Find Nearby Plumbers In Yuma, Arizona

Mario (FM Plumbing) demonstrates strong professionalism across all three reviews, with consistent praise for punctuality, responsiveness, and courteous communication. Project completion is solid, with jobs finished as promised and callbacks honored. Pricing is noted as fair and transparent in two reviews, with reasonable estimates provided upfront. Experience is evident through competent technical work and problem-solving, though the sample size is small. The WW Score of 86.2 reflects reliable, professional service with fair pricing, but confidence is moderate due to only 3 total reviews.

• Only 3 reviews analyzed — sample size is small and limits statistical confidence
• Review from 2023-12-15 is notably longer and more detailed than others, which may skew perception; however, it contains specific, verifiable details (roots, digging, estimates, competitor comparisons) and does not appear fabricated
• First review (2024-10-08) is very brief and generic ('best service in yuma arizona') with no specific details — limited evidentiary value but not necessarily fake
• No negative reviews present — all 5-star or 4-star ratings; this is not inherently suspicious given the small sample, but limits ability to assess weaknesses
• Recency: Two reviews from 2024 (recent), one from late 2023 (within 12 months) — good recency overall

This WW Score should be treated with caution due to the small sample size of only 3 reviews; while the data present is consistent and credible, a larger review base would be needed to establish high confidence in Mario's true performance across all dimensions.

Plumbing Dynamics has a strong overall track record built on a large volume of reviews spanning over a decade, with consistent praise for punctuality, responsiveness, and professional demeanor from most technicians. However, the score is meaningfully pulled down by several credible negative reviews that describe serious concerns: hidden or inflated charges after written estimates were provided, incomplete work, rude behavior from the owner, and at least one instance of a repair that failed years later. Pricing is the weakest dimension, with multiple independent reviewers explicitly describing bait-and-switch pricing or sticker shock, which is a significant red flag for a dimension that should reflect transparency and fairness. Project completion is moderately strong but is tempered by reviews noting unfinished work, a failed inspection, and one instance where the job was not done correctly the first time. Experience scores reasonably well, with many reviewers noting quick diagnosis and skilled execution, though a few reviews describe poor judgment calls that undercut confidence.

• PRICING CONCERN — MULTIPLE CREDIBLE COMPLAINTS: At least 3 independent reviews (May 2025, Nov 2024, Jun 2023) explicitly describe being quoted one price and charged significantly more, or receiving wildly inconsistent estimates. One reviewer was quoted $200 and charged $420. Another had a written estimate that the owner dismissed entirely. This is a recurring pattern, not an isolated incident.
• OWNER BEHAVIOR FLAG: The June 2023 1-star review provides a detailed, specific account of the owner being dismissive, rude, and refusing to honor a written estimate provided by his own technician. This is corroborated in tone by the 2020 and 2015 1-star reviews describing rude or condescending behavior.
• WORKMANSHIP FAILURE: The January 2021 review describes a repair that failed years later, with a subsequent contractor stating the original fix was 'completely wrong and doomed to fail.' This is a serious quality concern.
• INCOMPLETE WORK: The June 2012 review describes the plumber leaving without completing the job and wanting to charge extra for an alternative approach. The 2015 1-star review describes multiple tasks left incomplete or done incorrectly. The 2014 review notes a wall was cut and not repaired.
• RECENCY NOTE: A large portion of reviews (roughly 60+) are from 2010–2018 and carry reduced weight per scoring rules. The most recent 12 months (2024–2025) contain the most actionable signal, including both strong positive reviews and the clearest pricing complaints.
• FAKE REVIEW AWARENESS — LOW RISK BUT NOTED: A cluster of reviews dated exactly '2024-06-09' with minimal detail (e.g., 'Great service and very prompt! Highly recommend', 'Definitely recommend. We had a great experience.', 'Upstanding business that does great work! Fast, good service.') shows signs of generic, low-specificity praise. These reviews are not scored out entirely but are treated with reduced confidence. Three reviews have no text at all (blank body, 5-star rating) and are excluded from usable data.
• ZERO-RATING REVIEWS: Multiple reviews carry a 0.0 star rating, which appears to be a platform artifact (likely unrated submissions) rather than actual zero-star reviews. These were treated as neutral-rating reviews and evaluated solely on text content.

This WW Score is based on a large and diverse review set spanning 15 years, giving it HIGH statistical confidence in terms of volume, but the score should be interpreted cautiously due to a consistent pattern of pricing complaints, at least one documented workmanship failure, and credible reports of rude owner behavior — issues that are not offset by the volume of generic positive reviews.

PHD Plumbing earns strong marks for professionalism, with dozens of reviews praising punctuality, courtesy, cleanliness, and communication from both field technicians and office staff. Pricing is generally viewed as fair and reasonable, though one significant negative review describes a likely unnecessary $1,600 water heater replacement — a serious concern that tempers the pricing score. Project completion is the most mixed dimension: the majority of jobs are described as completed well and on time, but there are notable failures including a broken pipe left unrepaired for over a year despite three promises to return, a follow-up estimate that was never delivered, a flooding incident in a new home attributed to overlooked drain installation, and a sink installation that failed within days of completion on the road. Experience scores moderately well overall, with many reviewers praising technical knowledge and problem-solving, but the water heater misdiagnosis and the RV sink failure represent meaningful skill or quality-control lapses that cannot be ignored.

• 5 reviews contain no text at all — only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence.
• Two reviews appear to be near-identical duplicates describing the same water heater incident (dates 2024-06-12 and 2024-06-09, ratings 1 and 2 respectively). Only one instance was counted per dimension to avoid double-weighting.
• Two reviews appear to be near-identical duplicates describing the Mac/Macario garage sink installation (dates 2024-09-12 and 2022-04-14). Only one instance was counted per dimension.
• The 1-star review about parking ('This is how they park at other places wow') provides no actionable dimension data and was excluded from scoring.
• Several older negative reviews (2016–2017) describe serious issues: a flooded new home due to an overlooked drain, an RV sink that failed within days, and an owner who refused to honor a one-year warranty. These are weighted less due to age but are not ignored, as they reveal a pattern of accountability avoidance.
• The unresolved broken septic pipe (2024 review, 3-star) and the unanswered estimate (2024 review, 2-star) are recent enough to carry meaningful weight and suggest follow-through issues persist.
• Most reviews are overwhelmingly positive with 5-star ratings, but the presence of specific names, job details, and varied writing styles reduces the likelihood of systematic fake reviews. No fake review flag is raised, though the volume of generic 5-star reviews warrants mild caution.

This WW Score is based on a substantial volume of reviews spanning multiple years, with strong mention counts across all four dimensions, making it statistically reliable — however, recurring follow-through failures and at least one credible misdiagnosis incident mean the score should be interpreted as reflecting a generally good but inconsistent contractor, not an exceptional one.

Plumbing Solutions has a large and broadly positive review base, with the majority of customers praising responsiveness, punctuality, and technician knowledge across many named individuals including Jacob, Otto, Ed, Andres, Brian, and others. However, a meaningful minority of negative reviews — spanning the full date range of the dataset — consistently cite serious concerns: significantly inflated pricing (multiple reviewers report quotes 2–10x higher than competitors), failure to follow up or return calls, incomplete or failed repairs requiring callbacks, and in several cases rude or threatening behavior from owners or staff. The pricing dimension is the weakest, dragged down by numerous credible, specific complaints about overcharging for simple jobs and lack of pricing transparency. Project completion scores moderately well overall but is tempered by documented cases of abandoned work, unresolved permits, and repairs that failed within days or weeks. Professionalism scores reflect a split picture: many technicians are praised warmly, but office and owner conduct generates a recurring pattern of serious complaints.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: Multiple reviews appear to be exact or near-exact duplicates posted on the same or adjacent dates (e.g., two identical reviews for 'Jake was excellent' on 2025-06-02, two identical reviews for 'Matt installed a new kitchen sink disposal' on 2025-05-19, two identical reviews for 'Enrique was exceptionally helpful' on 2025-05-19, two identical reviews for 'I am a contractor remodeling a bathroom' on 2025-06-02, two identical reviews for 'Another excellent experience with Plumbing Solutions' on 2025-06-03, two identical reviews for 'I never met him' on 2025-05-26, two identical reviews for 'Very Professional, answered questions when asked' on 2025-05-26, two identical reviews for 'Otto Maldonado and his crew' on 2025-10-28, two identical reviews for 'Otto with PLUMBING SOLUTIONS' on 2025-06-23, two identical reviews for 'Highly recommend Plumbing Solutions. Jacob is punctual' on different dates). This pattern of duplicated 5-star reviews is a strong indicator of review manipulation or platform aggregation artifacts and reduces confidence in the positive review pool.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Approximately 20+ reviews contain no text and only a 5-star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data but inflate the apparent star average.
• PRICING CONCERNS — CREDIBLE AND SPECIFIC: Multiple independent reviewers across different years and locations cite specific dollar amounts that appear grossly inflated compared to competitor quotes: $1,200 estimate for a garbage disposal and snake vs. $100 actual fix; $1,500+ estimate for a P-trap vs. $300–400 actual; $670 for a toilet reset with no new toilet; $520 for a $10 part and 15 minutes of work; $3,500 tankless water heater at 2x+ retail markup; $1,045 for 4 feet of pipe. These are not vague complaints — they are specific, detailed, and corroborated across many reviewers.
• OWNER/MANAGEMENT CONDUCT: Multiple reviews across different years describe the owner or management as rude, threatening, or dismissive when complaints were raised. One reviewer describes being shouted at and threatened with a lien; another describes the owner threatening to 'come settle it in person'; another describes being told 'stop the dramatics and pay the bill.' This is a recurring pattern, not an isolated incident.
• FOLLOW-UP AND COMMUNICATION FAILURES: A recurring theme in negative reviews is failure to return calls, respond to messages, or follow through on scheduled appointments. This spans from 2012 through 2025, suggesting a systemic issue rather than isolated incidents.
• INCOMPLETE OR FAILED REPAIRS: Several reviews document repairs that failed within days or weeks, with the company then refusing to honor warranties or return to fix the issue without additional charges. One reviewer documents a $1,300 repair that did not fix the problem, followed by a demand for $435 more.
• RECENCY NOTE: The dataset spans from 2005 to June 2025. Reviews from 2025 and 2024 are given higher weight. Negative patterns (pricing, communication failures, incomplete work) appear consistently across all time periods, suggesting these are not historical issues that have been resolved.
• AGGREGATION NOTE: This review set appears to aggregate reviews from multiple platforms and possibly multiple business entities operating under the 'Plumbing Solutions' name across different geographic regions (references to Smyrna, Dedham MA, Wichita, Nashville, Chicago, California, etc.). Scores should be interpreted with caution as they may reflect more than one business.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large review volume, but the score itself should be treated with caution given confirmed duplicate reviews, strong evidence of pricing manipulation complaints, recurring owner conduct issues, and the likelihood that this dataset aggregates reviews from multiple distinct business entities operating under the same or similar name.

Roto-Rooter receives consistently strong marks for professionalism and responsiveness from individual technicians, with hundreds of reviews praising courteous, knowledgeable, and prompt service. However, pricing is the single most damaging dimension across this dataset, with an enormous volume of reviews describing charges as excessive, deceptive, or wildly inconsistent — including numerous accounts of bait-and-switch quoting, undisclosed fees, and charges for incomplete work. Project completion is significantly dragged down by a substantial minority of reviews describing failed repairs, no-shows, abandoned jobs, warranty disputes, and work that made problems worse. Experience scores moderately well overall, as many technicians are praised for skill and problem-solving, but this is offset by recurring accounts of misdiagnosis, wrong equipment, and upselling unnecessary services. The aggregate picture is a company with capable individual technicians but systemic issues around pricing transparency, scheduling reliability, and quality control.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: Multiple reviews appear to be exact or near-exact duplicates (e.g., two identical reviews from 'Paul arrived same day...', two identical 'Zach is the man...', two identical 'Based solely off customer service...', two identical 'Easy to schedule and a quick service...', two identical 'Great service. Would highly recommend!', two identical 'Efficient and effective...', two identical 'Excellent with Armando...', two identical 'Very prompt and helpful! Anthony...', two identical 'My name is Antoinette...'). These duplicates inflate positive scores and have been treated conservatively.
• FAKE REVIEW PATTERNS: A large cluster of reviews dated 1996-2001 consist of single-line responses ('NO', 'NOT REALLY', 'ON TIME AND DID THE WORK') with no detail, all rated 5 stars. These appear to be placeholder or fabricated entries and were excluded from scoring.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Approximately 100+ reviews contain no text content but carry 5-star ratings. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data, but their presence inflates the raw star average.
• EXTREME RATING POLARIZATION: The dataset shows a pronounced bimodal distribution — a very large number of 5-star reviews with minimal detail alongside a substantial volume of detailed 1-star reviews describing serious failures. This pattern is consistent with either review manipulation on the positive end or a company with highly inconsistent service quality.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS ARE SYSTEMIC: Pricing complaints are not isolated incidents — they span multiple years, multiple geographic locations, and multiple service types. Charges ranging from $200-$900 for simple drain snaking (15-30 minutes of work) are documented repeatedly. This is a structural business practice issue, not individual technician behavior.
• NO-SHOW AND SCHEDULING FAILURES: A significant number of reviews describe confirmed appointments where technicians never arrived and no communication was provided. This is a recurring operational failure across multiple franchise locations.
• MULTI-FRANCHISE DATASET: Reviews appear to span dozens of different Roto-Rooter franchise locations across the United States. Scores reflect the brand aggregate, not any single location. Individual location quality varies significantly.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews with substantive content are dated between 2020-2025, which is within the relevant scoring window. Older reviews (pre-2015) were given reduced weight.

This WW Score of 72.4 is based on a very large dataset (1,456 reviews) and carries HIGH statistical confidence in its directional accuracy, but should be interpreted as a brand-level aggregate across many franchise locations — individual location quality varies substantially, and the systemic pricing and scheduling issues documented here may not apply equally to all franchises.

Above All Plumbing has a large and broadly positive review base spanning over a decade, with many customers praising individual technicians by name — particularly Ryan, Ernesto, Les, Rogelio, Colin, Junior, and Rob — for their skill, friendliness, and thoroughness. However, a meaningful minority of negative reviews (approximately 30+ one-star reviews) reveal recurring and serious concerns: appointment cancellations and no-shows, rude or dismissive office/phone staff, work that failed inspection or required correction, and post-job follow-through failures including ignored warranty claims and unresolved damage. Pricing drew mixed signals — many customers praised fair or competitive rates, while others reported bait-and-switch quoting, excessive charges for simple jobs, and a high minimum diagnostic fee that deterred potential customers. Project completion scores were tempered by multiple accounts of jobs left incomplete, failed inspections, and technicians unable to resolve the root cause of problems. The experience dimension scored moderately well, supported by many detailed accounts of skilled diagnostics and quality workmanship, but offset by instances of incompetent diagnosis and code violations.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: At least three reviews appear to be near-identical or exact duplicates (e.g., the 'Rick Brown / high end kitchen faucet' review appears three times with slightly different dates; the 'clogged bathroom sink / condo building' review appears twice with identical text). These duplicates have been counted once each for scoring purposes but inflate the total review count.
• RYAN REVIEW CLUSTER: Approximately 15-18 reviews all dated 2023-06-09 mention 'Ryan' specifically, with very similar structure and generic praise. While some contain specific details, the clustering of dates and repetitive format raises a moderate concern about coordinated or solicited reviews. Confidence in this cluster is reduced.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Approximately 10 reviews contain no text whatsoever (only a star rating). These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data.
• PLACEHOLDER REVIEWS: Several reviews contain only 'unknown', '.', 'already submitted', 'Great!', or similarly non-informative text. These were excluded from dimension scoring.
• RECENCY NOTE: The review set spans from 2009 to 2025. Reviews older than 2022 (roughly 60+ reviews) were given reduced weight. The most recent reviews (2024-2025) show a continuation of both strong praise and serious complaints, suggesting the mixed quality pattern is ongoing rather than historical.
• HARASSMENT ALLEGATION: One review (2020-08-18) alleges the owner Rick Brown called the reviewer twice while yelling and threatened to void their warranty in response to a negative review. A second update alleges contact via email constituting a third harassment incident. This is a serious flag regarding owner conduct.
• LGBTQ CONCERN: One review (2018-05-04) alleges the owners publicly expressed extreme anti-LGBTQ views on social media and directed personal attacks at the reviewer. This is noted as a reputational flag, though it falls outside the scored dimensions.
• PERMIT AND CODE VIOLATIONS: Multiple reviews reference work that failed city inspection, work offered without permits, and a gas line job that required correction before passing inspection. This materially impacts the experience and project completion scores.
• GEOGRAPHIC AMBIGUITY: Reviews reference locations including Fremont CA, Yuma AZ, Mesquite TX/NV, Sherman TX, and the Bay Area. It is possible these reviews represent multiple businesses operating under the same or similar name ('Above All Plumbing' / 'All Above Plumbing'). Scores reflect the aggregate dataset as provided but users should verify which location applies to their needs.

This WW Score is based on a large volume of reviews (HIGH confidence by mention count) but should be interpreted cautiously due to confirmed duplicate reviews, a suspicious same-day review cluster for one technician, a wide geographic spread suggesting possible multi-location data mixing, and a significant proportion of detailed negative reviews that reveal systemic issues with scheduling, office staff conduct, pricing transparency, and warranty follow-through.