Find Nearby Plumbers In Cicero, Illinois

Both reviews are positive and describe completed jobs, with one review specifically noting the crew used two rodders and continued working to ensure full clearance — a modest signal of technical diligence. Professionalism is mentioned in both reviews, with one explicitly calling the team 'polite and professional' and noting a 25-minute response time. Pricing is referenced in only one review, with the phrase 'didn't charge an arm and a leg' suggesting fair but unspecified pricing. All dimension scores are held conservative due to the very small sample size and the age of both reviews, which are from early 2015 — nearly a decade old.

• Only 2 reviews provided — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Both reviews are dated from January–February 2015, making them approximately 9–10 years old. These reviews carry very low recency weight and may not reflect current service quality.
• Review 2 contains informal, misspelled language which could indicate an authentic but unsophisticated reviewer, or could suggest a non-standard submission. No fake review pattern is confirmed, but specificity is low.
• Neither review provides detail on pricing figures, timelines promised vs. delivered, or workmanship outcomes beyond task completion — limiting scoring confidence across all dimensions.

This WW Score report is based on only 2 reviews, both over 9 years old, making it insufficient to reliably assess current contractor quality — treat all dimension scores as low-confidence indicators only.

Insufficient data to calculate a reliable WW Score. Only 2 reviews were analyzed, falling below the minimum threshold of 3 reviews required for trustworthy scoring. The reviews present extreme polarity: one 1-star complaint about pricing ($350 for 15 minutes of work) and one 5-star endorsement praising competence, respect, and fair pricing practices over 7-8 years. Each dimension is mentioned in only 1 review, resulting in LIMITED confidence across all categories. The contradictory pricing assessments and minimal mention counts prevent reliable aggregation.

• INSUFFICIENT SAMPLE SIZE: Only 2 reviews analyzed; minimum 3 required for reliable WW Score calculation
• EXTREME POLARITY: Reviews are contradictory (1-star vs 5-star) with opposite pricing assessments, suggesting either highly variable service or context-dependent experiences
• RECENCY CONCERN: Both reviews are from 2014-2015 (9+ years old); no recent data available to assess current service quality
• SINGLE-MENTION DIMENSIONS: All four dimensions mentioned in only 1 review each, resulting in LIMITED confidence across the board

This analysis cannot produce a reliable WW Score due to insufficient review volume (2 reviews, minimum 3 required) and extreme age of data (9+ years). Any score calculated would be statistically unreliable and should not be used for decision-making.

The review pool is extremely small at only 2 reviews, making any score statistically unreliable. The detailed 1-star review from 2024 is deeply alarming, describing alleged fraud, deposit theft, bribery of a city inspector, threats against a customer's business, and repeated dishonesty — all of which catastrophically drag down Professionalism, Pricing, and Project Completion scores. The single 5-star review from 2020 is vague, generic, and contains no specific details, raising serious authenticity concerns. Even if taken at face value, it is over four years old and is vastly outweighed by the severity and specificity of the 2024 complaint. No workmanship or technical skill was described in either review, so Experience cannot be scored.

• SUSPECTED FAKE OR UNRELIABLE REVIEW: The 5-star review ('Very Professional and Friendly. Competitive prices. I called Cesar that day and he came out right away.') is extremely generic, contains no specific details about the work performed, and follows a pattern commonly associated with inauthentic reviews. Confidence in this review is very low.
• RECENCY IMBALANCE: The only positive review is from June 2020 — over 4 years old. The most recent review (May 2024) is a detailed 1-star complaint. Per Rule 6, the 2024 review carries significantly more weight.
• SERIOUS MISCONDUCT ALLEGED: The 2024 reviewer alleges Cesar Abarca accepted a $9,750 deposit under false pretenses, never filed permits as claimed, refused to issue a refund after verbally agreeing to do so, attempted to bribe a city inspector, and threatened a customer's unrelated business to suppress a complaint. These are not service quality issues — they are potential criminal and civil violations.
• LEGAL AND REGULATORY ACTION REPORTED: The 2024 reviewer states they have filed complaints with the Better Business Bureau, the City of Chicago, and the State of Illinois. This significantly elevates the severity of the flag.
• INSUFFICIENT REVIEW COUNT: With only 2 reviews total, no statistically reliable WW Score can be produced. A minimum of 3 reviews is required per scoring rules.

This score report should be treated as extremely low reliability — only 2 reviews exist, the positive review is 4+ years old and suspiciously generic, and the sole recent review describes serious alleged fraud and misconduct that has been reported to multiple regulatory bodies.

The two available reviews present a sharply divided picture of Romano Plumbing. The 2021 review is strongly positive, praising responsiveness, punctuality, fair pricing, professional workmanship, and 20+ years of experience. However, the 2014 review is a serious negative account describing the owner as rude, condescending, and unprofessional — including an unannounced nighttime visit and a two-month delay on a promised installation. Professionalism and project completion scores are heavily penalized due to the severity of the negative review's claims. With only two reviews spanning seven years, no reliable WW Score can be calculated.

• Only 2 reviews total — insufficient data to calculate a reliable WW Score per scoring rules.
• The two reviews are approximately 7 years apart (2014 and 2021), making it difficult to assess current and consistent performance trends.
• The negative review raises serious safety and conduct concerns, including an unannounced nighttime visit to a tenant's home and a significant scheduling failure (2-month delay on a promised installation). These are not minor complaints and should be weighted seriously.
• With only one positive and one negative review, scores for all dimensions carry very low confidence and should not be used as a reliable basis for hiring decisions.

This score report is based on only 2 reviews and should be considered highly unreliable — prospective customers are strongly advised to seek additional references or more recent reviews before making a hiring decision.

Only one review contained usable data, making any scoring highly tentative. That single review describes a severely failed wall-hung toilet installation where the contractor misrepresented his experience, failed to resolve a recurring leak across multiple callbacks, and ultimately had to be replaced by another plumber who corrected the job in one hour. Professionalism scores low because the contractor falsely claimed competence on the phone and failed to diagnose the root cause across multiple visits. Project completion scores near the floor because the job was never successfully finished by this contractor. Experience scores near the floor because the reviewer explicitly concluded the contractor had no knowledge of wall-hung toilet installation and used incorrect components. Pricing could not be assessed as no review mentioned cost.

• Only 2 reviews total — far below the minimum threshold for a reliable WW Score.
• One review (Rating: 5.0, Date: 2014-12-18) contains only the text 'unknown' and provides zero usable information. It was excluded from all dimension scoring.
• The sole usable review is from 2015, making it approximately 9–10 years old. It should be treated as significantly outdated and not representative of current performance.
• With only one usable review, all dimension scores carry extremely low evidentiary weight and should not be used to make hiring decisions.

This score report is not reliable — only one usable review exists, it is nearly a decade old, and the second review contains no meaningful content; no hiring decision should be based on this data alone.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 1 review was analyzed, which falls below the minimum threshold of 3 reviews required for a trustworthy WW Score calculation. The single review mentions professionalism (knowledgeable, answered questions, explained process), pricing (great prices), and experience (knowledgeable), but project completion is not addressed. With only one data point, confidence in any dimension is severely limited.

• Only 1 review available — minimum 3 reviews required for reliable scoring
• Review is generic with no specific project details or outcomes mentioned
• No mention of project completion, timeliness, or follow-through
• Cannot assess reliability of contractor based on single review

This score cannot be calculated reliably with only 1 review. A minimum of 3 reviews is required to produce a trustworthy WW Score.