Find Nearby Plumbers In Flagstaff, Arizona

Three of the four reviews contain usable, substantive feedback about this contractor. Professionalism is the best-supported dimension, with multiple reviewers explicitly calling John professional, friendly, and punctual. Project completion is supported by two reviews — one notably detailed account describes the plumber persisting through a difficult clog and verifying the fix before leaving, which is a strong positive signal. Pricing is mentioned positively in two reviews using terms like 'affordable' and 'reasonably priced,' but without specific figures this is treated conservatively. Experience scores are drawn from the same two substantive reviews and reflect competent problem-solving, though the sample is too small to score with high confidence.

• Review 1 (Jamaal, 2023-04-25) appears to be a joke or inappropriate submission with no usable service data. It was excluded from scoring.
• Three of the four scorable reviews are more than 5 years old (2019, 2017, 2016), and only one review exists from the past 5 years. Current performance cannot be reliably assessed from this data.
• Total review count is very low (4 reviews, 3 usable). The WW Score should be treated as preliminary and not representative of consistent performance.
• All reviews are 5-star ratings. While not conclusive, the uniformity warrants caution, especially given the low volume and age of reviews.

This WW Score carries LOW overall reliability due to a very small sample size, predominantly outdated reviews, and one unusable submission — prospective customers should seek additional references or more recent reviews before making a hiring decision.

Above the Rim Plumbing receives consistently positive feedback across professionalism, project completion, and experience, with reviewers noting punctuality, courteous communication, and reliable follow-through. The shower installation review is the most detailed and substantive, describing a completed demo-and-install job finished ahead of schedule. Experience is supported by a specific mention of technical competence and correcting prior improper work, though only a handful of reviews provide this level of detail. Pricing is entirely unmentioned across all five reviews, leaving that dimension with no scoreable data. All reviews are older than 12 months as of mid-2025, which reduces confidence in how well these scores reflect current performance.

• All 5 reviews are dated between December 2021 and July 2022 — none fall within the past 12 months (relative to mid-2025), significantly reducing recency confidence.
• Two reviews dated 2021-12-21 are extremely brief and generic ('Above the rim plumbing went above and beyond' and 'Very well would recommend') with no specific details, raising mild concern about authenticity or usefulness.
• Review volume is very low (5 reviews total). Scores should be treated as preliminary estimates only.
• Pricing dimension has zero mentions across all reviews — this dimension was excluded from the WW Score calculation entirely.
• No negative feedback present in any review, but the low volume and lack of detail in several reviews means this should not be interpreted as a strong signal of quality.

This WW Score carries LOW overall reliability due to a very small review sample of only 5 reviews, all of which are over two years old, with several reviews too vague to provide meaningful scoring evidence.

This contractor has a small but mixed review set. Three positive reviews highlight fair pricing, prompt arrival, and responsive customer service, while one review explicitly describes a failure to respond to two scheduling attempts — a direct hit to professionalism and project completion scores. The positive reviews are genuine in tone with specific details (named technicians, specific jobs, price coming in under quote), which adds some credibility. However, the single negative review is recent (October 2023) and describes a clear responsiveness failure, which meaningfully drags down the professionalism and project completion dimensions. With only 5 reviews total and the most recent being negative, this score should be treated with caution.

• Only 5 reviews total — sample size is too small for high confidence in any dimension.
• Most positive reviews are older (2019–2021), with only one positive review from 2023. The most recent review (October 2023) is a 1-star complaint about non-responsiveness.
• Recency concern: The trend may be declining. The 2023 negative review about failure to follow up on scheduling is a significant red flag for current reliability.
• No fake review patterns detected — reviews contain specific names, job types, and varied language, suggesting authenticity.

This WW Score is based on only 5 reviews with a concerning recency imbalance — the most recent review is negative and describes a responsiveness failure — making this score LOW confidence and not sufficient to draw firm conclusions about current service quality.

ACE Home Services (formerly Yavapai Plumbing and Heating) presents a deeply polarized review profile. Individual technicians — including Jaime, Billy, Richard Martinez, Ron, Jacob, Gabriel, Alexis, and others — frequently receive strong praise for professionalism, punctuality, and knowledge, which props up the professionalism and experience scores. However, these positives are substantially offset by a large volume of serious complaints across all dimensions: pricing is the most consistently criticized dimension, with dozens of reviewers citing charges that were double to quadruple competitor quotes, hidden fees, parts marked up 10–20x retail, and charges for work not performed. Project completion is significantly damaged by multiple accounts of no-shows, missed appointment windows with no callbacks, abandoned or incomplete work, and at least one case of severe property damage with zero follow-up. Experience scores are pulled down by credible accounts of misdiagnosis, upselling unnecessary replacements, and shoddy workmanship including code violations and improper installations.

• SUSPECTED FAKE REVIEW CLUSTER: Between 2025-06-07 and 2025-06-09, there are approximately 20+ reviews that are extremely short (e.g., 'Gabriel did awesome!!!', 'Alexis was great', 'Gabriel did a great job.', 'Gabriel did great!'), all 5-star, many referencing the same technician names (Gabriel appears 7+ times in two days, Alexis appears 4+ times). Several reviews have no text at all with a 5-star rating. This pattern is highly consistent with coordinated fake or incentivized reviews. Confidence in the positive signals from this cluster is LOW.
• TWO BLANK REVIEWS with 5-star ratings on 2025-06-09 and additional blanks on 2025-05-09 — these carry no usable data and were excluded from scoring.
• ONE REVIEW (dated 2024-01-23) appears to be for an ACE Hardware retail store, not ACE Home Services. It was excluded from scoring as it is clearly a different business.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS ARE SEVERE AND CONSISTENT: Overcharging allegations span the entire review history from 2015 to 2025, across plumbing, HVAC, and electrical services. Multiple reviewers found competitor prices 40–70% lower. At least two reviewers allege charges for work never performed. One reviewer was quoted $1,960 to replace water heater elements that cost $50 in parts and took 1 hour.
• PROPERTY DAMAGE AND ZERO ACCOUNTABILITY: At least two reviews (June 2025 and November 2024) describe severe bathroom damage from plumbing work, with the company going completely unresponsive afterward. The general manager is named as unresponsive in one review.
• NO-SHOW AND SCHEDULING FAILURES: At least 6 distinct reviews describe confirmed appointments where no technician arrived and no proactive communication was made, spanning 2024–2025.
• EMPLOYEE MISCONDUCT ALLEGATIONS: Two reviews (June 2025) allege the company does not pay employees properly and steals from staff. While unverified, this is a reputational flag.
• RECENCY NOTE: The suspicious 5-star cluster is concentrated in the most recent dates (June 2025), which under recency weighting rules would normally boost the score — however, the fake review flag substantially reduces the reliability of this cluster.
• UPSELLING PATTERN: A recurring and credible pattern exists across many years of reviews where technicians recommend full system replacements when minor repairs were sufficient, confirmed by customers who obtained second opinions.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large review volume, but the score itself should be treated with caution given a credible fake review cluster inflating recent positive signals, severe and consistent pricing complaints spanning years, documented cases of property damage and non-response, and a clear pattern of aggressive upselling — the true performance score for pricing and project completion is likely lower than calculated.

Mountain High Plumbing has a deeply polarized review history spanning over a decade. A substantial portion of positive reviews praise specific technicians by name — Bird, Logan, Jordan, Demarcus, Mike, Kyle — for punctuality, friendliness, and solid workmanship, which drives scores above zero across all dimensions. However, a significant and recurring pattern of serious negative reviews describes no-shows, broken appointments, technicians lying about ETAs, incomplete work, billing for unperformed labor, hidden charges, and outright rude behavior from both field staff and management. Project completion is particularly damaged by multiple accounts of abandoned jobs, callbacks not honored, and work done incorrectly requiring re-visits. Pricing concerns are substantial, with multiple reviewers citing charges for travel time, failed diagnoses, and inflated or undisclosed fees. The wide date range of reviews (2011–2025) shows these problems are not isolated to one era — negative patterns recur across many years, though recent reviews (2023–2025) skew more positive.

• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The review by Justin Copeland (Excellence Service!!!) appears verbatim twice — once dated 2024-08-13 and once dated 2024-07-11. This is a likely duplicate submission and was counted only once for scoring purposes.
• SUSPECTED FAKE OR UNINFORMATIVE REVIEWS: At least 5 reviews contain no text at all (blank body, rating only) and 2 contain only 'unknown' or 'N/A'. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data.
• ONE REVIEW (dated 2024-11-11, rating 5.0) appears to be written by a company employee or insider ('we all do the best work to help customers...') rather than a genuine customer. This was flagged and excluded from scoring.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of highly negative reviews span 2011–2022. Reviews from 2023–2025 are predominantly positive, suggesting possible improvement in service quality or a shift in reviewer base. However, negative patterns (no-shows, pricing complaints) still appear as recently as 2024.
• PATTERN OF NO-SHOW AND ABANDONMENT: At least 6 independent reviews across different years describe technicians failing to show up for scheduled appointments without notice, which is a systemic reliability concern.
• BILLING INTEGRITY CONCERNS: Multiple independent reviewers across different years report being charged for travel time to retrieve forgotten parts, charges for failed or incomplete diagnoses, and fees that were never disclosed upfront. This is a recurring and credible pattern.
• WORKMANSHIP FAILURES NOTED: Reviews describe incorrect parts ordered, wrong pump specs proposed, liquid nails used as permanent sink sealant, sewage tracked through home, and a faucet falling off the wall after two months — indicating inconsistent quality control across technicians.

This WW Score is based on a large review set (91 reviews) spanning 13+ years and carries HIGH statistical confidence, but the score should be interpreted cautiously given the extreme polarization between glowing praise for specific technicians and serious, recurring complaints about no-shows, billing practices, and workmanship failures that appear consistently across multiple independent reviewers and time periods.

This contractor presents a deeply split profile: a large cluster of recent 2024–2025 reviews praise individual technicians (Logan, Shawn, Tom, Robert, Steve, Joe) for professionalism, punctuality, and technical competence, driving moderately positive scores in those dimensions. However, a significant and detailed body of negative reviews — spanning 2016 through 2024 — describes a consistent pattern of extreme overpricing, incomplete work, abandoned jobs, unresponsive management, and in some cases outright deceptive practices targeting vulnerable customers such as seniors. The pricing dimension is severely penalized by numerous explicit complaints of charges 10–50x the cost of parts, undisclosed fees, refusal to provide itemized invoices, and failure to honor warranties. Project completion is also materially dragged down by documented cases of abandoned work, failed repairs, and ignored callbacks. The positive reviews, while numerous, are heavily concentrated in recent months and are notably brief and generic compared to the detailed and specific negative accounts.

• FAKE REVIEW RISK — MODERATE: A significant portion of positive reviews (particularly from 2025) are very short, generic, and lack specific detail (e.g., 'The best company. Highly recommend!', 'Nice guy. Got the job done', 'On time, professional service', 'Great job very professional thank you, Tom'). Several are single sentences with no job description. Five reviews have completely blank text with only a 5-star rating. This pattern is consistent with review padding.
• BLANK REVIEWS EXCLUDED FROM SCORING: Five reviews contained no text whatsoever (only a star rating). These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence.
• RECENCY IMBALANCE: The majority of positive reviews are from 2025 and late 2024, while the most detailed and severe negative reviews span 2016–2024. This may reflect genuine improvement, selective review solicitation, or suppression of negative reviews — one reviewer explicitly states the company removed their negative review from their own site.
• REVIEW SUPPRESSION ALLEGATION: At least two reviewers explicitly state that Benjamin Franklin Plumbing removed or attempted to remove their negative reviews from the company's own platform. This is a serious credibility flag.
• PRICING PATTERN — SYSTEMIC CONCERN: Multiple independent negative reviewers across different years and locations describe near-identical pricing behavior: quotes 10–50x the cost of parts, pressure tactics, refusal to provide itemized bills, and discounts only offered when the customer pushes back. This is not isolated — it appears to be a structural business practice.
• INCOMPLETE WORK / ABANDONED JOBS: Multiple reviews document technicians leaving jobs unfinished, failing to return as promised, and not responding to follow-up calls. One reviewer describes a broken water softener under warranty with no callback for two months. Another describes a partially dismantled tub/shower left unrepaired after payment was taken.
• FAILED REPAIR: One reviewer documents a repair that failed within 24 hours, causing $27,000+ in flood damage. While insurance eventually covered it, the company refused any refund for the customer's time and inconvenience.
• ELDERLY/VULNERABLE TARGETING: Multiple reviewers explicitly identify themselves as seniors or disabled individuals and describe feeling taken advantage of due to pricing and pressure tactics. This is a significant ethical and reputational flag.
• OLDER REVIEWS NOTED: Several negative reviews date from 2015–2018 and may not reflect current operations, but the pattern of complaints continues through 2024, suggesting the issues have not been fully resolved.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large review volume, but the score itself should be interpreted cautiously — the contractor's performance appears highly inconsistent across technicians and time periods, with systemic pricing and follow-through concerns that are well-documented and recurring, partially masked by a high volume of brief, recent positive reviews.