Find Nearby Plumbers In Goodyear, Arizona

Day & Night demonstrates strong professionalism with consistently courteous, punctual, and knowledgeable technicians across 285 mentions. Technical expertise is well-documented with 220 mentions of skilled workmanship and problem-solving. Project completion is solid at 84.0 with 180 mentions showing jobs finished on time and follow-through honored. However, pricing emerges as a significant weakness (68.0 score, 95 mentions), with recurring complaints about high costs, aggressive upselling, and lack of transparency in quotes. The company excels in service quality but struggles with value perception and pricing fairness.

• PRICING CONCERNS: Multiple reviews (95+ mentions) cite excessive pricing, upselling tactics, and lack of itemized quotes. Customers report being charged $400-$1,300+ for services that competitors quote at $200-$500. This is the most consistent negative theme.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: Approximately 40-50 reviews from June 5-8, 2025 and May 7, 2025 show nearly identical phrasing, structure, and formatting (e.g., 'Michael showed up as promised, called to gives me a heads up, was pleasant and very knowledgeable' appears verbatim twice). These clusters contain minimal detail and suspiciously uniform 5-star ratings. Confidence in pricing and project completion scores reduced slightly due to this pattern.
• COMMISSION-BASED INCENTIVE ISSUES: Multiple reviews explicitly mention technicians are commission-based, creating conflict of interest. Customers report being pressured to buy unnecessary upgrades (air scrubbers, surge protectors, service plans) at inflated prices.
• INCONSISTENT SERVICE QUALITY: While most reviews are positive, there are 25+ detailed negative reviews describing misdiagnosis, unnecessary repairs recommended, and failure to show up on scheduled appointments. This suggests inconsistency in technician training or accountability.
• AGGRESSIVE SALES TACTICS: Recurring theme of high-pressure sales calls, unwanted follow-up calls despite customer requests to stop, and bait-and-switch pricing (e.g., $59 inspection quoted, charged $129+ on arrival).
• WARRANTY AND ACCOUNTABILITY GAPS: Several reviews describe issues with warranty coverage, refusal to honor warranties, and lack of accountability when technicians damage systems during service.

This WW Score of 82.3 should be treated with MODERATE-TO-HIGH confidence for professionalism and experience dimensions, but LOWER confidence for pricing reliability. The company delivers strong technical service and professional demeanor, but the consistent pricing complaints (95 mentions across multiple years and customer types) and detected fake review clusters significantly undermine overall trustworthiness. Customers should expect high-quality work but should obtain multiple quotes and carefully review itemized pricing before committing.

City Plumbing Services demonstrates strong overall performance with a WW Score of 82.3, driven by consistently high marks in professionalism, project completion, and technical experience. The company excels at responsiveness, punctuality, and workmanship quality, with numerous recent reviews (past 12 months) praising same-day service and knowledgeable technicians. However, pricing emerges as a notable weakness, with multiple complaints about high labor rates and overestimation of work costs. The company shows a clear bifurcation: recent reviews (2021-2025) are overwhelmingly positive, while older reviews (2013-2019) contain serious complaints about pricing, incomplete work, and customer service issues, suggesting either significant operational changes or ownership transition effects.

• FAKE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: Approximately 40+ reviews from April-June 2025 show suspicious clustering with identical 5-star ratings, minimal detail, and generic praise language ('top notch', 'great service', 'highly recommend'). Multiple reviews contain no text or single-sentence comments. This pattern suggests potential review manipulation or bulk submission.
• OWNERSHIP/MANAGEMENT CHANGE: Multiple older reviews (2016-2019) explicitly reference ownership change ('bought out', 'no longer locally owned', 'owned by Baxter Heat and Air'). Reviews pre-2020 are significantly more negative regarding pricing and service quality. Post-2021 reviews show dramatic improvement, suggesting either new management or data source bias.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS CONCENTRATED IN OLDER REVIEWS: Negative pricing feedback clusters in 2013-2019 period with complaints of $100+ service calls for 10-15 minute jobs, $5000 water heater estimates deemed unnecessary, and $1000+ bills for minor repairs. Recent reviews (2024-2025) mention 'fair pricing' and 'reasonable rates' without specifics.
• INCOMPLETE WORK ALLEGATIONS: Several 1-star reviews (2017-2019) describe repeated trips, unresolved leaks, and incomplete repairs. One detailed 2017 review describes multiple failed attempts to fix water main leak with excessive labor charges.
• RECENCY BIAS: 85% of reviews are from 2021 onward; only 16 reviews predate 2020. Recent reviews are overwhelmingly 5-star with minimal critical detail, while older reviews contain substantive complaints. This temporal distribution limits confidence in overall score reliability.
• STAFF VARIABILITY: Reviews name multiple technicians (Aaron, Mark, Bob, Ian, Bryant, Kade, Todd) with varying quality descriptions. Some technicians consistently praised (Aaron, Ian, Bob), while older reviews mention 'Todd' and unnamed plumbers with performance issues.

This WW Score of 82.3 should be treated with MODERATE-TO-HIGH caution: while recent data (past 12 months) is abundant and consistently positive, the suspicious clustering of 40+ generic 5-star reviews, dramatic quality shift between pre-2020 and post-2021 periods, and historical pricing complaints suggest the score may not fully represent current operational reality. The company appears to have improved significantly, but the prevalence of recent low-detail reviews and absence of recent critical feedback raises questions about review authenticity and selection bias.

Hays Cooling, Heating & Plumbing demonstrates strong overall performance with a WW Score of 82.1. The company excels in professionalism (87.3) and experience (85.8), with technicians consistently praised for punctuality, friendliness, knowledge, and thorough workmanship across HVAC and plumbing services. Project completion is solid at 84.5, though some scheduling delays and follow-up issues are noted. Pricing emerges as the weakest dimension (71.2), with recurring complaints about high labor rates, diagnostic fees, and quotes perceived as excessive compared to competitors. The company's strength lies in service quality and customer care, but pricing transparency and competitiveness remain concerns.

• FAKE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: Multiple identical or near-identical reviews appear in the dataset (e.g., the Alyx/Zuriel AC installation review appears twice with identical text on 2025-06-08 and 2025-06-06; Juan F review appears twice on 2025-06-07 and 2025-06-05; Hayes AC company review appears twice on 2025-06-07 and 2025-06-05; Dom review appears twice on 2025-06-07 and 2025-06-05). This suggests potential review manipulation or data duplication.
• PRICING CONCERNS: 18 reviews explicitly mention high pricing, overcharging, or unfair quotes. Examples include $1,250 fan motor replacement (market price ~$88), $360/hour labor rates, $175 for simple part installation (market rate $90-110), and diagnostic fees ($79-$100) not applied to service. This pattern suggests systematic pricing issues.
• SCHEDULING & RESPONSIVENESS ISSUES: 12 reviews report appointment cancellations, long wait times (25+ days), rescheduling difficulties, missed appointments, or lack of follow-up communication. This contradicts the company's otherwise strong professionalism ratings.
• QUALITY INCONSISTENCY: 8 reviews describe faulty installations, shoddy workmanship, or problems created by technicians (e.g., water heater supply line installed incorrectly, high water pressure issues after service, thermostat wiring problems). One detailed review describes $2,500-$3,000 in cascading repairs allegedly caused by poor initial work.
• OWNERSHIP CHANGE IMPACT: One review notes service degradation after HomeServe acquisition (May 2025), suggesting organizational changes may have affected quality.
• RECENCY BIAS: Most recent reviews (June 2025) are predominantly 5-star with generic praise, while detailed negative reviews are older (2023-2024). Recent reviews lack specificity and may indicate review solicitation bias.
• DIAGNOSTIC FEE DISPUTES: Multiple reviews report confusion or frustration over diagnostic fees ($79-$125) that are not credited toward service, with some customers feeling misled about total costs.

This WW Score of 82.1 is reliable with HIGH confidence due to the large sample size (407 reviews) and consistent patterns across dimensions. However, the score should be interpreted with caution: the company delivers strong technical service and professionalism, but pricing practices are a significant weakness that may not be fully captured in the overall score. Prospective customers should expect high-quality work but should obtain detailed quotes and compare pricing with competitors before committing. The detected duplicate reviews and recent generic 5-star clustering suggest some review data quality issues, though the volume of detailed negative reviews on pricing provides credible evidence of legitimate concerns.

Flow-Tech demonstrates strong professionalism with consistent praise for punctuality, responsiveness, friendly demeanor, and professional conduct across 17 reviews. Pricing is viewed favorably as fair and reasonable by 11 reviewers, with transparent quotes and no upselling. Experience is solid with 12 mentions of skilled workmanship and problem-solving. However, project completion is significantly dragged down by one catastrophic 1-star review detailing an 18-month saga of poor work, inadequate understanding, incompetence, and failed equipment on a sump pump installation—a critical failure that substantially impacts overall reliability. The remaining 20 reviews are overwhelmingly positive (all 5-star), but this single major failure cannot be ignored.

• CRITICAL: One severely negative review (1-star, 2024-11-04) describes an 18-month failure involving poor workmanship, wrong product selection, and equipment breakdown within one year. This is a major red flag that contradicts the overwhelmingly positive pattern in other reviews and suggests inconsistent quality or service.
• FAKE REVIEW ALERT: Review dated 2022-12-07 about 'Hayward Honda' and 'Alex Angeles' is completely off-topic (automotive service, not plumbing) and appears to be misplaced or fraudulent data. This review was excluded from analysis.
• PATTERN CONCERN: 20 of 21 usable reviews are 5-star with very positive language. While many include specific details (names, actions, timelines), the concentration of perfect ratings is unusual and warrants caution. The single 1-star review suggests quality may be inconsistent.
• RECENCY: Most reviews are from 2023-2024 (13 reviews), with older reviews from 2015-2022 (8 reviews). Recent data is strong, but the 18-month failure saga review is very recent (Nov 2024), indicating potential ongoing issues.

This WW Score of 82.1 should be treated with MODERATE-TO-HIGH caution: while professionalism and pricing are well-supported by consistent positive feedback, the recent catastrophic failure on a major project (sump pump installation) significantly undermines confidence in project completion reliability and suggests quality may be inconsistent across job types or technicians. The score reflects strong recent performance but is tempered by evidence of serious past failures.

Courtesy Plumbing earns strong marks across professionalism, project completion, and technical experience, with an enormous volume of reviews consistently praising punctuality, communication, friendliness, and thorough workmanship from named technicians like Lou, Jack, Jason, Sami, Aaron, Richard, and others. Project completion scores are high, with the vast majority of reviewers confirming jobs were finished correctly, on time, and with proper cleanup, though a small number of reviews describe abandoned follow-through, missed appointments, or work that required callbacks. The pricing dimension is the most contested dimension in the entire review set, with a meaningful cluster of negative reviews explicitly citing overcharging, hidden fees, price inflation, and quotes far above competitors — this materially drags the pricing score down from what would otherwise be a higher overall result. Negative reviews (1-star) account for roughly 8-10% of the total corpus and are specific enough in their complaints (late arrivals, excessive billing, incomplete diagnosis, poor communication on follow-up) to be treated as credible rather than outliers. The WW Score of 79.4 reflects a genuinely strong but imperfect contractor with a well-documented pricing inconsistency problem.

• PRICING CONCERN — HIGH FREQUENCY: A statistically significant number of reviews (approximately 12-15 distinct reviews) explicitly describe pricing as excessive, inconsistent, or containing hidden fees. Complaints include quotes of $850-$900 for jobs completed by others for $300-$450, a $6,800 tankless water heater quote vs. a $2,000 competitor price, $575 for a faucet replacement vs. $260 elsewhere, and $400/hr effective labor rates. This is not a fringe complaint and materially affects the pricing score.
• BLANK REVIEWS — DATA QUALITY: Approximately 20-25 reviews consist of a star rating only with no review text. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence per scoring rules. All were 5-star ratings, which slightly inflates the raw star average but cannot be used to support any dimension score.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews with substantive text span 2013 to June 2025. Reviews from 2020 onward dominate the corpus and were weighted more heavily. Older reviews (pre-2018) were noted but given reduced weight. The most recent reviews (2025) continue to reflect the same patterns as the broader corpus.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW FLAG — LOW CONFIDENCE: One review dated 2024-07-29 (1-star) uses highly generic complaint language covering every possible failure mode simultaneously (late, unskilled, overcharged, unresponsive) with no specific technician name, job type, or verifiable detail. This review pattern is consistent with a fabricated negative review. It was included in scoring but flagged for reduced weight.
• ABANDONED WORK / FOLLOW-THROUGH FAILURES: Multiple 1-star reviews describe specific failures of follow-through — a technician who agreed to a job then never called back over 3 weeks (Dec 2023), a missed appointment with no notice (Oct 2015), a job accepted that the company lacked equipment to complete (Dec 2023 Scottsdale review), and a billing dispute where the owner was unresponsive. These are credible and specific and were factored into the project completion score.
• GEOGRAPHIC SCOPE NOTE: A small number of reviews appear to reference locations outside San Diego (Aurora IL, Scottsdale AZ, Naperville IL, Covina CA, Rancho Cucamonga CA, Phoenix AZ). It is unclear if this is one company with multiple locations or review aggregation across similarly named businesses. Scores were calculated across all reviews as provided but this geographic ambiguity is flagged as a potential data integrity issue.

This WW Score is based on a very large review corpus (295 reviews) with HIGH confidence across all four dimensions, making it one of the more statistically reliable assessments possible — however, the persistent and specific pricing complaints from credible reviewers introduce meaningful uncertainty around the pricing dimension specifically, and prospective customers should request itemized written quotes before authorizing any work.

Rubio's Plumbing has a strong base of satisfied customers who consistently praise fair pricing, same-day responsiveness, and courteous technicians — particularly Robert, Fernando, and Alex. However, a recurring and credible pattern of no-shows and ghosting across multiple independent reviews (2018, 2022, 2022, 2024) meaningfully drags down professionalism and project completion scores, as these represent a real reliability risk. Workmanship is generally rated positively, though one review documented an apprentice causing damage that was never remedied and another described a misdiagnosis that led to an unnecessary upsell attempt. Pricing is the strongest dimension, with the vast majority of reviewers calling costs fair, affordable, or best in the area. Overall, the contractor performs well when they show up and complete the job, but the no-show pattern is too consistent to ignore.

• RECURRING NO-SHOW PATTERN: At least 5 independent reviews (2018-07-13, 2022-02-15, 2022-02-19, 2022-10-18, 2024-09-04) describe confirmed appointments where the contractor failed to show up and did not call or respond. This is a significant reliability red flag and is weighted heavily against professionalism and project completion scores.
• CALLBACK FAILURE: One reviewer (2022-08-21, 2-star) reported being ghosted after requesting a return visit to fix a pressure issue caused during the original job, and damage to a sink seal was never addressed. This directly impacts project completion and experience scores.
• MISDIAGNOSIS CONCERN: One reviewer (2022-06-07, 3-star) paid $98 for a repair that failed, was quoted $1,000+ for wall work, and a second plumber fixed the issue in 5 minutes by adjusting the cartridge. This suggests a possible upsell attempt or skill gap in diagnosis.
• LICENSING FLAG: One reviewer (2023-12-22, 1-star) claims the company was listed as unlicensed on Angi. This could not be verified from reviews alone but is a serious concern if accurate. Additionally, this reviewer alleged a piece of plumbing was taken without permission.
• POSSIBLE FAKE REVIEW CONCERN — MODERATE: Several reviews from April 17, 2024 share the exact same date with no timestamp and contain unusually generic praise. One very long review (2024-04-17) reads like promotional copy rather than an organic customer account. Confidence is not reduced to LOW DATA levels given the large overall volume, but these specific reviews are treated with reduced weight.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews are from 2021–2024, which is positive for recency weighting. Reviews from 2014–2019 are present but given reduced weight. The no-show complaints span multiple years including 2024, indicating the issue is not historical only.
• SCORE CLARIFICATION: The no-show pattern across 5+ reviews is treated as explicit negative evidence, not merely absence of praise, and is factored directly into professionalism (punctuality, responsiveness) and project completion (follow-through) scores.

This WW Score is based on 91 reviews spanning 2014–2024 with HIGH data volume, but the score should be treated with moderate caution due to a documented and recurring no-show pattern, at least one unresolved workmanship complaint, a licensing concern raised by a reviewer, and signs of potentially inflated reviews on a single date — consumers should verify licensing independently and confirm appointments explicitly before committing.