Find Nearby Plumbers In Buckeye, Arizona

Bishop Plumbing demonstrates strong performance across all four dimensions. Professionalism is consistently praised with mentions of punctuality, politeness, courteous behavior, and positive attitude across 7 reviews. Pricing receives high marks with 7 reviews explicitly noting competitive rates, no hidden fees, and transparent quoting—often described as the lowest among multiple bids. Project completion is solid with 6 mentions of timely work, efficient execution, and follow-through on promised services. Experience is evidenced by 5 reviews highlighting quality workmanship, technical competence, and problem-solving ability. The WW Score of 87.2 reflects reliable, professional service with strong value proposition.

• RECENCY CONCERN: 6 of 8 reviews are from 2018–2019 (3–5 years old). Only 2 reviews are from 2021–2022. Recent performance data is limited.
• LICENSING CONCERN: One 2021 review (3.0 stars) raises a serious red flag—reviewer questions whether the contractor holds a valid ROC license, noting the posted license number has 5 digits instead of the required 6. This is a material compliance issue that warrants verification and reduces overall trustworthiness.
• REVIEW PATTERN: 6 of 8 reviews are 5-star ratings with enthusiastic language. While not necessarily fake, the high concentration of perfect scores combined with limited recent data suggests caution.

This score should be treated with MODERATE-to-HIGH caution: while the data shows strong performance on professionalism and pricing, the licensing concern raised in one review is serious and unresolved, the review base is aging (mostly 2018–2019), and recent performance data is sparse (only 2 reviews in past 2 years). Verification of current licensing status is strongly recommended before engaging this contractor.

ProCo Plumbing demonstrates strong performance across all measured dimensions. All three reviews explicitly praise professionalism, with consistent mentions of punctuality, responsiveness, and courteous communication. Project completion is consistently highlighted, with multiple complex jobs solved and completed on time. Experience and technical skill are strongly endorsed, particularly for solving difficult problems in older homes. Pricing is mentioned positively in two reviews as fair and affordable, though limited explicit detail on pricing transparency. The small sample size (3 reviews) and moderate recency spread (2023–2024) warrant a MODERATE overall confidence level.

• Sample size is very small (n=3); scores should be considered preliminary and updated as more reviews accumulate
• Two reviews are 5-star ratings with enthusiastic language; third is 3-star but still positive, which adds credibility and reduces concern about fake reviews
• Pricing dimension based on only 2 mentions; more explicit pricing feedback would strengthen confidence in that score
• No negative feedback or complaints present; this is consistent with genuine positive experiences but limits ability to assess weaknesses

This WW Score of 88.3 is moderately reliable for a small contractor with limited review volume; it reflects genuine positive feedback across all dimensions, but should be treated as preliminary pending accumulation of additional reviews (target: 10+ reviews for HIGH confidence).

Mr. Fix It has an overwhelmingly large review base spanning roughly 2006 to 2023, with the vast majority of customers praising punctuality, politeness, and professional demeanor. Pricing is generally described as fair, reasonable, or competitive, though a handful of reviews note costs exceeding estimates or material markup concerns. Project completion is the weakest dimension: while most jobs were finished satisfactorily, there are multiple credible negative reviews describing abandoned work, no-shows, jobs left incomplete, work that failed shortly after completion, and at least one alarming account of a technician arriving intoxicated and becoming hostile. Workmanship quality is generally solid but inconsistent — several reviews note sloppy cleanup, missed spots, or substandard finishing work, pulling the experience score below what the majority of positive reviews might otherwise suggest. The score reflects a genuinely capable and often excellent service tempered by a meaningful minority of serious failures that cannot be ignored.

• Approximately 30+ reviews contain only the text 'unknown' with no usable content — these were excluded from dimension scoring but counted in total reviews analyzed.
• Several reviews contain only punctuation marks ('.') or single-word responses ('GREAT!', 'PERFECTLY!!') with no scorable detail — treated as non-usable for dimension scoring.
• Multiple serious negative reviews are present and credible: one describes a technician arriving visibly intoxicated, becoming hostile, and dumping cement on the customer's car (2015); another describes work left incomplete with no follow-up and a bill sent anyway (2018); another describes a job that doubled in cost with equipment the contractor should have had (2017); another describes a contractor making two doors inoperable when only one was broken (2011).
• Several no-show and non-response complaints are present across multiple years (2011, 2014, 2014, 2014, 2021), suggesting a recurring responsiveness issue.
• The review pool spans approximately 17 years (2006–2023). The majority of reviews are older than 12 months relative to the most recent review date. Only 7 reviews are dated 2023, and the most recent cluster (2023) is predominantly positive — recency weighting slightly favors the positive signal but the historical negative pattern is significant.
• No strong fake review pattern detected — reviews vary substantially in length, detail, specificity, and rating. Negative reviews are specific and credible. The diversity of technician names (Jerry, John, Walt, Jody, Herschel, Bill, Danny, Richard, Aaron, Toby, Carlos, Dave) is consistent with a legitimate multi-technician operation.
• Quality consistency is a concern: multiple reviews note that quality varied by technician, and the owner (Bret) appears to have had communication and scheduling issues flagged independently of the technicians.

This WW Score is based on a very large review pool (295 reviews) with HIGH confidence across all four dimensions, making it statistically robust; however, the presence of multiple credible, detailed negative reviews — including serious professionalism failures and incomplete work — means the score should be interpreted as reflecting an inconsistent service where most experiences are positive but a meaningful minority are significantly problematic.

Kinman Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism with consistent mentions of punctuality, friendliness, and reliability across multiple reviews. Project completion is solid, with customers reporting jobs finished smoothly and on time. Technical competence is evident through descriptions of thorough, efficient work. Pricing feedback is limited but generally positive, described as fair and good value. The primary concern is review age—most reviews are 9+ years old (2011–2015), with only one from 2020, limiting confidence in current service standards.

• RECENCY ISSUE: 8 of 10 reviews are older than 9 years (2011–2015). Only 1 review from past 12 months. Current service quality cannot be reliably assessed.
• UNUSABLE REVIEW: One review contains only '/' with a 2.0 rating and no substantive content—excluded from analysis.
• LIMITED PRICING DATA: Only 3 reviews mention pricing. Confidence in pricing dimension is constrained.

This WW Score should be treated with caution due to severe recency bias; the overwhelming majority of reviews predate 2016, making it unclear whether current service matches historical performance.

Black Water Plumbing receives broadly positive feedback across professionalism, experience, and project completion, with multiple reviewers praising punctuality, cleanliness, and technical skill. Pricing is mentioned favorably in several reviews, with customers describing fair and honest rates. However, one 1-star review from 2019 describes a serious communication failure — no response to texts or calls for over a week, followed by a dismissive callback — which meaningfully drags down the professionalism and project completion scores. The majority of reviews are older than 12 months (most from 2017–2021), with only two reviews from the past 12 months, limiting confidence in how well these scores reflect current performance. Scores have been conservatively adjusted to account for the negative review and the age of the data.

• RECENCY WARNING: Only 2 of 11 reviews are from the past 12 months (2024). The majority of reviews are from 2017–2021, meaning this score may not reflect the contractor's current quality or reliability.
• NEGATIVE REVIEW FLAG: One 1-star review explicitly describes a complete communication breakdown — no response to texts or calls, and a dismissive callback. This is a direct contradiction of the professionalism praise in other reviews and has been weighted accordingly.
• GENERIC PRAISE PATTERN: Several reviews use brief, non-specific language ('great service,' 'highly recommended,' 'awesome') with no job details. While not conclusive of fake reviews, these add limited scoring value and were treated as low-evidence mentions.
• SMALL SAMPLE SIZE: With only 11 total reviews spanning 7 years, the dataset is limited. Scores should be interpreted cautiously.

This WW Score carries moderate reliability — the positive dimensions are supported by multiple mentions, but the small total review count, predominance of older reviews, and one significant negative professionalism incident reduce confidence in how accurately this score reflects the contractor's current performance.

The review set is extremely small at only 3 reviews, making any score highly unreliable. Professionalism is sharply divided: two positive reviews praise responsiveness and communication, while the most recent review (July 2024) describes a serious pattern of avoidance, lateness, dishonesty, and failure to complete work — which heavily drags the professionalism and project completion scores down. Pricing received one positive mention of being reasonably priced, but this carries very low confidence given the single mention. Experience was noted positively in two reviews referencing clean, knowledgeable work, but again the sample is too small to draw firm conclusions. The most recent review is the most damaging and, per recency weighting, carries the most relevance to current performance.

• VERY LOW SAMPLE SIZE: Only 3 reviews total. No reliable conclusions can be drawn from this dataset.
• RECENCY CONCERN: The most recent review (July 2024) is a 1-star review describing serious misconduct including abandonment of a job, dishonesty with a home warranty company, and ignoring client communications. This is the most current data point and should be weighted heavily.
• POLARIZED REVIEWS: Two 5-star reviews vs. one 1-star review with no middle-ground ratings. This pattern can sometimes indicate selective review solicitation, though it cannot be confirmed with this sample size.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW CONCERN (MINOR): The two 5-star reviews are somewhat generic in praise ('awesome,' 'super recommended') with limited specific detail, though one does reference specific work (RO and water softener). Confidence is reduced slightly but not flagged as definitively fake.
• OLDER POSITIVE REVIEWS: The two positive reviews are from January 2021 and March 2023, while the negative review is from July 2024, suggesting a possible decline in service quality over time.

This WW Score is of very low reliability due to only 3 reviews being available, a stark conflict between the most recent negative review and older positive reviews, and the small mention counts across all dimensions — this score should not be used as a meaningful basis for hiring decisions without gathering significantly more review data.