Find Nearby Plumbers In Yuma, Arizona

Professionalism scores moderately because while a large number of reviews praise individual technicians as friendly, courteous, punctual, and communicative, a significant and recurring minority describe rude office staff, dispatchers who hung up on customers, failure to notify customers of schedule changes, and at least one technician described as appearing impaired. Pricing is the most heavily penalized dimension: dozens of explicit complaints describe charges of $400–$1,800+ for jobs lasting under an hour, non-transparent fee structures, undisclosed dispatch fees, and quotes that ballooned after work began — with multiple reviewers stating they were charged more than quoted or charged for work that did not fix the problem. Project completion suffers from a meaningful pattern of abandoned or incomplete jobs, repeat visits for the same unresolved issue, parts never ordered, jobs left mid-way, and in several cases customers having to hire a second company to finish what Best Plumbing started. Experience scores in the moderate range because many individual technicians are praised for skill and problem-solving, but a notable subset of negative reviews describe misdiagnosis, wrong parts, broken equipment left behind, and work that made problems worse — suggesting uneven technical quality across the workforce.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: At least two pairs of reviews appear to be near-identical duplicates (the long 'sewer backup on a Sunday' review appears twice on different dates; the 'Fast and prof Service' review appears twice; the 'Professional, Helpful, Communicative' Morgan Hoover review appears twice; the 'Best Plumbing Company is simply the BEST' Trent and Sheldon review appears twice). These duplicates were counted only once per unique text for scoring purposes but inflate the raw review count.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION: A large cluster of reviews dated exactly 2024-06-06 with no review text (rating only, all 5-star) is highly suspicious and suggests possible review padding. These blank reviews were excluded from dimension scoring as they contain no usable data.
• PLATFORM DISCREPANCY NOTED: One reviewer explicitly states the company has a 1.5/5 rating on Consumer Checkbook and a 3.0 on Yelp versus a much higher Google rating, and questions whether positive Google reviews are authentic. This is consistent with the observed pattern of generic, brief 5-star reviews alongside detailed negative reviews.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews with substantive text span from 2006 to June 2025. Reviews from the past 12 months (mid-2024 to mid-2025) include both strong positives and several serious negatives including pricing complaints, incomplete work, and threatening collection behavior, suggesting the issues are ongoing and not historical.
• OWNER CONDUCT FLAG: One reviewer alleges the owner called months after a negative review to offer $100 to remove it, which if accurate represents a serious ethical concern about review integrity.
• BILLING PRACTICE FLAG: Multiple independent reviewers across different years describe the same pattern — undisclosed dispatch/diagnostic fees, no upfront estimates, charges presented only after work is done, and refusal to itemize invoices. This is a systemic pattern, not isolated incidents.
• INCOMPLETE WORK PATTERN: At least 8 distinct reviews describe jobs that were not completed, required multiple return visits for the same issue, or required a second company to finish — a significant project completion risk for prospective customers.
• THREATENING COLLECTIONS FLAG: At least two reviewers describe being threatened with police action or property liens when disputing bills, including in one case for work that did not fix the problem. This is a serious customer service and ethical flag.

This WW Score of 58.3 is based on a very large review set with HIGH confidence across all four dimensions, but prospective customers should weight it cautiously given strong evidence of systematic pricing opacity, a suspicious cluster of blank 5-star reviews that may artificially inflate the overall star average on other platforms, and a recurring pattern of incomplete work and aggressive billing practices documented across multiple years and geographies.

Burke Plumbing receives sharply mixed feedback across all dimensions. Professionalism scores moderately — many reviewers praise individual technicians as polite, friendly, and timely, but this is offset by serious complaints including lying to a customer, ignoring texts, no-shows on scheduled appointments, and a technician allegedly pocketing cash payment. Pricing is the weakest dimension by far, with numerous detailed complaints about quotes being dramatically understated, service call fees not being rolled into repair costs, and charges perceived as grossly excessive relative to the work performed. Project completion is also problematic — multiple reviews describe incomplete work, return visits that never happened, improperly installed fixtures, and work that failed within 24 hours. Experience scores middling: some technicians are praised as knowledgeable and effective, but others are criticized for misdiagnosing problems (e.g., recommending a new water heater when only a cartridge or pressure valve was needed), installing wrong-sized equipment, and leaving work in worse condition than found.

• PRICING COMPLAINTS ARE SEVERE AND RECURRING: At least 10 reviews independently describe overcharging, hidden fees, quotes that bore no resemblance to final bills, or pricing perceived as exploitative. This is a systemic pattern, not isolated incidents.
• INTEGRITY CONCERN: One reviewer (2023-05-19) alleges a technician pocketed a cash payment and did not enter the job into the system. This is a serious allegation that, if accurate, represents a significant ethical violation.
• NO-SHOW PATTERN: The 2022-03-24 review documents multiple scheduled appointments where technicians failed to appear, and a follow-up visit that required signing a release form before work would begin — a highly unusual and concerning practice.
• MISDIAGNOSIS PATTERN: At least 3 reviews describe technicians recommending unnecessary major repairs or replacements (water heater, pipe rerouting, counter ripping) that were later found to be incorrect by other plumbers.
• RECENCY NOTE: Reviews span 2014–2024. The most recent reviews (2023–2024) continue to show both positive and negative experiences, so the mixed pattern is not improving over time.
• POSSIBLE FAKE REVIEW CONCERN (MINOR): A small number of very short, generic 5-star reviews (e.g., 2023-02-16, 2018-05-23) lack specific detail and read as formulaic. These were included but weighted conservatively given their lack of specificity.
• WORK QUALITY FAILURES: Multiple reviews describe work that failed shortly after completion — a drain re-clogged within 24 hours, a toilet that would not flush properly after installation, a sink stopper that leaked after replacement, and a dishwasher install that required the homeowner to fix something the next day.

This WW Score is based on 37 reviews spanning a decade, with strong mention counts across all four dimensions, giving the score HIGH overall confidence; however, the deeply polarized nature of the reviews — with a substantial bloc of detailed, specific negative experiences — means the score of 58.3 should be taken seriously as a warning that outcomes with this contractor are highly inconsistent and carry meaningful risk, particularly around pricing transparency and job completion follow-through.

All Affordable Plumbing shows a deeply mixed track record across all four dimensions. Positive reviews highlight responsive communication, courteous technicians, and honest pricing — particularly praising individual employees like John, Mike, and Steve by name. However, a substantial cluster of negative reviews — spanning multiple years — describes repeated no-shows, broken promises to return and complete work, unresolved callbacks, and in one case alleged predatory pricing targeting an elderly customer. Project completion is the most damaged dimension, with multiple reviewers explicitly describing abandoned work, unrepaired drywall, recurring plumbing failures after service, and four or more missed appointments. Professionalism scores are dragged down significantly by consistent reports of poor communication, no-call no-shows, and at least one review citing unprofessional and 'borderline creepy' employee behavior. Pricing scores are moderate — some reviewers found costs fair and transparent, but one serious allegation of a $4,000 unnecessary quote for a $100 fix substantially lowers confidence in pricing integrity.

• RELIABILITY CONCERN: Multiple independent reviewers across different years (2018, 2020, 2021) describe the same pattern of repeated no-shows and broken callback promises, suggesting a systemic operational problem rather than isolated incidents.
• ETHICAL CONCERN: One detailed review (2018) alleges the company attempted to sell $4,000 of unnecessary work to an elderly customer when the actual fix cost $100. The reviewer explicitly describes this as predatory and unethical.
• PROJECT ABANDONMENT PATTERN: At least two reviews describe work being left incomplete for weeks or months, including unrepaired drywall and unresolved plumbing issues after multiple return visits.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent negative review is from December 2021 and the most recent positive review is from August 2024. The 2024 review is a single data point and may not reflect current consistent performance. The bulk of negative reviews cluster between 2018 and 2021.
• RECENCY NOTE: The only review from 2024 is strongly positive and involves the owner John personally. It is possible that direct-owner involvement yields better outcomes than jobs handled by other staff, but this cannot be confirmed from available data.
• NO FAKE REVIEW FLAG: Reviews vary in length, specificity, tone, and rating. Named employees, specific job details, and both positive and negative outcomes are present. No strong pattern of fake reviews detected.

This WW Score is based on 20 reviews spanning 2014 to 2024 with sufficient volume for HIGH confidence across all dimensions; however, the score should be interpreted cautiously given the serious and recurring nature of the negative reviews, particularly around project completion and ethical conduct, which meaningfully offset the genuine positive experiences reported by other customers.

BlueTech Plumbing's review record is deeply divided, with a clear majority of negative reviews describing chronic no-shows, failure to return calls, and abandoned jobs — particularly through home warranty assignments. Positive reviews (roughly 6 of 19) do praise Adrian's professionalism, responsiveness, and technical skill in specific instances, suggesting capability exists but is inconsistently applied. Project completion is the most damaging dimension, with at least 10 reviews explicitly describing unfinished work, missed appointments, and ghosting behavior. Pricing concerns also surfaced, with two reviewers alleging cash demands outside of home warranty coverage, which is a serious red flag. The overall pattern strongly suggests unreliable service delivery rather than isolated incidents.

• SERIOUS RELIABILITY CONCERN: At least 10 reviews explicitly describe missed appointments, no-shows, and abandoned jobs — this is a dominant and consistent pattern across multiple years.
• CASH DEMAND ALLEGATIONS: Two reviewers (2022-08-20 and 2022-12-20) allege the contractor attempted to collect cash payments outside of home warranty coverage, which may constitute fraud or contract violations.
• ABANDONED WORK: Multiple reviews describe jobs started but never completed, including one reviewer left without hot water for 6 weeks and another describing 5 missed appointments.
• HOSTILE RESPONSE TO COMPLAINT: One reviewer (2023-06-21) reports the contractor called to yell at them after a BBB complaint was filed rather than completing the work, indicating unprofessional conflict resolution.
• REGULATORY COMPLAINTS FILED: At least one reviewer reports filing complaints with the BBB and AZ ROC (Registrar of Contractors), which may indicate formal regulatory scrutiny.
• RECENCY NOTE: Negative reviews span from 2020 through 2023, with only a small cluster of positive reviews in 2022–2024. The pattern of complaints is not isolated to older reviews.
• POSITIVE REVIEW CONTRAST: The 5-star reviews are specific and credible on their own, but they represent a minority and do not offset the volume and severity of the negative experiences documented.
• NO FAKE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: Positive and negative reviews both contain specific details, names, and scenarios. No obvious fake review manipulation detected, though the stark rating split warrants attention.

This WW Score is based on 19 reviews with high mention counts across most dimensions and should be considered a reliable reflection of this contractor's inconsistent and frequently problematic service record.

Demeco Plumbing shows a deeply polarized review pattern with 4 five-star reviews praising responsiveness and technical skill, but 3 one-star reviews documenting serious failures in project completion, pricing transparency, and professionalism. The negative reviews describe incomplete work (water heater never functioned properly, faucet left broken), overbilling (charging 3 hours for 2.25 hours of work), and hostile customer interactions including refusal to serve customers who complained. The positive reviews lack specificity and detail compared to the substantive complaints, raising concerns about review authenticity. The company's inability to complete a $2,700 water heater installation correctly and subsequent refusal to fix it represents a critical failure in both project completion and professionalism. Overall, the evidence suggests significant operational and ethical problems despite some instances of quick response times.

• POLARIZED REVIEW PATTERN: 4 five-star reviews vs. 3 one-star reviews with no middle ground suggests potential fake positive reviews or two distinct customer experiences
• POSITIVE REVIEWS LACK SPECIFICITY: The 5-star reviews use generic praise ('amazing', 'awesome', 'friendly') with minimal detail, while negative reviews provide extensive documentation of failures
• ETHICAL CONCERNS: Multiple reviews allege dishonest practices including warranty misrepresentation, overbilling seniors, and refusal to complete work or honor callbacks
• CRITICAL SERVICE FAILURE: $2,700 water heater installation never functioned properly; technician admitted using YouTube/Google to troubleshoot; company refused to fix or honor warranty
• RECENCY BIAS: Positive reviews are from 2020-2021; negative reviews are from 2021-2022, suggesting service quality may have deteriorated or positive reviews are outdated
• HOSTILE CUSTOMER SERVICE: Owner refused to work with customer who raised voice about unresolved issues, indicating poor conflict resolution

This score should be treated with caution due to the extreme polarization of reviews and suspected authenticity issues with positive feedback; however, the detailed documentation of failures in the negative reviews (with specific dates, amounts, and technical details) carries substantial weight and suggests real operational problems that warrant serious consideration before engaging this contractor.

Apollo Drain and Septic has a deeply mixed but predominantly negative review profile across all four dimensions. Professionalism is severely damaged by multiple accounts of dropped calls, rude office staff, double-talk on pricing, and failure to return customer calls — offset only slightly by a handful of reviews praising Jeremy's courteous and communicative approach. Pricing is a major pain point, with several customers reporting unexpected charges, work performed without authorization, and inconsistent quotes, though one reviewer praised Apollo as having the best prices in Yuma. Project completion is critically undermined by reviews describing work billed but not performed, a repair that failed within a year with no warranty remedy, and a collections action for services never rendered. Experience scores marginally higher due to a few reviews where technicians demonstrated genuine diagnostic knowledge and problem-solving, but this is outweighed by evidence of poor workmanship and incomplete jobs.

• Six of the ten reviews are 1-star; the three 5-star reviews are notably generic or lack granular detail about the physical work performed, which may slightly inflate the positive signal.
• The three 5-star reviews (2018–2020) all involve Jeremy by name and focus heavily on phone/customer service interactions rather than completed on-site work, which limits their value for assessing workmanship.
• Multiple reviews describe a pattern of unauthorized charges and work performed without customer consent — this is a systemic business practice concern, not an isolated incident.
• One review (2015) describes a fraudulent collections action for services never rendered; another (2022) describes a failed repair with no warranty honored — these represent serious integrity and liability flags.
• Review dates span 2015–2023; the most recent reviews (2022–2023) are negative, suggesting the business has not improved over time. Reviews older than 3 years (pre-2021) were weighted less heavily in scoring.
• No fake review patterns detected; reviews are sufficiently varied in language, detail level, and specificity to be considered authentic.

This WW Score is based on 10 reviews with usable data across all four dimensions and carries MODERATE-to-HIGH reliability; the score of 34.2 should be taken seriously as a warning signal, as the negative reviews are specific, detailed, and describe repeated systemic failures rather than isolated incidents.