Find Nearby Plumbers In Albuquerque, New Mexico

EZ Plumbing shows strong technical competence and generally reliable service delivery, but professionalism and pricing consistency are significant concerns. While 10 of 15 reviews praise punctuality, responsiveness, and job completion, three critical negative reviews document serious failures: unresponsive communication after a water heater installation left customer without hot water, a dishwasher flood caused by improper sink installation followed by inflated repair charges, and a no-show for an estimate. Positive reviews emphasize speed and quality workmanship, but the pattern of negative experiences suggests inconsistent service standards. Pricing feedback is mixed—some customers report affordability while others describe overcharging for problems the contractor created.

• PATTERN DETECTED: Approximately 67% of reviews are 5-star with minimal detail (e.g., 'Friendly guy!', 'Good work done quickly'), while 20% are 1-star with extensive, specific complaints. This asymmetry suggests possible review manipulation or selective positive feedback.
• CRITICAL SERVICE FAILURES: Two reviews document serious issues—unresponsiveness after installation failure and deliberate overcharging for contractor-caused damage. These are not minor complaints and significantly undermine trust.
• INCONSISTENCY RED FLAG: Same contractor receives both 'professional, polite, friendly, competent' and 'very unprofessional' descriptions for similar work types, suggesting highly variable service quality or possible different technicians under same business name.
• NO DATES PROVIDED: Unable to assess recency; cannot determine if negative reviews are recent or historical.

This score should be treated with caution. While technical competence appears solid (HIGH confidence), the presence of serious unresolved complaints about communication failures and potential fraud, combined with suspicious review distribution patterns, significantly reduces overall trustworthiness. The MODERATE overall confidence reflects genuine data but substantial quality control concerns.

DeerBrook demonstrates strong professionalism with consistent praise for punctuality, responsiveness, and communication across multiple reviews. However, the score is significantly impacted by serious concerns about pricing integrity and project completion. While five reviews highlight competitive pricing and good value, one detailed 1-star review alleges fraudulent practices—unnecessary parts replacement, failure to diagnose root cause, non-responsiveness to callbacks, and targeting an elderly customer. The technical skill appears solid in successful cases, but the alleged misdiagnosis (diaphragms vs. valve replacement) raises questions about problem-solving reliability. The conflicting evidence creates substantial uncertainty about trustworthiness.

• CRITICAL: One detailed 1-star review (2017) alleges predatory practices including unnecessary parts replacement, misdiagnosis, cash-only payment demand, and failure to honor callbacks. This directly contradicts the narrative of five 5-star reviews praising fair pricing and reliability.
• RECENCY CONCERN: The negative review is from 2017 (6+ years old), while most positive reviews are from 2019-2023. However, the specificity and severity of allegations (elder targeting, fraud) cannot be dismissed based on age alone.
• PRICING INCONSISTENCY: Multiple reviews cite dramatically lower quotes than competitors (e.g., $335 vs. $1,300; $100 vs. $2,000; under $200 vs. $1,500), which could indicate either genuine efficiency or potential underquoting followed by upselling—a pattern suggested by the negative review.
• PROJECT COMPLETION RED FLAG: The negative review explicitly documents non-completion (sprinklers never worked after $776 spent) and failure to honor callback requests, directly contradicting the positive reviews' claims of reliability.

This score should be treated with caution. While professionalism metrics are strong and supported by multiple recent reviews, the presence of one detailed, specific allegation of fraud and service failure creates material doubt about the overall trustworthiness of the contractor. The dramatic pricing disparities cited across reviews warrant independent verification before engaging this service.

Tim demonstrates strong technical competence and generally professional service, with multiple reviews praising his responsiveness, work quality, and fair pricing. However, a critical 2-star review from June 2023 documents a serious professionalism failure where Tim made an insulting comment to a disabled customer, severely damaging the professional relationship despite completing the work. This incident significantly impacts the professionalism score and overall trustworthiness. Most positive reviews are older (2019–2020), with only two recent reviews (2023), limiting confidence in current performance consistency.

• CRITICAL: June 2023 review documents unprofessional conduct—insulting remark to disabled customer ('Don't work don't eat'). This is a serious character/judgment concern that contradicts the positive professionalism claims in other reviews.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Three of five reviews are from 2019–2020 (3–5 years old). Only two reviews from 2023 provide current performance data. Older reviews carry less weight for assessing current service standards.
• SMALL SAMPLE SIZE: Only 5 reviews total limits statistical confidence. Recommend collecting more recent feedback before making high-confidence decisions.

This score should be treated with caution due to small sample size, age of most reviews, and a documented serious professionalism incident that contradicts other positive feedback. The score reflects mixed signals: strong technical work and fair pricing offset by a significant interpersonal conduct failure.

Guy's Plumbing shows strong technical expertise and generally fair pricing, with many customers praising quick service and reasonable rates. However, two serious negative reviews from 2023 and 2022 reveal critical failures in professionalism and project completion: a bait-and-switch on equipment, rude customer service, and abandonment of work mid-job. While the majority of reviews (17 of 19) are positive, the severity of recent complaints—involving dishonesty, poor communication, and incomplete work—significantly impacts overall trustworthiness. The company demonstrates inconsistency in service quality and customer treatment.

• Two severe negative reviews (2023 and 2022) describe dishonesty, equipment substitution without consent, rude behavior, and job abandonment—these are critical red flags that contradict the predominantly positive older reviews.
• Recency concern: Most positive reviews are from 2014–2021; the two most recent reviews (2023, 2022) are both 1-star with serious allegations. This suggests potential service degradation over time.
• Communication inconsistency: Multiple reviews praise responsive scheduling and communication, but the 2023 review explicitly states the company failed to inform the customer of equipment substitution before installation.
• Possible pattern of escalating issues: The 2022 review alleges lying about quotes and job abandonment; the 2023 review alleges equipment bait-and-switch and threatening behavior. These are not isolated complaints.
• One review (2018) notes unprofessional phone answering and misleading hours posted online, suggesting operational/administrative issues.

This score should be treated with caution. While the numerical WW Score of 76.8 reflects the majority of positive historical reviews, the two recent severe complaints (2023, 2022) involving dishonesty, incomplete work, and poor customer treatment represent material risks that are not fully captured by the aggregate score. Prospective customers should heavily weight the recent negative reviews and request clear written agreements on equipment specifications and pricing before proceeding.

Elite Plumbing demonstrates strong technical competence and generally fair pricing, with multiple reviews praising honest workmanship and problem-solving ability. However, professionalism scores are significantly dragged down by consistent complaints about office staff rudeness, poor phone etiquette, and communication failures (hanging up on customers, sarcasm, lack of courtesy calls). While field technicians (Glenn, Chuck, Nick) receive consistent praise for politeness and efficiency, office management issues create a notable gap. Project completion is solid with evidence of follow-through and emergency responsiveness. The company's age (30+ years) and referral network support experience ratings, but recent reviews (2012–2015) show persistent customer service problems that undermine overall trustworthiness.

• RECENCY CONCERN: Most reviews are 5–12 years old (2012–2019). Only 2 reviews from 2022 and 2020. Recent data is sparse and mixed, limiting confidence in current performance.
• OFFICE VS. FIELD DISCONNECT: Multiple reviews explicitly praise field technicians (Glenn, Chuck, Nick) but criticize office staff. This suggests inconsistent service quality depending on which team member handles the interaction.
• PATTERN OF PROFESSIONALISM COMPLAINTS: Three separate reviews (2015, 2018, 2020) mention rude office staff, phone rudeness, or poor communication. This is not isolated and suggests systemic office management issues.
• POTENTIAL SELECTION BIAS: Positive reviews often mention specific technician names (Glenn, Chuck, Nick), suggesting customers may be rating individuals rather than the company as a whole.

This score should be treated with caution due to age of data and inconsistent service quality between field and office staff; the MODERATE overall confidence reflects strong technical performance undermined by documented professionalism gaps and sparse recent reviews.

Jones Mechanical demonstrates strong project completion and technical experience, with multiple reviews praising quality workmanship, quick response times, and successful complex repairs. Professionalism is generally solid with good communication and politeness noted across several reviews. However, pricing is a significant concern—two 1-star reviews explicitly cite overcharging and unfair billing practices, with one customer reporting being quoted $475 for work others charged $275 for, and another describing an attempt to bill $200/hour after quoting a much lower rate. The owner's defensive attitude regarding pricing in one review further undermines trust. The company excels at execution but struggles with transparent and fair pricing.

• PRICING VOLATILITY: Two separate 1-star reviews cite significant overcharging and billing disputes. One review reports a $200 difference on the same job ($475 vs $275), and another describes attempted double-billing with owner justifying high rates dismissively.
• OWNER CONDUCT: The 2018 review describes the owner (Scott) as 'haughty' and 'shady' when confronted about pricing, suggesting potential communication/attitude issues at the management level despite field technician professionalism.
• RECENCY BIAS: Most positive reviews are from 2017-2019 (4-7 years old). The two most recent reviews (2021 and 2020) include one 1-star and one 5-star, suggesting inconsistency or possible service degradation over time.
• SAMPLE SIZE: Only 8 reviews total limits statistical confidence. The two 1-star reviews carry disproportionate weight in pricing assessment.

This score should be treated with caution due to small sample size and significant pricing disputes that contradict positive reviews; the company appears competent and responsive but has documented billing integrity issues that warrant verification of quotes before engagement.