Find Nearby Plumbers In Joliet, Illinois

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.

All four reviews consistently praise Alex and Rooter Plumbing for prompt responsiveness, punctuality, and courteous communication, driving a strong professionalism score. Project completion is well-supported across all reviews, with jobs described as resolved quickly and thoroughly, including follow-up responsiveness after the work was done. Experience is supported by three reviews that reference technical competence, honest diagnosis, helpful plumbing tips, and efficient workmanship. Pricing data is thin — only one review references a free estimate, which is insufficient to score this dimension with confidence, so it is scored conservatively. Overall, the pattern is positive but the small sample size and age of the reviews (all from 2019–2020) limit reliability.

• All 4 reviews are rated 5.0 stars with no negative feedback of any kind — while not conclusive, this warrants mild caution.
• All reviews are dated between August 2019 and December 2020 — none are within the past 12 months, which significantly reduces recency relevance and score reliability.
• Sample size of only 4 reviews is too small to draw high-confidence conclusions about any dimension.
• No pricing complaints or detailed cost breakdowns are mentioned in any review; the pricing score is based on a single mention of a free estimate and should be treated as very low confidence.

This WW Score should be treated as a preliminary indicator only — with just 4 reviews, all over 4 years old and all 5-star rated, there is insufficient volume and recency to produce a fully reliable assessment of this contractor.

Two positive reviews explicitly mention successful sewer line unclogging work, fast service, fair pricing ($150), and responsive emergency service. One negative review from 2017 concerns unsafe driving practices in residential areas but does not reflect actual service quality. The positive reviews demonstrate competent technical work and reasonable pricing, but the sample size is very small (only 2 usable reviews) and both are older than 1 year, limiting confidence in the overall assessment.

• Only 2 usable reviews with actual service experience; third review is about company driving practices, not service quality
• Both positive reviews are older than 1 year (2022 and 2018), with no recent data to assess current performance
• One 1-star review from 2017 regarding unsafe driving behavior; this is a safety concern but unrelated to actual plumbing work quality
• Insufficient data volume to reliably assess consistency or trends

This WW Score should be treated with caution due to very limited sample size (2 usable reviews) and age of data; scores are based on LIMITED confidence across all dimensions and do not provide reliable predictive value for future service quality.

All three reviews speak positively about Ron and Crosstown Plumbing across multiple dimensions, including professionalism, responsiveness, and technical skill. Two reviews explicitly mention reasonable or fair pricing, supporting a moderately confident pricing score. Project completion is well-supported, with reviewers describing jobs finished promptly and thoroughly, including one emergency repair in freezing conditions. Experience is consistently praised across all three reviews, with references to being a licensed professional, knowledgeable, and highly capable. However, the total review count is very low and all reviews are older than 5 years, which significantly limits the reliability of these scores.

• Only 3 reviews total — scores are based on a very small sample and should be treated with caution.
• All reviews are dated between 2016 and 2019 — none are within the past 12 months. Current performance cannot be assessed from this data.
• All reviews are 5-star ratings with no negative feedback. While the reviews do contain specific details (emergency gas leak repair, ejector pit sealing, etc.) that reduce fake review suspicion, the uniformly perfect ratings with no critical commentary warrants mild caution.
• Recency concern: The most recent review is from February 2019, over 5 years ago. Business quality, staffing, or ownership may have changed since then.

This WW Score carries LOW overall reliability due to only 3 reviews, all of which are more than 5 years old, making it impossible to assess the contractor's current performance with any meaningful confidence.

Jim and his team receive consistently positive feedback on professionalism, with multiple reviewers highlighting responsiveness, punctuality, and a courteous attitude — including proactively trying to save a customer a service call charge before coming out. Pricing is noted favorably in two reviews, with one specifically praising the reasonableness of a holiday service call and another calling the service call fee extremely reasonable, though only two reviews address this dimension directly. Project completion is generally positive, with jobs described as completed quickly and thoroughly, though the review base is small and older. Technical knowledge is mentioned in a few reviews, with Jim described as knowledgeable and capable across HVAC and plumbing, lending moderate confidence to the experience score. All reviews are from 2013–2016 or earlier, meaning there is no recent data to confirm current performance levels.

• One review (2011-10-18) appears to be a self-promotional post written by the business owner, not a genuine customer review. It has been excluded from scoring.
• One review consists only of a period '.' with no usable content and was excluded from scoring.
• ALL reviews are more than 7 years old (most recent: 2016). There is no data from the past 12 months. Current performance cannot be assessed from this review set.
• The small review pool (6 usable reviews) and age of data significantly limit the reliability of this score.
• All ratings are 5-star, which combined with the small sample size warrants caution, though review content is sufficiently specific to avoid a fake review flag on most entries.

This WW Score should be treated with caution — it is based on only 6 usable reviews, all of which are over 7 years old, making it a poor indicator of current contractor quality or reliability.

Burns Plumbing earns solid marks for professionalism and responsiveness, with multiple reviewers specifically praising punctuality, clear communication, and quick turnaround — including an emergency same-day response. Pricing is consistently described as fair and competitive across several reviews. However, project completion is meaningfully dragged down by a serious 1-star review from 2017 in which a water heater installation was left with an active gas leak, representing a significant workmanship and safety failure. Experience scores are moderate: most reviewers describe competent work, but the gas leak incident raises real concerns about quality control on technical jobs. The overall score is tempered by the small review pool and the age of most reviews.

• Only 7 total reviews — this is a very small sample size and the WW Score should be treated with caution.
• 5 of 7 reviews are older than 1 year; 4 of 7 are more than 5 years old (dating back to 2008, 2013, 2014, 2017, 2018). Only 2 reviews are from the past 12–24 months. The score may not reflect current service quality.
• The 2017 gas leak review (1-star) is a serious safety flag — an unchecked gas coupling after a water heater installation is a critical workmanship failure. This was weighted heavily against project completion and experience scores.
• Several older reviews (2008, 2013, 2014) are extremely brief and generic with no specific detail, reducing their evidentiary value. These were included but treated conservatively.
• No fake review patterns detected, but the sparse detail in older reviews limits their usefulness.

This WW Score is based on only 7 reviews, the majority of which are over 5 years old, making it a LOW-reliability snapshot that should not be used as a definitive assessment of current service quality without more recent data.