Find Nearby Plumbers In Naperville, Illinois

Super Bowl Plumbing shows strong professionalism and fair pricing across multiple positive reviews, with customers praising responsiveness, honesty, and competitive rates. However, a detailed 1-star review from 2012 raises serious concerns about project completion and quality of workmanship, citing incomplete sewer rodding, improper tub installation, and kinked water lines causing damage. The stark contrast between five 5-star reviews (all from 2018-2022) and one damaging 1-star review (2012) suggests either significant improvement over time or potential inconsistency in service quality. The WW Score reflects this mixed evidence, weighted toward the more recent positive feedback but substantially penalized by documented completion failures.

• RECENCY CONCERN: The negative review is from 2012 (12+ years old), while all positive reviews are from 2018-2022. This temporal gap makes it unclear whether the company has improved or if the old review represents outdated performance.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: Five consecutive 5-star reviews with similar generic praise language ('honest,' 'professional,' 'fair price,' 'highly recommend') and minimal specific technical detail could suggest review inflation, though the 2012 negative review provides some authenticity balance.
• CRITICAL SERVICE FAILURE DOCUMENTED: The 1-star review details three separate failures (incomplete sewer work, improper tub installation, kinked water lines) with financial and property damage consequences. Even if dated, this represents serious project completion and quality issues.
• INCONSISTENT COMPANY NAMING: Reviews reference both 'Jesse/Jessie' (individual) and 'Super Bowl Plumbing' (company), creating ambiguity about whether scores reflect individual technician or company-wide performance.

This score should be treated with caution due to the 12-year gap between the negative review and recent positive ones, making it unclear if the documented failures represent current performance or historical issues. The concentration of recent 5-star reviews with similar language raises authenticity questions, but the detailed 2012 complaint provides concrete evidence of past failures that cannot be ignored. A current customer should request recent references and clarify warranty/callback policies before committing to major work.

Aqua Flow Plumbing shows a deeply split performance profile. A core group of technicians — most notably Tony, Kevin, and Randy — consistently earn strong praise for professionalism, technical knowledge, and thoroughness, which elevates the experience and professionalism scores. However, a significant minority of reviews (roughly 15 out of 70 usable reviews) describe serious failures: technicians refusing to complete work, abandoning jobs mid-task, poor follow-through on contracted scope, and rude or dismissive customer service when issues arise. Pricing is a notable weak point, with multiple reviewers citing inflated quotes, overcharging, and costs well above market rates — including one case where a competitor completed the same job for a fraction of the quoted price. Project completion is the most damaged dimension, with recurring complaints about incomplete contracted work, failure to return for callbacks, and jobs left unfinished particularly in home warranty contexts.

• 8 reviews contain no text — only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence.
• A recurring pattern exists of negative experiences specifically tied to home warranty assignments (multiple warranty companies: American Home Shield, Pivotal, Nicor Home Solutions, AWR, Sears). Technicians in these contexts are repeatedly accused of finding excuses not to complete work, suggesting a possible pattern of warranty claim avoidance.
• Multiple reviews describe a specific fraud-adjacent behavior: technicians allegedly misrepresenting findings to warranty companies to avoid approvals, then collecting service fees without completing work. This is a serious integrity flag.
• One review (2023) describes a $5,000 quote for a repair completed by another plumber for $520 — a 10x markup. Another describes a $2,500 water heater quote when only a $150 burner assembly was needed. These suggest a pattern of inflated estimates.
• One review describes a plumber leaving a job mid-task (opened shower fixture, said he could not fix it, then attempted to charge for reassembly). Another describes a plumber refusing to wait minutes for wall access and leaving. These are project completion failures.
• One review (2024) describes contracted galvanized pipe removal not being completed per contract terms, with poor communication as a follow-up issue.
• One review (2024) describes lawn damage from a cleanout excavation that was explicitly flagged by the village inspector and never remediated despite promises.
• One review (2021) describes a plumber leaving without relighting a water heater pilot after shutting off the main gas line, then refusing to return and quoting $2,500 for a new unit — a job that cost $150 elsewhere.
• One review (2020) describes a plumber replacing a gas valve but leaving without relighting the water heater pilot, requiring a $150 third-party service call to resolve.
• Positive reviews are heavily concentrated around specific named technicians (Tony appears in approximately 25 reviews, Kevin in approximately 8, Randy in 3). The company's overall quality appears highly dependent on individual technician assignment rather than consistent company-wide standards.
• Several older positive reviews (2013–2018) reference Tony Joseph extensively. It is unclear if Tony is still active. Recency weighting was applied — reviews from 2025, 2024, and 2023 were given higher weight in scoring.
• No clear fake review pattern detected. Positive reviews contain specific details, named technicians, job descriptions, and varied writing styles. Negative reviews are similarly specific and credible.

This WW Score is based on 70 reviews with usable content spanning approximately 12 years, with strong representation from the past 24 months, and carries HIGH overall confidence — however, the score reflects a genuinely polarized contractor where outcomes vary significantly by which technician is assigned, and prospective customers should treat the negative reviews as credible warnings rather than outliers.

This contractor shows strong technical skill and problem-solving ability (85/100 experience score), with two reviews praising quality workmanship and creative solutions. Pricing appears fair and transparent based on one detailed mention. However, professionalism is significantly undermined by a critical 2018 incident where the contractor failed to confirm or cancel an appointment and declined the job unprofessionally, which heavily weights the moderate 55/100 professionalism score. Project completion data is limited but positive where mentioned. The overall WW Score of 68.3 reflects mixed reliability: strong technical capability offset by serious communication and commitment concerns.

• RECENCY ISSUE: Two of three reviews are from 2017–2019 (5–7 years old). Only one review from 2018 is recent enough to reflect current practices. Score reliability is significantly compromised by age.
• CRITICAL PROFESSIONALISM RED FLAG: One 1-star review (2018) documents a serious failure to confirm/cancel an appointment and unprofessional rejection of work. This directly contradicts the positive 'very prompt with responses' claim in the 2017 review, suggesting inconsistent service quality or possible change in business practices.
• SMALL SAMPLE SIZE: Only 3 reviews total. Confidence in all dimensions is inherently limited. A single additional negative or positive review would materially shift the score.
• INCOMPLETE REVIEW: One review (2018) is cut off mid-sentence ('When we tried to confirm the time for the estimate.') but the intent is clear from context.

This WW Score should be treated with caution due to very limited review volume (n=3), significant age of most data (5–7 years), and a documented professionalism failure that contradicts other positive claims. The score reflects a contractor with genuine technical skill but inconsistent or declining professionalism. Additional recent reviews are essential before making a hiring decision.

The review set is deeply mixed, with three strong negative reviews and four positive ones, producing middling scores across all dimensions. Professionalism is dragged down significantly by a contractor who demanded extra money after underestimating a job, never returned a client's call after causing a roof leak, and refused to correct his own mistake without charging again — all serious red flags. Project completion is similarly penalized: the handrail was installed so poorly it could be pulled out of the wall by hand, the attic fan replacement caused a roof leak that required a full redo, and a closet organizer was built at an unusable height. Positive reviews praise friendliness, punctuality, cleanliness, and broad technical certifications, but these are largely older reviews (2017–2022) and are outweighed in severity by the documented failures. Pricing receives a moderate penalty because one reviewer was asked to pay more than quoted mid-job, though another explicitly praised reasonable rates.

• Three of the four positive reviews are generic in structure and light on specific detail, which warrants mild fake-review caution — though they are not identical in phrasing.
• The most recent reviews (2022) include the most serious complaints, suggesting a possible decline in service quality over time rather than improvement.
• All reviews are older than 12 months (most recent: November 2022), meaning current service quality cannot be reliably assessed from this data.
• A pattern of refusing to honor callbacks and correcting own mistakes without additional charge is a significant consumer protection concern flagged across two separate negative reviews.
• Only 7 total reviews analyzed — confidence in all dimension scores is inherently limited by small sample size despite some dimensions reaching the HIGH confidence threshold mathematically.

This WW Score should be treated with caution: the sample size is small (7 reviews), all reviews are over 12 months old, and the negative reviews describe serious safety and workmanship failures that meaningfully offset the positive feedback.

The review set is small (4 reviews) and spans a wide date range from 2013 to 2024, which significantly limits reliability. Three of the four reviews are positive and describe responsive, friendly, and fairly priced service, but the most recent review (2024) is a detailed, highly credible negative account describing an unqualified technician, unauthorized charges nearly 5x the agreed amount, equipment damage, dishonest staff, and the contractor ultimately blacklisting the customer. The 2024 review alone covers all four dimensions negatively and is the most recent data point, which per recency rules carries the most weight. The older positive reviews pull scores upward but are dated (2013, 2017, 2018) and cannot offset a serious, well-documented 2024 complaint. Scores across all dimensions are suppressed to reflect this imbalance and the inherent risk suggested by the most recent experience.

• RECENCY CONCERN: Three of four positive reviews are 6–11 years old (2013, 2017, 2018). The only review from the past 12 months (2024) is a detailed 1-star complaint. The contractor's current service quality may be significantly worse than older reviews suggest.
• SERIOUS MISCONDUCT ALLEGATION: The 2024 review alleges unauthorized charges (approx. 5x agreed amount), equipment damage caused by the technician, dishonest communication from both the technician and service manager, and the contractor blacklisting the customer rather than resolving the dispute.
• UNQUALIFIED TECHNICIAN ALLEGATION: The 2024 reviewer explicitly states the assigned technician lacked knowledge of the requested product and was observed teaching himself from the manual during a paid service call.
• CUSTOMER BLACKLISTING: The contractor reportedly placed a 'do not service' note on the customer's address and failed to return multiple follow-up calls, suggesting an attempt to avoid accountability rather than resolve a legitimate complaint.
• LOW REVIEW VOLUME: Only 4 reviews total. This is insufficient to draw statistically reliable conclusions about consistent service quality. The WW Score should be treated with caution.

This WW Score has LOW reliability due to the very small review sample (4 reviews), the significant age gap between positive reviews and the sole recent review, and the severity of documented misconduct allegations in the 2024 complaint — prospective customers should weight the 2024 review heavily when making a hiring decision.

Rainmakers Irrigation receives overwhelmingly negative feedback across nearly all dimensions, with professionalism being the most critically damaged dimension. The dominant complaint pattern across 17 reviews involves failure to return calls, missed appointments, rude phone interactions, and hostile billing disputes — painting a consistent picture of a company with serious customer service dysfunction. Project completion is similarly poor, with multiple reviewers describing abandoned work, unresolved defects, incomplete installations, and a refusal to honor warranty-like obligations under new ownership. Experience scores slightly higher due to a handful of positive reviews praising knowledgeable technicians, but these are heavily outweighed by accounts of shoddy workmanship, elevated sprinkler heads, non-functional systems post-service, and a defective manifold installation left unresolved for years. Pricing received mixed signals — one reviewer praised value, while others described surprise charges, verbal quotes not honored, and double-billing, pulling the score down significantly.

• Several 5-star reviews are notably brief and generic (e.g., 'Wonderful customer service, so helpful and the service technicians are super knowledgeable') with no specific details, job descriptions, or technician names — these may be inflated or low-effort reviews.
• One 5-star review references a 20+ year relationship and was posted in early 2022 in apparent direct response to negative reviews visible on the platform — possible motivated/defensive review.
• The ratio of 1-star to 5-star reviews is heavily skewed negative (11 reviews at 1-star vs 7 at 5-star), and the 5-star reviews lack the specificity and detail present in the negative reviews, reducing their credibility weight.
• A discriminatory incident was reported by a reviewer (homophobic slur by a crew member in 2022), which is a serious conduct flag beyond standard service quality concerns.
• Review dates span from 2017 to 2024. The most recent reviews (2023–2024) continue to reflect poor scheduling and customer service, suggesting no meaningful improvement over time. Only 2 reviews fall within the past 12 months.
• One reviewer explicitly noted the company's response to their complaint was inaccurate and publicly questioned their integrity, indicating a pattern of dismissive or combative owner responses to criticism.

This WW Score is based on 19 reviews with strong dimensional coverage and HIGH confidence across all four dimensions, making it a reliable representation of this contractor's recent and historical performance — the score of approximately 34 should be taken seriously as a warning signal.