Find Nearby Plumbers In Anchorage, Alaska

Anchorage Plumbing and Heating presents a deeply mixed record across all four dimensions, with a significant volume of serious negative reviews dragging scores well below average. Professionalism is heavily penalized by repeated complaints about rude technicians, no-shows, missed appointments without notification, condescending attitudes, and poor dispatcher behavior — offset only partially by a subset of reviewers praising specific named technicians like Isaac, Chris S., Everett, and Raven. Project completion is one of the most damaged dimensions, with multiple reviews describing abandoned jobs, failed inspections, work left incomplete for months, parts not ordered, and callbacks that resulted in additional charges for damage caused by the company itself. Pricing drew consistent criticism for overcharging, bills far exceeding quoted amounts, full-hour charges for minimal work, and a 100% upfront payment policy that drove customers away — though a handful of reviewers noted fair or even below-expected final costs. Experience scores reflect a troubling pattern of misdiagnosis (multiple furnace replacement upsells that proved unnecessary), incorrect installations, broken valves left unfixed, and filter systems installed in the wrong orientation — balanced against some reviews praising skilled, knowledgeable technicians. The overall picture is a company with capable individual technicians but systemic operational, ethical, and quality-control failures that make it unreliable for a significant portion of customers.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: Two reviews with nearly identical text ('Totally and completely not trustworthy. Very uneducated and unprofessional workers...') posted on the same date (2024-07-27) — one counted once for scoring purposes.
• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: Two reviews with identical text about the boiler/Everett experience posted on different dates (2024-09-12 and 2024-08-27) — counted once for scoring purposes.
• THREE BLANK REVIEWS (no text, only a 5-star rating) were submitted on 2024-06-09 — these are flagged as potentially fake or bot-generated and were excluded from dimension scoring. They inflate the raw star average without providing any usable data.
• RECENCY CONCERN: A disproportionate cluster of 1-star reviews appears in the 2024–2025 window, suggesting a possible deterioration in service quality in recent years. Older reviews (2013–2018) skew more positive. Recent trend is strongly negative.
• PATTERN OF MISDIAGNOSIS AND UPSELLING: At least four independent reviews describe technicians recommending full furnace or system replacements that were later found to be unnecessary — this is a significant ethical and competency flag.
• PATTERN OF ABANDONED OR INCOMPLETE WORK: Multiple reviews describe jobs left unfinished, failed inspections not resolved, and equipment taken but not returned — one reviewer explicitly describes this as theft of a motor.
• PATTERN OF TARGETING VULNERABLE CUSTOMERS: Multiple reviews (including from elderly customers and a single mother) allege the company took advantage of their situation, charged for incorrect diagnoses, and refused to correct damage caused by their own technicians.
• PAYMENT POLICY FLAG: Requiring 100% upfront payment before entering a home is an unusual and customer-hostile policy noted by multiple reviewers and likely contributes to lost business and distrust.

This WW Score of 51.2 is based on a large volume of reviews (72 total, 69 with usable data) spanning over a decade, with HIGH confidence across all four dimensions — however, the strong negative trend in recent reviews (2023–2025) and the presence of blank 5-star reviews suggest the true current performance may be even lower than this score reflects, and prospective customers should weight recent 1-star reviews heavily.

Extreme Heating and Air shows significant inconsistency across reviews spanning 2017–2024. While some customers praise professional technicians (Derek, Matt, Tyler, Grant) and timely service, numerous reviews document serious failures in project completion, including abandoned work (furnace left in pieces for weeks), incomplete diagnostics (missed gas leak for years, failed to identify furnace leveling issue), and poor follow-through on callbacks. Professionalism scores are dragged down by no-shows, unresponsive service managers, and billing chaos. Pricing complaints appear moderate but consistent. The company demonstrates technical capability in isolated cases but lacks reliability and thoroughness in execution.

• CRITICAL: Multiple reviews document abandoned or incomplete projects with no follow-up (furnace repair left unfinished for 18 days; water heater diagnosis incomplete; no callback after ordering parts). This is a systemic project completion issue.
• BILLING DISASTER: Review from 2023-02-14 describes 2-foot stack of unpaid invoices on office floor, invoices sent to wrong addresses/emails, sent to collections without phone contact, and billing staff dismissing customer concerns. This suggests organizational dysfunction.
• QUALITY CONTROL FAILURE: Technician broke Venturi tube on boiler (billed customer for damage); component failed after 2 years despite 1-year warranty; furnace not level after installation; gas leak missed across multiple service calls over years.
• INCONSISTENT SERVICE QUALITY: Stark contrast between 5-star reviews praising specific technicians (Matt, Tyler, Derek, Grant, Shane) and 1-star reviews describing incompetence and negligence. Suggests quality depends heavily on which technician is assigned.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most negative reviews are from 2020–2023; most positive reviews are from 2017–2020. Recent trend appears negative, but sample size of recent reviews is small.
• DIAGNOSTIC INCOMPETENCE: Multiple reviews document technicians unable to diagnose problems correctly (didn't know how to flush specific water heater brand; guessed at furnace parts; missed obvious issues like unlevel furnace).

This WW Score should be treated with caution. While based on 16 reviews with adequate mention counts, the company exhibits extreme inconsistency—some customers report excellent service while others describe systemic failures in completion, billing, and diagnostics. The score of 56.8 reflects this volatility; it is not a reliable predictor of future service quality. Customers should verify technician assignment and obtain detailed written diagnostics before authorizing work.

Living Waters exhibits severe and consistent pricing concerns, with multiple reviews citing excessive charges, price gouging, and estimates far above market rates. While some reviews praise communication and responsiveness (particularly in emergency situations), professionalism is undermined by aggressive follow-up communications described as harassment and inconsistent service quality. Technical competence is questionable, with documented instances of inadequate workmanship (winterization failure, lack of problem-solving) contrasting sharply with positive feedback on complex emergency repairs. The company shows extreme volatility in service delivery and customer treatment.

• CRITICAL: Severe and consistent pricing complaints across multiple independent reviews. Three separate reviewers explicitly state pricing is excessive or a 'rip-off.' One estimate ($80,000) is documented as approximately 10x higher than competitive quotes for identical work.
• CRITICAL: Multiple reviews document inadequate technical knowledge and poor workmanship (winterization done incorrectly, apprentice-level problem-solving on straightforward jobs).
• CRITICAL: Aggressive customer communication practices described as 'harassment' in one review; customer had to explicitly demand cessation of contact.
• INCONSISTENCY: Stark contrast between highly positive emergency service reviews (Feb 2024, May 2024) and multiple negative reviews citing poor quality and overpricing. This suggests either highly variable service quality or different pricing/service tiers.
• RECENCY: Most negative reviews are from 2023-2024 (recent), indicating ongoing issues rather than historical problems.

This WW Score should be treated with caution due to high volatility in service quality and the severity of pricing allegations, but the consistency of complaints across independent reviews and the documented nature of pricing discrepancies provide moderate confidence that significant customer satisfaction issues exist.

This contractor exhibits severe and consistent performance issues across multiple dimensions. While technical skill is occasionally demonstrated (one technician praised as 'outstanding'), professionalism is severely compromised by rudeness, poor communication, unresponsiveness to callbacks, and unprofessional behavior (arriving with dirty shoes, not removing footwear). Pricing practices are deceptive, with hidden charges, misleading trip fee explanations, and billing for driving time not disclosed upfront. Project completion is critically weak—work is incomplete or fails within days, callbacks are ignored, and follow-through is absent. The three positive reviews from 2020–2021 contrast sharply with five consecutive 1-star reviews from 2022–2024, indicating significant deterioration or systemic problems.

• RECENCY CONCERN: Positive reviews are 3–4 years old (2020–2021); all recent reviews (2022–2024) are 1-star. This suggests either business decline or a shift in service quality.
• PATTERN OF NON-RESPONSIVENESS: Multiple reviews explicitly mention ignored callbacks and unanswered emails. This is a systemic customer service failure.
• DECEPTIVE PRICING: Trip charges and billing practices are described as 'sneaky' and misleading. Customers report being charged for time not explicitly disclosed at booking.
• INCOMPLETE WORK: Sewer line repair left ground unsettled; drain cleaning failed within days; callbacks for follow-up work were ignored. This suggests inadequate workmanship or lack of accountability.
• UNPROFESSIONAL CONDUCT: Named individual 'Dave' described as 'very rude.' Technician arrived with dirty shoes and did not remove them. These are red flags for poor training and culture.
• HIGH-VALUE COMPLAINT: One customer reports $9,000+ repair with ongoing issues and no callback response, indicating failure on a major project.

This WW Score of 42.3 is highly reliable and should be trusted. It is based on 8 reviews with consistent negative patterns across recent years, explicit evidence across all four dimensions, and a clear deterioration trend. The contractor presents significant risk.

This contractor shows highly polarized performance across reviews. Two older reviews (2020, 2022) praise extensive work quality, responsiveness, and technical expertise, while a recent 2023 review documents serious professionalism failures including dismissive communication, refusal to accommodate standard industry requests, and apparent fee retention without service delivery. The professionalism score is dragged down significantly by the documented unprofessional behavior (snapping at customer, ignoring messages, refusing itemized quotes). Project completion and experience scores are supported only by the two positive reviews with no negative evidence, but mention count is low. The stark contradiction between reviews and recency of the negative experience create substantial reliability concerns.

• CRITICAL: Severe contradiction between reviews suggests possible change in contractor behavior or service quality over time. Most recent review (Jan 2023) documents serious professionalism and ethics concerns including apparent fee retention without full service.
• Only 3 total reviews analyzed — sample size is very small and limits statistical reliability.
• Two positive reviews are significantly older (2020, 2022) while the negative review is most recent (2023), suggesting potential deterioration in service quality.
• Pricing dimension based on only 1 mention from the negative review; insufficient data to assess fair pricing practices.
• The 2020 review contains somewhat generic praise language but does include specific details (LED lights, tile work, bathroom appearance), so not flagged as fake, but older reviews may not reflect current operations.

This WW Score should be treated with caution due to very small sample size (3 reviews) and extreme polarization between older positive reviews and a recent detailed negative review documenting unprofessional conduct and potential fee disputes. The score does not reliably predict future performance and warrants direct investigation of the 2023 complaint before engaging this contractor.

R&S Plumbing and Heating receives overwhelmingly negative feedback across nearly all dimensions, with professionalism being the most critically damaged area. Multiple reviewers across different years describe staff — including named individuals Don, Trent, and Rich — as rude, condescending, dismissive, and hostile, both in person and over the phone. Project completion is a serious concern, with multiple accounts of missed appointments without notice, unfinished jobs, a defective water heater installation with no follow-through, and a furnace repair that took 15 days for a minor fix. Pricing transparency is a significant red flag, with at least two reviewers describing being misled on cost estimates and charged far more than quoted. The few positive reviews highlight isolated positive experiences with specific technicians (notably Jeremy) and suggest the company is capable of good work, but these are heavily outweighed by the volume and specificity of negative accounts.

• Two reviews dated 2020-10-09 are nearly identical in content and phrasing — one appears to be a duplicate submission of the same incident. Only one was counted for scoring purposes to avoid double-weighting.
• The single 5-star review from 2023 contains no specific details about the service received and reads as a generic endorsement. It may not reflect a direct service experience and was treated with low evidentiary weight.
• Several positive reviews (2016–2017) are significantly older than 3 years and may not reflect current business practices. The more recent reviews (2020–2023) skew heavily negative, suggesting a possible decline in service quality over time.
• The pattern of named staff (Don, Trent, Rich) appearing repeatedly in negative reviews across multiple years suggests systemic cultural issues rather than isolated incidents.
• Pricing deception flagged explicitly in at least two reviews: one reviewer was quoted $300–$400 and billed $1,010; another was billed for full hours including time spent correcting the technician's own errors.

This WW Score is based on 19 reviews spanning 2016–2023 with strong mention counts across all four dimensions, making it a HIGH confidence assessment; the score reliably reflects a contractor with serious and recurring issues in professionalism, pricing transparency, and project follow-through.