Find Nearby Plumbers In Albuquerque, New Mexico

All three reviews speak positively to Dimitri's professionalism — he is described as polite, friendly, on time, and professional across multiple reviews, giving that dimension the most reliable signal. The first review provides the richest detail, describing a complex whole-house repipe completed correctly, permitted, inspected, and executed with clear technical skill, which drives the experience and project completion scores. Pricing is mentioned in one review as fair and implicitly supported by the $250 cleaning credit offered in the first review, but the evidence base is thin. Scores are held conservative across all dimensions given the very small review pool of only three reviews.

• Only 3 reviews total — WW Score should be treated as preliminary and low reliability.
• Two of the three reviews (2021-04-18 and 2021-07-18) are over 3 years old and may not reflect current service quality.
• The second review (Nadine Martinez, Utah) is vague and contains no specific details about the work performed, pricing, or timeline — it contributes limited usable scoring data.
• No reviews mention any negative experiences or constructive criticism, which is statistically uncommon even for excellent contractors — this may reflect a small and self-selected sample rather than fake reviews, but caution is warranted.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews, two of which are over 3 years old and one of which lacks specific detail, making the score LOW confidence overall and unsuitable for high-stakes hiring decisions without additional review data.

NM Plumbing and Mechanical receives consistently positive feedback across all four scored dimensions, with reviewers frequently praising professionalism, courteous behavior, and fair pricing. Multiple reviews specifically call out competitive or reasonable pricing compared to other quotes, lending moderate confidence to the pricing dimension. Project completion is supported by references to jobs being done right the first time and thorough follow-through, including a detailed AC conversion project. Experience is evidenced by quick diagnosis, quality workmanship, and effective problem-solving noted across several reviews. However, all reviews are older than 12 months — the most recent dating to August 2021 and the majority from 2016–2017 — which significantly limits the reliability of this score for assessing current performance.

• ALL REVIEWS ARE OUTDATED: The most recent review is from August 2021 (over 3 years ago), and three of five reviews are from 2017 or earlier. This score may not reflect the contractor's current quality or practices.
• LOW REVIEW VOLUME: Only 5 reviews total. Scores across all dimensions are based on a very small sample and should be treated with caution.
• MILD GENERIC PRAISE PATTERN: Several reviews use similarly brief, non-specific positive language ('efficient and priced right,' 'highly recommend') with limited detail, which slightly reduces confidence in authenticity. However, at least two reviews contain specific project details that suggest genuine experiences.
• NO NEGATIVE FEEDBACK PRESENT: All 5 reviews are 5-star ratings with no criticism. While this could reflect genuine quality, it may also indicate a curated or incomplete review set.

This WW Score carries LIMITED overall reliability due to a very small review sample of only 5 reviews, all of which are more than 3 years old, making it difficult to assess the contractor's current performance with confidence.

Cactus Mechanical earns consistent praise for professionalism, with multiple reviewers across different years citing polite, prompt, and courteous technicians — this is the strongest and most reliably evidenced dimension. Pricing is a mixed picture: one reviewer explicitly declined to hire due to a high quote, while others praised competitive and fair pricing, pulling the pricing score down to a moderate level. Project completion is generally positive, with jobs described as finished cleanly and on time, though one detailed negative review from 2014 raises concerns about workmanship quality and a disputed warranty charge on a failed HVAC unit. Experience scores moderately, supported by references to knowledgeable technicians and effective problem-solving, but tempered by the 2014 account of a potentially improper repair. The overall score is held back by the pricing controversy, the serious 2014 complaint, and the large number of reviews with no usable content.

• 4 reviews contain no usable text ('unknown', '.', or blank) and were excluded from scoring — these are likely placeholder or bot-generated entries and inflate the raw review count.
• Several reviews are extremely old (2004–2013), representing the majority of the review base. Only 2 reviews fall within the past 12 months (2023–2024), severely limiting recency confidence.
• The 2014 review describes a serious multi-year complaint involving potential installation damage, a disputed warranty charge of $190 for coolant, and concerns about repair quality (weld integrity and system evacuation). This is a significant negative data point.
• The 2024 review explicitly states the quote was too high and the reviewer did not hire the company — this is a direct pricing concern from the most recent period.
• Multiple older 5-star reviews contain all-caps text and generic praise with minimal specifics, which may indicate lower reliability, though they are not conclusively fake.
• Overall confidence is rated LIMITED due to the small number of recent, substantive reviews and the high proportion of unusable or very old entries.

This WW Score should be treated with caution — while the professionalism dimension has reasonable support, the score as a whole is based on a thin set of recent usable reviews, a large volume of unusable placeholder entries, and a review history spanning nearly 20 years with limited current data.

This contractor has a mixed but generally positive record across a very small review set. Two older reviews highlight strong professionalism, responsiveness, and willingness to go above and beyond — including driving to get parts and not charging extra for unexpected complications. Pricing feedback is favorable, with one reviewer noting they paid less than the estimate. However, the 1-star review raises a meaningful concern about responsiveness and phone availability, which directly impacts the professionalism score. All reviews are from 2018–2021, meaning there is no recent data to confirm whether current service quality matches past performance.

• All reviews are older than 1 year — the most recent is from October 2021, and two reviews are from 2018. Current service quality cannot be confirmed from this data.
• Only 4 reviews total — this is an extremely small sample and the WW Score should be treated as preliminary and unreliable.
• The 1-star review describes a complete failure to reach the business by phone, which is a direct contradiction to the responsiveness praised in other reviews. This inconsistency warrants caution.
• No reviews from the past 12 months — recency weighting cannot be applied favorably.

This WW Score carries very low reliability due to only 4 reviews, all older than one year, with a notable contradiction between the positive reviews and the 1-star communication failure — treat this score as indicative only and seek more current references before hiring.

The review set is very small (3 reviews) and contains a significant negative signal: one reviewer explicitly states the contractor would not produce a license number, had no license on the bid, and failed to show up for the job after bidding — a serious professionalism and project completion failure. The two positive reviews are genuinely detailed and credible, praising responsiveness, thoroughness, quality of work, and even a no-charge resolution in one case. However, the no-show and licensing concern in the negative review meaningfully drags down scores across professionalism and project completion. With only 3 reviews total, confidence across all dimensions is low and the WW Score should be treated with caution.

• One reviewer explicitly states the contractor refused to provide a license number and had no license listed on the bid — this is a serious legal and professional red flag.
• The same reviewer reports the contractor accepted a job but never showed up, indicating a potential pattern of bid-and-abandon behavior.
• Only 3 reviews total — far too few to establish reliable patterns. Score should be treated as preliminary only.
• All three reviews are from 2024, so recency is not a concern, but the sample size remains critically small.

This WW Score has very low reliability due to the extremely small review sample (3 reviews), a serious licensing and no-show complaint that cannot be dismissed, and LIMITED confidence across all scored dimensions — this score should not be used as a definitive assessment of contractor quality.

Ancae ABQ has a deeply polarized review profile: a large cluster of 5-star reviews praising professionalism, friendliness, and timely service sits alongside a significant number of detailed 1-star reviews describing repeated billing disputes, unresolved repairs, rude technicians, and bait-and-switch pricing tactics. Pricing is the weakest dimension, with multiple independent reviewers explicitly describing being charged more than quoted, hidden labor fees, and inflated repair estimates. Project completion is also a concern, with several reviewers reporting the same job requiring multiple return visits without resolution. Experience scores are mixed — some technicians like Josh, Dustin, and Patrick are praised by name, while others are described as lacking knowledge and requiring customer guidance to complete repairs. Professionalism scores are dragged down by credible, detailed accounts of rude technician behavior and poor owner responsiveness, despite many positive mentions of courteous staff.

• FAKE REVIEW CONCERN: A large batch of reviews share the exact same date (2024-06-09), many are extremely short or content-free (e.g., 'Top notch company!', '10/10 recommend!', 'They made my warm air go buurrr'), and several blank reviews with only a 5-star rating were submitted. This pattern is consistent with a coordinated review campaign and significantly reduces confidence in the positive review cluster.
• 9 reviews contain no text at all — only a 5-star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most detailed negative reviews span from 2015 to 2020, while most positive reviews are from 2024–2025. However, a 2025 billing dispute and a January 2025 bait-and-switch complaint confirm that pricing and ethics concerns are not purely historical.
• BILLING DISPUTE PATTERN: At least 4 independent reviewers across different years (2015, 2018, 2019, 2025) describe being charged more than the quoted price, suggesting a systemic billing practice rather than isolated incidents.
• REPEAT REPAIR FAILURE PATTERN: Multiple reviewers (2018, 2020 x2, 2025) describe paying for the same repair multiple times without resolution, indicating a potential pattern of incomplete or ineffective work.
• OWNER CONDUCT: Two separate reviews (2020) describe the owner as rude, dismissive, and in one case invoking religion inappropriately during a customer complaint call. One 2025 review notes the owner did ultimately issue a credit after a billing dispute, which is a partial positive signal.

This WW Score carries moderate-to-high structural reliability due to the large review volume, but the score itself should be treated with caution given strong evidence of a coordinated positive review campaign on 2024-06-09, a consistent multi-year pattern of billing and completion complaints from detailed reviewers, and a polarized distribution that suggests the true customer experience varies significantly depending on the technician assigned and the complexity of the job.