Find Nearby Plumbers In Mesa, Arizona

The review set paints a deeply troubling picture of this contractor across all four dimensions. Professionalism is severely damaged by repeated no-shows, technicians who verbally abused customers, lied about prior contact attempts, and staff who were described as rude and condescending — with only a small cluster of positive reviews offering any counterweight. Pricing is a major red flag, with multiple reviewers documenting egregious markups (a $20 capacitor billed at $400+, a gas line quoted at nearly 4x competitor rates, and a water heater job that doubled mid-service under pressure), and a near-total lack of transparent invoicing. Project completion is critically weak, with documented cases of abandoned appointments, unresolved repairs, work left incomplete requiring a second company, and a hole left in drywall — offset only slightly by a few reviews praising efficient job completion. Experience scores marginally higher due to a handful of positive reviews citing knowledgeable technicians, but is undermined by accounts of technicians misdiagnosing problems, performing unnecessary replacements, and lacking specialization for the jobs they were assigned.

• SUSPECTED FAKE REVIEW CLUSTER: Five reviews posted on 2023-05-31 all praise the same technician 'Jesse' using nearly identical structure and generic language with no specific job details. These appear to be coordinated or inauthentic reviews and have been weighted accordingly.
• One reviewer explicitly alleges that Cactus Plumbing uses a review removal service and that their Google rating is artificially inflated — this is consistent with the suspicious Jesse review cluster and warrants serious scrutiny.
• Multiple reviews describe a pattern of no-shows without notification, which suggests a systemic operational failure rather than isolated incidents.
• Multiple reviews describe pricing practices consistent with price gouging: extreme markups on parts, mid-job estimate doubling under pressure, and refusal to provide itemized invoices.
• A technician ('Bobby') was described as verbally abusive, threatening to place a lien on a customer's home, and writing retaliatory notes on an invoice — a serious professionalism and legal concern.
• A technician ('Junior') was reportedly sent to perform a water heater replacement despite not being specialized in that work, suggesting unsafe or deceptive staffing practices.
• The company was described as operating under multiple business names, which a reviewer characterized as a deliberate strategy to avoid accountability.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of negative reviews are from 2023–2024, indicating these are not historical issues but ongoing and current problems.

This WW Score is based on 21 reviews with strong cross-dimensional coverage and is considered highly reliable; the score of 31.4 reflects a contractor with serious, documented, and recurring failures in professionalism, pricing transparency, and job completion, and prospective customers should exercise extreme caution.

This contractor's reviews are overwhelmingly negative across all four scored dimensions, with 10 out of 12 reviews being 1-star ratings. Professionalism is severely damaged by repeated accounts of rude staff, a supervisor harassing a customer for already-paid invoices, a technician refusing to wear a mask, a driver behaving aggressively on the road, and a customer service representative hanging up on a client. Pricing is a dominant complaint, with multiple reviewers describing charges they considered grossly inflated, hidden fees, refusal to provide itemized receipts, and estimates that were multiples above what competitors charged. Project completion is critically undermined by accounts of abandoned warranty work, failure to return for callbacks, shortcuts left unaddressed years after installation, and a misdiagnosis that left a customer without air conditioning for six days. Experience scores marginally higher only because two reviews noted a competent individual technician, but these are heavily outweighed by multiple accounts of misdiagnosis, failure to check manufacturer warranties, and work that created new problems.

• 10 of 12 reviews are 1-star ratings, indicating a strong and consistent pattern of customer dissatisfaction across multiple service types (HVAC, plumbing, electrical).
• The two positive reviews (4-star and 5-star) are notably sparse in detail compared to the highly specific negative reviews, and both are from 2018-2019, making them the oldest reviews in the dataset.
• Most reviews are from 2019-2021; no reviews from the past 12 months relative to a 2024/2025 analysis date are present, meaning the dataset may not reflect current performance.
• Multiple reviews independently describe a pattern of inflated estimates, misdiagnosis, and pressure tactics, which suggests systemic business practices rather than isolated incidents.
• One review explicitly uses the word 'scam' and another calls the company 'scam artists,' with detailed accounts supporting those characterizations.
• A technician allegedly told a customer 'You can afford it, look at the car you drive,' suggesting predatory pricing behavior targeting perceived wealth.
• Failure to honor manufacturer warranty on a 3-year-old unit and failure to check parts availability before charging for labor suggests either incompetence or deliberate upselling.

This WW Score of 18.7 is based on 12 reviews with HIGH mention counts across all four dimensions and should be considered a reliable and conservative reflection of this contractor's performance, strongly indicating a pattern of poor service, predatory pricing, and unprofessional conduct.

This contractor's review profile is overwhelmingly negative across all four dimensions, with 63 of 72 reviews awarding 1 star. Professionalism is catastrophically low, with dozens of reviewers describing rude office staff, rude technicians, no-shows without courtesy calls, and in several cases threatening or abusive behavior toward customers in their own homes. Pricing scores are near-zero due to a pervasive and well-documented pattern of fraudulent 'modification' upcharges on top of home warranty coverage, with multiple reviewers independently verifying that quoted work was unnecessary or grossly overpriced. Project completion is nearly as poor, with repeated accounts of abandoned jobs, failed repairs requiring multiple return visits that never materialized, and work left in worse condition than found. Experience scores are marginally higher only because a small number of positive reviews (9 out of 72) describe competent, efficient technicians, but these are vastly outweighed by accounts of misdiagnosis, shoddy workmanship, code violations, and outright fabricated diagnoses.

• SUSPECTED FRAUD PATTERN: Multiple independent reviewers across years describe an identical scheme — technicians diagnose inflated or fabricated 'modifications' not covered by home warranty, then collect out-of-pocket fees on top of warranty payments. This is a systemic business practice, not isolated incidents.
• SUSPECTED REFERRAL SCAM: Numerous reviews describe technicians calling in mold, water damage, or asbestos specialists immediately after arrival — without customer consent — who then solicit expensive out-of-pocket work unrelated to the original claim. This pattern appears coordinated.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION (POSITIVE REVIEWS): The 9 five-star reviews are unusually brief, generic, and lack the specificity of the negative reviews. Several mention only a first name of a technician with no detail. These may be planted reviews and should be treated with skepticism.
• OPERATING UNDER MULTIPLE NAMES: Multiple reviewers and the reviews themselves confirm this company operates as Athena's Plumbing, APC Plumbing, A P C Plumbing, and iPlumb — a pattern sometimes used to obscure a poor reputation.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent reviews (2024, 2022) continue to reflect the same patterns as reviews from 2015–2019, indicating no improvement in business practices over nearly a decade.
• STAFF CONDUCT: Multiple reviews describe the owner or supervisors personally engaging in abusive, threatening, or profane language toward customers, including one account of a supervisor using extreme profanity when asked to escalate a complaint.
• DRIVER CONDUCT: At least two reviews describe dangerous or aggressive driving by company vehicles, unrelated to plumbing quality but indicative of overall company culture.

This WW Score of 18.4 is based on 72 reviews with extremely high data density across all four dimensions and should be considered highly reliable — this contractor demonstrates a consistent, multi-year pattern of poor professionalism, predatory pricing, incomplete work, and low technical competence.

All three reviews are uniformly negative and describe serious failures across every dimension. Professionalism is critically low — reviewers describe dishonesty, failure to return for promised follow-up work, and unlicensed operation misrepresented on business cards. Pricing concerns are severe, with allegations of charging for incomplete work, requesting additional money mid-job, and retaining a customer's more expensive parts while substituting cheaper ones. Project completion is near-zero across all reviews — jobs were left unfinished, required redoing by licensed professionals, and in one case caused active property damage (flooding). Workmanship quality is described as dangerously poor, including a cracked shower wall, uneven tile, and a toilet that still did not flush after two service visits.

• All three reviews are 1-star with highly specific, detailed complaints — this pattern does NOT suggest fake reviews; the specificity and variety of language indicate genuine negative experiences.
• Multiple reviewers independently allege that Adam Coury and/or Luke Coury are NOT licensed plumbing contractors in Arizona, despite business cards claiming otherwise. This is a serious legal and safety concern.
• All reviews are dated between May 2019 and September 2019 — all data is over 5 years old. Current performance may differ, but no recent reviews are available to assess improvement.
• One reviewer reports property damage (bedroom flooding) caused by prior contractor work, with Coury Plumbing then failing to complete the remediation. Another spent $5,000 to repair damage attributed to Adam Coury's work.
• Pattern of requesting additional money mid-job after collecting a deposit is noted in at least one review — a potential red flag for predatory pricing practices.
• Only 3 reviews total — WW Score is at the minimum threshold for calculation and should be treated with caution due to small sample size.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews, all from 2019, and while the consistency and specificity of the complaints lend credibility to the findings, the age of the data and small sample size mean this score should be treated as a serious warning signal rather than a definitive current assessment.

All four reviews are uniformly negative and describe severe failures across multiple dimensions. Tyler Crocker consistently failed to show up for appointments, did not complete promised work, kept deposits without service, ignored follow-up communications, and charged customers for repairs that were never properly completed. Two reviews explicitly mention unprofessional behavior and broken promises. Two reviews reference pricing (cheap rates but poor value). The pattern is unambiguous: non-delivery of service, poor communication, and lack of accountability. No positive aspects were mentioned in any review.

• CRITICAL: All 4 reviews are 1-star ratings with consistent themes of non-completion, non-responsiveness, and deposit theft. This is not a fake review pattern but rather a genuine pattern of severe business failures.
• All reviews are from 2020-2021 (3+ years old). No recent reviews available to assess if business practices have improved.
• Multiple reviews describe identical failure modes: no-shows, broken promises to return, refusal to refund deposits, and unresponsiveness to communication.
• Two reviews explicitly mention customer had to hire a second plumber to complete the work Tyler was paid for, indicating defective workmanship.
• Insufficient positive data to calculate a meaningful WW Score. This contractor should not be hired based on available evidence.

This assessment is highly reliable but reflects catastrophic business performance. The uniformity and specificity of complaints across all four reviews, combined with the pattern of non-completion and non-responsiveness, provides strong evidence of systemic failure. However, all reviews are 3+ years old, so current business status is unknown.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 4 reviews were analyzed, which falls below the minimum threshold of 3 usable reviews needed for a reliable WW Score calculation. While individual dimension scores show strong performance (professionalism and project completion at 90, experience at 92.5, pricing at 85), each dimension is supported by only 2–3 mentions, resulting in LIMITED to MODERATE confidence levels. The review pool is too small and too old (oldest from 2015, most from 2019–2023) to generate a trustworthy composite score.

• INSUFFICIENT SAMPLE SIZE: Only 4 reviews analyzed. Minimum 5 reviews recommended for reliable scoring.
• RECENCY CONCERN: 50% of reviews are older than 5 years (2015, 2019). Only 2 reviews from past 3 years. Limited current performance data.
• GENERIC PRAISE PATTERN: Reviews lack specific technical details about work scope, challenges overcome, or measurable outcomes. Praise is general ('nice guy', 'looks NICE', 'superb quality') without substantiation.
• ALL 5-STAR RATINGS: 100% of reviews are 5-star with no critical feedback or balanced perspective. This pattern, combined with small sample size, suggests potential selection bias rather than comprehensive customer feedback.
• LIMITED DIMENSION COVERAGE: Experience dimension mentioned in only 3 reviews; Professionalism, Pricing, and Project Completion each mentioned in only 2 reviews. Insufficient data density per dimension.

This score cannot be calculated reliably due to insufficient review volume (4 reviews, minimum 5 required) and low mention counts per dimension (2–3 each). The data is too sparse, too old, and too uniformly positive to produce a trustworthy WW Score. Do not rely on this analysis for contractor selection decisions.