Find Nearby Plumbers In Sierra Vista, Arizona

Struse Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism with consistent praise for courteous, knowledgeable technicians who communicate clearly and respond quickly to service calls. Project completion is generally reliable with most jobs finished satisfactorily and follow-through honored. However, pricing is a significant weakness, with multiple recent and older reviews citing excessive charges, hidden fees, and poor value for money. Technical experience is solid with skilled problem-solving, but the pricing concerns and occasional responsiveness issues (delayed estimates, missed callbacks) prevent a higher overall score. Recent reviews (2025) are predominantly positive, but historical patterns of billing disputes and customer dissatisfaction persist.

• PRICING PATTERN: Multiple independent reviews across different years (2024, 2022, 2020, 2018) cite excessive pricing, hidden fees, and poor value. This is not isolated and suggests systemic pricing practices rather than isolated incidents.
• ESTIMATE DELAYS: Two recent 2025 reviews mention extended waits for estimates (2+ weeks, 3 weeks) despite initial quick response promises, indicating potential operational bottleneck.
• RESPONSIVENESS GAPS: Historical reviews (2020, 2018) document unreturned calls and poor follow-up despite being past customers, though recent reviews show improved responsiveness.
• EMPTY REVIEWS: 8 reviews contain no text (only 5-star ratings), limiting data quality. These may inflate apparent satisfaction artificially.
• RECENCY BIAS: Most detailed positive reviews are from 2025 (past 6 months), while detailed negative reviews span 2018-2024. Recent service quality appears improved, but pricing complaints persist.
• INVOICE/BILLING ISSUES: Multiple reviews mention missing itemized bills, unexpected service fees, and lack of written estimates, suggesting administrative/transparency problems.

This score should be treated with MODERATE confidence. While professionalism and project completion are well-supported by numerous mentions, the persistent and credible pricing complaints across multiple years significantly undermine overall trustworthiness. The recent improvement in responsiveness is encouraging, but the historical pattern of billing disputes and the current estimate delays suggest caution is warranted. Customers should request detailed written estimates and clarify all fees before engaging services.

Bobby receives strong praise from repeat customers across multiple projects, with positive mentions of punctuality, friendliness, responsiveness, and quality workmanship on diverse jobs including plumbing, drywall, painting, and door installation. Pricing is described as reasonable and fair by two reviewers, though limited mentions keep confidence on that dimension low. However, two 1-star reviews meaningfully drag down the professionalism and overall scores — one citing a complete failure to respond to an inquiry over two weeks, and another citing a refusal of service that the reviewer perceived as discriminatory. These negative reviews are credible and specific, and cannot be dismissed. Project completion scores are solid among customers who actually engaged Bobby, but the responsiveness failures represent a real pattern worth noting.

• Two credible 1-star reviews cite serious responsiveness and customer service failures — one involving no response over two weeks, one involving a refused service call. These are specific and plausible and are weighted accordingly.
• Most positive reviews are dated 2018–2021, with only one review from 2023. The recency of positive feedback is limited, and it is unclear whether service quality and responsiveness have improved or declined in recent years.
• The positive reviews, while detailed and credible individually, are all 5-star ratings with no mixed feedback, which slightly elevates the risk of selection bias in who chooses to leave reviews.
• Small sample size of 6 reviews limits overall reliability. Scores should be treated as directional rather than definitive.

This WW Score is based on a small and partially dated review set with a meaningful split between strong praise and serious complaints, making it moderately reliable at best — prospective customers should weigh the responsiveness concerns seriously before engaging.

A Good Plumber presents a deeply mixed picture across all dimensions. The majority of positive reviews praise individual technicians — particularly Kevin, Brandon, Terry, and Branden — for being professional, friendly, and technically capable, which lifts the experience and professionalism scores. However, a persistent and serious pattern of no-shows, full voicemail boxes, unreturned calls, and abandoned or incomplete jobs significantly drags down professionalism and project completion scores. Pricing is generally viewed favorably by satisfied customers, but at least two reviews explicitly describe overcharging and broken promises of refunds, preventing a higher score. The volume and specificity of negative reviews — spanning from 2014 through 2024 — indicate these are not isolated incidents but recurring operational failures that represent a genuine reliability risk for prospective customers.

• RECURRING NO-SHOW PATTERN: At least 5 reviews across multiple years (2018, 2024) describe scheduled appointments where the company failed to appear and did not answer calls or return messages. This is a systemic issue, not an isolated incident.
• FULL VOICEMAIL BOX: Multiple reviewers across different time periods report being unable to leave a voicemail because the box was full, suggesting chronic communication infrastructure failures.
• ABANDONED JOB: One review (2019) explicitly states the company started a job, accepted a quote over $1,000, and then stopped showing up and stopped returning calls — a serious project completion failure.
• BILLING MISCONDUCT ALLEGATION: One reviewer (2019) alleges the company double-billed two parties for the same service call and that the owner refused to respond. A separate reviewer (2018) alleges overcharging and a promised refund that was never delivered. A third reviewer (2024) describes a similar broken refund promise over 3 months. This pattern across multiple years is a significant red flag.
• INCOMPLETE WORK AND PROPERTY DAMAGE: One review (2018) states the plumber left a 6-inch hole in drywall without repair after cutting it open. Another (2023) describes a leak from the company's own pipe installation work that took over a month to fix and caused an $800 water bill.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: Two reviews with identical full text appear in the dataset (the wobbly toilet review, dated 2023-06-10 and 2022-11-30). The earlier date may be the original; the later entry may be a duplicate submission. This was excluded from inflating mention counts.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Three reviews contain no text (only a star rating of 5.0). These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent reviews (2024) include both strong positives and serious negatives, indicating the operational issues have not been resolved over time. Negative patterns date back to at least 2014, suggesting long-standing structural problems.
• POSSIBLE FAKE REVIEW CONCERN (MINOR): Several short, generic 5-star reviews (e.g., 'Good job and absolutely Friendly', 'Very well. I was very pleased. Excellent.', 'easy', 'unknown') lack any specific detail. While not conclusive, these reviews provide minimal evidentiary value and were weighted conservatively.

This WW Score is based on a substantial volume of reviews (68 total, 62 with usable data) spanning over a decade, giving it HIGH statistical confidence, but prospective customers should treat the score with caution given the documented and recurring patterns of no-shows, unreturned communications, billing disputes, and incomplete work that appear consistently across multiple years and multiple reviewers.

Huachuca Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism and responsiveness in customer interactions, with multiple reviews praising punctuality, courtesy, and quick service. However, the company is significantly undermined by serious pricing concerns—customers report excessive labor charges ($300+/hour for routine work), inflated trip fees ($99–$129), and questionable billing practices including charges for ineffective repairs. Project completion is generally solid when work is done, but technical expertise is inconsistent; one detailed review documents a critical installation error (missing ground connection on igniter module) that the company should have caught, requiring a third plumber to resolve. The stark contrast between 5-star reviews (2019–2022) and 1-star reviews (2012–2020) suggests either inconsistent service quality over time or selective positive feedback.

• PRICING RED FLAG: Multiple independent reviews (2012, 2020, 2020, 2020) cite excessive labor rates, inflated trip charges, and aggressive billing practices. One customer reported initial charge of $1,200 reduced to $590 after complaint, indicating potential overcharging.
• TECHNICAL COMPETENCY CONCERN: Detailed 2022 review documents a critical installation error (missing ground on igniter module) from original Huachuca installation that went undetected and required a third plumber to diagnose and fix. This suggests gaps in quality control for complex systems.
• RECENCY BIAS: Most positive reviews are from 2019–2022 (recent), while negative reviews span 2012–2020 (older). However, pricing complaints appear consistently across the entire timeline, suggesting this is a persistent issue rather than a resolved past problem.
• BILLING TRANSPARENCY ISSUE: One review explicitly states the company 'quickly lowered charges' after complaint, implying initial overcharging. This pattern suggests non-transparent or aggressive initial pricing.

This score should be treated with caution. While professionalism and completion metrics are moderately strong, the consistent and detailed pricing complaints across multiple independent reviews spanning a decade, combined with documented technical oversights, indicate real operational issues that outweigh positive service experiences. The WW Score of 62.8 reflects a company with good customer service skills but serious concerns about fair pricing and technical depth.

Jason demonstrates strong technical skills and quality workmanship when jobs are completed, with multiple reviews praising his expertise and professionalism during service delivery. However, his score is significantly dragged down by a consistent pattern of unreliability: three separate reviews document no-shows, last-minute cancellations, and failure to communicate with customers who took time off work. Pricing appears fair based on limited mention, but professionalism is undermined by poor punctuality and communication practices. The contractor shows capability but lacks consistency in honoring commitments.

• CRITICAL: Pattern of no-shows and cancellations documented in 3 of 6 reviews (50% failure rate on scheduling). Reviews from 2021-2022 show repeated issues with the same problem.
• Recency concern: Most reviews are from 2021-2022 (4-5 years old). Only 1 recent review from August 2024 shows positive experience, but insufficient data to determine if behavior has improved.
• Inconsistent reliability: Positive reviews focus on work quality when completed; negative reviews focus on failure to show up or communicate. This suggests execution quality is good but business operations/scheduling are problematic.
• Limited pricing data: Only 1 mention of pricing (the $50 estimate fee that was never delivered). Cannot reliably assess price-friendliness dimension.

This score should be treated with caution due to age of most reviews and the stark contradiction between work quality and scheduling reliability; the August 2024 review suggests possible improvement, but more recent data is needed to confirm whether the no-show pattern has been resolved.

The review set for Raul's plumbing presents a deeply divided picture, with 5 positive reviews offset by 5 negative reviews of significant severity. Professionalism is the most frequently mentioned dimension and is heavily dragged down by multiple explicit complaints of no-shows, failure to return calls, and broken commitments — behaviors described as 'extremely unprofessional' across several independent reviews. Pricing is a notable concern, with two separate reviewers citing price changes after initial quotes and one describing charges as excessive, though a few positive reviewers praised fair or reasonable pricing. Project completion is similarly mixed: some jobs were completed well and on time, but at least two reviews describe work that was either abandoned, never started, or left incomplete with unresolved leaks. Experience scores modestly higher due to a few credible positive accounts from reviewers with relevant technical knowledge, but is undermined by one detailed account of failed repairs and a $40 fix by a third party.

• Review spread is wide across years (2013–2022), with the majority of reviews being older than 12 months. Only one review is from 2022, and the most recent positive reviews are from 2021 and earlier. Recency weighting reduces confidence in positive signals.
• No fake review patterns detected — reviews vary in tone, detail, and rating, suggesting authentic authorship across the set.
• Two of the five negative reviews are from 2013, which are the oldest in the dataset. While still valid, their age means they carry reduced weight in the final score.
• Multiple independent reviewers cite no-show behavior and broken appointment commitments, which is a consistent and credible negative pattern across different years (2016, 2018, 2022).
• Price-switching behavior (quoting one price then raising it on arrival) is cited by two separate reviewers in different years, suggesting a possible systemic pattern rather than isolated incidents.

This WW Score is based on 10 reviews spanning nearly a decade, with high mention counts across all dimensions, but the score should be treated with moderate trust due to the age of many reviews and the absence of recent positive data to confirm whether service quality has improved.