Find Nearby Plumbers In Joliet, Illinois

Expert Plumbing Service receives strong praise across professionalism and experience dimensions, with numerous reviewers citing punctuality, courteous communication, and skilled workmanship from named technicians like Keith, Brian, and Lucas. However, the score is meaningfully dragged down by several serious negative reviews: one detailed complaint describes predatory, non-transparent pricing of $820 for minor work with no itemized receipt; another describes an abandoned job with a half-completed repair left leaking for a young couple; and older reviews describe no-shows, unreturned messages, and a botched repair with a 5-year guarantee that went unhonored. Project completion confidence is tempered by at least three credible accounts of incomplete or abandoned work. Pricing scores are the weakest dimension, with multiple reviewers across different time periods flagging high costs, though some others praised fair or reasonable pricing, creating a mixed and polarized signal.

• PRICING CONCERN: One highly detailed 1-star review (2025-05-26) describes $820 charged for minor toilet tank component replacement and faucet cleaning with no itemized receipt provided. The company's stated policy of not itemizing bills is a significant transparency red flag.
• ABANDONED WORK: A 2024-08-18 review describes a technician who accepted payment, started a job, then stopped communicating entirely, leaving a half-completed repair with active water leakage. This is a serious project completion failure.
• UNLICENSED TECHNICIAN: A 2024-11-11 review explicitly states the technician was not a licensed plumber as required by the permit, and the crew was a no-show on a follow-up day. This is a legal and safety concern.
• OLDER NEGATIVE PATTERN: Reviews from 2014, 2019, and 2021 describe no-shows, broken guarantees, and failure to respond after poor work — suggesting a recurring pattern of reliability issues that predates the current review window.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of high-quality, detailed positive reviews are from 2024-2025 and appear credible with named technicians and specific job details. However, the negative reviews are also recent (2024-2025), so the positive trend does not fully offset concerns.
• GENERIC REVIEWS: Several reviews contain no substantive detail (e.g., 'Great service and great results,' 'Thanks Keith!', blank text with 5 stars, 'unknown' with 1 star). These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data.
• MIXED ENTITY SIGNAL: Reviews appear to reference at least two distinct operational periods or possibly two different business entities — earlier reviews reference 'Plumber Joe' as a solo operator, while more recent reviews reference a multi-technician company (Keith, Brian, Lucas, Lukasz, Dan, Steve). Scores were calculated across all reviews but this distinction may affect reliability of the aggregate score.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK: LOW. Most positive reviews include specific technician names, job descriptions, and varied language. No strong pattern of coordinated fake reviews detected, though the cluster of undated 2024-06-09 reviews warrants mild caution.

This WW Score of 72.1 is based on a substantial volume of reviews (65 total) spanning over a decade and carries HIGH overall confidence in its directional accuracy, but consumers should weigh the serious and credible negative reviews regarding pricing transparency, abandoned work, and an unlicensed technician before hiring, as these represent meaningful risks not offset by the volume of positive feedback.

A&M Plumbing receives strong praise across many recent reviews for punctuality, communication, and courteous service, with multiple reviewers explicitly noting on-time arrivals, proactive updates, and above-and-beyond behavior. However, professionalism scores are meaningfully dragged down by two older but detailed reviews describing a contractor (Matt) who gave quotes and then completely failed to show up or communicate, as well as one review citing poor communication during a job. Project completion is the most penalized dimension: there are multiple serious, specific complaints about faulty installations — including leaking dishwashers, sinks, and toilets installed incorrectly, a flooded rec room caused by an improperly secured discharge hose, and an alleged attempt to upsell unnecessary repairs — all of which represent significant workmanship failures. Pricing is generally viewed favorably by those who mention it, with several reviewers calling costs fair or reasonable, though one review describes a high-pressure upsell attempt that undermines this. The experience dimension reflects a split picture: many reviewers praise skill and attention to detail, but the documented installation failures indicate inconsistent technical execution across jobs and possibly across different technicians.

• Three reviews dated 2015–2015 contain only the word 'unknown' with no review text and 5-star ratings — these are not usable for scoring and may represent placeholder or fake entries.
• Two reviews dated 2022-09-30 contain only the word 'Excellent' with identical dates and identical text — possible duplicate or fake reviews; excluded from substantive scoring.
• The review set spans from 2008 to 2024, meaning many reviews are significantly older than 12 months. Reviews from 2013–2018 reference different named technicians (Ty, Matt, Alin) suggesting personnel or ownership changes over time, which limits the reliability of older reviews as indicators of current performance.
• The two most damaging no-show reviews (2015 and 2016) reference a 'Matt' who may no longer be associated with the business. However, they cannot be dismissed without confirmation and are included in scoring with appropriate weight reduction due to age.
• The 2020 review describing multiple simultaneous installation failures (dishwasher, sink, toilet) is highly specific and credible, and significantly impacts the project completion score.
• The 2008 review about the flooded rec room is over 15 years old and has been given minimal weight in scoring due to extreme age, but is noted as a documented workmanship failure.

This WW Score carries HIGH confidence in terms of data volume, but should be interpreted cautiously given the wide date range of reviews, evidence of personnel changes over time, and several specific and credible complaints about installation failures that meaningfully offset the otherwise strong pattern of positive recent feedback.

Bennett Sewers & More receives consistently strong feedback across all four scored dimensions. Professionalism is the most frequently mentioned dimension, with all five reviewers noting responsiveness, friendliness, punctuality, and communication — including emergency availability and cleanup after work. Pricing is described as reasonable, fair, and transparent across four reviews, with Josh noted for being upfront about costs before proceeding. Project completion is well-supported, with multiple reviewers describing jobs that expanded in scope but were still finished properly, on time, and within budget. Experience is evident across all five reviews, with specific mentions of skilled pipe replacement, careful removal of tub surrounds without damage, sewer diagnosis, and fixture installation — indicating solid technical competence. The overall score is tempered by the small review pool and the fact that three of the five reviews are from 2020 or earlier.

• Only 5 reviews total — WW Score should be treated as directional, not definitive.
• Three of five reviews are dated February–March 2020, and one is from January 2020. Only one review (October 2022) falls within the past few years. No reviews from 2023 or 2024 are present, meaning recency data is limited.
• All five reviews are 5-star ratings with no negative or mixed feedback. While the reviews do contain specific details and varied scenarios, the uniformity warrants mild caution.
• No fake review patterns detected — reviews contain specific job descriptions, unique scenarios, and varied language, which reduces concern about inauthenticity.

This WW Score carries moderate reliability due to a small review sample of only 5 reviews, most of which are over two years old, though the specificity and variety of the reviews lend credibility to the positive signals observed.

Camfield Family Plumbing receives consistently strong marks across all four scored dimensions. Professionalism is the most well-supported dimension, with all five reviews explicitly noting punctuality, courtesy, and responsiveness. Project completion is equally well-evidenced, with reviewers describing jobs finished correctly the first time, on or ahead of schedule, and with no abandoned or incomplete work. Experience is supported by four reviews referencing skilled, knowledgeable work including problem-solving under pressure and handling a variety of plumbing tasks. Pricing received limited direct mention in only two reviews, with one noting a competitive price and another referencing economical service, yielding a conservative but positive score.

• All 5 reviews are 5-star ratings with no negative feedback of any kind — this warrants mild caution, though the reviews do contain specific details and varied language that reduce the likelihood of fabrication.
• All reviews are dated between 2017 and 2019 — none fall within the past 12 months relative to a 2025 evaluation date. Recency is a concern; the contractor's current performance cannot be confirmed from this data.
• Small sample size of only 5 reviews limits statistical reliability across all dimensions. Scores should be treated as directionally positive but not definitive.

This WW Score is directionally trustworthy given the specificity and consistency of the reviews, but should be treated with moderate caution due to the small sample size, the absence of any recent reviews from the past several years, and the lack of any critical feedback to balance the picture.

Clover Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism across all five reviews, with consistent praise for responsiveness, punctuality, friendly demeanor, and communication. Project completion is reliably strong, with jobs finished promptly and follow-through honored. Technical skill and workmanship quality are evident in four reviews. However, pricing is a significant weakness: one detailed review explicitly criticizes the $200/hour rate as substantially above market ($150/hr typical in CA), and another notes parts were 'fairly priced' but the overall cost structure remains a concern. The WW Score of 84.3 reflects excellent execution and professionalism offset by legitimate pricing concerns.

• Recency concern: Four of five reviews are from 2021 (over 3 years old); only one review from 2023. Current pricing and service standards may have changed.
• Pricing data is limited to 2 mentions with conflicting signals: one review praises fair parts pricing, another criticizes hourly rates as 30%+ above market. This creates uncertainty about true value proposition.
• All reviews are 5-star or 3-star with no middle ratings; no 2-star or 4-star reviews present. This bimodal distribution is atypical and may suggest selective review submission.

This score should be treated with moderate caution due to limited sample size (5 reviews), significant age of most data (2021), and a notable gap in recent performance feedback. The pricing weakness is well-documented but based on only 2 mentions; professionalism and completion scores are robust. Recommend seeking recent reviews before engaging.

Tyler and New Life Plumbing receive consistently strong praise across professionalism, experience, and project completion. Multiple reviewers highlight punctuality, quick response times, and reliable follow-through, including one general contractor who has used the company on several large projects without issue. Workmanship quality is specifically called out in multiple reviews, including a detailed bathroom remodel description and praise for leak repairs and water heater installation. Pricing is mentioned positively in three reviews as fair and on budget, though the limited mentions reduce confidence in that dimension. The overall picture is of a dependable, skilled plumber with strong customer relationships, though the small review pool and clustering of older dates tempers full confidence.

• Seven of ten reviews share the same date of 2023-05-31 or 2023-06-01, which is a strong indicator of a coordinated review submission event rather than organic, independent reviews over time. This pattern warrants caution.
• Several reviews from the 2023-05-31 to 2023-06-01 cluster are brief and generic (e.g., 'Best plumber I know very experienced. The best work I've ever seen'), lacking specific job details, which is consistent with potential solicited or coached reviews.
• Only one review falls within the past 12 months (September 2024); the remaining nine are from mid-2023 or earlier, meaning recency data is limited and the score may not reflect current performance.
• All 10 reviews are 5-star ratings with no negative or mixed feedback, which is statistically unusual for a genuine organic review set and may indicate selective review solicitation.

This WW Score should be treated with moderate caution due to the suspicious clustering of review dates, the uniformly perfect star ratings, and the small total review count — while the positive signals are real, the review set shows patterns consistent with coordinated submission that reduce the reliability of the score as a true performance indicator.