Find Nearby Plumbers In Mount Prospect, Illinois

Quality Plumbing Services demonstrates strong professionalism across a large volume of reviews, with repeated praise for punctuality, clear communication, courteous technicians, and clean workmanship. Project completion scores are high, with numerous reviewers noting jobs finished same-day or next-day, including on weekends and holidays, and very few reports of abandoned or unresolved work. Technical experience is consistently praised, with multiple reviewers citing specific plumbers (Scott, Dan, Kevin, Wally, John) solving problems that other companies could not. However, pricing is a significant and recurring concern: at least 10 reviews explicitly describe charges as excessive, with multiple reviewers citing costs 2–4 times higher than competitors for identical work, and one reviewer documenting price drops when challenged, suggesting inflated initial quotes. One review also documents a serious professionalism failure involving a rude phone interaction and a technician walking out on an emergency, which tempers the otherwise strong professionalism score.

• PRICING CONCERN — HIGH SEVERITY: At least 10 reviews across multiple years explicitly describe pricing as excessive, with documented examples including $500 for drain rodding (competitors quoted $175–$250), $800 for a one-hour faucet replacement, $1,890 for a 2-hour sink installation, and $1,506 to fix a toilet. This is a consistent and credible pattern, not isolated complaints.
• PRICE NEGOTIATION RED FLAG: One reviewer documented that Quality Plumbing dropped their quoted price from $492 to $342 when challenged, suggesting initial quotes may be intentionally inflated. This is a deceptive pricing practice.
• PROFESSIONALISM FAILURE: One 1-star review (2024) describes a rude phone interaction where a staff member dismissively told a customer 'I don't work on appliances' in a hostile tone. A separate 1-star review (2013) describes a technician walking out on a tenant with an active sewage emergency due to a billing dispute, causing distress to the tenants present.
• BLACKLISTING ALLEGATION: One reviewer (2013) alleges the company placed them on a customer blacklist after they complained about overcharging, and that a technician then refused to service an active sewage emergency at their property as a result. This is a serious customer service and ethical concern.
• BLANK REVIEWS: 5 reviews contained no text (rating only). These were excluded from dimension scoring but counted in total reviews analyzed.
• RECENCY NOTE: The review set spans from 2011 to 2025. Reviews from 2025 and 2024 (the most recent 12 months) are predominantly positive and were weighted more heavily. Pricing complaints appear across all time periods, indicating this is a persistent issue rather than a historical one.
• POSSIBLE REVIEW AUTHENTICITY CONCERN — MODERATE: Several 5-star reviews from the same date (2025-05-10 and 2024-06-09) share very similar structure and generic praise. While not conclusive, the clustering of multiple reviews on identical dates warrants mild caution. The majority of reviews do contain specific names and details, which reduces but does not eliminate this concern.
• LEGAL THREAT NOTED: One reviewer (2019) states they received a threatening letter from an attorney representing the company after posting a negative review, and partially redacted their review as a result. This is a significant flag regarding the company's response to criticism and may indicate suppression of negative reviews, which could inflate the overall positive review ratio.

This WW Score is based on a large and diverse review set spanning over a decade, giving HIGH statistical confidence in the dimension scores; however, the score should be interpreted with caution given credible, repeated, and specific pricing complaints across multiple years, at least one documented professionalism failure, an allegation of legal intimidation of reviewers, and possible clustering of reviews on identical dates that may suggest some review management activity.

This aggregated review set spans many years and appears to represent multiple businesses operating under similar or identical names (Royal Flush Plumbing, Pro Plumbing Service, and others), which significantly complicates scoring reliability. The majority of reviews are strongly positive, praising punctuality, communication, professionalism, and technical skill — with many customers citing same-day or emergency responsiveness as a standout quality. However, a meaningful minority of negative reviews (roughly 15-20% of substantive reviews) describe serious issues including no-shows, missed appointments without notification, overcharging without upfront disclosure, incomplete or defective work, and poor customer service when complaints were raised. Pricing is the weakest dimension, with multiple reviewers across different time periods describing charges they felt were excessive, non-transparent, or inconsistent with quoted amounts. Project completion scores are dragged down by recurring complaints about abandoned work, callbacks not honored, and jobs requiring multiple return visits to fix errors.

• MULTI-ENTITY CONCERN: Reviews reference multiple distinct business names including 'Royal Flush Plumbing,' 'Pro Plumbing Service,' and references to individual owner-operators (Jarrod, Steve, Ben, Doug, Ted, Jose, etc.) across different geographic markets (Atlanta GA, Philadelphia PA, Providence RI, Las Vegas NV, Hollister CA, Cleveland OH, Oregon City OR, and others). This dataset almost certainly aggregates reviews from multiple unrelated businesses, severely limiting the reliability of any single composite score.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION: A significant number of reviews contain zero substantive detail — only a star rating or a single generic phrase like 'Great service!' or 'Amazing!' with no specifics. Approximately 60-80 reviews fall into this category. Several clusters of reviews share identical or near-identical dates (e.g., dozens of reviews dated 2025-05-10, 2025-04-10, 2025-03-11, 2025-02-09, 2025-01-10) which is statistically anomalous and suggests possible review manipulation or bulk import artifacts.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: At least one review (Ted and his crew sewer line replacement) appears to be posted twice with identical text and nearly identical dates (2024-07-18). Additionally, two reviews from 2021-09-24 are near-identical complaints about overcharging for a kitchen faucet installation.
• RECENCY NOTE: The dataset spans from approximately 2003 to June 2025. Reviews older than 12 months (pre-June 2024) should be weighted less heavily. The most recent reviews (2025) are predominantly positive, but the volume of blank or generic 5-star reviews in recent months raises authenticity concerns.
• PRICING TRANSPARENCY PATTERN: Multiple independent negative reviews across different years and locations describe a consistent pattern of pricing not disclosed upfront, charges significantly exceeding verbal quotes, and management being unresponsive or dismissive when customers raised billing concerns. This is a recurring structural issue, not isolated incidents.
• NO-SHOW / SCHEDULING PATTERN: A recurring theme across negative reviews spanning 2008 to 2022 involves technicians failing to appear within scheduled windows, no calls to notify customers, and rescheduled appointments also being missed. This pattern appears in enough reviews to be considered a systemic reliability concern rather than isolated incidents.
• WORK QUALITY FAILURES: Several detailed negative reviews describe defective workmanship including broken components attributed to technician error, incomplete jobs, and refusal to return to fix mistakes under warranty. These are high-severity complaints that meaningfully reduce the project completion score.

This WW Score carries LIMITED-to-MODERATE reliability for any single business decision due to strong evidence that the review dataset aggregates multiple unrelated businesses across different markets, combined with a statistically anomalous clustering of blank and generic 5-star reviews that suggests possible review inflation; the score is best interpreted as a broad industry-level benchmark rather than a precise assessment of any one contractor.

This contractor demonstrates strong project completion and technical expertise, with all five reviews confirming work was finished and problems were solved. Professionalism is consistently praised across four reviews, with specific mentions of communication, accommodation, and thorough work. However, pricing is a significant concern: one detailed 2023 review explicitly warns of unexpectedly high charges without upfront estimates, while only two reviews mention pricing positively. The WW Score of 82.3 reflects solid execution and skill but is tempered by pricing transparency issues and a small sample size.

• PRICING CONCERN: One recent review (2023-08-12) explicitly warns of excessive charges and lack of written estimates. This is a material complaint that contradicts the 'reasonably priced' claim in another review. Recommend requiring written estimates before work.
• RECENCY BIAS: Four of five reviews are older than 2 years (2019-2021). Only one review from 2023 provides recent data. Older reviews may not reflect current pricing or service practices.
• SMALL SAMPLE SIZE: Only 5 reviews total limits confidence in overall assessment. Pricing dimension based on only 2 mentions, one of which is strongly negative.

This score should be treated with caution due to small sample size and significant recency gap. The pricing warning from 2023 is particularly important and suggests obtaining multiple competitive bids before engaging this contractor, despite their strong technical reputation.

Solomon Plumbing shows mixed performance across reviews spanning nearly two decades. Recent reviews (2017, 2020) are highly positive, praising responsiveness, fair pricing, quick diagnostics, and extra service. However, older reviews (2001–2006) reveal significant concerns: lack of courtesy, poor communication, incomplete work requiring rework, and unreliable scheduling. The dramatic quality shift suggests either substantial business improvement or inconsistent service delivery. Professionalism scores are pulled down by documented rudeness and no-call arrivals, while pricing and technical skill receive moderate-to-good marks where mentioned.

• RECENCY CONCERN: Most recent positive reviews are from 2017–2020, while negative reviews are from 2001–2006. This 15+ year gap makes it difficult to assess current reliability. The business may have improved significantly, or older reviews may not reflect current operations.
• INCONSISTENT SERVICE QUALITY: Stark contrast between recent glowing reviews and older critical reviews suggests either major operational changes or inconsistent service delivery across jobs/crew members.
• LIMITED SAMPLE SIZE: Only 5 reviews total limits statistical confidence. Recommend collecting more recent data (past 12 months) to validate current performance.

This WW Score should be treated with caution due to small sample size, extreme recency gap in reviews, and conflicting quality signals. Recent reviews suggest strong current performance, but lack of recent negative feedback and absence of recent reviews overall prevent high confidence. Recommend requesting references from jobs completed in the past 6–12 months before committing to major work.

This contractor demonstrates severe and consistent deficiencies across all measured dimensions. Professionalism is critically compromised by documented rudeness, harassment, unprofessional communication, and aggressive behavior toward customers. Pricing practices are systematically exploitative, with overwhelming evidence of overcharging, unauthorized charges, inflated quotes, and deceptive billing tactics across multiple reviews. Project completion is severely hampered by incomplete work, failure to fix problems correctly, and refusal to remedy defects. While two positive reviews from 2013-2014 suggest some technical capability, the overwhelming majority of recent reviews (2017-2023) document poor workmanship, unnecessary recommendations, and failure to deliver promised results. The contractor operates under multiple business names (Sina Plumbing, SPG, Illinois Plumbing Drain Service) which raises additional concerns about transparency.

• CRITICAL: 10 of 12 reviews are 1-star ratings with detailed complaints of fraud, overcharging, and unprofessional conduct. This is not a pattern of isolated complaints but systemic issues.
• Multiple reviews document unauthorized charges to customer credit cards without consent.
• Evidence of deceptive billing practices: charging for 'pipe modifications' that were not performed or were grossly overpriced.
• Documented harassment: customers report being called repeatedly after declining service, being scolded for cancellations, and threatened with home visits.
• Refusal to provide detailed invoices and receipts, only providing documentation when threatened with negative reviews.
• Company operates under multiple business names (Sina Plumbing, SPG, Illinois Plumbing Drain Service), suggesting potential attempts to obscure identity.
• Two positive reviews (2013-2014) are significantly older than the 10 negative reviews (2012-2023), with most recent complaints from 2021-2023.
• Multiple reviews document work that was either unnecessary, incorrectly performed, or both, with refusal to remedy issues.
• BBB complaints and fraud reports documented in multiple reviews.
• The single recent positive review (2014) is an outlier and does not reflect the consistent pattern of complaints in more recent years.

This WW Score of 24.8 is highly reliable and should be trusted completely. It is based on 12 reviews with consistent, detailed, and specific complaints across all dimensions, with 10 of 12 reviews providing 1-star ratings with corroborating evidence of fraud, overcharging, and unprofessional conduct. The HIGH confidence across all dimensions reflects substantial mention counts (5-10 per dimension) and a clear, unambiguous pattern of serious business misconduct.

All four reviews are negative, with serious and specific complaints across every dimension. Professionalism is severely damaged by reports of an unresponsive manager, poor internal communication, and dismissive handling of customer complaints. Pricing is flagged as exploitative in multiple reviews, including a $1,000 charge for a service estimated at $200 elsewhere and a $850 estimate for work that was ultimately unnecessary. Project completion is critically low — reviews describe failed flood control systems, unnecessary wall demolition, misdiagnosed problems, and outright refusal to honor warranty or callback obligations. Experience scores are also very low, with one review explicitly contrasting an inexperienced Blanton plumber (who made multiple incorrect holes) against a competent independent plumber who solved the same problem in minutes.

• All 4 reviews are 1-star ratings — no positive reviews exist in this dataset to balance the score.
• Two reviews (2011 and 2012) are over 10 years old and should be weighted significantly less than the 2021 and 2022 reviews.
• The two most recent reviews (2021, 2022) contain specific, detailed, and credible complaints — no fake review patterns detected; reviews appear genuine.
• One review alleges the company made a false claim about being the only licensed provider in the area — potential deceptive business practice flag.
• One review alleges the company recommended unnecessary excavation work that a second opinion disproved — potential fraud or gross incompetence flag.
• Small sample size of only 4 reviews limits statistical reliability of the WW Score.

This WW Score is based on only 4 reviews, two of which are over a decade old, but the two recent reviews are detailed and credible, consistently pointing to serious deficiencies in professionalism, pricing, workmanship, and follow-through — the score should be treated as a strong warning signal despite the limited sample size.