Find Nearby Plumbers In Albuquerque, New Mexico

ALC Plumbing presents a deeply mixed picture across all four dimensions. Professionalism is significantly dragged down by multiple credible, recent (2024) complaints of no-shows, ghosting, and failure to return calls — a pattern that appears across different reviewers spanning 2014 to 2024, suggesting this is a persistent and ongoing issue rather than an isolated incident. Project completion is similarly damaged by at least two serious allegations of taking payment ($2,600) and abandoning unfinished bathroom remodel work, with calls going unanswered. Pricing receives a moderate score because while many reviewers praise fair and reasonable pricing, there are credible complaints of price gouging — including a $3,000 charge for a single joint replacement and toilet quotes described as 300% above market rate. Experience scores highest because when Alex does show up and complete work, reviewers consistently describe him as knowledgeable, skilled, and thorough — but this positive reputation is undermined by the reliability and completion failures that prevent customers from benefiting from that skill.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: Two reviews with nearly identical text appear twice — one ghosting complaint (dated 2024-09-12 and 2024-08-20) and one abandoned remodel complaint (dated 2024-06-09 and 2024-01-28). These duplicates were counted only once each for scoring purposes.
• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: The detailed slab leak / whole-house repipe review appears twice (2022-06-10 and 2022-02-07) with nearly identical text. Counted once for scoring.
• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: The 'Alex is dependable, knowledgeable and reasonably priced' review appears twice (2022-06-10 and 2022-01-24) with nearly identical text. Counted once for scoring.
• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: The scheduling/punctuality praise review ('consistently impressed with Alex and his crew') appears twice (2022-06-10 and 2021-10-27) with nearly identical text. Counted once for scoring.
• RECENCY CONCERN: The most recent reviews (2024) are predominantly negative, including ghosting, non-completion of paid work, and unanswered calls. This is a significant red flag and suggests a possible decline in service quality in recent years.
• PATTERN OF NO-SHOWS: At least three separate reviewers across different years (2014, 2015, 2024) describe being stood up with no communication. This is a recurring and documented pattern, not an isolated incident.
• SERIOUS ALLEGATION: At least one reviewer (possibly two, given the duplicate) alleges being charged $2,600 for a bathroom remodel that was never completed and calls were never returned. This constitutes a potential fraud allegation and significantly impacts project completion scoring.
• THEFT ALLEGATION: One reviewer (2022) alleges personal items were stolen from inside their home during the job. This is unverified but noted as a serious flag.
• PRICE GOUGING ALLEGATION: One reviewer (2023) alleges being charged $3,000 for a single joint replacement and claims the contractor raised the price knowing the customer was in a vulnerable situation (pre-surgery, holiday timing). A separate reviewer (2024) alleges toilet pricing was approximately 300% above market rate.
• EMPTY REVIEWS: Three reviews contained no text (only a star rating) and were excluded from dimension scoring.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — MODERATE: Several older 5-star reviews use generic, non-specific praise with no job details. The 'Bobby' review (2023) is unusually effusive and poetic with no factual content. However, many positive reviews do contain specific job details, so full fake review flagging is not warranted — moderate suspicion only on a subset.
• RECENCY WEIGHTING APPLIED: Reviews from 2024 and late 2023 were given higher weight. The negative trend in recent reviews meaningfully suppresses scores relative to the older positive review base.

This WW Score is based on 43 usable reviews spanning approximately 12 years, with HIGH mention counts across all dimensions, but the score should be treated with caution due to a clear and recent pattern of no-shows, an unresolved allegation of taking payment for unfinished work, duplicate reviews inflating the positive review count, and a notable decline in service quality suggested by the most recent 2024 reviews.

Total Plumbing exhibits a deeply polarized review pattern with stark contrasts between positive and negative experiences. Positive reviews (primarily from 2016-2025) consistently praise Ruben's professionalism, fair pricing, and quality workmanship. However, negative reviews (concentrated in 2017-2019, with some recent exceptions) reveal serious systemic issues: incomplete work, aggressive upselling tactics (particularly with AHS warranty claims), missed appointments, poor communication, and lack of accountability. Project completion is the weakest dimension, with multiple reports of abandoned jobs, callbacks that weren't honored, and work requiring correction by other plumbers. Pricing concerns center on undisclosed fees and inflated charges for standard services. The company's heavy reliance on home warranty referrals correlates with complaints about aggressive add-on charges.

• SEVERE POLARIZATION: Reviews split sharply between 5-star praise (mostly Ruben-specific) and 1-star condemnation (often other technicians). This suggests inconsistent service quality or possible selective review posting.
• SYSTEMATIC AHS COMPLAINTS: Multiple independent reviews (2017-2019) describe identical patterns: undisclosed fees, pressure to pay out-of-pocket charges, false claims about code requirements, and aggressive upselling. This is not isolated—it appears to be a business practice.
• INCOMPLETE/ABANDONED WORK: At least 8 reviews document unfinished jobs, callbacks not honored, or work requiring correction by competitors. Examples: garbage disposal replaced 3 times for same issue; sub-pump installed improperly causing $20-25K flood damage; dishwasher line replaced incompletely.
• COMMUNICATION FAILURES: Multiple reports of missed appointments, no-shows without notice, blocked phone numbers, and failure to return calls. One customer was blocked after a scheduling miscommunication.
• CREDIBILITY CONCERNS: Several reviews describe technicians denying obvious mistakes (bent water heater, improper connections) and refusing to acknowledge damage caused by their work.
• RECENCY BIAS: Negative reviews cluster in 2017-2019 (older, lower weight) but recent negative reviews (2024-2025) suggest problems persist. Positive reviews span entire timeline but lack specificity in recent years.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK - MODERATE: One empty review (5-star, no text, 2021-06-10) and several generic praise reviews with minimal detail. However, most reviews contain specific details and are not obviously fabricated.
• SAMPLE COMPOSITION: 45 five-star reviews vs. 24 one-star reviews creates appearance of 65% satisfaction, but depth analysis reveals serious structural problems in execution and ethics.

This WW Score of 62.8 should be treated with CAUTION. While the MODERATE overall confidence reflects adequate mention counts, the extreme polarization and documented pattern of systematic issues (particularly around AHS warranty work) suggest the company's actual reliability is lower than the score indicates. The score is pulled upward by numerous positive reviews about Ruben specifically, but masks serious problems with project completion, communication, and ethical pricing practices that affect a substantial portion of customers. Prospective customers should read the detailed negative reviews carefully, particularly those describing AHS interactions and incomplete work, before engaging this company.

Western Mechanical demonstrates strong technical competence and project completion capability, with multiple reviews praising their diagnostic skills, speed, and quality workmanship. However, the company is significantly undermined by serious professionalism and pricing concerns. Three separate reviews document hidden fees, unauthorized charges, poor communication, hostile behavior, and collection threats—patterns that suggest systemic customer service failures. While older positive reviews (2019) indicate past reliability, more recent negative experiences (2023-2024) suggest deterioration or inconsistent service delivery. The company's willingness to pursue collections over disputed charges and difficulty reaching management for resolution are major red flags.

• CRITICAL: Multiple reviews (3 of 8) document hidden/unauthorized fees and aggressive collection practices—this is a pattern, not isolated incidents
• CRITICAL: Two reviews explicitly describe hostile, threatening, or disrespectful behavior from owner/management
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most positive reviews are from 2019 (5+ years old); most recent reviews (2023-2024) are negative
• COMMUNICATION FAILURE: Multiple complaints about inability to reach decision-makers, endless holds, and receptionist gatekeeping
• AUTHORIZATION ISSUE: At least one review documents unauthorized repair work performed and charged without consent
• INCONSISTENCY: Stark contrast between glowing older reviews and serious complaints in recent reviews suggests either service degradation or selective review patterns

This score should be treated with caution due to significant recency bias (positive reviews are 5+ years old) and a clear pattern of recent customer service failures that directly contradict older testimonials; the pricing and professionalism dimensions are particularly unreliable given conflicting evidence, but the pattern of fee disputes and hostile communication is consistent enough to warrant serious concern.

DJ's Plumbing shows significant inconsistency in service delivery. While technical skill and pricing are consistently praised across multiple reviews, professionalism is severely undermined by two critical no-show incidents with poor communication and dismissive customer service responses. Positive reviews highlight quality workmanship, fair pricing, and responsiveness, but the pattern of missed appointments and unprofessional handling of customer concerns creates substantial reliability concerns. Project completion is generally solid when work begins, though the no-shows represent a fundamental failure in this dimension.

• CRITICAL: Two separate reviews (2022-11-02 and 2021-07-15) describe identical no-show incidents with unprofessional receptionist responses. This pattern suggests systemic scheduling/communication failures.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most positive reviews are from 2016-2019 (3-7 years old). The most recent reviews (2021-2022) are predominantly negative, suggesting service quality may have declined.
• INCONSISTENCY: Stark contrast between 5-star reviews praising professionalism and 1-star reviews describing unprofessional behavior. This is not fake review pattern but rather genuine service volatility.
• COMMUNICATION ISSUE: Multiple reviews mention communication problems (no-show calls, unresponsive to estimate requests, sassy receptionist). This is a recurring theme.

This score should be treated with caution due to significant service inconsistency and recency bias toward negative reviews; while technical competence appears genuine, the pattern of no-shows and poor communication in recent years suggests the company may not reliably deliver on basic professionalism, making the overall score less predictive of future performance than the individual dimension scores suggest.

Professionalism is the most discussed dimension and shows a deeply split record: several reviews praise courteous, communicative staff and timely arrivals, while multiple detailed negative reviews describe poor communication, missed appointments, rescheduling failures, and one installer who became hostile and refused to complete a job. Project completion is similarly mixed — positive reviews describe efficient, high-quality installs with follow-through (including a Saturday callback for a leak), but serious negative reviews document a failed water heater installation that did not pass inspection and remained unresolved for months, as well as multiple scheduling cancellations. Pricing drew explicit concern from two reviewers who described a $1,100 water softener quote as grossly overpriced compared to competitors, dragging that dimension down significantly. Experience scores moderately well based on positive mentions of knowledgeable staff and skilled workmanship, tempered by one review where an inspector was reportedly shocked by the quality of a licensed plumber's gas water heater installation.

• FAKE REVIEW CONCERN: A large cluster of reviews (approximately 25+) are dated 2024-06-09 with identical timestamps, many containing only 1–5 words or no text at all with a 5-star rating. This pattern is highly consistent with review stuffing or bulk fake reviews and significantly inflates the star average.
• 25 of 55 reviews contain no review text whatsoever — these were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data.
• Many of the brief positive reviews (e.g., 'Amazing!!', 'Best company', 'Super Awesome!!') appear to reference a supply store context rather than contractor/plumbing service work, suggesting some reviews may be for a different business entity or location.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most detailed and credible negative reviews span 2009–2023. The most recent substantive negative review is from November 2023. Positive contractor-service reviews are sparse and older.
• One review (2020) describes a gas water heater installation that failed inspection and posed a safety risk, with no resolution after nearly 3 months — this is a serious flag for both project completion and safety.

This WW Score has LOW-to-MODERATE reliability due to a large volume of suspected fake or uninformative reviews inflating the dataset; the score is anchored primarily on the 20–25 reviews with substantive text, which reveal a genuinely mixed and at times concerning service record.

Silverado Plumbing shows mixed performance across dimensions. Professionalism is moderately supported with three mentions highlighting punctuality, courtesy, and responsiveness, though one very old review contradicts this. Project completion is severely undermined by a 2020 review alleging unresolved workmanship issues and refusal to fix prior problems. Pricing concerns emerge from the same complaint about paying twice for one job. Experience scores are supported by two positive mentions of problem-solving ability, but the limited mention count and significant recency gaps weaken confidence. The company's score is dragged down by serious unresolved complaints about accountability and follow-through.

• RECENCY ISSUE: Two reviews are from 2017 and 2018 (6-7 years old); only three reviews from 2020 or later. Recent data is sparse.
• CRITICAL UNRESOLVED COMPLAINT: 2020 review alleges poor workmanship and refusal to fix defects—a serious project completion and accountability failure that has not been addressed or contradicted by subsequent reviews.
• INCONSISTENT SERVICE QUALITY: Stark contrast between glowing 5-star reviews (2017, 2023) and damaging 1-star reviews (2018, 2020) suggests either highly variable service or potential fake positive reviews.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: The 2017 and 2023 reviews use similar hyperbolic language ('amazing', 'HIGHLY RECOMMEND', exclamation marks) with generic praise and no specific technical details, which is a minor red flag for authenticity.
• CUSTOMER SERVICE RED FLAG: 2018 review reports hanging up on potential customers—a serious professionalism issue that undermines trust.

This score should be treated with caution due to very limited recent data (only 3 reviews from past 5 years), a serious unresolved complaint about workmanship and refusal to fix defects, and inconsistent service quality signals. The WW Score of 68.3 reflects genuine concerns about accountability and follow-through, but confidence is limited by small sample size and age of data.