.
• Review 1 lacks specific detail beyond general praise, which limits its evidentiary value per scoring rules.

This score report should not be trusted as a reliable indicator of contractor quality — only 2 reviews were available, all are over 4 years old, and every dimension is rated at LIMITED confidence; significantly more recent reviews are needed before any meaningful conclusions can be drawn.