Find Nearby Plumbers In Hoffman Estates, 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.

JASE Plumbing demonstrates strong performance across all four dimensions with consistently positive feedback. Professionalism is a standout strength, with 18 reviews explicitly praising punctuality, responsiveness, communication, and courteous demeanor. Pricing is competitive and transparent, with 13 reviews highlighting fair rates and honest dealings without hidden charges or upselling. Project completion is reliable, with 16 reviews confirming timely service, quick problem resolution, and follow-through on commitments. Technical expertise is evident across 10 reviews describing skilled diagnostics and quality workmanship. The single 1-star pricing complaint (2019) appears isolated and is outweighed by 13 positive pricing mentions. Most reviews are from 2016–2024, with strong recent activity in 2024.

• One empty review (2023-06-10) and one empty review (2017-06-11) with 5-star ratings provide no usable data; excluded from analysis.
• One 4-star review (2021-06-10) mentions lack of masking during COVID period—minor professionalism concern but isolated and context-specific.
• One 1-star review (2019-06-11) states 'Too expensive for the job' with no detail; conflicts sharply with 13 other positive pricing reviews. May reflect customer expectation mismatch rather than actual overpricing.
• High concentration of 5-star reviews (25 of 27 usable) is typical for a well-regarded contractor but warrants noting that dissatisfied customers may be underrepresented.

This WW Score of 87.2 is highly reliable. It is based on 27 usable reviews with strong mention counts across all four dimensions (10–18 mentions each), all confidence levels at HIGH, and consistent positive patterns spanning 8 years with recent activity. The single negative pricing review is substantially outweighed by evidence and does not materially alter the score.

First Response Plumbing demonstrates strong technical expertise and professionalism in customer interactions, with most technicians (Eddie, Paul, Will, Aaron, Shah) receiving consistent praise for knowledge, politeness, and efficiency. However, the company is significantly undermined by serious pricing concerns—multiple customers report dramatic overcharges, upselling, and price gouging (e.g., $750 for 1.5 hours of simple PVC work, $435 to snake a toilet, $4,500 estimate later proven unnecessary). Project completion reliability is inconsistent, with numerous reports of missed appointments, no-shows, poor communication, and incomplete follow-through, particularly when dealing with home warranty companies. Recent reviews (2025) show improvement in consistency, but older and mid-range reviews reveal systemic operational failures including ghosting, non-responsive management, and abandoned jobs.

• PRICING RED FLAG: Multiple independent complaints of significant overcharging and price gouging across different time periods (2016-2024). Customers report quotes that are 3-10x higher than competitors for identical work. This pattern is too consistent to ignore and suggests systemic pricing practices rather than isolated incidents.
• PROJECT COMPLETION CONCERNS: Substantial number of reviews (15+) document missed appointments, no-shows, poor communication, and incomplete work. Complaints span from 2013-2024, indicating chronic operational issues. Many customers report having to call repeatedly to get technicians to show up or follow through.
• MANAGEMENT/OWNERSHIP ISSUES: Multiple reviews cite unprofessional behavior from owner 'John' or 'Joey,' including poor communication, rudeness to customers (particularly women), threats, and financial disputes. Several reviews describe fraudulent behavior including false claims about work needed and non-refunded deposits.
• FAKE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: Reviews from 2025-03-11 through 2025-05-10 show suspicious clustering with nearly identical phrasing patterns ('Eddie/Eddy was amazing/fantastic/professional,' 'explained everything,' 'very friendly'). Multiple reviews mention same technicians (Eddie, Will, Shah) with generic praise and minimal specific details. This concentration of 5-star reviews with repetitive language suggests possible review manipulation or incentivized reviews.
• RECENCY BIAS: Most recent reviews (2025) are overwhelmingly positive, contrasting sharply with 2023-2024 reviews which contain serious complaints about fraud, theft, and non-completion. This dramatic shift warrants skepticism about recent review authenticity.
• WARRANTY COMPANY ISSUES: Multiple customers report being assigned First Response through home warranty companies and experiencing poor service, missed appointments, and communication failures. This suggests systemic problems when operating under warranty constraints.
• QUALITY CONTROL VARIANCE: Significant inconsistency in technician quality and professionalism. Some technicians (Paul, Eddie, Aaron, Will) receive consistent 5-star praise; others are associated with poor workmanship, incomplete jobs, and unprofessional behavior.

This WW Score of 72.8 should be treated with MODERATE-TO-HIGH caution due to suspected review manipulation in the most recent batch (2025), which artificially inflates the overall score. The company demonstrates genuine technical competence and professionalism from select technicians, but is severely compromised by documented pricing practices that appear predatory, chronic project completion failures, and serious management/ownership conduct issues. Historical reviews (2016-2024) are more reliable than recent reviews. Customers should independently verify pricing, request detailed written estimates, and consider the company's poor communication track record before engaging.

This aggregated review set spans multiple companies operating under similar or related names (Action Plumbing, Astro Plumbing, Pirate Plumbing, and individual plumbers like Jeff Satterthwaite), which significantly complicates scoring and reduces reliability. The majority of reviews are positive and praise professionalism, punctuality, and communication, but a substantial minority of negative reviews describe serious failures including fire damage, abandoned work, misdiagnosis, property damage, dishonest billing practices, and chronic non-responsiveness — particularly in the context of American Home Shield warranty work. Pricing feedback is mixed: many reviewers found costs fair or competitive, while others reported inflated fees, hidden charges, and deceptive billing. Project completion is a notable weakness, with multiple reviews citing incomplete jobs, failed callbacks, and work that required correction by other plumbers. Experience scores are dragged down by documented cases of poor workmanship, incorrect diagnoses, and code violations, despite many reviews praising skilled technicians by name.

• MULTI-ENTITY CONCERN: Reviews appear to span multiple distinct businesses (Action Plumbing in multiple states/cities, Astro Plumbing, Pirate Plumbing, Jeff Satterthwaite Plumbing, and others). Scores reflect an aggregated pool that may not represent any single contractor accurately. Consumer should verify which specific entity they are evaluating.
• FAKE REVIEW INDICATORS: A significant number of reviews contain no text (rating only), particularly clustered around dates like 2024-06-09, 2022-06-10, 2021-06-10, and 2015. These blank 5-star reviews inflate the average rating and are treated as non-usable data. Additionally, some reviews use nearly identical phrasing across different dates, suggesting possible review padding.
• SERIOUS NEGATIVE INCIDENTS: At least one review describes Action Plumbing causing a fire that left four families homeless (2024-09-06), with the owner allegedly unresponsive. Another describes a bathtub installation so defective it required full drywall and tile replacement. A third describes a whole-house re-pipe job where lines were not flushed, causing debris damage throughout the home. These are severe outliers that materially affect trustworthiness.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The review about Jake damaging a home during water heater installation (rating 1.0) appears verbatim on two separate dates (2024-06-09 and 2023-10-10). This duplication was counted only once for scoring purposes.
• AHS WARRANTY PATTERN: A recurring pattern of negative reviews involves American Home Shield (AHS) warranty assignments, where the contractor is accused of misdiagnosis, inflated modification fees, non-responsiveness, and claim denial manipulation. This pattern appears across multiple years and locations, suggesting a systemic issue with warranty work specifically.
• RECENCY NOTE: Reviews span from 2001 to 2025. Reviews older than 3 years (pre-2022) were given reduced weight. The most recent reviews (2024-2025) show a mixed but somewhat improved pattern for Astro Plumbing specifically, while Action Plumbing reviews remain mixed across the full date range.
• GEOGRAPHIC DISPERSION: Reviews reference locations including Las Vegas NV, Cleveland OH, Lawrence KS, Corpus Christi TX, Silsbee TX, Kaysville UT, Rhode Island, Indiana, and others. This strongly suggests these are reviews for multiple unrelated businesses sharing similar names, not a single contractor. The WW Score should be interpreted with extreme caution as a result.

This WW Score has LOW reliability for evaluating any single contractor because the review pool almost certainly aggregates multiple unrelated businesses operating under similar names across different states; consumers should independently verify the specific entity they intend to hire and seek reviews specific to that business's location and ownership before making a hiring decision.

All Pro Plumbing has a large and highly polarized review base. The majority of reviews praise individual technicians — particularly Ifran, Eddie/Lalo, Brandon, Jerry, and others — for punctuality, friendliness, clear communication, and technical skill. However, a significant and recurring minority of negative reviews describe serious failures: no-shows without notification, ghosting after payment, incomplete work, overcharging (especially of elderly and vulnerable customers), and confrontational or dishonest office staff (particularly referencing 'Michelle' and 'Ifran' in separate negative contexts). Pricing is a mixed picture — many reviewers cite fair or below-market rates, while others describe feeling gouged or misled on costs. Project completion is the most concerning dimension, with multiple credible accounts of abandoned jobs, failed callbacks, and warranty promises that were never honored. The experience dimension scores highest, as technical competence is frequently praised when work is actually completed, but is undermined by instances of misdiagnosis and substandard workmanship.

• SUSPECTED FAKE OR LOW-QUALITY REVIEWS: A cluster of reviews dated 2025-05-09, 2025-05-18, and 2025-05-25 use nearly identical templated language ('arrived on time,' 'fixed the issue quickly,' 'very polite,' 'highly recommend') with no specific technician names, job details, or unique context. These appear to be generic, possibly fabricated 5-star reviews and have been discounted in scoring.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The review from 'Ifran came and did a thorough inspection...' (grey water leak, toilet) appears verbatim twice with dates 2024-09-19 and 2024-09-20. Similarly, the emergency kitchen sink leak review appears twice on 2024-09-10. These duplicates were counted once each.
• MULTIPLE CREDIBLE ACCOUNTS OF NO-SHOWS AND GHOSTING: At least 15 distinct reviews across multiple years describe confirmed appointments where technicians never arrived and the company did not call to reschedule or apologize. This is a systemic pattern, not isolated incidents.
• FINANCIAL MISCONDUCT ALLEGATIONS: Multiple reviews allege technicians kept cash payments without crediting the company, that promised refunds were never issued, that a warranty water heater check was cashed by the technician personally, and that discounts (first responder, veteran, senior) were promised but not applied. These are serious credibility and trust concerns.
• INCOMPLETE WORK AND WARRANTY FAILURES: Multiple reviews describe jobs left unfinished, work that failed inspection, and warranty promises that were explicitly not honored when customers called back. This pattern significantly depresses the project completion score.
• OFFICE STAFF COMPLAINTS: Multiple reviews specifically name 'Michelle' (described as an owner or manager) as dishonest, confrontational, or unresponsive. This suggests a systemic customer service issue at the administrative level, separate from individual technician quality.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews are from 2019 to present, with a strong concentration in 2024-2025. Older reviews (pre-2018) are sparse and have been given reduced weight. The most recent 12 months (mid-2024 to mid-2025) show continued mixed patterns — both strong positive individual technician reviews and continued no-show and communication complaints.
• ENTITY AMBIGUITY: Reviews reference multiple different owners, managers, and operating locations (Bay Area CA, Camarillo CA, McHenry IL, Fresno CA, Reno NV, Texas, Florida, Indiana, and others). It is likely that 'All Pro Plumbing' is a name used by multiple unrelated businesses. Scores reflect the aggregate of all reviews as submitted but users should be aware that this may not represent a single unified company.
• ROAD RAGE INCIDENTS: Two separate reviews (2024 and 2019) describe dangerous or aggressive driving by employees in marked company vehicles. While not directly related to plumbing quality, these reflect on company culture and employee conduct.

This WW Score of 72.1 is based on a very large review set and carries HIGH statistical confidence in its direction, but should be interpreted cautiously due to strong evidence of fake or templated reviews inflating the positive signal, serious and credible recurring complaints about no-shows, financial misconduct, and incomplete work, and likely entity ambiguity across multiple unrelated businesses operating under the same name.

Al's Plumbing has a strong track record of emergency responsiveness and same-day service, with dozens of reviewers praising rapid arrival times and follow-through on urgent jobs. However, professionalism is meaningfully dragged down by a recurring and credible pattern of rude phone interactions — multiple independent reviewers across different years describe the owner being abrupt, dismissive, or outright hostile when contacted for quotes or scheduling. Pricing is the most contested dimension: while many customers praise affordability and fair value, a significant minority of detailed negative reviews describe charges of approximately $400/hour, undisclosed minimums, no upfront estimates, and bills that did not match verbal quotes — these are specific, credible, and consistent enough to substantially lower the pricing score. Project completion scores moderately well, with most jobs described as finished same-day or next-day, but there are serious outliers including one review describing an abandoned mid-job and another describing unfinished work paired with intimidation to collect full payment. Technical skill and workmanship are generally well-regarded across the review base, supporting a solid experience score.

• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: Two reviews with identical text ('Super responsive and fixed a drain emergency quickly!') posted 3 days apart (2025-05-07 and 2025-05-10) — likely a fake or duplicate submission. Both were discounted in scoring.
• SUSPECTED FAKE REVIEW: The 2025-01-07 review ('I'm really impressed with the service this plumbing contractor had given me...') uses generic, templated language inconsistent with a real customer experience — phrases like 'handled my plumbing problem quite professionally' and 'quite experienced' are vague and formulaic. Confidence reduced for that data point.
• RECENCY NOTE: A substantial portion of reviews (roughly 40%) are dated prior to 2021, some as far back as 2005–2008. These older reviews were given reduced weight. The most recent 12 months (2024–2025) show a continued mix of strong positives and recurring complaints about phone rudeness.
• RECURRING NEGATIVE PATTERN — PHONE RUDENESS: At least 6 independent reviews across multiple years (2016, 2018, 2022, 2023, 2024) describe the owner being rude, dismissive, or hanging up on prospective customers. This is a persistent and credible pattern, not isolated incidents.
• RECURRING NEGATIVE PATTERN — PRICING TRANSPARENCY: At least 8 independent reviews describe pricing concerns including: no upfront estimate given, verbal quotes not honored in writing, charges of ~$400/hour, undisclosed minimum service fees, and refusal to itemize bills. These are specific and credible.
• SERIOUS CONDUCT ALLEGATION: One review (2021-07-25) alleges the owner abandoned a job mid-completion after a personal dispute and had already collected payment. Another review (2016-11-18) alleges the owner did not finish a job, intimidated the reviewer's wife to collect full payment, and used profanity in front of children. These are unverified but specific and serious.
• RACISM/DISCRIMINATION ALLEGATION: Two reviews (2017-04-09 and 2021-07-25) allege racist behavior or comments by the owner. These are unverified but noted as a flag.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Several reviews contained no text (only a star rating). These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data.
• REVIEW SPAN: Reviews span from 2005 to 2025 — a 20-year window. Business practices and staffing may have changed significantly over this period. Scores are weighted toward more recent reviews.

This WW Score is based on a large review set (140 reviews) with HIGH mention counts across all four dimensions, making the score statistically robust; however, the presence of duplicate/suspected fake reviews, serious unverified conduct allegations, and a persistent multi-year pattern of pricing and professionalism complaints means prospective customers should treat the score as a moderate signal and carefully vet pricing transparency and communication before committing to this contractor.