Find Nearby Plumbers In Wheaton, Illinois

The majority of reviews praise 7-11 Plumbing for punctuality, politeness, and professional demeanor, with multiple reviewers specifically calling out Andrew and Jon by name for courteous and thorough service. Pricing is generally viewed favorably, with several reviewers noting fair estimates, charges below quote, and transparency about costs — though one reviewer explicitly called their rate 'inflated.' Project completion is strong across most reviews, with crews staying until jobs were done and honoring callbacks, but two significant negative reviews describe a complete failure to show up or follow through on scheduling commitments, which meaningfully drags this dimension down. Technical experience is consistently praised, particularly for complex jobs involving sewer lines, gas lines, and older cast iron piping, though the oldest reviews lack specifics. The two 1-star reviews represent real service failures — one involving a dismissive phone response and one involving an all-day no-show — and cannot be discounted.

• Two reviews (2015-11-08 and 2017-01-15) describe serious service failures: one involving a full-day no-show with repeated broken promises, and one involving a dismissive phone dismissal of an emergency call. These are credible negative signals and are weighted accordingly.
• Several positive reviews use enthusiastic, effusive language with very similar themes (down-to-earth, knowledgeable, highly recommend), which could suggest some degree of coached or socially influenced reviewing. However, most include specific job details and named technicians, reducing fake review concern.
• One review (2011-09-04) is extremely generic with no specifics — 'Excellent plumbing repair! They are the best Chicago Plumber!' — and was given reduced weight due to lack of detail and age.
• RECENCY WARNING: The majority of reviews are from 2014–2016, with only one review from 2017. No reviews exist from 2018 onward. This score reflects a contractor's historical performance and may not represent current service quality. Treat with caution for present-day hiring decisions.
• The review base is relatively small (19 reviews) and spans multiple years, limiting the reliability of trend analysis.

This WW Score carries moderate-to-high reliability for historical performance up to 2017, but the complete absence of recent reviews means it should not be used as a confident indicator of current service quality without seeking updated customer feedback.

Midland Plumbing receives strong praise across professionalism, responsiveness, and technical skill from the majority of reviewers, with many customers highlighting named technicians like David, Joe, Brandon, and George as courteous, knowledgeable, and thorough. However, pricing is a notable weak point: multiple independent reviewers across different time periods explicitly describe being quoted one price and charged significantly more, being charged for unnecessary work, or receiving quotes far above competitors — including a 1-star review citing a $7,155 quote versus competitor quotes under $2,000, and another describing a $1,200 charge for a two-hour job. Project completion is generally strong but is dragged down by several serious complaints including a no-show appointment, an incomplete sewer job with an unsealed foundation hole causing water damage, and a job abandoned mid-service due to missing equipment. The score reflects a genuinely capable company with recurring but not universal issues around pricing transparency and job follow-through.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: Approximately 40+ reviews appear to be exact duplicates submitted on the same date with identical text and ratings. This is a strong indicator of review manipulation or a platform import error. Duplicate entries were deduplicated for scoring purposes, but this pattern significantly reduces confidence in the raw review volume.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS ARE SERIOUS AND RECURRING: At least 6 independent reviewers across multiple years (2015, 2016, 2019, 2020, 2022, 2024) explicitly describe being overcharged, receiving surprise charges after work was completed, or receiving quotes dramatically higher than competitors. This is not isolated and represents a systemic pattern.
• NO-SHOW / ABANDONMENT PATTERN: Multiple reviews (2013, 2015, 2016, 2024) describe missed appointments with no call, technicians arriving without proper equipment and failing to complete the job, and in one case a voicemail confirming a service that was later denied. This negatively impacts the project completion score.
• SERIOUS UNRESOLVED COMPLAINT (2018): One detailed 1-star review describes Midland leaving an unsealed foundation hole after a sewer repair, causing approximately $2,000 in water damage to the customer's home, followed by months of ignored calls, emails, and letters from the owner. The company allegedly sent technicians to photograph the damage and then denied responsibility. This is a significant reputational and liability flag.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of positive reviews are from 2024-2025 and may reflect genuine improvement in service quality. However, the negative pricing complaint pattern persists into 2024 (the $7,155 quote review), so improvement is not uniform.
• EMPTY REVIEW: Two reviews contained no text, only a 5-star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data.

This WW Score is based on a large volume of reviews but is moderately undermined by a significant number of detected duplicate entries and a recurring, multi-year pattern of pricing transparency complaints and occasional project completion failures that prevent a higher score despite strong professionalism and experience ratings.

The Plumbing Doctor demonstrates solid technical expertise and responsiveness, with strong marks for knowledgeable work and quick service. However, the company is significantly hampered by serious professionalism and reliability issues, including multiple no-shows, poor communication, rude behavior, and inconsistent follow-through. Pricing concerns are substantial, with numerous complaints about overcharging, hidden fees, and quotes significantly higher than competitors. While many customers report positive experiences with specific technicians (Brandon, Kelly, Garrett, Jon), the business shows a troubling pattern of inconsistency and customer service failures that prevent a higher overall score.

• CRITICAL: Multiple reviews (15+) report no-shows and failure to honor scheduled appointments, with some customers taking time off work only to be ghosted. This is a severe professionalism issue.
• CRITICAL: Pricing complaints are extensive and specific. One customer was quoted $1,000+ more than competitors; another paid $1,400 for work a handyman later completed for $50. The company appears to use selective pricing based on perceived customer wealth.
• CRITICAL: One review alleges discriminatory pricing practices targeting Asian American customers and women, suggesting potential bias in quote generation.
• CRITICAL: Multiple reviews report rude, condescending, or dismissive behavior from owner/staff, including use of offensive language (one review mentions racial slurs).
• PATTERN: Inconsistent quality and follow-through. Same company name appears across multiple locations/operators with vastly different service levels, suggesting either franchise issues or multiple unrelated businesses using similar names.
• PATTERN: Several reviews indicate work was not completed correctly on first visit, requiring callbacks. Some customers report being charged for callbacks that should have been warranty work.
• PATTERN: Communication issues are pervasive—delayed responses, refusal to provide estimates, demanding cash-only payment despite advertising credit card acceptance.
• PATTERN: One negative review from 2024-08-12 explicitly questions the authenticity of positive reviews on the platform, suggesting possible fake review activity. However, the volume and specificity of negative reviews (with detailed accounts of overcharging, no-shows, and poor workmanship) suggests genuine customer dissatisfaction.
• RECENCY: Most recent reviews (2025) show mixed results. The most recent negative review (2025-06-04) documents a $1,000+ overcharge relative to competitors, indicating pricing issues persist.
• DATA QUALITY: Reviews span from 1997 to 2025. Very old reviews (pre-2005) are generic and lack detail. Recent reviews (2024-2025) are more specific and credible. The company appears to have operated under multiple names/locations, making it difficult to assess if this is one business or several.

This WW Score of 72.8 should be treated with caution. While the score reflects genuine strengths in technical expertise and responsiveness, it masks serious and recurring problems with professionalism, pricing transparency, and reliability. The high volume of detailed negative reviews documenting no-shows, overcharging, and poor communication suggests the company has systemic operational issues. Customers should be aware that positive experiences appear highly dependent on which technician is assigned and that pricing may vary dramatically based on perceived customer demographics. The company's inconsistent service delivery and communication failures represent material risks that a single numerical score cannot adequately capture.

Jay's Plumbing demonstrates strong technical competence and professionalism, with technicians consistently praised for knowledge, courtesy, and responsiveness. However, the company is significantly hampered by persistent pricing concerns that appear across multiple review periods. While recent reviews (2024-2025) are predominantly 5-star with minimal pricing complaints, older reviews (2015-2023) reveal a pattern of customers finding their quotes 2-3x higher than competitors, non-refundable diagnostic fees, and aggressive upselling tactics. Project completion is solid with good follow-through and callback responsiveness. The stark contrast between recent glowing reviews and historical pricing complaints suggests either a genuine business model shift or potential review authenticity concerns.

• SUSPICIOUS REVIEW PATTERN: 28 of 75 reviews (37%) are either blank text or single-sentence generic praise with 5-star ratings, concentrated in April-June 2025 and January 2025. This density of minimal-detail 5-star reviews is atypical and raises authenticity concerns.
• TEMPORAL ANOMALY: Recent reviews (2024-2025) are overwhelmingly 5-star with detailed positive feedback, while historical reviews (2015-2023) contain numerous 1-2 star ratings citing overpricing and poor problem-solving. This sharp reversal warrants skepticism about recent review authenticity.
• PRICING CONTRADICTION: Multiple detailed historical reviews (2015-2023) document pricing 2-3x competitors; recent reviews mention 'fair prices' and 'care club savings' but provide no specific price comparisons. The shift from explicit pricing complaints to vague praise is notable.
• INCOMPLETE JOB DOCUMENTED: May 2025 review explicitly states plumber unable to complete sewer line rodding with inadequate equipment; second company completed in 20 minutes. Customer paid $1000+ for incomplete work despite $400 discount. This is a material project completion failure.
• MAJOR FAILURE CASE: November 2024 review documents 8 grand spent over multiple visits with repeated failures (rodding, power flush, excavation) before external plumber diagnosed collapsing pipe in 2 hours. Reviewer explicitly states Jay's came out multiple times and never identified the problem.
• DIAGNOSTIC FEE CONTROVERSY: Multiple reviews (2015-2017) cite $65-70 non-refundable diagnostic fees contradicting website claims of 'free estimates.' This practice appears to have been discontinued by 2024.

This score should be treated with MODERATE-TO-HIGH caution. While recent data (2024-2025) shows strong performance across all dimensions, the high concentration of minimal-detail 5-star reviews in this period, combined with documented major failures and a stark historical pattern of overpricing complaints, suggests the recent score may not be fully representative. The company appears to have improved operationally, but pricing remains a structural concern based on historical evidence. Customers should request detailed competitive quotes before committing.

Steve's Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism and technical expertise, with technicians consistently praised for punctuality, courtesy, and knowledge. However, pricing emerges as a significant weakness, with numerous reviews documenting charges substantially above market rates, aggressive upselling tactics, and controversial membership programs. Project completion is generally solid, though some callbacks and follow-up issues are documented. The company shows polarized customer sentiment: loyal, repeat customers praise reliability and quality, while first-time customers frequently report feeling overcharged or misled on pricing.

• PRICING CONCERNS: 156 mentions of pricing issues reveal a consistent pattern of charges 2-7x higher than competitor quotes for identical work. Multiple reviews cite $800+ estimates for $20-30 parts or simple 5-30 minute jobs.
• AGGRESSIVE SALES TACTICS: Repeated mentions of hard-selling Diamond Club memberships ($14.95-18/month), pressure to upsell unnecessary repairs, and bundling services customers did not request.
• ESTIMATE FEES: Company charges $69-100 for estimates that are often not waived if customer hires them, unlike industry standard practice. Some reviews report being charged estimate fees even after declining service.
• MEMBERSHIP PROGRAM COMPLAINTS: Multiple reviews describe difficulty canceling Diamond Club memberships, billing issues, and unclear value proposition. At least 5 reviews mention aggressive or deceptive cancellation practices.
• INCONSISTENT SERVICE QUALITY: While many reviews praise specific technicians (Sean, Brandon, Luke, Steve), others report poor workmanship, incomplete jobs, and refusals to warranty work or make corrections.
• FOLLOW-UP FAILURES: At least 12 reviews document failure to return calls, no-shows, cancellations without notice, or abandonment of jobs mid-project.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: Approximately 40 reviews from June 2025 (future date) appear suspicious—all 5-star, generic praise with minimal specifics, and clustered in a single month. This violates temporal logic and suggests possible review manipulation.
• BBB COMPLAINTS: One review explicitly mentions 165 pages of complaints filed with Attorney General; another references low Yelp rating (2.1) despite high Google rating, suggesting review platform inconsistency.
• UNETHICAL PRACTICES ALLEGED: Reviews describe leaving water running to cause damage after customer declined service, misrepresenting diagnoses to justify expensive repairs, and charging for work not performed.
• RECENCY BIAS: Most recent reviews (2025) are overwhelmingly positive 5-star; older reviews (2015-2023) show more balanced criticism. This temporal shift warrants skepticism about recent review authenticity.

This WW Score of 72.3 should be treated with MODERATE-TO-HIGH caution: while professionalism and experience scores are well-supported by 100+ mentions each, the pricing score of 58 is heavily influenced by consistent, detailed complaints across 156 reviews spanning multiple years and locations. The suspicious cluster of 40 identical 5-star reviews dated June 2025 (a future date) suggests potential review manipulation, which undermines overall confidence. Customers should independently verify pricing against 3+ competitors before engaging this contractor, as the gap between positive testimonials and pricing complaints is unusually wide for a single business.

Al's Plumbing has a strong track record of emergency responsiveness and same-day service, with dozens of reviewers praising rapid arrival times and follow-through on urgent jobs. However, professionalism is meaningfully dragged down by a recurring and credible pattern of rude phone interactions — multiple independent reviewers across different years describe the owner being abrupt, dismissive, or outright hostile when contacted for quotes or scheduling. Pricing is the most contested dimension: while many customers praise affordability and fair value, a significant minority of detailed negative reviews describe charges of approximately $400/hour, undisclosed minimums, no upfront estimates, and bills that did not match verbal quotes — these are specific, credible, and consistent enough to substantially lower the pricing score. Project completion scores moderately well, with most jobs described as finished same-day or next-day, but there are serious outliers including one review describing an abandoned mid-job and another describing unfinished work paired with intimidation to collect full payment. Technical skill and workmanship are generally well-regarded across the review base, supporting a solid experience score.

• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: Two reviews with identical text ('Super responsive and fixed a drain emergency quickly!') posted 3 days apart (2025-05-07 and 2025-05-10) — likely a fake or duplicate submission. Both were discounted in scoring.
• SUSPECTED FAKE REVIEW: The 2025-01-07 review ('I'm really impressed with the service this plumbing contractor had given me...') uses generic, templated language inconsistent with a real customer experience — phrases like 'handled my plumbing problem quite professionally' and 'quite experienced' are vague and formulaic. Confidence reduced for that data point.
• RECENCY NOTE: A substantial portion of reviews (roughly 40%) are dated prior to 2021, some as far back as 2005–2008. These older reviews were given reduced weight. The most recent 12 months (2024–2025) show a continued mix of strong positives and recurring complaints about phone rudeness.
• RECURRING NEGATIVE PATTERN — PHONE RUDENESS: At least 6 independent reviews across multiple years (2016, 2018, 2022, 2023, 2024) describe the owner being rude, dismissive, or hanging up on prospective customers. This is a persistent and credible pattern, not isolated incidents.
• RECURRING NEGATIVE PATTERN — PRICING TRANSPARENCY: At least 8 independent reviews describe pricing concerns including: no upfront estimate given, verbal quotes not honored in writing, charges of ~$400/hour, undisclosed minimum service fees, and refusal to itemize bills. These are specific and credible.
• SERIOUS CONDUCT ALLEGATION: One review (2021-07-25) alleges the owner abandoned a job mid-completion after a personal dispute and had already collected payment. Another review (2016-11-18) alleges the owner did not finish a job, intimidated the reviewer's wife to collect full payment, and used profanity in front of children. These are unverified but specific and serious.
• RACISM/DISCRIMINATION ALLEGATION: Two reviews (2017-04-09 and 2021-07-25) allege racist behavior or comments by the owner. These are unverified but noted as a flag.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Several reviews contained no text (only a star rating). These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data.
• REVIEW SPAN: Reviews span from 2005 to 2025 — a 20-year window. Business practices and staffing may have changed significantly over this period. Scores are weighted toward more recent reviews.

This WW Score is based on a large review set (140 reviews) with HIGH mention counts across all four dimensions, making the score statistically robust; however, the presence of duplicate/suspected fake reviews, serious unverified conduct allegations, and a persistent multi-year pattern of pricing and professionalism complaints means prospective customers should treat the score as a moderate signal and carefully vet pricing transparency and communication before committing to this contractor.