Find Nearby Plumbers In Tempe, Arizona

Kent Mortensen demonstrates strong technical expertise and generally reliable service delivery, with most customers praising his responsiveness, knowledge, and workmanship quality. However, his professionalism score is tempered by one detailed negative review citing poor empathy and problem-solving during a complex faucet installation, and pricing concerns appear in multiple reviews suggesting occasional overcharging or lack of transparency. The WW Score of 81.2 reflects a contractor with solid fundamentals and long-term customer relationships, but with meaningful gaps in customer service consistency and pricing fairness that prevent a higher rating.

• RECENCY CONCERN: 7 of 11 reviews are older than 5 years (2018 or earlier). Only 2 reviews from 2019 or later. Recent performance data is limited.
• PRICING INCONSISTENCY: Multiple reviews mention 'reasonable prices' and 'fair pricing,' but two separate reviews (2018 and 2013) explicitly cite overcharging or excessive service call fees for simple jobs. This suggests pricing may be inconsistent or context-dependent.
• PROFESSIONALISM VARIANCE: One detailed 1-star review (2018) describes lack of empathy, poor problem-solving, and indifference to customer dissatisfaction during a multi-visit job. This contrasts sharply with overwhelmingly positive reviews but indicates service quality is not uniformly high.
• POTENTIAL SELECTION BIAS: Most reviews are 5-star with generic praise. The two negative reviews (1-star and 2-star) are notably detailed and specific, suggesting satisfied customers may leave brief positive reviews while dissatisfied customers provide detailed accounts.

This WW Score should be treated with moderate caution due to significant recency bias (64% of reviews older than 5 years) and evidence of inconsistent pricing practices and customer service delivery. The score reflects historical performance more than current capability, and the presence of detailed negative reviews alongside generic praise suggests real variability in customer experience that may not be fully captured by the aggregate score.

Ideal Plumbing demonstrates strong performance across professionalism and project completion, with consistent praise for punctuality, communication, and on-time service delivery. Technicians are described as knowledgeable and professional, with one detailed review highlighting technical expertise and problem-solving ability. Pricing feedback is minimal (only one explicit mention of fair pricing and no gouging), limiting confidence in that dimension. All five reviews are recent (within 12 months) and contain specific details about service experiences, suggesting authentic feedback rather than generic praise.

• All 5 reviews are 5-star ratings with no negative feedback — while specific details are present, the absence of any critical comments or lower ratings is atypical and should be noted
• Pricing dimension based on only 1 mention; insufficient data to reliably assess value proposition
• Small sample size (5 reviews) limits statistical confidence; recommend collecting additional reviews before making major business decisions

This WW Score of 88.3 should be treated with moderate caution due to the small sample size and lack of pricing data; the score reflects strong professionalism and project completion but is not yet backed by sufficient volume to be considered highly reliable.

Speedy Water Heater demonstrates strong performance across professionalism and project completion. Reviews consistently highlight rapid response times, quick scheduling, and same-day installation capability. Pricing is mentioned positively in one review as 'great,' and workmanship quality is implied through customer satisfaction. However, the dataset is small (3 usable reviews) and heavily skewed toward older dates (2006–2015), limiting confidence in current performance. The contractor excels at emergency responsiveness and follow-through on commitments.

• RECENCY CONCERN: 3 of 4 reviews are from 2006–2015 (9–18 years old). Only 1 review from 2015. No recent data available to assess current service quality.
• INSUFFICIENT SAMPLE SIZE: Only 4 total reviews analyzed; 1 review marked 'unknown' with no usable text. Scoring based on 3 reviews is below recommended threshold for high confidence.
• LIMITED PRICING DATA: Only 1 review explicitly mentions pricing ('great price'). Cannot reliably assess pricing dimension.
• GENERIC PRAISE: Review 2 ('good experience, fast and efficient') lacks specific detail about what was done or why it was good.

This WW Score should be treated with caution due to small sample size (3 usable reviews) and significant age of data (most reviews 9+ years old). The score reflects historical performance only and may not represent current service standards.

All Aloha Plumbing scores strongly on professionalism and experience, with dozens of reviewers praising named technicians — particularly Eddie, Louis, and Kaleb — for punctuality, friendliness, clear communication, and technical competence. Project completion is generally positive, with most jobs described as finished thoroughly, though one notable case involved a toilet that re-clogged within three months and another where a job required a same-day return visit to finish. The most significant drag on the overall WW Score is pricing: multiple independent reviewers (including a self-described engineer and a customer who obtained a competing quote) describe pricing as dramatically inflated, and three separate reviews describe a high-pressure upsell sales tactic involving a 'call the manager' negotiation — one reviewer explicitly states the company offered discounts in exchange for positive reviews, which raises a serious integrity flag. The pricing dimension score of 42 reflects a genuine and recurring pattern of complaints that cannot be dismissed as isolated incidents.

• FAKE REVIEW RISK — MODERATE: A large cluster of reviews dated exactly 2025-05-10 (10 reviews on the same day) and 2025-03-11 (11 reviews on the same day) is statistically unusual and may indicate a coordinated review solicitation campaign or bulk submission. Many of these reviews are brief, generic, and lack specific job details.
• REVIEW MANIPULATION CONCERN — HIGH: One reviewer (2023-10-17, 2-star) explicitly states that the company's manager offered a $400 discount in exchange for a positive review during a service call. This is a direct allegation of review manipulation and should be treated seriously when interpreting the overall review profile.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS — RECURRING: At least 5 independent reviews (1-star and 2-star) describe pricing as significantly above market rate, with specific dollar comparisons provided in two cases. This is not a one-off complaint — it is a consistent pattern across multiple years (2022–2025).
• HIGH-PRESSURE SALES TACTICS — RECURRING: At least 3 reviews describe a structured upsell process involving subscription plans, tiered warranty options, and a 'call the manager' discount routine. One reviewer compared it to a used car dealership. This pattern suggests a systemic sales approach rather than isolated technician behavior.
• ONE REVIEW WITH NO TEXT: One review (2025-04-10, 5-star) contained no review text and was excluded from dimension scoring.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews are from within the past 12 months (2024–2025), which is a positive signal for recency weighting. Negative pricing and sales tactic reviews are concentrated in 2022–2023 but are corroborated by at least one 2025 negative review, suggesting the issues have not been fully resolved.

The WW Score of 72.1 is based on a substantial volume of reviews and carries HIGH overall confidence, but consumers should weight the pricing dimension heavily — recurring, specific, and independently corroborated complaints about inflated quotes and manipulative sales tactics represent a meaningful risk, and the suspected review solicitation pattern means the professionalism and experience scores may be modestly overstated.

Above All Plumbing has a genuinely mixed record across its long review history. Professionalism is the most-mentioned dimension and is significantly dragged down by four separate reviews — from different dates spanning 2024 to 2025 — describing reckless and dangerous driving by company vehicle operators, which is a direct and serious reflection on the business's public conduct and employee oversight. On the positive side, multiple reviewers praised individual technicians like Rick, Tony, Mosie, and Steve for being friendly, thorough, and communicative. Pricing is generally viewed favorably, with several reviewers explicitly noting honest, transparent, and competitive quotes with no upselling — though one older review alleges being ripped off, and one notes the technician is 'a bit pricey.' Project completion has notable blemishes: one reviewer described a plumber leaving a shower dysfunctional after disassembly, and another described a misdiagnosis that led to an unnecessary repair attempt, both undermining an otherwise solid completion record. Experience scores moderately well given consistent praise for technical diagnosis and problem-solving, but is tempered by the misdiagnosis and incomplete repair incidents.

• DRIVING INCIDENTS: Four separate reviews (2024-01-10, 2024-06-09, 2025-02-09 x2) describe dangerous or reckless driving by company vehicles. These are distinct events on different dates and locations, suggesting a systemic employee conduct issue rather than an isolated incident.
• RECENCY CONCERN: A significant portion of positive reviews are older than 3 years, with several dating back to 2007–2014. The most recent reviews (2024–2025) skew negative due to driving complaints. The business's current service quality may differ from its historical reputation.
• VAGUE REVIEWS: Two reviews ('Never again' with no detail, and a blank 5-star review from 2023) provide no usable scoring data and were excluded from dimension scoring.
• POSSIBLE PERSONNEL INCONSISTENCY: Reviews reference multiple different technicians (Rick, Ricky, Tony, Steve, Henry, Mike, Mosie, Kevan) across many years, suggesting high staff turnover or a rotating crew. Quality appears to vary significantly by individual technician.
• ALLEGED OVERCHARGING: One review (2020) accuses a technician named Kevan of deliberately ripping off a customer who lacked plumbing knowledge. This is a serious allegation but is a single older data point and cannot be corroborated from other reviews.
• INTERNAL COMMUNICATION FAILURE: One reviewer (2018) reported being incorrectly charged a service fee, with conflicting information given by the same office — indicating operational and communication breakdowns at the company level.

This WW Score carries HIGH confidence in terms of mention volume across all dimensions, but the score should be interpreted cautiously given the wide date range of reviews (2007–2025), meaningful negative incidents in recent years, and evidence of inconsistent service quality across different technicians and time periods.

Orbit Plumbing presents a deeply mixed picture across its review history. On the positive side, many customers praised fair and reasonable pricing, quick response times, and friendly technicians who completed work efficiently in a single visit. However, multiple serious complaints drag scores down significantly — particularly around professionalism, where the owner and phone staff were described as rude, dismissive, and combative in multiple independent reviews. Project completion is also a notable concern, with several reviewers reporting incomplete work, unresolved issues requiring return visits, and at least one instance of a technician abandoning a job on a Friday evening. The volume of negative reviews citing the same behavioral patterns — especially regarding the owner's conduct — suggests these are systemic issues rather than isolated incidents.

• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: Reviews dated 2024-06-09 and 2023-08-24 are nearly identical in phrasing ('First time using them today and am so pleased! He was out quickly, arrived on time, fixed the problem...and was incredibly reasonably priced. Highly recommend!'). These appear to be the same review submitted twice or a copied review. Confidence in these two reviews is reduced.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: Reviews dated 2020-06-10 and 2019-08-13 are word-for-word identical negative reviews. This duplication inflates the negative signal but also raises questions about review authenticity. Both were counted but flagged.
• RECENCY WARNING: The majority of reviews are older than 12 months relative to a 2024 analysis date. Only 2 reviews are from 2023–2024, and one of those is a suspected duplicate. The bulk of data spans 2013–2020, limiting confidence in current service quality.
• OWNER CONDUCT PATTERN: At least 3 independent reviews (2017-07-11, 2020-06-10/2019-08-13 duplicate pair, and the 2020 review) describe the owner or phone staff as rude, combative, or unwilling to resolve complaints. This is a consistent and credible pattern.
• INCOMPLETE WORK PATTERN: Multiple reviews (2018-08-08, 2014-12-11, 2020-06-10) describe technicians leaving jobs unfinished or failing to verify their work was effective. This is a recurring project completion concern.

This WW Score carries moderate-to-high reliability in terms of review volume, but is tempered by two confirmed duplicate reviews, a predominantly older review dataset, and systemic behavioral patterns that suggest the score reflects genuine and recurring service quality issues rather than statistical noise.