Find Nearby Plumbers In Bullhead City, Arizona

ACE Plumbing, Heating and Air draws an overwhelmingly positive picture across a large review base, with the vast majority of customers praising specific technicians by name — particularly Aaron, Chappy, Gerry, Ryan, Manuel, Everett, Martin, Josh, and others — for being professional, knowledgeable, courteous, and responsive. Project completion scores are strong, with most reviewers confirming jobs were finished same-day or next-day, often under emergency conditions. Experience scores are elevated by repeated praise for diagnostic accuracy, technical depth, and creative problem-solving (e.g., Chappy saving a customer $8,000 by avoiding an unnecessary mini-split installation, Martin keeping a 34-year-old HVAC unit running). Pricing scores are pulled down meaningfully by a cluster of credible negative reviews citing hidden fees (credit card surcharges, travel time charges, truck fees), overcharging for simple jobs, and one reviewer being quoted $1,200 for a job another plumber did for $200. Professionalism is also modestly penalized by a recurring pattern of negative reviews citing rude staff, no-shows, failure to honor warranties, and at least one technician (Mike/Mohammad) accused of fraud and non-refund — these are serious flags that prevent a higher score despite the dominant positive signal.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: Two pairs of reviews are near-identical in wording and posted on consecutive dates (June 6-8 and June 5-7, 2025). The Aaron review and the Martin/Aaron AC review each appear twice with different dates. This is a strong indicator of review manipulation or padding and reduces confidence in the most recent review cluster.
• FAKE REVIEW CONCERN: A review posted by the company owner (Max Greenberg) praising his own technician Chappy is included in the dataset. While disclosed, this is a self-review and should carry zero weight in scoring. It has been excluded from scoring calculations.
• HIDDEN FEES / PRICING TRANSPARENCY: Multiple credible negative reviews cite undisclosed fees including a 5% credit card surcharge, a $30 travel time charge, and a $10 truck fee not disclosed at booking. One reviewer was charged $470 to auger three drains with no upfront pricing disclosure. These are material pricing integrity concerns.
• SERIOUS MISCONDUCT ALLEGATION: One review (Feb 2024) names a specific technician 'Mike (Mohammad Alzawahreh)' and alleges payment was taken via Venmo for unresolved work, refund requests were ignored, and calls were evaded. This is a fraud allegation and significantly impacts the professionalism score.
• WARRANTY VIOLATIONS: Multiple reviews across different time periods allege that ACE failed to honor stated warranties — including a lifetime water heater guarantee, a 30-day drain warranty dispute, and a callback that was never honored after a no-show emergency call.
• NO-SHOW / ABANDONMENT INCIDENTS: At least three reviews describe technicians or the company failing to show up for scheduled appointments without notice, including one emergency no-call no-show and one technician who broke drywall and left without completing the job.
• RUDE STAFF PATTERN: Multiple reviews spanning 2018–2024 describe rude, dismissive, or hostile interactions with staff — including hang-ups, refusal to let customers speak, and disrespectful treatment of elderly customers. This is a recurring pattern, not isolated incidents.
• RECENCY NOTE: The review dataset spans from 2011 to June 2025. Reviews from 2011–2018 involve different technicians and possibly different ownership/locations. The most recent 12 months (mid-2024 to mid-2025) are heavily positive and dominate the dataset, but the negative reviews from this period (hidden fees, rude manager Scott, no-show) are credible and have been weighted accordingly.
• MULTI-LOCATION AMBIGUITY: Reviews reference multiple geographic areas including Sacramento CA, Bullhead City AZ, Toledo OH, Baltimore MD, Diamond Bar CA, Evansville IN, and others. It is likely that this dataset aggregates reviews for multiple unrelated businesses operating under the 'Ace Plumbing' name. Scores should be interpreted with caution as they may not reflect a single contractor's performance.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large review volume, but its reliability as a single-contractor assessment is MODERATE at best, given strong evidence that reviews from multiple geographically distinct and likely unrelated 'Ace Plumbing' businesses have been aggregated together — consumers should verify they are reading reviews specific to their local ACE Plumbing branch before making a hiring decision.

Simpson Plumbing demonstrates strong overall performance with a WW Score of 82.1, driven primarily by consistent professionalism (86.5) and solid project completion (84.0). The company excels in punctuality, communication, and technical skill, with numerous reviews praising courteous technicians and thorough workmanship. However, pricing emerges as a notable weakness (71.0), with multiple customers citing unexpectedly high costs, lack of transparency in estimates, and perceived overcharging for labor-intensive work. While most recent reviews (past 12 months) are highly positive, older reviews reveal recurring concerns about pricing practices and occasional service lapses. The company's strength in execution is somewhat undermined by pricing friction.

• PRICING CONCERNS: Multiple reviews (at least 12) explicitly criticize pricing as 'obscenely overpriced,' 'outrageous,' or significantly higher than competitors for identical work. Examples include $150 for 10-minute jobs, $300+ for standard faucet installations, and $500+ estimates for routine repairs. This pattern suggests potential pricing inconsistency or lack of transparency.
• COMMUNICATION FAILURES: Several older reviews (2021-2023) report non-responsiveness to follow-up calls, failure to return estimates after promised timelines, and no-shows without notification. While recent reviews show improvement, this indicates past systemic issues.
• QUALITY INCONSISTENCY: A small number of reviews describe significant workmanship failures (e.g., drilling 3-inch holes in load-bearing beams, improper pipe connections causing corrosion, incomplete repairs requiring callbacks). These suggest occasional lapses in quality control and supervision.
• CUSTOMER SERVICE ESCALATION: One detailed 2023 review describes aggressive payment collection tactics (threatening liens, pestering for credit card numbers) and unprofessional behavior from office staff, suggesting potential management/culture issues.
• RECENCY BIAS: The overwhelming majority of recent reviews (2025, late 2024) are 5-star with generic praise. While this may reflect genuine improvement, the uniformity and lack of specificity in some recent reviews warrants caution against over-weighting them.
• ESTIMATE INCONSISTENCY: Multiple reviews note lack of itemized quotes, unclear pricing breakdowns, and diagnostic fees not disclosed upfront, indicating potential transparency gaps in the quoting process.

This WW Score of 82.1 is reliable for assessing overall service quality and professionalism, supported by 250+ reviews with strong data across all dimensions. However, the score masks significant pricing volatility and customer dissatisfaction in that dimension; prospective customers should specifically request detailed, itemized estimates and compare pricing with competitors before committing, as pricing appears to be the primary source of customer friction despite strong execution quality.

Scott Plumbing demonstrates strong overall performance with particular strengths in professionalism (87.5) and technical experience (86.0), supported by extensive evidence across 89 and 68 mentions respectively. Project completion scores solidly at 84.0 with 72 mentions, indicating reliable job follow-through and timely service delivery. The primary weakness is pricing (72.0), with customers frequently noting high costs despite acknowledging quality work; however, this dimension has limited mention count (18) relative to others. The company shows consistent excellence in punctuality, communication, and workmanship, though pricing concerns and occasional service recovery issues prevent a higher overall score.

• PRICING CONCERN: Multiple reviews (18 mentions) explicitly cite high costs. Customers describe charges as 'very expensive,' '60% more than estimate,' and '$400+' for routine work. While quality is praised, value perception is notably lower than other dimensions.
• SERVICE RECOVERY PATTERN: Several negative reviews (2022, 2020, 2019) describe warranty disputes, misdiagnosis, and poor follow-up. One 2022 review details owner threatening sheriff involvement over warranty claim. A 2020 review reports repeated failures of same component within 5 days. These suggest occasional systemic issues with accountability.
• ESTIMATE ACCURACY: Multiple reviews note significant variance between initial quotes and final bills (60% overages, $600-1100 increases). One 2025 review documents initial estimate vs. actual cost discrepancy on multi-sink installation.
• RECENCY DISTRIBUTION: 45% of reviews are from past 12 months (June 2024-June 2025), showing strong recent activity. Older reviews (2014-2019) are generally positive but less detailed. Recent reviews maintain quality standards but include more pricing complaints.
• ISOLATED NEGATIVE INCIDENTS: Three 1-star reviews (2022, 2019) describe serious issues: warranty disputes, misdiagnosis leading to unnecessary re-piping, and refusal of jobs. These are outliers but indicate occasional poor judgment or communication breakdowns.
• EMPTY REVIEW TEXTS: Four reviews (2025-06-05, 2025-06-02, 2025-04-10, 2025-04-10) contain no text but carry 5-star or 1-star ratings. The 1-star empty review and multiple 5-star empty reviews reduce confidence slightly in those specific data points, though overall pattern is clear.
• TECHNICIAN VARIABILITY: Reviews frequently name-check specific technicians (Dustin, Travis, Brandon, Jay, Keith). While most are praised, one review criticizes 'Jake' for damaging shower door and poor follow-up. Suggests quality may depend on individual technician assignment.

This WW Score of 82.1 is highly reliable, supported by 127 reviews with strong consensus on professionalism and experience. However, the pricing dimension (72.0) is based on only 18 mentions and represents a genuine weakness that should not be overlooked; customers consistently report high costs despite quality work. The score reflects a company that executes well but charges premium rates, with occasional service recovery issues that suggest room for improvement in accountability and estimate accuracy.

Air Control Home Services earns strong marks for professionalism and experience, with the vast majority of reviewers praising technicians as friendly, knowledgeable, punctual, and communicative — often by name. Project completion is also generally solid, with same-day and next-day service frequently cited, callbacks honored, and installations completed as promised; however, one detailed 2016 review describes a botched installation with water damage, denied leaks, and unresolved duct issues, and a 2024 update review notes a callback was required to fix a capacitor that was inadequately addressed on the first visit. The pricing dimension is the most damaging factor in the score: multiple independent reviewers across different years explicitly describe being charged dramatically above market rates for capacitors, refrigerant, fan motors, and plumbing parts, with several stating they felt overcharged or taken advantage of, and two reviews specifically warn seniors and snowbirds to get second opinions. Two separate reviews also raise concerns about technicians recommending unnecessary replacements, with one reviewer confirming a second company fixed the issue for a fraction of the cost, significantly undermining trust in diagnostic integrity.

• PRICING CONCERN — HIGH SEVERITY: Multiple independent reviews across multiple years (2013–2024) explicitly cite excessive markups on parts including capacitors ($292 charged vs ~$20 retail), refrigerant ($120/lb vs ~$50 market rate), fan motors ($585 charged vs $159 online), and plumbing fixtures ($612 for two outdoor faucets, $306 for a hose bib). This is a consistent and recurring pattern, not isolated incidents.
• DIAGNOSTIC INTEGRITY CONCERN: At least two reviews (2024 and 2017) describe technicians recommending expensive repairs or full unit replacements that a second company determined were unnecessary or easily fixable. One reviewer confirmed the unit ran fine for 2-3 years after a competitor charged it with refrigerant. Another reviewer had a problem fixed in 10 minutes by a second company after Air Control quoted thousands in repairs.
• INCOMPLETE/FAILED INSTALLATION: One detailed 2016 review describes a new AC installation that resulted in an unconnected condensate drain causing water damage, black marks on floors, a rag stuffed in a hole created during installation, denied air leaks later confirmed, and unresolved duct damage. The company disputed the customer's account. This is a significant project completion failure.
• NO-SHOW / COMMUNICATION FAILURE: One 2022 review describes a confirmed appointment where the technician never arrived, requiring the customer to chase the company, ultimately wasting a full vacation day. This is a direct contradiction of the punctuality praise seen in most reviews.
• QUOTE REFUSAL: Two reviews (2020 and 2022) note the company failed to provide promised written quotes, with one reviewer stating this was a reason not to trust the company for service.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK — MODERATE: Approximately 35 reviews contain no text at all (blank body, only a star rating), and a significant cluster of 5-star reviews from May–June 2025 use very similar phrasing ('knowledgeable,' 'friendly,' 'professional,' 'explained everything') with minimal specifics. While named technicians appear across many reviews which adds some authenticity, the volume of blank and generic reviews inflates the apparent review count. Confidence is not reduced for scored dimensions since scoring relied only on reviews with substantive content, but the blank reviews are flagged.
• RECENCY NOTE: Reviews span from 2013 to June 2025. The pricing complaints and diagnostic integrity concerns appear across multiple years including recent reviews (2024), suggesting these are not historical issues that have been resolved. The most recent reviews (2025) are predominantly positive but many lack detail.

The WW Score of 79.4 is based on a large volume of substantive reviews and carries HIGH overall confidence, but consumers should treat the pricing dimension score of 52 as a serious and well-documented warning — multiple credible, detailed reviews consistently describe significant part markups and at least two describe potentially unnecessary repair recommendations, patterns that represent a meaningful financial risk to customers who do not obtain competing quotes.

Paradise Plumbing earns strong marks across all four dimensions, with consistent praise for punctuality, honest pricing, and knowledgeable workmanship spanning over a decade of reviews. Pricing transparency is a standout theme — multiple reviewers explicitly noted fair quotes, no upselling, and charges matching estimates, including one detailed comparison where Paradise came in at less than half a competitor's bid. However, the score is meaningfully pulled down by several credible negative reviews citing a no-call/no-show, rude behavior, incomplete work requiring a second plumber, and a repeat drain clog that was not properly resolved. A particularly serious flag — an allegation of fake review harassment by the owner's wife — introduces integrity concerns that cannot be ignored. The score reflects a contractor with genuine strengths but a documented pattern of inconsistency across different technicians and time periods.

• SERIOUS INTEGRITY FLAG: One reviewer (2015) explicitly alleges the owner's wife was creating over 100 fake accounts to post reviews and harass dissatisfied customers. This cannot be verified but significantly undermines confidence in the overall review pool.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK: A large number of reviews are generic 5-star praise with minimal specifics (e.g., 'great job,' 'highly recommend,' 'very professional') and no job details. This pattern is consistent with inflated or solicited reviews.
• NEGATIVE PATTERN — NO-CALL/NO-SHOW: One 1-star review (2017) describes a confirmed appointment that was completely ignored with no communication, despite the reviewer having already warned the contractor about prior bad experiences with other plumbers.
• NEGATIVE PATTERN — INCOMPLETE/POOR WORK: One 1-star review (2019) describes rude behavior, cheap parts, no cleanup, and work left unfinished requiring another plumber. One 2-star review (2018) describes a drain that re-clogged within 5 days with an inadequate fix and condescending attitude.
• NEGATIVE PATTERN — WORKMANSHIP FAILURE: One 1-star review (2012) describes a leaking faucet that was declared fixed but continued leaking identically after the visit, with an unfriendly technician.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of negative reviews are from 2012–2019. Reviews from 2020 onward are predominantly positive and more detailed, suggesting possible improvement in service quality or a change in personnel. However, the 2019 1-star review is recent enough to remain relevant.
• MULTIPLE TECHNICIANS: Reviews reference at least 6 different named technicians (Dustin, Ryan, Jacob, Charles, Mike, Sal, Craig, Fernando, Michael). Score consistency across technicians cannot be guaranteed — some individuals (notably 'Mike') appear in both positive and negative reviews.
• RECENCY NOTE: Several reviews date back to 2007–2013 and carry significantly less weight in this scoring. The WW Score formula's confidence_factor partially mitigates this, but the volume of older reviews inflates the apparent review count.

This WW Score carries moderate-to-high reliability for recent engagements (2020–2024) but should be interpreted cautiously overall due to a credible fake review allegation, a multi-technician workforce with inconsistent quality, and a non-trivial number of negative reviews describing serious failures in professionalism and project completion.

Tim demonstrates strong professionalism across multiple reviews, with consistent praise for responsiveness, punctuality, and courteous demeanor—including emergency calls answered at 11:30 pm and same-day service. Pricing is consistently described as fair, reasonable, and competitive, with transparent quotes and no hidden charges. Project completion is reliable, with electrical and plumbing issues resolved quickly and thoroughly. Technical skill is evident in electrical diagnostics and repairs, though the sample size for experience-specific mentions is smaller. The primary concern is recency: most reviews are 6+ years old (2017–2018), with only two reviews from 2022–2024, limiting confidence in current service quality.

• Review dated 2024-07-11 reports business unresponsive (no answer on multiple calls), contradicting all positive historical reviews. This suggests possible recent business closure or operational decline.
• Heavy recency bias: 4 of 6 reviews are from 2017–2018 (6–7 years old). Only 2 reviews from 2022–2024. Current service quality cannot be reliably assessed from this data.
• First review (2024) is a negative outlier that directly contradicts the narrative of the older reviews, raising questions about whether the business is still operating or has changed significantly.

This score should be treated with caution. While historical reviews (2017–2022) are consistently positive and detailed, the most recent review (2024) reports the business unresponsive, suggesting possible closure or operational failure. The WW Score reflects past performance only and may not represent current service availability or quality.