Find Nearby Plumbers In Elgin, Illinois

Ford Plumbing demonstrates strong overall performance across all four dimensions, with particular strength in professionalism and experience. The company excels at punctuality, communication, and technical skill, with 42 mentions of professional conduct and 28 mentions of quality workmanship. Pricing is consistently described as fair and reasonable, though some customers note it is on the higher end of the market. Project completion is reliable with strong follow-through, though a small number of reviews document scheduling cancellations and incomplete callbacks. The WW Score of 81.2 reflects a trustworthy contractor with proven track record, tempered by documented service failures and communication lapses in a minority of cases.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: Two identical reviews about rude driver behavior (van with license plate starting 179) appear on 2023-06-10 and 2022-09-30, suggesting possible duplicate posting or review manipulation.
• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: Two identical reviews about hot water heater quote rejection appear on 2024-09-12 and 2024-08-17, with nearly identical wording and timestamps 26 days apart.
• MULTIPLE EMPTY REVIEWS: 7 reviews contain no text but carry 5-star ratings (dates: 2023-06-10, 2021-06-10 x4, 2020-06-10, 2019-06-11), suggesting possible fake or placeholder entries.
• CONFLICTING NARRATIVES: Multiple 5-star reviews praising John Ford's professionalism and honesty contrast sharply with 1-star reviews documenting rudeness, negligence, and poor customer service from the same owner. This suggests either inconsistent service quality or potential review authenticity issues.
• SERIOUS ALLEGATIONS: One detailed 1-star review (2024-12-11) documents thousands of dollars in damage from shoddy work and negligence with zero accountability. Another (2013-02-06) describes owner rudeness and potential system sabotage accusations. These are not minor complaints.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most high-quality reviews cluster in 2019-2021 and earlier. Recent reviews (2024-2025) show more negative patterns including communication failures and documented damage claims.
• DRIVER CONDUCT ISSUES: Multiple reviews reference unprofessional driver behavior (speeding, cutting off vehicles, rudeness when confronted), suggesting potential company culture or hiring/training gaps.

This WW Score of 81.2 should be treated with MODERATE-to-HIGH caution. While the volume of data is substantial (72 usable reviews) and confidence is HIGH across dimensions, the presence of duplicate reviews, empty 5-star entries, and serious conflicting allegations (documented damage, owner rudeness, communication failures) suggests the review set may contain manipulation or that service quality has degraded in recent years. The contractor demonstrates genuine strengths in technical skill and punctuality but has documented failures in accountability, customer service consistency, and follow-through on callbacks. Recommend requesting references from recent projects (past 12 months) before engaging.

Bill demonstrates strong performance across all four dimensions with consistent praise for reliability, skill, and customer service. All four reviews explicitly commend his professionalism, attitude, and work quality, with particular emphasis on completing complex jobs correctly on the first attempt. Pricing is described as fair, honest, and reasonable across multiple service types. Project completion is exemplary, with customers highlighting emergency availability and thorough follow-through on challenging installations. However, the sample size is small (4 reviews) and all reviews are older than 8 years, which limits confidence in how current this assessment remains.

• All four reviews are dated 2015–2019 (5–9 years old); no recent reviews provided to assess current service quality or any potential changes in business practices
• Small sample size (n=4) limits statistical confidence; scores are based on MODERATE mention counts (3–4 per dimension)
• All reviews are 5-star ratings with uniformly positive language; while not necessarily fake, the absence of any critical feedback or mixed experiences is atypical and should be noted

This WW Score of 89.3 reflects strong historical performance but should be treated with caution due to the small sample size, age of reviews, and lack of recent customer feedback to validate current service standards.

A&T Plumbing has a strong overall track record built on many years of repeat customers, responsive service, and generally praised workmanship across a wide variety of plumbing jobs. Professionalism scores well in the majority of reviews, with named technicians like Logan, Scott, and Leth frequently cited for punctuality, courtesy, and communication — however, one credible review documents a complete failure to follow up on a quote over five days, and a serious allegation of dismissive and unprofessional conduct during a gas leak incident meaningfully pulls the score down. Pricing is generally viewed as fair and reasonable by most reviewers, but one credible complaint of a $1,000 labor charge for a ground-floor water heater install and another alleging double-charging for a problem they caused prevent a higher score. Project completion is the strongest dimension overall, with many reviewers noting jobs finished quickly and correctly, though two paid visits that failed to clear a sewer line and one serious allegation of a gas leak left unresolved for days are significant negative data points that cannot be ignored. Experience scores solidly given the volume of technically complex jobs completed successfully — including concrete jackhammering, tankless heater installs, and sump systems — but the repeated failure to rod a sewer line and the gas leak incident introduce enough doubt to keep the score conservative.

• One review (2023-12-02, 1-star) describes two paid service visits at $300 each that both failed to clear a sewer line — a direct project completion failure that is credible and specific.
• One review (2013-12-26, 1-star) alleges a gas leak caused during installation, denial of responsibility, a charge for an emergency return visit that did not fix the problem, and unprofessional conduct — this is a serious workmanship and professionalism flag. While older, it is specific and detailed enough to carry weight.
• One review (2019-06-11, 1-star) documents a clear responsiveness and professionalism failure — no callback after multiple attempts over five days.
• One review (2019-08-18, 1-star) alleges overcharging: $1,000 in labor and $150 extra for a second person to carry a water heater on the ground floor with no stairs — a credible pricing concern.
• One review (2016-06-11, 5-star) appears to reference a different contractor entirely ('Pierre') and a referral to 'EZ Flow Plumbers' — this review does not appear to be about A&T Plumbing and was excluded from scoring.
• Several reviews dated 2024-06-09 share the exact same date and follow a similar short, generic praise format with no specific details ('Amazing people. Amazing timing. Logan did an amazing job.'). While not conclusive, this cluster warrants mild fake review suspicion and these reviews were weighted conservatively.
• A duplicate review was detected: the sewer backup review praising Leth appears verbatim under both 2021-06-10 and 2020-09-24 — only one instance was counted in scoring.
• One review (2022-06-10) contains no text — only a 5-star rating. This was excluded from dimension scoring as it provides no usable data.
• The majority of reviews are older than 12 months. Only 4 reviews fall within the past 12 months (2025-03-11, 2025-02-09 x2, 2025-01-10), which limits recency confidence. Most of the review base reflects performance from 2019–2024.

This WW Score is based on a reasonably large review set with HIGH mention counts across all four dimensions, but reliability is modestly reduced by several credible negative reviews alleging serious failures, a cluster of suspiciously generic same-date reviews, a duplicate review, one off-topic review, and the fact that only a small fraction of reviews are from the past 12 months.

D&D Plumbing receives strong and consistent praise across professionalism, pricing, and experience, with many reviewers specifically calling out Brian's honesty, punctuality, and technical competence. Pricing is a notable strength — multiple reviewers explicitly cited fair or below-market quotes, including one instance where D&D came in $500 cheaper than a competitor for the same unit. Project completion scores are solid but tempered by one significant negative review describing a recurring drain clog that may indicate incomplete rootings, and a separate 1-star review documenting two full weeks of unanswered calls and texts. The professionalism score is similarly pulled down by the 1-star no-callback incident and a 2-star review where Brian refused to continue service mid-relationship, which — regardless of the underlying cause — reflects a customer service breakdown. Most reviews are from 2015–2017, with only one review from 2021, meaning the data is largely over five years old and may not reflect current business practices.

• RECENCY WARNING: 16 of 17 reviews are from 2015–2017. Only one review (2021) falls within a recent window. This score should not be treated as a reliable indicator of current performance.
• NEGATIVE PATTERN — RESPONSIVENESS: One reviewer (1-star, Aug 2017) reported sending a text and leaving a voicemail over two weeks with zero callback. This is a direct contradiction of the responsiveness praised in other reviews and may indicate inconsistency in handling larger or less desirable jobs.
• NEGATIVE PATTERN — SERVICE REFUSAL: One reviewer (2-star, Feb 2017) described Brian refusing to continue service for a repeat customer based on a perceived attitude from the customer's wife during a phone call. While the reviewer acknowledged uncertainty about fault, this reflects a risk of abrupt service termination and was a significant negative experience for a previously loyal customer.
• WORKMANSHIP CONCERN: The same 2-star reviewer noted that a subsequent plumber suggested the recurring drain clogs may have been caused by use of minimal drill/bit sizes during prior rootings, meaning the job may not have been fully completed. This is unverified but worth noting as a potential quality flag.
• FAKE REVIEW CHECK: No strong indicators of fake reviews detected. Most positive reviews include specific details (names, job types, pricing comparisons, scheduling specifics). Language varies sufficiently across reviews. No suspicious clustering of identical phrasing observed.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to mention volume across all four dimensions, but should be treated with caution given that the overwhelming majority of reviews are more than five years old and two substantive negative reviews reveal meaningful gaps in responsiveness and service consistency.

A&W Plumbing has a strong overall reputation built on a large volume of reviews spanning over a decade, with the majority of customers praising Matt and Steve for responsiveness, technical knowledge, and willingness to go above and beyond — including weekend and same-day service. Professionalism scores are tempered by a meaningful cluster of negative reviews citing no-shows, missed appointments, unreturned calls, a reported instance of the owner yelling at a customer, and at least one allegation of price changes mid-job. Pricing is generally praised as fair and reasonable, but is pulled down by two credible complaints of charges exceeding quoted amounts and one allegation of undisclosed fees. Project completion scores reflect strong follow-through in the majority of cases, but are significantly penalized by multiple reviews describing abandoned jobs, failure to return after initial visits, and one detailed account of work left incomplete. Experience scores are the strongest dimension, with numerous reviewers specifically citing technical skill, problem-solving ability, and deep plumbing knowledge across a wide range of job types.

• Multiple credible 1-star reviews describe serious professionalism failures: no-shows, missed appointments, unreturned calls, and in one case the owner allegedly yelling at and hanging up on a customer (2015 review). These are not isolated incidents and span multiple years.
• At least two reviews (2023 and 2017) describe pricing that exceeded the original quote — one by $800 on a $6,500 job, another involving disputed inspection hour charges. These are specific and credible complaints that reduce confidence in pricing consistency.
• One 2022 review contains a detailed and serious allegation that Matt filed a false report with a home warranty company to avoid returning to a crawl space job. This is a significant integrity concern, though it is a single account and may reflect a disputed situation.
• One 2016 review alleges Matt made no attempt to diagnose a problem, demanded payment for a 5-minute visit, and became agitated. One 2013 review describes Steve arriving without proper equipment and failing to return as promised. These suggest inconsistent service quality across technicians.
• Several reviews from 2013–2016 describe Steve cancelling multiple times or failing to respond to scheduling requests. A 2018 review describes a no-show on a confirmed Saturday appointment followed by the owner dismissing the customer. These patterns suggest recurring scheduling reliability issues in earlier years.
• The review corpus spans from 2009 to 2025. Reviews from 2025 and 2024 are predominantly 5-star and positive, which may reflect genuine improvement over time or selection bias. The negative reviews are concentrated in 2013–2018, with a few in 2022–2023. Recency weighting favors the current score but the historical pattern warrants acknowledgment.
• Several reviews mention both Matt and Steve as separate individuals, and some reference additional crew members (Israel, Glen, Kevin). This is a multi-person operation, and quality and professionalism appear to vary by technician. Scores reflect the aggregate across all personnel.
• No strong fake review pattern detected. Reviews contain specific job details, named individuals, varied writing styles, and include a realistic distribution of negative feedback. The review set appears largely authentic.

This WW Score is based on a large and diverse review set spanning 16 years with HIGH confidence across all four dimensions, but should be interpreted with caution given a documented pattern of scheduling failures, at least two credible pricing disputes, and one serious integrity allegation — the score reflects a genuinely mixed track record rather than a uniformly excellent one.

Friendly Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism with consistently friendly, courteous technicians and responsive communication (82.5/100). Pricing is generally fair and competitive, though some customers report higher-than-expected costs and occasional billing issues (76.0/100). Project completion shows mixed results—many jobs are finished promptly and thoroughly, but a significant minority of reviews cite incomplete work, no-shows, and follow-up failures (75.8/100). Technical expertise is solid with knowledgeable plumbers who diagnose problems well, though a few reviews mention misdiagnosis or inability to solve complex issues (80.2/100). The company excels at customer service but struggles with operational consistency and accountability.

• PATTERN DETECTED: Multiple reviews (15+) cite no-shows, ghosting, or failure to follow up despite confirmed appointments. This is a systemic operational issue, not isolated incidents.
• PATTERN DETECTED: Several reviews (8+) report significant price discrepancies between initial quotes and final bills, or aggressive upselling tactics. Some customers report being overcharged by $500-$1500+ on single jobs.
• PATTERN DETECTED: Receptionist/office staff rudeness mentioned in 6+ reviews. Complaints include rude phone manner, hanging up on customers, and dismissive attitudes.
• PATTERN DETECTED: Incomplete work requiring callbacks mentioned in 12+ reviews. Some customers report paying multiple times for the same issue without resolution.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most recent reviews (2024-2025) show higher frequency of no-shows and communication failures compared to older reviews, suggesting operational decline.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK - MODERATE: Approximately 40-50 reviews appear suspiciously generic with identical phrasing ('friendly,' 'professional,' 'reasonable price') and minimal detail. However, these are balanced by highly detailed negative reviews with specific complaints, reducing overall fake review confidence.
• INCONSISTENCY FLAG: Same company name appears to operate in multiple geographic regions (Reno, Denver, Bay Area, Illinois, etc.) with vastly different quality levels. Reviews suggest different management/ownership across locations.
• QUALITY VARIANCE: Individual technician quality varies dramatically. Named technicians (Charles, Michael, Carlos, Manuel, Josh, Edward) receive consistent 5-star praise, while unnamed or different technicians receive 1-star complaints for same company.

This WW Score of 78.2 should be treated with CAUTION. While the company demonstrates genuine strengths in professionalism and technical knowledge, the high frequency of no-shows, incomplete work, and billing disputes in recent reviews (particularly 2024-2025) indicates serious operational problems that offset positive attributes. The score reflects historical performance across multiple locations and technicians; individual customer experience will vary significantly depending on which technician is assigned and which location serves them. Customers should obtain written quotes, confirm appointments 24 hours prior, and request specific experienced technicians by name to maximize likelihood of positive outcomes.