Find Nearby Plumbers In Glendale, Arizona

Performance Plumbing & Mechanical presents a deeply mixed picture. Six of seven reviews praise JR's professionalism, responsiveness, and courteous demeanor, but the most recent review (2021) is a significant red flag: a former 5-star reviewer downgraded to 1 star specifically because JR stopped returning calls and failed to complete a previously agreed-upon installation after three contact attempts over many weeks. This unresolved abandonment of work heavily penalizes the Project Completion dimension, which is the highest-weighted category. Pricing feedback is consistently positive across multiple reviewers, and technical skill is praised in detail by several customers. However, the recency of the negative review — combined with the fact that all positive reviews cluster tightly in a narrow two-week window in May 2020 — raises serious concerns about reliability and current business performance.

• CRITICAL: The most recent review (March 2021) documents a contractor who stopped returning calls and failed to complete a previously agreed job — this directly impacts Project Completion and Professionalism scores.
• SUSPICIOUS REVIEW CLUSTERING: Five of the six positive reviews were posted within a 13-day window (May 15–28, 2020), which is an unusual pattern that may indicate solicited or coordinated reviews rather than organic feedback.
• RECENCY CONCERN: All positive reviews are from 2020 or earlier. The only 2021 review is a 1-star complaint. The score may not reflect current business performance.
• The negative reviewer explicitly states they previously gave a 5-star review, lending credibility to their complaint and suggesting a genuine decline in service quality over time.
• Small total review count (7 reviews) limits statistical reliability of any dimension score.

This WW Score should be treated with caution — while technical skill and pricing appear genuinely strong based on 2020 reviews, the documented failure to complete work and return calls in the most recent review, combined with suspicious clustering of positive reviews, significantly undermines confidence in current service reliability.

Navarro Plumbing presents a deeply mixed picture across all four dimensions. Professionalism is the most heavily penalized dimension: multiple reviews explicitly describe poor follow-through, unanswered calls and texts, failure to return after leaving jobs incomplete, and one reviewer accused Louie of misrepresenting a warranty claim — serious conduct concerns that drag the score down significantly despite several positive reviews praising his friendliness and communication. Project completion is similarly troubled, with at least two reviews describing abandoned or incomplete work — including a hole left in a ceiling for weeks with no callback — and another describing a water softener left on bypass after installation, never turned on. Pricing received moderate positive marks from several reviewers noting fair and transparent quotes, but is tempered by one $1,500 dispute involving alleged misrepresentation to a home warranty company. Experience scores moderately: Navarro correctly diagnosed problems that other plumbers missed in at least one case and completed full repipes and installations successfully, but the bypass error and incorrect warranty reporting reflect lapses in technical diligence. Overall, the contractor shows genuine capability in some jobs but a documented pattern of poor follow-up, incomplete work, and at least one serious ethical concern.

• ETHICAL CONCERN: One reviewer (2020-09-18) explicitly alleges that Louie misrepresented the cause of a water softener failure to a home warranty company as 'customer neglect' without properly inspecting the unit, resulting in a denied $1,500 claim. This is a serious allegation of dishonest conduct.
• ABANDONED WORK: One reviewer (2019-11-19) describes Navarro leaving a hole in their ceiling after not having the correct part, then failing to return or respond to calls for weeks. This is a direct project completion failure.
• INSTALLATION ERROR: Two separate reviewers (2019-04-17 and 2020-09-18) report that a water softener was installed but left on bypass, meaning it was never actually functioning after installation. This suggests a recurring quality-control issue.
• FOLLOW-UP FAILURE: Multiple reviews (2018-03-21, 2017-04-29, 2019-11-19) describe Louie going completely unresponsive after jobs — failing to send receipts, maintenance contracts, or return calls. This is a documented pattern, not an isolated incident.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent reviews are from 2023–2024 and are predominantly positive, while the most critical reviews are from 2017–2020. It is possible service quality has improved, but the older negative reviews involve serious enough conduct that they cannot be dismissed.
• REVIEW VOLUME CAUTION: With only 14 reviews spanning 7+ years, the sample size is relatively small. A few strongly negative reviews carry significant weight in this dataset.
• NO SUSPECTED FAKE REVIEWS: Review language is varied, specific, and includes both positive and negative experiences with concrete details. No patterns of fake or coordinated reviews detected.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to sufficient mention counts across all four dimensions, but the score itself should be interpreted cautiously given the serious and specific nature of the negative reviews, which include allegations of dishonesty, abandoned work, and a recurring installation error — concerns that go beyond ordinary service complaints.

The review record for this contractor is heavily negative, with five of eight reviews awarding 1-star ratings and describing serious failures including abandoned jobs, no-shows, non-communication, and taking payment without completing work. The two most recent positive reviews (2024 and 2014) describe competent, professional service, but they are vastly outnumbered by complaints spanning 2013–2020. Project completion is the most critically damaged dimension, with multiple reviewers explicitly stating that contracted work was never finished and that paid deposits were not honored. Professionalism scores are similarly low due to repeated accounts of lying, talking over customers, and going months without returning calls.

• RECENCY IMBALANCE: Only 1 of 8 reviews is from the past 12 months (November 2024). The majority of reviews are 4–9 years old, which limits their direct relevance to current performance but still represents a significant pattern of documented failures.
• POSSIBLE FAKE OR BIASED REVIEW: The 2024 5-star review explicitly instructs readers to ignore past reviews, which is an unusual and suspicious framing. This may indicate a reputation-management attempt rather than an organic customer experience. Confidence in this review is reduced.
• PATTERN OF PAYMENT FRAUD: At least two reviews (2020 and 2015) explicitly describe paying upfront and receiving no completed work and no follow-up contact, which is a serious and recurring pattern that goes beyond ordinary service complaints.
• ABANDONED CONTRACT: The 2016 review describes a written contract for a bathroom renovation where the final phase was explicitly refused by the contractor, suggesting a documented breach of contract.
• LOW REVIEW VOLUME: With only 8 total reviews spanning over a decade, the dataset is small. Scores should be treated with caution despite HIGH confidence labels on mention counts.

This WW Score carries moderate overall reliability — the pattern of negative feedback is consistent and specific enough to be credible, but the small total review count and significant time gaps between reviews mean the score may not fully reflect the contractor's current operational state.

Aqua Vets shows a deeply concerning pattern across all three reviews: the owner (Shawn/Sean) starts engagingly but then goes silent, stops returning calls, texts, and emails, and leaves work unfinished. Two of three reviews describe outright job abandonment after deposits or partial work were completed, which severely drags down both professionalism and project completion scores. The one positive note is that in the two reviews where work was actually performed, the physical gutter output was described as looking and functioning well, providing limited evidence of baseline workmanship. Pricing transparency was mentioned briefly in two reviews with agreed-upon quotes, but the failure to honor commitments undermines any pricing goodwill. The overall picture is of a contractor who is personable upfront but unreliable in follow-through.

• Two of three reviews describe the owner going completely silent after initial engagement — a strong pattern of job abandonment.
• One reviewer was never able to obtain a receipt for completed work, preventing them from filing a rebate — suggesting possible administrative negligence or deliberate avoidance.
• All reviews are from 2018–2020; no recent reviews are available. Business reliability in the current period is entirely unknown.
• Sample size is very small (3 reviews). Scores should be treated as directional only and not statistically reliable.
• No fake review concerns detected — reviews are detailed, specific, and include both positive and negative elements consistent with genuine experiences.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews, all dated 2018–2020, and should be treated as a limited but directionally meaningful signal — the consistent pattern of abandonment across multiple independent reviewers is a credible warning sign despite the small sample.

This contractor receives extremely poor ratings across all measured dimensions. Two of three reviews are highly negative, citing severe professionalism issues (tardiness, inappropriate behavior, poor communication), incomplete project work, and questionable business practices. One positive review from 2015 mentions good technical knowledge and quick resolution, but lacks specificity and is heavily outweighed by detailed complaints. The most recent negative review (2013) and the detailed 2017 account describe serious misconduct including unauthorized work, non-completion despite months of notice, and alleged unauthorized occupancy. With only 3 reviews total and predominantly negative evidence, reliable scoring is not possible, but available data suggests very poor performance.

• CRITICAL: Only 3 reviews analyzed — sample size is too small for reliable WW Score calculation per Step 4 guidelines
• RECENCY CONCERN: Reviews span 2013–2017; all are older than 12 months. No recent data available to assess current performance or whether issues have been corrected
• BUSINESS STATUS UNCLEAR: 2017 review states 'His business is now closed in large part to Steawart.' Verify whether this contractor/company is still operating
• SERIOUS ALLEGATIONS: 2017 review contains allegations of unauthorized work, non-completion, and unauthorized occupancy of client property. These are not minor service complaints
• POSITIVE REVIEW QUALITY: The single 5-star review (2015) contains spelling errors ('props and safficent', 'noledge') and lacks specific detail, raising minor concerns about authenticity, though not conclusive
• CONSISTENCY OF NEGATIVE FEEDBACK: Both negative reviews independently cite professionalism failures (punctuality, attitude/behavior), lending credibility to those complaints

This score should NOT be trusted for decision-making. The sample size of 3 reviews is insufficient per methodology guidelines, all reviews predate 2018, and the business may no longer be operational. If this contractor is still active, current customer references should be obtained before engaging.

Insufficient data — only 2 reviews analyzed. Review 1 (2021) praises reliability, speed, and problem-solving but provides no pricing feedback. Review 2 (2020) is highly critical of pricing structure and billing practices but does not address professionalism or quality of work. The reviews are contradictory and separated by nearly 2 years, making it impossible to establish a reliable overall score. Each dimension is supported by only 1 mention, yielding LIMITED confidence across all scored areas.

• Insufficient review volume (n=2) — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per Step 4 guidelines
• Extreme polarity: 5-star vs. 1-star with no middle ground — suggests possible service inconsistency or different customer expectations
• Both reviews are older than 12 months (2020–2021) — no recent data to assess current performance
• Review 1 lacks specificity on pricing; Review 2 lacks specificity on workmanship quality — limited cross-dimensional coverage

This analysis is unreliable and should not be used for decision-making. Minimum 3 reviews are required; only 2 were provided. Each dimension rests on a single mention, and the reviews contradict each other on value perception. Collect at least 5–10 recent reviews before drawing conclusions.