Find Nearby Plumbers In Rockford, Illinois

R&N Plumbing receives strong praise across pricing, experience, and general professionalism from the majority of reviewers, with many customers highlighting Ruben's technical knowledge, fair rates, and responsive communication. However, a persistent and credible pattern of no-shows, missed appointments, and failure to return for warranty/callback work significantly drags down the professionalism and project completion scores. At least 7 distinct reviews describe being stood up without notice or having unresolved follow-up work ignored for weeks or months, including a faucet leak left unaddressed for 50+ days. The project completion score is the most penalized dimension, reflecting both abandoned callbacks and at least one instance of a job that failed shortly after completion. Pricing and experience scores remain relatively strong because the negative reviews rarely dispute the quality or cost of work that was actually completed.

• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: Two reviews (dated 2024-06-09 and 2023-07-11) are nearly word-for-word identical, describing a faucet leak ignored for 50+ days since 5/31. This appears to be the same reviewer posting on two platforms or at two times. Counted as one unique incident for scoring purposes.
• NO-SHOW PATTERN: At least 5 separate reviewers (2019-03-03, 2021-01-26, 2021-03-19, 2022-06-10, 2023-12-28) describe scheduled appointments where Ruben or his team failed to show up and did not communicate. This is a recurring operational failure, not isolated incidents.
• CALLBACK/WARRANTY FAILURE PATTERN: Multiple reviewers (2024-06-09, 2019-09-18, 2025-05-10) describe being ignored after raising post-service issues, including a leak that returned and a pump that stopped working. This pattern materially lowers the project completion score.
• RECENCY NOTE: The no-show and callback failure complaints span from 2019 through 2025-05-10 (most recent review), indicating this is not a resolved historical issue. The most recent review (2025-05-10) includes a new leak-blame complaint, suggesting the problem persists.
• TWO REVIEWS FLAGGED AS LOW UTILITY: The review dated 2015-10-29 ('unknown') and 2013-10-07 ('He did an excellent job.') contain no actionable detail and were excluded from dimension scoring.
• ONE REVIEW FLAGGED AS POTENTIALLY GENERIC: The 2021-01-26 5-star review ('Best Plumbing has been the most outstanding plumbing service we have ever received') mentions no specific details, no plumber name, and no job type. Treated with low weight.
• RECENCY NOTE: A significant portion of positive reviews are from 2018-2020. While the business has recent positive reviews (2024-2025), the volume of detailed praise has declined while critical reviews have continued.

This WW Score is based on 67 reviews spanning 2013–2025 with a large usable dataset, giving the score HIGH overall confidence; however, the score should be interpreted cautiously for leak repairs and any work requiring follow-up or callbacks, where a documented and recurring pattern of non-response represents a meaningful risk to customers.

Nick's Plumbing has a strong base of positive reviews praising prompt response times, professional demeanor, fair pricing, and quality workmanship — particularly in more recent reviews from 2023–2024. However, the score is meaningfully dragged down by several serious negative reviews describing abandoned jobs, unresponsive communication, and one instance of rude and unprofessional behavior. The project completion dimension is the most concerning, with multiple reviewers explicitly stating that Nick took payment and never finished the work, or stopped returning calls mid-project. Pricing is generally viewed favorably but one reviewer noted inconsistency, with a later job priced significantly higher than competitors. The overall picture is of a contractor with genuine skill and a good track record for many clients, but with documented reliability failures that cannot be ignored.

• SERIOUS CONCERN — Project abandonment: At least 3 reviews (2016-04-14, 2016-01-07, 2015-01-29) explicitly describe Nick taking payment or starting work and then becoming unreachable, never completing the job. One reviewer states they are pursuing a lawsuit to recover $580.
• COMMUNICATION FAILURE PATTERN: Multiple negative reviews across different years cite the same issue — Nick stops returning phone calls after work begins or after initial contact. This is a recurring and consistent pattern, not an isolated incident.
• NEGATIVE REVIEW REBUTTAL CONCERN: One reviewer (2019-05-01, 1-star) explicitly states Nick never showed up for an estimate and never responded, and notes that Nick's response to the review came 4 years later, suggesting selective or delayed reputation management.
• RECENCY SPLIT: The most recent reviews (2023–2024) are overwhelmingly positive, while the most serious complaints are from 2015–2016. It is unclear whether the business has genuinely improved or whether the older negative reviews reflect a different operational period. Positive weight is given to recent reviews but older negatives are not dismissed.
• POSSIBLE MULTI-ENTITY ISSUE: Some reviews reference different geographic locations (Hartsville, Charleston, Hacienda Heights) and different associate names (Art, Nikolas). It is possible some reviews refer to different contractors or franchise locations sharing the Nick's Plumbing name. This reduces cross-review comparability.
• GENERIC PRAISE IN SOME REVIEWS: A handful of reviews (e.g., 2021-05-17 entries) are very brief and lack specific detail, which slightly reduces their evidentiary weight. However, they are not flagged as definitively fake — just low-information.
• INCONSISTENT PRICING: One reviewer (2011-09-01) noted that pricing was fair for a water heater but significantly higher than competitors for a toilet installation, suggesting pricing may not be consistently competitive across all job types.

This WW Score is based on 27 reviews spanning over a decade and carries HIGH data confidence due to volume, but the score should be interpreted cautiously given documented patterns of job abandonment and communication failure that represent material risk to prospective customers.

This contractor demonstrates solid performance across all measured dimensions, with particular strength in technical experience and professionalism. Reviews explicitly praise punctuality, communication, workmanship quality, and problem-solving ability on complex older homes. Pricing appears fair based on limited mention of a service call with senior discount. However, the score is constrained by recency concerns—most reviews are 8+ years old (2012–2016), with no recent data to confirm current service standards. The small sample of substantive reviews (only 6 of 8 usable) limits confidence in the overall assessment.

• RECENCY CONCERN: 75% of reviews are older than 8 years (2012–2016). Only 2 reviews from 2015–2016; none from 2017 onward. Current service quality cannot be reliably assessed.
• VAGUE REVIEWS: Three reviews contain only generic text ('Kitchen of house', 'unknown', 'unknown') with no actionable detail. These were excluded from scoring.
• SMALL SUBSTANTIVE SAMPLE: Only 6 reviews contain specific, usable information. Scores based on this limited dataset should be treated conservatively.
• LONG-DISTANCE CLIENT: One review notes the reviewer is in Florida while contractor is in Illinois, conducting business entirely by phone. This may not reflect typical local service experience.

This WW Score should be treated with caution due to significant recency bias and a small sample of substantive reviews. While historical performance appears strong, the lack of recent data (past 5+ years) means this score does not reliably reflect current service standards or responsiveness.

Manny's Plumbing demonstrates solid professionalism with consistent punctuality, clear communication, and friendly demeanor across multiple reviews. Pricing is competitive and transparent, with fair handling of unexpected issues. Project completion is reliable with good follow-through on complex jobs. Technical expertise is evident in handling challenging plumbing scenarios. However, one 1-star review from 2023 indicates selective job acceptance and potential responsiveness issues for non-construction work, which tempers the overall assessment. The dataset is small (5 reviews, 1 unusable) and includes very old reviews (2011, 2014, 2015), limiting confidence in current performance.

• One review is essentially blank (just a period with 5-star rating from 2015) — treated as unusable data
• Significant recency gap: 3 of 5 reviews are from 2011-2015 (9-13 years old); only 2 reviews from 2023-2024
• One strongly negative review (1-star, 2023) contradicts positive pattern; suggests selective service acceptance or responsiveness issues for certain job types
• Small sample size (5 total reviews, 4 usable) limits statistical reliability

This score should be treated with caution due to small sample size, significant age of most reviews, and conflicting signals between recent positive and negative feedback. More recent reviews are needed to assess current service quality.

Dee's Plumbing shows strong professionalism with consistent praise for punctuality, politeness, communication, and responsiveness across multiple recent reviews. Pricing is reported as fair and transparent with no hidden charges. However, project completion is significantly undermined by two older reviews (2013) citing serious safety issues (torch fire), incomplete work, and multiple callbacks for leaks—issues that directly contradict the positive narrative of more recent reviews. Experience scores reflect mixed quality: recent reviews praise skilled workmanship and problem-solving, but the 2013 reviews document poor craftsmanship and safety violations. The dramatic divergence between recent (2021–2024) and older (2013–2015) reviews suggests either significant business improvement or inconsistent service quality.

• CRITICAL: Two reviews from 2013 report severe safety violations (torch fire risk) and poor craftsmanship (leaks, incomplete work, multiple callbacks). These directly contradict the uniformly positive recent reviews and raise questions about service consistency or business changes over time.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most positive reviews are from 2021–2024 (recent), while negative reviews are from 2013 (10+ years old). If the business has genuinely improved, older reviews may not reflect current operations. However, the severity of the 2013 issues (fire hazard, incomplete work) cannot be ignored.
• SAMPLE SIZE: Only 8 reviews total. While recent reviews are consistently positive, the small sample limits statistical confidence.
• REVIEW AUTHENTICITY: The 2013 negative reviews appear genuine (specific complaints, poor grammar consistent with authentic user reviews). Recent positive reviews are detailed and specific, not suspiciously generic, suggesting authenticity.

This WW Score of 78.2 should be treated with MODERATE confidence. Recent performance (2021–2024) appears strong across all dimensions, but two serious safety and quality incidents from 2013 create material uncertainty about consistency and risk management. Recommend requesting references from recent projects and clarifying what operational changes have occurred since 2013 before committing to major work.

Hinkle demonstrates strong professionalism and technical expertise across multiple reviews, with Rodney consistently praised for responsiveness, honesty, and knowledge. However, a critical 1-star review from 2021 describing installation of an undersized pump and the crew abandoning the job significantly impacts project completion confidence. Pricing appears fair based on limited mentions, though the 2021 incident raises concerns about whether work was completed properly. The company excels at emergency response and customer service but the documented failure to complete a septic repair correctly creates material risk.

• CRITICAL: One 1-star review (2021-08-06) describes a failed septic pump installation with an undersized unit and crew abandonment—this directly contradicts the overwhelmingly positive narrative and suggests either inconsistent quality or a serious service failure.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most reviews are 5+ years old (2013, 2015, 2019). Only 2 reviews from 2021 or later, limiting ability to assess current performance.
• POSITIVE REVIEW PATTERN: Five of six positive reviews use nearly identical phrasing ('recommend,' 'Rodney,' 'crew,' 'prompt,' 'knowledgeable') which could indicate template-like responses, though this may reflect genuine satisfaction with consistent service messaging.
• INCOMPLETE DATA: No explicit mentions of pricing transparency or quote accuracy in most reviews—pricing score based on only 2 indirect mentions of 'honest' and 'reasonable' pricing.

This score should be treated with caution due to the stark contradiction between the 1-star review documenting a failed installation and six 5-star reviews, combined with most data being 5+ years old. The WW Score of 78.2 reflects this uncertainty; current performance cannot be reliably assessed without recent reviews.