Find Nearby Plumbers In Phoenix, Arizona

1UP Plumbing scores strongly across professionalism, project completion, and experience, with numerous reviewers explicitly praising punctuality, communication, responsiveness, and quality of workmanship. The callback and follow-through behavior noted in at least one review further supports a high project completion score. However, the pricing dimension is meaningfully dragged down by one explicit 1-star review alleging a roughly 10x overcharge and exploitation of the customer's situation — a serious red flag that cannot be dismissed, even against a backdrop of many reviewers calling prices fair or good. The pricing score of 68 reflects this tension: the majority of pricing mentions are positive, but the severity of the one negative allegation warrants a conservative adjustment. Overall, the contractor demonstrates consistent operational quality but carries a credible pricing concern that prospective customers should investigate.

• PRICING CONCERN: One reviewer explicitly alleged being massively overcharged — approximately 10x the fair price — and stated the company took advantage of their situation. This is a serious allegation and materially lowers the pricing score despite the majority of other reviewers describing pricing as fair or good.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK — MODERATE: A notable number of reviews are generic in structure (e.g., 'prompt and professional, highly recommend', 'great job, would definitely recommend') with no specific details about the work performed, the problem solved, or the outcome. While not conclusive, this pattern warrants mild caution.
• MISSING DATES: The majority of reviews (approximately 17 of 22) have no date attached. Recency weighting cannot be applied to these reviews, which reduces the reliability of trend analysis. Only 3 reviews have confirmed dates, two of which are from 2023 and one from May 2025.
• REVIEW VOLUME NOTE: 22 reviews is a moderate sample. Scores carry reasonable confidence but could shift meaningfully with additional data, particularly around pricing.

This WW Score is moderately reliable given a reasonable review volume and HIGH confidence across all four dimensions, but should be interpreted with caution due to missing dates on most reviews, a credible overcharging allegation, and a mild pattern of generic praise that may indicate some unverified reviews.

Fix It All (Omar) demonstrates strong professionalism across all four reviews, with consistent praise for punctuality, responsiveness, respectfulness, and communication. Project completion is solid, with multiple jobs finished successfully and follow-through on parts procurement and exchanges. Technical experience is evident through diverse job types (valve pressure diagnosis, sink replacement, washing machine motor, bathroom fan installation) and problem-solving ability. Pricing is mentioned positively in only one review as 'reasonable,' limiting confidence in this dimension. The contractor's willingness to go above and beyond (crawling in attic heat, accompanying customer to exchange parts) reinforces reliability.

• Only 4 reviews analyzed; sample size is small and limits statistical confidence
• Three of four reviews are from 2022 (over 2 years old); only one review from 2024 provides recent data
• Pricing dimension based on single mention only; insufficient data for robust pricing assessment
• No negative reviews present; while not necessarily fake, lack of any critical feedback is atypical and should be noted

This WW Score of 88.2 should be treated with caution due to the small sample size (4 reviews) and age of most data (3 of 4 from 2022). The score reflects genuine positive patterns in professionalism and completion, but broader validation with more recent reviews would significantly strengthen confidence.

Jason and 2 Sons Plumbing receive consistently strong marks across all four dimensions from this review set. Professionalism is the standout dimension, with all 7 reviews explicitly praising responsiveness, punctuality, friendly attitude, and same-day or after-hours availability — including a Saturday callback within 15 minutes. Pricing is well-supported, with multiple reviewers specifically calling out fair, reasonable, or transparent pricing, including a free estimate offering that competitors charged for. Project completion is also well-evidenced, with reviewers noting timely job execution, same-day completions, and follow-through on warranty and callback situations. Experience scores solidly, supported by mentions of effective troubleshooting, technical knowledge, and proactive advice, though the jobs described are mostly routine in complexity, which tempers the score slightly.

• All 7 reviews are 5-star ratings with no negative feedback of any kind — this warrants mild caution, though the reviews do contain specific details, named individuals, and varied scenarios that reduce the likelihood of fabrication.
• Review recency concern: 5 of 7 reviews are older than 12 months as of a 2024 reference date, with 4 reviews dating back to 2017–2019. The most recent review is from September 2023. Scores should be interpreted with awareness that recent performance data is limited.
• Review volume is low (7 total). While all dimensions reached HIGH confidence via the formula, the absolute sample size is small and results should be treated with proportional caution.

This WW Score is directionally trustworthy given the specificity and variety of the reviews, but should be treated as a moderate-confidence snapshot due to the small total review count and the age of the majority of reviews.

All four reviews paint a consistently positive picture of Burnett's Plumbing across every scored dimension. Professionalism stands out strongly, with multiple reviewers explicitly noting punctuality, courteous communication, and responsiveness — including availability on Sundays and prompt scheduling. Pricing is a recurring theme, with reviewers contrasting Burnett's fair quotes against significantly higher competitor quotes and noting no hidden charges or upselling. Project completion is well-supported, with all jobs described as finished cleanly and correctly, including one reviewer noting the work area was left tidy. Experience is reflected in the quality of installations and problem-solving (e.g., connecting a fridge water line, diagnosing a water heater leak), though technical depth of commentary is moderate rather than highly detailed.

• Only 4 reviews total — sample size is small and limits statistical reliability of all scores.
• All reviews are 5-star ratings with no negative or mixed feedback, which warrants mild caution; however, reviews do contain specific details (job types, pricing comparisons, day-of-week context) that reduce the likelihood of fabrication.
• No reviews older than 12 months from the most recent date (2024-11-07), so recency is not a concern — all reviews fall within a strong recent window.
• Slight pattern of generic praise phrases ('highly recommend', 'will use again') appears across reviews, but each review also includes unique specifics that distinguish them as likely authentic.

This WW Score carries MODERATE reliability — the reviews are recent, specific, and consistent, but the total sample of only 4 reviews is too small to draw high-confidence conclusions about long-term performance patterns.

Flush King Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism across multiple reviews, with consistent praise for rapid response times (half-hour to same-day service), courteous technicians, and clean work practices. Project completion is solid, with jobs finished as promised and customers satisfied with outcomes. Pricing appears fair based on limited explicit mentions, with one customer noting competitive quotes and comprehensive service. Technical skill is evident through problem-solving and customer education. However, one 1-star review from August 2024 alleges service issues and disputes with the owner, which creates a notable credibility concern despite lack of detail.

• One 1-star review (2024-08-22) contains vague allegations and appears to be a dispute with owner Chris, lacking specific details about the actual service failure. This creates a credibility conflict with five 5-star reviews.
• Five of six reviews are 5-star ratings with very positive language; while specific details are provided in most, the concentration of perfect scores warrants noting potential selection bias.
• Most reviews are older than 12 months (4 of 6 from 2022-2023); only 2 reviews from 2024 provide recent data.
• Pricing dimension based on only 2 mentions, limiting confidence in that score.

This WW Score of 87.2 should be treated with moderate caution due to the small sample size (6 reviews), the presence of one unsubstantiated negative review conflicting with five positive ones, and limited recent data; however, the consistency of professionalism and completion metrics across multiple independent reviewers provides reasonable support for the overall assessment.

The overwhelming majority of reviews are positive, praising responsiveness, punctuality, friendliness, and fair pricing — particularly for Ron and Stephen of the core service plumbing operation, and more recently for Mason at the Roto-Rooter branch. However, several serious negative reviews meaningfully drag down all dimensions: one customer reported an $8,000 pipe-coating job that failed and was never remedied despite repeated callbacks; another described a $6,000 water restoration charge that insurance did not cover plus repeated incorrect repairs; a third detailed a technician who arrived without basic tools and another who shouted at a security guard. A particularly damaging review describes Ron filing a small claims lawsuit against a customer who left a 3-star review, which raises significant integrity concerns. Project completion scores are penalized because multiple reviews explicitly describe abandoned work, unresolved callbacks, and jobs left incomplete. Pricing scores reflect a mixed picture: many customers praised fair and transparent quotes, but several reviews cite bait-and-switch pricing, unexpectedly high charges, and quotes that did not match final bills.

• SERIOUS CONCERN — One review alleges that Ron (owner) filed a $3,500 small claims lawsuit against a customer for leaving a 3-star review. This is a significant integrity and reputational red flag that warrants strong caution.
• PROJECT COMPLETION FAILURES — At least 3 reviews describe significant incomplete or failed work: an $8,000 pipe coating job with recurring backups and no follow-through; a $6,000 water restoration dispute with repeated incorrect repairs; and a technician who abandoned a job mid-repair leaving a customer without water.
• ATTITUDE/CONDUCT CONCERN — One review describes a technician shouting at a security guard and being removed from a commercial property. Another describes a supervisor giving a customer a hostile look when they questioned the scope of work.
• POSSIBLE FAKE OR LOW-QUALITY REVIEWS — A cluster of reviews from 2025-06-01 through 2025-06-08 are extremely brief (e.g., 'Mason was great!', 'Amazing service from Mason.', 'Fast treatment, and really awesome personal') with no specific detail. Three reviews in this period have no text at all — only a 5-star rating. This pattern is consistent with review padding and reduces confidence in the recent positive signal.
• MULTI-ENTITY CONCERN — Reviews reference multiple distinct companies and technicians (Roto-Rooter, Rooter Ranger, Ready Rooter, Service Plumbing Co., $59 Rooter & Plumbing Service) and multiple technicians (Ron, Stephen/Steve, Mason, Cole, Adrian, Mark, Christian, Rich). It is unclear whether all reviews pertain to a single business entity, which may distort the aggregate score.
• RECENCY NOTE — The most recent reviews (2025) are heavily concentrated on 'Mason' and appear to be for a Roto-Rooter franchise location. Older reviews (2013–2021) predominantly reference Ron and Stephen of a smaller independent operation. These may represent different businesses being aggregated together.
• 3 reviews contained no text — only a star rating — and were excluded from dimension scoring but counted in total reviews analyzed.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large review volume, but the score's trustworthiness is meaningfully undermined by credible reports of abandoned work, disputed charges, a lawsuit filed against a reviewer, and a likely multi-entity review pool — prospective customers should read the negative reviews carefully before engaging.