Find Nearby Plumbers In Casa Grande, Arizona

Call Us Plumbing presents a deeply split profile across its review history. On the positive side, field technicians — particularly Willy, Billy, and Josh — are repeatedly praised for punctuality, professionalism, knowledge, and going above and beyond, especially in home warranty contexts. However, a significant and consistent thread of negative reviews targets phone and scheduling staff (most notably a person named Mike in older reviews) for rude, dismissive, and unprofessional behavior, which materially drags down the professionalism score. Project completion is similarly mixed: many jobs are resolved efficiently in a single visit, but there are credible accounts of misdiagnosis, abandoned work, uncharged refunds never issued, and technicians failing to show up or respond — these are serious flags that prevent a high completion score. Pricing feedback is limited but generally positive, with one reviewer specifically praising transparent hourly billing and no upselling. The review base spans 2015–2024, with the most recent reviews (2023–2024) trending more positively, suggesting possible improvement over time, though isolated failures still appear in the recent period.

• SPLIT PERFORMANCE: A clear and recurring pattern distinguishes field technicians (praised) from office/scheduling staff (criticized), particularly a person named 'Mike' in reviews from 2017–2019 who is described as rude, condescending, and dismissive across multiple independent reviews.
• SERIOUS COMPLETION FAILURES: At least two reviews describe work that was not completed, one involving a $950 charge for work never performed with a refund allegedly refused for two months — this is a significant integrity concern.
• MISDIAGNOSIS PATTERN: Multiple reviews (2022, 2023) describe repeated incorrect diagnoses requiring multiple visits, including one case where a customer went three weeks without hot water before a different plumber resolved the issue.
• NO-SHOW / COMMUNICATION FAILURES: Several reviews across multiple years describe technicians failing to arrive within promised windows, not returning calls for 40+ hours, and ignoring follow-up texts — this is a recurring operational issue.
• RECENCY NOTE: Reviews from 2015–2019 are older than 5 years and reflect a different operational period. More recent reviews (2022–2024) are given higher weight. The most recent reviews (2023–2024) are more positive on balance, but negative experiences still appear as recently as June 2024.
• POSSIBLE FAKE REVIEW CONCERN (MINOR): A small cluster of very brief, generic 5-star reviews (e.g., 'fast, reliable and friendly service', 'great service') with no specifics were noted. These are not conclusive but slightly inflate the positive signal. Confidence is not materially reduced given the volume of detailed reviews overall.
• OWNER CONDUCT: One review (2023) alleges the owner lied to both the home warranty company and the reviewer, and that the company's attitude was to direct complaints to the Registrar of Contractors. This is a serious reputational flag.

With 43 reviews spanning nearly a decade and strong mention counts across all four dimensions, the WW Score of 68.4 carries HIGH overall confidence and reflects a genuinely mixed contractor — capable field technicians undermined by documented communication failures, scheduling problems, and at least one serious allegation of financial misconduct.

NexLvl Services shows a clear split in performance depending on the service type and technician assigned. Water heater installation work through Lowes generated consistently positive reviews praising professionalism, communication, and technical competence from named technicians like Cien, Calvin, Brandon, and Lauren. However, pool service and responsiveness to initial contact generated serious complaints including charges for work not performed, chemical mismanagement, wildly inconsistent pricing, and complete failure to resolve ongoing issues. Pricing is a significant weak point, with one reviewer documenting a quote that more than doubled within 30 days for the same job, and another being invoiced thousands for unresolved problems. Project completion is dragged down substantially by the pool service failures, where multiple visits over weeks produced zero usable results. The overall score reflects genuine quality in one service area offset by serious failures in another.

• Strong service-type bifurcation detected: all 5-star reviews relate to water heater installation via Lowes; all 1-star reviews relate to pool service or initial contact failures. These may reflect two very different operational teams or subcontractors under the same brand.
• The 1-star review from 2024-03-24 alleges charges for services not rendered (filter cleaning billed but not performed) — this is a serious integrity concern beyond mere quality issues.
• The 1-star review from 2024-02-07 documents a pricing inconsistency where a quote nearly tripled within 30 days for the same scope of work, suggesting deceptive or disorganized pricing practices.
• The 1-star review from 2024-05-08 documents complete failure to respond to a customer with a carbon monoxide emergency — a safety-critical responsiveness failure.
• Recency note: The three most recent reviews (2024) are all 1-star. The positive reviews are predominantly from 2022–2023. This trend suggests a possible decline in service quality over time and should be weighted accordingly.
• Several 5-star reviews name specific technicians and include operational detail, reducing fake review suspicion for those entries. However, the volume of generic praise in some 5-star reviews warrants mild caution.
• Pool service operations appear to be a distinct and underperforming business line — consumers seeking pool services should treat this score with additional caution as it may not reflect their experience.

This WW Score is based on 13 reviews with usable data across all four dimensions and carries HIGH overall confidence in its directional accuracy, but consumers should note that the score masks a significant performance gap between water heater installation (generally strong) and pool service or initial responsiveness (consistently poor), and that the most recent reviews trend negative.

Aqua Science receives genuinely strong praise from many customers for individual technicians who are punctual, friendly, knowledgeable, and communicative — names like Patrick, Joe, Jeremy, Sam, Michael Alvarez, and Kylan Asher are repeatedly highlighted as standout performers. However, the review corpus also contains a significant and consistent pattern of serious complaints spanning over a decade: missed or cancelled appointments without notice, technicians causing property damage (water leaks, destroyed hot water heaters, flooded homes) and then failing to follow through on repairs or compensation, misdiagnosis of problems, and poor responsiveness from management and customer service. Pricing complaints are notable, with multiple reviewers citing what they perceived as grossly inflated parts costs and billing for incomplete or faulty work. Project completion is a major weakness, with numerous reviews describing abandoned work, callbacks not honored, and jobs left in worse condition than found. The overall picture is a company with capable individual technicians but systemic failures in quality control, accountability, and customer service follow-through.

• 16 reviews contain no text whatsoever — only a star rating. These blank reviews were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data.
• Several reviews from 2025 use very similar phrasing ('professional,' 'efficient,' 'friendly,' 'answered all my questions') with no specific details, which may indicate coached or templated responses. Confidence in the high-score cluster is slightly reduced as a result.
• Two reviews dated 2024-10-19 are near-identical in text (same wording, same incident, posted 26 seconds apart) — this appears to be a duplicate submission of the same review and was counted only once for scoring purposes.
• Review recency is mixed: a meaningful portion of detailed negative reviews date from 2011–2016, while recent 2025 reviews skew heavily positive and brief. This temporal split may reflect genuine improvement or a change in review solicitation practices — caution is warranted.
• Multiple reviews reference the company operating under several names (Aqua Science, Pentair, Costless Water Systems, AZ Water Rentals, J&D Resources), which is a known flag for reputation management complexity.
• Recurring pattern of management not returning calls is mentioned across multiple independent reviews spanning 2004–2024, suggesting a long-standing systemic issue rather than isolated incidents.
• Several reviews describe technicians causing damage (flooding, shorted water heaters, reversed pump lines) with no adequate remediation offered — these are serious workmanship and liability concerns that significantly weigh down the project completion and experience scores.

This WW Score is based on a large review set (95 reviews) spanning over 20 years and carries HIGH overall confidence in its directional accuracy, but consumers should note that the score reflects a deeply divided customer base — individual technician quality varies widely, and systemic issues with accountability and follow-through are well-documented across multiple independent reviews.

Plumbing Experts presents a deeply polarized review profile spanning over a decade. On the positive side, a large volume of customers praise specific technicians — particularly Ivan, Gabe, Kyle, Aaron, and Cliff — for punctuality, friendliness, responsiveness, and solid workmanship on completed jobs. However, a substantial and consistent stream of negative reviews documents serious concerns across all four dimensions: repeated no-shows and broken appointments undermine professionalism; numerous reviewers allege bait-and-switch pricing, hidden charges, and grossly inflated quotes that far exceed market rates; several jobs were left incomplete or failed within 24 hours with the company refusing to return under warranty; and multiple reviews describe technicians misdiagnosing problems or performing incorrect work. The pricing dimension is the weakest, with a high volume of explicit overcharging complaints including allegations of price-gouging elderly and vulnerable customers. The company appears to operate across multiple geographic markets under the same brand, which may explain some inconsistency, but the pattern of complaints is too widespread and specific to dismiss.

• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION: Several reviews use near-identical phrasing ('Amazing service! Super fast response and quick one day job. Couldn't recommend Kyle and Jean anymore!!') appearing verbatim on two different dates (2025-05-10 and 2024-06-13), strongly suggesting duplicate or fabricated reviews.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION: A large cluster of reviews dated 2018-06-11 contain no text or only single words ('Great'), with 5-star ratings. These appear to be padding reviews with no substantive content and should be treated as unreliable.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION: Multiple 5-star reviews are completely blank (no text) across several dates, which inflates the star average without providing verifiable evidence of quality.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW: The negative review about Gabe's three failed tasks (dryer exhaust, toilet, shower bypass) appears verbatim three times across different dates (2021-01-31, 2021-02-06, 2021-06-10), suggesting the reviewer reposted or the platform duplicated it — counted once for scoring.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW: The water heater review ('We hired Plumbing Exerts to exchange a water heater...114 degrees F') appears verbatim on both 2024-06-09 and 2023-07-14 — counted once for scoring.
• PRICING CONCERN: Multiple independent reviewers across different years and locations allege bait-and-switch tactics — quoting low prices then dramatically raising them mid-job or upon arrival. This is a systemic pattern, not isolated incidents.
• SERIOUS MISCONDUCT FLAG: One reviewer (2025-05-19, 1-star) alleges a technician stopped work mid-job and refused to continue unless the customer declared religious belief, only resuming after the customer complied and receiving a discount. This is a significant professionalism and ethical violation.
• SERIOUS MISCONDUCT FLAG: Multiple reviews allege the company threatened to place liens on customers' homes over disputed or allegedly already-paid invoices, including against elderly residents.
• SERIOUS MISCONDUCT FLAG: Multiple reviews allege fraud including charging for work not performed, retaining deposits without delivering service (Aaron refund complaints spanning 2019), and charging a card twice without authorization.
• NO-SHOW PATTERN: A recurring and consistent pattern of technicians failing to appear for scheduled appointments without notification spans reviews from 2011 through 2025, indicating a systemic reliability problem.
• WARRANTY CONCERN: Multiple reviews document the company enforcing a 24-hour warranty on drain/clog work, which is unusually short and resulted in customers being charged again for the same recurring problem within days.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent reviews (2024-2025) continue to show both strong positives and serious negatives, indicating the mixed quality pattern has not improved over time.
• MULTI-MARKET OPERATION: Reviews reference locations including Palm Beach County FL, Coachella Valley/Palm Springs CA, South Florida, Treasure Coast FL, and Bay Area CA, suggesting this may be a franchise or multiple businesses sharing a name, which complicates aggregate scoring.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large volume of reviews, but the score itself should be interpreted cautiously given confirmed duplicate/blank reviews inflating the positive count, documented patterns of bait-and-switch pricing, no-shows, and incomplete work, and the likelihood that this represents multiple distinct business operations under one brand name — prospective customers should seek technician-specific references and get all pricing in writing before work begins.

RC's Plumbing and RCS/Reeds Crew Services presents a deeply divided review profile. A meaningful subset of customers — particularly those who worked directly with named technicians like Sergio, Wes, and Robert on private jobs — report excellent professionalism, clear communication, punctuality, and quality workmanship. However, a substantial number of negative reviews, many recent and detailed, describe serious failures: ignored calls, no-shows, incomplete or fraudulent job reporting to home warranty companies, hidden or inflated charges, and an argumentative owner. Pricing is a particular flashpoint, with multiple reviewers citing unexpected upcharges and a refusal to itemize invoices, while a smaller number praised fair and transparent pricing. Project completion is significantly undermined by multiple credible accounts of work being marked complete when nothing was done, a technician failing to fix an issue after two visits, and a plumber leaving a drain disconnected causing water damage. The experience dimension scores higher due to several detailed, credible accounts of skilled diagnosis and quality installation, but is offset by reviews describing mediocre or incomplete technical work.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: At least three reviews appear to be exact duplicates posted on the same date — 'Robert was good to work with and accommodating...' (2024-06-21, posted twice) and 'Good installer to work with. Very open and delivered on each and every point...' (2024-05-18, posted twice) and 'On time, on point, on my future call list for plumbing!' (2024-05-09, posted twice). These duplicates have been counted as single reviews each for scoring purposes and are a potential indicator of review manipulation.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — MODERATE: Several 5-star reviews are extremely brief and generic (e.g., 'Great service at a great price', 'High quality work. Very professional.', 'Speedy response, good customer relations skills, excellent work') with no specifics, names, or job details. These may inflate the positive review count.
• HOME WARRANTY CONTEXT BIAS: A large proportion of negative reviews involve customers assigned through home warranty companies (Old Republic, First American). This context may introduce selection bias — dissatisfied warranty customers may be more likely to review — but the specific and detailed nature of many complaints (false job completion reports, unexplained charges, refusal to give name) suggests genuine misconduct rather than mere dissatisfaction.
• RECENCY CONCERN — NEGATIVE TREND: The most recent reviews (2024) skew heavily negative, with 5 of 6 datable 2024 reviews being 1-star. This is a meaningful signal of declining service quality or worsening customer relations in the past 12 months.
• OWNER CONDUCT FLAG: Multiple independent reviews from different time periods describe the owner (Robert) as rude, argumentative, and dismissive. One 2024 review explicitly describes the owner engaging in hostile online arguments rather than addressing customer concerns. This is a consistent pattern across years and reviewers.
• FRAUDULENT REPORTING ALLEGATION: Multiple reviewers allege that the company reported jobs as 'complete' to home warranty companies when no work was performed. This is a serious integrity concern that goes beyond poor service quality.
• BLANK REVIEW: One review (2019-11-06, 5-star) contains no text and has been excluded from dimension scoring but counted in total reviews analyzed.

This WW Score is based on a large review set with HIGH mention counts across all dimensions, but reliability is meaningfully reduced by confirmed duplicate reviews, a pattern of suspected fake brief 5-star reviews, serious fraud allegations, and a clear negative trend in the most recent 12 months — consumers should weight recent negative reviews heavily and treat this score as a ceiling rather than a reliable average.

Alvarez Plumbing presents a deeply mixed record across all four dimensions. Professionalism is undermined by repeated no-shows, late arrivals, rude office staff, and a serious allegation of misconduct by the owner, though a meaningful number of reviewers praised individual plumbers as polite and responsive. Pricing is a significant weak point, with multiple reviewers citing undisclosed trip charges, inflated hours, and billing irregularities that felt deceptive — only a handful of reviewers described pricing as fair or transparent. Project completion is the most damaging dimension: a recurring pattern of incomplete work, toilets re-clogging within days, and the company refusing to honor callbacks or warranties without additional charges is documented across many independent reviews spanning multiple years. Experience scores moderately, as several reviewers praised specific technicians for skill and knowledge, but this is offset by documented cases of wrong parts installed, incomplete hydro-jetting, and a $900 device installed that did not address the actual problem.

• RECURRING CALLBACK REFUSAL PATTERN: At least 6 independent reviews describe work failing within days and Alvarez refusing to return without additional charges. This is a systemic operational issue, not isolated incidents.
• BILLING IRREGULARITIES: Multiple reviewers across different years cite undisclosed trip charges, inflated labor hours, and late invoice delivery followed by immediate collection calls. This pattern suggests a structural billing problem.
• OWNER MISCONDUCT ALLEGATION: One reviewer (2018-02-10) alleges the owner Dominic made unwanted advances during a service visit. This is a serious flag that cannot be verified but is noted.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent reviews (2022–2023) continue to show negative patterns consistent with older reviews, suggesting no meaningful improvement over time. Positive reviews are spread across all years and do not cluster recently.
• NO FAKE REVIEW FLAG: Reviews vary significantly in detail, tone, length, and rating. No strong pattern of coordinated fake reviews detected. Both positive and negative reviews contain specific names, dates, and job details lending credibility.
• OLDER REVIEWS: Approximately 30% of reviews predate 2020 and were given reduced weight in scoring. The pattern of complaints is consistent across all time periods, which increases concern rather than reducing it.

This WW Score is based on 40 reviews with strong dimension coverage across all four categories, yielding HIGH confidence — however, the score should be interpreted cautiously given the consistent multi-year pattern of post-service failures, billing disputes, and callback refusals that suggest systemic rather than isolated problems.