Find Nearby Plumbers In Harvard, Illinois

Aqua Doctor Plumbing has a large and predominantly positive review base, with the majority of customers praising professionalism, responsiveness, and fair pricing — particularly for technicians like Uncle Rob, Chris, and Paul. However, a meaningful cluster of 1-star reviews raises serious concerns: multiple customers reported misdiagnosis of sewer issues with inflated repair quotes, at least two reported gas leaks left after work was completed, one detailed a repipe job with four leaks and owner threats, and several reported no-call/no-show incidents and ignored communications. These negative reviews describe patterns of predatory upselling and poor workmanship on larger jobs, which significantly tempers the otherwise strong positive signal. The score reflects a company that performs well on routine and smaller jobs but carries documented risk on complex projects and follow-through.

• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION: Several reviews use nearly identical phrasing (e.g., two reviews dated 2023-08-30 and 2024-06-09 are word-for-word identical: 'Wonderful experience with Uncle Rob at Aqua Doctor! Pricing was very good and service was quick and professional...'). Two reviews dated 2018-09-10 are also near-identical. Two reviews dated 2018-11-09 are word-for-word duplicates. This pattern of duplicated reviews is a strong indicator of review manipulation and reduces confidence in the overall positive signal.
• WORKMANSHIP FAILURES: At least 3 reviews explicitly report gas leaks left after completed work (2022-07-28, 2022-02-20, 2018-09-10 context). One reviewer (2022-07-28) confirmed via a second plumber that the gas leak originated from a line Aqua Doctor touched.
• PREDATORY UPSELLING PATTERN: Multiple 1-star reviews (2021-01-11, 2020-09-20, 2019-11-17, 2024-03-23) describe a consistent pattern of claiming pipes are broken or irreparable to justify large repair quotes, which were later disproven by other plumbers who completed the work easily and cheaply.
• NO-CALL/NO-SHOW INCIDENTS: At least 3 reviews (2019-11-05, 2020-05-28, 2020-05-18) report missed appointments with no communication, and one review (2020-08-25) reports never receiving any response after inquiry.
• OWNER CONDUCT COMPLAINT: One detailed review (2022-02-20) describes the owner threatening legal action and using profane language when a customer requested a 2-week payment delay after the job ran over schedule.
• ILLEGAL CONTRACT PRACTICES ALLEGED: One review (2023-01-30) alleges the company used paperwork without the legally required 3-day cancellation clause and has reportedly been filed with the Attorney General and BBB.
• RECENCY NOTE: Reviews span from 2012 to 2025. The majority of negative reviews are concentrated between 2019 and 2024. Positive reviews are present throughout but the duplicate/fake review pattern is most prominent in the 2023-2025 range, which warrants caution when weighting recent positive sentiment.
• BLANK/CONTENT-FREE REVIEWS: Several reviews contain no text (only a rating), including a 1-star review with no explanation. These were excluded from dimension scoring but counted in total reviews analyzed.
• DRIVING COMPLAINT REVIEWS: Two reviews (2023-09-14, 2022-06-15) are complaints about dangerous driving by company trucks and contain no plumbing service data. These were excluded from dimension scoring.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large review volume, but the score itself should be treated with caution given confirmed duplicate/fake reviews inflating positive sentiment, a documented pattern of misdiagnosis and upselling on larger jobs, and multiple reports of post-service gas leaks — consumers should exercise particular care when hiring this company for complex or large-scale plumbing projects.

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.

Andersen Plumbing Services receives consistently positive feedback across the reviews that contain usable content, with professionalism being the most frequently and clearly mentioned dimension. Reviewers highlight prompt response times, courteous behavior, and going above and beyond — such as the technician photographing completed work for a homeowner unable to inspect it himself. Project completion is supported by references to specific jobs being finished (sump pump repair, pipe rerouting, pipe joint repair) with no complaints of abandoned or incomplete work. Experience is touched on in two reviews with positive but brief mentions of workmanship quality. Pricing is entirely absent from all reviews, so no score can be assigned to that dimension.

• One review (2015-09-16) contains only the word 'unknown' and provides no usable data — excluded from scoring.
• Two of the three usable reviews are significantly dated (2013 and 2017), meaning the majority of evidence is over 7 years old. Only one review is recent (2024).
• With only 3 usable reviews total, the dataset is very small and scores should be treated with caution.
• No pricing information is mentioned in any review — the Pricing dimension cannot be scored.
• No fake review patterns detected, but the small sample size limits reliability.

This WW Score is based on only 3 usable reviews, two of which are more than 7 years old, making the overall score LOW in reliability and should not be treated as a definitive assessment of current service quality.

Amy Home Services scores well on professionalism — the majority of reviews across many years consistently praise technicians for being on time, courteous, clean, and communicative. However, pricing is the single most damaging dimension in this dataset: a very large number of reviewers across multiple decades explicitly describe charges as excessive, misleading, or far above market rate, with several detailing specific instances of price inflation, bait-and-switch quoting, and a non-refundable $79 service fee that many felt was predatory. Project completion is mixed — most jobs are finished, but a meaningful subset of negative reviews describe incomplete work, return visits required, faulty installations, and in a few cases outright refusal to honor warranties or fix their own errors. Technical experience is generally adequate but undermined by several credible accounts of misdiagnosis, improper reassembly, and work that had to be redone by competitors. The overall WW Score of 68.4 reflects a company with genuine service strengths that are consistently offset by a well-documented and persistent pricing problem.

• PRICING CONCERN — HIGH SEVERITY: Pricing complaints are the single most frequently mentioned issue across the entire review history, spanning from 2004 to 2025. Dozens of reviewers independently describe charges as 2x to 5x market rate, with specific examples including $405 for a $20-90 pressure switch, $360 for a 30-minute drain rod, $530 quoted vs $155 actual market price, and $177 for a $8-28 capacitor. This is a systemic pattern, not isolated incidents.
• UPSELLING / HIGH-PRESSURE SALES: Multiple independent reviewers across different years describe aggressive upselling tactics, pressure to join monthly membership plans, and technicians pushing unnecessary replacements. This pattern is consistent enough to be considered a structural business practice.
• WARRANTY DISPUTES: At least two reviews (one from 2023 with 5 furnaces/AC units purchased) describe the company refusing to honor warranties and finding pretextual reasons to void coverage. This is a serious flag for prospective customers making large purchases.
• WORKMANSHIP FAILURES: Several reviews describe work that had to be redone by other companies — including a furnace left non-functional after improper reassembly, a thermocouple installed incorrectly, a sewer misdiagnosed as collapsing when it was not, and a pipe installation that left supply lines in the wrong location.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — MODERATE: A cluster of 10 reviews all dated exactly 2025-05-10 and 2025-05-12 are suspiciously concentrated. Several are very short and generic ('These guys are great! I trust them', 'Amy is great!! Been using them for years!', 'Excellent service as always!!') with no specific details. Two reviews in this cluster have completely blank review text with only a 5-star rating. This pattern is consistent with review solicitation campaigns or potentially inauthentic reviews. Confidence in the most recent positive reviews is reduced accordingly.
• BLANK REVIEWS: At least 5 reviews contain no text whatsoever — only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data.
• RECENCY NOTE: The review dataset spans from 2004 to 2025. A significant portion of detailed negative reviews are from 2007–2016. More recent reviews (2024–2025) skew more positive, but the suspicious clustering noted above reduces confidence in that trend. Reviews older than 5 years were given reduced weight in scoring.
• MEMBERSHIP PLAN CONCERNS: Multiple reviewers across many years describe the monthly membership/club plan as difficult to cancel (requiring in-person office visit), occasionally resulting in unauthorized continued billing, and not delivering the promised savings. This is a recurring complaint spanning at least 2008–2016.

This WW Score is based on a large dataset of 136 reviews spanning nearly 20 years and carries HIGH statistical confidence in its directional accuracy; however, the score should be interpreted with caution due to suspected inauthentic review clustering in May 2025, a long history of credible and specific pricing complaints that meaningfully drag down the overall score, and evidence of workmanship failures that suggest quality is inconsistent rather than uniformly high.

Arrow Plumbing receives broadly positive marks for individual technician professionalism and technical competence — recurring plumbers like Herschel, Nick, Zach, Bruce, and Frank are praised repeatedly for courtesy, punctuality, and knowledge. However, pricing is the single most damaging dimension in this review set, with a large and consistent volume of complaints spanning over a decade describing charges as 'outrageous,' 'shocking,' hidden fees stacked on top of dispatch fees, and quotes that were dramatically higher than competitors — often 2x to 5x the price of other plumbers. Project completion is mixed: many jobs are completed well and on time, but there are notable failures including a no-show appointment, a warranty dispute where the company refused to honor coverage, a job left incomplete requiring a callback, and at least two cases where the diagnosed problem was wrong and another plumber fixed it cheaply. Experience scores moderately well based on positive mentions of skill and problem-solving, but is undermined by several reviews alleging misdiagnosis, unnecessary upselling, and work that did not resolve the underlying issue. The overall WW Score of 62.4 reflects a company with capable technicians but a persistent and well-documented pattern of pricing practices that erode customer trust.

• PRICING PATTERN WARNING: An unusually high volume of negative pricing reviews spans from 2010 through 2025, indicating a systemic and long-standing business practice rather than isolated incidents. Complaints include stacked dispatch and diagnostic fees, quotes 2x–5x higher than competitors, and charges applied before work is confirmed or completed.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — LOW LEVEL: A cluster of reviews dated exactly 2025-05-10 and 2025-04-10 with no review text (rating only, all 5-star) are suspicious. Blank reviews with identical dates and maximum ratings may be padding. These were excluded from scoring but noted here. Additionally, several short generic 5-star reviews ('Great experience', 'Great service', 'Excellent Job!') with no specifics were treated as low-signal.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews with substantive content are from 2024–2025 and are therefore weighted more heavily. Older reviews (2010–2016) show similar pricing complaints, suggesting the pattern is entrenched. A handful of very old reviews (2010) describe what appears to be a different or individual operator and may not reflect the current business.
• MISDIAGNOSIS INCIDENTS: At least 3 reviews explicitly describe Arrow diagnosing a problem incorrectly or recommending unnecessary work, with a second plumber resolving the issue at a fraction of the cost. This is a material concern for the experience and project completion dimensions.
• WARRANTY/FOLLOW-THROUGH FAILURE: One review (2023) describes Arrow refusing to honor a stated 90-day warranty, claiming the technician 'misspoke.' Another (2019) describes a leak recurring within 24 hours with Arrow refusing to return. These are serious project completion red flags.
• NO-SHOW INCIDENT: One review (2025-02-09) describes Arrow failing to show up for a scheduled appointment window and never calling back despite two follow-up calls from the customer.
• UNPROFESSIONAL CONDUCT: One review (2020) describes a technician being rude to a customer's wife and storming out. One review (2016) describes a technician breaking a cover and not disclosing it. One review (2018) describes Arrow drivers making obscene gestures at another driver — though this is not a service review, it reflects on company culture.

This WW Score of 62.4 is based on a large review set (155 reviews) with HIGH confidence across all four dimensions, making it a reliable representation of customer experience — the score should be trusted as an accurate reflection of a company with competent individual technicians but a well-documented, long-standing pattern of aggressive and opaque pricing practices that significantly undermines overall value.

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.