Find Nearby Plumbers In Waukegan, Illinois

Palmer Plumbing earns strong marks for professionalism, with numerous reviewers citing punctuality, cleanliness, friendly attitudes, and responsive communication across many years of reviews. Experience and technical skill are consistently praised, including a notable instance where Palmer correctly diagnosed an issue three other plumbers could not, and city inspectors reportedly vouched for their workmanship quality. Project completion is generally positive, with jobs described as thorough and meticulous, though one serious negative review alleges that Palmer's work directly caused basement flooding, which meaningfully tempers the completion score. Pricing is the weakest dimension: while several reviewers describe rates as reasonable or competitive, one recent 2024 review explicitly calls pricing steep and overpriced compared to local alternatives, and a 2017 reviewer acknowledged the company is 'not cheap.' The WW Score is moderated by the age of most reviews — the majority predate 2022 — and one significant negative experience involving alleged property damage.

• RECENCY WARNING: The majority of reviews are older than 2 years, with most clustered between 2013 and 2021. Only 2 reviews are from the past 12 months (2023–2024). Current performance may differ from what the score reflects.
• SERIOUS NEGATIVE FLAG: One review (2016) alleges Palmer's work directly caused major basement flooding and accuses the company of dishonesty. This is a significant workmanship and integrity concern that is not offset by the volume of positive reviews.
• TWO REVIEWS MARKED 'UNKNOWN': Two reviews contain no usable text and were excluded from dimension scoring. They were counted in total reviews but not in reviews with usable data.
• FAKE REVIEW AWARENESS: No strong patterns of fake reviews detected. Most positive reviews include specific details, named individuals, and varied language. However, the high concentration of 5-star ratings with no middle-ground scores (3–4 stars) is a mild flag worth noting.
• PRICING TENSION: The most recent pricing-related review (2024) is negative and rates the company 2 stars specifically over cost. Earlier reviews describe pricing as reasonable. This divergence may indicate pricing has increased over time.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability: the volume of reviews is modest, most data is more than two years old, and one serious negative review involving alleged property damage introduces meaningful uncertainty about project completion quality.

KM Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism with consistent mentions of punctuality, responsiveness, and courteous behavior across 13 reviews. Technical expertise is well-documented with 8 mentions of quality workmanship and problem-solving ability. Pricing is fairly represented as reasonable and fair across 5 reviews. However, project completion is a significant concern: 2 explicit negative reviews cite incomplete work, non-responsiveness to callbacks, and no-show appointments without communication—critical failures in follow-through that substantially lower the overall score despite predominantly positive ratings.

• FAKE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: 14 of 20 reviews (70%) use nearly identical generic praise language ('excellent,' 'professional,' 'highly recommend,' 'would use again') with minimal specific detail about actual work performed. Multiple reviews lack dates and show suspiciously similar phrasing.
• CRITICAL RELIABILITY ISSUE: Two 1-star reviews explicitly document serious failures (incomplete work + non-responsiveness; no-show + unprofessional behavior) that directly contradict the overwhelmingly positive generic reviews. This stark polarity suggests potential review manipulation or fake positive reviews masking real service problems.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Only 2 reviews have verifiable dates (both 2025-05-26); 18 reviews lack dates, making it impossible to assess recency bias or whether negative reviews are recent.
• PROJECT COMPLETION RED FLAG: Negative reviews specifically mention abandoned work, missing parts, and failure to respond to correction requests—these are severe issues that should weigh heavily despite being outnumbered by generic praise.

This score should be treated with CAUTION. While the numerical WW Score of 78.2 appears moderate, the underlying data quality is compromised by a high concentration of generic, undated positive reviews that may be fabricated, combined with two credible negative reviews documenting serious service failures (incomplete work, no-shows, non-responsiveness). The true performance level is likely lower than the score suggests; potential customers should prioritize the specific negative feedback about project completion and communication over the generic praise.

Illinois Sewer and Drain demonstrates strong professionalism, project completion, and technical expertise across most reviews, with consistently praised responsiveness, friendliness, and quality workmanship. However, pricing is a significant concern, with multiple customers reporting overcharges, unnecessary upsells, and aggressive sales tactics (re-piping work, inflated sump pump costs, false diagnoses to justify expensive repairs). While 12 of 16 reviews are highly positive and recent (2022-2024), the 4 negative reviews reveal a pattern of questionable pricing practices and occasional poor judgment by specific technicians (notably Darrin), suggesting inconsistent service quality depending on which team member is assigned.

• PRICING PATTERN DETECTED: Multiple independent reviews (Oct 2023, Aug 2023, May 2023) report overcharging, unnecessary upsells, and aggressive sales tactics. One customer was charged $500 for re-piping work that a second plumber deemed unnecessary and actually reverted. Another was overcharged $7,000 for a sump pump installation. A third was quoted $3,300 for pipe repair that a competing plumber resolved with a $500 hydroblast.
• TECHNICIAN INCONSISTENCY: Darrin appears in both a highly positive review (Sept 2022 - sump pump replacement) and a highly negative review (Oct 2023 - defensive behavior, refused to diagnose root cause, attempted upsell). This suggests either inconsistent performance or context-dependent behavior.
• DIAGNOSTIC INTEGRITY CONCERNS: Multiple reviews describe misdiagnosis or incomplete diagnosis (Oct 2023 review: Darrin failed to identify that the pump was working; May 2023 review: false claim of broken pipe; Feb 2023 review: another company wrongfully diagnosed the issue). This raises questions about diagnostic reliability.
• REVIEW RECENCY BIAS: 12 of 16 reviews are from 2022-2024, with the most damaging reviews from mid-2023 and earlier. The most recent reviews (July 2024, Nov 2023) are positive, but the pattern of pricing complaints is consistent across 2023.
• POSITIVE REVIEW AUTHENTICITY: One review (May 2023 by 'Sheri G') is extremely lengthy, uses excessive capitalization and punctuation, contains religious references, and reads as overly promotional. While not necessarily fake, it stands out as unusually effusive compared to other positive reviews and may reflect strong personal bias rather than objective assessment.

This score should be treated with MODERATE confidence. While the company demonstrates genuine strengths in responsiveness, professionalism, and technical skill (supported by 12 positive reviews), the consistent pattern of pricing complaints across multiple independent customers in 2023 is a serious red flag that cannot be ignored. The WW Score of 74.8 reflects this tension: strong operational performance undermined by apparent pricing practices that exploit customer vulnerability. Customers should obtain multiple quotes and be cautious of upsells, particularly for major work like re-piping or pump replacement.

Boston Plumbing receives consistently strong praise across professionalism, pricing, and responsiveness from the majority of reviewers, with multiple customers highlighting prompt arrival, courteous behavior, and fair pricing relative to competitors. However, the score is meaningfully dragged down by one highly detailed and serious 1-star review describing an incomplete job, a negligent decision to reinstall a non-functioning sump pump, a resulting $20,000 flood, and an initial denial of the insurance claim — a significant project completion failure. That negative review is corroborated by specific, verifiable details (ComEd records, insurance proceedings) and carries substantial weight against the otherwise positive pattern. Project completion scores lower than other dimensions specifically because of this documented failure. The majority of positive reviews are older than 12 months, with only one review from the past 12 months, which limits confidence in the current state of the business.

• One highly detailed 1-star review (2015) describes a serious project completion failure: incomplete work, installation of a known non-functioning sump pump, a $20,000 basement flood, and an initial fraudulent insurance denial. This review contains specific verifiable evidence and significantly impacts the project completion score.
• The majority of reviews (9 out of 11) are older than 3 years, and only 1 review is from the past 12 months (2023). The score may not reflect current business performance.
• Several positive reviews are brief and generic (e.g., 'Very pleased with them!', 'Dan and the crew are EXCELLENT!') with limited specifics, which slightly reduces confidence in those individual data points. However, enough reviews contain specific details to avoid a fake review flag overall.
• The single most recent review (2023) is positive and specific, which is a mild positive signal for current operations, but one data point is insufficient to confirm sustained improvement.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability: the volume of reviews is low (11 total), most are over 3 years old, and one serious documented incident of negligence and dishonesty materially affects the project completion dimension — consumers should weigh that incident carefully before hiring.

VJ Killian demonstrates strong professionalism and technical expertise across recent reviews, with technicians consistently praised for politeness, punctuality, and problem-solving ability. However, pricing remains a significant weakness, with multiple customers explicitly citing excessive costs and unfair charges. Project completion is generally solid, though older reviews reveal serious issues with follow-up work and incomplete service. The company shows a stark performance divide: recent reviews (2024-2025) are overwhelmingly positive, while older reviews (2011-2020) contain damaging complaints about poor communication, incomplete work, and customer service failures.

• RECENCY BIAS DETECTED: 35 of 51 reviews are from 2025 (past 6 months), while 8 negative reviews span 2011-2020. Recent reviews are predominantly 5-star with minimal detail, suggesting possible selection bias or review filtering.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS CONSISTENT: Multiple independent reviews cite excessive pricing ($500 for washer replacement, $239 for filter replacement, $450 for water damage incident, $184 for 3-minute fix). This is not isolated and reflects systemic pricing concerns.
• QUALITY INCONSISTENCY: Older reviews (2011-2020) describe serious failures: incomplete work, poor follow-up, rude behavior, and water damage. Recent reviews show improvement but lack specificity.
• GENERIC PRAISE PATTERN: Many recent 5-star reviews contain minimal detail ('Al good', 'He was great', 'Excellent', empty text fields). While not necessarily fake, this limits confidence in depth of feedback.
• EMPTY REVIEWS: 6 reviews contain no text, only 5-star ratings. These provide no actionable data.
• CUSTOMER SERVICE COMPLAINTS: Multiple older reviews cite poor communication, missed appointments, and unresponsiveness to callbacks—suggesting systemic operational issues that may persist despite recent positive reviews.

This score should be treated with caution due to significant recency bias and a stark divide between recent (highly positive) and older (highly negative) reviews. The WW Score of 72.8 reflects recent performance, but the company's historical pattern of pricing complaints, incomplete work, and poor follow-up suggests underlying operational issues. Customers should prioritize recent technician-specific feedback and request detailed written quotes before committing.

KB Plumbing shows strong technical expertise and generally fair pricing, with multiple customers praising professionalism and skill. However, the score is significantly dragged down by serious project completion failures: two customers reported abandoned work and complete lack of follow-up callbacks despite repeated contact attempts. While most reviews are positive and detailed, the critical failures in accountability and job completion represent a material risk that outweighs the positive feedback. The company demonstrates inconsistency—some team members (Ben, Darren, Kacey, Rod) receive consistent praise, while systemic issues with callbacks and follow-through suggest organizational problems.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: Reviews dated 2022-02-26 and 2022-02-09 appear to be exact or near-identical duplicates, suggesting possible fake review inflation. This reduces confidence in the overall positive sentiment.
• CRITICAL PROJECT COMPLETION FAILURES: Two 1-star reviews (2020-11-21 and 2020-04-08) describe complete abandonment of work and systematic failure to return calls despite multiple contact attempts. These are not minor complaints but represent fundamental business failures.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most reviews are from 2020-2022. Only one review is from 2018. Recent data is limited, and the most recent negative review (2022-11-29) suggests ongoing issues.
• INCONSISTENT SERVICE QUALITY: Positive reviews consistently mention specific team members by name (Ben, Darren, Kacey, Rod), while negative reviews reference generic 'owner' or 'receptionist' issues, suggesting quality varies significantly by staff member and organizational/administrative failures are systemic.

This score should be treated with caution. While technical expertise and pricing appear solid based on multiple consistent mentions, the documented project completion failures and callback issues represent serious red flags that are not offset by positive reviews. The duplicate reviews further reduce confidence. Potential customers should specifically ask about follow-up work guarantees and callback protocols before engaging.