Find Nearby Plumbers In Waukegan, Illinois

CAB Backflow Inc. receives consistently strong feedback across all four scored dimensions from the reviews available. Professionalism is the most consistently praised attribute, with all four reviewers explicitly noting courteous, polite, and professional behavior from technicians including Deezan, Chris, and Carlos. Project completion is also well-supported, with reviewers describing timely arrivals, thorough work, cleanup after jobs, and follow-through before leaving the site. Experience is evidenced by specific mentions of technical knowledge, attention to detail, and clear explanations of work performed. Pricing is mentioned positively in only one review, where Carlos was noted to have charged significantly less than competitors while using better equipment, yielding a favorable but low-confidence pricing score. Overall, the scores are encouraging but must be interpreted cautiously given the small review pool of only four reviews.

• Only 4 reviews total — WW Score cannot be considered statistically reliable. A minimum of 10+ reviews is recommended for meaningful confidence.
• Two of the four reviews specifically praise the same technician (Deezan), which may reflect a narrow sample of the company's overall workforce quality.
• One review (Carlos/water heater) is dated April 2021 and one (Chris/toilet) is dated December 2022 — both are more than 12 months old and carry reduced recency weight.
• All four reviews are 5-star ratings with no negative or mixed feedback. While the reviews do contain specific details reducing fake review suspicion, the uniformly perfect ratings across a small sample warrants mild caution.
• No reviews mention any negative experiences, callbacks, disputes, or unresolved issues — this may reflect genuine quality or simply an insufficient sample to surface problems.

This WW Score is based on only 4 reviews, two of which are over 12 months old, making it LOW reliability — the score reflects a positive but very limited data set and should not be treated as a definitive assessment of this contractor's overall performance.

Curt receives consistently strong feedback across all four dimensions from every reviewer. Professionalism is well-supported, with multiple reviewers citing punctuality, communication, and a courteous attitude. Pricing is a clear standout, with three reviewers explicitly comparing Curt favorably against other plumbers and describing his rates as fair and affordable. Project completion is also well-evidenced, including a notable callback instance where Curt returned the next day to resolve a faulty faucet at no apparent additional friction, and a long-term customer noting five to six completed jobs with no redos. Experience is supported by references to quality workmanship, problem-solving under the sink, and consistent first-time success across varied job types. Scores are tempered slightly by the small total review count and the age of most reviews.

• All 5 reviews are rated 5.0 stars with no negative feedback of any kind — this warrants mild caution, though the reviews do contain specific job details and varied language that reduce the likelihood of fabrication.
• RECENCY WARNING: Only 1 of 5 reviews is from within the past several years (2018). The remaining 4 reviews date from 2012 to 2016, making them 7–12+ years old. These reviews may not reflect current service quality.
• Small sample size (5 reviews total) significantly limits the reliability of all dimension scores. Confidence in the overall WW Score is LOW despite individual dimension confidence labels reflecting mention counts.

This WW Score should be treated with caution — while the reviews are specific and credible in content, the total sample is very small and the vast majority of reviews are over 6 years old, making it difficult to assess Curt's current service quality with confidence.

All three reviews speak positively to the team's attitude, patience, and demeanor, supporting a moderate-confidence professionalism score. One review explicitly mentions below-market pricing for an elderly client, yielding a limited but positive pricing signal. Two reviews reference work quality and schedule adherence, including a full house repipe completed on time, supporting modest experience and project completion scores. However, all three reviews are significantly dated — the most recent is from September 2020 and the oldest from 2005 — which substantially limits their relevance to current performance. Scores are kept conservative given the small sample size and age of the data.

• ALL REVIEWS ARE OUTDATED: The most recent review is from September 2020 (4+ years ago), and two reviews are from 2005 and 2009 — over 15 years old. These reviews provide very limited insight into current contractor performance.
• VERY SMALL SAMPLE SIZE: Only 3 reviews total. No reliable pattern can be established from this volume of data.
• NO NEGATIVE FEEDBACK PRESENT: With only 3 reviews all rated 4–5 stars, the absence of any critical feedback may reflect selection bias rather than a uniformly positive track record.

This WW Score should be treated with significant caution — it is based on only 3 reviews, all of which are between 4 and 19 years old, making it a poor indicator of the contractor's current quality, pricing, or reliability.

Professionalism is the strongest signal across these reviews, with multiple reviewers explicitly noting punctuality, friendliness, communication, and courteous behavior such as wearing shoe covers unprompted. Project completion scores well overall, but is tempered by one notable instance of a last-minute cancellation that caused inconvenience, preventing a perfect score. Experience is supported by moderate evidence, with reviewers describing precise installation work, thorough HVAC servicing, and quality cabinet replacement that left no visible trace of repair. Pricing data is thin — only one review references a quote process, and no reviewer explicitly comments on whether pricing felt fair or unfair, making that dimension low-confidence.

• Several reviews appear to be directed at a home management service platform (My Home Expert / My Town HOA) rather than a single specific contractor, which means quality signals may reflect multiple different tradespeople rather than one consistent provider.
• Two of the six reviews are from 2017, two from 2019, and two from 2020 — all reviews are more than 3 years old with no recent data, significantly reducing reliability for current performance assessment.
• The two 2017 reviews use somewhat generic praise language ('peace of mind', 'reliable & nice') with limited specifics, which slightly raises concern about authenticity, though they are not identical in phrasing.
• Total review count of 6 is very low. While the WW Score has been calculated, it should be treated with caution due to the small sample size.

This WW Score carries limited reliability due to a very small review pool of only 6 reviews, all of which are over 3 years old, and some of which appear to evaluate a service coordination platform rather than a single contractor's consistent workmanship.

All three reviews are positive and suggest a competent, reasonably priced plumber who completes jobs in a timely manner. Two reviews specifically mention fair or within-estimate pricing, and one highlights strong diagnostic skill in finding a hidden leak. Professionalism and project completion are the best-supported dimensions, each mentioned across all three reviews, though the reviews are brief and lack deep specifics. Experience scores are conservative given only two reviews touched on technical skill directly. Critically, all reviews are from 2013–2014, making them over 10 years old, which significantly limits their reliability as a current assessment.

• ALL REVIEWS ARE OVER 10 YEARS OLD (2013–2014): These reviews do not reflect current performance and should be treated with significant caution.
• VERY SMALL SAMPLE SIZE: Only 3 reviews total. The WW Score cannot be considered reliable with this volume of data.
• No fake review patterns detected — reviews contain specific details and varied language, suggesting authenticity.
• Scores have been kept conservative across all dimensions due to the combination of low review count and outdated review dates.

This WW Score carries very low reliability due to only 3 reviews, all of which are more than 10 years old and therefore unlikely to reflect the contractor's current quality, pricing, or practices.

Patrick Flader and PJF Plumbing show genuine strengths in technical knowledge and responsiveness, with multiple reviewers praising the quality of work and trustworthiness. However, a significant negative review describes a 5-week failure to schedule a warranty repair appointment, which is a serious project completion and professionalism concern that meaningfully drags down both dimensions. Pricing is a mixed signal — one reviewer explicitly called the company 'very pricey' and noted billing for non-productive time, while another praised the competitive bid, resulting in a below-average pricing score. The overall picture is of a capable contractor with inconsistent follow-through and above-market pricing, supported by only 5 reviews spanning several years.

• All 5 reviews are older than 5 years (most recent: July 2019), making this score potentially unreliable as a reflection of current service quality.
• The 1-star review describes a serious failure to follow through on a scheduled warranty repair over 5+ weeks — this is a meaningful red flag for project completion and responsiveness.
• One reviewer explicitly noted being billed for time the plumber spent sitting in his truck, suggesting potential transparency issues with pricing.
• Sample size of only 5 reviews is too small to draw high-confidence conclusions about any dimension.

This WW Score should be treated with caution — it is based on only 5 reviews, all of which are more than 5 years old, providing insufficient and outdated data to reliably assess current contractor performance.