Find Nearby Plumbers In Anchorage, Alaska

All three reviews mention professionalism, but two of the three are sharply negative — one citing rude behavior and unexpected travel-time charges, and another citing failure to return phone calls even after a referral. Only one reviewer had a clearly positive experience, praising the personal touch and extra-mile service. Pricing received a low score due to the explicit complaint about undisclosed travel-time charges being added to the quote. Project completion and experience scores are based on a single positive review describing multi-year boiler installation and servicing, which is encouraging but insufficient to offset the negative signals elsewhere. Overall, the review set is small, old, and mixed, making any score here highly tentative.

• Very small review set (only 3 reviews) — WW Score should be treated as unreliable and directional only.
• All reviews are significantly outdated: the most recent is from October 2014, nearly a decade ago. Business quality may have changed substantially since then.
• Two of three reviews are 1-star with specific complaints about rudeness, lack of responsiveness, and undisclosed charges — this is a meaningful negative signal given the small sample size.
• No reviews mention project completion or experience in detail beyond one positive multi-year relationship, making those dimension scores very low confidence.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews, all more than 9 years old, and should not be considered a reliable indicator of current contractor quality.

Burton Repair / Kevin Powell's operation presents a deeply mixed and concerning picture across all dimensions. While two positive reviews praise professionalism, responsiveness, and fair pricing, three substantive negative reviews describe serious failures: abandoned or incomplete work, dishonest billing practices, poor workmanship (leaking gas lines, collapsing structures, non-functional electrical outlets), and refusal to honor callbacks. The negative reviews are highly detailed and specific, lending them significant credibility and pulling scores down sharply. Pricing is flagged as a major concern, with one reviewer citing nearly $10,000 for an unfinished job and another noting no documentation for materials used. Project completion is the most alarming dimension, with multiple reviewers explicitly stating work was left unfinished, defective, or fraudulently billed.

• SERIOUS QUALITY CONCERN: Multiple detailed negative reviews describe dangerous workmanship including a leaking gas line, collapsing shed, non-functional electrical outlets, and a trailer that remained unlevel after a $10K job.
• CALLBACK REFUSAL: At least one reviewer explicitly states the contractor refused to return and correct unfinished or defective work, which is a critical red flag for project completion.
• BILLING INTEGRITY CONCERN: One reviewer alleges materials were brought from other jobs with no documentation, and another alleges hours billed (27) far exceeded hours actually worked (3-4).
• RECENCY WARNING: The two most positive reviews are from 2017 and 2020 respectively, while the most detailed negative reviews are from 2018. The majority of reviews are more than 4 years old, with the most recent being from 2020. No reviews from the past 12 months are present — current performance cannot be assessed.
• OWNERSHIP CHANGE: One reviewer notes the business was sold mid-project from Robert to Kevin Powell, which may explain inconsistency in service quality across reviews and complicates attribution of blame.
• LOW REVIEW VOLUME: Only 7 total reviews span approximately 8 years, making statistical confidence very low. Scores should be treated with caution.
• ONE REVIEW ('Great', 3-star, 2012) provided no usable detail and was excluded from dimension scoring.

This WW Score carries LOW overall reliability due to a very small review pool (7 reviews over 8 years), no recent reviews within the past 12 months, a mid-business ownership change, and a stark split between vague positive reviews and highly detailed, specific negative reviews that describe dangerous and dishonest work practices.

Sound Mechanical receives a critically low WW Score of 32.8, driven by severe deficiencies in professionalism and project completion. Four reviews explicitly document unprofessional behavior including laughing at property damage, using foul language, denying responsibility for mistakes, and dismissing customer concerns. Three reviews mention incomplete or problematic work (disconnected dryer vent, unreplaced bathroom door, debris left behind). Two reviews cite pricing issues including aggressive payment demands and late fees. Only two positive reviews exist, both from 2020–2021 and lacking specific detail, creating a stark contrast with the detailed negative accounts from 2022. The company's pattern of blame-shifting and hostile customer interactions is the primary driver of the low score.

• CRITICAL: Potential company name inconsistency — reviews reference both 'Sound Mechanical' and 'Sage Mechanical.' This may indicate data quality issues or confusion between entities.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most negative reviews are from 2022; positive reviews are from 2020–2021. Recent pattern suggests deterioration in service quality.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION: The two 5-star reviews (2021 and 2020) are generic in praise ('excellent service,' 'professional team') with minimal specific detail, contrasting sharply with the highly detailed negative reviews. This asymmetry is atypical and warrants skepticism about review authenticity.
• SEVERE BEHAVIORAL RED FLAGS: Multiple reviews document hostile communication, profanity, denial of responsibility, and dismissive attitudes toward legitimate customer concerns. This pattern suggests systemic cultural issues within the company.
• INCOMPLETE WORK PATTERN: Three separate reviews document unfinished or damaged work (hot water heater incident, dryer vent disconnection, bathroom door left in wrong room, debris left behind).

This WW Score should be treated with MODERATE confidence due to the small sample size (5 reviews) and potential data quality issues (company name discrepancy). However, the consistency and specificity of negative feedback across multiple independent reviews from 2022, combined with the generic nature of positive reviews, suggests the low score reflects genuine service problems. Prospective customers should exercise significant caution.

Alkota Plumbing & Heating receives overwhelmingly negative reviews across all four scored dimensions, with only 3 of 14 reviews being positive. Pricing is the most consistently criticized dimension, with multiple reviewers citing rates equivalent to $475–$700 per hour, unexpected charges, and billing discrepancies including a disputed $16 materials charge when no parts were supplied. Project completion is severely undermined by repeated accounts of unresolved issues requiring multiple return visits, a boiler installation that took four or more follow-up trips to function, and at least one case where the root cause was never properly diagnosed. Experience and workmanship are called into serious question by a detailed account of unnecessary part replacements totaling over $1,400, a gas leak following a furnace installation, and a technician leaving an intake pipe disconnected in an unsafe configuration. Professionalism suffers from reports of missed appointments, poor communication, unanswered callbacks, and at minimum one instance of a customer being effectively hung up on.

• RECENCY WARNING: The majority of reviews are from 2013–2016, with only two reviews from 2019. The most recent reviews are over 5 years old as of a 2024 evaluation date. Current performance may differ significantly.
• BILLING DISCREPANCY FLAG: One reviewer (2015) reported receiving a mailed invoice showing $16 in materials despite supplying all parts themselves — this suggests possible invoice manipulation and warrants caution.
• SAFETY CONCERN FLAG: One reviewer reported a gas leak following a furnace installation (2008 install, discovered over time), and another reported a technician leaving an intake pipe disconnected, creating a potential carbon monoxide hazard. These are serious workmanship and safety red flags.
• WARRANTY/ACCOUNTABILITY FLAG: At least two reviewers reported that Alkota refused to honor or even acknowledge prior work when issues arose, including one case where the company denied making repairs despite their own tags being on the equipment.
• POSITIVE REVIEW QUALITY NOTE: The three positive reviews (2012, 2016, 2019) are specific and credible, but they are heavily outnumbered and largely older. They are not flagged as fake but carry limited weight against the volume of detailed negative accounts.
• NO FAKE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: Negative reviews are highly specific, varied in detail, and written in distinct voices. No coordinated fake review pattern is suspected.

This WW Score is based on 14 reviews with high mention counts across all dimensions, but reliability is moderated by the age of the data — most reviews are from 2013–2016 — meaning this score reflects historical performance and may not accurately represent the contractor's current quality.

Professionalism is the most consistently mentioned dimension across all five reviews, and the picture is overwhelmingly negative — four of five reviewers explicitly describe rude, unresponsive, or condescending staff, with only one reviewer praising responsiveness and professionalism. Project completion is similarly troubled, with one reviewer reporting a furnace installed improperly causing years of costly repairs, and another describing two consecutive no-shows for a scheduled appointment. Experience scores slightly higher but is still poor, anchored by the one positive review praising first-rate installation workmanship, offset by the improperly installed furnace complaint. Pricing data is sparse, with only one reviewer referencing cost in a negative context (thousands spent fixing a bad install) and no reviews explicitly praising fair or transparent pricing.

• All reviews are older than 12 months — the most recent review is from October 2017, meaning no data exists from the past several years. This score may not reflect current business performance.
• Review set is very small (5 reviews), which severely limits statistical reliability. The single positive review (5-star, 2016) is heavily outweighed by four 1-star reviews.
• No suspected fake reviews detected — reviews contain specific details, varied language, and a mix of ratings consistent with authentic customer experiences.
• The one positive review is from 2016 and predates all negative reviews in the set except one from 2013, suggesting a possible decline in service quality over time.

This WW Score carries LOW overall reliability due to the very small review sample (5 reviews), the age of all reviews (none more recent than 2017), and the heavy skew toward negative experiences — treat this score as a historical signal only and seek more current data before making a hiring decision.

The reviews paint a predominantly negative picture across all four dimensions. Professionalism is severely undermined by repeated no-shows, missed callbacks, and poor communication across three of the four reviews, with only one older review noting a satisfactory experience. Pricing concerns are explicit, with one reviewer describing charges well above the original estimate and another noting no overcharge — the single positive data point. Project completion is critically damaged by one reviewer whose work leaked afterward and whose callback request was refused, and another whose misdiagnosis led to a house flood; only one reviewer reported completed work with no issues. Experience scores are low due to documented misdiagnoses and shoddy workmanship, though one reviewer did report competent service. The sole positive review dates to 2014, and the most damaging reviews span 2011–2016, all well outside a 12-month recency window.

• All reviews are older than 8 years (most recent: 2016-12-29); no recent data is available to assess current performance.
• Only 1 out of 4 reviews is positive, and it is the least detailed of the set — it contains no specifics about the work performed, which limits its evidentiary weight.
• One reviewer explicitly names the contractor (Dave Chouinard) and describes refusal to honor a callback for defective work — a serious professional and legal concern.
• A separate reviewer documents a misdiagnosis that directly caused property flooding, suggesting a pattern of diagnostic incompetence across multiple service visits.
• The positive review (2014) may reflect a different period of business operation or a different technician; it should not be weighted equally against three detailed negative accounts.
• With only 4 total reviews, confidence in all dimension scores is inherently limited regardless of the MODERATE label assigned by mention count.

This WW Score should be treated with caution — it is based on only 4 reviews, all more than 8 years old, with no recent data to confirm whether performance has improved or declined.