Find Nearby Plumbers In Joliet, Illinois

Danny's Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism with consistent praise for punctuality, communication, and courteous behavior across 28 reviews. Project completion scores are solid but tempered by three significant failures (no-shows on rescheduled jobs, incomplete drain repairs requiring third-party intervention, and a major pump system failure with ongoing water loss). Pricing is a clear strength, with 13 reviews explicitly praising fair, reasonable, and competitive rates. Technical experience is well-documented across 15 reviews showing skilled problem-solving and quality workmanship. The WW Score of 81.2 reflects strong fundamentals undermined by reliability gaps in project execution.

• CRITICAL: Two severe project completion failures documented—Review dated 2024-03-13 reports two consecutive no-shows on scheduled jobs (customer waited 5 hours, called twice, contractor admitted he 'just forgot'). Review dated 2006-08-24 reports three service visits required to fix drain issues, with third visit incomplete and contractor reportedly rude; customer had to hire another plumber who fixed it immediately.
• MAJOR: Review dated 2021-05-30 reports $2,000+ pump system installation with catastrophic failure—customer lost water every other day for two weeks, multiple pipe fitting leaks, pressure gauge failure within two weeks. Company refused warranty coverage citing 'well water' exception and charged $200 per service call, leaving disabled customer on low income without resolution.
• MODERATE: Review dated 2021-03-25 suggests selective job acceptance—contractor showed disinterest in smaller remodel job, indicating possible cherry-picking of work.
• MODERATE: Review dated 2017-09-07 reports communication failure—customer called, left number, never received callback after three days despite positive reviews.
• MINOR: Four reviews contain only 'unknown' text with 5-star ratings (2016-02-04, 2015-12-08, 2015-11-23, 2015-07-07, 2014-06-23)—these provide no substantive data and suggest possible review manipulation or placeholder entries.
• MINOR: Two reviews dated 2006-08-15 contain identical text word-for-word, suggesting duplicate submission or review farming.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Majority of reviews are 8+ years old (2006-2017). Only 8 reviews from past 12 months (2024-2025). Recent reviews show mixed quality with critical failures, while older reviews are predominantly 5-star with generic praise. This temporal pattern suggests either declining service quality or changing customer base.
• PATTERN: Three reviews (2024-03-05) dated identically with suspiciously similar positive phrasing ('showed up on time,' 'reasonable prices,' 'highly recommend') may indicate coordinated submissions, though content varies enough to avoid full fake review classification.

This score should be treated with CAUTION despite HIGH overall confidence. While the volume of reviews (56) and consistency of professionalism mentions provide statistical strength, the three documented catastrophic failures in project completion—including a $2,000+ system failure, two consecutive no-shows, and incomplete drain repairs—represent material risks that a single WW Score cannot fully capture. The heavy weighting toward older reviews (2006-2017) and recent recency of critical failures (2021, 2024) suggest potential service quality decline. Recommend reviewing the specific failure cases before engaging this contractor for complex or high-value work.

Chicagoland Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism with consistent praise for punctuality, courtesy, and respectful conduct across 13 reviews. Technical competence and problem-solving ability are well-documented across 9 reviews, with technicians frequently noted as knowledgeable and skilled. Project completion is solid with 10 mentions showing jobs finished and customers satisfied, though one 2018 review noted incomplete resolution requiring additional work. Pricing emerges as a notable weakness with 4 explicit mentions of high costs and lack of transparency; customers expressed frustration with $150 diagnostic fees and perceived overcharging relative to work performed. The company shows strong recent performance (2024, 2023) but contains one severe negative incident (2015) involving missed appointments and unprofessional dismissal of a customer.

• RECENCY CONCERN: Most reviews are 5+ years old (2013-2021). Only 2 reviews from past 12 months (2024, 2023). Historical performance may not reflect current operations.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: Multiple reviews use nearly identical phrasing ('very professional,' 'knowledgeable,' 'pleasant,' 'highly recommend') with suspiciously generic praise and no specific details. Reviews from 2015-2021 show repetitive language structure suggesting possible fabrication.
• CRITICAL INCIDENT: 2015 review documents severe unprofessionalism—two no-shows and owner telling customer 'he didn't need or want your business.' This contradicts the overwhelmingly positive narrative and suggests either a serious past problem or review manipulation.
• PRICING TRANSPARENCY: Multiple reviews (2018, 2013) explicitly criticize lack of cost breakdown, hidden charges, and perceived overpricing. This dimension shows consistent negative feedback despite overall positive ratings.
• SAMPLE BIAS: 13 of 15 reviews are 5-star ratings. The 1-star and 3-star reviews provide critical context that contradicts the glowing majority, suggesting possible review curation or deletion of negative feedback over time.

This score should be treated with CAUTION. While recent reviews (2023-2024) are strongly positive and professionalism/experience scores are well-supported, the heavy weighting of old reviews (2013-2021), suspicious repetitive language patterns suggesting fake reviews, a documented severe incident in 2015, and consistent pricing complaints across multiple years create significant reliability concerns. The WW Score of 81.2 likely overstates current trustworthiness; recommend prioritizing the two most recent reviews and requesting current references before engaging.

Dan demonstrates strong performance across all four dimensions based on three recent reviews (all from late 2023 to early 2024). Professionalism is consistently praised with explicit mentions of punctuality, communication, timeliness, pleasant attitude, and customer-friendly demeanor. Project completion is evidenced by multiple successful projects with attention to detail and follow-through (including proactive wall touch-ups). Experience is demonstrated through skilled problem-solving and technical knowledge on varied projects. Pricing is mentioned positively in two reviews as 'reasonable' and 'great,' though pricing feedback is less detailed than other dimensions. The WW Score of 89.2 reflects solid, reliable performance with moderate confidence due to the small sample size of three reviews.

• Small sample size (n=3) limits statistical confidence; recommend collecting additional reviews before making major business decisions
• All three reviews are 5-star ratings with uniformly positive language; while not necessarily fake, the lack of any critical feedback or mixed experiences is atypical and should be noted
• Pricing dimension based on only 2 mentions with generic descriptors ('reasonable,' 'great') rather than specific cost comparisons or detailed value analysis

This score should be treated as a preliminary indicator of quality rather than a definitive assessment; the small review sample and absence of any critical feedback limit confidence, though the consistency of praise across multiple dimensions and recent dates is encouraging.

Schmitz Bros demonstrates strong performance across all dimensions with consistent positive feedback. Professionalism is evidenced by prompt arrival, courteous demeanor, and responsiveness to urgent calls. Pricing is characterized as fair, honest, and competitive without hidden charges. Project completion shows reliable follow-through with jobs finished as promised and callbacks honored. Experience is reflected in high-quality workmanship and technical competence. However, the review dataset is dated, with most reviews from 2012–2019 and only one from the past 5 years, limiting confidence in current service standards.

• RECENCY CONCERN: All 7 reviews are from 2012–2019. Only 1 review is from the past 5 years (2019). This significantly limits confidence in whether current service quality matches historical performance.
• SMALL SAMPLE SIZE: Only 7 reviews analyzed. While all are detailed and specific, a larger dataset would provide more reliable scoring.
• ALL 5-STAR RATINGS: Every review is 5 stars with no negative feedback. While reviews contain specific details (not generic praise), the absence of any critical feedback or lower ratings is atypical and may not reflect the full customer experience spectrum.

This WW Score of 88.6 should be treated with caution due to the age of the review data and small sample size; while historical performance appears strong, current service quality cannot be reliably assessed without recent reviews.

Brew Plumbing receives consistently strong praise across all four dimensions, with professionalism being the most frequently and enthusiastically cited quality — reviewers repeatedly highlight punctuality, honesty, friendliness, and going above and beyond (e.g., speaking to an insurance company on a client's behalf, working quietly around a sick patient). Project completion scores are high, with multiple reviewers describing jobs finished correctly, on time, and to a high standard, including complex sewer replacements and multi-visit work. Pricing feedback is positive and specific, with one reviewer saving nearly $4,000 by avoiding unnecessary work and another noting competitive pricing after independently checking the market. Experience is well-evidenced through technically demanding jobs such as sewer pipe replacements, camera inspections, and compliance with village code, all handled competently. The primary limitation of this score is the small review pool of only 7 reviews, several of which are more than three years old.

• Small sample size: Only 7 reviews analyzed. Scores should be treated with caution until more reviews are available.
• Recency concern: 5 of 7 reviews are from 2020 or earlier, and 2 reviews date back to 2014 and 2017. The most recent review is from February 2021. Business performance may have changed since then.
• All reviews are 5-star ratings. While the reviews contain specific details and varied narratives that reduce fake review suspicion, the uniformity of ratings warrants mild caution.
• No negative feedback of any kind is present across all reviews. This is not flagged as fake, but it does mean the score reflects a best-case picture with no counterbalancing data.

This WW Score is moderately reliable given the strong specificity and consistency of the reviews, but should be treated with caution due to the small sample size of 7 reviews and the fact that the majority of reviews are over three years old.

Omega Plumbing earns strong marks across professionalism, project completion, and experience, with dozens of reviewers praising courteous, knowledgeable technicians who communicate clearly and follow through on jobs. Specific technicians — including John, Colin, Bill, Jonathan, David, Brandon, Chris, Albert, and Keith — are repeatedly named for quality work, punctuality, and going above and beyond. However, pricing is a meaningful drag on the overall score: multiple reviewers across different time periods explicitly complained about high costs, lack of transparent quoting, unexpected charges, and in one case alleged price gouging during a weather emergency. There are also isolated but serious concerns about an owner responding rudely to billing disputes and one incident of a technician failing to resolve a problem while still charging a service fee. The volume and consistency of positive reviews across multiple years provides high confidence in the core service quality, but the recurring pricing complaints prevent a top-tier score.

• 9 reviews contained no text (rating only) and were excluded from dimension scoring — these blank reviews inflate the raw review count without contributing usable data.
• Multiple pricing complaints span different years (2021, 2023, 2024) and involve different customers, suggesting a systemic pattern of high or opaque pricing rather than isolated incidents.
• One review (2021-09-01) alleges the owner sent multiple rude and personally insulting emails to a customer disputing a bill — a serious professionalism concern at the ownership level that is not reflected in technician-level scores.
• One review (2021-02-18) explicitly alleges price gouging during the Texas winter storm emergency, charging over $1,100 effective hourly rate for a 15-minute job.
• One review (2023-05-12) alleges a charge of over $1,100 with no detailed invoice provided and no callback after multiple requests — raises transparency and billing integrity concerns.
• One review (2025-04-10) describes a technician who failed to diagnose the problem, charged $150, and was dismissive — another company fixed the issue shortly after.
• One review (2021-09-20) alleges the company takes deposits and abandons jobs to start other work — this is a serious project completion concern but comes from a single reviewer with no corroboration.
• One review (2025-05-19) is about a company vehicle driving dangerously — not directly relevant to service quality but reflects on company culture and public conduct.
• The oldest review (2006) was noted but given negligible weight given its age. Reviews from 2017–2020 were given reduced weight relative to 2024–2025 reviews.
• No strong fake review patterns detected — reviews vary in length, specificity, named technicians, and include genuine negatives, which supports authenticity.

This WW Score is based on a large, diverse, and multi-year review set with high mention counts across all four dimensions, making it statistically reliable — however, the recurring pricing and billing transparency complaints are credible and consistent enough to warrant caution, and prospective customers should request detailed written quotes before authorizing work.