Find Nearby Plumbers In Maricopa, Arizona

Ray's Plumbing demonstrates strong overall performance across professionalism, project completion, and technical experience, with the vast majority of reviewers praising responsiveness, friendliness, punctuality, and quality of workmanship across a wide range of plumbing jobs. The professionalism score is tempered by a no-call/no-show complaint (2023), a ghosting/follow-up failure complaint (2021), a COVID mask refusal complaint (2020), and a historical bad-attitude complaint, as well as a fraud allegation involving an employee requesting a personal check. Pricing is the weakest dimension, with multiple credible negative reviews citing charges described as exorbitant — including a $4,000 gas leak repair, $1,200 for a two-hour sewage pump job, $400 for a 15-minute snake job, and $363 for a one-hour faucet installation — offset by a substantial number of reviewers who explicitly praised fair and competitive pricing. Project completion scores well overall, with many reviews confirming jobs finished on time and on budget, though the ghosting complaint and one instance of a job left incomplete (clogged drain not fully resolved on first visit, then charged again) prevent a higher score.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: Multiple reviews appear to be exact or near-exact duplicates submitted on the same date — including 'Ray was great to work with and did a great job' (2019-05-23, x2), 'does good quality work!' (2019-12-17, x2), 'Ray was on time and completed the required work in a timely manner' (2019-04-01, x2), 'Work done in a timely and professional manner. Excellent service.' (2019-03-25, x2), 'I would recommend them to everyone. Very reasonable. Pleasant and personable.' (2019-03-08, x2), 'Ray is great.' (2019-03-08, x2), and 'Ray arrived at 10am on the dot' (2020-02-18, x2). These duplicates inflate review count and may indicate a platform submission error or artificial padding. Confidence in the 2019 review cluster is reduced.
• FAKE REVIEW CONCERN — OLDER REVIEWS (2013–2019): A cluster of older reviews reference a 'Gary' as the owner/operator, while more recent reviews (2020–2024) consistently reference 'Ray' as the owner. This may reflect a legitimate ownership or staffing transition, but the older Gary-centric reviews may represent a different business era or even a different operator. Scores derived from these reviews should be treated with some caution as they may not reflect the current business.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS ARE CREDIBLE AND SPECIFIC: At least 6 negative reviews cite specific dollar amounts and job descriptions that suggest pricing inconsistency or overcharging. These are not vague complaints — they include $4,000 for a 3-hour gas leak repair (original quote $1,850), $1,200 for under 2 hours of sewage pump labor, $400 for a 15-minute snake job, and $363 for a 1-hour faucet install. These credible complaints meaningfully suppress the pricing score.
• EMPLOYEE MISCONDUCT ALLEGATION (2018): One reviewer alleged that a technician named 'James Smith' requested a personal check for $150 separate from the company check, which the company dismissed as a 'tip.' This is a serious integrity flag and was factored into the professionalism score.
• NO-CALL/NO-SHOW (2023): One reviewer reported scheduling an appointment 2 days in advance and receiving no call and no show. This is a direct professionalism failure and was factored into scoring.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of detailed, high-quality reviews are from 2020–2024 and carry the most weight. Reviews from 2013–2019 are older than 5 years and reflect a potentially different operational period (Gary vs. Ray). Reviews prior to 2020 were given reduced weighting in scoring.

This WW Score is based on a large volume of reviews (125 total) spanning over a decade, with strong data across all four dimensions, yielding HIGH confidence overall — however, the score should be interpreted with awareness of credible pricing complaints, duplicate review inflation in the 2019 cluster, a possible ownership/operator transition between the Gary-era and Ray-era reviews, and isolated but serious professionalism failures including a no-show and an employee misconduct allegation.

RP Gas Piping earns strong marks across all four dimensions, with professionalism and experience being the most consistently praised attributes — reviewers repeatedly highlight punctuality, responsive communication, knowledgeable technicians, and clean workmanship. Pricing is mentioned favorably in several reviews, with at least two customers noting they received the lowest bid and that work was completed on budget. Project completion scores are solid but are tempered by two notable negative data points: one review describes a post-installation gas leak that went unaddressed for a week, and another mentions a rough initial installation that required a follow-up visit to correct — both of which represent meaningful quality-control concerns. The negative 1-star review is particularly serious given the safety implications of a gas leak and the company's slow response, which prevents project completion from scoring in the high 80s or above.

• One 1-star review (2018) describes a dangerous post-installation gas leak and a week-long delay in response — this is a significant safety and workmanship concern that meaningfully impacts project completion and experience scores.
• One 5-star review (2022) acknowledges the installation was 'a bit rough' and required a follow-up visit from a lead technician to correct issues — this is a mild but real quality-control flag.
• The majority of reviews (15 of 19) are dated 2017–2019, making them 5–7 years old. Only one review is from the past 12 months (2022). Recency is low and the current quality of service cannot be reliably inferred from this dataset.
• No reviews are dated 2020 or 2023–2024, which creates a significant gap in recent performance data. The 2021 review is the second most recent.
• Most reviews are 5-star with enthusiastic language, but the majority include specific project details, named staff members, and unique circumstances — this reduces the likelihood of fake reviews, though the pattern of near-universal 5-star ratings warrants mild caution.

The WW Score of 79.4 is based on a reasonable volume of reviews (19) with strong mention counts across all dimensions, but reliability is meaningfully reduced by the age of the data — most reviews are 5 to 7 years old — and by at least one serious safety-related complaint that suggests project completion quality is not uniformly high.

All four reviews consistently praise Alliance Contracting across every scored dimension, with punctuality, communication, and professionalism highlighted in each review. Pricing is described as reasonable, affordable, and on-budget in three of four reviews, suggesting transparent and fair cost practices. Project completion is strongly supported — reviewers note work finished on schedule, within proposal price, and with follow-through including going above and beyond original scope. Workmanship quality is explicitly praised across multiple trade types including tile, painting, shower rebuilds, and door installation, with one reviewer noting 25 years of industry experience as context for their high praise. Scores are kept conservative given the small sample size of only four reviews, all of which are older than 12 months.

• All 4 reviews are rated 5.0 stars with no negative feedback of any kind — while not conclusive, this warrants mild caution.
• All reviews are dated between 2018 and 2020 — none are within the past 12 months relative to a 2025 evaluation date. Current performance cannot be confirmed from this data.
• Sample size is very small (4 reviews). Scores and the WW Score should be treated as directional only, not definitive.
• No fake review patterns detected — reviews contain specific project details, named individuals, and varied language, which increases authenticity confidence.

This WW Score carries MODERATE reliability due to a small but authentic-seeming review set; the consistently positive feedback is encouraging, but the absence of recent reviews and the limited sample size mean this score should be treated as a preliminary positive signal rather than a fully validated assessment.

ABC Plumbing and Rooter presents a deeply mixed picture across its long review history. Professionalism scores are dragged down significantly by repeated, credible complaints about staff hanging up on customers, no-shows without notification, dismissive attitudes toward women, and an owner described as difficult and unresponsive — these are not isolated incidents but a recurring pattern across multiple years and reviewers. Pricing is the weakest dimension: numerous detailed, specific complaints allege price gouging, deceptive quoting practices, charges not disclosed upfront, and exploitation of elderly or vulnerable customers, with amounts cited ranging from $313 for a 30-minute job to $2,800 for basic valve replacements — these are too specific and consistent to dismiss. Project completion scores moderately, as many jobs were completed same-day or next-day, but there are serious incidents of abandoned or botched work, missed appointments across multiple reschedules, and at least one major project that ran over budget and required supervisor intervention to finish correctly. Experience scores relatively better, with many reviewers praising specific technicians — particularly Wess, Gary, and Rich — for skill and thoroughness, though this is offset by incidents of incorrect diagnoses, damage caused during repairs, and at least one case of a technician running out of torch gas mid-job.

• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: Two reviews dated 2018-07-05 contain nearly identical text about a $313 clogged p-trap charge and $626/hour calculation — this appears to be the same review submitted twice and was counted once for scoring purposes.
• BLANK REVIEWS: At least 5 reviews contain no text and only a 5-star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence per Rule 2, though they inflate the apparent star average.
• RECENCY NOTE: Reviews span from 2004 to 2025. The most recent 12 months (mid-2024 to mid-2025) are predominantly positive, but the negative reviews from 2018–2024 are detailed, specific, and credible. Older reviews (pre-2015) were given reduced weight.
• PRICING EXPLOITATION PATTERN: Multiple independent reviewers across different years (2013, 2015, 2018, 2019, 2022, 2024) allege price gouging, undisclosed charges, and targeting of elderly or female customers. This is a consistent and serious pattern, not isolated complaints.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — MODERATE: Several 5-star reviews from 2024-09-12 share the same date and use similarly generic praise with minimal specifics ('Gary was great!', 'Thank you for the service!', 'Quick and timely service!!'). This cluster warrants caution and these reviews were weighted conservatively.
• SERIOUS INCIDENT FLAGS: At least three reviews describe significant property damage allegedly caused by ABC technicians (sewage flood in kitchen, post-repair water leak causing drywall damage, soft water drain destroying sidewalk) with the company reportedly denying responsibility in each case.
• OWNER CONDUCT COMPLAINTS: Multiple reviews across different years describe the owner hanging up on customers, being unresponsive to complaints, and in one case allegedly offering to fix a gas leak for $3,500 when pressed — a pattern that materially affects the professionalism score.
• TECHNICIAN QUALITY VARIANCE: A clear gap exists between named technicians praised by reviewers (Wess, Gary, Rich) and unnamed or other technicians associated with negative outcomes. Scores reflect the aggregate, not the best-case technician.

This WW Score of 72.1 is based on a large volume of reviews spanning nearly two decades and carries HIGH statistical confidence in its dimensions, but prospective customers should weigh the serious and recurring pricing, professionalism, and damage-liability complaints heavily — the score reflects a genuinely divided customer base, not a uniformly reliable contractor.

Mustang Plumbing has a strong and consistent reputation for fair, competitive pricing — this is the most frequently praised dimension across the review set, with many customers explicitly noting they saved hundreds or thousands compared to competitor quotes. Professionalism scores are dragged down meaningfully by a recurring pattern of negative reviews citing rude office staff, late arrivals without notice, and unprofessional technician behavior, even though the majority of reviewers describe friendly and courteous service. Project completion is the most concerning dimension: several detailed negative reviews describe abandoned work, incomplete repairs, failure to obtain permits, excessive mess left behind, and failure to follow through on commitments — these are serious and specific complaints that cannot be dismissed. Experience scores are generally positive, with multiple reviewers praising technical skill and problem-solving, but a handful of reviews describe technicians who lacked basic knowledge or left work in worse condition than they found it, moderating the score.

• 13 reviews contain no text whatsoever — only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence. Several of these blank reviews share identical dates (e.g., multiple on 2019-06-11, 2022-06-10, 2023-06-10), which is suspicious and may indicate padding of the review count.
• Two reviews (2019-10-15: 'Great place to take if you have kids!' and 2020-06-10 referencing a waiting room, copay, bunion surgery, and Tricare) appear to be reviews for a completely different business — likely a medical office — posted to this contractor's profile in error. These were excluded from scoring.
• One review (2021-06-10, 1-star: 'He doesn't know the difference between a diabetic emergency from syncope') also appears to be a misplaced medical review and was excluded from scoring.
• One review (2018-06-11, 1-star) references patients, a waiting room, and appointment scheduling in a medical context — this is clearly a misplaced review for a different business and was excluded.
• The review corpus spans from 2004 to 2025, meaning a significant portion of reviews are more than 5 years old. Recency weighting was applied: reviews from 2023–2025 were given the most weight. The negative reviews are distributed across multiple years, suggesting the issues are not isolated incidents.
• The two negative reviews from 2016-10-25 share nearly identical content (mess left behind, black marks on walls) and were posted on the same day — these may be duplicate submissions from the same customer or household, and were treated as a single incident for scoring purposes.
• No fake review pattern was detected among the positive reviews with text content — most contain specific names, job types, and details that suggest authenticity. However, the volume of blank 5-star reviews is a mild concern for artificial score inflation.

This WW Score is based on a large review set with high mention counts across all four dimensions, giving it HIGH overall confidence, but consumers should weigh the recurring and specific negative feedback about project completion and office professionalism seriously, as these represent a meaningful minority of detailed, credible complaints.

Reidhead Plumbing shows a genuinely mixed track record across all four dimensions. Professionalism scores moderately well — many reviewers praise specific technicians (Clayton, Keith, Mike, Ray, Joe, Derek) for being courteous, punctual, and communicative, but this is offset by serious complaints including two no-show appointments, unreturned phone calls, and poor front-office responsiveness. Project completion is similarly split: numerous reviews describe fast, same-day or next-day resolutions, but a meaningful cluster of negative reviews describes abandoned solar water heater jobs, misdiagnosis, incomplete work, and failure to follow through or call back. Experience is dragged down by multiple credible accounts of technicians misdiagnosing solar water heater problems — in two separate cases customers fixed the issue themselves for under $100 after being quoted hundreds or thousands of dollars — though positive reviews do highlight strong technical skill from individual technicians. Pricing is the weakest dimension, with multiple reviewers explicitly calling out a $130 service call fee as excessive, one reviewer describing a $300 charge for 15 minutes of labor as feeling 'robbed,' and a disputed $300 charge for work that left a system non-functional; these are partially offset by reviews praising fair and transparent pricing.

• One review (Rating: 5.0, Date: 2023-06-10) contains no text and was excluded from dimension scoring — it provides no usable data.
• Several 5-star reviews are brief and generic (e.g., 'Awesome job fixing the work a different plumber half assed' and 'So far I LOVE this company') with minimal specifics, which slightly reduces confidence in the positive signal.
• A notable cluster of negative reviews specifically concerns solar water heater work — misdiagnosis, overcharging for service calls, and failure to follow up — suggesting a possible systemic weakness in this service category rather than isolated incidents.
• Multiple reviews are older than 12 months (several from 2014–2020); per recency rules, more weight was given to reviews from 2023–2024, but the older negative reviews were not discarded as they describe substantive, specific incidents.
• The solicitation complaint (1-star, 2023-03-22) was noted but not scored against any dimension as it does not reflect direct service experience.
• No strong fake review patterns detected — reviews vary in length, specificity, rating, and named technicians, suggesting authentic authorship across the review set.

This WW Score is based on 30 reviews with usable data spanning 2014–2024, with sufficient volume and dimension coverage to produce a HIGH confidence overall score; however, the score should be interpreted cautiously given the recurring pattern of negative solar water heater experiences and the meaningful gap between the best and worst individual service outcomes.