Find Nearby Plumbers In Phoenix, Arizona

APES HVAC & Plumbing has a strong base of positive reviews praising individual technicians for professionalism, punctuality, friendliness, and technical competence across both plumbing and HVAC work. However, the pricing dimension is significantly dragged down by multiple credible, detailed complaints of overcharging — including a capacitor replacement billed at $379 for a ~$25 part, a freon repair quoted 70% above market rate, a cartridge replacement quoted at $385 versus a competitor's $149, and an estimate coming in $900 higher than competitors — which collectively indicate a pattern of inflated pricing rather than isolated incidents. Project completion is generally solid but is undermined by serious negative reviews describing abandoned or botched work, water damage caused by improper installation, a unit wired to never turn off after a technician visit, repeated rescheduling delays, and a months-long saga requiring multiple return visits to resolve. Experience scores moderately well given the volume of praise for skilled diagnostics and problem-solving, but is tempered by reviews describing unqualified technicians, missed diagnoses that other companies caught immediately, and at least one instance of suspected deliberate sabotage. The overall picture is a company with genuinely capable technicians but inconsistent quality control, a pricing model that draws repeated complaints, and customer service that has failed significantly in high-stress situations.

• PRICING CONCERN: Multiple detailed, credible reviews across different years describe significant overcharging — capacitor at $379 vs ~$25 part cost, freon quoted 70% above market, cartridge quoted at $385 vs competitor's $149, and one estimate $900 higher than others for the same job. This is a consistent pattern, not isolated incidents.
• WORKMANSHIP CONCERN: One reviewer (June 2023) credibly alleges that a technician wired the AC unit's green and red wires together so the unit would never turn off, causing extreme overcooling and overheating after the tech left — a serious allegation of deliberate sabotage or gross negligence.
• WORKMANSHIP CONCERN: One reviewer (June 2025) updated their review to report that debris from a vacuum fitting replacement got into irrigation valves, causing two valves to start leaking and requiring full replacement — indicating careless workmanship.
• WORKMANSHIP CONCERN: One reviewer (October 2024) describes an 'extremely excruciating experience' with water damage due to improper installation, multiple recall visits, thousands of dollars in damage, and the owner refusing to correspond — forcing a civil lawsuit.
• PROJECT COMPLETION CONCERN: One reviewer (July 2023) reports a 3-week delay from initial visit, a week to provide information to a home warranty company, and two reschedules — indicating serious scheduling and follow-through failures.
• PROJECT COMPLETION CONCERN: One reviewer (February 2018) waited over two weeks for a dryer part that a competitor had on their truck same-day, with no communication or resolution from APES.
• CUSTOMER SERVICE CONCERN: One detailed review (August 2024) describes a manager being condescending, making dismissive comments, and handling a distressed customer poorly during a 6-day AC outage in extreme Arizona heat.
• IRRELEVANT REVIEW: One 1-star review (May 2025) is about a driver's behavior on the freeway and contains no service-related information — excluded from scoring.
• IRRELEVANT REVIEW: One 5-star review (October 2022) is about APES employees helping push a broken-down car — not a service review — excluded from scoring.
• BLANK REVIEWS: 9 reviews contained no text (rating only). These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews span 2017–2025. Negative reviews are distributed across multiple years (2018, 2019, 2020, 2022, 2023, 2024, 2025), suggesting persistent rather than historical issues. Recent 2025 reviews are predominantly positive but include two significant negative updates.
• FAKE REVIEW AWARENESS: No strong evidence of coordinated fake reviews detected. Positive reviews vary in specificity, name different technicians, and describe different job types. However, a cluster of 5-star reviews all dated 2025-04-10 with no timestamps (only date) is slightly unusual and warrants mild caution — though content varies enough to not flag as definitively fake.

This WW Score is based on a large review set (109 reviews) with high mention counts across all four dimensions, making it statistically reliable; however, the score should be interpreted cautiously given the presence of multiple detailed, credible negative reviews describing serious workmanship failures, consistent overpricing patterns, and poor customer service in high-stakes situations — issues that are not fully captured by the volume of generic positive praise.

MNS Plumbing has a strong base of positive reviews praising punctuality, friendliness, and responsiveness across many technicians including Mark, Dax, Daniel, and Nick. However, several credible negative reviews meaningfully drag down the scores — particularly around pricing transparency (unexplained bills, high charges for simple jobs, a change-of-mind fee) and project completion failures (a botched re-pipe with massive holes, debris left behind, poor communication, and a mishandled water heater emergency). Professionalism scores well on average but is tempered by specific incidents of muddy boots in a fiberglass tub, phone use during jobs, and poor office communication. Experience is generally rated highly by satisfied customers, though the failed toilet installation and smoke-bomb job that was not redone properly introduce legitimate doubt. The score reflects a contractor with genuine strengths but real and documented inconsistencies that prospective customers should weigh carefully.

• Several reviews are older than 3 years (2010–2018 range), which reduces their relevance to current service quality. Recent reviews (2022–2024) are more heavily weighted.
• A small number of generic 5-star reviews with minimal detail (e.g., 'Great company! Always top notch service.') may slightly inflate positive sentiment but are not numerous enough to constitute a fake review pattern.
• Multiple distinct negative reviews (1–2 star) contain highly specific, credible detail — muddy boots in a tub, unexplained billing, abandoned re-pipe job, missed callbacks — indicating these are genuine complaints and not outliers to be dismissed.
• Pricing dimension shows a clear split: many reviewers call prices 'fair' or 'reasonable,' while multiple others explicitly describe charges as too high, unexplained, or not worth the work performed. This polarization reduces confidence in a single pricing score.
• The re-pipe complaint (2020) describes serious project completion failures including property damage, lack of cleanup, and poor dispute resolution by ownership — this is a significant red flag for larger jobs.
• The 2014 water heater emergency complaint describes a dispatcher who avoided a job and failed to return calls, suggesting historical office/communication issues that may or may not persist today.

This WW Score is based on 42 reviews spanning over a decade and carries HIGH statistical confidence due to mention volume, but prospective customers should note that negative reviews are specific and credible, and the score reflects meaningful inconsistency in pricing transparency and project completion rather than a uniformly excellent contractor.

MD Home and Repair Services has a strong base of positive reviews praising punctuality, friendliness, responsiveness, and fair pricing across a wide variety of jobs. Multiple reviewers specifically called out Marty's professionalism, on-time arrival, and willingness to go above and beyond — such as reinstalling a door at no extra charge and returning same-day to fix a minor drip. However, two separate 1-star reviews explicitly describe the owner as rude, aggressive, and unprofessional when customers explored other options, which is a meaningful and credible pattern that materially reduces the professionalism score. Project completion is generally strong with jobs described as finished well and on time, though the review base skews older with most reviews predating 2023.

• Two independent 1-star reviews (2021 and 2023) describe the owner as rude, aggressive, and disrespectful toward customers — this is a consistent behavioral pattern and not an isolated incident. These reviews significantly impact the professionalism score.
• The majority of reviews are from 2020–2022, with only two reviews from 2023–2024. Recency is limited; the current service quality may differ from what most reviews reflect.
• Several positive reviews use similarly enthusiastic language and generic praise, though most include specific job details (fan installation, tile repair, door installation, etc.), which reduces but does not eliminate concern about authenticity.
• No reviews mention any negative outcome regarding workmanship quality, but the two negative reviews focus entirely on interpersonal conduct rather than technical skill, suggesting a specific and credible concern about customer-facing behavior.

This WW Score is based on 15 reviews with usable data across all four dimensions and carries HIGH overall confidence, but the score should be interpreted cautiously given the documented pattern of aggressive owner behavior in negative reviews and the limited number of recent (2023–2024) reviews.

American Home Water & Air earns strong marks for professionalism, with the vast majority of reviewers praising courteous, punctual, and communicative technicians by name across many years of service. Technical experience is also well-regarded, with numerous reviewers citing knowledgeable diagnostics and skilled workmanship on water softeners, RO systems, HVAC, and plumbing. However, pricing receives a meaningfully reduced score due to a recurring pattern of quotes not matching final bills, one reviewer documenting a $750 labor charge for under an hour of warranty work, and another describing a consistent pattern of discretionary price inflation by zip code. Project completion is the most penalized dimension: while most jobs are completed satisfactorily, there are credible, detailed negative reviews describing flooded kitchens, roof leaks caused by improper AC duct installation, dangerous unpermitted electrical work, a burst filter that caused catastrophic home flooding, repeated HVAC repair failures totaling over $4,000 with no resolution, and multiple instances of after-hours emergency calls going unanswered for hours or entirely. These serious failure cases, though a minority, are specific and credible enough to materially reduce the completion score.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: Review dated 2025-06-08 ('American home water comes out once a year...') and review dated 2025-06-06 are word-for-word identical. Similarly, the review 'Extremely happy with my overall experience with AHWA...' appears twice (2025-06-08 and 2025-06-06), and 'Very professional, was here when we needed her. Great work' appears twice (2025-06-07 and 2025-06-05). These duplicates suggest possible review manipulation or system error and were counted only once each for scoring purposes.
• FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: Several reviews consist solely of a star rating with no text (15+ blank reviews), which inflates the visible star average without providing usable data. These were excluded from dimension scoring.
• SERIOUS WORKMANSHIP COMPLAINTS: Multiple detailed negative reviews describe significant property damage attributed to AHWA technicians, including a flooded kitchen (2023), a roof leak from improper AC duct installation on top of shingles rather than plywood (2024), and a burst Big Blue filter causing an estimated $200,000+ water damage claim (2023). These are specific, credible, and materially impact the project completion score.
• UNPERMITTED WORK ALLEGATION: A detailed 1-star review from a licensed electrician (2023) alleges that AHWA performed unpermitted electrical work across three properties, including dangerous double-tapped wiring on rooftop HVAC units, and that the company refused to make it right. This is a serious safety and legal concern.
• EMERGENCY RESPONSIVENESS FAILURES: Multiple independent reviewers (2024, 2023, 2022) report calling AHWA's 24-hour emergency line during urgent situations (leaking water heaters, flooding) and receiving no callback for hours or at all, contradicting the company's advertised 24/7 availability.
• PRICING TRANSPARENCY CONCERNS: At least two reviewers explicitly describe final bills significantly exceeding quoted prices, with one reviewer documenting a consistent pattern of 'discretionary' upcharges by technician and zip code. One reviewer was charged $750 labor for under one hour of warranty replacement work.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews analyzed are from within the past 12 months (2024-2025), lending strong recency weight to the overall score. Older reviews (2018-2021) show a more consistently positive pattern, suggesting some decline in consistency over time, particularly in emergency responsiveness and pricing transparency.
• UPSELL CONCERNS: Multiple reviewers mention being presented with unnecessary or questionable upsell recommendations, including a $3,000 duct repair quote after a routine filter change visit, and a technician recommending replacing an entire RO system rather than filters that the homeowner later replaced themselves for $50.

This WW Score is based on a large and diverse review set with strong recency, and is considered moderately reliable overall; however, the presence of confirmed duplicate reviews, multiple blank star-only submissions, and several serious credible complaints about property damage, unpermitted work, and emergency non-response introduce meaningful uncertainty, particularly for the project completion dimension.

Plumbing Masters has a large and broadly positive review base, with the majority of customers praising individual technicians by name for professionalism, friendliness, punctuality, and technical competence. However, a meaningful minority of negative reviews — spanning the full date range — raise serious concerns about pricing transparency, overcharging, no-shows, incomplete work, and rude staff behavior, which significantly temper the otherwise strong scores. Pricing is the weakest dimension, with multiple credible complaints about unexplained charges, inflated quotes, non-itemized invoices, and pressure tactics, pulling that score well below the others. Project completion is generally strong but is undermined by several reviews describing unfinished work, callbacks not honored, and jobs left in worse condition than found. The experience dimension scores well overall, with many reviewers citing knowledgeable and skilled technicians, though a handful of reviews describe misdiagnoses and poor workmanship.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: Multiple reviews appear to be exact or near-exact duplicates posted on consecutive dates (e.g., the Levi garbage disposal review, the Manuel Luna review, the Miguel technician review, the 'hands down awesome' slow drain review, and the Casey professional review each appear twice within 2-3 days). This is a strong indicator of review manipulation or padding. Confidence has been maintained at HIGH due to overall volume but scores have been kept conservative.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Approximately 15-20 reviews contain no text whatsoever — only a 5-star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data. Their presence in bulk inflates the star average artificially.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS ARE CREDIBLE AND RECURRING: Multiple independent reviewers across different years describe non-itemized invoices, charges far exceeding market rates (e.g., $466 for a cartridge replacement, $495 for a toilet install, $18,000-$35,000 for bathroom work, $300 for lighting a pilot light), and bait-and-switch advertising (e.g., $53 drain clean ad vs. $409 quote). These are not isolated incidents.
• REVIEW MANIPULATION ALLEGATION: One reviewer (February 2023) explicitly states they were called by Plumbing Masters and threatened with cancellation of service if they did not change their 1-star review. This is a serious integrity flag and suggests some positive reviews may have been coerced or incentivized.
• NO-SHOW AND SCHEDULING FAILURES: Multiple reviews across different years describe technicians who never arrived, no callbacks, and wasted full days waiting. This is a recurring operational issue not offset by the volume of positive reviews.
• RECENCY NOTE: The bulk of reviews with substantive text are from 2022-2025, which is appropriate for weighting. Reviews from 2003-2016 are present but given reduced weight. The duplicate cluster in June 2025 is suspicious and may represent a coordinated review push.
• WORKER CONDUCT COMPLAINTS: At least two reviews describe technicians or crews behaving rudely, using profanity toward customers, playing loud music, disappearing for hours, and being dismissive — particularly toward women and elderly customers. These are serious professionalism concerns.

This WW Score of 74.2 carries HIGH data confidence due to the large review volume, but should be interpreted cautiously given confirmed duplicate reviews, an explicit allegation of review coercion, recurring pricing complaints across many years, and multiple credible no-show and incomplete-work reports — the true performance level is likely somewhat lower than the score suggests for price-sensitive or vulnerable customers.

AC & Plumbing Doctors receives strong praise for individual technician professionalism, punctuality, and courteous behavior across a large volume of reviews, which drives a respectable professionalism score. However, this is meaningfully offset by a recurring pattern of serious complaints about rude, dismissive, or incompetent staff — including a specific rep (Mark), a high-pressure salesperson (Jason), and multiple technicians who left work incomplete or made problems worse. Pricing is the weakest dimension, with multiple credible, specific complaints about extreme markups on parts like capacitors (quoted at $360–$700 for a $20 part and 15-minute job), a bait-and-switch quote of $11,100 later dropped to $6,900, and undisclosed service fees — though some reviewers praised competitive pricing, creating a polarized picture. Project completion is mixed: many reviews describe jobs finished on time and thoroughly, but several describe abandoned work, unresolved repeat visits, improperly installed units breaking down, and a technician who disconnected ductwork and left it unrepaired. Experience scores moderately well given the volume of praise for knowledgeable techs, but is dragged down by documented cases of misdiagnosis, rookie errors causing new problems, and at least one tech described as not knowledgeable enough.

• PRICING CONCERN: Multiple specific, credible reviews cite extreme parts markups — capacitors quoted at $360–$700 against a ~$20 part cost, and a quote of $11,100 later reduced to $6,900 after the customer declined. This is a significant and recurring pattern, not isolated complaints.
• INCOMPLETE WORK / CALLBACKS: At least three reviews describe technicians leaving work unfinished or making the system worse — including disconnected ductwork left hazardous for 13+ days, a unit broken down twice within a year of a $18K install, and a training visit that caused new AC issues requiring a third-party fix.
• STAFF INCONSISTENCY: Reviews are highly polarized between excellent individual technicians and poor experiences with other staff. Named complaints include a rep named Mark (described as cognitively impaired), a salesperson named Jason (high-pressure tactics, wrong name on shirt, no proper introduction), and a rude unnamed technician.
• POSSIBLE FAKE REVIEW ACTIVITY: One negative reviewer explicitly alleges that positive reviews are generated by bots, employees, or partner company staff. While this cannot be confirmed, several 5-star reviews from the same date cluster (e.g., multiple reviews dated 2025-06-07 and 2025-05-09) are brief, generic, and lack specific detail, which is consistent with this concern. Confidence in the positive review cluster is slightly reduced.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Two reviews contained no text (only a star rating of 5.0 and 4.0). These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data.
• RECENCY NOTE: Reviews span from 2020 to June 2025. The majority of reviews are from 2023–2025 and are treated as primary data. Older reviews (2020–2021) are given reduced weight but remain relevant as they establish a longer-term pricing and quality pattern.
• INVITATION HOMES CONTEXT: Several negative reviews come from renters whose service was arranged through Invitation Homes property management. These reviews describe systemic scheduling failures, missed appointments, and poor treatment of renters. This context may reflect a specific service channel rather than the company's direct-customer experience, but it is a documented pattern and is included in scoring.

This WW Score is based on a large and diverse review set (118 usable reviews) spanning five years, giving it HIGH statistical confidence, but the score should be interpreted cautiously given the sharp polarization between glowing individual technician praise and serious, specific complaints about pricing transparency, incomplete work, and staff conduct — suggesting the customer experience is highly variable depending on which technician and service channel is involved.