Find Nearby Plumbers In Peoria, Arizona

Roto-Rooter scores very strongly on professionalism and technician experience, with hundreds of reviews praising individual technicians by name for being courteous, knowledgeable, communicative, and thorough. Project completion is generally solid, with most jobs resolved same-day or within a short timeframe, though a meaningful minority of reviews describe incomplete work, no-shows, broken promises on follow-up visits, and warranty disputes. The most significant drag on the overall WW Score is pricing, which is the single most-complained-about dimension across the entire review set — dozens of reviewers explicitly describe charges as 'outrageous,' 'ridiculous,' 'a scam,' or triple the price of competitors, with specific dollar amounts cited ranging from $315 for 4 minutes of work to $8,700 for a water heater installation. Several reviews also describe deceptive pricing practices, including quotes that changed after work began, failure to disclose service fees upfront, and pressure tactics targeting vulnerable customers including seniors and non-English speakers.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: A significant number of reviews appear to be exact or near-exact duplicates posted on different dates (e.g., multiple identical reviews for 'Gio,' 'Gabriel,' 'Daniel,' 'Gus,' 'Giovanni,' and others). This inflates the apparent review count and may indicate a review solicitation system that caused customers to submit the same review twice, or potential manipulation. Confidence in raw review count is reduced.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Approximately 150-200 reviews contain no text and only a star rating (almost all 5-star). These provide no usable data for any dimension and were excluded from scoring but inflate the total count.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS ARE SEVERE AND SPECIFIC: Negative pricing reviews are not vague — they cite specific dollar amounts, compare to competitor prices, and describe practices such as quoting after work begins, refusing to honor coupons, and charging elderly or non-English-speaking customers without disclosure. This is a systemic pattern, not isolated incidents.
• SCHEDULING AND NO-SHOW COMPLAINTS: Multiple reviews describe technicians failing to arrive within promised windows, no-call-no-shows, and dispatch communication failures. This is a recurring pattern affecting the project completion score.
• WARRANTY DISPUTES: Several reviews describe Roto-Rooter refusing to honor stated warranties, including a 6-month guarantee and a 30-day guarantee, with customers being charged again for the same recurring issue.
• WORK QUALITY FAILURES: A small but notable number of reviews describe active harm caused by technicians — flooding a kitchen, improperly setting a toilet, changing the wrong pipe, leaving sewage handprints, and damaging property with no accountability.
• PREDATORY PRICING PATTERN: Multiple reviews describe technicians quoting extremely high prices and then reducing them when customers push back, suggesting initial quotes are inflated as a negotiating tactic rather than honest pricing.
• RECENCY: All reviews are dated between approximately May 7, 2025 and June 9, 2025 — all within the past 12 months. Recency weighting is fully applied.

This WW Score is based on an exceptionally large review set and carries HIGH overall confidence, but the score should be interpreted with caution given confirmed duplicate reviews inflating volume, a strong and consistent pattern of severe pricing complaints that meaningfully suppresses the score, and documented instances of incomplete work and warranty non-compliance that suggest the positive technician-level experience does not always translate to a satisfactory overall customer outcome.

This aggregated review set spans many years and appears to represent multiple businesses operating under similar or identical names (Royal Flush Plumbing, Pro Plumbing Service, and others), which significantly complicates scoring reliability. The majority of reviews are strongly positive, praising punctuality, communication, professionalism, and technical skill — with many customers citing same-day or emergency responsiveness as a standout quality. However, a meaningful minority of negative reviews (roughly 15-20% of substantive reviews) describe serious issues including no-shows, missed appointments without notification, overcharging without upfront disclosure, incomplete or defective work, and poor customer service when complaints were raised. Pricing is the weakest dimension, with multiple reviewers across different time periods describing charges they felt were excessive, non-transparent, or inconsistent with quoted amounts. Project completion scores are dragged down by recurring complaints about abandoned work, callbacks not honored, and jobs requiring multiple return visits to fix errors.

• MULTI-ENTITY CONCERN: Reviews reference multiple distinct business names including 'Royal Flush Plumbing,' 'Pro Plumbing Service,' and references to individual owner-operators (Jarrod, Steve, Ben, Doug, Ted, Jose, etc.) across different geographic markets (Atlanta GA, Philadelphia PA, Providence RI, Las Vegas NV, Hollister CA, Cleveland OH, Oregon City OR, and others). This dataset almost certainly aggregates reviews from multiple unrelated businesses, severely limiting the reliability of any single composite score.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION: A significant number of reviews contain zero substantive detail — only a star rating or a single generic phrase like 'Great service!' or 'Amazing!' with no specifics. Approximately 60-80 reviews fall into this category. Several clusters of reviews share identical or near-identical dates (e.g., dozens of reviews dated 2025-05-10, 2025-04-10, 2025-03-11, 2025-02-09, 2025-01-10) which is statistically anomalous and suggests possible review manipulation or bulk import artifacts.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: At least one review (Ted and his crew sewer line replacement) appears to be posted twice with identical text and nearly identical dates (2024-07-18). Additionally, two reviews from 2021-09-24 are near-identical complaints about overcharging for a kitchen faucet installation.
• RECENCY NOTE: The dataset spans from approximately 2003 to June 2025. Reviews older than 12 months (pre-June 2024) should be weighted less heavily. The most recent reviews (2025) are predominantly positive, but the volume of blank or generic 5-star reviews in recent months raises authenticity concerns.
• PRICING TRANSPARENCY PATTERN: Multiple independent negative reviews across different years and locations describe a consistent pattern of pricing not disclosed upfront, charges significantly exceeding verbal quotes, and management being unresponsive or dismissive when customers raised billing concerns. This is a recurring structural issue, not isolated incidents.
• NO-SHOW / SCHEDULING PATTERN: A recurring theme across negative reviews spanning 2008 to 2022 involves technicians failing to appear within scheduled windows, no calls to notify customers, and rescheduled appointments also being missed. This pattern appears in enough reviews to be considered a systemic reliability concern rather than isolated incidents.
• WORK QUALITY FAILURES: Several detailed negative reviews describe defective workmanship including broken components attributed to technician error, incomplete jobs, and refusal to return to fix mistakes under warranty. These are high-severity complaints that meaningfully reduce the project completion score.

This WW Score carries LIMITED-to-MODERATE reliability for any single business decision due to strong evidence that the review dataset aggregates multiple unrelated businesses across different markets, combined with a statistically anomalous clustering of blank and generic 5-star reviews that suggests possible review inflation; the score is best interpreted as a broad industry-level benchmark rather than a precise assessment of any one contractor.

Elias and PoPo Plumbing generally receive strong praise for responsiveness, friendliness, and same-day availability, which drives a solid professionalism score. However, pricing is a mixed picture: while several reviewers found costs reasonable or competitive, one reviewer gave a 1-star review specifically citing a $340 charge for a faucet installation that subsequently leaked — a significant red flag that pulls the pricing and project completion scores down. Project completion is further tempered by that same review, which implies the work was not done correctly (a leaking faucet after installation). Experience scores are moderate; Elias is noted as trained in Greece with 13 years of background, and most jobs were completed successfully, but the failed faucet installation introduces meaningful doubt. Overall, the contractor performs well in most interactions but has at least one documented instance of substandard workmanship and questionable value.

• One 1-star review explicitly states a $340 charge for a kitchen faucet installation that leaked afterward — this is a direct quality and value failure that must weigh heavily on both pricing and project completion scores.
• One review (the UDAAP/PoPo review, 5 stars) contains no specific firsthand account of work performed by this contractor and reads as a general editorial about industry pricing practices. It provides no usable data about this contractor's actual services and was excluded from dimension scoring.
• The RV AC removal review describes Elias sitting in the van on his phone while his non-English-speaking friend performed the actual work — this raises a minor concern about hands-on involvement and transparency of who is doing the work.
• With only 7 total reviews, the sample size is small and a single negative review has outsized impact. Scores should be interpreted cautiously.
• No fake review patterns detected; reviews vary in tone, detail, and rating, which supports authenticity.
• Most reviews are from 2023–2024, so recency is acceptable, but the total volume remains low for high-confidence conclusions.

This WW Score is based on a small review set of 7 reviews and should be treated as a preliminary signal only; the presence of one documented workmanship failure (leaking faucet post-installation) meaningfully limits confidence in the project completion and pricing dimensions.

All three reviews speak positively about Greg Cole's professionalism, noting punctuality, politeness, cleanliness, and clear communication — driving a strong professionalism score. Pricing is explicitly described as reasonable or fair across all three reviews, supporting a solid but not exceptional pricing score. Project completion is supported by two reviews that confirm work was finished as promised and without upselling, though the evidence base is thin. Experience is consistently praised across all reviews, with references to quality workmanship and knowledgeability, though no highly technical detail is provided to push the score higher.

• All three reviews are 5-star ratings with no negative feedback whatsoever — this is a pattern worth noting, though the reviews do contain specific, varied details that reduce fake review suspicion.
• All reviews are significantly older than 1 year (ranging from 2015 to 2018). No recent reviews are available, which substantially limits the reliability of this score for current performance.
• Only 3 reviews total — this is the minimum threshold for a WW Score calculation. Results should be treated with caution due to the very small sample size.

This WW Score should be treated with low confidence due to only 3 reviews available, all of which are over 5 years old, providing an insufficient and outdated basis for assessing current contractor performance.

The review set is small, heavily aged, and contains significant internal conflict. Positive reviews praise responsiveness, fair pricing, and quality workmanship, but the detailed 1-star review raises serious concerns about pricing transparency, unprofessional conduct (screaming, lien threats), and failure to clean up after the job. The three 'unknown' reviews provide no usable data and were excluded from scoring. The most recent usable review is from 2019, meaning there is no evidence of current performance. The single negative review is highly detailed and credible, substantially dragging down professionalism and pricing scores.

• Three reviews contain only the text 'unknown' with no usable content — these were excluded from all dimension scoring.
• Multiple reviewers reference different owner names (Ralph, Jeff Miller, Dan), which may indicate this profile aggregates reviews for multiple contractors or businesses, severely undermining reliability.
• The oldest usable reviews date to 2012 and 2013 — over a decade old — and should be given minimal weight.
• The most recent usable review is from April 2019, meaning there is no data from the past 5+ years.
• The detailed 1-star review describes aggressive behavior (screaming, lien threats) and a disputed $500 invoice with minimal itemization — a significant professionalism and pricing red flag.
• With only 8 total reviews and 3 containing no data, the sample size is too small to draw reliable conclusions about current contractor quality.

This WW Score should be treated with very low confidence due to the extremely small usable review pool, reviews spanning over a decade with no recent data, conflicting contractor names suggesting possible profile aggregation, and one credible and detailed negative review describing serious unprofessional conduct.

Positive Plumbing has a deeply mixed record across all four dimensions. Professionalism is significantly undermined by multiple reviews citing failure to return calls, a technician becoming belligerent with a customer, and a no-callback on an urgent leak — though several positive reviews praise friendliness, communication, and reliability. Pricing is similarly split: some reviewers found prices very competitive, while one review documented a charge of $325 for work an electrician quoted at $75, and another noted a quote that doubled on a second visit with no clear explanation. Project completion is a notable concern, with at least two reviews describing abandoned follow-through after initial diagnosis, and one detailed account of a bathtub installation left unlevel, with a drain off-center and improper fittings used. Experience scores moderately, with some reviewers praising technical knowledge and problem-solving (slab leak diagnosis, old plumbing expertise), but the detailed bathtub installation failure — including use of a gas-line fitting on a water line and unnecessary structural damage — raises serious workmanship concerns. The reviews span from 2006 to 2023, and the most recent reviews (2019–2023) skew more negative, suggesting a possible decline in service quality over time.

• RECENCY CONCERN: The majority of positive reviews are from 2006–2017. Reviews from 2019 onward are predominantly negative (4 out of 5 are 1-star), suggesting a possible decline in service quality in recent years. More weight has been given to post-2019 reviews.
• NO FAKE REVIEW PATTERNS DETECTED: Reviews vary significantly in length, detail, specificity, and rating. Language is not repetitive or templated. No fake review flag raised.
• CALLBACK FAILURE: At least two separate reviews (2019-10-31 and 2019-05-20) explicitly describe the company failing to return calls after initial contact or diagnosis, indicating a systemic responsiveness issue.
• WORKMANSHIP CONCERN: The 2019-02-01 review provides highly specific and credible detail of substandard installation work, including use of incorrect fittings, structural damage, and an unlevel tub — corroborated by a second licensed plumber. This is a significant quality flag.
• PRICING TRANSPARENCY CONCERN: One review explicitly warns customers to get a price upfront after being charged $325 for work quoted elsewhere at $75. A second review noted a quote that doubled between visits with no clear justification.
• MULTIPLE TECHNICIANS: Reviews reference both 'Jason' and 'Andrzej' as technicians under the Positive Plumbing brand. Quality and professionalism experiences differ between the two, which may explain some score variance.

This WW Score is based on 11 reviews with usable data across all four dimensions and carries MODERATE overall reliability; while mention counts are sufficient for confidence, the wide date range (2006–2023) and the clear negative trend in recent years mean the score should be interpreted cautiously, with the post-2019 negative reviews treated as the most predictive of current service quality.