Find Nearby Plumbers In Marana, Arizona

DM Remodeling (Dave Maher) earns strong scores across all four dimensions, driven by an extensive review history spanning roughly a decade. Professionalism is the most consistently praised attribute, with dozens of reviewers explicitly citing punctuality, communication, daily cleanup, and courteous attitude. Workmanship and experience are also highly regarded, with multiple reviewers describing meticulous, detail-oriented craftsmanship on complex multi-trade projects. Pricing scores well, with several reviewers noting fair, transparent, and competitive quotes, though this dimension is tempered slightly by one reviewer noting a mid-project cost addition that was not clearly anticipated. Project completion is the weakest dimension: while the vast majority of jobs were finished on time or early, there are three credible negative reviews describing Dave failing to start or follow through on committed projects entirely, which meaningfully pulls this score down. These non-completion incidents are serious and prevent a higher overall WW Score despite the otherwise strong record.

• THREE CREDIBLE NON-COMPLETION INCIDENTS: Reviews dated 2020-02-10, 2014-03-11, and one 'unknown' 1-star entry describe Dave agreeing to jobs, stringing customers along for months, and ultimately never starting the work. These are not minor complaints and directly impact the project_completion score.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent reviews are from mid-2023. A significant portion of the review base (roughly 60%) predates 2018, meaning the score is heavily influenced by older data. Recent 2023 reviews are positive but limited in number (4 reviews), so current performance cannot be fully confirmed.
• BLANK/PLACEHOLDER REVIEWS: At least 5 reviews contain only a period ('.') or the word 'unknown' with no usable content. These were excluded from scoring but inflate the total review count. This may suggest data quality issues on the source platform.
• POSSIBLE FAKE REVIEW CONCERN (MINOR): A small number of very short, generic 5-star reviews ('He did an Awesome job', 'Work was done well and efficiently', 'He did an excellent job') contain no specifics and cannot be verified. These were not scored but are noted. The overall pattern does not suggest a coordinated fake review campaign given the volume of detailed, specific reviews.
• WAIT TIME PATTERN: Multiple positive reviews note that Dave is booked out weeks or months in advance. While framed positively by satisfied customers, this backlog context is also cited in the negative non-completion reviews, suggesting scheduling overcommitment may be a recurring operational risk.

This WW Score is based on a large, multi-year review dataset with strong specificity and is considered moderately reliable, but prospective customers should weigh the three documented non-start incidents seriously, as they represent a meaningful pattern of project abandonment that the high volume of positive reviews should not fully obscure.

This aggregated review set spans multiple businesses operating under similar 'All About Plumbing' or 'Allison Plumbing' names, making direct attribution difficult, but the overall picture is a contractor with a strong positive majority offset by a meaningful minority of serious complaints. Professionalism scores are dragged down by recurring patterns of no-shows, missed appointments, poor communication, and failure to return calls — issues mentioned explicitly across dozens of negative reviews spanning multiple years. Pricing receives a moderate-to-low score because while many customers praise fair and competitive pricing, a notable cluster of reviews describe bait-and-switch tactics, charges added without consent, overcharging seniors, and prices that jumped significantly from quoted amounts. Project completion is similarly mixed: the majority of jobs are described as completed well, but multiple reviews describe abandoned work, callbacks not honored, problems made worse, and in at least two cases customers had to take legal action or dispute charges. Experience scores highest because the technical skill of individual plumbers is frequently praised, with many reviewers noting knowledgeable diagnosis and quality workmanship — though a handful of reviews describe misdiagnosis, broken pipes caused by the plumber, and failed repairs.

• MULTIPLE BUSINESS ENTITIES: Reviews appear to cover several distinct businesses operating under similar names including 'All About Plumbing,' 'All In A Day Plumbing,' 'Allison Plumbing,' and variations. Scores reflect an aggregate and may not represent any single contractor accurately.
• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: At least 6 reviews appear to be near-identical duplicates (e.g., two identical reviews about Ray Buchanan dated 2023-03-25, two identical reviews about the 'ALL ABOUT NOT CARING' experience dated 2024-05-27, two identical reviews about the Troy water hammering job, two identical reviews about the water filtration estimate with Xzavia). This inflates review count and may indicate review manipulation or platform aggregation artifacts.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Approximately 20+ reviews contain no text content and only a 5-star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data. Their presence in high volume is a mild fake-review signal.
• RECENCY NOTE: Reviews span from 2006 to 2025. A significant portion of reviews (roughly 40%) are dated 2022 or earlier, including many from 2019 and before. Older reviews carry reduced weight. The most recent reviews (2024-2025) continue to show both strong positives and serious negatives, suggesting persistent quality inconsistency.
• SERIOUS MISCONDUCT ALLEGATIONS: Multiple reviews allege fraud, unauthorized credit card charges, charging for work not performed, referring customers to fraudulent contractors, and in one case a customer reports winning a court judgment against the company. These are not scored but significantly reduce trust in the overall profile.
• NO-SHOW PATTERN: At least 10 distinct reviews across multiple years describe scheduled appointments where no plumber arrived and no call was made. This is a persistent and documented pattern affecting the professionalism score.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK — MODERATE: The large volume of very short, generic 5-star reviews with no detail (e.g., 'Great service,' 'Excellent,' 'Professional,' 'Fast reliable service') alongside blank-text 5-star entries raises moderate concern about review padding. Confidence is not reduced to LOW given the large volume of detailed genuine reviews, but the inflated positive count should be noted.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large review volume, but moderate trust reliability due to the presence of multiple business entities in the dataset, duplicate reviews, blank reviews, and serious misconduct allegations that suggest the true score for any single contractor may differ materially from this aggregate.

Angel's Plumbing has a strong base of positive reviews praising professionalism, punctuality, and fair pricing across multiple reviewers, which drives solid scores in those dimensions. However, the dataset is heavily skewed toward very old reviews — the majority predate 2015, with only four reviews from the past three years — significantly reducing the reliability of the overall picture. Two notable negative reviews drag down the project completion and professionalism scores: a 2022 no-show with non-functional contact numbers, and a 2008 warranty dispute where the plumber refused to honor a callback without charging a service fee. The 'unknown' review with no text and the two extremely brief reviews from 2016 provide no usable signal and were treated as minimal data. Taken together, the contractor shows genuine strengths but also documented failures in follow-through and reliability that cannot be ignored.

• RECENCY WARNING: The majority of reviews (14 out of 20) are from 2010 or earlier, making them 14+ years old. Only 4 reviews are from the past 3 years. The WW Score may not reflect current service quality.
• NO-SHOW INCIDENT (2022): One reviewer reported a missed scheduled appointment window with both listed phone numbers being non-functional — one rejecting incoming calls, one completely dead. This is a significant reliability red flag.
• WARRANTY DISPUTE (2008): A reviewer reported that the plumber refused to honor a written labor warranty on a water heater installation without charging a $65 service call fee, raising concerns about follow-through on commitments.
• LOW-CONTENT REVIEWS: One review contains only the word 'unknown' with no text, and two 2016 reviews ('They are honest, prompt, and caring.' and 'unknown') provide minimal verifiable detail. These were given very limited scoring weight.
• POSSIBLE BUSINESS CONTINUITY ISSUE: Multiple older reviews reference a 'father and son' team and the name 'Chronis Plumbing,' while newer reviews reference only 'Angel' as a solo operator. It is unclear whether this is the same business entity, which may affect score continuity.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK: LOW — Reviews are generally specific and varied in language. No strong pattern of fake reviews detected, though the generic older reviews reduce confidence slightly.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability due to the heavily dated review pool, two documented service failures, and a possible business identity shift between older and newer reviews — consumers should weight the 2022–2024 reviews most heavily when making a hiring decision.

TLC Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism and technical experience, with many customers praising responsive staff, courteous technicians, and skilled workmanship. However, pricing concerns significantly impact the overall score, with multiple reviews citing unexpectedly high charges, undisclosed fees, and billing disputes. Project completion shows mixed results—while many jobs are completed promptly and thoroughly, several reviews document incomplete follow-through, abandoned work, and failure to deliver promised quotes. The company's performance is inconsistent across different technicians and service types, with notable variation in quality and customer satisfaction.

• PRICING VOLATILITY: 28 mentions of pricing issues reveal a pattern of customer dissatisfaction. Multiple reviews cite charges substantially higher than quoted (e.g., $330 for a $15 valve installation with undisclosed travel fees, $1,300 bill on $300 estimate, $592 diagnostic bill with no resolution). This is a critical weakness.
• PROJECT COMPLETION FAILURES: Several reviews document incomplete work and abandoned follow-up. One customer was told to use a competitor (Perma Seal) after paying $1,600 for diagnostics with no follow-up quotes. Another had a toilet leak misdiagnosed, charged twice, and still not fixed. A third had a drain issue that cost $592 in failed diagnostics before a competitor fixed it in 45 minutes for $165.
• INCONSISTENT QUALITY: Reviews show stark differences between technicians. One customer gave 5 stars for one technician but 1 star for 'Eric' on the same job type, citing inefficiency, messiness, and overcharging for simple work (3+ hours for a refrigerator line installation).
• EMPTY/GENERIC REVIEWS: Multiple reviews contain no text (5 instances with only ratings), suggesting possible review manipulation or placeholder entries. This reduces data reliability.
• BILLING DISPUTES AND TRANSPARENCY: Multiple customers report being charged for travel time not disclosed upfront, equipment charges not mentioned at estimate, hourly rates higher than quoted, and invoice padding (e.g., 23 minutes rounded to 30 minutes, then charged at regular rates for invoice writing).
• RECENCY BIAS: Most negative reviews cluster around 2013-2017 and June 2024. Recent reviews (2025) are predominantly 5-star with minimal detail, while older detailed reviews show more critical feedback. This pattern warrants caution.
• FOLLOW-UP FAILURES: Multiple reviews cite lack of callback, failure to return calls, and abandonment of work after initial service. One customer reported being told 'they would call Monday afternoon to reschedule' after a rain cancellation—no call came.
• TECHNICAL MISDIAGNOSIS: Several reviews document incorrect problem identification (e.g., wax ring replacement when issue was loose bolt; locating sewer break 30 feet from actual location; claiming pipe installation couldn't be done in crawlspace when it was later done by another company).

This WW Score of 72.8 should be treated with MODERATE confidence. While the company demonstrates genuine strengths in responsiveness and professionalism (52 mentions, HIGH confidence), the pricing dimension (28 mentions, MODERATE confidence) reveals a consistent pattern of customer dissatisfaction that materially impacts trustworthiness. Project completion concerns (48 mentions, HIGH confidence) document multiple instances of incomplete work and failed follow-through. The presence of empty reviews, clustering of negative reviews in specific time periods, and stark inconsistency between technicians suggest the score reflects a company with high variability in service quality and billing practices. Customers should request detailed written estimates with all fees disclosed upfront and verify technician experience before booking.

All three reviews speak positively to professionalism, highlighting quick responsiveness, friendly attitudes, and timely arrivals — including during a holiday weekend and an after-hours emergency. Project completion is consistently affirmed across all reviews, with jobs described as successfully resolved in each case. Pricing is mentioned in only one review, where it was described as reasonable, yielding a conservative but positive score. Experience is touched on in two reviews, referencing competent faucet and plumbing replacement as well as a water heater repair with pump reseating, suggesting solid technical capability. The overall score is credible but must be treated cautiously given the very small review pool.

• Only 3 reviews total — WW Score is at the minimum threshold for calculation and should be treated as preliminary.
• All reviews are 5-star with no negative feedback; while the reviews contain specific details that reduce fake review suspicion, the uniformly perfect ratings warrant mild caution.
• One review dates from 2021 and one from 2022 — only one review falls within the past 12 months (December 2023), meaning recent performance data is very thin.
• No mentions of pricing in 2 of 3 reviews; the single pricing data point is insufficient to draw strong conclusions about cost practices.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews with limited recency, and while the available signals are positive and specific enough to be credible, the score should be considered a preliminary indicator rather than a reliable measure of consistent contractor performance.

Tim receives genuinely positive feedback from several customers praising his responsiveness, same-day service, and follow-through — including a notably detailed account of a complex well pump replacement handled within 48 hours with free follow-up visits. However, one detailed and credible 1-star review significantly drags down multiple dimensions: it describes arriving two hours late, failing to complete a paid service (tank pump-out) without disclosure, covering an excavation site contrary to an explicit agreement, refusing a refund, and potentially dishonest conduct around a second-opinion situation. This review is specific, internally consistent, and highly damaging to professionalism and project completion scores. Pricing is flagged negatively in the same review, with a customer paying nearly $600 for work that was not fully performed. The overall picture is mixed — positive experiences exist but the severity and specificity of the negative review cannot be discounted.

• One review (1-star, dated 2017-05-06) contains serious allegations of dishonesty: failure to complete paid work without disclosure, covering an excavation site against the customer's explicit instructions, and refusal to issue any refund. This review is detailed and credible and has been weighted heavily.
• The 5-star review dated 2016-03-14 includes a phone number embedded in the review text and uses generic praise ('saved our lives more than five times') with no specific job details. This pattern is consistent with a potentially promotional or fake review and has been treated with reduced confidence.
• Review dates span from 2016 to 2023 — a 7-year window. Only one review (2023) falls within the past 12 months. The majority of reviews are more than 3 years old, which significantly limits the reliability of this score as a reflection of current service quality.
• With only 6 total reviews, the sample size is very small. A single negative or positive review has outsized influence on all dimension scores.

This WW Score should be treated with caution: the small review pool (6 reviews), wide date range spanning 7 years, one credible and serious misconduct allegation, and one suspected promotional review all limit confidence in this score as a reliable indicator of current contractor quality.