Find Nearby Plumbers In Naperville, Illinois

2 Sisters Plumbing receives strong praise across multiple reviews for skilled workmanship, knowledgeable technicians, and quality results on a wide variety of jobs including water heaters, sump pumps, HVAC, bathroom remodels, and rough plumbing. Pricing is generally viewed as fair and competitive, with several reviewers explicitly noting better rates than competitors. However, professionalism and project completion scores are meaningfully dragged down by a recurring pattern of no-shows, missed appointment windows, and failure to communicate — including one particularly serious case involving a disabled customer left without service after a confirmed appointment. These reliability failures appear across multiple independent reviews and represent a genuine and consistent weakness that cannot be dismissed as isolated incidents.

• Multiple reviews (at least 4) describe no-shows, late arrivals without notice, or being ghosted after scheduling — this is a consistent and credible pattern, not an outlier.
• One 1-star review describes a disabled customer in a wheelchair who was given a confirmed appointment window, received no call, and had no technician arrive — a serious service failure.
• Several 5-star reviews lack dates, making recency impossible to assess for the majority of the review set. Only 2 reviews have confirmed dates (both from late 2023 / early 2024).
• A subset of 5-star reviews are brief and generic (e.g., 'Fantastic service! Fast and very understanding and reasonable.') with no specific details, which slightly reduces confidence in their authenticity.
• No confirmed fake review pattern detected, but the volume of undated reviews limits full reliability assessment.

This WW Score carries HIGH confidence in direction but should be interpreted cautiously given that the majority of reviews lack dates, making it impossible to determine whether the no-show and reliability complaints are recent or historical trends.

Wayne Schemmer demonstrates strong professionalism with consistently praised responsiveness, punctuality, and pleasant demeanor across five reviews. Project completion is excellent, with all jobs finished efficiently and to customer satisfaction. Technical skill is evident through problem-solving (fixing issues other plumbers said required replacement) and quick diagnostics. However, pricing presents a significant concern: one 2019 review explicitly criticized the rate as excessive ($240 for one hour of work and $10 in parts), while other reviews praise fair pricing and transparency. This pricing inconsistency suggests either variable pricing practices or selective customer experiences. Most reviews are from 2019–2020, limiting recency data.

• Pricing dimension shows conflicting signals: one explicit complaint about overcharging ($240 for minor work) versus multiple praise for fair pricing. This inconsistency warrants caution.
• All reviews are 4+ years old (2019–2020). No recent reviews available to assess current service quality or whether pricing practices have changed.
• Small sample size (6 reviews) limits statistical confidence despite high mention counts on individual dimensions.

This WW Score of 82.3 should be treated with moderate caution due to small sample size, age of reviews, and unresolved pricing inconsistencies that suggest either variable pricing or selective customer experiences.

Bartkus Home Systems (Val) earns consistently strong praise across multiple dimensions, with reviewers frequently highlighting his technical problem-solving ability, willingness to pivot strategies mid-job, and fair pricing. Several detailed reviews describe him diagnosing problems that other contractors misidentified, and going above and beyond — including late-night and Sunday emergency calls. However, two substantive negative reviews meaningfully drag scores down: one from 2019 cites high prices, property damage from a faulty pump installation causing flooding, and a defective UV light installation; another from 2018 describes a complete failure to return a call within 3 days. These are serious concerns that temper what would otherwise be very high scores. The majority of reviews are older than 12 months, and a significant portion of the review pool consists of blank or near-blank submissions with only a star rating, which limits usable data.

• 7 reviews contain no text whatsoever — only a star rating. These provide no usable dimension data and were excluded from scoring.
• Two reviews (2025-05-10 and 2024-06-27) describe an almost identical incident involving the same master bath rain shower, nitrogen tank, $360 price, and nearly identical phrasing ('Val Bartkus is some kind of genius'). These may be duplicate reviews from the same customer or household, or potentially a coordinated submission. Confidence in the pricing and experience scores has been modestly reduced as a result.
• One 1-star review from 2019 alleges property damage (flooding caused by damaged high-pressure water pump) and a defective UV light installation that the customer had to replace themselves — these are serious workmanship concerns that were factored into project completion and experience scores.
• One 1-star review from 2018 describes a 3-day non-response to a voicemail, which was factored into the professionalism score.
• The majority of detailed, substantive reviews are from 2014–2015 or earlier, meaning recent performance data is limited. Only 4 reviews with meaningful text are from the past 12 months (2024–2025).
• One 1-star review from 2022 contains no text, making it impossible to assess the nature of the complaint. It was counted in total reviews but excluded from dimension scoring.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability: while there are enough mentions across dimensions to generate HIGH confidence labels per category, the score is tempered by a high proportion of blank reviews, two suspected duplicate reviews inflating positive signals, serious allegations of property damage in one negative review, and the fact that most detailed positive reviews are more than 5 years old.

Scott Z Plumbing demonstrates strong technical expertise and project completion capability, with multiple reviews praising skilled workmanship, thorough problem-solving, and follow-through on commitments. However, professionalism is significantly undermined by two separate 1-star reviews citing poor receptionist behavior and dismissive customer service, which directly contradict the positive reviews praising the same receptionist (Jorie). Pricing is viewed favorably by those who engaged services, though one review noted a competitor was 1/3 the price. The conflicting accounts of receptionist conduct and the recency gap (most reviews are 4+ years old, with only one from 2023) create uncertainty about current operational standards.

• CRITICAL: Contradictory reviews about receptionist Jorie — praised as 'helpful and pleasant' in one 5-star review (2023-04-19) but described as dismissive and disrespectful in a 1-star review (2022-11-07). This suggests either inconsistent service delivery or potential reliability issues in review authenticity.
• RECENCY CONCERN: 4 of 6 reviews are older than 3 years (2018-2019). Only 2 reviews from 2022-2023. Current service quality may differ from historical reviews.
• PROFESSIONALISM SCORE DEPRESSED: Two 1-star reviews explicitly cite poor customer service and receptionist rudeness, which significantly lowers the professionalism dimension despite positive comments about Scott himself in other reviews.
• PRICING DATA LIMITED: Only 3 mentions of pricing. One review explicitly states competitor was 1/3 the price, suggesting potential overpricing concerns, though other reviews call pricing 'reasonable' and 'affordable'.

This score should be treated with caution due to conflicting accounts of customer service quality, significant recency gaps in review data, and a small sample size (6 reviews). The professionalism dimension is particularly unreliable given contradictory evidence about the same staff member. Current performance may differ materially from the historical average reflected here.

Energy Services demonstrates strong professionalism with consistent praise for punctuality, friendliness, and communication across 48 reviews. Project completion is solid with 35 mentions of timely, thorough work and follow-through. Technical experience is well-documented with 28 mentions of skilled technicians and quality workmanship. However, pricing emerges as a significant weakness with 8 explicit complaints about overcharging, hidden fees, and unreasonable hourly rates that substantially undermine overall trust. The company shows a stark quality divide: recent reviews (past 12 months) are predominantly 5-star with detailed praise, while older reviews (2021-2023) contain serious allegations of billing fraud, poor communication, and incomplete work.

• SUSPICIOUS REVIEW PATTERN: 40+ consecutive 5-star reviews from June 2025 back to April 2025 with nearly identical phrasing ('professional,' 'friendly,' 'thorough,' 'on time') and minimal specificity suggest potential review manipulation or fake reviews. Many lack substantive detail.
• PRICING INTEGRITY CONCERN: Multiple reviews (2023-2024) allege significant overcharging, hidden fees, and inflated hourly rates. One 2023 review reports $129 quote but $200 bill. Another describes $139/hour charges for minimal work. A 2022 review details $300 quote for a 30-minute project. These are not isolated complaints.
• SERIOUS SAFETY/QUALITY ALLEGATIONS: 2022 review alleges water damage from faulty refrigerator installation with poor follow-up and unprofessional text-only communication. Another 2022 review reports technicians lacked confidence with gas line work and quoted 5 hours for work completed elsewhere in 1.5 hours at half cost.
• COMMUNICATION FAILURES: 2023 review reports complete non-responsiveness ('never heard from anyone'). 2022 water damage review cites text-only communication as unprofessional and delayed response (2 weeks).
• TEMPORAL DIVIDE: Recent reviews (2025, late 2024) are uniformly positive with high detail. Older reviews (2021-2023) contain multiple 1-2 star ratings with serious allegations. This suggests either significant company improvement or review platform change/manipulation.
• INCONSISTENT QUALITY: Named technicians (David Beam, Matt G, Brandon, etc.) receive consistent praise, but multiple reviews describe poor technician performance, lack of expertise, and billing disputes.

This WW Score should be treated with CAUTION. While recent reviews show strong professionalism and completion metrics, the prevalence of pricing complaints across multiple years, combined with a suspicious clustering of identical 5-star reviews and serious allegations in older reviews (water damage, safety concerns, billing fraud), significantly undermines confidence in the overall score. The company may have improved recently, but historical pricing and communication issues warrant careful consideration before engagement. Request detailed written quotes and verify technician credentials for specialized work.

DuPage County Plumbers shows mixed performance across dimensions. Professionalism scores 76 based on 11 mentions, reflecting strong communication and responsiveness from office staff (Shannon) and owner Jason, but significantly undermined by multiple no-shows and failure to return calls. Pricing scores 68 based on 6 mentions—while several reviews praise competitive rates and fair pricing, critical reviews cite overcharging ($150 for 10 minutes, $800 estimate vs. $200 actual fix elsewhere), creating substantial doubt about consistency. Project completion scores 71 based on 10 mentions, with strong same-day/quick turnaround performance offset by quality finish issues (poor caulking, grout residue, cracked tile installation) and one serious misdiagnosis that could have cost thousands. Experience scores 80 based on 9 mentions, with generally positive feedback on technical knowledge and workmanship, though marred by the documented misdiagnosis and finish-work quality concerns. The WW Score of 72.8 reflects a contractor with genuine strengths in responsiveness and pricing (when honest) but concerning inconsistencies in follow-through, quality control, and diagnostic accuracy.

• RECENCY ISSUE: 16 of 20 reviews are older than 5 years (pre-2015). Only 4 reviews from 2020 or later. Recent reviews show deterioration in service quality (no-shows, poor finish work, misdiagnosis). Score may not reflect current business practices.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW: Review dated 2015-09-03 about 'Augie's Bianca pizza' and '16 oz Peroni on draft' is clearly about a restaurant, not a plumbing company. This review was incorrectly included in dataset and excluded from analysis.
• INCONSISTENT PRICING CLAIMS: Multiple reviews praise 'honest' pricing and competitive rates, but other reviews document significant overcharging (e.g., $800 estimate for $200 fix, $150 for 10-minute job). Suggests either inconsistent pricing practices or selective honesty depending on customer.
• QUALITY CONTROL CONCERNS: Multiple reviews document poor finish work (caulking, grout, baseboard staining, tile installation). One review explicitly states customer felt 'taken advantage of.' Suggests quality varies significantly by technician or project.
• MISDIAGNOSIS DOCUMENTED: Review from 2012-08-14 describes serious misdiagnosis (claimed wall leak requiring bathroom gutting; actual problem was toilet) that could have cost thousands. Owner Jason did not return calls to discuss. This is a critical competency failure.
• NO-SHOW PATTERN: Review from 2020-06-11 documents repeated scheduling failures and no communication. This is recent and suggests ongoing operational issues.
• CALLBACK FAILURES: Multiple reviews mention failure to return calls (2014, 2012). This is a recurring professionalism issue.

This score should be treated with MODERATE confidence and caution. While based on 19 usable reviews, 80% are older than 5 years, and recent reviews (2020) show deterioration in service quality. The contractor demonstrates genuine strengths in responsiveness and technical knowledge but has documented inconsistencies in pricing transparency, quality control, and diagnostic accuracy. The score may overstate current reliability; potential customers should prioritize recent reviews and seek multiple estimates before committing.