Find Nearby Plumbers In Oro Valley, Arizona

Brian consistently receives praise for punctuality, communication, and professionalism across multiple reviews, driving a strong professionalism score. Pricing feedback is positive, with one reviewer noting affordability and another confirming the job came in on or under estimate with no hidden charges. Project completion is well-supported, with reviewers noting jobs were finished on agreed dates, cleanup was performed, and Brian even addressed out-of-scope issues at no extra cost. Experience scores are supported by references to quality workmanship and problem-solving, though specifics are limited. The overall score is tempered by the small total review count and the fact that most reviews are significantly older than 12 months.

• One review contains only the text 'unknown' and was excluded from scoring as it provides no usable data.
• RECENCY WARNING: All usable reviews are older than 12 months. The most recent usable review is from October 2022, and four of five usable reviews are from 2013–2021. This score does not reflect recent performance and should be treated with caution.
• Small sample size (5 usable reviews) limits the reliability of all dimension scores. Confidence in the overall WW Score is LOW despite individual dimension confidence labels meeting threshold requirements.
• No negative feedback is present across any review, which may reflect genuine quality but could also reflect selection bias in a small, older review set.

This WW Score should be treated with caution due to the very small number of usable reviews and the fact that all reviews are more than two years old, making it difficult to assess Brian's current performance with confidence.

All three reviews speak positively about Brandon and All-Fixture Plumbing across multiple dimensions. Professionalism stands out strongly, with all three reviewers explicitly noting courteous, respectful, and responsive behavior — including arriving earlier than expected and calling back promptly on a Saturday. Project completion is also well-supported, with reviewers confirming same-day repairs, no remaining leaks, and clean-up after the job. Pricing is mentioned favorably in two reviews as 'reasonable,' though no specific figures are provided to fully validate this. Experience is implied through successful resolution of prior failed work and multi-trade capability, but the sample size is too small to assign high confidence to any dimension.

• Only 3 reviews total — WW Score should be treated as preliminary and not fully reliable.
• All reviews are 5-star with uniformly positive language; while not conclusively fake, the absence of any criticism or nuance warrants caution.
• All reviews are dated between August 2020 and September 2021 — all are older than 12 months from a 2025 reference point, meaning recency cannot be confirmed and recent performance is unknown.
• Review 3 is notably generic ('reliable, hard working, honest and respectful') with no specific job details, which slightly reduces its evidentiary value.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews, all older than 3 years, and should be considered a low-confidence preliminary indicator — significantly more recent reviews are needed before this score can be trusted for decision-making.

All three reviews speak positively across multiple dimensions, with consistent praise for punctuality, communication, and technical competence. Professionalism is the strongest signal, with reviewers noting promptness, friendliness, and proactive communication such as calling ahead before arrival. Project completion is well-supported, with at least one review describing a job completed start-to-finish in a defined timeframe and another noting work done in a reasonable time. Pricing is mentioned positively in two reviews but carries limited confidence due to the small sample. Experience scores well given explicit mentions of problem-solving ability and technical knowledge, though the sample size limits certainty.

• Only 3 reviews total — WW Score should be treated as preliminary and not fully reliable.
• Two of the three reviews are very old (2006 and 2008), meaning they are over 15 years out of date. Business quality, staff, and practices may have changed significantly since then.
• The most recent review is from 2014, which is also over 10 years old. There is no recent data to confirm current performance.
• All three reviews are 5-star ratings with no negative feedback. While not conclusive of fake reviews, the uniformly positive tone and lack of any criticism across all reviews warrants caution.
• The 2006 review is written entirely in capital letters with no specific job details, which reduces its evidentiary value.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews, all of which are more than 10 years old, making it a low-reliability indicator of current contractor performance and should not be used as a primary basis for hiring decisions.

Plumbing Perfections has a generally positive reputation for professionalism, punctuality, and reasonable pricing across multiple reviews, with customers praising Kyle and his team for clean work, good communication, and fair rates. However, one significant negative review from 2019 describes a materially incorrect installation of a whole-house water filter that was not properly grounded, resulting in over $800 in additional damage and remediation costs — this is a serious workmanship failure that meaningfully drags down both the experience and project completion scores. The positive reviews span a wide date range (2012 to 2023), with only two reviews from the past 12 months, limiting confidence in how current the overall picture is. The small total review count (5) means each review carries disproportionate weight, and the single negative review has a notable impact on scoring. Scores are held conservative given the limited data volume and the severity of the one documented failure.

• Only 5 total reviews analyzed — sample size is very small and scores should be treated with caution.
• One review (2019) documents a serious installation error (improper grounding of a water filtration system) that caused downstream equipment damage worth ~$800. This is a material quality failure and is weighted accordingly.
• Review recency concern: Only 2 of 5 reviews are from the past 12 months (2022–2023). Two reviews are from 2021 and 2019, and one is from 2012 — over a decade old. The 2012 review was included but given reduced weight due to age.
• The 2012 review is more than 10 years old and may not reflect current business practices or staffing. It should be treated as low-reliability data.
• No strong fake review patterns detected — reviews contain specific job details, varied language, and include both positive and negative experiences, which is a positive authenticity signal.

This WW Score is based on only 5 reviews spanning over a decade, with limited recent data, and should be considered a preliminary signal only — prospective customers should seek additional references before making a hiring decision.

Two positive reviews highlight Mark's responsiveness, courtesy, punctuality, and technical problem-solving ability, including a notable instance of diagnosing a complex leak that saved a customer significant repair costs. However, a negative review explicitly warns about pricing practices, describing the company as professionals at billing in a derogatory sense, which meaningfully drags down the pricing dimension. Pricing is the weakest dimension with mixed signals: one reviewer called the estimate fair, another acknowledged Mark is not the least expensive, and the third reviewer strongly cautioned about costs. Project completion scores moderately well based on two reviews describing completed, tidy work, but the small sample size limits confidence. Overall, the score reflects a contractor with apparent skill and professionalism but a real and documented concern around pricing transparency.

• Very small sample size of only 3 reviews — WW Score should be treated as preliminary and unreliable until more reviews are available.
• The negative review (1-star, 2018) references a change in ownership, which may mean some positive reviews reflect a different owner or era. Recency weighting applied: the 2018 review is over 5 years old and may not reflect current operations, but the pricing concern it raises is partially corroborated by the 2021 reviewer noting Mark is not the least expensive.
• No fake review patterns detected — reviews contain specific details, varied language, and include a negative review, which increases authenticity confidence.
• Only one review (2023) falls within the past 12 months. The 2021 and 2018 reviews are older and may not reflect current service quality or ownership.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews spanning 5 years and should be considered LOW reliability — significantly more recent reviews are needed before this score can be trusted as a meaningful indicator of contractor quality.

Progressive Plumbing and its associated entities receive broadly positive marks for professionalism and technical experience, with many reviewers praising named technicians such as Daniel, Victor, Marcus, Justin, and Roberto for being courteous, knowledgeable, and responsive. However, pricing is the single most damaging dimension in this dataset: a very large number of reviewers across multiple years explicitly describe charges as excessive, arbitrary, or deceptive — including instances of verbal quotes being exceeded, refusal to itemize bills, and charges perceived as exploitative during emergencies. Project completion is mixed: while many jobs are described as completed promptly and well, there are notable failures including no-shows, abandoned work, callbacks that were never honored, and at least one case of a job left incomplete with damage caused. The volume and consistency of pricing complaints across a wide date range significantly suppresses the overall score.

• SUSPECTED MIXED ENTITY PROBLEM: Multiple reviews reference 'San Bruno Plumbing' as the company name, while the majority reference 'Progressive Plumbing' or 'Progressive Service Company.' These may be distinct businesses whose reviews have been aggregated together, which would make the composite score unreliable.
• FAKE OR PADDING REVIEW CONCERN: At least 30+ reviews consist of blank text with only a star rating (all 5-star). These provide zero usable data and inflate the apparent rating volume. They were excluded from dimension scoring.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The review for Marcus ('came on time in fact earlier than expected... cost was fair, lower than expected') appears verbatim on both 2025-05-19 and 2025-05-16. This is a likely duplicate submission and was counted only once.
• RECENCY NOTE: Reviews span from 2005 to 2025. A significant portion of negative pricing and project completion reviews date from 2017–2023, indicating these are not isolated historical incidents. Positive reviews are more concentrated in 2024–2025, which may reflect genuine improvement or selection bias.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS ARE SYSTEMIC: Overcharging complaints are not isolated — they appear across many years, many technicians, and many job types (water heaters, toilet repairs, faucet installs, drain clearing). This pattern is too consistent to dismiss as outliers.
• UNPROFESSIONAL CONDUCT COMPLAINTS: Multiple reviews describe technicians performing unauthorized work, billing tenants without owner approval, leaving job sites in disarray, being rude or dismissive, and in one case potentially misusing a credit card. These are serious conduct flags.
• NO-SHOW AND ABANDONMENT PATTERN: At least 5 reviews describe scheduled appointments where no technician arrived and no follow-up communication was made. This is a recurring project completion failure.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large number of substantive reviews, but the score itself should be interpreted cautiously given the systemic pricing complaints, suspected entity mixing between 'Progressive Plumbing' and 'San Bruno Plumbing,' a high volume of blank filler reviews, and recurring patterns of no-shows and incomplete work that suggest operational inconsistency rather than isolated incidents.