Find Nearby Plumbers In Tinley Park, Illinois

Kramer Plumbing demonstrates strong performance across all four dimensions, with particularly high marks for experience and professionalism. The overwhelming majority of reviews (46 of 47) are 5-star ratings praising Wayne Kramer's honesty, responsiveness, technical skill, and fair pricing. Customers consistently highlight his willingness to save them money by diagnosing problems accurately rather than upselling unnecessary work. Project completion is solid with multiple mentions of same-day service and timely job completion. The single 1-star review from 2014 citing drainage installation errors and overcharging is a significant outlier but is substantially outweighed by a decade of positive feedback.

• RECENCY BIAS: 43 of 47 reviews are from 2018 onwards, with 10 reviews from 2025 alone. The single negative review is from 2014 (11 years old) and may not reflect current operations.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: Multiple reviews use nearly identical phrasing ('honest,' 'professional,' 'fair pricing,' 'highly recommend') and all positive reviews are 5-star with no critical details. However, reviews do contain specific job descriptions and personal anecdotes that suggest authenticity rather than template-based fake reviews.
• OUTLIER ALERT: One 1-star review (2014) describes significant project failures (wrong drain location by 10 feet, failed pressure test 3 times, overcharging). This is a legitimate concern but is isolated and very dated.
• REVIEWER OVERLAP: Multiple reviews reference 'Wayne' and 'Wes' (likely the same person) and 'Team Kramer,' suggesting consistent business operations and repeat customers, which increases credibility.

This WW Score of 88.2 is highly reliable due to the large sample size (47 reviews), consistent positive feedback across all dimensions, and specific corroborating details in customer narratives. However, the single serious negative review from 2014 warrants caution—while heavily outweighed by recent positive reviews, potential customers should be aware that significant project failures have occurred in this company's history.

Ridge Plumbing and Specialty Plumbing (Kevin Rebouche) demonstrate consistently strong performance across all dimensions. Professionalism scores highest (91.0) with 28 mentions emphasizing punctuality, responsiveness, politeness, and pleasant demeanor. Project completion is robust (89.0) with 26 mentions confirming jobs finished completely, on-time delivery, and thorough follow-through. Experience scores 87.0 across 22 mentions highlighting skilled workmanship, problem-solving ability, and technical knowledge. Pricing receives 85.0 based on 8 mentions describing fair, reasonable, and transparent pricing with no upselling. All reviews are 5-star ratings from the past 12 months (majority) and older, with consistent positive language and specific examples supporting claims.

• All 45 reviews are 5-star ratings with zero negative or mixed reviews—this is statistically unusual and suggests potential review curation or filtering
• Two distinct business entities appear in reviews (Ridge Plumbing and Specialty Plumbing/Kevin Rebouche), which may indicate merged data or multiple locations under same management
• 2 reviews contain no text (empty review fields), reducing usable data slightly but not affecting scoring
• Older reviews (2013-2017) use similar praise patterns to recent reviews (2024-2025), though this consistency may reflect genuine quality rather than fake reviews
• High concentration of reviews mentioning specific names (Joe, Kevin, Anthony) adds credibility and specificity, reducing fake review risk

This WW Score of 88.2 is highly reliable due to strong mention counts across all dimensions (8+ mentions minimum) and consistent positive evidence spanning 12+ years; however, the complete absence of any negative or mixed reviews warrants caution—this score reflects the best-case scenario and should be interpreted as a ceiling rather than a typical experience baseline.

Flowright Plumbing demonstrates strong overall performance with a WW Score of 82.3, driven primarily by exceptional professionalism (85.2) and technical expertise (86.4). The company excels in responsiveness, communication, and skilled workmanship, with numerous reviews praising Jerry and his team's knowledge and courteous demeanor. Pricing is fair and transparent (82.1), though some customers note competitive rates rather than budget options. Project completion shows the most variability (78.5), with several negative reviews citing incomplete work, no-shows, and follow-up failures that significantly impact this dimension. The company's strength lies in individual technician quality and customer service, but operational consistency in job completion and callback reliability presents a notable weakness.

• PATTERN DETECTED: Approximately 15-20 reviews (mostly 5-star, dated 2025-06-02 to 2025-05-26) contain minimal detail, generic praise, or are blank. These show suspicious clustering by date and lack specificity typical of authentic reviews. Confidence in recent 5-star surge is reduced.
• SIGNIFICANT NEGATIVE CLUSTER: Multiple 1-star reviews (2018-2017 period and earlier 2016) cite serious issues: no-shows, failure to complete work, poor communication, rude staff, and unresolved problems. These are detailed and credible complaints that contradict the overwhelmingly positive narrative.
• INCONSISTENCY ALERT: Reviews describe two very different companies—one with Jerry/Gabe providing exceptional service, and another with poor follow-through, missed appointments, and communication failures. This suggests either significant operational changes over time, inconsistent service quality across team members, or management/staff turnover issues.
• RECENCY BIAS: Most recent reviews (June 2025) are uniformly 5-star with minimal detail. Older reviews (2013-2015) tend to be more detailed and credible. The dramatic shift in review quality and tone warrants caution.
• PROJECT COMPLETION CONCERNS: Multiple credible reviews document incomplete jobs, no-shows on callbacks, and abandoned work. One customer reported flooding 20 minutes after technician left with no response to emergency calls. Another had work started but never completed across multiple scheduled visits.

This WW Score of 82.3 should be treated with MODERATE-TO-HIGH caution. While the company demonstrates genuine strengths in professionalism and technical expertise (supported by detailed, credible reviews spanning 2010-2024), the recent surge of generic 5-star reviews and a documented pattern of project completion failures and communication breakdowns in earlier years significantly undermine confidence. The score reflects a company with excellent individual technician quality but inconsistent operational execution. Prospective customers should prioritize getting detailed references and clear written completion timelines, and should be aware of documented callback and follow-through issues.

CAM Pipe Clearing has a strong track record of resolving low water pressure issues efficiently, with many reviewers spanning decades praising the lasting results and technical skill of their technicians. Professionalism scores well overall, with multiple reviewers citing friendly, punctual, and informative technicians like Justin and John — however, one detailed 1-star review describes chronic unresponsiveness, late arrival, and a technician who smelled of smoke, which meaningfully drags the professionalism score down. Pricing is a mixed picture: several reviewers explicitly note the service was worth the cost compared to re-piping alternatives, but one reviewer flagged the job as too expensive with unexpected extra charges, keeping the price score conservative. Project completion is generally strong, though one reviewer reported a flooded kitchen the same night of service and another noted their problem was not resolved, preventing a top-tier score. Experience is the strongest dimension, with consistent praise for technical effectiveness and problem-solving across a wide range of reviewers and time periods.

• Three reviews contain no text at all (blank or 'unknown') and were excluded from scoring — these empty 5-star entries are a minor concern for review authenticity.
• Review date range spans from 2002 to 2024 — the majority of reviews are older than 1 year, and only 2 reviews are from the past 12 months (2023–2024). Recent performance data is very limited.
• The most recent substantive review (2023) is a 2-star complaint about overcharging and extra fees, which is a recency flag worth noting.
• One review (2017) reports a flooded kitchen the night of service — this is a serious project completion failure that was factored into scoring.
• Several older 5-star reviews are brief and generic (e.g., 'Awesome job and incredibly fast!', 'Quick, efficient, knowledgable, professional') with no specifics, which slightly reduces confidence in those data points, though the volume of detailed positive reviews offsets this concern.

This WW Score carries moderate-to-high reliability due to a reasonable volume of reviews with usable detail, but should be interpreted cautiously given that most reviews are over one year old, recent feedback is sparse and mixed, and a handful of serious complaints about responsiveness, pricing, and a post-service flood introduce meaningful uncertainty about current service quality.

Kevin Szabo Jr Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism with punctual arrivals, courteous staff, and clear communication across 187 mentions. Technical experience is solid with 142 mentions of skilled workmanship and problem-solving. Project completion is generally reliable (156 mentions), though some callbacks and follow-up issues are noted. Pricing is the weakest dimension (68.0/100) with 52 explicit mentions—customers frequently report high costs, surprise charges, credit card fees (3%), and expensive estimates ($89-$92.50), though some praise fair pricing. The company shows inconsistency: many 5-star reviews contrast sharply with serious complaints about no-shows, unresponsiveness, signature forgery, and incomplete work requiring multiple visits.

• PRICING CONCERNS: Multiple reviews cite high labor costs ($450 for $150 disposal, $7,500 labor quote vs. $1,800 competitor, $600 for pilot light relight, $425 for 20-min drain work). Credit card surcharge (3%) and estimate fees ($89-$92.50) not always disclosed upfront.
• RESPONSIVENESS ISSUES: Several reviews report unreturned calls, missed appointments, and no-shows despite confirmed scheduling. One customer waited 5 days with no water; another left 2 messages 3 days apart with no callback.
• SERIOUS ETHICAL CONCERNS: One 1-star review alleges signature forgery on a check and dismissive owner response ('What's the big deal?'). Police report filed. Another review mentions gang/hate symbols on work vehicles.
• INCOMPLETE/REPEAT WORK: Multiple reviews describe problems requiring 2-4 return visits (clogged drain recurred next day, ejector pump issues recurring, water heater defects requiring 3 replacements, ceiling damage from initial work never repaired).
• ESTIMATE INCONSISTENCY: Estimates vary wildly ($2k vs. $12k for same job; $1,500 competitor vs. $9,000 Szabo for sump pit). Some customers report being pressured or quoted differently based on gender.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: Approximately 40-50 reviews from 2023-06-10 and 2024-06-09 show identical or near-identical phrasing ('great job,' 'highly recommend,' minimal detail), some with blank text fields, suggesting possible bulk/automated posting. Reduces confidence slightly but HIGH confidence maintained due to volume of detailed, specific negative reviews that appear authentic.
• QUALITY INCONSISTENCY: Same company receives both 'best plumber ever' and 'worst experience' reviews, suggesting high variability in technician quality or service delivery.
• WATER DAMAGE/LIABILITY: One review describes installation error causing basement flooding; company promised repair but drywaller no-showed twice and company became unresponsive.

This WW Score of 78.2 is reliable but reflects a company with significant inconsistency: strong technical skills and professionalism in ~70% of engagements, but serious gaps in pricing transparency, responsiveness, and follow-through in ~15-20% of cases. The pricing dimension (68.0) is particularly concerning given explicit complaints about overcharging and hidden fees. Customers should obtain multiple quotes, confirm all fees in writing, and consider the company's mixed track record on callbacks and appointment reliability before committing.

RC Szabo Plumbing receives strong praise across many reviews for responsiveness, friendliness, fair pricing, and quality workmanship — with multiple reviewers citing prompt arrival, transparent quotes, thorough cleanup, and skilled problem-solving on complex jobs. However, a meaningful cluster of negative reviews (roughly 8–9 one-star reviews out of 49 total) describes serious failures including no-shows, missed callbacks, rude or threatening behavior from the owner, incomplete work, and at least one instance of a job left unfinished with no follow-through on an estimate. These negative reviews are specific, credible, and span multiple years, preventing any dimension from scoring in the high 80s or above. Pricing is generally viewed as fair or reasonable by satisfied customers, but one reviewer flagged a $500 quote for a simple job as excessive. The overall picture is a contractor with genuine skill and many loyal customers, but with recurring and documented professionalism and reliability failures that meaningfully drag down the score.

• 9 reviews contain no text content — only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence.
• One review contains only the text 'Just went to bars' and 'The' — these appear to be accidental or placeholder submissions and were excluded from scoring.
• Multiple negative reviews describe specific, credible incidents: no-shows on scheduled appointments, failure to deliver promised estimates, rude/threatening behavior from the owner, and incomplete work (ejector pump cover with missing and loose bolts). These are not generic complaints and carry significant weight.
• A 1-star review from 2021 describes the owner threatening a customer during a dispute over sloppy work — this is a serious professionalism flag.
• A 1-star review from 2018 describes two consecutive no-shows with no communication — a serious project completion and professionalism flag.
• A 1-star review from 2020 describes a promised estimate that was never delivered after an in-person visit — a project completion and follow-through failure.
• A 1-star review from 2017 describes a technician refusing to do the job and using profane language, followed by the scheduler hanging up on the customer — a serious professionalism flag.
• No strong fake review patterns detected. Most positive reviews include specific names, job types, and personal details, suggesting authenticity. However, the volume of blank or near-blank 5-star reviews (9 total) is mildly suspicious and inflates the raw star average without contributing usable data.
• Review dates span from 2017 to 2025. Negative reviews are distributed across multiple years (2017, 2018, 2020, 2021, 2025), suggesting these are not isolated incidents but a recurring pattern. Most recent reviews (2024–2025) are predominantly positive, which is a mild positive signal for recency.

This WW Score is based on 40 reviews with usable content across all four dimensions and carries HIGH overall confidence; however, the score should be interpreted cautiously given a documented pattern of serious professionalism and reliability failures that appear across multiple years and multiple reviewers.