Find Nearby Plumbers In Boulder Hill, Illinois

Good Call Plumbing demonstrates strong overall performance across all measured dimensions. Professionalism is a clear strength, with 89 mentions highlighting punctuality, friendly demeanor, communication, and respectful conduct. Project completion is consistently reliable with 72 mentions of timely work, follow-through, and callbacks honored. Experience and technical skill are well-documented across 58 mentions, with customers praising problem-solving ability and workmanship quality. Pricing is the weakest dimension (76.0) with 28 mentions; while many customers praise fair and reasonable rates, a notable minority report high labor charges ($180-$750/hour) and lack of transparent upfront estimates, creating inconsistency in value perception.

• Three duplicate negative reviews detected (identical text about 2-week wait, $180 service call, missing quote) dated 2024-06-09 and 2023-10-24, suggesting possible review manipulation or systematic issue that was repeated.
• Multiple empty/minimal reviews ("unknown", "Super great", "It went well") totaling ~15 instances, which provide no substantive data but are counted as 5-star ratings, potentially inflating overall scores.
• Pricing dimension shows high variability: some customers report $180-$200 service calls and $750/hour labor as excessive, while others praise 'reasonable' and 'fair' pricing for identical service types, indicating either inconsistent pricing practices or different customer expectations.
• Two reviews (2021-06-08 and 2021-03-30) describe situations where customers felt misled or overcharged: one regarding unnecessary RO tank replacement ($830 quote), another regarding $350 labor for 30-minute garbage disposal install ($750/hour rate). These suggest occasional lapses in transparency or sales practices.
• Recency note: Majority of detailed, substantive reviews are from 2017-2022; recent reviews (2025, 2024) are shorter and less detailed, making recent performance harder to assess comprehensively.
• One review (2014-06-19) describes significant incompetence in sump pump installation and failure to inspect pit properly, resulting in pump failures and customer frustration, though this is isolated and from 2014.

This WW Score of 84.2 is highly reliable for assessing professionalism, project completion, and experience (all HIGH confidence with 58+ mentions each), but pricing assessment carries moderate confidence due to only 28 mentions and conflicting customer perceptions about value. The company demonstrates consistent excellence in service delivery and technical skill, though pricing transparency and consistency remain areas of concern. Customers should request detailed written estimates upfront to avoid surprises.

Michels Plumbing earns strong marks across professionalism, project completion, and experience, with dozens of reviewers explicitly praising punctuality, responsiveness, courteous technicians, and high-quality workmanship across a wide variety of jobs spanning many years. The most consistent drag on the overall score is pricing: a notable and recurring thread across multiple independent reviews — spanning from 2008 through 2025 — describes the company as expensive or pricey, with two negative reviews specifically citing billing concerns including a charge perceived as excessive and a complaint about nickel-and-diming without a written estimate. Project completion is generally strong, though one negative review alleged a technician caused electrical damage and concealed it, and another cited poor follow-through on a customer complaint letter. The long tenure of the business and repeat-customer loyalty across 10–20+ year relationships lend credibility to the positive signals, but the pricing dimension meaningfully suppresses the WW Score.

• 10 reviews contain no text whatsoever (blank or single-punctuation entries) and were excluded from dimension scoring; their star ratings were noted but provide no usable qualitative data.
• Several reviews use very similar phrasing around outdoor hose bib replacement and Bryan/Bryan's name — two reviews (April 2024 and June 2024) appear nearly identical in content and structure, describing the same job type, same technician, and same inline turnoff recommendation. These may represent duplicate or coached reviews and were treated with caution.
• The review corpus spans 2007–2025, meaning a significant portion of reviews are more than 5 years old. Recency weighting was applied; reviews from 2024–2025 were given higher weight in scoring.
• One 1-star review (January 2020) alleges a technician caused electrical damage and concealed it from the customer, and that management (Matt) took no ownership. This is a serious workmanship and customer service flag.
• One 1-star review (May 2019) warns explicitly to get a written estimate due to unexpected charges. One 1-star review (March 2013) describes a $131 charge for under 10 minutes of work as excessive. These pricing complaints are independent and span multiple years, lending credibility to the pricing concern.
• One 1-star review (June 2014) describes a technician scratching a sink, removing an old faucet without permission, and the company ignoring a written complaint letter — a customer service and accountability concern.
• One 1-star review (June 2016) cites a rude interaction regarding a billing policy change, though this is an isolated complaint about policy rather than workmanship.

This WW Score is based on a large, multi-year review set with HIGH confidence across all four dimensions, making it statistically reliable; however, the recurring independent pricing complaints and at least one serious workmanship-concealment allegation introduce meaningful uncertainty, and prospective customers should request written estimates and verify current practices before engaging.

Copper Sky Plumbing earns strong marks across professionalism, project completion, and experience, with numerous reviewers citing punctuality, friendly communication, efficient work, and quality outcomes across a wide range of plumbing jobs. The pricing dimension is the most notable drag on the overall score: while many reviewers praised fair or reasonable pricing, one significant 1-star review from September 2024 describes a bait-and-switch situation where a quoted price of $325 was raised to $900 upon arrival, and a separate reviewer noted unexpected additional costs of $350. These pricing concerns meaningfully reduce confidence in pricing consistency and transparency. The majority of reviews are positive and span multiple years, suggesting a generally reliable contractor, but the recent pricing complaint is a red flag that prospective customers should be aware of.

• PRICING CONCERN: One reviewer (2024-09-23) explicitly describes a quote-to-invoice price increase from $325 to $900 — a 177% markup — which is a serious transparency and trust issue.
• ADDITIONAL COST CONCERN: A second reviewer (2024-04-29) noted unexpected additional charges of $350 beyond the original scope, suggesting a pattern of scope/price expansion after arrival.
• GENERIC REVIEW PATTERN: Several reviews contain very short, non-specific praise ('Great job well done', 'Great, no issues.', 'Great work and timely service.') with no detail. While not conclusive, this pattern warrants mild caution.
• RECENCY NOTE: The two most critical reviews are among the most recent (2024), which is weighted more heavily. The bulk of highly positive reviews are from 2020-2023, meaning recent performance may be declining.
• CLUSTER NOTE: Multiple 5-star reviews were posted on the same dates (e.g., 2020-09-15 has 4 reviews, 2023-02-03 has 2 reviews, 2024-03-26 has 2 reviews). This could reflect legitimate satisfied customers or coordinated review activity — treat with mild caution.

This WW Score is based on 30 reviews with broad dimensional coverage and HIGH confidence across all four dimensions, but the score should be interpreted cautiously given a recent and specific pricing complaint that suggests potential inconsistency in how quotes are honored.

R.A. Plumbing & Mechanical earns strong marks across all four dimensions, driven by consistent praise for responsiveness, next-day availability, and technically competent installations — particularly of water heaters. Pricing is generally described as fair and transparent, with multiple reviewers noting upfront flat-rate quotes and no surprise charges. Project completion is a clear strength, with jobs routinely finished on time and within estimate, and several reviewers noting bonus fixes performed without being asked. However, one detailed 1-star review from 2019 meaningfully drags scores down, describing a no-show, an unprepared technician, an aggravated demeanor, and a failure to ever deliver the promised estimate — touching every dimension negatively. Scores are held conservative to reflect this outlier and the fact that several positive reviews lack specific detail.

• One significant 1-star review (2019-08-19) describes a no-show, arriving without proper tools, unprofessional attitude, and failure to deliver a promised estimate — this is a serious multi-dimension flag and has been weighted accordingly.
• The majority of positive reviews are from 2020–2023, with only two reviews from 2021 and earlier beyond the negative one, suggesting the business may have improved over time but the negative review is now over 5 years old.
• Several positive reviews are somewhat generic in phrasing ('very professional,' 'highly recommend,' 'great experience') with limited specifics, which slightly reduces confidence in those individual data points. However, enough reviews contain specific details (named technicians, described work, timelines) to avoid a fake review flag.
• All positive reviews are 5-star with no 2, 3, or 4-star reviews present, which is a mild pattern worth noting. The single 1-star review is the only deviation, which is a somewhat typical distribution for a small contractor but warrants awareness.
• Most reviews reference the same two or three technicians (Kevin, John, Rob), which is consistent with a small operation and does not suggest fabrication, but limits the breadth of performance data.

This WW Score is moderately reliable — the volume of reviews is sufficient and most contain specific, credible detail, but the all-or-nothing rating distribution and one serious negative review introduce enough uncertainty that prospective customers should read individual reviews carefully before hiring.

Fixer demonstrates strong professionalism with punctual arrivals, courteous staff, and responsive communication systems. However, the company is significantly hampered by persistent project completion issues—incomplete work, follow-up failures, and callbacks not honored—and pricing concerns, with customers frequently reporting unexpected charges, hourly rate overages, and billing for failed service attempts. Experience quality is inconsistent; while many technicians demonstrate solid workmanship, a notable subset lack specialized skills, proper equipment, and problem-solving ability, particularly for plumbing and electrical work. The 72.8 WW Score reflects a company that excels at booking and initial interaction but struggles with execution and accountability.

• CRITICAL: Strong pattern of incomplete work and failed follow-up. Multiple reviews (at least 8-10) report jobs left unfinished, technicians unable to complete tasks, or promised callbacks never occurring. This is a systemic issue, not isolated incidents.
• CRITICAL: Billing for failed service calls is a recurring complaint. At least 6 reviews explicitly mention being charged $129-$159 for visits where no work was completed or the technician determined the job was out of scope. This appears to be standard practice.
• CRITICAL: Plumbing and electrical work quality is poor. Multiple reviews report code violations, improper installations, leaks created by technicians, and damage to customer property. Customers explicitly warn against using Fixer for specialized trades.
• MODERATE: Pricing transparency issues. Customers report being quoted 3-4 hours and charged for 6-8 hours; hourly shopping charges applied retroactively; double-charging when two technicians sent; and no phone communication available to clarify estimates before work begins.
• MODERATE: Scheduling reliability has deteriorated. Multiple recent reviews (2023-2024) report cancelled appointments with minimal notice, rescheduling via automated text only, and inability to reach live customer service.
• MODERATE: Lack of accountability for damage. At least 3 reviews report technicians damaging customer property (broken sinks, damaged cabinets, damaged doors) with Fixer refusing responsibility or offering minimal compensation.
• LIMITED: Possible fake review pattern detected. All reviews dated 2024-06-08 (15 reviews) are 5-star with generic praise and no specifics. This clustering is suspicious and suggests potential review manipulation. However, older reviews (2017-2023) show more balanced distribution and detailed feedback, suggesting this may be a recent practice rather than systemic.
• RECENCY NOTE: Most reviews are from 2021-2024, with significant volume from 2023-2024. Recent reviews (past 12 months) show more negative patterns around scheduling, billing, and incomplete work compared to 2017-2020 reviews, suggesting service quality has declined.

This WW Score of 72.8 should be treated with caution. While based on 150 reviews with HIGH confidence in dimension scoring, the company exhibits a clear bifurcation: excellent at scheduling/communication but poor at execution and accountability. The suspicious clustering of 15 identical 5-star reviews on 2024-06-08 reduces confidence in recent positive feedback. Customers should expect professional initial contact but should be prepared for incomplete work, unexpected charges, and difficulty obtaining refunds or follow-up service. This score is most reliable for predicting booking experience; it is least reliable for predicting actual job completion or final cost.

First Response Plumbing demonstrates strong technical expertise and professionalism in customer interactions, with most technicians (Eddie, Paul, Will, Aaron, Shah) receiving consistent praise for knowledge, politeness, and efficiency. However, the company is significantly undermined by serious pricing concerns—multiple customers report dramatic overcharges, upselling, and price gouging (e.g., $750 for 1.5 hours of simple PVC work, $435 to snake a toilet, $4,500 estimate later proven unnecessary). Project completion reliability is inconsistent, with numerous reports of missed appointments, no-shows, poor communication, and incomplete follow-through, particularly when dealing with home warranty companies. Recent reviews (2025) show improvement in consistency, but older and mid-range reviews reveal systemic operational failures including ghosting, non-responsive management, and abandoned jobs.

• PRICING RED FLAG: Multiple independent complaints of significant overcharging and price gouging across different time periods (2016-2024). Customers report quotes that are 3-10x higher than competitors for identical work. This pattern is too consistent to ignore and suggests systemic pricing practices rather than isolated incidents.
• PROJECT COMPLETION CONCERNS: Substantial number of reviews (15+) document missed appointments, no-shows, poor communication, and incomplete work. Complaints span from 2013-2024, indicating chronic operational issues. Many customers report having to call repeatedly to get technicians to show up or follow through.
• MANAGEMENT/OWNERSHIP ISSUES: Multiple reviews cite unprofessional behavior from owner 'John' or 'Joey,' including poor communication, rudeness to customers (particularly women), threats, and financial disputes. Several reviews describe fraudulent behavior including false claims about work needed and non-refunded deposits.
• FAKE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: Reviews from 2025-03-11 through 2025-05-10 show suspicious clustering with nearly identical phrasing patterns ('Eddie/Eddy was amazing/fantastic/professional,' 'explained everything,' 'very friendly'). Multiple reviews mention same technicians (Eddie, Will, Shah) with generic praise and minimal specific details. This concentration of 5-star reviews with repetitive language suggests possible review manipulation or incentivized reviews.
• RECENCY BIAS: Most recent reviews (2025) are overwhelmingly positive, contrasting sharply with 2023-2024 reviews which contain serious complaints about fraud, theft, and non-completion. This dramatic shift warrants skepticism about recent review authenticity.
• WARRANTY COMPANY ISSUES: Multiple customers report being assigned First Response through home warranty companies and experiencing poor service, missed appointments, and communication failures. This suggests systemic problems when operating under warranty constraints.
• QUALITY CONTROL VARIANCE: Significant inconsistency in technician quality and professionalism. Some technicians (Paul, Eddie, Aaron, Will) receive consistent 5-star praise; others are associated with poor workmanship, incomplete jobs, and unprofessional behavior.

This WW Score of 72.8 should be treated with MODERATE-TO-HIGH caution due to suspected review manipulation in the most recent batch (2025), which artificially inflates the overall score. The company demonstrates genuine technical competence and professionalism from select technicians, but is severely compromised by documented pricing practices that appear predatory, chronic project completion failures, and serious management/ownership conduct issues. Historical reviews (2016-2024) are more reliable than recent reviews. Customers should independently verify pricing, request detailed written estimates, and consider the company's poor communication track record before engaging.