Find Nearby Plumbers In Apache Junction, Arizona

This contractor has a deeply polarized review profile, with three 5-star reviews praising professionalism, speed, and knowledge, and three 1-star reviews describing rude behavior, hanging up on customers, and — most critically — one allegation of a tank never being pumped despite payment. Professionalism is the most-mentioned dimension and scores poorly due to multiple explicit accounts of yelling, hanging up, and dismissive communication. Project completion is significantly dragged down by one detailed allegation that the core service (septic pumping) was not performed at all, which if accurate represents a serious failure. Pricing concerns include a failure to return change and a disputed charge for work allegedly not completed. The positive reviews do show genuine technical knowledge and responsiveness in some cases, but the severity and specificity of the negative reviews prevent any dimension from scoring above 50.

• One review (2020-03-21) contains a serious allegation that the septic tank was never pumped despite full payment — a second company confirmed the tank was still full. This is a potential fraud/non-performance flag.
• Two of the three positive reviews are relatively generic in detail (2018-12-17 and 2023-01-08), though they do include some specific observations. No confirmed fake review pattern, but positive reviews should be treated cautiously given the severity of negative accounts.
• Review recency concern: Three of the six reviews are from 2018–2019, which are more than 5 years old. Only one review is from the past 12 months (2024-04-03). The most recent review is positive, but the sample is too small to confirm a trend of improvement.
• The 1-star review from 2018-12-01 is extremely vague ('everything was super super unprofessional') with no specifics — this review was scored conservatively and given limited evidentiary weight.
• With only 6 total reviews spanning 6 years, the overall dataset is very thin. The WW Score should be treated as LOW RELIABILITY.

This WW Score is based on only 6 reviews over a 6-year period, includes one serious non-performance allegation, and reflects a highly polarized pattern — it should be treated as LOW RELIABILITY and prospective customers are strongly advised to seek additional references before hiring.

Valley Pro Plumbing demonstrates severe deficiencies across professionalism and project completion. Three of four reviews explicitly document failure to respond to calls, honor callbacks, and follow through on warranty obligations and service promises. The single positive review (2020-05-06) lacks specificity and appears inconsistent with the pattern of non-responsiveness documented in three detailed negative reviews. Poor communication, non-responsiveness, and abandoned follow-up work are the dominant themes. The one mention of technical competence (initial RO system installation) is contradicted by subsequent failure and flooding.

• CRITICAL: Three reviews (75% of sample) document identical failure pattern: promised callbacks never honored, calls unanswered, no follow-up. This is not isolated complaint but systemic operational failure.
• SUSPICIOUS REVIEW: The 5-star review (2020-05-06) is generic, lacks specifics, and contradicts the overwhelming pattern of non-responsiveness in other reviews. May be fake or from different business entity.
• RECENCY CONCERN: All reviews are from 2020-2021 (3-4 years old). No recent reviews available to assess if issues have been corrected.
• SCOPE INCONSISTENCY: One review mentions tree replacement (not plumbing-related), suggesting possible business scope confusion or review misattribution.

This score should be treated with caution due to small sample size (n=4) and age of reviews, but the consistency of documented non-responsiveness and project abandonment across three independent detailed accounts provides moderate confidence that serious service delivery problems exist or existed.

This review set cannot be analyzed as a contractor/plumber evaluation. The majority of reviews (9 of 14) are for a nail salon (Herndon Nail & Spa / Lee's nail services), which is completely outside the scope of plumbing and contracting work. Only 3 reviews appear to reference actual contractor/plumbing work (Billy's drywall, painting, and plumbing services, and one reference to Lee's kitchen remodel). The dataset is fundamentally contaminated with irrelevant business reviews, making any WW Score calculation invalid and unreliable.

• CRITICAL: Dataset contamination detected. Approximately 64% of reviews (9 of 14) are for a nail salon business, not a contractor or plumber. This makes the review set unsuitable for WW Score analysis.
• Only 3 reviews contain relevant contractor/plumbing work information, which is below the minimum threshold of 3 reviews needed for reliable scoring.
• Multiple reviews are empty or contain only ratings with no text, reducing usable data further.
• Possible data collection error: reviews appear to have been pulled from multiple unrelated businesses.
• One review (Billy's work) shows serious quality and safety issues (plumbing leak, incomplete drywall, poor professionalism), but insufficient corroborating data exists to establish patterns.

This WW Score cannot be calculated. The review dataset is contaminated with irrelevant business reviews (nail salon services) and contains insufficient relevant contractor/plumbing reviews to produce a trustworthy assessment. Data collection should be corrected to include only reviews for the target contractor.

This business demonstrates exceptional professionalism across all five reviews, with consistent praise for communication, responsiveness, friendliness, and helpfulness. Technical knowledge and problem-solving ability are also well-documented across four reviews. However, a WW Score cannot be reliably calculated because two critical dimensions—pricing and project completion—have no explicit mentions in any review. The reviews focus primarily on customer service and product knowledge rather than job completion timelines, pricing transparency, or value assessment. Without data on these dimensions, the overall score would be artificially inflated and unreliable.

• INSUFFICIENT DATA FOR WW SCORE: Only 2 of 4 dimensions have review mentions. Pricing and project completion are not addressed in any review.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Two reviews are from 2021-2022 (2-3 years old). Only two reviews are from 2024. Limited recent data.
• BUSINESS TYPE MISMATCH: This appears to be a tank/barrel retail and supply business, not a contractor or plumber. The WW Score framework is designed for service-based trades (plumbing, contracting). These reviews evaluate product sales and customer service, not project completion or workmanship on installed systems.
• POTENTIAL SELECTION BIAS: All five reviews are 5-star ratings with uniformly positive language. No critical feedback or complaints present. This may reflect genuine quality or selective review publication.

This score cannot be calculated reliably due to insufficient dimensional coverage and business type misalignment with the WW Score framework. A minimum of 3 dimensions with data is required, and this business appears to be a retail supplier rather than a service contractor.

With only 3 reviews available, the dataset is too small to produce a reliable WW Score. All reviews are positive and mention professionalism (punctuality, friendliness, communication, thoroughness), but the sample size is insufficient for statistical confidence. Two reviews explicitly reference project completion, and two mention workmanship quality. No reviews address pricing or value for money. The oldest review dates to 2020, limiting recency validation.

• Sample size of 3 reviews is below the minimum threshold of 5 for reliable scoring
• All reviews are 5-star ratings with generic praise language ('great guy', 'great work', 'highly recommend') — pattern suggests potential selection bias or incomplete feedback
• No negative or critical feedback present — unusual for any service provider
• Pricing dimension has zero mentions — cannot assess value proposition
• Two reviews are older than 3 years (2020, 2021), limiting recency of data

This analysis cannot produce a trustworthy WW Score due to insufficient review volume (n=3). Collect at least 5 additional reviews with diverse perspectives before relying on any scoring metric.

Both reviews speak positively about professionalism, with specific mentions of communication, attention to detail, and a courteous attitude. Pricing is explicitly called out as affordable in both reviews, lending some credibility to the value-for-money dimension. Project completion is supported by references to work being done correctly and quickly, though neither review describes a complex multi-phase project with follow-through challenges. The second review provides meaningful detail about technical knowledge and problem-solving — including product selection, identifying electrical hazards, and locating a lost tortoise — which supports a reasonable experience score. However, with only two reviews total, no dimension can be scored with meaningful confidence.

• Only 2 reviews provided — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per scoring rules requiring a minimum of 3 reviews.
• Both reviews are 5-star ratings. While the second review contains specific, credible detail that reduces fake review concern, the first review is relatively generic and brief, which warrants mild caution.
• No negative feedback or constructive criticism present across either review — this is expected with only 2 reviews but limits the ability to identify weaknesses.
• Review dates are from May–June 2023, making both reviews over 12 months old at time of analysis. No recent reviews are available to confirm current service quality.

This score report is based on only 2 reviews and should be considered highly preliminary — the WW Score cannot be formally calculated, and all dimension scores carry LIMITED confidence and should not be used as a reliable basis for hiring decisions without gathering additional review data.