Find Nearby Plumbers In Albuquerque, New Mexico

Glorieta Creek Mechanical demonstrates strong overall performance with particular strength in professionalism (87.5) and experience (86.0), both supported by extensive mention counts. Project completion scores solidly at 85.0, reflecting consistent on-time delivery and follow-through. Pricing is the weakest dimension at 78.0, driven primarily by one detailed complaint about parts markup ($636 vs. $81 manufacturer cost) and general concerns about value, though most reviews praise fair pricing. The WW Score of 82.1 reflects a reliable, professional contractor with occasional pricing concerns that prevent a higher rating.

• One detailed negative review (2.0 rating, Nov 2024) alleges significant parts markup on radiant boiler repair—customer found parts marked up 100% above manufacturer cost. This is a substantive pricing complaint that materially impacts the pricing dimension.
• One highly negative review (1.0 rating, June 2022) describes unprofessional behavior: technician showed up 2 hours early without notice, left after 20 minutes when unable to reach customer, and allegedly responded with 'rude angry tone' refusing to work on LG system. This contradicts the professionalism narrative but is isolated.
• One negative review (1.0 rating, June 2021) alleges Joe called in angry voice, refused to do business, and left customer's mother without heater repair despite payment. Serious allegation but unverified and isolated.
• Three blank/empty reviews (5.0 ratings, June 2023 and June 2022) provide no usable data—excluded from analysis.
• Majority of reviews (approximately 70%) cluster in June 2020-2024 period with heavy concentration in June 2022 and June 2023, suggesting possible batch posting or seasonal review surge. However, reviews span 2018-2025 with consistent messaging, reducing fake review suspicion.
• No pattern of identical phrasing detected; reviews show genuine variation in language and specific details (mini-splits, boilers, radiant heating, water heaters, etc.), supporting authenticity.
• Two negative reviews (1.0 and 2.0 ratings) are substantive and detailed, not generic complaints, which increases their credibility despite being outliers.

This WW Score of 82.1 is reliable and should be trusted. It is based on 48 usable reviews with strong mention counts across all dimensions (13-38 mentions), HIGH confidence ratings for three of four dimensions, and a balanced assessment that acknowledges both the company's genuine strengths in professionalism and experience while fairly penalizing documented pricing concerns and isolated but serious service failures. The score reflects a solid, professional contractor with occasional but notable weaknesses.

First Rate Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism with consistently praised punctuality, communication, and courteous technicians across 48 mentions. Technical competence and problem-solving ability are well-documented across 28 mentions, with skilled diagnostics and quality workmanship. Project completion is solid with 22 mentions showing timely work and follow-through, though some cleanliness and callback issues noted. Pricing is the primary weakness, with 13 mentions revealing significant customer concerns about high estimates, overcharging, and lack of transparency—several customers report prices 50-100% higher than competitors for identical work. Recent reviews (past 12 months) are predominantly positive, but pricing complaints span multiple years.

• PRICING PATTERN: Multiple independent reviews (at least 5) explicitly cite overpricing, price gouging, and estimates significantly higher than competitors. This is a consistent, substantive concern, not isolated complaints.
• DEPOSIT/REFUND ISSUE: One review (May 2025) reports $700 deposit not refunded after service cancellation despite repeated calls—potential business practice concern.
• QUALITY INCONSISTENCY: Two older reviews (2020-2021) describe repeated failures on sump pump installations and inspections, suggesting possible quality control issues in past years, though recent reviews show improvement.
• EMPTY REVIEWS: Three reviews contain only a 5-star rating with no text (dates: 2025-06-02, 2025-05-26, 2025-04-10)—these provide no usable data and slightly inflate apparent sentiment.
• RECENCY BIAS: Majority of reviews are from past 12 months (54 of 67), with older reviews (2019-2021) showing more quality/service issues. Recent reviews are predominantly 5-star with minimal critical detail.
• GENERIC PRAISE PATTERN: Several recent 5-star reviews use similar phrasing ('great service,' 'professional,' 'friendly') with minimal specificity, though not enough to suggest coordinated fake reviews.

This WW Score of 81.2 is reliable for assessing professionalism and technical competence (both HIGH confidence), but should be interpreted cautiously regarding pricing—the company excels in service delivery but consistently charges premium rates that many customers find unjustifiable, making it unsuitable for price-sensitive customers despite strong workmanship.

Hessinger's demonstrates strong performance across professionalism, project completion, and technical experience. All five reviews explicitly praise punctuality, responsiveness, courteous behavior, and successful problem-solving. The business earned particular recognition for emergency responsiveness (answering phones on holidays, squeezing in after-hours appointments) and fixing problems correctly on first attempt. However, pricing is never mentioned in any review, preventing evaluation of value for money. The oldest reviews date to 2017–2019, with only one from 2022, suggesting limited recent data.

• All five reviews are 5-star ratings with no negative feedback—this is atypical and warrants caution. While reviews contain specific details (names, situations, timelines) that suggest authenticity, the absence of any critical feedback or pricing discussion is notable.
• Review dates are heavily skewed toward 2017–2020 (four of five reviews). Only one review is from 2022. Recent performance data is limited.
• Pricing dimension has zero mentions across all reviews, making value-for-money assessment impossible.

This score should be treated with moderate caution. While the professionalism and project completion dimensions are well-supported by explicit evidence, the small sample size (5 reviews), age of most reviews (3–6 years old), and complete absence of pricing feedback limit the reliability of the overall assessment. The uniformly positive ratings without any critical feedback also reduce confidence slightly.

Custom Plumbing and Heating has a strong overall reputation built on consistent praise for responsiveness, knowledgeable staff, and fair pricing across a large volume of reviews spanning many years. Professionalism scores well in the majority of reviews but is meaningfully dragged down by a recurring pattern of complaints about no-shows, canceled appointments without rescheduling, failure to return calls or follow up on estimates, and at least one instance of faulty work that was never corrected. Project completion is similarly mixed: most jobs are described as completed well and on time, but several negative reviews describe abandoned jobs, unresolved emergencies, and a sewer repair that was done incorrectly and never remediated. Pricing and experience are the strongest dimensions, with numerous reviewers explicitly calling out reasonable or affordable pricing and technically skilled, knowledgeable plumbers. The score reflects a genuinely capable company with a real but non-trivial reliability problem that prospective customers should weigh carefully.

• Four blank reviews (no text) were submitted with ratings of 5 or 1 stars — these were excluded from dimension scoring as they contain no usable data.
• One review (2022) is unusually long and reads as a personal defense of the owner against alleged competitor slander rather than a genuine service review — this was treated with reduced weight as it does not describe a service experience.
• One review references 'Mel Martinez' as owner while the majority reference 'Barry Sauder' — this may indicate a change of ownership or two separate entities operating under the same name, which could affect score continuity across time periods.
• Several reviews are older than 3 years (pre-2022), including some from 2006, 2014, 2015, 2016, and 2017 — these were given reduced weight in scoring. The majority of recent reviews (2023–2025) are positive, but negative patterns around responsiveness and follow-through persist across all time periods.
• The 2015 negative review describes faulty sewer work that was never corrected and the owner removing evidence without permission — this is a serious workmanship and integrity flag that was factored into both project completion and professionalism scores.
• Multiple independent negative reviews describe the same failure mode: appointments canceled day-of, estimates never followed up, calls not returned — this is a consistent operational weakness, not isolated incidents.
• No suspected fake reviews detected. Most positive reviews include specific names, job details, and varied language, which supports authenticity.

This WW Score is based on 63 reviews with a high volume of usable data across all four dimensions and is considered moderately reliable, though prospective customers should note a consistent minority pattern of serious complaints about responsiveness, follow-through, and at least one documented case of unresolved faulty workmanship.

NCB Mechanical earns strong marks across all four dimensions, with the large majority of reviewers praising responsive scheduling, friendly and knowledgeable technicians, and fair transparent pricing. Professionalism scores are tempered by three notable negative reviews: one describing rude technicians who arrived outside the scheduled window and left the job incomplete, one detailing repeated no-shows and a condescending tech who provided false information and did poor work, and one noting a furnace inspection that resulted in no follow-up callback as promised. Project completion is similarly solid overall but is pulled down by the same pattern of failed callbacks and one instance of a heater installed upside-down requiring a return visit. Pricing feedback is consistently positive, with multiple reviewers explicitly calling out fair, competitive, or reasonable costs and transparent upfront quotes. Experience scores reflect a technically capable team across plumbing and HVAC, though the mini-split cleaning complaint and the inverted heater installation introduce meaningful deductions.

• Three reviews with no text body or minimal content (one blank rating-only entry, two office-staff-only inquiries with no service performed) were counted in total but excluded from dimension scoring as they contain no usable service data.
• One review dated 2024-09-12 contains no review text at all — only a 5-star rating. This inflates the star average and was excluded from dimension scoring.
• A mild clustering pattern exists: multiple reviews mention the same technician names (Dominic, Miguel, Ryan, Cesar, Brandon) in highly positive terms with similar phrasing. While this likely reflects a small consistent crew rather than fake reviews, it warrants mild caution. No strong fake-review pattern detected overall.
• Three reviews explicitly describe service failures: (1) rude technicians arriving outside the scheduled window with an incomplete repair (Dec 2024, 1-star); (2) repeated no-shows, poor mini-split cleaning, false technical claims, and unresolved complaints despite multiple attempts (Jul 2024, 1-star); (3) no follow-up callback after a furnace inspection (Dec 2023, 1-star). These are substantive and credible negative signals.
• One 2-star review (Feb 2022) describes a heater installed upside-down requiring a return visit and a thermostat not installed as expected — a meaningful project completion failure.
• Most reviews are from 2024–2025, which is favorable for recency. A small number of reviews date to 2022–2023 and were weighted slightly lower per recency rules.

This WW Score is based on 62 reviews with strong recency (majority within the past 12 months) and high mention counts across all four dimensions, making it a reliable representation of NCB Mechanical's current service quality — though prospective customers should weigh the three substantive 1-star complaints, which reveal real inconsistencies in follow-through and technician conduct.

Professionalism is the strongest and most consistently praised dimension, with dozens of reviews citing friendly, courteous, and timely technicians — particularly Irin Martinez, Reyes Chavez, and Matt. Experience scores well too, with multiple reviewers noting accurate diagnoses, technical knowledge, and quality workmanship. However, project completion is meaningfully dragged down by several serious negative reviews: one customer reported a technician left without completing a job and the company then refused to return, another reported a callback was never made despite a 24/7 promise, and a third reported a clogged drain call was never returned after two days. Pricing is a mixed picture — several reviews praise affordability and fair value, but two reviews explicitly describe feeling overcharged or misled with fake 'discount' framing, which suppresses that dimension's score. The WW Score of 79.2 reflects a contractor with genuinely strong field technicians but notable reliability and follow-through gaps at the company level.

• 8 reviews contain no text at all — only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence.
• Three serious project completion failures identified: (1) company refused to return to finish a job after a valve replacement left hot water non-functional; (2) a Sunday callback was never made despite a 24/7 service promise; (3) a clogged drain inquiry received no callback for two days. These are not isolated incidents and represent a systemic follow-through risk.
• Two reviews explicitly flag deceptive or inflated pricing practices: one customer was quoted $1,900 for a job completed elsewhere for $535, and another felt manipulated by a fake 'good customer discount' framing. This meaningfully reduces confidence in the pricing dimension.
• One review (dated 2025-02-09) references a call date of '1/26/2026' which is a future date relative to the review timestamp — this is likely a typo but noted as a data inconsistency.
• Review volume drops significantly for dates prior to 2024, with most substantive negative reviews coming from 2021–2022. Recent reviews (2025) are overwhelmingly positive, which may reflect genuine improvement or a shift in reviewer base. Recency weighting applied accordingly.
• No strong fake review pattern detected, but the high volume of brief, generic 5-star reviews with no detail (e.g., 'Amazing Service! Will use again!') slightly reduces confidence in the overall positive signal.

This WW Score is based on 43 reviews with usable content across a multi-year period and carries HIGH overall confidence, but prospective customers should weigh the documented project abandonment and callback failures seriously, as these represent the most material risk when hiring this contractor.