Find Nearby Plumbers In Wheaton, Illinois

Jim at Top Tier Plumbers demonstrates strong professionalism, fair pricing, and solid technical expertise across most reviews. However, a critical 1-star review from January 2024 describing abandoned work and repeated broken promises significantly impacts the project completion score. Nine of eleven reviews praise his punctuality, courtesy, and honesty, but the recent failure to return and complete an exterior faucet job raises serious reliability concerns. The WW Score reflects this contradiction: strong fundamentals undermined by a documented failure to follow through on commitments.

• CRITICAL: One recent review (2024-01-12) describes severe project abandonment and broken promises to return. Customer reached out 3+ times with no follow-through. This directly contradicts the narrative of reliability in other reviews and suggests a potential operational or communication breakdown.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most reviews are 3-6 years old (2018-2021). Only 2 reviews from 2023-2024. The most recent review is the 1-star abandonment complaint, which may indicate a recent decline in service quality.
• PATTERN INCONSISTENCY: The stark contrast between 10 five-star reviews praising reliability and 1 one-star review describing repeated broken promises suggests either a significant operational change, a one-off failure, or potential issues with follow-through on complex/delayed jobs.

This score should be treated with caution due to the recent project abandonment complaint conflicting with historical positive reviews; the WW Score reflects strong historical performance but is tempered by documented recent failure to complete work and maintain communication, warranting direct verification of current service standards before hiring.

C's/Clausen Plumbing shows a mixed performance profile with significant recency bias in the data. Recent reviews (2025) are uniformly 5-star with generic praise and minimal specifics, while older reviews (2016-2022) reveal serious professionalism and responsiveness issues including no-shows, unresponsiveness to callbacks, and poor follow-up on warranty issues. Workmanship quality is consistently praised when jobs are completed, and pricing is fair. However, project completion is undermined by documented cases of abandonment and failure to honor callbacks, which directly contradicts the glowing recent reviews. The company demonstrates technical competence but struggles with reliability and customer service accountability.

• SUSPECTED FAKE REVIEWS: Reviews from 2025-03-11 and 2025-04-10 show suspicious patterns—multiple 5-star ratings with identical generic phrasing ('highly recommend,' 'professional,' 'reliable'), minimal specifics, and no substantive detail. Three reviews on 2025-03-11 contain only ratings with no text.
• SEVERE RECENCY BIAS: 13 of 24 reviews are from 2025 (all 5-star), while substantive negative reviews documenting serious failures are from 2016-2022. This suggests possible review manipulation or reputation management.
• CRITICAL PATTERN: Multiple documented cases of non-responsiveness and failure to honor callbacks (2021, 2018, 2016). Owner 'Brian' explicitly went on vacation without arranging coverage during customer emergency.
• WARRANTY/FOLLOW-UP FAILURES: Water heater installed in March 2021 failed at 3 months; owner unresponsive and offered minimal assistance. Similar pattern in 2018 with leaking unit and no callback response.
• NO-SHOW INCIDENT: Confirmed no-show for scheduled estimate in 2016 with no rescheduling communication.
• QUALITY CONTROL ISSUE: 2018 review documents improper calibration of tankless water heater installation resulting in lukewarm water after $200 installation fee.

This score should be treated with LOW TRUST due to strong evidence of review manipulation (suspicious clustering of generic 5-star reviews in 2025) combined with documented serious failures in professionalism and project completion from verified older reviews. The recent positive reviews do not align with the pattern of unresponsiveness and abandonment documented in 2016-2022. A score of 72.8 is likely inflated by fake recent reviews; actual performance based on substantive historical data suggests lower reliability.

Adam receives strong praise across most dimensions, with multiple reviewers highlighting his honesty, technical knowledge, and ability to complete a wide variety of plumbing tasks. Pricing is consistently described as fair and reasonable, and many clients are repeat customers or referrals, suggesting genuine satisfaction. However, one detailed 1-star review from 2018 describes serious failures in communication, a missed start date, an unexplained $3,000 price increase, and a flooded basement — directly contradicting the positive narrative on professionalism and project completion. This negative review is specific, credible, and carries significant weight given the severity of the alleged failures. The majority of reviews are older than 12 months, with only two from the past 12 months, which limits confidence in how well the scores reflect current performance.

• Two reviews (2018-06-11 and 2018-03-12) are nearly word-for-word identical in content and rating — this is a strong indicator of a duplicated or potentially fake review. Confidence in the positive review pool is slightly reduced as a result.
• One review (2018-06-11) contains no text — only a 5-star rating. This was excluded from usable data as it provides no scoreable information.
• The majority of reviews (11 of 14) are older than 12 months, with most dating back to 2015–2019. Only 2 reviews are from the past 12 months (2024–2025). Current performance cannot be reliably assessed from this dataset.
• The single 1-star review (2018-05-18) is highly specific and credible, describing poor communication, a no-show on the project start date, an unexplained large price increase, and a resulting basement flood. This materially drags down professionalism and project completion scores and should not be dismissed.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability — the positive pattern across many reviews is encouraging, but the presence of a credible and detailed negative review, a suspected duplicate review, and a predominantly dated review pool mean this score should be treated as a reasonable but not definitive indicator of current contractor quality.

Carlson & Sons shows a strong pattern of positive customer experiences across pricing, workmanship, and responsiveness, with multiple reviewers praising fair and competitive pricing, honest assessments, and quality repairs on both furnaces and AC units. However, two significant negative reviews meaningfully drag down the professionalism score: one describes a deeply troubling incident where a 91-year-old woman was left in extreme heat with no follow-up calls returned, and another flags unsolicited political commentary during a service visit as unprofessional. Project completion scores well overall, supported by examples of going above and beyond (e.g., Christmas morning service, leaving the work area cleaner than found), but the no-show/no-callback incident introduces a real reliability concern. The experience dimension is consistently positive, with reviewers noting technical competence, honest diagnoses, and helpful explanations. The professionalism score is notably penalized due to the severity of the negative incidents, not just their count.

• RECENCY WARNING: The majority of reviews are older than 5 years, with the most recent being from February 2020. Only 2 of 9 reviews are from 2019 or later. This significantly limits the reliability of the score as a reflection of current business performance.
• SERIOUS PROFESSIONALISM INCIDENT: One review (2016) describes a contractor failing to return multiple calls while a 91-year-old client sat in an 84-degree apartment waiting for a follow-up appointment. This is a severe customer service failure and is weighted heavily against the professionalism score.
• UNPROFESSIONAL CONDUCT FLAG: One review (2019) explicitly describes the contractor soliciting political petition signatures and delivering a political lecture during a paid service call, which the reviewer found unprofessional and off-putting. This is a legitimate professionalism concern.
• BUSINESS NAME ACCURACY FLAG: One reviewer noted that the business name 'Carlson & Sons' is now misleading as the son is no longer involved in the business. This may affect consumer trust.
• NO FAKE REVIEW PATTERNS DETECTED: Reviews vary in length, detail, tone, and rating. Negative reviews are specific and credible. No signs of coordinated or fabricated reviews were identified.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability due to the high volume of reviews being more than 5 years old, meaning current business quality cannot be confidently confirmed, though the score is directionally useful as a historical baseline.

All three reviews are positive and paint a consistent picture of a responsive, customer-focused plumber. Professionalism is the best-supported dimension, with all three reviewers referencing Ron's attitude, responsiveness, and customer-first approach. Pricing is mentioned favorably in two reviews but with limited specificity, warranting a conservative score. Project completion is implied across reviews but only explicitly addressed in two, where jobs were described as resolved successfully. Experience is referenced through mentions of technical work such as root removal and gas leak sealing, but again only across two reviews, keeping confidence low. The overall score is tempered significantly by the very small review pool and the age of the reviews, all of which are between 5 and 10 years old.

• All three reviews are dated between 2014 and 2020, with the most recent being over 4 years old at time of analysis. Recency weighting significantly reduces reliability of this score as a reflection of current performance.
• Review pool is extremely small (3 reviews). The WW Score should be treated as indicative only and not statistically reliable.
• No negative feedback exists across any review, which is noted but not flagged as suspicious given the small sample size and the presence of some specific detail in each review.

This WW Score carries low overall reliability due to only 3 reviews being available, all of which are more than 4 years old, making it difficult to assess the contractor's current quality of work with any meaningful confidence.

Carl Beard and B&G Sewer Specialists demonstrate strong technical expertise across all three reviews, with detailed accounts of advanced camera diagnostics, proper permitting, and effective root blockage resolution. Pricing is noted favorably in two reviews, with one customer citing a quote 40% below a competitor. Project completion is generally positive — work was completed as promised and on schedule in two reviews — but is tempered by the 2-star review, which explicitly criticizes a failure to follow through on an insurance company request after payment was received. Professionalism scores moderately: Carl is praised for weekend availability and communication, but the lack of post-job follow-through in one review is a meaningful negative signal that prevents a higher score.

• Only 3 reviews total — WW Score should be treated as preliminary and unreliable for high-stakes decisions.
• All three reviews are significantly outdated: dated 2012, 2015, and 2019. No reviews from the past 12 months are present. Business practices and quality may have changed substantially.
• The 2-star review raises a specific concern about post-job follow-through and responsiveness to insurance requests, which directly impacts the project completion and professionalism dimensions.
• No fake review patterns detected — reviews contain specific details, varied language, and include a critical review, which increases authenticity confidence.

This WW Score carries LOW overall reliability due to only 3 reviews available, all of which are more than 5 years old, making it insufficient to draw confident conclusions about current service quality.