Find Nearby Plumbers In Apache Junction, Arizona

Wade receives strong praise across three positive reviews for his promptness, honesty, and technical knowledge, particularly around water heater work. Pricing is consistently described as fair and non-exploitative. However, the most recent review (2020) raises a meaningful concern about project completion: a callback was handled dismissively with a one-word response and the original problem was not resolved, resulting in a 2-star rating. This unresolved job drags down the project completion score significantly, as follow-through is a core component of that dimension. All reviews are from 2019–2020, meaning none fall within the past 12 months, which further limits confidence in current performance.

• All 4 reviews are dated between 2019 and 2020 — none are within the past 12 months. Current performance cannot be reliably assessed from this data.
• The most recent review (Oct 2020, 2-star) directly contradicts the positive older reviews and describes a failed callback and unresolved issue — this is a meaningful red flag for project completion and responsiveness.
• Small sample size of only 4 reviews severely limits statistical reliability. Scores should be treated as directional only.
• Three of four reviews are 5-star with broadly positive language. While not conclusively fake, the small sample and lack of granular detail in some reviews (e.g., the Feb 2019 review) warrants mild caution.

This WW Score carries LIMITED overall reliability due to a very small review sample (4 reviews), all reviews being over 3 years old, and a notable unresolved complaint in the most recent review that directly impacts project completion confidence.

Brooks Plumbing has a deeply polarized review profile spanning over a decade. A substantial base of loyal, long-term customers consistently praise timely service, fair pricing, and skilled workmanship — particularly from technicians like Paul, Terry, Carlos, Oliver, and Phillip. However, a significant and recurring pattern of negative reviews specifically targets the owner John for rude, combative, and condescending behavior when customers question billing, which substantially drags down the professionalism and pricing scores. Pricing complaints are among the most serious and specific, with multiple reviewers citing charges they allege were inflated by 2x–4x compared to competitors, and at least two reviewers describing disputed charges during the February 2021 Texas winter storm. Project completion scores are moderate-to-good among those who saw jobs through, but several reviews describe abandoned follow-through, missed appointments, and unresolved callbacks that prevent a higher score.

• OWNER CONDUCT PATTERN: At least 12 separate reviews across multiple years explicitly name the owner (John/John Basalone) as rude, combative, condescending, or prone to hanging up on customers — this is a consistent and credible pattern, not isolated incidents.
• OVERCHARGING PATTERN: Multiple detailed, specific reviews across 2016–2021 allege significant overcharging with itemized examples (e.g., $700 for 2ft copper pipe, $125 permit that city confirmed costs $52, $1800 quote vs $500 competitor price). This is too specific and recurring to dismiss.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — MODERATE: A cluster of reviews dated exactly '2025-04-10', '2025-06-02', '2025-06-03', '2022-06-10', '2021-06-10', '2020-06-10', '2019-06-11', '2018-06-11', and '2023-06-10' contain no review text (rating only) or extremely generic praise with no specifics. These batch-dated blank or vague reviews inflate the star average and reduce confidence in the positive review pool.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent reviews (2024–2025) are predominantly positive and suggest possible improvement in service quality or staff changes. However, a 1-star review from February 2025 still cites overcharging and an unfriendly technician, indicating the issues have not been fully resolved.
• RESPONSIVENESS FAILURES: At least 4 reviews describe being completely ignored after initial contact — no follow-up, no estimate delivered, no callback — suggesting systemic communication gaps.
• ABANDONED/INCOMPLETE WORK: The 2019 sewer pump review describes months of incomplete, repeatedly failing work with the owner eventually telling the customer to 'part ways.' A 2019 review also describes a no-show estimate appointment. A 2016 review describes a job delayed by incorrect diagnosis. These are serious project completion concerns.
• 21 reviews contained no text (rating only) and were excluded from dimension scoring but counted toward total reviews analyzed.

This WW Score of 68.2 is based on a large and diverse review set spanning 2011–2025 and carries HIGH overall confidence, but prospective customers should weigh the persistent and specific pattern of owner-related rudeness and overcharging complaints heavily, as these represent a structural risk that positive technician-level reviews do not fully offset.

AP Plumbing receives broadly positive marks for professionalism and technician demeanor — the majority of substantive reviews praise individual technicians as courteous, punctual, and communicative — but this is heavily counterbalanced by a very large volume of serious pricing complaints spanning the entire review history. Pricing is the single most-mentioned dimension and is overwhelmingly negative: dozens of reviewers across many years describe charges they consider grossly inflated for simple jobs (e.g., $400+ for a 15-minute faucet swap, $800–$2,000 to clear a drain, $1,200+ for a garbage disposal install), and multiple reviewers explicitly accuse the company of targeting elderly or vulnerable customers. Project completion is moderate: most jobs are finished, but there are meaningful complaints about return visits for the same problem, abandoned work orders, no-shows, and at least one case of a gas leak caused by improper installation. Technical experience is generally rated positively by satisfied customers, though several reviews describe technicians who failed to diagnose problems that were quickly found by others, undermining confidence in consistency.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: Multiple reviews appear to be exact word-for-word duplicates posted on different dates within the same week (e.g., the Kendal Rosa review from 2025-06-09 and 2025-06-06 are identical; the 'On their second trip back' 1-star review appears twice; the 'KendL was very professional' review appears twice; the 'Really enjoyed my experience with Kendal Rosa' review appears twice; the 'David was great' review appears twice; the 'Kendal solved the issue' review appears twice; the 'Honest work done well' review appears twice). This is a strong indicator of review manipulation or platform duplication artifacts. Confidence in the June 2025 review cluster is reduced.
• LARGE VOLUME OF BLANK REVIEWS: Approximately 20+ reviews contain no text and only a 5-star rating. These provide no usable data and were excluded from dimension scoring. Their presence in high concentration around specific date clusters (June 2025, May 2025) is consistent with fake review padding patterns.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS ARE SYSTEMIC AND SPAN OVER 15 YEARS (2006–2025): This is not an isolated pattern. Dozens of independent reviewers across multiple platforms and time periods describe the same core complaint — high flat-rate pricing, $89 dispatch fees, and charges perceived as exploitative for short or simple jobs. This is a structural business practice, not an anomaly.
• MANAGEMENT CONDUCT COMPLAINTS: Multiple reviews specifically name a manager ('Jason') as rude, dismissive, and unwilling to resolve legitimate complaints. One review describes a gas leak caused by improper installation followed by inadequate customer service response. These are serious operational red flags.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent reviews (2025) are heavily skewed toward 5-star ratings, many of which are blank or duplicated. Reviews from 2019–2024 contain a disproportionately high volume of 1-star pricing and professionalism complaints. The recent positive cluster should be treated with skepticism given the duplication evidence.
• ELDERLY TARGETING ALLEGATIONS: At least four independent reviews explicitly state that AP Plumbing took financial advantage of elderly or fixed-income customers. This is a serious reputational and ethical flag.
• INCOMPLETE WORK / CALLBACK FAILURES: Multiple reviews describe jobs that were not fixed on the first visit, return visits that introduced new problems, and instances where the company refused to honor callbacks without additional dispatch fees.

This WW Score is based on a very large review set spanning over 15 years and carries HIGH statistical confidence in its dimensions, but the score should be interpreted cautiously given strong evidence of duplicate and blank review padding in recent months, systemic pricing complaints that are deeply consistent across independent reviewers, and serious isolated incidents involving gas leaks, abandoned work, and alleged elder financial exploitation.

Copper Top Plumbing shows significant inconsistency across reviews spanning 2015–2023. Professionalism scores moderately well (72) based on six mentions highlighting punctuality, responsiveness, and personable staff, though two reviews explicitly criticize communication and follow-through. Pricing is a major weakness (45), with explicit complaints of overcharging ($440 for work worth $250–300) and lack of transparency, mentioned in three reviews. Project completion is concerning (60) due to reports of incomplete work, bad fittings, and unresolved leaks requiring customer follow-up. Experience is rated 75 based on positive mentions of technical knowledge, though one review questions workmanship quality and language barriers. The wide variance between 5-star and 1-star reviews, combined with serious complaints about pricing and work quality, suggests this contractor delivers inconsistent service.

• RECENCY CONCERN: Most positive reviews are from 2015–2019 (4–8 years old). Recent reviews (2020, 2023) are predominantly negative, suggesting service quality may have declined.
• PRICING RED FLAG: Two explicit complaints of overcharging and lack of transparency. One customer reported paying $440 for work quoted at $250–300 by competitors.
• WORK QUALITY CONCERN: One detailed 1-star review (2015-03-13) describes incomplete work, bad fittings, and customer forced to hire another plumber and purchase parts already paid for by insurance.
• COMMUNICATION FAILURE: One review (2020-11-01) reports no callback or email response.
• POLARIZED RATINGS: 5 five-star reviews vs. 3 one-star reviews with no middle ground suggests either highly satisfied or severely dissatisfied customers—possible service inconsistency or reviewer selection bias.

This score should be treated with caution. While based on nine reviews, the extreme polarization between 5-star and 1-star ratings, combined with the age of positive reviews and recency of negative ones, suggests either significant service degradation over time or inconsistent quality. The explicit pricing complaints and work completion issues are serious concerns that warrant direct verification before hiring.

The review set is small and mixed, making confident scoring difficult. Professionalism is the most-mentioned dimension but is sharply divided: one reviewer praised fast response and communication, another highlighted integrity and helpfulness, while a third explicitly called out lateness and felt taken advantage of during the quoting process. Pricing is the most damaging dimension, with one reviewer receiving a quote of $7,000–$14,000 for a repair that ultimately cost $360 elsewhere, which is a severe red flag that heavily drags the pricing score down despite one positive pricing mention. Project completion scores moderately, as two reviews confirm work was completed satisfactorily, but the sample is too small to draw strong conclusions. Experience is similarly split — two reviews suggest competent workmanship, but the wildly inflated quote in the negative review raises questions about diagnostic integrity or upselling practices.

• PRICING CONCERN: One reviewer was quoted $7,000–$14,000 for a repair completed by another contractor for $360. This is an extreme discrepancy and may indicate predatory quoting or misdiagnosis.
• SMALL SAMPLE SIZE: Only 3 reviews analyzed. The WW Score carries very low statistical reliability and should not be used as a definitive assessment.
• RECENCY NOTE: All three reviews are from 2024, so recency weighting does not differentiate them, but the sample is too small to establish a trend.
• CONFLICT BETWEEN REVIEWS: The reviews are sharply polarized (one 1-star, two 5-stars), which may reflect inconsistent service quality across different technicians or job types rather than a stable service standard.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews and should be treated as preliminary and low-confidence — do not rely on it as a definitive measure of this contractor's quality without a substantially larger review sample.

The review set paints a deeply troubling picture of this contractor across all four dimensions. Professionalism is severely damaged by repeated no-shows, technicians who verbally abused customers, lied about prior contact attempts, and staff who were described as rude and condescending — with only a small cluster of positive reviews offering any counterweight. Pricing is a major red flag, with multiple reviewers documenting egregious markups (a $20 capacitor billed at $400+, a gas line quoted at nearly 4x competitor rates, and a water heater job that doubled mid-service under pressure), and a near-total lack of transparent invoicing. Project completion is critically weak, with documented cases of abandoned appointments, unresolved repairs, work left incomplete requiring a second company, and a hole left in drywall — offset only slightly by a few reviews praising efficient job completion. Experience scores marginally higher due to a handful of positive reviews citing knowledgeable technicians, but is undermined by accounts of technicians misdiagnosing problems, performing unnecessary replacements, and lacking specialization for the jobs they were assigned.

• SUSPECTED FAKE REVIEW CLUSTER: Five reviews posted on 2023-05-31 all praise the same technician 'Jesse' using nearly identical structure and generic language with no specific job details. These appear to be coordinated or inauthentic reviews and have been weighted accordingly.
• One reviewer explicitly alleges that Cactus Plumbing uses a review removal service and that their Google rating is artificially inflated — this is consistent with the suspicious Jesse review cluster and warrants serious scrutiny.
• Multiple reviews describe a pattern of no-shows without notification, which suggests a systemic operational failure rather than isolated incidents.
• Multiple reviews describe pricing practices consistent with price gouging: extreme markups on parts, mid-job estimate doubling under pressure, and refusal to provide itemized invoices.
• A technician ('Bobby') was described as verbally abusive, threatening to place a lien on a customer's home, and writing retaliatory notes on an invoice — a serious professionalism and legal concern.
• A technician ('Junior') was reportedly sent to perform a water heater replacement despite not being specialized in that work, suggesting unsafe or deceptive staffing practices.
• The company was described as operating under multiple business names, which a reviewer characterized as a deliberate strategy to avoid accountability.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of negative reviews are from 2023–2024, indicating these are not historical issues but ongoing and current problems.

This WW Score is based on 21 reviews with strong cross-dimensional coverage and is considered highly reliable; the score of 31.4 reflects a contractor with serious, documented, and recurring failures in professionalism, pricing transparency, and job completion, and prospective customers should exercise extreme caution.