Find Nearby Plumbers In Lake Barrington, Illinois

ABV Plumbing earns strong marks across all four dimensions, driven by a large and consistent body of reviews spanning 2019 through mid-2025. Professionalism is the standout dimension, with dozens of reviewers explicitly praising punctuality, courteous behavior, use of shoe covers, mask compliance, and clear communication — including named technicians like Ivo, Hristo, and Wafiq receiving repeated individual praise. Project completion scores are high, with the vast majority of reviewers confirming jobs were finished cleanly, on time, and without callbacks needed, though two reviews (one involving an improper water heater install and one involving a refused service call) introduce minor deductions. Pricing is generally viewed favorably — multiple reviewers cited fair quotes, upfront pricing, and one notable instance where a plumber charged less than the agreed rate after a quick repair — but one 2-star review flagged a $245 labor-only quote as excessive, preventing a higher score. Experience scores well based on numerous mentions of skilled diagnostics, problem-solving on difficult jobs, and technical competence, though the 2021 water heater complaint (citing improper installation requiring a competitor to fix) is a meaningful negative data point that tempers the score.

• 8 reviews contain no text whatsoever — only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence.
• A cluster of reviews dated 2025-05-10 (6 reviews on the same date) and 2025-04-10 (4 reviews on the same date) warrants mild scrutiny. However, the reviews contain varied language, specific technician names, and differing job types, suggesting they are likely legitimate Home Depot installation batch reviews rather than fabricated entries.
• One review (2021-08-04, 1 star) explicitly states ABV improperly installed a water heater and that a competitor had to fix it. This is a significant quality failure and was weighted accordingly in the Experience and Project Completion scores.
• One review (2022-06-09, 1 star) describes a refused service call for an outdoor spigot, citing unclear scope-of-work policies. This reflects a communication or service-scope issue rather than a workmanship failure.
• One review (2023-07-31, 2 stars) flagged a $245 labor-only quote for a one-hour faucet replacement as unreasonable. This was factored into the Pricing score.
• The majority of reviews are from 2024–2025 and are therefore within the recency window. Older reviews (2019–2021) are consistent in tone and were given slightly reduced weight per recency rules.
• Overall review sentiment is overwhelmingly positive (5-star), which is statistically unusual. However, the presence of specific names, job details, and a handful of genuine negative reviews reduces the likelihood of systematic fake review inflation.

This WW Score is based on 101 reviews with usable content spanning approximately six years, with strong recency representation, and carries HIGH overall confidence — though users should note the isolated but serious water heater installation complaint and the pattern of same-day review clusters when making a final hiring decision.

Alexander Plumbing earns strong marks for technical skill and workmanship, with numerous reviewers praising knowledgeable technicians like Paul, Adam, and Patrick who go above and beyond to fully resolve problems and explain their work clearly. Professionalism scores are pulled down significantly by a recurring pattern of complaints about rude, dismissive, or explosive behavior — primarily attributed to the owner — spanning multiple years and multiple independent reviewers, which cannot be dismissed as isolated incidents. Project completion is similarly mixed: many reviews praise same-day or next-day responsiveness and thorough job completion, but several credible negative reviews describe no-shows, cancelled appointments without notice, and at least one case of abandoned work mid-project. Pricing is the most contested dimension, with a meaningful minority of reviewers describing charges they felt were excessive or inconsistent with quoted amounts, while the majority found pricing fair or reasonable. The overall picture is a company with genuinely skilled technicians and strong operational capability, undermined by inconsistent customer-facing behavior and reliability issues that have persisted across many years.

• ATTITUDE/TEMPERAMENT PATTERN: At least 6 independent reviews across different years (2016, 2017, 2019, 2021) describe the owner or a senior figure as rude, dismissive, explosive, or having a 'bad attitude.' This is a consistent and credible pattern, not isolated complaints.
• NO-SHOW / ABANDONMENT PATTERN: At least 4 reviews describe scheduled appointments where the plumber never showed and never called (2015, 2016, 2018, 2021). One review describes work being abandoned mid-project after multiple visits.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS: Three reviews explicitly describe feeling overcharged — one citing $187.50 for 11 minutes of work, another citing ~$700 for one hour with minimal materials, and another citing $400 as excessive for a simple shower valve. These are specific and credible.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: Two reviews dated 2017-12-16 appear to be near-identical in content (Rheem water heater refusal). These may represent the same reviewer submitting twice or a copied review. One was excluded from scoring to avoid double-counting.
• BLANK REVIEWS: 8 reviews contained no text (only a star rating). These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of negative reviews are from 2013–2021, while the majority of positive reviews are from 2024–2025. This may indicate genuine improvement in service quality over time, or it may reflect a shift in review demographics. Scores were weighted toward more recent reviews but older negatives were not discarded as the patterns they describe (attitude, no-shows) have some corroboration in the 2021 period.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — LOW: Several 2025 reviews share similar phrasing ('prompt, professional, reasonable') but most contain specific names, job details, and narrative context. No strong evidence of coordinated fake reviews, though the uniformly 5-star recent cluster warrants mild caution.
• ONE 1-STAR REVIEW (2021) describes a detailed, specific incident of a flapper chain left with too much slack causing a recurring problem, and an explosive owner response when the customer called back. The level of technical specificity and narrative detail makes this review credible.

This WW Score is based on a large and diverse review set spanning over 15 years, with HIGH confidence across all four dimensions due to strong mention counts; however, the score should be interpreted cautiously given a documented and recurring pattern of owner temperament issues and no-show incidents that meaningfully offset the otherwise strong technical performance of the field crew.

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.

Amy Home Services scores well on professionalism — the majority of reviews across many years consistently praise technicians for being on time, courteous, clean, and communicative. However, pricing is the single most damaging dimension in this dataset: a very large number of reviewers across multiple decades explicitly describe charges as excessive, misleading, or far above market rate, with several detailing specific instances of price inflation, bait-and-switch quoting, and a non-refundable $79 service fee that many felt was predatory. Project completion is mixed — most jobs are finished, but a meaningful subset of negative reviews describe incomplete work, return visits required, faulty installations, and in a few cases outright refusal to honor warranties or fix their own errors. Technical experience is generally adequate but undermined by several credible accounts of misdiagnosis, improper reassembly, and work that had to be redone by competitors. The overall WW Score of 68.4 reflects a company with genuine service strengths that are consistently offset by a well-documented and persistent pricing problem.

• PRICING CONCERN — HIGH SEVERITY: Pricing complaints are the single most frequently mentioned issue across the entire review history, spanning from 2004 to 2025. Dozens of reviewers independently describe charges as 2x to 5x market rate, with specific examples including $405 for a $20-90 pressure switch, $360 for a 30-minute drain rod, $530 quoted vs $155 actual market price, and $177 for a $8-28 capacitor. This is a systemic pattern, not isolated incidents.
• UPSELLING / HIGH-PRESSURE SALES: Multiple independent reviewers across different years describe aggressive upselling tactics, pressure to join monthly membership plans, and technicians pushing unnecessary replacements. This pattern is consistent enough to be considered a structural business practice.
• WARRANTY DISPUTES: At least two reviews (one from 2023 with 5 furnaces/AC units purchased) describe the company refusing to honor warranties and finding pretextual reasons to void coverage. This is a serious flag for prospective customers making large purchases.
• WORKMANSHIP FAILURES: Several reviews describe work that had to be redone by other companies — including a furnace left non-functional after improper reassembly, a thermocouple installed incorrectly, a sewer misdiagnosed as collapsing when it was not, and a pipe installation that left supply lines in the wrong location.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — MODERATE: A cluster of 10 reviews all dated exactly 2025-05-10 and 2025-05-12 are suspiciously concentrated. Several are very short and generic ('These guys are great! I trust them', 'Amy is great!! Been using them for years!', 'Excellent service as always!!') with no specific details. Two reviews in this cluster have completely blank review text with only a 5-star rating. This pattern is consistent with review solicitation campaigns or potentially inauthentic reviews. Confidence in the most recent positive reviews is reduced accordingly.
• BLANK REVIEWS: At least 5 reviews contain no text whatsoever — only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data.
• RECENCY NOTE: The review dataset spans from 2004 to 2025. A significant portion of detailed negative reviews are from 2007–2016. More recent reviews (2024–2025) skew more positive, but the suspicious clustering noted above reduces confidence in that trend. Reviews older than 5 years were given reduced weight in scoring.
• MEMBERSHIP PLAN CONCERNS: Multiple reviewers across many years describe the monthly membership/club plan as difficult to cancel (requiring in-person office visit), occasionally resulting in unauthorized continued billing, and not delivering the promised savings. This is a recurring complaint spanning at least 2008–2016.

This WW Score is based on a large dataset of 136 reviews spanning nearly 20 years and carries HIGH statistical confidence in its directional accuracy; however, the score should be interpreted with caution due to suspected inauthentic review clustering in May 2025, a long history of credible and specific pricing complaints that meaningfully drag down the overall score, and evidence of workmanship failures that suggest quality is inconsistent rather than uniformly high.

American Weathermakers presents a deeply polarized review profile spanning over a decade. On the positive side, many long-term customers praise responsive emergency service, courteous and knowledgeable technicians, and reliable follow-through — particularly in extreme weather situations. However, a substantial and recurring pattern of serious complaints significantly drags down all four dimensions: pricing is the weakest area, with multiple reviewers citing egregious overcharging, inflated parts costs, and pressure to replace units unnecessarily. Project completion is undermined by repeated misdiagnoses across many independent reviews, abandoned or incomplete work, and situations requiring multiple return visits or a second company to actually fix the problem. Professionalism scores moderately due to a split between genuinely praised technicians and documented instances of rude customer service managers, no-shows, and broken scheduling promises. Experience is similarly mixed, with some highly skilled technicians offset by a troubling number of misdiagnosis incidents that cost customers significant money.

• FAKE REVIEW CONCERN: One reviewer explicitly states that American Weathermakers offered a discount in exchange for a positive review, and that they initially wrote a glowing review before retracting it after poor service. This materially undermines confidence in the authenticity of some 5-star reviews.
• MISDIAGNOSIS PATTERN: At least 6 independent reviews describe being told they needed expensive repairs or full unit replacements, only for a second company to fix the actual problem for a fraction of the cost. This is a significant and recurring pattern, not isolated incidents.
• PRICING CONCERNS: Multiple reviews across different years describe what they characterize as price gouging, inflated parts costs (e.g., a $12.95 part billed at $240), and high-pressure upselling tactics. This is a consistent theme across the review history.
• SERVICE AREA MISREPRESENTATION: At least 3 reviews describe being told after scheduling — or after an appointment was confirmed — that the company does not service their area. This represents a systemic scheduling and communication failure.
• ADVERTISING CLAIMS VS. REALITY: Multiple reviewers specifically call out the '60-minute response' radio advertising claim as false, with documented instances of multi-hour or no-show responses during emergencies.
• RECENCY NOTE: Reviews span from 2011 to 2024. Negative reviews citing misdiagnosis, overpricing, and poor follow-through appear consistently across all time periods, including the most recent 12 months (2024), suggesting these are not historical issues that have been resolved.
• COMFORT CLUB COMPLAINTS: Multiple reviewers describe the annual maintenance 'Comfort Club' membership as a vehicle for upselling, billing confusion, and difficulty canceling, with one manager allegedly ignoring cancellation requests for weeks.

This WW Score is based on a large sample of 75 reviews spanning over a decade and carries HIGH statistical confidence in its dimensions, but the confirmed existence of incentivized positive reviews means the true performance level may be lower than the score reflects — consumers should weight the negative reviews heavily given their specificity, consistency, and recurrence across many years.

All Family Plumbing presents a deeply mixed picture across all four dimensions. On the positive side, a substantial number of older reviews (pre-2022) describe courteous, knowledgeable technicians, fair pricing, and jobs completed thoroughly — including emergency responses and complex sewer/pipe work. However, more recent reviews (2022–2025) reveal a troubling pattern of no-shows, repeated cancellations without notice, hidden charges added after job completion, and at least one instance of an estimate fee collected with no follow-through. Professionalism is further undermined by multiple independent reports of aggressive and dangerous driving behavior by company vehicle operators, which, while not directly plumbing-related, reflects on the company's culture and employee conduct. Project completion scores are dragged down significantly by credible accounts of jobs not finished, repeat service calls for the same unresolved issues, and a failure to honor callbacks. Pricing scores are mixed — several reviewers praised fair and transparent pricing, while others explicitly described bait-and-switch tactics and undisclosed charges added post-completion.

• RECENCY CONCERN: The most recent reviews (2022–2025) skew heavily negative, suggesting a possible decline in service quality over time. Older positive reviews (2010–2018) should be weighted less heavily.
• DRIVING/CONDUCT COMPLAINTS: At least 4 reviews (2023–2024) describe dangerous or aggressive driving by company vehicle operators, including road rage incidents and threats. While not plumbing-related, this reflects on company culture and employee vetting.
• HIDDEN CHARGES FLAG: At least 2 credible reviews explicitly describe pricing bait-and-switch — quoted one price, charged significantly more after job completion with fabricated add-ons. This is a serious consumer protection concern.
• NO-SHOW / RELIABILITY PATTERN: At least 4 reviews describe repeated appointment cancellations, no-shows without notice, and failure to return calls — a consistent operational failure pattern in recent years.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The review 'Can't recommend them highly enough. Installed a tankless water heater...' appears verbatim twice under different dates (2020 and 2021). This may indicate a fake or duplicated review submission.
• BLANK REVIEWS: At least 4 reviews contain no text content (rating only). These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data.
• ESTIMATE FEE COMPLAINT: One reviewer reports paying an $80 estimate fee with no estimate ever delivered, suggesting possible deceptive business practices.
• WORK QUALITY CONCERN: One review describes a plumber recommending a $1,100 water heater replacement for a problem that was ultimately solved with a $12 dip tube — raising questions about upselling or diagnostic competence.
• POSSIBLE FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: Several 5-star reviews from the 2013–2015 era are extremely brief and generic ('It is a small business owner that is well worth definitely using', 'unknown') with no specifics. These were scored conservatively.

This WW Score is based on a large review set (57 reviews) spanning over a decade, giving it statistical breadth, but the strong negative trend in recent reviews (2022–2025) and the presence of duplicate, blank, and suspiciously generic reviews reduce confidence in the score as a reflection of current service quality — prospective customers should weight recent negative reviews heavily.