Find Nearby Plumbers In Phoenix, Arizona

Bradley Plumbing presents a deeply split profile across a large review set spanning roughly 2006 to 2025. Recent reviews (2022–2025) are overwhelmingly positive, praising responsiveness, fair pricing, professionalism, and quality workmanship on water heaters, softeners, and filtration systems. However, a substantial cluster of older negative reviews (2013–2020) describes serious failures: abandoned jobs, no-shows, unreturned calls, property damage, hidden fees, and work left incomplete or done incorrectly. Project completion is the most damaged dimension, with multiple reviewers explicitly reporting that work was left unfinished or that the plumber disappeared after partial payment. Pricing scores are pulled down by complaints of undisclosed fees, overcharging, and charges for unauthorized work, despite many recent customers praising affordability. The overall score reflects a business that appears to have improved significantly in recent years but carries a meaningful historical record of serious service failures.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: At least two pairs of nearly identical reviews exist — the 'hose bib' review (2024-09-12 and 2024-09-02) and the 'water softener go-to plumber' review (2023-06-10 and 2022-08-25) appear to be exact or near-exact duplicates, possibly submitted twice or copied. These were counted once each for scoring purposes.
• MULTIPLE STAFF NAMES DETECTED: Reviews reference 'Bradley,' 'Brad,' 'Troy Bradley,' 'Greg Bradley,' 'Greg,' 'Matt,' 'Jeff,' and 'Joe' as the plumber or owner. This strongly suggests either multiple different businesses operating under the 'Bradley Plumbing' name across different states and time periods, or a single business with inconsistent branding. Reviews from 2012–2016 referencing 'North St. Paul' and 'Greg' likely represent a different business or operator than the Arizona-based 'Brad/Troy' reviews from 2019–2025. This significantly undermines the reliability of treating all reviews as one entity.
• TEMPORAL SPLIT — POSSIBLE BUSINESS CHANGE OR OWNERSHIP TRANSITION: Negative reviews are heavily concentrated in 2013–2020, while positive reviews dominate 2021–2025. This could indicate a change in ownership, operator, or business practices, or it may reflect the mixing of two distinct businesses sharing the same name.
• BLANK AND CONTENT-FREE REVIEWS: At least 8 reviews contained no text (blank, a single emoji, a period, or 'unknown'). These were excluded from dimension scoring but counted in total reviews analyzed.
• RECENCY NOTE: Reviews from the past 12 months (mid-2024 to mid-2025) are strongly positive. If this is the current Arizona-based operation, recent performance appears solid. However, the historical negative record cannot be ignored.
• NO-SHOW AND ABANDONMENT PATTERN: At least 4 separate reviewers across different time periods explicitly reported that the plumber scheduled appointments and failed to appear without notice, and at least 3 reviewers reported jobs being abandoned mid-project with no follow-up. This is a significant pattern affecting project completion scores.
• PROPERTY DAMAGE COMPLAINTS: Multiple older reviews describe property damage (scratched tub, chipped vanity, cracked tile, stained carpet, caulk mess) with no remediation offered, which materially impacts professionalism and experience scores.

This WW Score should be treated with MODERATE-to-LOW trust due to strong evidence that reviews span multiple distinct business entities or operators sharing the 'Bradley Plumbing' name across different states and time periods, the presence of duplicate reviews, a stark temporal split between negative and positive feedback, and serious historical complaints about abandoned work and property damage that cannot be dismissed even if recent performance has improved.

Elite Rooter demonstrates strong technical expertise and professionalism from individual technicians, with many reviews praising specific workers by name for their skill and courtesy. However, the company is significantly hampered by serious pricing concerns, with numerous customers reporting dramatic price increases after initial quotes, aggressive upselling tactics, and charges substantially higher than competitors for identical work. Project completion issues are evident, with multiple reports of incomplete work, follow-up failures, and unresolved callbacks. Most critically, there is a documented pattern of insurance claim manipulation and aggressive pressure to file claims for damage the company may have caused, suggesting systemic business practice problems at the management level that contradict the quality work of field technicians.

• CRITICAL: Strong pattern of insurance claim fraud allegations across multiple reviews (2024-10-20, 2022-05-18, 2021-07-31, 2021-05-27, 2021-07-27). Customers report being pressured to file insurance claims for water damage, with supervisors arriving to encourage claims and recommend restoration companies.
• CRITICAL: Systematic price escalation pattern documented in at least 12 reviews. Initial quotes of $75-$650 escalate to $1200-$5700 after technician arrival or during job completion. This suggests either deceptive quoting or aggressive upselling.
• CRITICAL: Multiple reports of management non-responsiveness and broken promises regarding callbacks, follow-up work, and issue resolution (2024-06-10, 2024-05-06, 2022-11-01, 2022-04-28).
• CRITICAL: Documented cases of property damage caused by technicians (cracked pipes, damaged walls, scratched appliances) with company attempting to shift costs to customer insurance rather than taking responsibility.
• Pattern of recommending unnecessary major repairs (sewer line replacement, full bathroom remodels, pipe replacement) when simpler fixes would suffice, corroborated by second opinions from other plumbers.
• Multiple reviews indicate technicians work on commission, creating financial incentive for upselling and unnecessary work recommendations.
• Lien placement on customer homes reported in at least 2 reviews as aggressive collection tactic.
• Inconsistent service quality: excellent field technician performance contrasts sharply with management-level dishonesty and poor follow-through.
• Several reviews mention company refusing to provide documentation (camera footage, itemized breakdowns, paper estimates) after charging for services.
• Recency note: Most negative reviews cluster in 2021-2022 period, with some recent complaints in 2024 suggesting ongoing issues despite potential awareness.

This WW Score of 68.2 should be treated with caution despite HIGH confidence in the data: while the score reflects genuine high-quality field work and responsiveness, it masks a company with serious systemic integrity issues at the management level, particularly around pricing transparency, insurance claim practices, and follow-through on commitments. The score is pulled down appropriately by pricing concerns, but customers should be aware that the real risk lies not in technical incompetence but in potential financial exploitation through quote manipulation and aggressive insurance claim pressure.

Aqua Science receives genuinely strong praise from many customers for individual technicians who are punctual, friendly, knowledgeable, and communicative — names like Patrick, Joe, Jeremy, Sam, Michael Alvarez, and Kylan Asher are repeatedly highlighted as standout performers. However, the review corpus also contains a significant and consistent pattern of serious complaints spanning over a decade: missed or cancelled appointments without notice, technicians causing property damage (water leaks, destroyed hot water heaters, flooded homes) and then failing to follow through on repairs or compensation, misdiagnosis of problems, and poor responsiveness from management and customer service. Pricing complaints are notable, with multiple reviewers citing what they perceived as grossly inflated parts costs and billing for incomplete or faulty work. Project completion is a major weakness, with numerous reviews describing abandoned work, callbacks not honored, and jobs left in worse condition than found. The overall picture is a company with capable individual technicians but systemic failures in quality control, accountability, and customer service follow-through.

• 16 reviews contain no text whatsoever — only a star rating. These blank reviews were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data.
• Several reviews from 2025 use very similar phrasing ('professional,' 'efficient,' 'friendly,' 'answered all my questions') with no specific details, which may indicate coached or templated responses. Confidence in the high-score cluster is slightly reduced as a result.
• Two reviews dated 2024-10-19 are near-identical in text (same wording, same incident, posted 26 seconds apart) — this appears to be a duplicate submission of the same review and was counted only once for scoring purposes.
• Review recency is mixed: a meaningful portion of detailed negative reviews date from 2011–2016, while recent 2025 reviews skew heavily positive and brief. This temporal split may reflect genuine improvement or a change in review solicitation practices — caution is warranted.
• Multiple reviews reference the company operating under several names (Aqua Science, Pentair, Costless Water Systems, AZ Water Rentals, J&D Resources), which is a known flag for reputation management complexity.
• Recurring pattern of management not returning calls is mentioned across multiple independent reviews spanning 2004–2024, suggesting a long-standing systemic issue rather than isolated incidents.
• Several reviews describe technicians causing damage (flooding, shorted water heaters, reversed pump lines) with no adequate remediation offered — these are serious workmanship and liability concerns that significantly weigh down the project completion and experience scores.

This WW Score is based on a large review set (95 reviews) spanning over 20 years and carries HIGH overall confidence in its directional accuracy, but consumers should note that the score reflects a deeply divided customer base — individual technician quality varies widely, and systemic issues with accountability and follow-through are well-documented across multiple independent reviews.

Goettl exhibits a deeply polarized customer experience. While individual technicians frequently demonstrate strong professionalism, friendliness, and technical competence (72.5/100), the company is severely hampered by systemic operational failures in project completion (55.0/100) and egregious pricing practices (38.0/100). Appointment cancellations, no-shows, extended delays, and failure to follow through on promised callbacks are pervasive complaints spanning multiple years. Pricing is consistently cited as excessive, with markups of 400-800% on parts and quotes 2-4x higher than competitors for identical work. The company's administrative and scheduling infrastructure appears fundamentally broken, undermining otherwise capable field technicians.

• SEVERE SYSTEMIC ISSUES: Appointment cancellations and no-shows are documented across 25+ reviews spanning 2022-2025, indicating chronic operational dysfunction rather than isolated incidents.
• PRICING FRAUD PATTERN: Multiple reviews document extreme price gouging (e.g., $65 part quoted at $500+, $1,000 repair quoted at $8,000, $50 part charged at $450-$500). This is not isolated—it appears systematic.
• QUALITY CONTROL FAILURE: Numerous reviews report installation defects (improper wiring, missing components, dented fins, poor ductwork), requiring multiple return visits to correct Goettl's own errors.
• WARRANTY DISPUTES: Multiple customers report Goettl refusing to honor warranty coverage for defects, instead charging customers for repairs that should be covered.
• FOLLOW-UP BREAKDOWN: Pervasive pattern of promised manager callbacks never occurring, escalations ignored, and customer service representatives providing false information about technician contact attempts.
• RECENT DETERIORATION: Negative reviews cluster heavily in 2023-2024, with customers noting the company was better years ago, suggesting active decline.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK - MODERATE: The 40+ five-star reviews from June 2025 (all dated 2025-06-08 or 2025-06-07) contain suspiciously generic praise with minimal specifics and identical structural patterns. However, these are balanced by detailed negative reviews with specific dates, dollar amounts, and technical details, reducing overall fake review confidence.
• BAIT-AND-SWITCH TACTICS: Multiple reviews document high-pressure sales tactics, misrepresentation of equipment quality/efficiency, and upselling during service calls.

This WW Score of 62.8 is highly reliable due to large sample size (125 reviews) and consistent patterns across dimensions, but it masks a company in severe operational crisis: technicians are generally competent and professional, but the company's scheduling, pricing, warranty practices, and follow-up systems are fundamentally broken and appear predatory. Customers should expect excellent initial service quality but should be prepared for appointment failures, extreme overcharging, and difficulty obtaining promised follow-up or warranty support.

Benjamin Franklin Plumbing receives consistently strong marks for professionalism, punctuality, and technical competence from a large volume of reviewers, with many customers praising courteous, knowledgeable technicians who arrive on time and explain their work clearly. However, pricing is the single most dominant negative theme across thousands of reviews, with an extraordinary number of customers reporting charges that are two to five times higher than competing plumbers for identical work — a pattern so consistent and widespread it significantly drags down the overall score. Project completion is mixed: while most jobs are finished correctly, a meaningful minority of reviews describe incomplete work, warranty disputes, no-shows, and situations where problems were not resolved on the first visit. Experience scores are moderate-to-good, with many technicians demonstrating genuine expertise, but offset by recurring reports of misdiagnosis, unnecessary upselling, and technicians who appeared to lack knowledge for the specific job at hand.

• PRICING CONCERN — Extreme and consistent overpricing is the single most reported issue across this review set, spanning thousands of individual reviews across multiple years and franchise locations. Customers routinely report paying 2x–5x the market rate for standard jobs. This is not isolated; it appears to be a systemic franchise pricing model.
• UPSELLING PATTERN — A very large number of reviews describe aggressive or misleading upselling tactics, including recommending unnecessary full replacements instead of repairs, inflated estimates that drop significantly when the customer pushes back, and high-pressure sales pitches for service contracts.
• FRANCHISE INCONSISTENCY — Reviews span many different franchise locations operating under the Benjamin Franklin Plumbing brand. Quality, pricing, and professionalism vary significantly by location, making aggregate scores less reliable for any single location.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK — A significant portion of reviews (estimated 15–20%) contain no text and only a 5-star rating. These blank 5-star reviews are a known pattern associated with review padding. Confidence in the positive score distribution is reduced accordingly.
• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED — Multiple reviews appear to be exact duplicates (identical text, same or adjacent dates), suggesting possible review manipulation or system errors in the data set.
• WARRANTY AND FOLLOW-THROUGH ISSUES — Dozens of reviews describe warranty disputes, failure to honor service agreements, no-call no-shows on scheduled return visits, and management that was unresponsive to complaints — indicating systemic customer service failures beyond individual technician performance.
• ELDERLY AND VULNERABLE CUSTOMER EXPLOITATION — Multiple reviews explicitly describe situations where elderly or vulnerable customers were quoted prices far above market rate, with some reviewers alleging deliberate targeting of people who lacked knowledge to push back.
• RECENCY NOTE — Reviews span from approximately 2004 to June 2025. The most recent reviews (2025) continue to show the same pricing complaints and mixed service quality as older reviews, suggesting no meaningful improvement over time.

This WW Score is based on an exceptionally large review dataset and carries HIGH statistical confidence in its directional accuracy; however, the score should be interpreted with caution because it aggregates multiple franchise locations under one brand, a significant volume of blank 5-star reviews artificially inflates the raw rating, and the pricing dimension — which is overwhelmingly negative — is the most reliable and consistent signal in the entire dataset.

Rooter Ranger presents a deeply polarized review profile. On the positive side, a large volume of customers praise individual technicians by name for being professional, friendly, knowledgeable, and prompt, and many report satisfaction with the advertised drain-clearing specials at fair prices. However, a substantial and recurring pattern of serious negative reviews significantly drags down every dimension: scheduling failures and no-shows are among the most frequently cited complaints, with dozens of customers reporting they waited hours or full days without technicians arriving or communicating. Pricing is a major liability, with numerous reviewers — including contractors and repeat customers — reporting quotes that were two to ten times higher than competitors for identical work, and several alleging outright deceptive upselling tactics. Project completion is also heavily penalized by reviews describing abandoned jobs, unresolved leaks after service, warranty refusals, and multi-day jobs that stretched into weeks. The experience dimension is mixed: while many individual technicians are praised for skill, there are credible accounts of misdiagnosis, damage caused during service, and work that had to be redone by other companies.

• FAKE REVIEW RISK — MODERATE: A significant number of reviews are blank (rating only, no text), nearly all of which are 5-star. These provide no usable data and inflate the raw star average without substantive evidence. They have been excluded from scoring.
• UPSELLING PATTERN — HIGH CONCERN: A recurring and specific pattern across many independent reviews describes supervisors or field managers arriving after initial technicians and presenting dramatically inflated quotes (ranging from $3,000 to $40,000+) for work that second-opinion plumbers completed for a fraction of the price. This pattern is too consistent and specific to dismiss.
• NO-SHOW / SCHEDULING FAILURE PATTERN — HIGH CONCERN: Dozens of reviews across multiple years and locations describe the same failure mode: confirmed appointments, no technician arrival, no proactive communication, and customers having to repeatedly call in to get updates. This is a systemic operational issue, not isolated incidents.
• WARRANTY AND FOLLOW-UP FAILURES: Multiple reviews describe the company refusing to honor stated warranties, failing to return calls after damage was caused during service, and ghosting customers who requested invoices or refunds. Several reviewers mention filing complaints with the Arizona ROC or BBB.
• RECENCY NOTE: Reviews span from 2019 to June 2025. The no-show and upselling complaints are present throughout the entire date range, indicating these are persistent structural issues rather than isolated past problems. The most recent reviews (May–June 2025) continue to show both strong positive individual technician praise and serious scheduling/communication failures.
• ETHICAL CONCERN: At least two reviews allege that technicians offered discounts in exchange for 5-star reviews before work was completed, which is a direct manipulation of the review record and reduces confidence in the overall star rating.

This WW Score of 62.4 is based on a very large review set and carries HIGH statistical confidence, but the score should be interpreted cautiously: the company's performance is highly variable depending on which technician is dispatched and whether the job is simple or complex, and the persistent patterns of no-shows, aggressive upselling, and post-service abandonment represent genuine and documented risks for any prospective customer.