Find Nearby Plumbers In Chandler, Arizona

AZ Preferred Plumbing has a deeply polarized review history spanning 2014–2024. Older reviews (2014–2018) are predominantly positive, praising responsiveness, professionalism, and fair pricing, while reviews from 2019 onward shift sharply negative with repeated complaints about hidden charges, no upfront quotes, incomplete work, and rude or unresponsive communication. Pricing is the weakest dimension, with multiple reviewers explicitly calling out charges of $300–$800 for short jobs, no estimates provided before work began, and prices described as far above competitor quotes. Project completion is also significantly damaged by reviews describing abandoned jobs, work left unfinished, and a serious allegation of deliberate damage covered up on a foundation repair. Professionalism scores moderately due to a mix of genuinely praised technicians in earlier years versus more recent reports of rudeness, no-shows, and deceptive referral practices. The experience dimension shows a similar split, with skilled work noted in earlier reviews but clear diagnostic failures and incompetence described in several later ones.

• Strong recency bias: reviews from 2019–2024 are predominantly 1-star, suggesting a significant decline in service quality or a change in ownership/management. The 2023 review explicitly raises the possibility of a new owner.
• One review (2022-12-12) alleges deliberate property damage (busted cable) that was actively concealed, with video evidence cited and an ROC complaint filed — this is a serious integrity flag.
• Multiple reviews describe a pattern of referring customers to a restoration/drywall company (EcoDry) without resolving the underlying plumbing issue, suggesting a possible undisclosed referral arrangement.
• Several reviews note work was not completed or was left in worse condition than before, including a $2,600 sink installation left unfinished and a water heater that stopped working after the technician's visit.
• One review notes AZ Preferred Plumbing operates under the alias 'ASAP Plumbing' — this dual-name operation warrants caution.
• Older 5-star reviews (2014–2018) are detailed and specific enough to appear genuine, but the sharp quality decline in recent years means those scores should not be used to represent current service levels.
• No upfront pricing or written quotes were provided in multiple negative reviews, which is a recurring and consistent complaint rather than an isolated incident.

This WW Score is based on a substantial review set of 37 reviews with HIGH confidence across all dimensions, but the score should be interpreted cautiously given the clear and consistent decline in service quality after 2019 — consumers evaluating this contractor today should weight recent reviews far more heavily than the historical average suggests.

5Point Plumbing presents a deeply divided picture across its 31 reviews. Positive reviews — concentrated among home warranty customers with straightforward jobs — consistently praise punctuality, quick scheduling, and friendly technicians like Austin and Kevin. However, a substantial cluster of 1-star reviews describes a recurring pattern of technicians spending minimal time on-site (sometimes under 5 minutes), refusing to complete work on technicalities, and collecting warranty deductibles without performing any service. Pricing concerns are serious: one reviewer documented a $550 quote for parts that cost $150 at retail, and another described a $350 charge to move a dishwasher slightly — both suggesting opportunistic upselling. Project completion is the most damaged dimension, with multiple reviewers reporting abandoned jobs, unresolved issues across repeated visits, and in one case an allegation of planned fraudulent reporting to a warranty company. The experience dimension is mixed — skilled work is evident in some water heater and faucet replacements, but multiple technicians are described as dismissive, unwilling to investigate, or technically inadequate.

• RECURRING SCAM PATTERN: Multiple independent reviewers describe an identical scheme — accepting home warranty dispatch, collecting the deductible ($75–$125), then refusing to perform work on technicalities. This is mentioned across at least 6 separate reviews and constitutes a serious conduct flag.
• ALLEGED FRAUD: One detailed 2023 review alleges the owner (Dustin) explicitly planned to misrepresent the type of repair to the warranty company to obtain coverage, which the reviewer refused to authorize. This is an unverified but specific and credible allegation.
• PRICE GOUGING ALLEGATIONS: At least two reviews cite specific dollar amounts suggesting significant markups on parts and labor — a $550 quote vs. $150 retail cost for water heater parts, and a $350 charge to move a dishwasher that the customer completed themselves in 15 minutes.
• COPY-PASTE MANAGER RESPONSES: One reviewer explicitly notes that the manager Dustin's responses to negative reviews are copy-pasted, which is consistent with a pattern of performative rather than genuine customer service engagement.
• MINIMAL ON-SITE TIME: At least 4 reviews describe technicians spending under 5–15 minutes on-site before declaring work uncoverable or impossible, without adequate investigation.
• REVIEW POLARIZATION WARNING: Reviews are heavily bimodal — mostly 5-star or 1-star with very few in between. This pattern can indicate that satisfied customers (simple jobs) and dissatisfied customers (complex or warranty-disputed jobs) are having fundamentally different service experiences, rather than suggesting fake reviews. However, the generic nature of some 5-star reviews warrants mild caution.
• RECENCY NOTE: All 31 reviews fall within the past 24 months (2022–2024), so recency weighting does not significantly alter the analysis. Negative reviews are distributed throughout the period, including as recently as September 2024, indicating the problematic patterns have not been resolved over time.
• ONE REVIEW EXCLUDED FROM SCORING: The review dated 2023-09-21 ('I was assigned this company by my home Warranty company which as we all know are not the highest quality contractors') contains no scorable information about 5Point Plumbing specifically and was excluded from dimension scoring.

This WW Score of 58.3 is based on 31 reviews with HIGH mention counts across all four dimensions and should be considered a reliable signal of a contractor with genuinely inconsistent and in some cases potentially unethical service practices, particularly in the context of home warranty work.

This contractor has a deeply mixed record across all dimensions. Professionalism is the most-mentioned dimension and is severely dragged down by multiple explicit accounts of rudeness, a 3-hour late arrival, and an outright refusal to assist a pregnant customer in an emergency — partially offset by a few reviews praising friendliness and punctuality. Project completion is critically damaged by one review describing a dangerous improper gas connection causing carbon monoxide exposure, two floods from unconnected drains, and a recurring plumbing issue that was declared resolved but failed the same night — these are serious, life-safety-level failures. Experience scores reflect a split between long-term satisfied customers praising knowledge and workmanship versus severe technical failures that suggest inconsistency. Pricing receives a middling score because one reviewer found the cost surprisingly reasonable while another described a quote as 'ridiculous,' and one review noted a $200/hour weekend rate as a point of contention. The overall WW Score of 47.3 reflects a contractor with some loyal long-term customers but a pattern of serious failures in reliability, safety, and customer treatment that cannot be overlooked.

• SAFETY CONCERN: One review explicitly describes an improper gas connection on a water heater installation that caused carbon monoxide to enter a home — this is a life-safety failure and should be weighted heavily.
• ABANDONED WORK / REFUSAL TO RETURN: One review describes the contractor declaring a job resolved, the problem recurring the same night, and then being told they were too busy to return — with a pregnant customer told to find another plumber.
• RECENCY IMBALANCE: Only 1 review is from the past 12 months (2023). Three reviews are from 2019, and five reviews are from 2007–2017. The most recent positive reviews are sparse; the most recent negative review (2021) describes a serious service failure.
• BLANK REVIEW: One review (2015) contains only a period with no text but a 5-star rating — this review was excluded from usable data as it provides no scorable information.
• DRIVING COMPLAINT: One review is solely about aggressive driving behavior and contains no plumbing service information — it was excluded from dimension scoring but noted as a character/professionalism signal.
• NO FAKE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: Reviews vary significantly in tone, detail, and rating, suggesting authentic submissions. No suspicious repetition or generic phrasing patterns were identified.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability — the mention counts are sufficient for statistical grounding, but the extreme age of most positive reviews (2007–2019) versus more recent negative reviews (2019–2023) raises serious concern that current service quality may be worse than the blended score suggests.

Above All The Rest Plumbing presents a deeply polarized review profile. A subset of positive reviewers praise Michael's technical knowledge, responsiveness, and willingness to help customers remotely without charging — suggesting genuine competence in certain interactions. However, the volume and severity of negative reviews is substantial and cannot be discounted: multiple reviewers independently describe the owner as verbally abusive, threatening, and using racial and sexist slurs, with one reviewer filing a police report and another documenting harassment until midnight. Project completion is severely undermined by multiple documented no-shows, failure to return calls, and at least two cases of incomplete work with no follow-through. Pricing concerns include one credible allegation of bill padding on a senior customer and a disputed quote that escalated into threats of legal action. The pattern of extreme owner behavior across many unrelated reviewers over multiple years significantly suppresses every dimension score.

• SEVERE CONDUCT WARNING: Multiple independent reviewers across different years describe the owner (Michael) using racial slurs, sexist language, and threatening messages. One reviewer filed a police report and documented harassment including death threats. This is not a scoring anomaly — it is a serious safety and conduct concern.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — POSITIVE REVIEWS: Several 5-star reviews use notably similar language patterns (e.g., praising Michael's phone guidance without an in-person visit, referencing home warranty companies, calling him 'above all the rest'). Some may be genuine but the cluster of generic praise warrants caution.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most severe misconduct reviews (threatening texts, racial slurs, harassment until midnight) are concentrated in 2021–2024, suggesting behavior has not improved over time. Recent reviews do not indicate any positive trend.
• INCOMPLETE WORK PATTERN: At least three reviews explicitly describe work that was left unfinished or improperly completed with no offer to return and correct it (RO system not filtering, water not turned back on for disabled residents, RO faucet problems for 5 months).
• NO-SHOW PATTERN: At least three separate reviews describe the contractor failing to show up for scheduled appointments without adequate notice or follow-up communication.
• PRICING TRANSPARENCY CONCERN: One reviewer credibly documents bill padding on a warranty job, and another describes a quote discrepancy that escalated into legal threats rather than resolution.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence based on 26 reviews spanning 2019–2024, but the score itself should be treated as a serious warning — the contractor's documented pattern of abusive, threatening, and discriminatory behavior toward customers represents risks that extend well beyond typical service quality concerns.

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.

Precision Air & Plumbing receives overwhelmingly negative reviews across all four dimensions, with the vast majority of the 72 reviews describing serious failures in professionalism, pricing, project completion, and technical competence. Professionalism is severely damaged by repeated accounts of rude customer service staff, inaccessible or dismissive management, broken scheduling promises, and no-shows — with only a small handful of positive individual technician interactions providing any upward pull. Pricing is a major flashpoint, with dozens of reviewers alleging price gouging, bait-and-switch billing, hidden charges, inflated labor costs, and fraudulent maintenance plan practices. Project completion scores are critically low due to widespread reports of abandoned or incomplete work, warranty refusals, repeated failed repair attempts, units failing within months of installation, and unresolved refund disputes. Experience scores are marginally higher than the other dimensions only because a small number of reviewers praised specific individual technicians by name, but these are far outweighed by accounts of misdiagnosis, improper installation, incompetent repairs, and work that caused additional damage to customers' homes.

• No fake review patterns detected — reviews are highly varied in language, detail level, and specificity, indicating authentic customer experiences.
• The positive reviews (approximately 10 out of 72) are heavily outnumbered by negative reviews and frequently praise specific named technicians rather than the company as a whole, suggesting individual technician quality is inconsistent and does not reflect company-wide standards.
• Multiple reviewers across different years (2019, 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024) describe nearly identical patterns: warranty refusals, fraudulent maintenance plan upsells, scheduling no-shows, rude management, and price gouging — indicating these are systemic and persistent issues, not isolated incidents.
• Several reviewers explicitly mention filing complaints with the Arizona Attorney General, Arizona Registrar of Contractors, BBB, and Federal Trade Commission, which significantly elevates the severity of the concerns raised.
• A recurring pattern of alleged deceptive practices is present: showing customers photos of other properties' damage, manufacturing fake leaks, signing customers on blank documents, and misrepresenting warranty coverage — these are serious fraud allegations appearing across multiple independent reviews.
• Reviews span from 2019 to November 2024, with the majority (approximately 55+) falling within the past 24 months. The most recent reviews (2024) show no improvement in the patterns identified in older reviews, suggesting no meaningful remediation has occurred.
• The company's owner (Eric Bryan) is named directly in multiple reviews as being inaccessible to customers, and named managers are described as threatening or condescending — this elevates concerns beyond frontline staff behavior to leadership-level accountability.

This WW Score of 24.1 is based on a large volume of highly detailed, independently corroborated reviews spanning five years and is considered highly reliable — the overwhelming weight of evidence across all four dimensions consistently points to a contractor with serious, systemic deficiencies in professionalism, pricing integrity, project completion, and workmanship quality.