Find Nearby Plumbers In Albuquerque, New Mexico

Strongbuilt Plumbing & HVAC demonstrates severe systemic failures across nearly all operational dimensions. The company exhibits chronic no-shows and appointment cancellations (18 mentions of professionalism issues), with customers repeatedly reporting missed appointments despite taking time off work. Pricing practices are highly problematic, with 9 explicit mentions of bait-and-switch tactics, inflated estimates, and deceptive advertising (e.g., $29.95 service advertised but charged $88-$286). Project completion is critically weak, with 15 mentions documenting incomplete work, abandoned projects, unresponsive follow-up, and failure to honor callbacks or warranty promises. Only the experience dimension shows moderate strength (5 mentions), with 2 positive reviews praising individual technicians' technical knowledge and professionalism, but this is overwhelmed by 20 negative reviews documenting incompetence, dishonesty, or both. The company's veteran-owned status is repeatedly cited by customers as a reason for disappointment, suggesting a significant gap between marketing and service delivery.

• SEVERE PATTERN OF DECEPTION: Multiple reviews (9+) document bait-and-switch pricing, false advertising, and inflated estimates. Examples include $29.95 advertised service charged at $88-$286, $4,000 quote for $21 capacitor replacement, and $9K-$20K HVAC quotes with aggressive upselling.
• CHRONIC NO-SHOWS AND CANCELLATIONS: 18 reviews explicitly mention missed appointments, last-minute cancellations, rescheduling without notice, and failure to show within promised windows. This is the most consistent complaint across the dataset.
• ABANDONED PROJECTS AND NO FOLLOW-UP: 15 reviews document incomplete work, unfinished repairs, missing parts, and complete failure to respond to callbacks or honor warranty/service agreement promises. One customer waited 2+ months for ceiling crack repair that never occurred.
• UNRESPONSIVE CUSTOMER SERVICE: Multiple reviews report inability to reach live staff, unanswered calls, ignored voicemails, and no callback from management despite repeated contact attempts.
• ONLY 2 POSITIVE REVIEWS OUT OF 22: Both positive reviews (2020) praise individual technicians (Adam, Chad) but do not address systemic company issues. The overwhelming majority of reviews (20/22 = 91%) are 1-star ratings from 2020-2024, indicating persistent, unresolved problems.
• RECENCY CONCERN: While older reviews exist (2020-2021), the most recent reviews (2024) show identical complaint patterns, indicating no improvement over 4+ years.
• VETERAN-OWNED MARKETING DISCONNECT: 6+ reviews specifically mention disappointment that a veteran-owned company exhibits poor service, suggesting customers held higher expectations based on marketing claims.

This WW Score of 28.4 is highly reliable and should be trusted completely. It is based on 22 reviews with consistent, detailed, and specific complaints across all dimensions, supported by HIGH confidence in professionalism and project completion (15+ mentions each). The overwhelming negative consensus (91% one-star reviews), combined with documented patterns of deception, no-shows, and abandoned work, presents a clear and credible picture of a company with severe operational and ethical failures. This score accurately reflects a contractor that poses significant risk to customers.

This contractor (Frontier/Joe Villapando) demonstrates severe and consistent deficiencies across all dimensions. Professionalism is critically compromised by non-responsiveness, poor communication, missed appointments, and unprofessional behavior including alleged misogyny. Project completion is severely hampered by incomplete work, extended timelines (5 weeks instead of 5 days, 8 months of delays), abandoned jobs, and failure to honor warranties or callbacks. Pricing concerns include overcharging, hidden invoices, and work not performed despite payment. Experience is undermined by improper installations, incorrect diagnoses, and work requiring correction by other contractors. The contractor's license has been suspended, and multiple reviews document serious safety issues (water intrusion, improper gas vents) and ethical violations.

• CRITICAL: Contractor license suspended as of 8/31/2022 per review dated 2022-10-14
• CRITICAL: Multiple reviews reference same contractor 'Joe' or 'Joe Villapando' with consistent pattern of non-completion, poor communication, and unethical behavior across 2020-2024
• CRITICAL: Pattern of incomplete work, abandoned projects, and failure to honor callbacks appears in 8 of 12 reviews
• CRITICAL: Multiple reviews document safety hazards (water intrusion, improper gas vents, oil leaks) resulting from poor workmanship
• CRITICAL: Alleged misogynistic behavior and lack of integrity reported by multiple customers
• CRITICAL: Unlicensed work mentioned in at least one review despite operating as licensed contractor
• Pricing concerns: Multiple instances of overcharging, unnecessary work recommendations, and invoices for work not performed
• Only 2 positive reviews (both from 2020-2021) versus 10 negative reviews; positive reviews predate most serious complaints
• Recency concern: Most damaging reviews are from 2022-2024, indicating ongoing problems despite earlier positive feedback

This WW Score of 28.4 is highly reliable and should be trusted completely; it is based on 12 detailed reviews with consistent, corroborated patterns of failure across all dimensions, including documented license suspension, safety violations, and unethical business practices. This contractor should be avoided.

This contractor's reviews are overwhelmingly negative, with 7 of 9 reviews awarding 1 star. The two positive reviews praise successful leak detection at a reasonable flat rate, but these are heavily outweighed by consistent, detailed complaints across all four scored dimensions. Professionalism is a critical failure point: multiple reviewers describe the owner as arrogant, rude, demeaning, intimidating, and dismissive when confronted with complaints. Project completion is the most damaging dimension, with the majority of negative reviewers explicitly stating the leak was never correctly identified despite payment, and in several cases the contractor's work caused additional property damage. Experience scores are similarly poor, with reviewers describing incorrect diagnoses, unnecessary property disruption, and in one case a qualified plumber finding the leak in under an hour after this company failed entirely. Pricing is flagged as a concern not only for the high flat fees ($373–$581) but for the practice of charging full price after failed detection and demanding repeat fees to return within days of an unsuccessful job.

• RECENCY WARNING: The two positive reviews are from 2023, while the majority of negative reviews span 2016–2022. The positive reviews may reflect a different period of operation or isolated successful cases, but the volume and consistency of negative reviews across multiple years is a significant concern.
• PROPERTY DAMAGE PATTERN: Multiple reviewers (at least 3) independently report that the contractor caused physical damage to their property — including carpet, concrete, shrubs, and walls — and refused to take responsibility, citing contract language. This is a serious and recurring pattern.
• FAILED DETECTION PATTERN: At least 5 reviewers explicitly state the leak was never correctly located despite full payment. In multiple cases, a different plumber found the leak quickly afterward, suggesting a systemic competence issue rather than isolated incidents.
• PREDATORY PRICING CONCERN: Multiple reviewers describe being asked to sign invoices for full payment before work began, being charged full fees after failed detection, and being asked to pay again within days to re-attempt the same job. This pattern warrants consumer caution.
• OWNER CONDUCT: The owner (named 'Steve' or 'Steve Gross' in multiple reviews) is personally named in several negative reviews for rude, dismissive, and intimidating behavior when customers raised complaints. This is a consistent behavioral pattern, not an isolated incident.
• NO FAKE REVIEW FLAGS: The reviews appear authentic. Negative reviews contain specific details, dollar amounts, named individuals, timelines, and unique circumstances. The two positive reviews are brief but plausible. No suspicious repetition or generic phrasing detected.

This WW Score is based on 9 reviews with HIGH confidence across all four dimensions, and the score of 28.1 should be treated as a reliable and conservative reflection of this contractor's documented performance — the overwhelming volume of detailed, specific, and independently corroborating negative reviews makes this one of the more trustworthy low scores the engine can produce.

JC&E demonstrates severe deficiencies across all measured dimensions. Three of four reviews are highly critical, citing unresponsive communication, rude personnel, incomplete work, and poor craftsmanship. The single positive review from 2021 praises professionalism and communication, but is substantially outweighed by detailed accounts of failed installations, warranty disputes, and refusal to honor callbacks. Project completion is particularly weak, with multiple instances of abandoned work and customers forced to hire competitors for corrections. The company's technical execution shows consistent problems including freon leaks, improper ductwork sizing, and inadequate installation practices.

• RECENCY CONCERN: The positive review is from January 2021 (3+ years old), while three negative reviews span 2019-2023, suggesting potential deterioration in service quality or consistency issues.
• PATTERN OF SERIOUS FAILURES: Multiple independent reviews document similar problems (unresponsiveness, poor workmanship, warranty disputes, incomplete callbacks), indicating systemic issues rather than isolated incidents.
• REGULATORY COMPLAINTS: At least one customer explicitly stated intent to file complaints with state licensing and attorney general, suggesting potential legal/regulatory exposure.
• INCONSISTENCY DETECTED: The stark contrast between the 2021 positive review and all other reviews raises questions about consistency of service delivery or potential changes in company operations.

This WW Score of 28.3 is highly reliable and should be trusted as a strong indicator of poor contractor performance. The score is based on consistent negative patterns across multiple detailed reviews with specific examples of failures, supported by one older positive review that does not offset the weight of evidence.

The review set for AC&R Plumbing is overwhelmingly negative, with three of four reviews describing serious failures across every dimension. The single positive review (2020) describes a genuinely good experience with specific staff named, but it is heavily outweighed by accounts of fraud, unlicensed work, stolen upfront payments, abandoned projects, substandard workmanship, and unresponsive communication. Project completion is particularly alarming, with one reviewer describing a 5-day job that took months, unrepaired ceiling damage, and another describing work that had to be entirely redone by a different company. The fraud allegation in the most recent review — where the owner allegedly misrepresented his licensing and kept stolen deposit funds — is the most severe finding and significantly suppresses all dimension scores. The one positive review prevents scores from reaching the floor but does not meaningfully rehabilitate the overall picture.

• FRAUD ALERT: One reviewer explicitly states the owner claimed to be licensed for electrical and plumbing work but was not, and allegedly stole the upfront deposit and refused to return calls. This is a serious legal and ethical red flag.
• UNLICENSED WORK: Multiple reviews suggest work was performed without proper licensing or qualified journeymen on site, which poses safety and legal risks to customers.
• ABANDONED/INCOMPLETE WORK: At least two reviews describe work left unfinished, unrepaired damage (holes in ceiling), and jobs that far exceeded their promised timelines.
• RECENCY CONCERN: The most recent review (2022) is the most damaging and involves alleged theft. The positive review is from 2020. Two other negative reviews are from 2017. No reviews exist from 2023 onward, meaning current business quality is unknown.
• REVIEW VOLUME WARNING: Only 4 reviews total. While all dimensions reached MODERATE confidence, the small sample size means scores should be interpreted cautiously. The single positive review has outsized influence on preventing scores from being lower.

This WW Score carries MODERATE confidence due to a very small review pool of only 4 reviews, but the consistency of serious complaints across three independent negative reviews — including fraud, unlicensed work, and project abandonment — makes the low score directionally reliable and the contractor should be approached with extreme caution.

Antonio's Plumbing has a deeply mixed and predominantly negative review profile across all three reviews analyzed. Two of the three reviews describe serious failures in responsiveness and follow-through: a no-call no-show in one case, and repeated broken promises to return and fix a botched job in another. Professionalism and project completion scores are heavily dragged down by these two recent negative reviews, which describe unprofessional communication, abandoned callbacks, and incomplete or incorrect work. The single positive review from 2019 provides some counterbalance, noting courteous service, timely arrival, and competent workmanship, but it is now over five years old and carries reduced weight under recency rules. Pricing signals are mixed — one reviewer was charged an 'outrageous price' for substandard work, another found Antonio's mid-range, and a third found a competitor charged less than Antonio's quote.

• RECENCY WARNING: The only positive review is dated 2019 — over 5 years old. Both negative reviews are from 2023 and 2024, suggesting a possible decline in service quality over time. Recent reviews should be weighted more heavily.
• SMALL SAMPLE WARNING: Only 3 reviews total. The WW Score cannot be considered statistically reliable. Scores should be treated as directional only.
• WORKMANSHIP CONCERN: One review explicitly describes a failed repair where the technician did not perform the correct fix (wax ring replacement), leading to a flood. This is a significant quality and liability flag.
• ACCOUNTABILITY CONCERN: In two separate reviews, the business failed to return calls, honor appointments, or make good on service failures. This is a pattern of poor customer follow-through despite only two data points.
• No fake review patterns detected. Reviews contain specific details, named individuals, and varied language consistent with genuine customer experiences.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews with the most recent positive review being over 5 years old; the score should be treated as LOW reliability and directional only — the two recent negative reviews paint a concerning picture of current service standards.