Find Nearby Plumbers In Surprise, Arizona

Pridemark Plumbing, operated by Donnie, receives consistently positive feedback across all four dimensions from a small review set. Professionalism is the most consistently mentioned trait, with all four reviews noting friendliness, punctuality, cleanliness, and a no-pressure sales approach. Pricing is mentioned favorably in two reviews, with one explicitly calling out 'great pricing' and another noting no upselling, suggesting fair and transparent practices. Project completion and workmanship quality are supported by three reviews referencing specific completed jobs — a water softener installation, an RO system, and a sink replacement — all described as successfully finished with attention to detail. However, the total review count of only four limits the reliability of these scores, and all reviews are more than two years old as of mid-2025.

• Only 4 reviews total — scores carry very limited statistical weight and should be interpreted cautiously.
• All reviews are dated between 2020 and 2022, meaning no reviews exist from the past 12–24 months. Recency is a concern; current performance cannot be assessed.
• All reviews are 5-star ratings with no negative or mixed feedback. While the reviews do contain specific details (named contractor, specific jobs, specific traits), the uniformly perfect ratings warrant mild caution.
• Two reviews mention nearly identical scenarios (whole house water softener installation) with similar praise language. This could reflect genuine repeat service type but is worth noting as a minor pattern flag.

This WW Score is based on only 4 reviews, all older than 2 years, and should be treated as a preliminary indicator only — not a reliable representation of current or consistent performance.

All four reviews speak positively about professionalism, highlighting friendliness, prompt responsiveness, and punctuality across multiple technicians. Project completion is consistently praised — jobs were finished quickly, cleanly, and with follow-through, including going above and beyond on at least one occasion. Workmanship quality is noted in three reviews with specific praise for stellar results and expert advice. Pricing is only mentioned in one review as 'reasonable,' which limits confidence in that dimension significantly. The overall picture is positive but the small review pool and age of most reviews (2018–2020, with only one from 2022) temper confidence in the final score.

• Only 4 reviews total — WW Score should be treated as preliminary and not fully reliable.
• 3 of 4 reviews are more than 3 years old (2018–2020); only 1 review is from the past 3 years (2022). Recent performance cannot be confidently assessed.
• All reviews are 5-star ratings with no negative feedback of any kind. While the reviews do contain specific details that reduce fake review suspicion, the uniformly perfect ratings across a small sample warrants mild caution.
• Pricing dimension is based on a single mention from 2018 — treat that score with very low confidence.

This WW Score is based on only 4 reviews, the majority of which are over 3 years old, making it a low-reliability snapshot that should not be used as a definitive assessment of current contractor performance.

Matt receives consistently positive feedback across all four dimensions from the reviews available. His professionalism stands out clearly, with multiple reviewers noting his polite demeanor, responsiveness, and willingness to go beyond expectations — including staying on a difficult job without complaint and making a second trip the same day. Project completion is well-supported, with reviewers describing complex jobs (main line replacement, water heater warranty work, major drain backup) that were seen through to resolution. Experience is evidenced by his handling of technically challenging scenarios such as old 1950s plumbing and deep excavation under a concrete patio. Pricing is mentioned positively in two reviews, with one calling it 'extremely fair,' though the limited mentions reduce confidence in that dimension.

• Only 4 reviews total — WW Score cannot be considered reliable; treat as directional only.
• All reviews are 5-star with no negative feedback, which warrants mild caution, though the reviews do contain specific job details and varied scenarios that reduce the likelihood of fabrication.
• Three of the four reviews are from 2016–2020, making all reviews more than 4 years old as of 2024. Recency is a significant concern — contractor quality and availability may have changed substantially.
• Small sample size (4 reviews) means a single negative experience could dramatically alter the score.

This WW Score is based on only 4 reviews, all of which are at least 4 years old, making it LOW reliability — the score reflects a directional positive signal but should not be used as a confident assessment of current contractor quality.

Brian receives consistent praise for punctuality, communication, and professionalism across three of four reviews, supporting a solid professionalism score. However, pricing is a mixed picture: two reviewers found his rates fair or better than competitors, while one reviewer explicitly called out a $1,050 quote for a straightforward sink installation as poor value at roughly $500/hour, which meaningfully drags the pricing score down. Project completion is mentioned positively in two reviews — notably a same-day emergency pipe repair — but the limited mention count keeps confidence low. Experience and workmanship are described positively in three reviews, with words like 'knowledgeable,' 'quality service,' and 'amazing job,' supporting a moderately confident experience score.

• Only 4 reviews total — WW Score should be treated as preliminary and not fully reliable.
• Two of the three positive reviews (2021 and 2023) are older than 12 months from the most recent review date; only one positive review falls within the past 12 months.
• The three 5-star reviews use somewhat generic praise language ('great,' 'amazing,' 'good man'), though they do include specific details (same-day response, gas stub-out retrofit, flat-rate quoting) that reduce fake review suspicion.
• No fake review pattern detected, but small sample size limits confidence significantly.

This WW Score is based on only 4 reviews with mixed recency and should be considered a low-confidence preliminary assessment; significantly more reviews are needed before this score can be trusted as representative of consistent contractor performance.

Cool Blew has a large and long-standing customer base with many genuinely positive experiences, particularly around individual technicians such as Dan, Edward, Ralf, and Ian, who are repeatedly praised for punctuality, communication, and technical skill. However, a significant and consistent thread of negative reviews — spanning multiple years and continuing into 2024–2025 — documents serious concerns across all four dimensions: rude and unresponsive office staff, overcharging and hidden fees, misdiagnosis, incomplete repairs, and in several cases work that made problems worse. Pricing is the weakest dimension, with multiple credible accounts of charges far exceeding market rates (e.g., $960 overcharge on a water heater, $1,773 for a $300 motor, $1,100 labor for a one-hour job). Project completion is also significantly dragged down by reviews describing abandoned work, multi-week delays in extreme heat, and repairs that failed within days. The overall score reflects a company with genuine technical talent at the field level but persistent systemic failures in office operations, pricing transparency, and quality control.

• 23 reviews contain no text — only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence. Their presence inflates the apparent star average and may reflect incomplete submissions or padding.
• Multiple reviews from 2022-06-10 share the exact same date with no review text, which is a pattern consistent with review padding or bulk submission. Confidence in the aggregate star rating is reduced.
• Several positive reviews are very brief and generic (e.g., 'great service', 'best service', 'down the street from me') with no specifics, which is consistent with low-effort or potentially inauthentic reviews.
• Negative reviews span from 2010 through June 2025, indicating that problems with office staff rudeness, overcharging, and incomplete work are not isolated incidents but a recurring pattern across many years.
• At least 6 reviews explicitly describe being overcharged or receiving pricing that was significantly above market rate, which is a strong and consistent signal of a systemic pricing integrity problem.
• At least 5 reviews describe repairs that failed shortly after completion or were left incomplete, indicating a meaningful project completion risk.
• Multiple reviews describe rude, dismissive, or deceptive behavior from office/phone staff specifically, suggesting a bifurcation between field technician quality and back-office quality.
• One negative review from 2025-06-01 describes a technician allegedly recommending an unnecessary service (coil cleaning) that, when declined, was later used by the home warranty company to void coverage — a serious ethical allegation.
• Recency note: The most recent reviews (May–June 2025) include both strong positives and strong negatives, indicating the mixed quality pattern is ongoing and not improving.

This WW Score is based on a large review set (175 total, 152 with usable data) spanning 2010–2025, giving it HIGH statistical confidence, but the score should be interpreted cautiously because the dataset contains a meaningful proportion of blank reviews that inflate star averages, and the negative reviews are specific, credible, and recurring across many years — suggesting the 68.4 score accurately reflects a company with capable field technicians but unreliable office operations, inconsistent pricing integrity, and a non-trivial risk of incomplete or failed repairs.

This contractor shows a clear split between positive recent experiences and a significant pattern of serious failures in older reviews. Professionalism scores are dragged down substantially by multiple reviews describing no-shows, missed appointment windows without communication, rude customer service staff, and failure to honor warranties — even though many recent reviews praise individual technicians as friendly and knowledgeable. Pricing is the weakest dimension, with multiple reviewers explicitly calling out deceptive quoting practices, bait-and-switch pricing escalations, and charges that were disputed as unnecessary or fraudulent. Project completion is mixed: several reviews confirm jobs were finished well, but others describe incomplete work, return visits for the same unresolved issue, and a refusal to honor a warranty on a sump pump installation that failed. Experience scores moderately, with skilled individual technicians praised in recent reviews, but offset by older reviews describing misdiagnoses, unnecessary work recommendations, and incorrect information given to customers.

• 21 out of 58 reviews contain no text whatsoever — only a star rating. These blank reviews cannot be used for dimensional scoring and inflate the apparent review count without providing verifiable evidence of quality.
• Multiple blank 5-star reviews clustered on the same dates (e.g., 2025-06-02, 2025-05-26, 2025-05-10, 2025-04-10) are a potential indicator of fake or incentivized reviews. This pattern warrants caution.
• A 1-star review from 2025-06-02 explicitly describes a bait-and-switch pricing scheme escalating from $700 to $1,500 to $8,500, with a second company resolving the issue more cheaply. This is a serious fraud allegation.
• A 2019 review describes being charged $250 twice for the same unresolved issue, receiving false information, and being denied requested video evidence — suggesting a pattern of deceptive practices.
• A 2019 review describes Roto-Rooter recommending a $2,500 pipe excavation for a pipe that was not actually collapsed, confirmed by a competing company with camera inspection.
• Recency note: Several of the most damaging reviews (no-shows, missed windows, warranty refusal) date from 2018–2021. Recent 2025 reviews are more positive, suggesting possible improvement in field technician quality, but the pricing and scheduling concerns persist into 2025.
• The overall review set spans 2016–2025. Older reviews (pre-2022) were given reduced weight in scoring but were not excluded, as they document serious recurring patterns.

This WW Score is based on 37 reviews with usable text content out of 58 total, with HIGH confidence across all scored dimensions due to mention volume, but the score should be interpreted cautiously given credible fraud allegations, a suspicious cluster of blank 5-star reviews, and a documented history of no-shows and deceptive pricing practices.