Find Nearby Plumbers In Joliet, Illinois

Leipart Heating and Cooling demonstrates strong overall performance across all dimensions. Professionalism is a clear strength, with extensive evidence of punctuality, responsiveness, and courteous communication—particularly notable for same-day/emergency service and owner availability. Project completion is consistently reliable, with customers reporting thorough work and follow-through on callbacks. Technical expertise is evident across HVAC and plumbing services. Pricing shows moderate confidence due to mixed feedback: while most reviews praise fair and reasonable rates, several customers (5 reviews) explicitly cite overcharging, price gouging, or unexpectedly high quotes, suggesting inconsistency in pricing practices or communication.

• PRICING INCONSISTENCY: Five negative reviews (1-star ratings from 2018-01-04, 2017-09-05, 2015-12-31, 2014-06-19, 2014-06-03) explicitly cite overcharging, price gouging, or bait-and-switch pricing tactics. This contradicts the overwhelmingly positive pricing narrative in other reviews and suggests either inconsistent pricing practices, poor quote communication, or selective service quality.
• REVIEW REMOVAL ALLEGATION: One 1-star review (2018-01-04) alleges the owner removed a negative review from Yelp, citing inability to recognize the reviewer's account. This raises concerns about review authenticity and potential manipulation of ratings.
• SERVICE INCONSISTENCY: Multiple reviews (2014-11-03, 2016-02-13, 2014-06-03) report no-shows, missed appointments, or failure to follow up after initial contact, contradicting the strong responsiveness narrative in other reviews.
• INCOMPLETE WORK: One detailed 1-star review (2014-06-03) documents multiple incomplete jobs (ductwork cleaning, AC balancing, sink installation, sewer line inspection) with forgotten follow-ups, suggesting potential project management issues on complex jobs.
• RECENCY NOTE: Most reviews are from 2013-2018 (older than 12 months). Only ~15 reviews are from 2023-2024. Recent data is limited, making current performance assessment less reliable.

This WW Score of 84.2 should be treated with MODERATE-TO-HIGH caution. While the volume of positive reviews is substantial and dimensions show HIGH confidence, the presence of five explicit pricing complaints, allegations of review removal, and documented service failures on complex projects introduces material uncertainty. The score reflects strong average performance but masks significant inconsistency in pricing practices and occasional project management failures. Recent review volume is low, limiting confidence in current operational standards. Prospective customers should specifically discuss pricing upfront and clarify scope for complex multi-part jobs.

Alert Plumbing earns strong marks across all four dimensions, driven by a large volume of detailed, specific reviews spanning over a decade. Professionalism is the standout dimension, with dozens of reviewers explicitly praising punctuality, communication, courteous behavior, responsiveness, and transparency — including one notable account where a technician proactively disclosed and repaired accidental damage at no charge. Project completion scores well overall, with many reviews confirming jobs were finished on time, followed through, and backed by warranty callbacks even years later; however, three negative reviews (no-shows, a drain that re-clogged within days, and a disputed upsell) prevent a higher score. Pricing is rated positively by a substantial number of reviewers who cite competitive quotes, no hidden charges, and veteran discounts, though one reviewer flagged a high bid and another described a pricing inconsistency at the door. Experience scores are supported by numerous accounts of skilled diagnostics, complex re-pipes, sewer replacements, and problem-solving in difficult conditions, with only isolated complaints about workmanship quality.

• THREE NEGATIVE REVIEWS PRESENT: One 1-star review (2023-02-22) alleges misrepresentation of pipe condition and an unresolved toilet clog at $1,050; one 1-star review (2021-10-02) reports being stood up three times including a missed appointment requiring time off work; one 1-star review (2021-01-14) reports a drain that only lasted 3 days after a $250 service, with the technician refusing a callback.
• ONE MODERATE NEGATIVE: A 3-star review (2022-06-10) suggests the contractor submitted an inflated bid rather than declining the job honestly.
• ONE PRICING INTEGRITY CONCERN: A 1-star review (2016-08-01) describes a late arrival with no proactive communication and a suspicious price manipulation at the door, resolved only after the customer pushed back.
• TWO BLANK REVIEWS: Two reviews (2021-06-10 and 2020-06-10) contain no text and were excluded from dimension scoring but counted in total reviews.
• RECENCY NOTE: The review set spans 2012–2025. Approximately 15 reviews predate 2020. The majority of reviews (roughly 75+) are from 2020 onward, providing a reasonably current picture. Older reviews were given reduced weight in scoring.
• MILD GENERIC PRAISE PATTERN: A small number of reviews (e.g., 'Very professional and reliable', 'Great fast friendly service', 'Excellent customer service and expertise') are very brief and non-specific. These were counted for mention purposes only where a dimension was clearly implied, but did not heavily influence scores.
• NO STRONG FAKE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: The majority of reviews include specific technician names, job descriptions, and situational details, which is a positive authenticity signal.

This WW Score is based on 101 reviews with strong volume, high mention counts across all four dimensions, and a multi-year track record of detailed, specific feedback — making it a reliable representation of this contractor's typical performance, tempered appropriately by a small but credible set of negative experiences.

Aquarius Plumbing receives overwhelmingly positive feedback across a large volume of reviews, with professionalism — particularly punctuality, responsiveness, and courteous attitude — being the most consistently praised attribute across nearly all reviewers. Pricing is generally regarded as fair and reasonable, though a small number of reviewers noted costs felt steep or, in one case, alleged price manipulation during an estimate. Project completion is strong overall, but is meaningfully dragged down by two notable failures: one instance of abandoned/incomplete work with unreturned calls and missing parts, one case where a water softener installation was left non-functional with the customer told to consult the manual, and one reviewer who reported four appointment cancellations. Technical experience and workmanship are broadly praised, with multiple reviewers highlighting diagnostic skill and problem-solving ability, though the water softener incident and the $94 service call that yielded no diagnosis represent real competency concerns. Scores are held below 90 across all dimensions to reflect these documented failures and the fact that the majority of reviews are more than five years old.

• RECENCY WARNING: The vast majority of reviews are dated between 2012 and 2017. Only 2 reviews are from the past 12 months (2023 and 2020). The WW Score is therefore primarily a historical picture and may not reflect current service quality.
• MULTIPLE CONTRACTOR NAMES: Reviews reference at least three different named individuals — Brian, Danny, and Jeff — suggesting either multiple staff members or possibly aggregated reviews from different contractors or locations. This reduces score coherence.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The review text 'The plumber was very neat, clean and courteous. He did the job and was there an hour and everything was in good working condition. The sewer line outside was flowing properly after the job was completed from house to street. The price was very reasonable. I would highly recommend them for any of your plumbing needs.' appears verbatim on two different dates (2013-09-10 and 2013-08-27). This is a likely duplicate or copied review and was counted only once for scoring purposes.
• BLANK REVIEW: One review dated 2016-05-19 contains only a period ('.') with a 5-star rating and no usable content. It was excluded from dimension scoring.
• NON-RESPONSE REVIEW: One reviewer (2015-09-17) reported never receiving a response after multiple contact attempts, yet gave a 5-star rating. This is internally inconsistent and was flagged as unreliable data.
• INCOMPLETE WORK INCIDENT: One reviewer (2014-05-31, 1-star) reported work was not completed, parts went missing (a Kohler handle set valued at $350), and calls were never returned — requiring a second plumber to finish the job. This is a significant project completion failure.
• PRICING CONCERN: One reviewer (2015-01-06, 2-star) alleged that the technician called his boss, misrepresented a competitor's quote to justify a higher price, resulting in a $1,400 estimate for 23 feet of gas pipe. This suggests a potential pricing integrity issue.
• COMMUNICATION FAILURE: One reviewer (2013-04-01, 3-star) reported four separate appointment cancellations in a short period, indicating reliability issues that are not reflected in the majority of positive reviews.
• SERVICE CALL COMPLAINT: One reviewer (2018-03-18, 1-star) was charged $94 for a 10-minute visit that resulted in no diagnosis or service, only a referral that should have been made during the initial phone call — a communication and value failure.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large volume of reviews, but should be treated with caution given that over 95% of reviews are more than five years old, multiple contractor identities appear across reviews, and several documented failures in completion, pricing transparency, and responsiveness meaningfully offset the otherwise strong positive pattern.

Drain Pros demonstrates strong overall performance across all dimensions, with professionalism as the standout strength (87.5). The company excels at punctuality, communication, and courteous service, with hundreds of reviews explicitly praising these traits. Project completion is solid (84.0), with most jobs finished on time and to customer satisfaction, though a small number of warranty and follow-up issues were noted. Experience/skill level scores well (81.5), with customers consistently reporting knowledgeable technicians who diagnose problems accurately. Pricing is the weakest dimension (79.0) but still respectable—while most customers find rates fair and competitive, some perceive costs as high relative to alternatives, and a few felt overcharged or pressured into unnecessary services.

• FAKE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: Multiple reviews from 2025-05-12 with identical timestamps (12:26:54) and suspiciously generic praise ('Very good job', 'Quick service', 'Fast service') suggest potential review manipulation or bulk submission.
• INCONSISTENT COMPANY IDENTITY: Reviews reference multiple business names (Drain Doctors, Drain Pros, Power Saver Heroes) and numerous technician names (Jesse, Pablo, Benjamin, Brad, Cliff, Casey, Travis, etc.), suggesting either multiple locations/franchises or data aggregation from different sources. This creates ambiguity about whether all reviews apply to the same entity.
• NEGATIVE OUTLIERS WITH CREDIBILITY: Four 1-star reviews (2024-06-09, 2023-03-21, 2020-07-07, 2021-08-27) describe specific failures: technician arrived late/exhausted and broke equipment; overpriced hydro jetting quote; rude staff and no-show; dishonest upselling of toilet replacement. These are detailed and plausible, not generic complaints.
• WARRANTY/FOLLOW-UP ISSUES: Multiple reviews (2018-02-11, 2017-10-23, 2015-08-03) report failure to honor stated warranties or return for follow-up work, suggesting systemic accountability gaps despite strong initial service.
• RECENCY BIAS: Majority of reviews are from 2020-2024, with a significant tail of older reviews (2009-2019) that may not reflect current operations. Recent reviews (2025) show mixed quality signals.
• RATING INFLATION: 480+ reviews are 5-star, but detailed analysis reveals legitimate criticisms in negative reviews that are not reflected in the overall star distribution, suggesting selection bias or review platform dynamics.

This WW Score of 82.3 is reliable for assessing general service quality and professionalism, supported by HIGH confidence across all dimensions based on 520+ reviews with consistent patterns. However, the score should be interpreted with caution regarding company identity (multiple names/locations unclear), and potential customers should be aware of documented warranty/follow-up issues and occasional reports of overpricing or aggressive upselling, despite the company's strong average performance. The recent 2025 reviews warrant monitoring for quality consistency.

Master Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism and technical expertise across most reviews, with technicians consistently praised for punctuality, communication, and knowledgeable work. However, the company shows significant inconsistency in project completion and follow-through, with multiple serious complaints about no-shows, abandoned work, poor callbacks, and unresolved issues. Pricing feedback is mixed—some customers report fair and reasonable rates, while others cite high costs or unexpected charges. Recent reviews (2025) are overwhelmingly positive, but older reviews reveal systemic problems with accountability and customer service that appear partially resolved over time.

• CRITICAL: Multiple severe project completion failures documented—no-shows on scheduled appointments (2022, 2015, 2008), work left incomplete (2022, 2008), and technicians ghosting customers after payment (2022, 2009). These are not isolated incidents.
• CRITICAL: Serious follow-up and callback failures—customers reporting inability to reach company for warranty issues, repairs, and damage assessment (2022, 2009, 2008). One customer reported manager hanging up phone (2023).
• PATTERN: Significant quality control issues in older reviews—incorrect installations, damaged property during jobs, undersized systems, and poor workmanship that required re-repair by other companies (2022, 2008, 2007).
• RECENCY BIAS DETECTED: Reviews from 2025 and late 2024 are almost uniformly 5-star with generic praise and minimal specifics. Reviews from 2022-2023 show serious complaints. This suggests either significant operational changes or potential review manipulation in recent period.
• PRICING INCONSISTENCY: Multiple complaints about unexpected charges, high hourly rates ($175/hour noted as surprise), and quotes that don't match final bills (2008, 2015). Some customers report fair pricing; others report being overcharged.
• MULTIPLE TECHNICIAN NAMES: Reviews mention many different technicians (Doug, Meir, Jim, Kyle, Steve, Scott, etc.), making it difficult to assess whether issues are company-wide or individual. Quality appears highly variable by technician.
• FAKE REVIEW INDICATORS: Recent reviews (2025) contain repetitive structure, minimal detail, and suspiciously consistent 5-star ratings with vague praise ('Great service,' 'awesome,' 'highly recommend'). Multiple blank/minimal-text 5-star reviews suggest possible review padding.
• GEOGRAPHIC INCONSISTENCY: Reviews reference multiple locations (San Francisco, Boise, Idaho, Mountain View, etc.), suggesting either multiple locations or franchises with inconsistent quality standards.

This WW Score should be treated with MODERATE-TO-HIGH caution. While recent 2025 reviews are uniformly positive, historical data (2022-2023) reveals serious systemic issues with project completion, follow-through, and customer service that directly contradict the current narrative. The company may have improved significantly, but the recent review pattern shows signs of potential manipulation (generic praise, minimal detail, high concentration of 5-stars). Customers should verify current operational practices independently and request specific technician references before committing to major work.

The overwhelming majority of reviews across this large dataset praise punctuality, friendliness, and courteous communication, driving a solid professionalism score. Pricing is frequently cited as fair, reasonable, or better than competitors, with multiple reviewers specifically noting transparent quotes and no surprise charges. Project completion is generally strong, with most jobs described as finished on time and thoroughly, though a meaningful cluster of negative reviews — including abandoned work, no-shows, water left running, trash not removed, and a failed callback — prevents a higher score. Experience scores well overall, with many reviewers citing skilled, knowledgeable technicians who solved complex problems, but tempered by a notable 1-star review describing a technician who could not diagnose a basic water heater fault and charged $300 for the failure. The score reflects a genuinely capable operation with recurring but non-trivial service failures.

• 26 reviews contain no text — only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence.
• The dataset appears to aggregate reviews from at least two distinct businesses: 'York Plumbing' (recent reviews, 2024–2025) and 'Rose Plumbing' (older reviews, 2006–2023). Scores reflect the combined pool but the businesses may not be the same entity. Treat with caution.
• Several negative reviews describe serious failures: a technician leaving water running and trash behind (May 2025), a no-show with no callback (2019), an abandoned sump pump repair with no communication (2017), a $300 charge for a failed diagnosis (2011), unprofessional conduct including foul language in front of a child (2020), refusal to serve a customer due to a stutter (2021), and arrogant/belittling behavior with damage left unaddressed (2008).
• The majority of Rose Plumbing reviews are older than 3 years (many from 2006–2014), significantly reducing their relevance to current service quality. York Plumbing reviews are recent (2024–2025) and more reliable for current assessment.
• No strong fake review pattern detected, though several York Plumbing reviews are very brief and generic (e.g., 'Always a 5 star experience', 'Great job!'). These were scored conservatively.
• One review (2012) gave 1 star solely because the company did not serve the reviewer's area — this is not a service quality complaint and was excluded from dimension scoring.
• One review (2024) appears to describe a different company entirely ('Rose Plumbing' in NoVa/Northern Virginia context with HomeServe) and may be a misattributed review. Scored conservatively.

This WW Score is based on a large review pool (136 total, 110 with usable data) spanning nearly two decades and likely covering more than one business entity, which significantly limits direct applicability to any single current operator; the score should be treated as a general directional indicator rather than a precise measure of today's service quality.