Find Nearby Plumbers In Hawthorn Woods, 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.

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.

Only one review contained usable data, making any scoring highly tentative. That single review describes a severely failed wall-hung toilet installation where the contractor misrepresented his experience, failed to resolve a recurring leak across multiple callbacks, and ultimately had to be replaced by another plumber who corrected the job in one hour. Professionalism scores low because the contractor falsely claimed competence on the phone and failed to diagnose the root cause across multiple visits. Project completion scores near the floor because the job was never successfully finished by this contractor. Experience scores near the floor because the reviewer explicitly concluded the contractor had no knowledge of wall-hung toilet installation and used incorrect components. Pricing could not be assessed as no review mentioned cost.

• Only 2 reviews total — far below the minimum threshold for a reliable WW Score.
• One review (Rating: 5.0, Date: 2014-12-18) contains only the text 'unknown' and provides zero usable information. It was excluded from all dimension scoring.
• The sole usable review is from 2015, making it approximately 9–10 years old. It should be treated as significantly outdated and not representative of current performance.
• With only one usable review, all dimension scores carry extremely low evidentiary weight and should not be used to make hiring decisions.

This score report is not reliable — only one usable review exists, it is nearly a decade old, and the second review contains no meaningful content; no hiring decision should be based on this data alone.