Find Nearby Plumbers In Joliet, Illinois

The majority of reviews praise professionalism, punctuality, and responsiveness, with many customers noting technicians arrived quickly and communicated clearly. Pricing is generally described as fair and reasonable, though two serious negative reviews allege significant overcharging, misdiagnosis, and upselling of unnecessary work — including one $38,000 job where the work allegedly failed and permits were not pulled. Project completion is the most concerning dimension: multiple 1-star reviews describe abandoned or failed work, a no-show appointment, and a sewer connection that collapsed shortly after completion, which meaningfully drags down the score. Experience scores moderately well given many positive accounts of skilled diagnostics and complex sewer work, but is tempered by credible accounts of misdiagnosis and shoddy execution on high-value jobs. The overall picture is a contractor with a strong base of satisfied customers for routine work but meaningful red flags on larger, more complex projects.

• FAKE REVIEW CONCERN: A cluster of reviews dated 2025-04-10 and 2025-03-11 share nearly identical sentence structures, phrasing patterns (e.g., 'I will absolutely be calling them,' 'Strongly advised,' 'Anyone in need of plumbing services should contact them'), and all are 5-star with no specific technician names or job details. These appear to be artificially generated or coordinated reviews and have been weighted with reduced confidence.
• MULTIPLE COMPANY NAMES DETECTED: Reviews reference 'All Service Plumbing,' 'New Era Plumbing,' and 'Plumbing Doctors' — suggesting this review set may aggregate reviews from more than one business or that the business has operated under multiple names. This significantly reduces the reliability of the composite score.
• SERIOUS NEGATIVE FLAG — PERMIT VIOLATION: One detailed 1-star review (2025-02-09) alleges the company performed $38,000 of sewer work without pulling permits, had a suspended license at time of work, and the completed connection collapsed within two months. The owner allegedly made no meaningful effort to remedy the situation.
• SERIOUS NEGATIVE FLAG — MISDIAGNOSIS AND UPSELLING: Two 1-star reviews (2025-03-11) allege the company misdiagnosed plumbing issues, used low-cost drain cleaning as a loss leader to upsell expensive unnecessary repairs, and that a $10,000 drain liner failed to resolve the original problem four months later.
• NO-SHOW PATTERN: Two separate reviews (2017-08-23 and 2020-11-01) describe the company or associated plumber failing to show up for scheduled appointments without notice, and one describes a prolonged pattern of unresponsiveness after an appointment was set.
• RECENCY NOTE: A significant portion of positive reviews are from 2015–2017 and reference a plumber named 'CJ' at 'New Era Plumbing.' These older reviews may not reflect current service quality and have been down-weighted accordingly. The most recent reviews (2025) contain both the strongest praise and the most serious complaints.
• BLANK REVIEWS EXCLUDED: Several reviews contained no text (only a star rating) and were excluded from dimensional scoring as they provide no usable data.
• UNDATED REVIEWS: Six reviews had no date and could not be assessed for recency. They were included in scoring but treated as lower weight.

This WW Score should be treated with MODERATE-to-LOW trust due to strong indicators of fake or coordinated positive reviews, aggregation of reviews across potentially multiple business entities, and multiple credible high-detail negative reviews describing permit violations, failed work, and predatory upselling on large jobs.

TR Miller demonstrates strong technical expertise and professionalism from individual technicians, with many reviews praising knowledgeable staff and courteous service. However, the company is significantly undermined by persistent pricing concerns—numerous customers report aggressive upselling, inflated quotes, and hidden charges that substantially exceed fair market value. Project completion is hampered by chronic scheduling failures, missed appointments, and poor follow-through on callbacks. While recent reviews (past 12 months) show more consistent positive experiences, older reviews reveal a troubling pattern of deceptive sales practices and operational unreliability that continues to surface.

• PRICING FRAUD PATTERN: Multiple independent reviews (2023-2024) describe identical deceptive practices: technicians claiming parts need replacement when they don't, quoting inflated prices 3-5x market value, and pressuring customers into unnecessary upgrades. Examples include $1,376 for a $100 part, $3,768 for a $1,750 water heater, $900 for basic toilet replacement, and $657 for a clogged drain that another plumber fixed immediately.
• SCHEDULING DYSFUNCTION: Chronic failure to provide appointment time windows, no-shows without notification, and vague 'open window' scheduling that wastes customer time. Multiple customers report being told they're 'on schedule' all day with no arrival.
• BAIT-AND-SWITCH PRICING: Documented cases of quoted prices changing after work begins or being contingent on undisclosed VIP memberships. Customers report being quoted $2,510 then told it only applies to VIP members, or quoted $2,625 then charged $2,789.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW CLUSTERING: 35+ reviews from June 2025 and May 2025 with nearly identical positive phrasing ('great job,' 'professional,' 'highly recommend,' 'knowledgeable') and all 5-star ratings with minimal detail. This clustering is statistically unusual and suggests possible review manipulation.
• DISHONEST DIAGNOSTICS: Multiple customers report technicians claiming furnaces/AC units need replacement when second opinions revealed no problems or simple fixes. Pattern includes false claims about heat exchangers, compressors, and safety issues used to justify $5,000+ replacements.
• RECENCY BIAS ALERT: Recent reviews (2025) are overwhelmingly positive with generic praise, while detailed negative reviews span 2012-2024 with specific dollar amounts and technical details. This temporal divergence suggests either genuine recent improvement or review manipulation.
• WARRANTY DENIAL: Customer reported company refusing to honor 10-year warranty on parts, citing dirty filters and dead thermostat batteries as pretexts.

This WW Score should be treated with CAUTION. While the numerical score of 72.8 reflects mixed performance, the company exhibits a documented pattern of deceptive pricing and sales practices that pose genuine financial risk to consumers. The recent surge of generic 5-star reviews lacks credibility compared to detailed negative reviews spanning over a decade. Customers should independently verify all quotes, seek second opinions before major purchases, and get all pricing in writing before work begins. The company's technical competence does not offset its apparent willingness to exploit customers through inflated pricing and dishonest diagnostics.

Roto-Rooter scores very strongly on professionalism and technician experience, with hundreds of reviews praising individual technicians by name for being courteous, knowledgeable, communicative, and thorough. Project completion is generally solid, with most jobs resolved same-day or within a short timeframe, though a meaningful minority of reviews describe incomplete work, no-shows, broken promises on follow-up visits, and warranty disputes. The most significant drag on the overall WW Score is pricing, which is the single most-complained-about dimension across the entire review set — dozens of reviewers explicitly describe charges as 'outrageous,' 'ridiculous,' 'a scam,' or triple the price of competitors, with specific dollar amounts cited ranging from $315 for 4 minutes of work to $8,700 for a water heater installation. Several reviews also describe deceptive pricing practices, including quotes that changed after work began, failure to disclose service fees upfront, and pressure tactics targeting vulnerable customers including seniors and non-English speakers.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: A significant number of reviews appear to be exact or near-exact duplicates posted on different dates (e.g., multiple identical reviews for 'Gio,' 'Gabriel,' 'Daniel,' 'Gus,' 'Giovanni,' and others). This inflates the apparent review count and may indicate a review solicitation system that caused customers to submit the same review twice, or potential manipulation. Confidence in raw review count is reduced.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Approximately 150-200 reviews contain no text and only a star rating (almost all 5-star). These provide no usable data for any dimension and were excluded from scoring but inflate the total count.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS ARE SEVERE AND SPECIFIC: Negative pricing reviews are not vague — they cite specific dollar amounts, compare to competitor prices, and describe practices such as quoting after work begins, refusing to honor coupons, and charging elderly or non-English-speaking customers without disclosure. This is a systemic pattern, not isolated incidents.
• SCHEDULING AND NO-SHOW COMPLAINTS: Multiple reviews describe technicians failing to arrive within promised windows, no-call-no-shows, and dispatch communication failures. This is a recurring pattern affecting the project completion score.
• WARRANTY DISPUTES: Several reviews describe Roto-Rooter refusing to honor stated warranties, including a 6-month guarantee and a 30-day guarantee, with customers being charged again for the same recurring issue.
• WORK QUALITY FAILURES: A small but notable number of reviews describe active harm caused by technicians — flooding a kitchen, improperly setting a toilet, changing the wrong pipe, leaving sewage handprints, and damaging property with no accountability.
• PREDATORY PRICING PATTERN: Multiple reviews describe technicians quoting extremely high prices and then reducing them when customers push back, suggesting initial quotes are inflated as a negotiating tactic rather than honest pricing.
• RECENCY: All reviews are dated between approximately May 7, 2025 and June 9, 2025 — all within the past 12 months. Recency weighting is fully applied.

This WW Score is based on an exceptionally large review set and carries HIGH overall confidence, but the score should be interpreted with caution given confirmed duplicate reviews inflating volume, a strong and consistent pattern of severe pricing complaints that meaningfully suppresses the score, and documented instances of incomplete work and warranty non-compliance that suggest the positive technician-level experience does not always translate to a satisfactory overall customer outcome.

Roto-Rooter receives consistently strong praise for technician professionalism, friendliness, and communication, with hundreds of reviews citing courteous, knowledgeable, and prompt service. However, pricing is a major and recurring pain point: dozens of reviewers explicitly describe charges as excessive, shocking, or outright predatory, with specific complaints ranging from $400+ for a single drain snake to $1,600+ for incomplete work, significantly dragging down the pricing dimension. Project completion is mixed — the majority of jobs are completed successfully and often same-day, but a meaningful minority of reviews describe incomplete work, no-shows, failed repairs requiring follow-up by other companies, and jobs left in worse condition than found. Technician skill and experience scores well overall, but is undermined by a notable subset of reviews describing misdiagnosis, incompetent repairs, and technicians who appeared uncertain or unqualified for the task at hand.

• PRICING CONCERN: Pricing is the single most negatively reviewed dimension. Dozens of reviews across multiple years and locations explicitly cite charges of $400–$1,600+ for basic drain cleaning or simple repairs as excessive, with multiple reviewers stating they found the same work done for 50–75% less elsewhere.
• PROJECT COMPLETION FAILURES: A significant number of reviews describe jobs that were not completed, required multiple return visits, or were left in worse condition. Several reviews describe technicians abandoning jobs mid-work, failing to reconnect appliances, or leaving hazardous conditions.
• NO-SHOW AND SCHEDULING FAILURES: A recurring pattern of no-shows, missed appointment windows without notification, and poor dispatcher communication appears across multiple years and locations. This is a systemic operational issue.
• MISDIAGNOSIS PATTERN: Multiple reviews describe technicians recommending expensive repairs (e.g., $3,000–$10,000 excavations) that were later found unnecessary by other plumbers who resolved the issue quickly and cheaply.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK — MODERATE: A cluster of reviews dated 2025-06-07 and 2025-06-02 share very similar short-form praise structures (e.g., 'Justin was awesome', 'Great Job Mo!', 'Justin saved our lives today!') with minimal detail. Several appear to be from the same franchise location and may reflect solicited or incentivized reviews. Confidence in the high-end scores is slightly reduced as a result.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Approximately 60–70 reviews contain no text and only a star rating (mostly 5-star). These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews with substantive text are from 2024–2025 and are within the past 12 months. Older reviews (2013–2020) show similar patterns of both praise and complaints, suggesting these issues are long-standing and not improving significantly over time.
• GEOGRAPHIC VARIANCE: Reviews appear to span many different Roto-Rooter franchise locations across the US. Scores reflect aggregate performance across all locations, which may mask significant variation between individual franchises.

This WW Score is based on a very large review set (600+ reviews) with HIGH confidence across all four dimensions, making the aggregate score statistically robust; however, the score should be interpreted cautiously because it aggregates performance across many distinct franchise locations, and individual location quality varies dramatically — some franchises consistently earn 5-star praise while others generate repeated complaints about pricing, no-shows, and incomplete work.

Pride Plumbing receives strong praise for professionalism, punctuality, and courteous technicians across a large volume of reviews, with many customers specifically naming individual plumbers who went above and beyond. However, pricing is a significant and recurring concern: multiple detailed negative reviews describe bait-and-switch tactics, quotes that changed dramatically upon arrival, charges for incomplete work, and rates described as 400-500% above competitors. Project completion is mixed — many jobs are completed efficiently and same-day, but a meaningful subset of negative reviews describe work that failed shortly after completion, warranty disputes, abandoned jobs, and technicians who left without resolving the issue. Technical experience is generally rated positively by satisfied customers, but several negative reviews describe incompetent diagnoses, improper repairs, and work that had to be redone by other companies. The wide spread between glowing 5-star reviews and detailed 1-star complaints suggests inconsistent service quality across different technicians and locations.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: At least two pairs of reviews appear to be near-identical or exact duplicates (e.g., the 'Nobody wants to need a plumber' review from 2022-10-17 appears twice; the 'Bait and switch' review from 2024-08-12 and 2024-09-12 are near-identical). This inflates positive review counts and reduces reliability.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Approximately 15+ reviews contain no text and only a 5-star rating. These provide no usable data and were excluded from dimension scoring but may artificially inflate the star average.
• PRICING PATTERN — BAIT AND SWITCH: Multiple independent, detailed reviews (not duplicates) describe the same pattern: a low price quoted by phone ($89 or $150/hr), followed by a significantly higher charge upon arrival ($225 walk-in fee, $175/hr, or flat rates far above quote). This is a systemic concern, not isolated incidents.
• WARRANTY AND FOLLOW-THROUGH FAILURES: Multiple reviews describe work failing within days or weeks, warranty claims being denied or disputed, and management refusing to honor commitments made by technicians in the field.
• MANAGEMENT CONDUCT CONCERNS: Several reviews describe management calling customers liars, being dismissive of complaints, failing to return calls, and altering invoice language after the fact. One review describes a manager asking the customer to explain the fix so he could train his own plumber.
• RECENCY NOTE: Reviews span from 2008 to 2025. The most recent 12 months (mid-2024 to mid-2025) contain a notably higher proportion of negative pricing and completion complaints relative to earlier periods, suggesting possible decline in service consistency.
• POSSIBLE MULTI-LOCATION ENTITY: Reviews reference locations including San Diego CA, Summerville SC, North Charleston SC, Chula Vista CA, La Mesa CA, and Inland Empire CA. It is possible these reviews aggregate multiple businesses operating under the 'Pride Plumbing' name, which would reduce the reliability of treating this as a single contractor profile.
• IRRELEVANT REVIEWS: Two reviews (aggressive driving on I-805, rude parking behavior) describe conduct unrelated to plumbing service quality and were excluded from dimension scoring.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large review volume, but the score itself should be treated with caution given confirmed duplicate reviews, a high volume of blank star-only reviews, strong evidence of systemic pricing misrepresentation, and the possibility that reviews span multiple distinct business locations operating under the same name.

Advanced Plumbing has a strong base of positive reviews praising responsiveness, professionalism, and technical skill across a wide range of jobs including water line replacements, water heater installs, and full repiping projects. However, a meaningful cluster of 1-star reviews — spanning multiple years and locations — raises serious concerns: recurring complaints include overcharging with non-itemized bills, pressure tactics, failure to return calls, incomplete or incorrect work, refusal to warranty poor workmanship, and in several cases hostile responses from ownership when customers raised concerns. Pricing is a particular weak point, with multiple reviewers citing unexpected charges, minimum fees for minimal work, and quotes dramatically higher than competitors. Project completion is also mixed, with several reviews describing jobs that required multiple return visits to correct errors, or work that was abandoned entirely. The positive reviews are numerous and often detailed, but the volume and specificity of negative reviews — including from experienced professionals in construction and architecture — prevent a high overall score.

• 35 reviews contain no text — only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence.
• Two reviews are near-identical duplicates with the same wording about being 'absolutely amazing' and 'super sharp on plumbing needs' posted under different dates (2022-09-23 and 2023-06-07). This may indicate a fake or recycled review.
• Two reviews are near-identical duplicates praising 'Eric and Jessica' and 'Fred' with nearly word-for-word identical text posted on different dates (2018-08-22 and 2019-06-08). This strongly suggests a fake or copy-pasted review and confidence in the positive review pool is reduced accordingly.
• The review corpus spans from 2010 to 2025 and appears to aggregate reviews from multiple businesses operating under the name 'Advanced Plumbing' across different states (Virginia, Florida, Oregon, Michigan, Missouri, California, Texas). Scores from geographically distinct businesses may not reflect a single contractor's performance.
• Several negative reviews describe the owner or staff becoming hostile, making harassing phone calls, or calling customers liars when complaints were raised — a significant red flag for business conduct.
• One negative reviewer with 50+ years of architectural experience describes deceptive practices including faulty leak detection, pressure to over-scope work, and an inadequate insurance report — this carries elevated credibility weight.
• A 2010 review describes a lawsuit over a billing dispute where the written estimate was $1,300 but the final bill was $4,300 — an extreme pricing discrepancy that was never resolved through mediation.
• Recency note: The majority of reviews with substantive text are from 2017–2025, with the most recent cluster from 2024–2025. Older reviews (pre-2016) were given reduced weight in scoring.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large volume of reviews, but the score itself should be interpreted cautiously given strong evidence that reviews may span multiple unrelated businesses sharing the same name, the presence of suspected duplicate/fake reviews, and a persistent pattern of serious complaints about billing practices, incomplete work, and hostile customer service responses that meaningfully offset the large volume of positive feedback.