Find Nearby Plumbers In Glendale, Arizona

Fiscor shows strong professionalism and technical expertise across multiple reviews, with technicians consistently praised for politeness, knowledge, and courteous behavior. However, significant concerns emerge around project completion and pricing practices. Multiple recent reviews (2024) document failures in appointment scheduling, no-shows, and incomplete follow-through on promised callbacks. Pricing is highly contested, with at least two customers reporting aggressive upselling of unnecessary equipment replacements; one customer obtained a second opinion and found a $550 solution instead of the quoted $8,700 replacement. Older reviews (2022-2020) are more uniformly positive, suggesting possible service degradation or inconsistency over time.

• RECENCY CONCERN: Most positive reviews are from 2022 or earlier; recent 2024 reviews show sharp decline in service quality, particularly around scheduling and follow-through.
• PRICING RED FLAG: Multiple customers report aggressive upselling and inflated quotes. One customer was quoted $8,700 for a replacement when a $550 control board solved the problem. Another was told a new thermocouple was needed when the furnace worked fine after manual lighting.
• PROJECT COMPLETION FAILURES: Three recent 1-star reviews (Sept-Nov 2024) document no-shows, missed appointments, and failure to return calls or provide promised quotes.
• OWNER RESPONSE CONCERN: One detailed 1-star review documents owner Kevin Fiscor responding defensively on Yelp instead of addressing customer concerns directly, and allegedly identifying the reviewer by name on an 'anonymous' platform—raising professionalism and privacy concerns.
• INCONSISTENCY PATTERN: Stark contrast between older 5-star reviews (2020-2022) praising the company and recent 1-star reviews (2024) citing poor service. This suggests either service degradation or potential review manipulation in older batch.
• TECHNICAL COMPETENCE GAPS: First review documents technician unable to light a furnace due to lack of basic tools and failure to follow instructions, contradicting claims of expertise.

This score should be treated with MODERATE caution. While the company demonstrates genuine technical knowledge and professionalism in customer interactions, recent 2024 reviews reveal serious operational failures in scheduling, follow-through, and pricing transparency that directly contradict the overwhelmingly positive older reviews. The sharp recency decline and multiple documented instances of upselling suggest the WW Score may overstate current reliability; customers should prioritize recent reviews and obtain independent second opinions on any major equipment replacement recommendations.

Alex & Bros Plumbing receives consistently strong feedback across all four dimensions from a small but meaningful set of reviews. Professionalism is the standout dimension, with all four reviewers explicitly noting punctuality, responsiveness, friendliness, and reliability — including a 6am Sunday emergency call answered promptly. Project completion is also well-supported, with reviewers describing jobs finished cleanly and correctly, including correcting prior plumbers' mistakes. Experience is affirmed by references to quality workmanship and technical problem-solving, though the sample is small. Pricing is mentioned in only one review ('affordable'), making that dimension's score low-confidence and conservatively scored.

• Only 4 reviews total — WW Score should be treated as preliminary and not fully reliable until more reviews are available.
• All 4 reviews are 5-star ratings with no negative feedback of any kind. While the reviews do contain specific details (emergency Sunday call, Thanksgiving visit, toilet installs, correcting prior plumber work), the uniformly perfect ratings warrant mild caution.
• No reviews mention pricing in detail — only one uses the word 'affordable' with no specifics on quotes, estimates, or billing transparency. Pricing score is based on a single data point.
• Review dates span from April 2023 to February 2024. All reviews fall within approximately the past 12–24 months, so recency is acceptable, but the most recent review is from early 2024 with no more recent data available.

This WW Score is based on only 4 reviews and should be considered a preliminary indicator — the score direction is positive and the reviews contain genuine specifics, but a larger review sample is needed before this score can be considered fully reliable.

All four reviews speak positively about Chad and Poseidon Plumbing across multiple dimensions, with consistent praise for honesty, knowledge, and fair pricing. The most detailed review highlights a notably honest interaction where Chad chose to repair rather than upsell a new water filtration system, which is a strong signal of integrity and trustworthiness. Professionalism and experience are mentioned across all four reviews, lending moderate confidence to those dimensions. Pricing and project completion are each referenced in three reviews, with language like 'fair price,' 'reasonably priced,' and 'completed several plumbing issues,' supporting solid but not exceptional scores. The overall picture is positive, but the small review pool and age of the reviews limit how much weight this score should carry.

• Only 4 reviews total — this is a very small sample size and the WW Score cannot be considered statistically reliable.
• All reviews are dated between 2018 and 2019, meaning all reviews are more than 5 years old. There is no recent data to confirm current service quality.
• All reviews are 5-star ratings with no negative or mixed feedback. While the reviews contain specific details that reduce fake review suspicion, the uniformly perfect ratings with no criticism warrants mild caution.
• No reviews mention any negative experiences, delays, callbacks, or unresolved issues — absence of complaints is not treated as evidence of quality per scoring rules.

This WW Score carries LIMITED overall reliability due to a very small review pool of only 4 reviews, all of which are over 5 years old, providing no insight into the contractor's current performance.

Cool Blew has a large and long-standing customer base with many genuinely positive experiences, particularly around individual technicians such as Dan, Edward, Ralf, and Ian, who are repeatedly praised for punctuality, communication, and technical skill. However, a significant and consistent thread of negative reviews — spanning multiple years and continuing into 2024–2025 — documents serious concerns across all four dimensions: rude and unresponsive office staff, overcharging and hidden fees, misdiagnosis, incomplete repairs, and in several cases work that made problems worse. Pricing is the weakest dimension, with multiple credible accounts of charges far exceeding market rates (e.g., $960 overcharge on a water heater, $1,773 for a $300 motor, $1,100 labor for a one-hour job). Project completion is also significantly dragged down by reviews describing abandoned work, multi-week delays in extreme heat, and repairs that failed within days. The overall score reflects a company with genuine technical talent at the field level but persistent systemic failures in office operations, pricing transparency, and quality control.

• 23 reviews contain no text — only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence. Their presence inflates the apparent star average and may reflect incomplete submissions or padding.
• Multiple reviews from 2022-06-10 share the exact same date with no review text, which is a pattern consistent with review padding or bulk submission. Confidence in the aggregate star rating is reduced.
• Several positive reviews are very brief and generic (e.g., 'great service', 'best service', 'down the street from me') with no specifics, which is consistent with low-effort or potentially inauthentic reviews.
• Negative reviews span from 2010 through June 2025, indicating that problems with office staff rudeness, overcharging, and incomplete work are not isolated incidents but a recurring pattern across many years.
• At least 6 reviews explicitly describe being overcharged or receiving pricing that was significantly above market rate, which is a strong and consistent signal of a systemic pricing integrity problem.
• At least 5 reviews describe repairs that failed shortly after completion or were left incomplete, indicating a meaningful project completion risk.
• Multiple reviews describe rude, dismissive, or deceptive behavior from office/phone staff specifically, suggesting a bifurcation between field technician quality and back-office quality.
• One negative review from 2025-06-01 describes a technician allegedly recommending an unnecessary service (coil cleaning) that, when declined, was later used by the home warranty company to void coverage — a serious ethical allegation.
• Recency note: The most recent reviews (May–June 2025) include both strong positives and strong negatives, indicating the mixed quality pattern is ongoing and not improving.

This WW Score is based on a large review set (175 total, 152 with usable data) spanning 2010–2025, giving it HIGH statistical confidence, but the score should be interpreted cautiously because the dataset contains a meaningful proportion of blank reviews that inflate star averages, and the negative reviews are specific, credible, and recurring across many years — suggesting the 68.4 score accurately reflects a company with capable field technicians but unreliable office operations, inconsistent pricing integrity, and a non-trivial risk of incomplete or failed repairs.

Beebe Plumbing shows a deeply mixed track record across all four dimensions. Professionalism is the most frequently mentioned dimension and is dragged down significantly by repeated complaints of no-shows, late arrivals, cancelled appointments without notice, and one technician arriving unprepared and without safety precautions — though many positive reviews do praise individual technicians like Alex, Mark, and Luis as courteous and on time. Project completion is the most concerning dimension: multiple reviews describe jobs left incomplete, return visits required due to errors (reversed hot/cold faucets, a missing drain seal, a failed low-flow fix), a billing dispute for work never performed, and a refusal to honor warranty callbacks without additional charges. Pricing scores moderately well, with several reviewers explicitly praising reasonable or below-market rates and one technician even voluntarily reducing a bill — but this is offset by a $280 upsell complaint and a disputed $150 charge for a no-show. Experience scores reasonably well among reviews that address it, with technicians demonstrating solid technical knowledge in complex jobs like gas line installs and slab leaks, though the pattern of errors requiring return visits tempers this score.

• One review (2022-09-12, 5-star) praises the company solely for replacing an American flag and contains zero plumbing service data — excluded from dimension scoring as it provides no usable service information.
• Several 5-star reviews are older than 5 years (2012–2016) and may not reflect current ownership or service quality. Multiple reviewers explicitly note a change in ownership or management, suggesting the business may have declined in recent years.
• The most recent negative reviews (2022–2023) describe systemic issues including warranty refusals, upselling, and unresolved repairs — these are given higher weight per recency rules and meaningfully lower the scores.
• No strong fake review patterns detected. Reviews vary in length, detail, specificity, and rating — language is sufficiently diverse to suggest authentic authorship across the review set.
• A notable cluster of complaints involves return visits required due to technician error (reversed faucets, missing seal, failed repair) — this is a recurring pattern, not isolated incidents, and is weighted accordingly in project completion scoring.

This WW Score is based on 28 reviews spanning approximately 11 years with strong mention counts across all four dimensions, yielding HIGH confidence in the score — however, the significant gap in quality between older positive reviews and more recent negative ones means the score likely overstates current service quality, and prospective customers should weight the 2020–2023 reviews most heavily.

Do It Right Plumbing shows significant polarization in customer experiences. While recent reviews (2025, 2024) are overwhelmingly positive with strong praise for professionalism, responsiveness, and workmanship, older reviews (2014-2017) reveal serious systemic issues including chronic no-shows, poor office communication (particularly with receptionist Ruby), scheduling failures, and incomplete work. The company demonstrates solid technical expertise and fair pricing when work is completed, but project completion reliability is undermined by documented appointment failures and follow-through problems. The WW Score of 68.2 reflects this mixed track record: strong professionalism and experience scores are offset by moderate pricing concerns and notably weak project completion metrics driven by historical scheduling and callback failures.

• CRITICAL: Severe polarization detected. Recent reviews (2025, 2024, 2025) are nearly all 5-star with specific positive details. Older reviews (2014-2017) contain multiple 1-star ratings citing identical systemic failures: no-shows, rude receptionist (Ruby), poor scheduling, and communication breakdowns. This suggests either significant company restructuring or potential review manipulation.
• RECEPTIONIST ISSUE: Multiple reviews from 2014-2017 specifically name 'Ruby' as rude, argumentative, and unprofessional. This pattern appears resolved in recent reviews, suggesting personnel change.
• NO-SHOW PATTERN: At least 12 reviews explicitly mention missed appointments, failed to show up, or broken scheduling commitments, primarily in 2014-2017 period.
• EMPTY REVIEWS: 6 reviews contain only a 5-star rating with no text. These provide no evidence and inflate apparent positive sentiment without substantive data.
• RECENCY BIAS: 70% of reviews are from 2017 or earlier. Only 20 reviews are from 2024-2025. Recent reviews show dramatic improvement in all dimensions, but historical data dominates the dataset.
• PRICING INCONSISTENCY: Multiple reviews cite high prices (e.g., $351 for frozen pipe, $700 for sewer line, $3500 quote), but recent reviews praise 'fair' and 'reasonable' pricing. Suggests either price increases or selective customer base shift.
• INCOMPLETE WORK: Several reviews document unfinished jobs, abandoned work, or callbacks not honored (e.g., water heater not working after install, old tank never removed).
• OFFICE STAFF COMPLAINTS: Beyond Ruby, multiple reviews cite poor communication between office staff and technicians, lost work orders, and employees not knowing case details.

This WW Score should be interpreted with caution due to extreme temporal polarization: recent reviews (past 12 months) are consistently excellent, while historical reviews (2014-2017) reveal serious operational failures. The HIGH overall confidence is driven by mention volume, but the underlying data quality is compromised by the dramatic shift in company performance over time. If evaluating for current service, weight recent reviews heavily; if assessing long-term reliability, the historical pattern of no-shows and communication failures is concerning despite apparent recent improvements.