Find Nearby Plumbers In Peoria, Arizona

This contractor has a deeply polarized review history, with 4 out of 7 reviews being 1-star and describing serious failures. Professionalism is heavily damaged by accounts of threatening behavior from the owner, unresponsiveness, and dismissive on-site conduct, though a minority of reviewers praised courtesy and helpfulness. Project completion is a major liability: multiple reviews describe abandoned work, jobs billed as complete that were never started, and unresolved leaks left for extended periods. Experience scores are dragged down by a documented misdiagnosis causing thousands in damages and a technician arriving unprepared without basic tools, though two positive reviews do describe competent and efficient work. Pricing received modest positive marks from reviewers who felt they received fair value through their warranty arrangements, but this is insufficient to offset the serious concerns in other dimensions.

• SERIOUS CONCERN: One review explicitly states the contractor billed the home warranty company for a completed job that was never started — this is a potential fraud indicator and a critical red flag.
• SERIOUS CONCERN: The owner allegedly threatened a customer who stated they would leave a public review. This is a significant professionalism and safety concern.
• RECENCY NOTE: The three most recent reviews (2021–2023) are mixed — one positive (2023), one positive (2021), and one highly negative (2022). The oldest reviews (2016–2019) are predominantly negative. Score is not clearly improving over time.
• RECENCY NOTE: Two of the most damaging reviews (misdiagnosis, threatening behavior, abandoned work) are from 2018–2019 and may not reflect current operations, but the 2022 billing fraud complaint is recent and serious.
• No fake review patterns detected — reviews vary significantly in tone, detail, and rating, suggesting authentic submissions.

This WW Score is based on 7 reviews with usable data across all four dimensions and carries MODERATE overall reliability; the score meaningfully reflects a contractor with documented serious failures in completion and professionalism, though the small sample size and date spread of over 7 years limit full confidence.

Brothers Plumbing receives overwhelmingly negative reviews, with pricing being the single most damaging dimension — the vast majority of reviewers describe quotes and final charges that are 3x to 8x higher than competitors, with multiple reviewers explicitly confirming this by getting alternative quotes or hiring other plumbers for a fraction of the cost. Professionalism is mixed: technicians are frequently described as polite and courteous on arrival, but the company's scheduling and follow-through are severely undermined by a no-call/no-show incident, repeated failure to return calls, and a policy of refusing to give price ranges before dispatching. Project completion is a serious concern, with at least two documented cases of work not being completed or the problem recurring within days, and one case where a refund was refused despite the issue not being fixed. Experience scores slightly higher due to a handful of positive reviews praising specific technicians, but is offset by at least one reviewer explicitly describing a technician as inexperienced and unknowledgeable about basic plumbing tasks.

• PRICING PATTERN — SYSTEMIC OVERCHARGING: At least 10 reviews independently describe prices that are 3x to 8x higher than competitors for identical jobs. This is a consistent, well-documented pattern and not isolated incidents.
• SCHEDULING/COMMUNICATION FAILURE: One review documents a complete no-call/no-show with multiple failed follow-up attempts across an entire day, indicating a systemic communication breakdown.
• BAIT-AND-SHOW FEE CONCERN: Multiple reviewers describe a $29.95–$30 service call fee used to get technicians on-site before revealing inflated quotes, which several reviewers characterize as a deliberate business tactic.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews are from 2012–2021, with only one review from 2021 and most clustered in 2013–2020. No reviews from the past 12 months (relative to the most recent date of 2021-08-19) are present beyond that single entry. Score reliability may not reflect current business practices.
• POSSIBLE FAKE REVIEW: The review dated 2014-09-27 ('They are an amazing company, they really care about their customers!!') is suspiciously generic, contains no specifics, and stands in stark contrast to all surrounding reviews. It is flagged as potentially inauthentic and was weighted minimally.
• UNLICENSED TECHNICIAN ALLEGATION: One reviewer explicitly states they believe technicians are not individually licensed and are working under a company license, which is a serious allegation that could not be verified from reviews alone.

This WW Score is based on 18 reviews with strong data across all four dimensions and HIGH confidence ratings throughout — the score of approximately 34 should be treated as a reliable and conservative reflection of this contractor's performance, particularly given the consistent and independently corroborated pattern of extreme overcharging documented across many years and reviewers.

Both reviews speak positively about professionalism, highlighting punctuality, respectful communication, and courteous behavior — including a technician going above and beyond for a disabled customer. Project completion is supported by both reviews, with same-day water heater replacement and successful faucet installation noted. Experience is implied through competent handling of a permit-required water heater job and navigating an older home's plumbing, though neither review goes into deep technical detail. Pricing is entirely unmentioned across both reviews, leaving that dimension with no scoreable data. With only two reviews total, no reliable WW Score can be calculated.

• Only 2 reviews provided — this is below the minimum threshold of 3 required for a reliable WW Score.
• One review is from 2020 (over 4 years old) and should be weighted significantly less than the 2024 review.
• No pricing information was mentioned in either review — the Price Friendly dimension cannot be scored.
• Both reviews are 5-star ratings; while the reviews contain specific details and appear genuine, the very small sample size limits any meaningful pattern analysis.

This score report is based on only 2 reviews, one of which is over 4 years old, making any conclusions about this contractor's current performance highly unreliable and insufficient for a trustworthy WW Score.

Both reviews speak positively about Daniel's responsiveness, reliability, and quality of work, with one reviewer noting he has been used multiple times and referred to friends. The second review specifically mentions reasonable pricing and thoroughness, providing some pricing signal. Project completion is implied through both reviews describing successful outcomes, though neither goes into granular detail about timelines or complex scopes. Experience is supported by references to skill, going above and beyond, and quality results, but the small sample size limits confidence across all dimensions. With only two reviews, no statistically reliable WW Score can be produced.

• Only 2 reviews provided — minimum threshold of 3 reviews not met; WW Score cannot be calculated reliably.
• Both reviews are 5-star with broadly positive language and limited specific technical detail, which is a mild pattern of concern for score inflation.
• Review dates span over a year apart (November 2023 and September 2024), so recency is not a major concern, but the dataset is too small to draw firm conclusions.
• No negative feedback or constructive criticism present — this may reflect genuine satisfaction or simply an insufficient sample.

This score profile should be treated as highly preliminary and low-confidence due to the critically small sample size of only 2 reviews; additional reviews are strongly needed before any dimension score or overall assessment can be considered trustworthy.

Only a single review is available, making any scoring highly unreliable. The review mentions a water heater replacement and fixture upgrade with a quick response and a willingness to recommend, which provides minimal positive signals for professionalism, project completion, and experience. However, no pricing information was mentioned at all, so that dimension cannot be scored. Scores have been kept conservative across all dimensions due to the extremely limited data and the generic, brief nature of the review. No WW Score can be calculated with fewer than 3 reviews.

• Only 1 review analyzed — far below the minimum of 3 required for a reliable WW Score.
• Review is brief and generic with no specific details about the work quality, timeline, or pricing — limits scoring confidence significantly.
• Cannot rule out that this is a promotional or solicited review given its vague and uniformly positive tone with no specifics.
• Review is dated 2023-04-03 — over 12 months old depending on current date — recency weighting is a concern if more recent performance differs.

This score report should not be trusted as a reliable indicator of contractor quality — only one brief, generic review was available, which is wholly insufficient to draw meaningful conclusions about any dimension of performance.

Only a single review is available, which limits the reliability of any scoring. The review explicitly praises Andrew's responsiveness, next-day availability, professional demeanor, and post-job cleanup, supporting moderate-to-good scores in professionalism and project completion. The reviewer noted the job was completed in a timely manner and the work was described as a 'great job,' lending some support to an experience score. Pricing was not mentioned at all, so that dimension cannot be scored. All scores are conservative given the extremely limited data.

• Only 1 review analyzed — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• No pricing information mentioned in any review — Pricing dimension scored as null.
• All scores carry LIMITED confidence due to single-review basis. Do not treat these scores as representative of overall contractor quality.
• Review is over 1 year old (March 2023) — recency weighting is reduced.

This score report is based on a single review from over a year ago and should not be considered a reliable indicator of this contractor's overall quality or consistency.