Find Nearby Plumbers In Hinckley, Illinois

Good Call Plumbing demonstrates strong overall performance across all measured dimensions. Professionalism is a clear strength, with 89 mentions highlighting punctuality, friendly demeanor, communication, and respectful conduct. Project completion is consistently reliable with 72 mentions of timely work, follow-through, and callbacks honored. Experience and technical skill are well-documented across 58 mentions, with customers praising problem-solving ability and workmanship quality. Pricing is the weakest dimension (76.0) with 28 mentions; while many customers praise fair and reasonable rates, a notable minority report high labor charges ($180-$750/hour) and lack of transparent upfront estimates, creating inconsistency in value perception.

• Three duplicate negative reviews detected (identical text about 2-week wait, $180 service call, missing quote) dated 2024-06-09 and 2023-10-24, suggesting possible review manipulation or systematic issue that was repeated.
• Multiple empty/minimal reviews ("unknown", "Super great", "It went well") totaling ~15 instances, which provide no substantive data but are counted as 5-star ratings, potentially inflating overall scores.
• Pricing dimension shows high variability: some customers report $180-$200 service calls and $750/hour labor as excessive, while others praise 'reasonable' and 'fair' pricing for identical service types, indicating either inconsistent pricing practices or different customer expectations.
• Two reviews (2021-06-08 and 2021-03-30) describe situations where customers felt misled or overcharged: one regarding unnecessary RO tank replacement ($830 quote), another regarding $350 labor for 30-minute garbage disposal install ($750/hour rate). These suggest occasional lapses in transparency or sales practices.
• Recency note: Majority of detailed, substantive reviews are from 2017-2022; recent reviews (2025, 2024) are shorter and less detailed, making recent performance harder to assess comprehensively.
• One review (2014-06-19) describes significant incompetence in sump pump installation and failure to inspect pit properly, resulting in pump failures and customer frustration, though this is isolated and from 2014.

This WW Score of 84.2 is highly reliable for assessing professionalism, project completion, and experience (all HIGH confidence with 58+ mentions each), but pricing assessment carries moderate confidence due to only 28 mentions and conflicting customer perceptions about value. The company demonstrates consistent excellence in service delivery and technical skill, though pricing transparency and consistency remain areas of concern. Customers should request detailed written estimates upfront to avoid surprises.

Copper Sky Plumbing earns strong marks across professionalism, project completion, and experience, with numerous reviewers citing punctuality, friendly communication, efficient work, and quality outcomes across a wide range of plumbing jobs. The pricing dimension is the most notable drag on the overall score: while many reviewers praised fair or reasonable pricing, one significant 1-star review from September 2024 describes a bait-and-switch situation where a quoted price of $325 was raised to $900 upon arrival, and a separate reviewer noted unexpected additional costs of $350. These pricing concerns meaningfully reduce confidence in pricing consistency and transparency. The majority of reviews are positive and span multiple years, suggesting a generally reliable contractor, but the recent pricing complaint is a red flag that prospective customers should be aware of.

• PRICING CONCERN: One reviewer (2024-09-23) explicitly describes a quote-to-invoice price increase from $325 to $900 — a 177% markup — which is a serious transparency and trust issue.
• ADDITIONAL COST CONCERN: A second reviewer (2024-04-29) noted unexpected additional charges of $350 beyond the original scope, suggesting a pattern of scope/price expansion after arrival.
• GENERIC REVIEW PATTERN: Several reviews contain very short, non-specific praise ('Great job well done', 'Great, no issues.', 'Great work and timely service.') with no detail. While not conclusive, this pattern warrants mild caution.
• RECENCY NOTE: The two most critical reviews are among the most recent (2024), which is weighted more heavily. The bulk of highly positive reviews are from 2020-2023, meaning recent performance may be declining.
• CLUSTER NOTE: Multiple 5-star reviews were posted on the same dates (e.g., 2020-09-15 has 4 reviews, 2023-02-03 has 2 reviews, 2024-03-26 has 2 reviews). This could reflect legitimate satisfied customers or coordinated review activity — treat with mild caution.

This WW Score is based on 30 reviews with broad dimensional coverage and HIGH confidence across all four dimensions, but the score should be interpreted cautiously given a recent and specific pricing complaint that suggests potential inconsistency in how quotes are honored.

This contractor demonstrates strong technical skill and workmanship (88/100), with multiple reviews praising quality and problem-solving ability. However, professionalism is significantly undermined by a serious scheduling failure and rude behavior toward a customer's spouse, resulting in a 68/100 score. Project completion shows mixed results: same-day emergency service is excellent, but scheduling reliability is poor. Pricing appears fair based on limited evidence (one positive transaction). The WW Score of 78.2 reflects solid technical capability offset by concerning interpersonal and reliability issues that directly impact customer trust.

• RECENCY CONCERN: All reviews are from 2011–2013 (10+ years old). No recent reviews available to assess current performance or whether issues have been addressed.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK: Review dated 2012-03-08 contains only a period (.) with a 5-star rating. This is a red flag for placeholder or spam review.
• CRITICAL PROFESSIONALISM ISSUE: One detailed negative review (2-star, 2013) describes scheduling confusion, failure to show on correct day, and rude behavior to customer's wife. This is a serious incident that directly contradicts the positive reviews and suggests inconsistent service quality.
• SMALL SAMPLE SIZE: Only 6 reviews total, with 1 unusable. Confidence in overall score is limited by low review volume.

This score should be treated with caution due to very old review dates (10+ years), a small sample size, one suspicious placeholder review, and a significant negative incident that contradicts positive reviews, making it unclear whether current performance matches historical data.

This contractor shows significant inconsistency across projects and time periods. Professionalism scores well (78.5) with many reviews praising punctuality, communication, and attitude, particularly from 2022-2023 work under 'Carlos.' However, project completion is notably weak (68.0) with multiple documented failures: incomplete callbacks, unfinished work, plumbing defects causing 2-year leaks, and broken promises. Pricing is fair (76.0) but marred by overcharging incidents and lack of transparency. Experience is solid (81.0) when work is completed, but execution inconsistency undermines confidence. The business appears to have changed ownership/names multiple times (Les Glover era, Chris era, Carlos era, THI), which correlates with quality fluctuations.

• CRITICAL: Multiple business name changes detected (Les Glover → Chris → Carlos → THI #815-333-7183) suggesting ownership transitions or potential shell company tactics. Most recent 2024 review explicitly states 'new guy that took over an old company name from 2017.'
• SEVERE PROJECT COMPLETION FAILURES: Two 1-star reviews document catastrophic failures—2-year plumbing leaks from improper caulking/gluing (2023) and complete non-responsiveness to repair requests. Another review documents promised valve repair never completed with no callback.
• FAKE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: 8 reviews with only 'unknown' or single-character text ('.' or blank) all rated 5.0 stars from 2014-2016 period. These provide zero substantive data and appear artificially inflated.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most detailed positive reviews are from 2022-2023 (Carlos era). Older reviews (2011-2017) show mixed quality with multiple scheduling and follow-up failures. Recent 2024 review is severely negative.
• CALLBACK FAILURES: At least 3 separate reviews document failure to return calls or honor promised callbacks for repairs, indicating systemic responsiveness problem.
• OVERPRICING INCIDENTS: One detailed 2014 review documents $1889 quote for shutters/labor when market rate was $200 installation + <$700 parts. Another 2011 review shows $720 estimate vs. $200 less from competitors.

This score should be treated with CAUTION. While the numerical WW Score of 72.8 appears moderate, the underlying data reveals a highly volatile contractor with serious structural problems: multiple business identity changes, documented catastrophic failures in core plumbing work, systematic callback failures, and suspicious fake reviews inflating historical ratings. The recent 2024 one-star review and documented 2-year leak failure suggest current quality is poor. Positive reviews cluster in 2022-2023 under 'Carlos' but this may represent a temporary improvement or different crew. Recommend requesting recent references and written guarantees before engaging.

Service Now demonstrates solid professionalism with timely responses and courteous technicians, supported by multiple positive mentions of friendly and professional conduct. However, significant pricing concerns emerge from multiple reviews citing overcharges and inflated quotes, with one customer reporting a $3,600 recommendation that proved unnecessary. Project completion is undermined by a critical 2019 case where work failed to resolve the actual problem and follow-up callbacks were never honored despite repeated requests. Technical experience appears competent for routine maintenance, but the company's diagnostic accuracy is questionable given the sewer line misdiagnosis. The WW Score reflects these mixed signals with moderate confidence across all dimensions.

• FAKE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: Seven reviews (dates 2015-2017) contain only punctuation marks (., *, ,) or generic single-word responses ('unknown'), suggesting artificially inflated ratings with no substantive content. These are non-usable and indicate potential review manipulation.
• RECENCY BIAS: Most substantive reviews are from 2015-2020 (6+ years old). Only 2 detailed reviews from 2024 and 2023 provide current data. Historical patterns may not reflect current operations.
• CRITICAL SERVICE FAILURE: The December 2019 review documents a severe case of misdiagnosis, unnecessary upselling ($3,600 sewer replacement recommendation), failed service delivery, and complete non-responsiveness to callbacks over 10 months. This is a major red flag for project completion and customer care.
• PRICING PATTERN: Multiple reviews (2017, 2019, 2020) explicitly mention overcharging, inflated quotes, and aggressive upselling tactics (carbon monoxide scare tactics mentioned in 2020 review). This suggests systemic pricing concerns.
• INCONSISTENT SERVICE QUALITY: Stark contrast between positive routine maintenance reviews and negative complex repair reviews suggests quality may depend heavily on job type and technician.

This WW Score should be treated with caution. While professionalism and experience scores are supported by multiple recent positive reviews, the pricing dimension is heavily influenced by serious documented overcharging, and project completion is undermined by a critical failure case with unresolved callbacks. The presence of 7 fake/non-substantive reviews reduces overall data integrity. The score reflects genuine mixed performance rather than consistent quality, and potential customers should carefully review the detailed complaint from 2019 before engaging this company for complex work.

Perma-Seal shows a strong split personality across its reviews: individual crew members and field technicians are frequently praised for professionalism, punctuality, friendliness, and technical competence, driving moderately positive scores in professionalism and experience. However, the company is significantly dragged down by recurring and serious complaints about pricing — multiple reviewers received quotes 3x to 10x higher than competitors, and several described feeling pressured or misled by sales representatives. Project completion is a meaningful weak point, with multiple reviews describing incomplete work, unresolved warranty claims, scheduling failures, and jobs that did not solve the original problem. Customer service at the organizational level (management responsiveness, billing disputes, deposit refunds) is a consistent failure point cited across numerous negative reviews. The overall WW Score of 68.4 reflects a company with capable field crews but systemic issues in sales ethics, pricing transparency, and post-job accountability.

• PRICING CONCERN: Multiple reviewers explicitly compared Perma-Seal quotes to competitors and found them to be 3x to over 10x higher (e.g., $27k vs $3k-$6k range; $8,200 for a job that a competitor fixed for $650; $5,694 for ~10 hours of electrical work). Pricing score heavily penalized.
• SALES TACTICS: At least 4 reviews independently describe high-pressure or misleading sales tactics, including refusing to leave until a contract was signed, misrepresenting materials used, and inflating scope of work beyond what was requested.
• WARRANTY/COMPLETION FAILURES: Multiple reviews describe work that did not resolve the original problem, warranty claims that were ignored or stonewalled, and management that was unresponsive for weeks or months.
• CUSTOMER SERVICE ESCALATION FAILURES: Several reviews describe being unable to reach management, receiving no callbacks, being passed between representatives, and having deposit refunds denied — suggesting a systemic organizational issue beyond individual crew performance.
• CREW VS. COMPANY DISCONNECT: A notable pattern exists where individual crew members receive high praise while the company's sales, scheduling, and management functions receive severe criticism. Scores reflect this blended reality.
• SCHEDULING FAILURES: Multiple reviews cite late arrivals, missed morning appointment windows, rescheduling without notice, and crews arriving hours outside the promised window.
• NO FAKE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: Reviews vary significantly in length, detail, tone, and rating. Named crew members appear across multiple reviews. Negative reviews are specific and detailed. No artificial inflation pattern detected.
• RECENCY NOTE: All 82 reviews fall within approximately November 2022 to November 2024, with the majority (70+) from 2024. Score is considered current and representative of recent performance.

This WW Score of 68.4 is based on 82 reviews with high mention counts across all four dimensions and is considered moderately reliable, though the score likely understates risk for customers primarily concerned with pricing fairness and post-project warranty support, where the evidence of systemic failure is strong and consistent.