Find Nearby Plumbers In Springfield, Illinois

Allied Plumbing, Heating & Cooling has a strong base of loyal, long-term customers who consistently praise individual technicians — particularly Bryan, DJ, and David — for professionalism, punctuality, and technical competence. However, a meaningful minority of negative reviews across multiple years describe serious concerns: inaccurate or inflated estimates, incomplete work, failed callbacks, warranty disputes, and at least one instance of a botched installation with a pipe left leaking under electrical tape. Pricing is a notable weak point, with several reviewers citing unexpectedly high bills, charges that exceeded estimates by significant margins, and at least one case where a warranty was incorrectly denied. Project completion is mixed — many jobs are finished well and on time, but recurring complaints about no-shows, lost work orders, and failure to honor warranties drag this dimension down considerably. Experience scores moderately well overall, though a few reviews describe diagnostic errors and substandard workmanship that required correction by other companies.

• 11 reviews contain no text (only a star rating or 'unknown' / placeholder text) and were excluded from dimensional scoring — these blank 5-star entries slightly inflate the perceived rating average.
• Several reviews from 2015–2016 contain only the word 'unknown' with a 5-star rating, which is consistent with bulk-imported or placeholder review data and should be treated with skepticism.
• The cluster of 7 reviews all dated exactly 2023-06-10 with no timestamps is suspicious and may indicate a batch submission or imported reviews rather than organic individual submissions.
• Similarly, 5 reviews share the exact date 2025-05-19, though their content is varied and specific enough to appear genuine.
• One negative review (2019) appears to be submitted twice on consecutive dates with nearly identical text — counted once for scoring purposes.
• Recency note: The majority of detailed, substantive reviews are from 2021–2025, which is encouraging. Reviews from 2012–2016 are numerous but many lack detail or are placeholder entries and were weighted less heavily.
• No fake review pattern detected among the substantive reviews — negative reviews are specific and credible, and positive reviews generally include named technicians and specific job details.

This WW Score is based on a large review set with high mention counts across all four dimensions, making it statistically reliable, but confidence is moderated by a significant volume of blank or placeholder reviews, a recurring pattern of serious negative experiences related to pricing transparency and project follow-through, and evidence that the company's quality may be inconsistent depending on which technician is assigned.

Ray's Plumbing has a strong base of satisfied customers who consistently praise fair pricing, friendly staff, and solid workmanship across many years of reviews. However, a recurring and notable pattern of no-shows, missed callbacks, and failure to respond to customer communications meaningfully drags down the professionalism and project completion scores. At least five separate reviewers across different years reported being stood up for appointments or never receiving return calls, which is a systemic reliability concern rather than an isolated incident. Pricing is a genuine strength — multiple reviewers explicitly noted costs came in lower than competitors or even under the original quote. Workmanship quality is generally well-regarded, with several reviewers noting thorough, skilled work, though one incident of a plumber's error leading to a two-trip job and an unanswered complaint letter tempers that dimension slightly.

• 15 reviews contained no text whatsoever — only a star rating. These were excluded from dimensional scoring as they provide no usable evidence.
• Recurring no-show and no-callback complaints appear across at least 5 reviews spanning 2013 to 2022, suggesting a systemic responsiveness problem rather than isolated incidents.
• One reviewer (2023) reported a billing dispute — paid in cash with receipt but still received a collections notice — which was not resolved to their satisfaction.
• One reviewer (2014) noted a first-visit failure to fix the problem, metal shavings and fingerprints left behind, and lights left on after a second visit — indicating inconsistent quality control.
• One reviewer (2013) described being told the company 'forgot' about their emergency call, rude staff behavior, late arrivals, and missing parts — representing a significant service failure.
• Several older reviews (2011–2014) are more than 10 years old and carry reduced weight in scoring. The most recent reviews (2024–2025) are more favorable, suggesting possible improvement over time.
• No strong fake review patterns detected, though several very short generic 5-star reviews (e.g., 'Great', 'They do good work!', 'The entire team is been awesome!') provide minimal usable signal and were weighted accordingly.

This WW Score is based on 47 reviews with substantive content across a broad date range and carries HIGH overall confidence, though users should weigh the persistent no-show and callback failure pattern seriously when deciding whether to hire this contractor.

Master Rooter demonstrates strong technical expertise and professionalism with many positive reviews praising specific technicians (Mourad, Mike, James, Bobby) for responsiveness, knowledge, and courteous service. However, the company is significantly hampered by persistent pricing concerns—numerous reviews cite inflated quotes, bait-and-switch tactics with promotional offers, and aggressive upselling. Project completion issues are evident in multiple accounts of incomplete work, follow-up failures, and callbacks that were not honored. The company shows high variability in service quality depending on the technician assigned, and several major projects resulted in costly mistakes requiring third-party remediation.

• PRICING PATTERN: Systematic complaints about inflated pricing, hidden charges, and bait-and-switch tactics (e.g., $39 drain special leading to $600+ charges). Multiple reviews cite quotes 2-3x higher than competitors for identical work.
• PROJECT COMPLETION FAILURES: Multiple reviews document incomplete work, failed callbacks, and abandoned projects. Notable cases include Oscar (3-day job with leaks next day, no follow-up), Donny (hydro-jetting into home causing sewage backup, refused warranty credit), and major sewer line projects requiring third-party fixes.
• MAJOR SCAM ALLEGATIONS: At least 5 detailed reviews describe systematic overcharging, unnecessary work recommendations, and deliberate misdiagnosis. Two reviews specifically mention owner Jason making false promises about refunds ($2,200 and $7,000) that were never honored.
• INCONSISTENT QUALITY: Stark contrast between highly praised technicians (Mourad, Mike, James) and poorly reviewed ones (Oscar, Donny, unnamed techs). Same company name, vastly different outcomes.
• UPSELLING & PRESSURE TACTICS: Multiple reviews describe aggressive recommendations for expensive services (hydro-jetting $1,300, camera inspections $399-$500, water filtration $5,000) that were either unnecessary or failed to solve problems.
• FOLLOW-UP FAILURES: Several reviews document promised callbacks, quotes, and warranty work that never materialized. Communication breakdowns after initial service.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEWS: Approximately 15-20 reviews use nearly identical phrasing ('professional,' 'knowledgeable,' 'highly recommend,' 'great service') with minimal detail. Some appear clustered on same dates (e.g., 2024-06-09 has 20+ reviews with generic praise). However, the volume of detailed negative reviews with specific names, dates, and dollar amounts suggests authentic complaints outweigh any fabricated positive reviews.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most recent reviews (2025) include serious complaints (Oscar's incomplete work, Donny's sewage incident). Pattern of issues persists across entire review timeline.

This WW Score of 72.8 should be treated with caution: while based on substantial data (227 reviews, 89+ mentions per dimension), the company exhibits extreme inconsistency in service delivery and systematic pricing problems that create significant financial risk for customers. The score reflects a company with pockets of excellence (specific technicians, technical capability) surrounded by serious operational failures (project completion, pricing transparency, follow-through). Customers should obtain multiple quotes, verify all pricing in writing before work begins, and consider competitors—the financial and service risks are substantial.

K&K Plumbing demonstrates strong technical competence and project completion capabilities, with most jobs finished on time and to customer satisfaction. However, professionalism scores are significantly dragged down by numerous documented instances of rude, dismissive, and unprofessional communication from staff and ownership, particularly when handling customer inquiries and complaints. Pricing is generally perceived as fair and reasonable. The company shows inconsistent service quality—some customers report exceptional experiences while others describe being ghosted, talked down to, or treated dismissively. The pattern of negative professionalism reviews spans from 2011 to 2023, suggesting systemic communication and attitude issues rather than isolated incidents.

• CRITICAL: Multiple reviews (at least 15+) document rude, dismissive, and unprofessional communication from staff and ownership. This is a recurring pattern across years 2011-2023, not isolated incidents.
• CRITICAL: Several reviews describe being 'ghosted'—customers report multiple unanswered calls, missed appointments without notice, and failure to return voicemails. Examples: 2019-01-17, 2017-08-21, 2017-12-05, 2013-07-30.
• CRITICAL: Ownership/management defensiveness documented in multiple reviews. Customers report being told 'you are being rude' when asking legitimate business questions (2014-12-17, 2014-11-12), and one review describes owner calling customer's cell phone unsolicited after complaint (2014-12-17).
• CONCERN: One review (2020-06-17, appears twice identically) alleges dangerous driving behavior in company truck—attempted to run reviewer off road at 50+ mph. This is a serious safety and liability concern, though unverified.
• CONCERN: Multiple reviews describe work quality issues requiring callbacks or additional repairs: incomplete caulking leaving wall holes (2019-01-17), cracked tile not noted (2019-01-17), lost gasket during install (2014-12-17), sloppy installation (2014-12-17).
• CONCERN: Warranty company referral reviews show pattern of conflict-of-interest behavior. Multiple customers report K&K refusing to honor warranty work or charging extra fees, with suggestions that K&K prefers non-warranty jobs for higher margins (2019-11-23, 2020-06-23, 2019-01-17).
• CONCERN: Two reviews (2022-03-24 appear nearly identical with same date/similar content) describe Frank's 'bizarre' and 'unprofessional' email communications regarding water heater leak responsibility, with one reviewer questioning his mental state.
• NOTE: Several reviews contain minimal text ('unknown', '.', 'Perfectly', 'It went well') making detailed assessment impossible. These are counted but contribute minimal evidence.
• NOTE: Recency analysis shows negative professionalism reviews continue through 2023 (most recent: 2023-04-03), indicating ongoing issues despite company's long history.

This WW Score of 72.8 should be treated with caution: while based on substantial data (176 reviews), the company exhibits a stark and persistent bifurcation between technical competence (high) and interpersonal professionalism (low). The professionalism dimension is dragged down by a consistent 15+ year pattern of documented rude communication, ghosting, and dismissiveness from staff and ownership. Customers seeking reliable technical work may be satisfied, but those requiring responsive, courteous communication should seek alternatives. The score reflects this mixed reality but may understate the severity of communication issues for customers who prioritize professional treatment.

MB Heating & Cooling demonstrates strong professionalism and technical expertise, with technicians consistently praised for friendliness, knowledge, and problem-solving ability. However, the company is significantly hampered by serious pricing concerns, with multiple customers reporting excessive markups on parts (capacitors marked up 400-500%), inflated service call charges, and estimates perceived as unreasonably high. Project completion shows mixed results: while most jobs are finished competently, there are documented cases of rescheduling failures, incomplete follow-up on promised repairs, and one major incident involving a $20,000 HVAC installation with multiple defects and extended downtime. Recent reviews (past 12 months) are predominantly positive, but older reviews reveal a consistent pattern of pricing complaints and occasional service failures.

• PRICING PATTERN: Multiple reviews (2016-2025) document excessive part markups and inflated labor charges. Capacitors marked up 400-500% above retail cost is a recurring complaint across different time periods, suggesting systemic pricing practices rather than isolated incidents.
• PROJECT COMPLETION FAILURES: One detailed 2025 review documents a $20,000 HVAC installation with broken parts, multiple reschedulings (3 times), faulty heat system requiring space heaters in winter, and week-long delays in addressing critical failures. Another 2025 review describes missed appointment with no communication and subsequent heating system failure.
• COMMUNICATION GAPS: Multiple reviews cite scheduling failures, missed appointments without notice, and lack of follow-up on promised callbacks (2025, 2022).
• RECENCY BIAS RISK: 38 of 56 reviews (68%) are from 2025 (past 6 months), predominantly 5-star with minimal detail. Older reviews (2016-2023) contain more substantive criticism. This temporal clustering warrants caution.
• GENERIC PRAISE PATTERN: Many recent 5-star reviews lack specifics (e.g., 'Great service as always,' 'MB rocks!') while negative reviews are highly detailed. This asymmetry suggests possible review selection bias.
• INCONSISTENT SERVICE QUALITY: Same company receives both 5-star reviews praising technicians and 1-star reviews documenting significant failures, indicating high variability in execution.

This WW Score of 72.8 should be treated with MODERATE-TO-HIGH caution. While the score reflects genuine strengths in professionalism and technical skill (supported by 35+ mentions), it is substantially depressed by a consistent, multi-year pattern of pricing complaints that appear systemic rather than anecdotal. The heavy weighting of recent 2025 reviews (68% of dataset) skews the overall score upward; older reviews reveal more critical issues. The company excels at service delivery and customer interaction but has documented problems with pricing transparency, project follow-through on complex jobs, and communication. Customers should expect professional service but should obtain multiple quotes and carefully review all charges before authorizing work.

Roto-Rooter receives consistently strong marks for professionalism and responsiveness from individual technicians, with hundreds of reviews praising courteous, knowledgeable, and prompt service. However, pricing is the single most damaging dimension across this dataset, with an enormous volume of reviews describing charges as excessive, deceptive, or wildly inconsistent — including numerous accounts of bait-and-switch quoting, undisclosed fees, and charges for incomplete work. Project completion is significantly dragged down by a substantial minority of reviews describing failed repairs, no-shows, abandoned jobs, warranty disputes, and work that made problems worse. Experience scores moderately well overall, as many technicians are praised for skill and problem-solving, but this is offset by recurring accounts of misdiagnosis, wrong equipment, and upselling unnecessary services. The aggregate picture is a company with capable individual technicians but systemic issues around pricing transparency, scheduling reliability, and quality control.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: Multiple reviews appear to be exact or near-exact duplicates (e.g., two identical reviews from 'Paul arrived same day...', two identical 'Zach is the man...', two identical 'Based solely off customer service...', two identical 'Easy to schedule and a quick service...', two identical 'Great service. Would highly recommend!', two identical 'Efficient and effective...', two identical 'Excellent with Armando...', two identical 'Very prompt and helpful! Anthony...', two identical 'My name is Antoinette...'). These duplicates inflate positive scores and have been treated conservatively.
• FAKE REVIEW PATTERNS: A large cluster of reviews dated 1996-2001 consist of single-line responses ('NO', 'NOT REALLY', 'ON TIME AND DID THE WORK') with no detail, all rated 5 stars. These appear to be placeholder or fabricated entries and were excluded from scoring.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Approximately 100+ reviews contain no text content but carry 5-star ratings. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data, but their presence inflates the raw star average.
• EXTREME RATING POLARIZATION: The dataset shows a pronounced bimodal distribution — a very large number of 5-star reviews with minimal detail alongside a substantial volume of detailed 1-star reviews describing serious failures. This pattern is consistent with either review manipulation on the positive end or a company with highly inconsistent service quality.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS ARE SYSTEMIC: Pricing complaints are not isolated incidents — they span multiple years, multiple geographic locations, and multiple service types. Charges ranging from $200-$900 for simple drain snaking (15-30 minutes of work) are documented repeatedly. This is a structural business practice issue, not individual technician behavior.
• NO-SHOW AND SCHEDULING FAILURES: A significant number of reviews describe confirmed appointments where technicians never arrived and no communication was provided. This is a recurring operational failure across multiple franchise locations.
• MULTI-FRANCHISE DATASET: Reviews appear to span dozens of different Roto-Rooter franchise locations across the United States. Scores reflect the brand aggregate, not any single location. Individual location quality varies significantly.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews with substantive content are dated between 2020-2025, which is within the relevant scoring window. Older reviews (pre-2015) were given reduced weight.

This WW Score of 72.4 is based on a very large dataset (1,456 reviews) and carries HIGH statistical confidence in its directional accuracy, but should be interpreted as a brand-level aggregate across many franchise locations — individual location quality varies substantially, and the systemic pricing and scheduling issues documented here may not apply equally to all franchises.