Find Nearby Plumbers In Phoenix, Arizona

Second Opinion Plumbing shows strong technical competence and professionalism in individual interactions, with many customers praising technician knowledge, punctuality, and friendliness. However, the company is significantly hampered by systemic operational failures including no-shows, poor communication, unresponsiveness to callbacks, and inconsistent follow-through on promised work. Pricing concerns emerge in multiple reviews citing overcharges, hidden fees, and aggressive upselling tactics. While recent reviews (2024-2025) trend more positive, the historical pattern of accountability issues and customer service failures creates substantial trust concerns that offset individual technician quality.

• CRITICAL: Severe operational inconsistency — 40+ reviews document no-shows, missed appointments, and failure to return calls, suggesting systemic dispatch/scheduling problems unrelated to technician quality
• CRITICAL: Multiple reviews (2017-2021) report aggressive, profane, and threatening behavior from management (specifically 'Henry' and 'Albert'), including hanging up on customers, cursing, and threats of liens
• PRICING CONCERNS: Recurring pattern of overcharging (permits charged but not pulled, inflated labor rates, upselling unnecessary work, charging for parts not installed). At least 15 reviews cite unfair pricing or hidden charges
• QUALITY CONTROL: Multiple instances of incorrect installations requiring callbacks (water heater wiring, wax rings, expansion tanks installed incorrectly), suggesting inadequate training or quality assurance
• WARRANTY ISSUES: Numerous complaints about warranty company interactions — company allegedly misrepresents work to warranty companies to deny coverage or charges customers for work warranty should cover
• RECENCY BIAS: Reviews from 2024-2025 are predominantly 5-star with minimal detail, while 2017-2021 reviews contain extensive negative detail. This pattern suggests either genuine improvement or potential review manipulation
• FAKE REVIEW RISK: Several 2024-2025 reviews are extremely brief (5-10 words) with 5-star ratings and no specifics. Multiple reviews use nearly identical phrasing ('highly recommend,' 'professional,' 'friendly'). However, volume of detailed negative reviews from earlier years suggests these are not fabricated — rather, company may have improved operations
• ACCOUNTABILITY FAILURES: Multiple reviews document company refusing to take responsibility for damage caused during service (water damage, electrical damage, carpet stains), with management denying liability and refusing callbacks

This WW Score of 72.8 should be interpreted with caution: while recent performance (2024-2025) appears substantially improved with high professionalism and experience ratings, the company's documented history of operational failures, management misconduct, and accountability avoidance (2017-2021) creates legitimate risk. The score reflects current data but does not fully capture the severity of past systemic issues. Customers should verify current service standards independently and consider requesting specific technicians with positive recent reviews, as individual technician quality varies significantly from company-level reliability.

Master Rooter demonstrates strong technical expertise and professionalism with many positive reviews praising specific technicians (Mourad, Mike, James, Bobby) for responsiveness, knowledge, and courteous service. However, the company is significantly hampered by persistent pricing concerns—numerous reviews cite inflated quotes, bait-and-switch tactics with promotional offers, and aggressive upselling. Project completion issues are evident in multiple accounts of incomplete work, follow-up failures, and callbacks that were not honored. The company shows high variability in service quality depending on the technician assigned, and several major projects resulted in costly mistakes requiring third-party remediation.

• PRICING PATTERN: Systematic complaints about inflated pricing, hidden charges, and bait-and-switch tactics (e.g., $39 drain special leading to $600+ charges). Multiple reviews cite quotes 2-3x higher than competitors for identical work.
• PROJECT COMPLETION FAILURES: Multiple reviews document incomplete work, failed callbacks, and abandoned projects. Notable cases include Oscar (3-day job with leaks next day, no follow-up), Donny (hydro-jetting into home causing sewage backup, refused warranty credit), and major sewer line projects requiring third-party fixes.
• MAJOR SCAM ALLEGATIONS: At least 5 detailed reviews describe systematic overcharging, unnecessary work recommendations, and deliberate misdiagnosis. Two reviews specifically mention owner Jason making false promises about refunds ($2,200 and $7,000) that were never honored.
• INCONSISTENT QUALITY: Stark contrast between highly praised technicians (Mourad, Mike, James) and poorly reviewed ones (Oscar, Donny, unnamed techs). Same company name, vastly different outcomes.
• UPSELLING & PRESSURE TACTICS: Multiple reviews describe aggressive recommendations for expensive services (hydro-jetting $1,300, camera inspections $399-$500, water filtration $5,000) that were either unnecessary or failed to solve problems.
• FOLLOW-UP FAILURES: Several reviews document promised callbacks, quotes, and warranty work that never materialized. Communication breakdowns after initial service.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEWS: Approximately 15-20 reviews use nearly identical phrasing ('professional,' 'knowledgeable,' 'highly recommend,' 'great service') with minimal detail. Some appear clustered on same dates (e.g., 2024-06-09 has 20+ reviews with generic praise). However, the volume of detailed negative reviews with specific names, dates, and dollar amounts suggests authentic complaints outweigh any fabricated positive reviews.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most recent reviews (2025) include serious complaints (Oscar's incomplete work, Donny's sewage incident). Pattern of issues persists across entire review timeline.

This WW Score of 72.8 should be treated with caution: while based on substantial data (227 reviews, 89+ mentions per dimension), the company exhibits extreme inconsistency in service delivery and systematic pricing problems that create significant financial risk for customers. The score reflects a company with pockets of excellence (specific technicians, technical capability) surrounded by serious operational failures (project completion, pricing transparency, follow-through). Customers should obtain multiple quotes, verify all pricing in writing before work begins, and consider competitors—the financial and service risks are substantial.

Stellar Home Services shows a mixed performance profile across 152 reviews. While the company demonstrates strong technical expertise and workmanship (78.4/100), with many customers praising skilled technicians and quality installations, significant concerns emerge around project completion reliability (71.3/100) and professionalism (75.2/100). A substantial cluster of negative reviews—particularly from 2019-2024—reveals patterns of incomplete repairs, poor follow-up, communication failures, and alleged unethical practices including unnecessary upselling and warranty claim manipulation. Pricing concerns (68.5/100) center on hidden charges, inflated markups, and lack of transparency. The company performs notably better on kitchen/bath remodeling projects (consistently 5-star) versus plumbing warranty work (highly variable). Recency matters: recent reviews (2024-2025) show continued service inconsistencies.

• PATTERN DETECTED: Multiple reviews (2019-2024) allege unethical practices including false warranty claims, unnecessary water damage restoration referrals with apparent kickback arrangements, and misleading cost disclosures. At least 8 reviews mention being told work was 'covered by warranty' then charged unexpectedly.
• QUALITY VARIANCE BY SERVICE TYPE: Kitchen/Bath remodeling reviews are overwhelmingly positive (95%+ 5-star). Plumbing/warranty work reviews show 40-50% negative ratings, suggesting inconsistent quality or different operational standards between divisions.
• COMMUNICATION FAILURES: 12+ reviews explicitly cite zero follow-up, no callbacks, failure to return voicemails, and lack of status updates. One review mentions technician canceling appointment due to 5-minute wait policy without prior notification.
• INCOMPLETE REPAIRS: At least 15 reviews document jobs left unfinished, wrong diagnoses, or problems recurring immediately after service. Several customers hired competing plumbers who fixed issues Stellar could not.
• TECHNICIAN INCONSISTENCY: Named technicians (Andrew, Brandon, Paul, Juan, Sean) receive consistent praise when mentioned positively, but same names appear in negative reviews citing rudeness, dismissiveness, or poor work. Suggests individual performance variance rather than systemic excellence.
• ALLEGED FRAUD: Multiple reviews (2022-2024) allege Stellar referred unnecessary water restoration services with apparent financial incentives, made false claims to warranty companies about pressure valves and maintenance, and manipulated warranty denials.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Negative reviews cluster in 2019-2024 period. Older reviews (2012-2018) are predominantly 5-star with fewer complaints. This suggests either declining service quality or increased customer scrutiny over time.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK - MODERATE: Kitchen/Bath division shows suspiciously uniform 5-star praise with nearly identical language ('amazing,' 'professional,' 'on time,' 'on budget') across 30+ reviews from June 2022-2025. However, these are detailed and specific enough to appear genuine; risk is limited but present.
• PRICING TRANSPARENCY: Multiple reviews cite $400-$650 charges for work quoted as 'covered by warranty,' $120 plastic pans marked up 600%, and refusal to provide quotes before work. At least 6 reviews mention being charged for 'modifications' or 'upgrades' not discussed upfront.

This WW Score of 72.8 should be treated with CAUTION and CONTEXT. While based on substantial data (152 reviews, HIGH confidence), the company exhibits a stark two-tier performance profile: Kitchen/Bath remodeling is genuinely excellent (85+/100 equivalent), but plumbing/warranty services are significantly weaker (60-65/100 equivalent). The overall score masks this critical distinction. Customers should expect strong results for planned remodeling projects but should be aware of documented risks around warranty work, including communication failures, incomplete repairs, and alleged unethical upselling practices. Recent negative reviews (2024) suggest ongoing issues have not been resolved.

Tradition Services/Tom the Plumber shows strong technical expertise and reasonable pricing, but is significantly hampered by serious project completion and follow-through issues. While many customers praise professionalism, punctuality, and skill (particularly technicians like Miguel, Casey, and Tom himself), a substantial minority report missed appointments, no-shows, poor communication, and unresolved callbacks. The company demonstrates inconsistent service quality—some customers receive exceptional care while others experience rudeness, lack of accountability for damage, and failure to honor commitments. Recent reviews (2025) are predominantly positive, but historical patterns reveal chronic reliability problems that undermine overall trustworthiness.

• CRITICAL: Multiple reviews (at least 15) document no-shows, missed appointments, and failure to follow up on callbacks. This is a systemic project completion issue.
• CRITICAL: Several customers report Tom or his team refusing accountability for damage caused during work (water heater placement causing fire hazard, flooring damage, wall dents, improper toilet installation). This suggests poor quality control and defensive customer service.
• CRITICAL: Multiple reviews describe Tom as rude, belligerent, sarcastic, or dismissive when customers raised legitimate concerns. One customer reported Tom threatened to withhold refund if they left a bad review.
• PATTERN: Older reviews (2014-2022) contain significantly more negative feedback about reliability and attitude than recent reviews (2025). This could indicate either genuine improvement or potential review manipulation.
• SUSPICIOUS: Recent reviews (May-June 2025) show unusually high concentration of 5-star ratings with similar praise patterns (Miguel Quintanilla mentioned repeatedly, generic positive language). While not conclusive, this warrants caution.
• INCONSISTENCY: Company demonstrates 'cherry-picking' behavior—some customers report excellent service while others report being deprioritized or cancelled on due to location or job size.
• COMMUNICATION: Multiple reviews note Tom prefers text-only communication and is unresponsive to voicemails, creating barriers to accountability.
• QUALITY VARIANCE: Several reviews document incomplete or incorrect diagnoses (wax ring issue misdiagnosed as foundation problem, sump pump switch vs. replacement confusion), suggesting inconsistent technical judgment.

This WW Score of 72.8 should be treated with caution despite HIGH overall confidence. While the score reflects genuine strengths in technical skill and pricing, it masks a deeply problematic pattern of unreliability, missed appointments, and poor accountability that affects roughly 15-20% of customers. The company appears to deliver excellent service to some customers while failing others entirely. Recent positive reviews are encouraging but do not fully offset the historical pattern of project completion failures. Prospective customers should be aware that booking with this company carries meaningful risk of no-show or unresolved issues, particularly for complex jobs or customers in less convenient locations.

Tucker Hill demonstrates strong professionalism and technical expertise across most service interactions, with technicians consistently praised for punctuality, courtesy, and knowledge. Project completion is generally reliable with most jobs finished as promised. However, pricing emerges as a significant weakness, with numerous customers reporting substantially inflated quotes compared to market rates and competitor bids—often double or triple standard pricing. This pricing concern substantially depresses the overall WW Score despite otherwise solid performance. The company shows inconsistent follow-up on callbacks and quotes, with some customers reporting delayed responses or unmet commitments.

• PRICING PATTERN: Multiple independent reviews (at least 15+) explicitly cite overpricing by 50-200% compared to competitors or market rates. Examples include $500 ball valve quotes, $7000 panel replacements with $5600+ profit margins, $1900 fan replacements, and $3300 quotes on warranted units. This is not isolated—it is systemic.
• POTENTIAL UPSELLING PATTERN: Several reviews suggest aggressive upselling of unnecessary services, particularly in HVAC (recommending full unit replacement when minor repairs suffice) and electrical work. One customer's husband (certified HVAC tech) discovered a deliberately loosened Shrader valve after declining a replacement unit quote.
• FOLLOW-UP INCONSISTENCY: Multiple reviews report delayed callbacks on quotes (6 months, multiple days), cancelled appointments without notification, and failure to return calls despite repeated attempts. This contradicts the strong professionalism scores in completed jobs.
• AGGRESSIVE MARKETING: Several complaints about unsolicited repeated phone calls (twice daily) and junk mail after providing estimates, with customers threatening legal action.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK - MODERATE: 4 reviews contain no text (only 5-star ratings on 2025-06-03 and 2025-06-02), and several reviews use nearly identical phrasing ('very professional,' 'friendly,' 'knowledgeable') with minimal specificity. However, the majority of reviews contain detailed narratives that appear authentic.
• RECENCY BIAS: Most high-rated reviews are from June 2025 (very recent), while negative pricing reviews cluster in 2022-2023. Recent reviews may reflect improved service but pricing complaints span the entire timeline.
• CANCELLATION ISSUES: At least 3 reviews document appointment cancellations or no-shows, with one customer marked as cancelling when the company cancelled.

This WW Score of 72.8 should be trusted with HIGH confidence due to large sample size (100 reviews) and consistent patterns across dimensions, but customers should be aware that while technical execution and professionalism are genuinely strong, pricing is a critical vulnerability—obtain multiple quotes before engaging Tucker Hill, as their quotes frequently exceed market rates by 50-200% for identical work.

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.