Find Nearby Plumbers In Phoenix, Arizona

Moon Valley Plumbing has a strong overall reputation built on a large volume of reviews spanning over a decade, with consistent praise for technician professionalism, punctuality, communication, and technical skill. Named technicians — particularly Kenny, Anthony, Cole, George, Alex, and Ryan — receive repeated commendations for knowledge, courtesy, and thoroughness. However, a meaningful cluster of negative reviews (approximately 12–14 out of 155) raises legitimate concerns: these include an improper toilet installation causing sewage damage, a sewer repair with poor concrete work and uncompacted soil, a job abandoned mid-project, repeated missed appointments, rude office staff interactions, and at least one instance of a recurring leak after a paid repair. Pricing is generally viewed as fair to reasonable by most reviewers, but several reviewers noted costs felt high for the scope of work, and one comparison to competitors found Moon Valley significantly cheaper while another found them more expensive. Project completion is the most variable dimension — the majority of jobs were completed well, but the negative reviews disproportionately involve incomplete work, failed repairs, or poor follow-through, which meaningfully pulls this score down.

• 25+ reviews contain no text at all (blank, 'unknown', or single punctuation marks) yet carry 5-star ratings — these provide zero usable data and inflate the raw star average without contributing evidence of quality.
• A large number of reviews are dated 2025-02-08 with identical timestamps, suggesting a possible batch import or review solicitation event rather than organic individual submissions — treat these with moderate skepticism.
• Multiple reviews from 2025-02-08 are extremely brief and generic (e.g., 'Great service and work ethic', 'Great work!', 'Excellent service with thorough explanations') with no specifics, consistent with solicited or coached reviews.
• Negative reviews describe serious quality failures: improper toilet installation causing sewage damage to ceiling (2023), sewer repair with uncompacted soil and cracked concrete (2022), a job abandoned after cutting a wall with no follow-up quote (2023), and a water heater installed on mismatched pavers that shortened its lifespan and flooded a living room (2022).
• At least two reviews mention rude or dismissive office staff (Sharon, Jessica) and one describes a phone call being ignored during a plumbing emergency — suggesting inconsistent customer service at the administrative level.
• One review (2022) describes a technician making excessive 'what if' pricing scenarios for a simple hose bib job that another company fixed with a washer — possible upselling behavior flagged.
• The majority of detailed, substantive reviews are older than 12 months; recent 2025 reviews are largely brief or blank, limiting confidence in current service quality trends.
• One reviewer (2022) explicitly states the company has changed negatively over time, shifting from honest and professional to a 'cash grab' — this longitudinal concern is worth noting given the span of reviews.

This WW Score is based on a high volume of reviews and carries HIGH overall confidence in its directional accuracy, but consumers should weigh the serious negative reviews carefully — particularly those involving incomplete work, property damage, and poor follow-through — as these represent a consistent minority pattern that the score partially discounts due to the volume of positive reviews.

Apple Plumbing earns strong marks across all four dimensions, with a large and consistent body of reviews praising punctuality, courteous technicians, and reliable follow-through on jobs. Professionalism is the most frequently cited strength, with dozens of reviewers specifically calling out on-time arrivals, clear communication, and respectful behavior in the home. Experience scores well too, with multiple reviewers highlighting skilled diagnostics and quality workmanship from named technicians like Dustin, Brandon, Ryan, Clay, Grant, and others. However, pricing is the most contested dimension — while many reviewers describe Apple as fair or competitive, a meaningful cluster of negative reviews (including a 2-star and multiple 1-star reviews) explicitly cite labor charges that felt excessive, non-itemized billing, and prices that had risen sharply compared to prior visits, which pulls the pricing score down significantly. Project completion is generally strong but is tempered by a handful of serious complaints involving incomplete work, unresolved damage to property, and one instance of a no-show appointment with inadequate remediation offered.

• 12 reviews contained no text — only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence.
• Pricing complaints are substantive and recurring: at least 4 reviews explicitly describe feeling overcharged, with labor rates cited as high as $250/hour and $329 for under one hour of work. This is a meaningful signal, not an outlier.
• One 1-star review (2024-05-15) alleges the technician was rude, that over half the agreed job was not completed, and that full payment was still demanded — a serious project completion and professionalism failure.
• One 1-star review (2022-10-11) describes property damage (epoxy floors) caused by a technician, followed by weeks of ignored calls — a significant accountability and follow-through failure.
• One 1-star review (2023-02-19) alleges the technician refused to assess an obvious leak, collected a $180 service fee, and then ghosted the customer — suggesting possible predatory service call practices.
• One 1-star review (2019-04-02) describes a faulty TPR valve installation (installed upside down) that was not corrected when brought to the company's attention, and the company quoted a higher-than-market price to fix their own error.
• One 1-star review (2021-01-22) describes a bill of $850 for a repair that cost roughly one-third of that amount the prior year, with the owner described as hostile and unwilling to justify the pricing.
• One 1-star review (2020-02-26) describes a misdiagnosis on two visits totaling $600 before a third-party correctly identified a simple o-ring failure.
• One 1-star review (2022-01-21) alleges Apple did not stand behind subcontracted work and deflected responsibility.
• One 1-star review (2023-06-03) describes a promised military discount being denied at billing time by the technician.
• One 1-star review (2022-02-20) describes a missed appointment with no meaningful compensation offered to a repeat customer who had spent over $1,000 with the company.
• The majority of reviews are 5-star, but the negative reviews are detailed, specific, and credible — they do not appear to be fake. The positive reviews also contain sufficient specificity (named technicians, described jobs) to be considered genuine.
• Review dates span from 2013 to June 2025. The bulk of reviews are from 2021 onward. Pricing complaints are concentrated in 2021–2025, suggesting labor rate increases may be a more recent and ongoing issue.
• No clear fake review patterns detected. Language varies sufficiently across positive reviews and named technicians appear consistently across multiple independent reviews.

This WW Score is based on a large and diverse review set (125 total, 113 with usable data) spanning over a decade, with HIGH confidence across all four dimensions — however, the score should be interpreted with caution on pricing and accountability, as a credible and recurring pattern of overcharging complaints and unresolved service failures meaningfully offsets the otherwise strong positive record.

ProSkill Services earns strong marks for professionalism and experience, with the vast majority of reviewers praising punctuality, courteous technicians, thorough inspections, and technical competence across HVAC, plumbing, and water systems. Project completion is generally solid, with most jobs described as finished well and on time, though a handful of reviews cite incomplete work, a callback that attempted to charge for an unresolved issue, and at least one job left unfinished due to missing equipment. The pricing dimension is the most polarizing: multiple reviewers explicitly called out prices as excessive or far above competitor bids — including a $2,900 water heater replacement, a $6,000 higher AC quote, and a $189 charge to reconnect a wire — while others described pricing as fair, reasonable, or competitive. This split drives the pricing score down significantly and reflects a genuine inconsistency in how value is delivered or perceived across different job types and technicians.

• 9 reviews contained no text at all (only a star rating) and were excluded from dimension scoring — these blank reviews inflate the raw review count without contributing usable data.
• A cluster of reviews dated 2025-06-06 through 2025-06-08 are all 5-star with very brief or generic text (e.g., 'OUTSTANDING SERVICE', 'On time', 'very professional', 'Great thorough services'). While not conclusively fake, the pattern of same-day 5-star reviews with minimal detail warrants mild caution and slightly reduced confidence in the most recent batch.
• Pricing complaints are significant and recurring across multiple independent reviewers spanning 2022–2024, including direct comparisons to competitor bids. This is not isolated dissatisfaction — it represents a consistent pattern that materially impacts the pricing score.
• One review (2023-06-09) describes a rude and unprepared technician who lacked job information provided at scheduling — this is a professionalism and operational failure that was factored into scoring.
• One review (2025-05-09, 2-star) explicitly states 'The job is not done yet. Apparently did not have the equipment to facilitate the job' — a direct project completion failure.
• One review (2022-10-06, 1-star) describes what the customer characterized as predatory pricing targeting a senior citizen, including an attempt to charge $389 for reconnecting a wire. This was factored into both pricing and professionalism scores.
• Review date range spans 2017 to 2025. Reviews older than 2022 were given reduced weight. The majority of substantive reviews fall within 2022–2025, providing reasonable recency coverage.

This WW Score is based on a large and diverse review set (100+ usable reviews spanning 8 years) with HIGH confidence across all four dimensions, making it one of the more reliable assessments possible — however, the pricing dimension reflects genuine and recurring customer dissatisfaction that prospective customers should weigh carefully before engaging ProSkill for larger jobs.

Neighborhood Plumber has a strong overall reputation built across many years and dozens of reviews, with consistent praise for professionalism, friendliness, punctuality, and technical competence from named technicians like Larry, Forrest, Robert, Duc, and David. Pricing is generally viewed as fair and competitive, with multiple reviewers explicitly noting they received better quotes than competitors, though one reviewer called the price a 'rip off' and another flagged a $70 estimate fee as off-putting. Project completion scores are solid, with many reviews confirming jobs were finished on time and correctly, and at least one review noting a workmanship guarantee was honored — however, several negative reviews cite failure to return calls, refusal to complete a job after arrival, and one instance of poor diagnosis with a charge for no repair, which meaningfully drag the completion score down. Experience scores are high, with reviewers citing 30-plus years of expertise, creative problem-solving, and technically complex work completed successfully. The negative reviews, while a minority, are credible and specific enough to prevent top-tier scores across all dimensions.

• 9 reviews contain no text at all — only a star rating (5 stars each). These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence.
• 4 reviews are marked 'unknown' with no text content and were excluded from scoring.
• Two reviews appear to be near-identical duplicates (the Larry/investment property referral review dated 2020-06-10 and 2019-06-15), suggesting possible duplicate submission or copy-paste error. Counted only once per dimension.
• A significant portion of reviews span from 2007 to 2020, meaning many are older than 3–5 years. Reviews from 2025 and 2024 are present and were weighted more heavily per recency rules.
• Multiple negative reviews cite failure to return calls or follow up (2017, 2021, 2023, 2024), suggesting a recurring responsiveness issue that may reflect an ongoing operational weakness rather than isolated incidents.
• One 1-star review (2021) describes a plumber refusing to complete a job after arriving and agreeing to it over the phone — a serious professionalism and project completion concern.
• One 1-star review (2021) describes a paid service call that resulted in no repairs and an incorrect diagnosis, which is a significant project completion and experience flag.
• No fake review patterns detected — reviews are specific, name individual technicians, describe distinct job types, and include both positive and negative experiences across many years.

This WW Score is based on a large and diverse review set spanning over 15 years with high mention counts across all four dimensions, making it statistically reliable — however, the recurring pattern of unanswered calls and at least two credible negative service-quality reviews introduce meaningful uncertainty, and prospective customers should weigh those specific complaints carefully.

Ocean Plumbing earns strong marks across all four dimensions, with professionalism and experience being the most consistently praised attributes across a large volume of reviews spanning over a decade. The majority of customers highlight courteous, knowledgeable technicians who communicate clearly and leave job sites clean. Pricing is generally regarded as fair or better than competitors, though one notable complaint about a $100 parts markup on a $10 hose bib and one complaint about $1,340 charged for minimal work introduce meaningful concern about pricing consistency. Project completion is largely positive, but is tempered by one serious complaint about abandoned work and unresolved issues across two properties, and one instance of a no-call/no-show, which are significant red flags that prevent a higher score in that dimension.

• 7 reviews contain no text content — only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data.
• 2 reviews are labeled 'unknown' with no text. These were excluded entirely.
• Review dated 2023-06-10 (1-star) describes a serious project completion failure: $1,340 charged for wax rings and drain cleaning with the original problem unresolved across two properties, and the plumber allegedly refused to return to make it right. This is a significant project completion and professionalism red flag.
• Review dated 2017-06-18 (1-star) describes contract non-compliance: green board installed instead of contracted hardiboard, crooked tile work, and bent pipes. This is a workmanship and project completion concern.
• Review dated 2022-01-08 (1-star) describes a no-call/no-show situation, directly impacting professionalism score.
• Review dated 2025-05-10 (3-star) flags a $100 parts charge for a $10 hose bib, suggesting potential parts markup transparency issues.
• Multiple technician names appear across reviews (James, Ricardo, Jordan, Justin, Oscar, Matt, John) suggesting this is a multi-technician operation. Quality and pricing consistency may vary by technician.
• The majority of reviews are older than 12 months. Only 6 reviews are dated within the past 12 months (mid-2024 to mid-2025), limiting recency confidence. Older reviews from 2008–2021 were given reduced weight.
• Several 5-star reviews use generic praise with limited specifics (e.g., 'Fast and courteous staff! Highly recommend!' and 'Best plumber!'). While not conclusive, a small subset of reviews may reflect low-detail or potentially inflated ratings.

This WW Score is based on a substantial volume of reviews (70 total, 63 with usable data) spanning over 15 years, giving it HIGH overall confidence, but consumers should note that only 6 reviews are from the past 12 months, there are three distinct negative reviews describing serious failures in pricing transparency and project completion, and technician quality may vary across the multi-person team.

Crew of Two demonstrates strong overall performance across all four dimensions, with the majority of reviewers praising fast response times, punctuality, courteous communication, and competitive pricing. Project completion is generally solid, with many reviewers noting jobs finished same-day or on short notice, and multiple repeat customers citing consistent reliability. However, scores are meaningfully pulled down by three significant negative reviews: one describing a post-payment demand for additional money after a completed fence job, one citing a plumbing leak discovered minutes after the crew left with a week-long wait for a callback, and one describing a rude and defensive interaction when the contractor's qualifications were questioned. A technical limitation flag was also raised by one reviewer noting Miguel is not trained for 220v electrical work involving amperage and breaker calculations. These incidents introduce real concerns around pricing transparency, follow-through on defective work, and professional conduct under scrutiny.

• PRICING INTEGRITY CONCERN: One reviewer (1-star, 2022-09-30) describes being charged an additional $300 after the job was completed and paid, following an earlier mid-job price increase of $200. This is a serious flag for hidden or post-completion charges.
• PROJECT COMPLETION FAILURE: One reviewer (2-star, 2024-04-12) reports a plumbing job that was leaking within 5 minutes of completion, and was told the crew could not return for a week. The customer had to hire another plumber. This is a direct project completion failure.
• PROFESSIONALISM CONCERN: One reviewer (1-star, 2021-09-23) reports the contractor became indignant, defensive, and rude when asked about licensing/qualifications, then withdrew the accepted quote. This is a notable professionalism red flag.
• TECHNICAL LIMITATION DISCLOSED: One reviewer (4-star, 2024-10-15) explicitly warns that Miguel is not trained in 220v electrical work, including amperage calculation, breaker sizing, and wire gauge. Customers should be aware of this scope limitation.
• PUNCTUALITY INCONSISTENCY: One reviewer (4-star, 2023-04-24) notes Miguel missed a scheduled appointment without prior notice, only calling afterward to apologize. While isolated, this is worth noting given the many positive punctuality mentions.
• DISPUTE ESCALATION: The negative 1-star review from 2022-09-30 includes allegations of the contractor visiting a neighbor's property, calling the neighbor 7 times, and showing up to confront them — behavior described as highly unprofessional. The contractor's response included a racially charged comment, which is a serious reputational concern.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK — LOW TO MODERATE: A cluster of 5-star reviews posted on consecutive dates (2022-10-01 through 2022-10-04) with brief, generic praise and no job-specific detail warrants mild scrutiny. These reviews slightly inflate the positive signal but do not appear to dominate the dataset.

This WW Score is based on 35 reviews spanning approximately 3.5 years with strong mention counts across all dimensions, making it statistically reliable; however, the presence of three substantive negative reviews — including a post-payment pricing dispute, a failed plumbing repair with poor callback response, and a hostile interaction with a customer — introduces meaningful downside risk that the score reflects, and prospective customers should weigh these incidents carefully alongside the predominantly positive feedback.