Find Nearby Plumbers In Apache Junction, Arizona

James Plumbing demonstrates solid professionalism with consistent praise for friendliness, responsiveness, and punctuality across 8 reviews. Pricing is generally viewed as fair and transparent, though one 2021 review alleges significant overcharging ($6000 vs $3000 competitor quote). Project completion is reliable for routine work, but a detailed 2018 complaint describes sloppy workmanship, missing tools, and incomplete installations on a major job, suggesting inconsistency on complex projects. Technical skill appears competent for standard plumbing but the 2018 review raises concerns about quality control on premium work. The score reflects strong fundamentals undermined by one serious quality incident.

• One review (2018-09-15) contains extremely detailed, specific complaints about workmanship quality, tool theft, and owner defensiveness on a major project—this is a credible negative outlier, not a fake review.
• One review (2015-05-29) contains only a period (.) with a 5-star rating—this appears to be a placeholder or incomplete submission and was excluded from scoring.
• One review (2004-05-12) is 20 years old and uses all-caps formatting; while not fake, it carries minimal weight due to extreme age.
• Review dates show significant clustering: 4 reviews from 2020-2024 (recent), 3 from 2015-2017 (older), 1 from 2018 (negative), 1 from 2004 (very old). Recent reviews are uniformly positive; older reviews include the major quality complaint.
• The 2021 one-star review alleging $6000 overcharge is brief and lacks detail, making it harder to verify, but aligns with the 2018 complaint pattern of potential pricing/value issues on larger jobs.

This score should be treated with MODERATE confidence. While recent reviews (2020–2024) are consistently positive and support a higher rating, a detailed 2018 complaint about sloppy workmanship and the 2021 overcharge allegation suggest quality and pricing inconsistency on complex or premium projects. The company appears reliable for routine plumbing but may have execution gaps on larger jobs. Prospective customers should request references for work similar in scope to their project.

Delta Plumbing demonstrates strong technical expertise and workmanship, with many customers praising knowledgeable service and efficient problem-solving. However, professionalism is inconsistent—while most interactions are positive, several reviews document poor communication (missed callbacks, no-shows), rudeness, and unprofessional behavior. Project completion shows significant concerns, with multiple reports of incomplete work, follow-up failures, and damage caused during service. Pricing is generally fair, though one customer reported a dramatic quote-to-bill discrepancy ($200 quoted vs. $700 charged). The company's performance has been uneven over its long history, with older reviews (2011–2015) more consistently positive than recent ones.

• RECENCY CONCERN: Most positive reviews are 8+ years old (2011–2015). Recent reviews (2018–2024) show more negative patterns including communication failures and incomplete work.
• CALLBACK FAILURES: Multiple reviews (2018, 2010, 2009) explicitly mention unanswered voicemails and no-shows, suggesting systemic communication issues.
• SERIOUS INCIDENT: 2011 review documents alleged threatening behavior, unsafe work practices, and significant property damage during a bathroom remodel, with BBB complaint history noted.
• QUALITY INCONSISTENCY: One 2016 review reports major quote-to-bill discrepancy ($200→$700) and aggressive upselling tactics, contradicting claims of honest pricing.
• FOLLOW-UP FAILURES: Multiple reviews (2010, 2009) report promised callbacks and estimates that never materialized.
• INCOMPLETE WORK: 2010 review documents water heater damage caused during service with no timely follow-up repair.
• LICENSING QUESTION: 2011 review raises concern about unlicensed remodeling work; 2012 review claims plumber is unlicensed.
• MINIMAL DETAIL REVIEWS: Two reviews contain only punctuation marks or 'unknown' text, reducing data quality.

This score should be treated with caution. While the company demonstrates genuine technical competence, the pattern of communication failures, incomplete follow-ups, and serious incidents in documented reviews—combined with a significant age skew toward older positive reviews—suggests current performance may be lower than the overall score indicates. The MODERATE confidence reflects conflicting evidence: strong workmanship claims versus documented professionalism and completion failures.

Ready Plumbing has a mixed but generally positive track record across most dimensions. Professionalism scores are dragged down significantly by two serious negative reviews: one describing a contractor who refused to correct substandard sump pump installation work and began ignoring client communications, and another describing work that failed to meet code and was similarly met with refusal to accept responsibility. On the positive side, multiple detailed reviews praise Steve and Willy for punctuality, clear communication, and courteous behavior. Pricing is a relative strength, with several reviewers explicitly noting fair, transparent, and reasonable pricing with no hidden charges. Project completion is the most concerning dimension — while many jobs were completed satisfactorily, two documented cases of incomplete or non-code-compliant work with no remediation significantly lower this score. Experience scores are moderate, with several reviewers praising technical knowledge and problem-solving, offset by the two cases of poor workmanship.

• Three reviews contain only the text 'unknown' with 5-star or 4-star ratings and no usable content — these were excluded from scoring as they provide no verifiable information.
• One undated review (the final review about sewer drains and repiping) uses highly generic, marketing-style language with no specific details about cost, technician name, or timeline — possible fake or solicited review; treated with reduced weight.
• Two reviews labeled 'Great job! Thanks again' and 'Excellent job' are extremely brief with no supporting detail — these were noted but not used to score any specific dimension due to lack of evidence.
• The most recent substantive negative review (May 2024) describes a serious unresolved dispute involving improper installation, refusal to correct work, and failure to follow manufacturer instructions — this is a significant red flag for project completion and professionalism.
• A second serious negative review (December 2016) describes work that failed code inspection, was torn out twice, and resulted in the contractor ignoring all follow-up contact — a pattern of abandonment behavior appears across two separate negative reviews spanning different years.
• The majority of detailed positive reviews are from 2015–2017, making them 7–9 years old. Only one clearly dated substantive review is from the past 12 months (April/May 2024), and it is a 2-star complaint. Recency weighting therefore disadvantages the overall score.
• RECENCY WARNING: Most positive reviews are older than 5 years. The most recent datable review with substantive content is a serious complaint from 2024. This raises concern that service quality may have declined over time.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability — while the mention counts are sufficient for statistical confidence in most dimensions, the heavy age skew of positive reviews, two serious unresolved complaints including one from 2024, and several uninformative filler reviews mean the score should be interpreted cautiously, particularly for project completion and professionalism.

This review set is a heavily mixed dataset drawn from two entirely different businesses — a UPS Store location and Armer Corp (a plumbing/HVAC contractor) — which significantly undermines scoring reliability. Among the contractor-relevant reviews (Armer Corp), professionalism scores were dragged down by multiple explicit complaints about rude technicians, insulting behavior toward customers, and unprofessional conduct, despite a strong base of positive reviews praising punctuality and courtesy. Pricing received a notably low score due to a complaint about undisclosed accessory costs and a lack of transparency around a $500 hard start kit, alongside one positive mention of fair pricing. Project completion was mixed, with some reviews praising efficient same-day work and follow-through, but offset by a complaint about botched work being falsely verified and a failed AC unit before summer ended. Experience scores were moderate-to-positive overall, with several reviews praising diagnostic accuracy and technical knowledge, but undermined by the notary incompetence complaint (UPS) and the AC hard start kit transparency failure.

• CRITICAL DATA INTEGRITY ISSUE: This review set contains reviews from at least two completely different businesses — a UPS Store retail location and Armer Corp (a plumbing/HVAC/plumbing contractor). These should never be scored together. The WW Score calculated here is unreliable as a result.
• 12 reviews contain no text whatsoever — only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence per scoring rules.
• Several UPS Store reviews are highly generic (e.g., 'Really helpful and kind.', 'Great service and awesome employees') with no specifics, which raises mild fake review concern for that subset.
• Armer Corp reviews span from 2012 to 2023. Reviews older than 12 months were deprioritized. The most recent Armer-specific review (2023) is a negative one regarding undisclosed AC accessory costs, which is given elevated weight.
• The UPS Store reviews are mostly from 2024–2025 and are more recent, but they are irrelevant to a contractor/plumber scoring context.
• One review explicitly names a specific wrong location (Baseline Ellsworth) suggesting some reviews may be for different UPS Store branches, further contaminating the dataset.
• Recency note: All Armer Corp reviews are from 2012–2023, meaning none fall within the past 12 months as of mid-2025. The contractor score should be treated with caution due to data staleness.

This WW Score should NOT be trusted as a reliable assessment of any single contractor or business — the review dataset is fundamentally compromised by mixing reviews from two unrelated businesses (a UPS Store and Armer Corp HVAC/Plumbing), and all Armer Corp reviews are more than 12 months old, making the score both contextually invalid and potentially outdated.

Ox Plumbing receives consistently strong feedback across all four scored dimensions, with professionalism being the most frequently and explicitly praised quality — reviewers highlight responsiveness, same-day and emergency availability, and courteous demeanor. Pricing stands out as a genuine differentiator, with one reviewer specifically noting that Eric diagnosed and repaired a shower issue for under $300 after other plumbers quoted thousands, and another praising his cost-efficient approach and transparency. Project completion is well-supported, with multiple reviewers confirming jobs were seen through to full resolution, including a complex multi-day water softener replacement that was not left until 100% finished. Experience and technical skill are evidenced by accurate diagnoses, efficient repairs, and the ability to solve problems that other plumbers had mischaracterized. The overall picture is of a reliable, honest, and skilled small plumbing operation, though the score is tempered by the very small review pool of only 5 reviews.

• Very small sample size (5 reviews total) — WW Score should be treated as preliminary and not fully representative of long-term performance.
• All reviews are 5-star ratings with no negative or mixed feedback, which warrants mild caution; however, reviews do contain specific details, named individuals, and varied scenarios, reducing the likelihood of fabrication.
• One review (2022-05-02) is older than 2 years and was given reduced weight; the remaining four reviews fall within the past 24 months with three from 2024, suggesting recent consistency.
• No negative experiences, complaints, or constructive criticism appear in any review — while this may reflect genuine quality, it limits the ability to identify any weaknesses or risk areas.

This WW Score carries moderate-to-limited reliability due to the small review pool of only 5 reviews; the scores are directionally positive and supported by specific, credible detail, but should be revisited as more reviews accumulate before being treated as a high-confidence assessment.

Mike and Avalon Plumbing receive consistently positive feedback across professionalism-related attributes, with multiple reviewers citing promptness, courtesy, responsiveness, and a friendly demeanor. Pricing is described as fair and reasonable by several reviewers, though no specifics or comparisons are provided. Project completion is supported by a few reviews mentioning finished jobs and follow-through, including one notable case where Mike completed work abandoned by a prior plumber. Experience and workmanship are referenced in a limited way, with mentions of gas line installation and bathroom remodel work, but without detailed technical commentary. The overall review base is small and heavily skewed toward older reviews, which significantly limits confidence in the final score.

• Only 7 total reviews — sample size is too small to draw reliable conclusions about consistent performance.
• 5 of 7 reviews are more than 3 years old, and 4 reviews date back to 2009–2013, making them potentially outdated and not reflective of current service quality.
• Several reviews use generic praise ('great guy,' 'awesome job,' 'great service') with limited specifics, which reduces evidentiary weight.
• The 2009 review contains no actionable detail and contributes minimal scoring value.
• All reviews are 5-star ratings with no negative or mixed feedback — while not conclusive, this pattern warrants caution in a small review set.

This WW Score should be treated with caution due to the very small number of reviews, the age of most submissions, and the absence of any critical or mixed feedback, all of which limit the ability to assess current and consistent performance reliably.