Find Nearby Plumbers In Waukegan, Illinois

Biagi Plumbing has a strong base of positive reviews spanning over a decade, with recurring praise for punctual, courteous, and skilled plumbers across many jobs including complex sewer repairs, water heater installations, and remodels. Professionalism scores well overall but is meaningfully dragged down by several credible negative reviews citing poor communication, unresponsive office staff, ignored follow-ups, and at least one instance of a technician causing damage and the company refusing accountability. Pricing is generally described as fair and reasonable by most reviewers, but two notable complaints — one alleging a $400 charge for a 30-minute job on an elderly woman and another disputing a $135 charge for a five-minute visit — introduce enough concern to prevent a high pricing score. Project completion is largely positive, with multiple reviewers noting jobs finished on time or early and under budget, but a few reviews describe incomplete follow-through, unresolved callbacks, and one case of damage caused during a job. Experience scores well given repeated mentions of plumbers solving problems others could not, though a small number of reviews describe technicians who were unfamiliar with the task at hand.

• 13 reviews contain no text at all — only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence.
• Two reviews (dated 2019-09-10 and 2020-06-10) contain nearly identical text about finishing 'a day early and well under budget.' This is a likely duplicate review and may indicate a fake or copy-pasted submission. Confidence in those reviews is reduced.
• A cluster of reviews dated exactly '2022-06-10', '2021-06-10', '2020-06-10', and '2019-06-11' with no specific detail suggests possible bulk or incentivized submissions. These were treated with reduced weight.
• One review (2019-02-13) criticizes a driver of a Biagi vehicle for reckless driving — this is not a service review and was excluded from scoring.
• One review (2021-06-10) describes being declined for a quote without explanation — this reflects on responsiveness and professionalism and was counted negatively in the professionalism dimension.
• Several negative reviews are older than 5 years (2014, 2015, 2019) but describe serious issues including property damage, billing disputes sent to collections, and poor workmanship. These were weighted at reduced but non-zero levels given recency rules.
• Most reviews from 2025, 2024, and late 2023 are positive and specific, suggesting recent service quality may be stronger than the historical average. However, the 2024 negative review about dismissed pipe noise concerns and ignored follow-up is recent and credible.

This WW Score is based on a large and diverse review set spanning over a decade, giving it HIGH overall confidence, but the score should be interpreted cautiously given a meaningful minority of credible negative reviews describing billing disputes, property damage, and unresponsive follow-through that are not offset by the volume of generic or blank positive reviews.

Roto-Rooter scores very strongly on professionalism and technician experience, with hundreds of reviews praising individual technicians by name for being courteous, knowledgeable, communicative, and thorough. Project completion is generally solid, with most jobs resolved same-day or within a short timeframe, though a meaningful minority of reviews describe incomplete work, no-shows, broken promises on follow-up visits, and warranty disputes. The most significant drag on the overall WW Score is pricing, which is the single most-complained-about dimension across the entire review set — dozens of reviewers explicitly describe charges as 'outrageous,' 'ridiculous,' 'a scam,' or triple the price of competitors, with specific dollar amounts cited ranging from $315 for 4 minutes of work to $8,700 for a water heater installation. Several reviews also describe deceptive pricing practices, including quotes that changed after work began, failure to disclose service fees upfront, and pressure tactics targeting vulnerable customers including seniors and non-English speakers.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: A significant number of reviews appear to be exact or near-exact duplicates posted on different dates (e.g., multiple identical reviews for 'Gio,' 'Gabriel,' 'Daniel,' 'Gus,' 'Giovanni,' and others). This inflates the apparent review count and may indicate a review solicitation system that caused customers to submit the same review twice, or potential manipulation. Confidence in raw review count is reduced.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Approximately 150-200 reviews contain no text and only a star rating (almost all 5-star). These provide no usable data for any dimension and were excluded from scoring but inflate the total count.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS ARE SEVERE AND SPECIFIC: Negative pricing reviews are not vague — they cite specific dollar amounts, compare to competitor prices, and describe practices such as quoting after work begins, refusing to honor coupons, and charging elderly or non-English-speaking customers without disclosure. This is a systemic pattern, not isolated incidents.
• SCHEDULING AND NO-SHOW COMPLAINTS: Multiple reviews describe technicians failing to arrive within promised windows, no-call-no-shows, and dispatch communication failures. This is a recurring pattern affecting the project completion score.
• WARRANTY DISPUTES: Several reviews describe Roto-Rooter refusing to honor stated warranties, including a 6-month guarantee and a 30-day guarantee, with customers being charged again for the same recurring issue.
• WORK QUALITY FAILURES: A small but notable number of reviews describe active harm caused by technicians — flooding a kitchen, improperly setting a toilet, changing the wrong pipe, leaving sewage handprints, and damaging property with no accountability.
• PREDATORY PRICING PATTERN: Multiple reviews describe technicians quoting extremely high prices and then reducing them when customers push back, suggesting initial quotes are inflated as a negotiating tactic rather than honest pricing.
• RECENCY: All reviews are dated between approximately May 7, 2025 and June 9, 2025 — all within the past 12 months. Recency weighting is fully applied.

This WW Score is based on an exceptionally large review set and carries HIGH overall confidence, but the score should be interpreted with caution given confirmed duplicate reviews inflating volume, a strong and consistent pattern of severe pricing complaints that meaningfully suppresses the score, and documented instances of incomplete work and warranty non-compliance that suggest the positive technician-level experience does not always translate to a satisfactory overall customer outcome.

This aggregated review set spans a very large number of contractors and plumbers operating under similar business names (Affordable Plumbing, Abel/Able Plumbing, Joseph's Affordable Plumbing, and others), making it a mixed-entity dataset rather than a single contractor profile. The majority of reviews are strongly positive, praising responsiveness, punctuality, friendliness, and fair pricing across many individual technicians such as Avi, Noe, Angelo, Bob, Chris, Rigo, and others. However, a meaningful minority of negative reviews — roughly 15 to 20 percent of substantive reviews — describe serious issues including incomplete work, no-shows, dishonest pricing, rude owner behavior, property damage left unaddressed, and failure to honor callbacks or warranties. Pricing feedback is mixed: many reviewers praise affordability and transparency, while a notable number describe hidden charges, inflated quotes, or prices that far exceeded estimates. Project completion is similarly split, with many jobs praised as thorough and timely, but a recurring pattern of abandoned work, repeat visits for the same unresolved issue, and jobs left incomplete dragging the score down significantly.

• MULTI-ENTITY DATASET WARNING: Reviews appear to originate from multiple distinct businesses operating under similar names (e.g., Affordable Plumbing in Tucson AZ, West Hollywood CA, Chicago IL, Georgia, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and others). Scores reflect an aggregate and should not be applied to any single contractor without filtering by location and technician name.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — MODERATE: A subset of reviews, particularly those dated 2017-06-08 through 2017-06-13 and 2018-06-08, share identical or near-identical dates with no review text detail (e.g., 'Excellent workmanship', 'Great job', 'Excellent', 'Very well'). These appear potentially bulk-submitted and have been weighted conservatively.
• NO-TEXT REVIEWS EXCLUDED: Approximately 15 to 20 reviews contained no review text and only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence per scoring rules.
• RECENCY NOTE: Reviews span from approximately 2000 to June 2025. A significant portion of reviews predate 2020 and some predate 2015. Recency weighting was applied, giving greater influence to reviews from 2023 to 2025, which remain largely positive but include several serious complaints.
• NEGATIVE PATTERN — OWNER CONDUCT: Multiple independent negative reviews across different apparent business locations describe the owner or manager as rude, argumentative, or retaliatory toward customers who complained. This is a recurring behavioral flag that reduces confidence in professionalism scores.
• NEGATIVE PATTERN — INCOMPLETE WORK AND NO-SHOWS: Multiple reviews across different time periods describe technicians failing to show up for scheduled appointments without notice, jobs left unfinished, and management refusing to return to correct their own errors. This materially reduces the project completion score.
• NEGATIVE PATTERN — PRICING DISPUTES: Several reviews describe quotes that escalated significantly after work began, charges for work not performed, and refusal to itemize costs. One review describes a quote growing from $75 to $7,000. These are serious red flags for pricing transparency.
• PROPERTY DAMAGE COMPLAINTS: At least three reviews describe property damage caused by technicians (scratched toilet, flooded house, broken shower door) with the company refusing to accept responsibility or make repairs.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large volume of reviews, but LOW entity reliability because the dataset aggregates reviews for multiple distinct businesses operating under similar names across different US cities and states; consumers should treat this score as a general industry benchmark rather than a rating for any single contractor, and must independently verify the specific business and technician before hiring.

The review corpus spans multiple businesses operating under similar or overlapping names (All Around Plumbing, All Counties Plumbing, John's Plumbing), which significantly complicates scoring reliability. Professionalism scores moderately well overall — the majority of reviews praise punctuality, courtesy, and communication — but is substantially dragged down by a recurring and serious pattern of no-shows: multiple independent reviewers across different time periods report technicians failing to appear for scheduled appointments without notice, which is a critical professionalism failure. Pricing is mixed: many reviewers cite fair or reasonable pricing, but several credible negative reviews describe hidden charges, quotes that ballooned dramatically, and one reviewer alleging a $350 estimate fee followed by a quote more than double competitors. Project completion is the most concerning dimension — multiple reviews describe jobs started but never finished, deposits taken with no return, warranty claims ignored for months, and at least one case of a technician causing additional damage and abandoning the site. Experience scores highest among the four dimensions, with many reviewers praising diagnostic skill, technical knowledge, and quality workmanship, though offset by at least two reviews describing incorrect or substandard work requiring remediation.

• MULTIPLE BUSINESS IDENTITY ISSUE: Reviews appear to span at least three distinct businesses — 'All Around Plumbing', 'All Counties Plumbing', and 'John's Plumbing' — with different owners (Karel, Lindell, Philip, Yohendry). Scores may conflate unrelated companies, reducing reliability.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — MODERATE: A significant cluster of reviews dated 2024-06-09 and 2025-05-10 share identical dates with no specific detail, generic praise, and no job description. Several blank reviews (rating only, no text) are present throughout. These patterns are consistent with review padding.
• REPEATED NO-SHOW PATTERN: At least 6 independent reviewers across different years (2020, 2023, 2025) explicitly report technicians failing to appear for scheduled appointments without notification. This is a systemic reliability concern, not isolated incidents.
• ABANDONED WORK / PAYMENT FRAUD PATTERN: Multiple reviews (2020, 2024) describe contractors taking deposits or full payment and never returning to complete work. One review describes a contractor digging a hole, breaking a pipe, and disappearing. One review describes being billed for a job the company never attended.
• WARRANTY DISHONORING: At least one detailed review (2025-01-10) describes All Counties Plumbing refusing to honor a 3-year warranty after 1 year, ignoring calls for 2 months.
• BILLING MISCONDUCT: One detailed 2015 review describes the company attempting to collect a prior owner's debt by changing the name on an invoice, then hanging up on the customer when disputed. Owner never followed up.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent reviews (2025) are predominantly positive, but the negative reviews are distributed across all time periods including 2025, suggesting ongoing issues rather than historical problems that have been resolved.
• 35 reviews contain no text (rating only) and were excluded from dimension scoring but counted in total reviews analyzed.
• SCORE CONFIDENCE CAVEAT: Despite HIGH confidence labels (driven by mention volume), the mixed-entity nature of this review set and the presence of suspected padded reviews mean the WW Score should be interpreted with caution.

This WW Score carries LIMITED practical reliability due to the likely commingling of reviews from multiple distinct businesses, a credible pattern of fake or padded reviews inflating positive sentiment, and serious recurring negative patterns (no-shows, abandoned jobs, billing disputes) that suggest systemic operational failures at one or more of the entities represented in this review set.

Ravinia Plumbing scores well on professionalism and experience in the majority of reviews, with many customers praising courteous, knowledgeable technicians who arrive on time and communicate clearly. However, pricing is a persistent and serious concern across a substantial portion of the review base, with numerous customers reporting quotes that were dramatically higher than competitors, unexpected charges, and billing disputes — pulling the pricing dimension down significantly. Project completion is generally positive but is undermined by several notable failures including incomplete work, unresolved recurring issues, and at least one case where a job required multiple visits without resolution. The duplicate reviews detected (identical text posted on different dates) inflate the apparent volume of positive feedback and reduce overall confidence in the raw review count. When adjusted for these patterns, the WW Score reflects a contractor with genuine strengths in service delivery but a well-documented and recurring pricing integrity problem.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: At least 8 reviews appear to be exact duplicates posted on different dates within days of each other (e.g., 'I have found everyone at Ravinia Plumbing to be honest...' posted 2025-06-09 and 2025-06-06; 'everything went quick' posted 2025-06-09 and 2025-06-06; 'Danny, Dan or Joe did a fantastic job...' posted 2025-06-08 and 2025-06-05; 'James was courteous...' posted 2025-06-08 and 2025-06-05; 'Jeff was a great help...' posted 2025-06-08 and 2025-06-05; 'Great service! Knowledgeable and helpful.' posted 2025-06-08 and 2025-06-05; 'Fast, Quick and professional service.' posted 2025-06-07 and 2025-06-04). This is a strong indicator of review manipulation or system error and significantly inflates positive review counts.
• HIGH VOLUME OF BLANK REVIEWS: Approximately 25+ reviews contain no text whatsoever, only a 5-star rating. These provide no usable data and cannot be scored. Their presence in bulk may artificially inflate the star average.
• PRICING CONCERNS ARE SYSTEMIC AND RECURRING: At least 20+ distinct reviews across multiple years (2013–2023) independently cite excessive pricing, quotes far above competitors, unexpected charges, and billing disputes. This is not isolated — it is a documented pattern.
• INCOMPLETE WORK AND MISDIAGNOSIS PATTERN: Multiple reviews cite jobs left unfinished after multiple visits, misdiagnosis leading to unnecessary replacement recommendations, and at least one case where a competitor fixed the issue for a fraction of Ravinia's quoted price.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews with substantive text are from 2025 and 2024, which is positive. However, the negative pricing and completion reviews span from 2013 through 2023, suggesting these issues have persisted over many years.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW INFLATION: The combination of duplicate reviews, blank 5-star reviews, and a cluster of very recent generic positive reviews warrants caution. The true positive sentiment base may be smaller than the raw count suggests.

This WW Score carries MODERATE-to-HIGH reliability for the professionalism and experience dimensions given the large number of genuine, specific reviews, but the pricing score is highly reliable as a warning signal given the volume and consistency of independent complaints; the overall WW Score should be interpreted cautiously due to confirmed duplicate reviews and a large number of blank ratings that inflate the apparent review count without contributing usable data.

Bob's Plumbing has a strong base of loyal, long-term customers who consistently praise responsiveness, punctuality, and friendly technicians — many reviewers mention using the company for years or decades. However, professionalism is meaningfully dragged down by a recurring and credible pattern of complaints about rude office/receptionist staff, with at least 7 distinct reviews citing dismissive or unprofessional phone interactions. Pricing is the weakest dimension: multiple reviewers with specific detail allege overbilling, undisclosed credit card surcharges, quotes not honored, and charges significantly exceeding estimates — these are not vague complaints but include documented evidence such as Ring doorbell footage and itemized disputes. Project completion scores moderately well, with most jobs described as finished promptly, but there are notable failures including a misdiagnosed water heater issue requiring a second plumber, an abandoned leak, a shower pan installed without proper floor support, and at least one no-show appointment. Experience scores positively overall, with many reviewers praising skilled diagnosis and quality workmanship, though a handful of reviews describe incorrect installations or work that had to be redone.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: The review about a tub drain line leak saving $450 (Mike, Frank) appears verbatim twice with different dates (2024-06-09 and 2023-08-02). The negative water heater review ('Quoted $950, Tech installed without a pan, then told me $1150') also appears verbatim twice with different dates (2024-06-09 and 2024-02-26). The negative water heater misdiagnosis review ('Bob's came out and moved our downstairs Water Heater...') appears verbatim twice (2022-06-10 and 2021-07-06). These duplicates suggest either review platform artifacts or potential manipulation and have been counted only once each for scoring purposes.
• IRRELEVANT REVIEW DETECTED: One 5-star review (2024-06-09) references a 'tea room,' 'cucumber finger sandwiches,' and 'walking the zoo' — this is clearly a review left for the wrong business and was excluded from scoring.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Several reviews contain no text (only a star rating). These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence.
• RECEPTIONIST/OFFICE STAFF COMPLAINTS: At least 7 distinct reviews specifically cite rude, dismissive, or unprofessional behavior from the person answering the phone. This is a consistent and credible pattern that materially lowers the professionalism score.
• PRICING INTEGRITY CONCERNS: Multiple detailed, credible reviews allege overbilling by hours (supported by Ring doorbell footage in one case), quotes not honored (job went from $2,700 to $4,200 in one review; $950 quote became $1,150 in another), undisclosed credit card surcharges, and material prices charged at double retail. These are serious and specific allegations that significantly reduce the pricing score.
• RECENCY NOTE: The review corpus spans from 2014 to 2025. Reviews from 2014–2019 are given reduced weight. The majority of reviews are from 2021 onward. Negative pricing and professionalism complaints are present across multiple recent years (2022–2025), suggesting these are not isolated historical issues.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — LOW-MODERATE: A cluster of reviews dated exactly 2024-06-09 and 2023-06-10 contain very generic, short praise with no specifics ('Great work,' 'amazing love them,' 'Reliable, do good work,' 'Excellent service! You cannot beat it!'). While not conclusive, the identical dates and lack of detail for multiple reviews in these clusters is a mild flag. Confidence is not significantly reduced given the large volume of detailed, specific reviews overall.

This WW Score is based on a large and diverse review set (155 reviews spanning 2014–2025) with HIGH confidence across all four dimensions; however, the score should be interpreted cautiously due to confirmed duplicate reviews, a clearly irrelevant review, a persistent pattern of credible pricing complaints with documented specifics, and recurring office staff professionalism issues that represent a genuine and ongoing operational weakness.