Find Nearby Plumbers In Glendale, Arizona

Amazing Leak Detection earns strong marks for professionalism and pricing across a large volume of reviews, with many customers praising punctuality, courteous technicians, transparent communication, and honest advice that sometimes saved customers money at the company's own expense. However, a meaningful cluster of negative reviews — spanning multiple years — describes misdiagnoses, failed repairs, poor follow-through, and in some cases unprofessional phone interactions, which meaningfully suppresses the project completion and experience scores. The project completion dimension is the most penalized, as several reviewers explicitly paid for repairs that did not resolve their leaks, required multiple return visits, or were abandoned without resolution. Pricing is generally viewed favorably, though one reviewer found the repair estimate astronomically high after a good detection visit, and two reviewers paid hundreds of dollars for work that was either wrong or incomplete. Overall, the business demonstrates genuine strengths in honesty and customer care but has a documented pattern of inconsistent technical execution that prospective customers should weigh carefully.

• 5 reviews contain no text at all (only a star rating), labeled 'unknown' or blank — these were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data.
• Two reviews (dated 2018-05-11 and 2018-06-11) are near-identical in wording and content, suggesting a possible duplicate or fake review. Confidence in the positive review pool is slightly reduced as a result.
• One review is dated 2007, and several others are from 2012–2016, making them 9–18 years old. The majority of reviews with substantive detail are from 2019–2025, which were weighted more heavily.
• A recurring negative pattern exists across multiple independent reviewers: misdiagnosis of leaks, charges paid without resolution, and difficulty getting the company to return or respond — this is not isolated and spans 2014 to 2024.
• Several negative reviews specifically cite poor receptionist/phone experience (distracted, annoyed tone, kids screaming in background), indicating a possible systemic front-office professionalism issue that partially offsets the strong field technician praise.
• One negative reviewer (2019) describes being charged $650 for a repair that failed within hours, then being quoted $800–$1,850 for follow-up work with a two-week wait, and ultimately hiring a competitor who fixed it quickly for less — a serious project completion failure.
• One reviewer (2018) paid $200 for leak detection, received no follow-up, no marked pipes, and no repair — describing the experience as 'very unethical.'

This WW Score is based on 82 reviews spanning 2007–2025, with a strong concentration of usable data from the past six years, giving the score HIGH overall confidence; however, the persistent negative review pattern across project completion and experience dimensions means prospective customers should treat the score as a moderate-confidence signal of a capable but inconsistent service provider rather than a uniformly excellent one.

Christian Brothers demonstrates strong technical expertise and professionalism from individual technicians, with many reviews praising knowledgeable staff and courteous service. However, the company is significantly hampered by serious pricing concerns, with numerous customers reporting dramatic overcharges (sometimes 3-10x market rates), aggressive upselling tactics, and lack of transparency in quotes. Project completion issues include missed appointments, poor communication about scheduling, and incomplete work. While recent reviews (past 12 months) show more positive sentiment, older reviews reveal systemic problems with pricing practices and follow-through that persist across multiple years.

• PRICING FRAUD PATTERN: Multiple independent reviews (2024-2025) allege predatory pricing, bait-and-switch tactics, and deliberate overcharging. Examples include: $1,600 for 1 pound of R-22 refrigerant (market rate ~$35-150), $2,100 for simple faucet/toilet install (competitor quoted half), $529 for AC cleaning (competitor charged $150), $1,000 for a $300 faucet. Pattern suggests systemic business model issue, not isolated incidents.
• ELDERLY TARGETING: Multiple reviews explicitly mention elderly or vulnerable customers being exploited with inflated quotes and pressure sales tactics. One review describes $1,600 diagnostic fee as 'bait-and-switch' targeting grandmother.
• INCOMPLETE WORK: Several reviews report work left unfinished (missing faceplate, incomplete replumbing, failed rooter service that required multiple callbacks). One customer paid $18,000 for bathroom replumbing that failed within one year.
• SCHEDULING FAILURES: Multiple reviews document missed appointments, no-shows, poor communication about arrival times, and customers left waiting all day without service.
• INCONSISTENT QUALITY: Reviews note wide variance in technician quality and thoroughness (40-minute vs 70-minute service calls for same job). Company policy change to stop honoring specific technician requests cited as service degradation.
• RECENT POSITIVE TREND: Majority of 5-star reviews are from June 2025 (past 2 weeks), while most serious complaints are from 2020-2024. This temporal clustering warrants caution—may indicate review manipulation or recent policy changes.
• GENERIC 5-STAR REVIEWS: Several reviews from June 8-9, 2025 are extremely brief, generic praise with minimal detail (e.g., 'Very good service very professional,' 'Excellent service,' blank review with 5 stars). Pattern suggests possible fake review activity.
• BUSINESS MODEL CONCERN: One review explicitly notes technicians are incentivized by commission on products/services sold, creating conflict of interest for honest recommendations.

This WW Score should be treated with CAUTION. While the numerical score of 72.8 reflects mixed performance across dimensions, the company exhibits a documented pattern of predatory pricing practices and incomplete work that poses genuine financial and service risk to customers. The recent surge of generic 5-star reviews (June 2025) combined with a clear historical pattern of serious complaints suggests the score may not fully capture underlying business practice concerns. Customers should independently verify pricing against competitors and request detailed written estimates before engaging this company.

AM PM Plumbing has a large and broadly positive review base spanning over a decade, with many customers praising punctuality, friendliness, and technical competence across numerous technicians including Jose, Brian, Dax, Frankie, Clint, and others. However, a significant cluster of negative reviews — many specifically tied to home warranty (AHS) jobs — describes a consistent pattern of inflated 'modification' charges ranging from $525 to $675+ for work customers and independent contractors deemed unnecessary or grossly overpriced, which materially drags down both the pricing and project completion scores. Communication failures, including no-shows, unreturned calls, and unresponsive office staff, appear repeatedly across multiple years and represent a genuine operational weakness. The professionalism score is tempered by multiple credible accounts of rude technicians, threatening behavior over payment, and poor follow-through on estimates and callbacks. Experience scores remain relatively higher because many positive reviews specifically cite skilled diagnostics and quality workmanship, but shoddy work complaints from a minority of reviewers prevent a top-tier score.

• FAKE REVIEW CONCERN: A notable cluster of reviews dated 2025-02-09 and 2025-03-11 show highly similar patterns — short, generic praise with initials appended (e.g., 'JG', 'G'), repetitive phrasing ('top notch', 'knowledgeable'), and several blank 5-star reviews with no text. Multiple reviews reference 'Brian and his team' with nearly identical language and the same appended initials, suggesting possible coordinated or incentivized review activity. Confidence in the most recent review cluster is reduced.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Approximately 30+ reviews contain no text and only a 5-star rating. These have been excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence per scoring rules.
• HOME WARRANTY SCAM PATTERN: At least 7 independent negative reviews (spanning 2023–2024) describe a near-identical scheme involving inflated 'modification' charges ($525–$675+) on AHS/home warranty jobs for parts customers and independent contractors deemed unnecessary or worth a fraction of the quoted price. This is a serious and credible pattern, not isolated complaints.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent reviews (2025) are predominantly 5-star and include suspected coordinated reviews. The negative reviews are concentrated in 2023–2024 and represent a meaningful share of substantive feedback. Reviews older than 3 years (pre-2022) are given reduced weight but still inform long-term patterns.
• COMMUNICATION FAILURES: Multiple reviews across different years cite unreturned calls, no-shows, unresponsive office staff, and failure to follow up on estimates — indicating a systemic issue rather than isolated incidents.
• BBB RATING: One reviewer explicitly states the company holds an 'F' rating on the Better Business Bureau, which corroborates the pattern of complaints about deceptive billing practices.
• IRRELEVANT REVIEWS: At least 2 reviews appear to reference a different company or service entirely (e.g., an HVAC technician named Fernando at a veterinary hospital, and a reference to 'PM Plumbing and Mechanical' with HVAC services). These were excluded from scoring.

This WW Score of 72.1 is based on a large review set and carries HIGH data confidence, but should be interpreted cautiously due to a credible and recurring pattern of deceptive billing on home warranty jobs, suspected coordinated positive reviews in the most recent period, and documented communication failures — consumers using home warranty services in particular should exercise significant caution.

Paradise Plumbing and Gas (under Ron Christen's ownership) earned strong praise across many reviews for punctuality, friendliness, and professionalism, but is significantly dragged down by a pattern of serious complaints about no-shows, failure to communicate, and rescheduling without follow-through. Pricing is a notable weak point: multiple reviewers explicitly called out overcharging or felt the rates were excessive for the work performed, while others praised fair or competitive pricing — creating a deeply mixed picture. Project completion is similarly split, with one reviewer citing a warranty refusal on a broken toilet bolt and another describing three consecutive scheduling failures and a no-show. Workmanship quality was generally praised when work was actually completed, but the business transition from Ron to '100% Plumbing' noted in one review raises questions about continuity of service quality. The overall score reflects a contractor with genuine strengths undermined by recurring and serious operational failures.

• BUSINESS TRANSITION WARNING: One reviewer (2021) explicitly states Ron retired and sold the business to '100% Plumbing,' describing the new ownership as the opposite of Ron's qualities. Reviews prior to this date may not reflect current business operations.
• RATING INCONSISTENCY: Two reviews carry a 5-star rating but contain clearly negative content — one describes being charged for an estimate ('rip off') and another warns readers away from the new ownership. These ratings are unreliable and suggest the platform's star ratings cannot be fully trusted for this listing.
• RECENCY CONCERN: The majority of reviews are from 2017–2020, with only two reviews from 2021–2022. The most recent reviews are negative. The score may not reflect current service quality.
• PRICING CONFLICT: There is a direct contradiction in pricing feedback. Multiple reviewers praised fair or best-in-market pricing, while multiple others explicitly called out overcharging, a $125 charge for a 2-minute job, and one reviewer claiming they got the same work done for 1/4 the price elsewhere. This dimension carries high uncertainty.
• WARRANTY REFUSAL: One reviewer filed a BBB complaint after Paradise Plumbing refused to honor a stated 2-year parts and labor warranty on a toilet bolt repair. This is a significant project completion and integrity flag.
• REVIEW SUPPRESSION ALLEGATION: One reviewer (2015) claims the owner asked them to write a review and then denied doing work for them after receiving a negative review. This is a serious integrity concern and may indicate attempts to manipulate the review record.
• NO FAKE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: While many positive reviews share similar themes (on time, friendly, fair price), they contain sufficient specific detail, named individuals, and varied phrasing to be considered likely authentic.

This WW Score is based on 25 reviews spanning 2015–2022 and carries moderate-to-high data reliability in terms of volume, but the score's trustworthiness is meaningfully reduced by a confirmed business ownership change, two mismatched star ratings, a warranty refusal complaint, a review suppression allegation, and a strong recency skew toward negative feedback — consumers should treat this score as a historical snapshot of a business that may have materially changed.

The reviews consistently highlight strong professionalism, with multiple reviewers praising punctuality, courtesy, friendliness, and responsiveness across several years of service. Pricing is frequently described as fair and reasonable, with one reviewer specifically noting the contractor actively tries to minimize customer costs. Project completion signals are positive but less explicitly detailed — most reviewers indicate work was finished as planned and on time, and one reviewer notably states problems were never repeated, suggesting reliable first-time resolution. Experience is supported by references to years in the plumbing business, effective problem-solving in complex situations, and consistently high-quality workmanship. However, all reviews are significantly outdated, with the most recent dating to late 2016 and the majority from 2012–2015, which substantially limits the reliability of this score for assessing current performance.

• ALL REVIEWS ARE OUTDATED: The most recent review is from October 2016 — over 8 years ago. No reviews from the past 12 months exist. This score reflects historical performance only and should not be treated as indicative of current service quality.
• ONE UNUSABLE REVIEW: The review with text 'unknown' (2015-02-04) was excluded from scoring as it contains no usable information.
• ONE VAGUE REVIEW: 'It went very well.' (2012-01-27) provides no specific dimension data and was not counted toward any dimension score.
• MULTIPLE CONTRACTORS NAMED: Reviews reference 'Connor/Conner Reeves,' 'Bob,' and 'Mark Reeves' — it is unclear whether these are the same business or different individuals operating under one listing. This inconsistency raises questions about review attribution accuracy.
• POTENTIAL GENERIC PRAISE PATTERN: Several reviews are brief and non-specific (e.g., 'prompt, courteous, and professional, at a fair and reasonable price'). While not conclusively fake, the lack of detail in some reviews reduces evidentiary weight.
• ALL RATINGS ARE 5-STAR: Every review with a rating is 5.0 out of 5.0, which warrants mild caution, though the volume is too small to definitively flag as manipulation.

This WW Score carries LOW-TO-MODERATE reliability due to the complete absence of recent reviews, ambiguity around which contractor(s) are being reviewed, and a small total review count — prospective customers should seek current references before making a hiring decision.

Ernesto demonstrates strong professionalism across multiple reviews, with consistent praise for friendliness, responsiveness, and communication. Pricing is noted as fair and affordable in limited mentions. However, one 1-star review from November 2023 describes him as rude and unprofessional, creating significant tension with the predominantly positive feedback. Project completion is not explicitly addressed in any review, preventing assessment of that critical dimension. The small sample size (5 reviews) and mixed signals on professionalism limit overall confidence.

• Significant contradiction: One 1-star review (Nov 2023) describes Ernesto as 'very rude and unprofessional' and 'in a hurry,' directly contradicting the 'friendly' and 'professional' claims in other reviews. This suggests either inconsistent service quality or a genuine service failure.
• Project completion dimension has zero mentions—no reviews discuss whether jobs were finished on time, completed fully, or if callbacks were honored. This is a critical gap.
• Small sample size (5 reviews) limits statistical reliability. Confidence should be treated as provisional.
• Most reviews are older than 12 months (3 of 5 from 2022-2023), with only 1 recent review from Nov 2024. Recency is limited.

This score should be treated with caution due to the small sample size, significant contradiction between the 1-star and 5-star reviews on professionalism, complete absence of project completion data, and limited recency. Additional recent reviews are needed to establish whether the negative experience was an outlier or indicative of inconsistent service.