Find Nearby Plumbers In Phoenix, Arizona

Professionalism scores reasonably well across a large volume of reviews, with many customers praising punctuality, courtesy, communication, and technician demeanor — however, this is meaningfully offset by multiple serious complaints including a technician with a gas leak oversight, a rude technician who refused to allow customers to speak, repeated no-shows, and a pattern of poor follow-through from office staff. Pricing is the weakest dimension: while some customers praised fair or competitive pricing, a substantial number of reviews explicitly called out price gouging, unexpectedly high quotes, hidden charges, bait-and-switch tactics, and pressure sales — this is a recurring and credible pattern across multiple years and locations. Project completion is mixed: many jobs were completed same-day and efficiently, but there are multiple credible accounts of abandoned work, unresolved callbacks, permit fraud, incomplete jobs, and technicians failing to return — including one customer strung along for over a year. Experience scores moderately well, with many reviewers praising technical knowledge and problem-solving, though several reviews document misdiagnosis, wrong parts ordered, and sending HVAC techs to do plumbing work.

• FAKE REVIEW RISK — MODERATE: A large cluster of reviews dated 2025-04-10, 2025-05-26, 2025-06-02, and 2025-06-05 share identical dates with no timestamps, many are blank (rating only, no text), and the non-blank ones in these clusters are short and generic. This pattern is consistent with bulk review padding. Blank reviews (rating only, no text) account for approximately 33 of the 218 total reviews and have been excluded from dimension scoring.
• PERMIT FRAUD ALLEGATION: At least two reviews from the same apparent customer (dated 2024-05-23 and 2024-06-14) allege the company promised permits, failed to deliver, and then went silent — targeting a widow of a veteran. A third related review (2024-06-14) corroborates this. These are serious, specific, and credible allegations that significantly impact the project completion and professionalism scores.
• GAS SAFETY INCIDENT: One review (2022-01-11) describes a natural gas leak left unsealed for approximately 20 hours after a water heater installation, resulting in health impacts to the reviewer and their pet. This is a critical safety flag.
• REPEATED NO-SHOWS AND SCHEDULING FAILURES: Multiple independent reviews across different years (2015, 2020, 2021, 2024) describe appointments being cancelled last-minute, technicians failing to arrive within quoted windows, and no callbacks — indicating a systemic scheduling and accountability problem.
• BAIT-AND-SWITCH PRICING: One detailed review (2025-06-04) describes a phone rep promising transparent pricing, followed by a technician demanding $280 upfront — contradicting the company's own 'no surprise costs' website claim. The technician then selectively played a call recording to dispute the customer's account.
• RECENCY NOTE: Reviews span from 2011 to 2025. Reviews from 2015 and earlier are given reduced weight. The majority of substantive reviews (both positive and negative) are from 2020 onward and are well-represented in scoring.
• MULTI-LOCATION AGGREGATION RISK: Reviews appear to reference multiple franchise locations (Pearland TX, Monterey CA, South Florida, San Antonio TX, Yukon OK, Fallbrook CA, etc.). Scores reflect the aggregate brand experience and may not accurately represent any single location.

This WW Score is based on a large review set (218 total, ~185 with usable data) spanning over a decade and multiple franchise locations, giving it HIGH statistical confidence in volume — however, the presence of suspected bulk-padded blank reviews, serious unresolved allegations of permit fraud and a gas safety incident, and a clear recurring pattern of pricing complaints and scheduling failures means the score should be treated as a moderate-confidence indicator of brand-level performance, not a guarantee of quality at any individual franchise location.

Quail Plumbing has a strong base of loyal, long-term customers who consistently praise individual technicians by name (Bob, Wes, Brandon, Heath, Lamar, Manny) for being knowledgeable, courteous, and efficient. Pricing is generally viewed as fair to reasonable, with several reviewers noting transparency and no commission-driven upselling, though a handful of reviews cite pricing as higher than competitors. Project completion is the weakest dimension: multiple detailed negative reviews describe abandoned jobs, rescheduling failures, incomplete work (roots not fully cleared, DIP switches not set, gas line job walked off), and a multi-day water heater installation that stretched over weeks with repeated errors. Professionalism scores are dragged down significantly by recurring complaints about office staff rudeness (particularly a manager named Maggie), technicians arriving unprepared or with wrong job information, and a pattern of not honoring appointment windows without courtesy calls. The score reflects a company with genuinely skilled individual technicians but inconsistent operational execution and customer service at the office level.

• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The 'Textbook bait-and-switch' review appears twice with nearly identical text (dates: 2021-06-10 and 2020-09-25). This may indicate a copy-paste error by the reviewer or a data duplication issue. Counted once for scoring purposes.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The Bob/RO system review appears twice with identical text (dates: 2020-06-10 and 2019-07-29). Counted once for scoring purposes.
• BLANK REVIEWS: 10 reviews contain no text and only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable qualitative data, though they are included in total review count.
• DRIVING COMPLAINTS: Two separate reviews (2025-04-24 and 2024-06-09) describe dangerous driving behavior by company vehicle drivers. These do not reflect plumbing service quality but represent a reputational and liability concern. The 2025 reviewer notes the company has not addressed prior complaints about this issue.
• RECENCY NOTE: A significant portion of reviews (roughly 50%) are dated 2020 or earlier, some going back to 2012-2013. The most recent 12 months (2024-2025) contain only 6 substantive reviews. Older reviews may not reflect current service quality.
• OFFICE STAFF PATTERN: Multiple independent reviews across different years (2019, 2021, 2017) specifically name a manager 'Maggie' as rude, dismissive, and unprofessional. This is a consistent named pattern, not isolated, and meaningfully impacts the professionalism score.
• GENERIC PRAISE FLAG: The review dated 2025-01-10 by 'Ty Robert' uses unusually formal, templated language ('exceptional service,' 'remarkable quality,' 'evident expertise') with no specific details about the job performed. This review has characteristics of a potentially inauthentic review and was weighted conservatively.

This WW Score is based on a large review set (85 reviews) spanning over a decade, giving it HIGH statistical confidence in direction, but the score should be interpreted cautiously given the wide variance in experience quality, a meaningful cluster of detailed negative reviews describing serious project completion failures, and the fact that recent reviews (past 12 months) are sparse and mixed.

Reddi Services has a large and broadly positive review base, with the majority of customers praising individual technicians — particularly Matt H, Matt Mattox, Bryant, Pepe, Gerald, Damion, Daniel, and others — for being knowledgeable, professional, courteous, and effective. The experience and professionalism dimensions are well-supported by hundreds of specific, detailed reviews. However, a meaningful and recurring pattern of negative reviews significantly drags down the scores: scheduling failures (no-shows, missed windows, no callbacks), pricing complaints (described as expensive, overpriced, or higher than expected), and a handful of serious workmanship or ethics complaints (broken pipes, misdiagnosis, upselling, and one allegation of offering a refund in exchange for review removal) all weigh heavily. The pricing dimension is notably weak, with multiple reviewers explicitly calling the company too expensive or noting surprise at final bills. Project completion is moderately strong when technicians do show up, but the volume of no-show and abandonment complaints prevents a higher score.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: At least 4 reviews appear to be near-identical duplicates posted on different dates (e.g., the AC midnight emergency review and the Bryant leak review each appear twice within days of each other). This inflates positive review counts and reduces confidence in the authenticity of the review pool.
• REVIEW REMOVAL ALLEGATION: One reviewer (Dec 2024) explicitly states that Reddi Services offered a reimbursement in exchange for removing a negative review, and then failed to follow through. This is a serious ethical flag and suggests possible review manipulation.
• SCHEDULING/NO-SHOW PATTERN: A statistically significant number of negative reviews (15+) describe the same failure mode: confirmed appointments with no technician arrival, no proactive communication, and dismissive responses when customers called to follow up. This is a systemic operational issue, not isolated incidents.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS: Multiple reviewers across different time periods describe pricing as significantly higher than competitors or higher than quoted, including one reviewer charged $693 for under 30 minutes of labor, and another charged $8,200 for an AC unit that still did not work.
• WORKMANSHIP COMPLAINTS: Several reviews describe technicians causing damage (broken pipes, damaged wiring, incorrect installations) and the company refusing accountability. One review describes a septic job done incorrectly with no warranty offered.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Approximately 10 reviews contain no text and only a 5-star rating. These provide no usable data and may artificially inflate the star average.
• RECENCY NOTE: All reviews analyzed span from approximately 2014 to June 2025. The most recent 12 months (mid-2024 to mid-2025) show a continued mix of strong individual technician praise alongside persistent scheduling and pricing complaints, suggesting no material improvement in operational reliability.

This WW Score is based on a very large review dataset and carries HIGH statistical confidence in its directional accuracy, but the score should be interpreted cautiously given confirmed duplicate reviews, a credible review-manipulation allegation, and a persistent pattern of scheduling failures and pricing complaints that suggest the customer experience is highly inconsistent depending on which technician is dispatched and whether the company follows through on its commitments.

Armstrong Plumbing scores well on professionalism and experience, with a large volume of reviews praising friendly, courteous, and knowledgeable technicians by name across many years of service. Project completion is generally strong, with most jobs described as finished promptly and correctly, though a meaningful minority of reviews describe incomplete work, repeat callbacks for the same issue, no-shows, and at least one case of a job abandoned mid-project. The most significant drag on the overall WW Score is pricing, which is the single most-complained-about dimension in the review set — numerous reviewers explicitly describe being quoted 2x to 4x competitor prices, receiving unexplained charges, or feeling overcharged for simple jobs, and this pattern is consistent across multiple years and locations. While many satisfied customers describe pricing as fair or reasonable, the volume and specificity of pricing complaints is too substantial to ignore and pulls the price-friendly score well below average.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: At least 6 reviews appear to be exact duplicates posted on consecutive dates in early June 2025 (e.g., 'Both gentlemen from Armstrong Plumbing made the job I had been putting off easy...' and 'The staff is very friendly, and the job was done perfectly!' each appear twice within 2 days, and 'Window was 8-12, tech showed up at 1.' and 'Carlos from Armstrong Plumbing was most professional...' also appear duplicated). These duplicates were counted only once per unique review text to avoid score inflation.
• REVIEW SOLICITATION FLAG: One reviewer explicitly states Armstrong 'bombards you with requests for online reviews, even after you already submit one,' which may artificially inflate review volume and skew the overall rating distribution toward 5 stars.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS ARE SYSTEMIC AND SPECIFIC: At least 18 reviews across multiple years explicitly cite overpricing, with several providing direct competitor comparisons showing Armstrong quotes 2x to 4x higher (e.g., $1,795 vs $450 competitor, $2,500 vs $800 competitor, $67,000 vs $19,000 competitor for re-pipe). This is not isolated and materially impacts the pricing dimension score.
• NO-SHOW AND SCHEDULING FAILURES: Multiple reviews describe technicians failing to appear within scheduled windows with no communication, including one reviewer who describes three consecutive no-shows over a month. This pattern negatively impacts both professionalism and project completion scores.
• RECENCY NOTE: The review set spans from 2006 to June 2025. Reviews from 2019 and earlier carry reduced weight. The majority of substantive reviews are from 2021 onward, and the most recent 12 months (mid-2024 to mid-2025) show a broadly positive but still mixed pattern consistent with the longer-term record.
• WORKMANSHIP FAILURES NOTED: Several reviews describe jobs that were not fixed correctly on the first visit, required multiple callbacks, or resulted in damage (e.g., ceiling collapse, flooded pantry, persistent leaks after repair). These are factored into the project completion score.
• AI SYSTEM FLAG: One reviewer specifically complained about Armstrong using AI for scheduling, which may affect the authenticity of some communication-related positive mentions.

This WW Score is based on a large and diverse review set spanning nearly two decades and carries HIGH overall confidence; however, the score should be interpreted with caution on the pricing dimension specifically, where the volume and specificity of overcharging complaints across many independent reviewers represents a consistent and credible pattern that prospective customers should investigate before hiring.

Bumble Bee Plumbing scores strongly on professionalism and experience, with the vast majority of reviewers praising technicians by name for being courteous, communicative, knowledgeable, and thorough. Project completion is generally solid, with many same-day and timely completions noted, though a small number of reviews cite missed appointments, incomplete work, and recurring leaks requiring callbacks. The most significant drag on the overall WW Score is pricing, which generated a substantial volume of explicit complaints — multiple reviewers described charges as 'ridiculous,' 'way overpriced,' or predatory, with specific examples including $1,189 for two toilet inlet valves, $816 quoted for a shower cartridge, $475 for one hour of garbage disposal labor, and $1,000 to hydro-jet a line. These pricing complaints are specific, credible, and numerous enough to materially reduce the pricing dimension score.

• DUPLICATE REVIEW FLAG: At least 10 reviews appear to be exact or near-exact duplicates posted on consecutive dates (e.g., the Anthony Burrola water softener review, the Dylan customer service review, the Angel Garcia review, the Buddy and Leo review, the Saul inspection review, the two Angel & Primo reviews, the two Reuben reviews, and the Fast/Friendly/Knowledgeable review all appear twice with dates one day apart). This is a strong indicator of review manipulation or artificial inflation. Confidence in the overall score is reduced accordingly.
• PRICING CONCERN: A significant number of reviews (approximately 10+) explicitly call out pricing as excessive, predatory, or far above competitor quotes. Specific dollar amounts cited suggest a pattern of high labor rates and upselling, not isolated incidents.
• CALLBACK / WORKMANSHIP CONCERN: At least two reviews describe recurring leaks from work done by Bumble Bee technicians, with one reviewer noting they had to have the company return multiple times to fix the same issues within a year.
• SUBSCRIPTION BILLING COMPLAINT: One reviewer explicitly accused the company of fraudulently enrolling customers in a subscription service without consent and billing for work not performed. This is a serious flag.
• RECENCY NOTE: The overwhelming majority of reviews are from 2024–2025 and are within the past 12 months, which is positive for recency weighting. A small number of reviews date back to 2005–2006 and were given minimal weight.
• GENERIC REVIEWS: Several reviews contain no substantive detail (e.g., 'Great service!', 'Well done', 'Great service! AGAIN!!!!', blank-text 5-star reviews). These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data.
• CONDUCT COMPLAINT: One review describes a Bumble Bee driver behaving aggressively on the road (honking, making threatening gestures, speeding). One review describes a technician (Chance) being disrespectful to a customer.

The WW Score of 72.1 carries HIGH data confidence due to the large review volume, but should be interpreted cautiously given confirmed duplicate reviews suggesting artificial inflation, a consistent and specific pattern of pricing complaints, and isolated but credible reports of substandard workmanship and billing irregularities.

AZ's Best Pipe Doctor Plumbing has a large and generally positive review base, with the majority of customers praising punctuality, friendliness, and technical knowledge across many technicians including Shaq, Matt, Chris, and Brandon. However, a meaningful cluster of negative reviews — spanning multiple years — raises serious concerns about pricing transparency, with multiple customers alleging hidden fees, misquoted costs, warranty deception, and failure to honor verbal commitments. Project completion is also a notable weakness, with several reviewers describing abandoned work, failure to follow up, callbacks not honored, and at least one instance of a technician leaving without completing the job and never returning. The pricing dimension is significantly dragged down by credible, detailed complaints about a $375 diagnostic fee, inflated quotes, and a disputed electronic signature incident. Experience scores remain relatively strong due to consistent praise for technical problem-solving, but are tempered by a few cases where technicians failed to diagnose issues correctly on the first visit.

• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: Two reviews with identical full text (the 'Family owned / Locally owned / HONEST' review) appear with dates 2025-06-02 and 2025-05-30 — this is a likely duplicate submission and has been counted only once for scoring purposes.
• 34 reviews contain no text whatsoever — only a star rating (all 5-star). These blank reviews provide no usable data for any dimension and inflate the apparent star average without substantive evidence. This pattern is a moderate fake review risk signal.
• A large proportion of the 5-star reviews use very generic praise ('great service,' 'highly recommend,' 'great job') with no specific details about the work performed, technician, or pricing. While not conclusive, this pattern warrants caution.
• Multiple detailed 1-star reviews allege serious ethical violations: lying about warranty status, adding fine print to invoices after electronic signature was obtained, charging $375 for a 10-15 minute visual inspection, refusing to honor quoted prices, and sending bills for work never discussed. These are specific, credible, and consistent across multiple unrelated reviewers spanning 2013–2025.
• Several reviews mention the Registrar of Contractors and the Arizona Attorney General's office, indicating escalated disputes beyond simple dissatisfaction.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of substantive reviews (both positive and negative) span 2011–2025. Negative pricing and completion complaints appear in both older (2013–2016) and recent (2024–2025) reviews, suggesting these are not isolated historical issues but potentially ongoing patterns.
• One review (2012) was edited from 5 stars to 2 stars after a no-show, an improperly installed water softener that failed from day one, an unfixed toilet that later overflowed, and complete failure to return calls — this multi-failure pattern is significant.
• One review (2023-10-04) describes a technician refusing to return for an emergency caused by an improperly installed O-ring, and then blaming the customer — corroborated by a second independent review describing the same incident from a different perspective.

This WW Score of 72.1 is based on a large review set and carries HIGH overall confidence in its statistical basis, but consumers should weight the recurring, detailed, and credible negative reviews about pricing deception, hidden fees, and project abandonment heavily — these patterns appear across multiple years and multiple unrelated customers, and are not offset by the volume of generic 5-star praise.