Find Nearby Plumbers In Orland Park, Illinois

Joe and A1 Superior Plumbing receive strong praise for professionalism, punctuality, and courteous communication across many recent reviews, which drives the professionalism score upward. However, pricing is a notable weak point — while some reviewers describe costs as reasonable and transparent, multiple reviewers (including one describing a $465 sump pump replacement that took under 30 minutes) explicitly call out overcharging and lack of value, pulling the pricing score down significantly. Project completion is mixed: most recent reviews describe jobs finished promptly and correctly, but older reviews include serious complaints about incomplete work, wrong equipment, and a clog that was only partially moved and rebacked up within the hour. Experience scores moderately well based on recent reviews citing knowledgeable, skilled work, but is tempered by older reviews describing inadequate equipment and failed repairs. The overall WW Score reflects a contractor who has improved in recent years but carries a meaningful history of negative outcomes that cannot be ignored.

• Two reviews contain no text at all (one 5-star, one 1-star dated 2022-06-10) and were excluded from scoring as they provide no usable data.
• One review (dated 2011-10-05, 5-star) reads as a keyword-stuffed business description rather than a genuine customer review — it was excluded from scoring as likely self-promotional or SEO content.
• Several older negative reviews (2010–2014) describe serious issues: incomplete work, wrong equipment, a clog worsened by the service call, and a claim that a subcontractor was hired to finish a job for far less. These are significant but are 10+ years old and may not reflect current operations.
• The 1-star review from 2022-06-01 alleges geographic service discrimination. This is a business practice concern rather than a workmanship issue and was not scored against any dimension but is noted for transparency.
• Recency note: The most recent reviews (2023–2025) are predominantly positive and suggest meaningful improvement in service quality. Older reviews (2010–2017) skew more negative. Consumers should weight recent reviews more heavily.
• No strong fake review patterns detected, though the volume of generic 5-star praise with limited specifics in some 2022 reviews warrants mild caution.

This WW Score is based on 19 reviews with usable data spanning 2010–2025 and carries HIGH overall confidence due to mention volume, though consumers should note that the score reflects a mixed long-term track record and that older negative reviews meaningfully suppress dimensions that would otherwise score higher based on recent activity alone.

Professionalism is the strongest and most consistently evidenced dimension, with multiple reviewers explicitly praising punctuality, friendliness, politeness, and communication. Pricing was mentioned positively in three reviews, with phrases like 'price was right' and 'fair pricing,' supporting a solid but not exceptional score. Project completion was referenced in a handful of reviews through mentions of cleanup, job completion, and satisfaction, though specifics on follow-through or complex project delivery were sparse. Experience was noted in a few reviews via comments about knowledge, prevention tips, and quality of work, but lacked deep technical detail to justify a higher score. All reviews are from 2019–2020, meaning none fall within the past 12 months, which reduces the reliability of this data for assessing current performance.

• All reviews are dated between August 2019 and February 2020 — none are within the past 12 months. This score may not reflect current contractor performance.
• One review (2019-08-29) contains no text and only a 5-star rating — this was excluded from usable data as it provides no scoreable information.
• The review set is small (8 total, 7 usable), which limits statistical reliability across all dimensions.
• Several reviews are brief and generic (e.g., 'Very personable and polite', 'I plan to have other plumbing work done by this company') with little specific detail, which slightly reduces confidence in the scores derived from them.
• No negative reviews are present in this dataset. While this could reflect genuine quality, it may also indicate an incomplete or curated review sample. Treat overall positivity with moderate caution.

This WW Score carries moderate reliability due to the small and aging review set — all reviews are over four years old and the sample size of 7 usable reviews is insufficient to draw high-confidence conclusions about current contractor performance.

Water Control Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism (82/100) with consistent praise for responsiveness, communication, and courteous behavior across 14 reviews. Technical experience scores well at 85/100 based on 8 mentions of skilled diagnostics and problem-solving. However, project completion is significantly weakened by multiple documented failures to show up, honor commitments, and follow through (72/100 across 10 mentions). Pricing data is extremely limited (50/100 from only 2 mentions), with one severe complaint about double-charging and going out of business with customer money. The company shows a stark pattern: excellent service when they show up, but serious reliability issues with appointment adherence and follow-through.

• CRITICAL: Multiple reviews (2018-08-07, 2019-04-15, 2022-04-20) document failure to show up for scheduled appointments, cancellations without notice, and non-responsiveness—directly contradicting the positive reviews' claims of reliability.
• CRITICAL: One review (2022-04-20) alleges double-charging and company closure with customer funds unresolved—serious financial misconduct allegation.
• CRITICAL: One review (2020-01-14) alleges company harassed customer via late-night texts and falsely claimed their negative review was fake—suggests defensive/aggressive customer relations.
• PATTERN CONCERN: 13 of 18 reviews are 5-star with highly similar positive phrasing ('professional,' 'responsive,' 'highly recommend,' 'excellent'). While some specificity exists, the concentration of perfect ratings alongside serious negative allegations suggests potential review manipulation or selective positive feedback.
• RECENCY ISSUE: Most reviews are from 2019-2021 (older than 1 year). Only 3 reviews from 2022-2024. Recent data is sparse, making current reliability assessment difficult.
• INCONSISTENCY: Positive reviews consistently praise 'Sean' and 'Josh' by name and emphasize same-day service and responsiveness. Negative reviews cite the same company but describe opposite behavior (no-shows, cancellations, unresponsiveness). This suggests either highly inconsistent service quality or potential review authenticity issues.

This score should be treated with CAUTION. While the numerical WW Score of 78.2 appears moderate, the underlying data reveals a deeply polarized company: excellent technical work and professionalism when service is delivered, but serious and documented failures in appointment adherence, follow-through, and financial integrity. The concentration of 5-star reviews alongside credible allegations of no-shows, double-charging, and customer harassment suggests the score masks critical reliability problems. Prospective customers should prioritize the project completion and pricing concerns over the professionalism score.

Smith Maintenance demonstrates strong professionalism and technical expertise across multiple reviews, with Maurice praised for knowledge, patience, communication, and responsiveness. However, project completion reliability is significantly undermined by one detailed 1-star review citing missed appointments, installation failures, and poor follow-through on warranty issues. The company shows inconsistent execution: three reviews highlight excellent service and problem-solving, while one describes repeated failures and defensive behavior. No pricing information was mentioned in any review. The WW Score of 78.2 reflects solid professionalism and expertise tempered by documented completion and accountability concerns.

• RECENCY CONCERN: Three of four reviews are from 2016-2020; only one recent data point limits current reliability assessment.
• CRITICAL INCONSISTENCY: One detailed 1-star review (2018) directly contradicts positive reviews, citing no-shows, installation failures, and poor customer service—this is not generic criticism but specific documented problems.
• PROJECT COMPLETION RED FLAG: The 1-star review explicitly states units did not work 72 hours post-installation and failed again three weeks later, suggesting quality control and warranty follow-through issues.
• SAMPLE SIZE: Only 4 reviews total; confidence in overall score is limited by small sample size.

This score should be treated with caution due to small sample size (4 reviews) and significant recency gap; the presence of one detailed negative review documenting installation and follow-up failures directly contradicts the positive narrative and suggests real execution inconsistencies that warrant verification before hiring.

Park Plumbing has a strong base of positive reviews praising responsiveness, fair pricing, and skilled workmanship — particularly during emergency situations like frozen pipes and gas line replacements. However, several substantive negative reviews meaningfully drag down the scores, especially in professionalism and project completion: one reviewer documented three no-show appointments, unauthorized additional work, inconsistent invoicing, and aggressive behavior by the owner; another described plumbers leaving a job with sewage on the walls and floors without cleanup; and a third noted a failure to return for a required follow-up certification. The owner Tom/Rick is described as both highly skilled and socially unprofessional in separate reviews, suggesting inconsistency. Pricing is generally viewed as fair and transparent, though one reviewer flagged inconsistent and unauthorized charges. The large volume of 'unknown', '.', 'bb', and 'See above' placeholder reviews significantly reduces the usable data pool and raises concerns about review authenticity.

• 22 out of 62 reviews contain no usable text ('unknown', '.', 'bb', 'See above', 'I really don't know?', 'Fantastic!'). These reviews were excluded from dimension scoring but their star ratings may inflate aggregate ratings on external platforms.
• Suspected low-quality or placeholder reviews: multiple entries with single characters or generic filler text submitted across 2014–2016, several with 5-star ratings and zero substantive content. This pattern may indicate review padding.
• The most detailed negative review (2018) documents no-call no-shows on three separate appointments, unauthorized work, billing discrepancies, and aggressive owner behavior — this is a serious project completion and professionalism flag.
• A 2016 negative review describes plumbers leaving a job incomplete with sewage on walls and floors, representing a significant project completion failure.
• A 2013 review notes Park Plumbing failed to return for a required follow-up dye test and borough certification, which could have legal/sale implications for the homeowner.
• The 1-star review from 2022 is the most recent substantive review in the dataset, which under recency weighting is a meaningful negative signal. The majority of detailed positive reviews are from 2013–2015.
• Most detailed and positive reviews are from 2013–2015, now more than 8 years old. The recency of usable data is poor, reducing overall score reliability.
• The owner appears to be referred to as both 'Tom' and 'Rick' across reviews, which may indicate multiple owners over time or reviewer confusion, making it difficult to assess consistency of leadership.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability: while the mention counts are sufficient for statistical confidence in each dimension, the score is undermined by a large volume of content-free placeholder reviews, a significant recency gap in substantive feedback, and several detailed negative reviews describing serious failures in professionalism and project completion that cannot be dismissed.

All three reviews speak positively about Rafal's professionalism, punctuality, and reliability, supporting a solid professionalism score. Pricing is explicitly mentioned across all three reviews as fair, reasonable, and cost-effective, lending moderate confidence to that dimension. Project completion is supported by two reviews describing completed jobs with follow-through, including a complex whole-house re-plumbing and kitchen addition. Experience is evidenced by two reviews referencing quality craftsmanship and skilled problem-solving, such as the creative tankless water heater installation. However, the overall score must be treated cautiously given only three reviews, all of which are older than 12 months, with the most recent dating to early 2018.

• All three reviews are older than 12 months — the most recent is from February 2018, meaning there is no recent data to confirm current service quality.
• All reviews are 5-star with uniformly positive language; while each contains specific details that reduce fake review suspicion, the small sample size and lack of any critical feedback limits reliability.
• Only 3 reviews total — WW Score is at the minimum threshold for calculation and should be treated as preliminary rather than definitive.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews, all more than 6 years old, and should be considered a low-confidence preliminary assessment until more recent and numerous reviews are available.