Find Nearby Plumbers In Albuquerque, New Mexico

Allied Plumbing demonstrates strong overall performance across all four dimensions, with professionalism being the most frequently cited positive attribute — the vast majority of reviewers praised courteous, friendly, and timely technicians by name. Pricing is generally regarded as fair and transparent, with multiple reviewers specifically noting that quoted prices were honored without hidden charges; however, a handful of negative reviews cited overpricing or unexpectedly high bills, which tempers the pricing score. Project completion is solid, with many reviews describing jobs finished on time and to satisfaction, but there are notable negative outliers involving incomplete repairs, a no-call no-show, a rescheduled appointment, and at least one instance of work that caused subsequent damage (the sewer line replacement that only covered 20 feet). Experience scores well overall, with reviewers frequently praising technical knowledge and problem-solving, though a few reviews describe misdiagnosis or substandard workmanship that prevents a higher score. The presence of 10+ negative reviews — including serious complaints about incomplete work, aggressive behavior, and poor customer service — meaningfully reduces scores across all dimensions.

• Seven reviews contain no text at all (marked 'unknown', blank, or just a period) with ratings of 4–5 stars — these were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data.
• A cluster of 14 reviews all share the exact same date of 2024-06-09, which is unusual and may indicate batch-imported or artificially dated reviews. Content varies enough to suggest they are real but the identical date warrants caution.
• One reviewer (2017-09-09) explicitly accused the company of having fake employee reviews, stating 'Guessing most of these reviews must be from employees.' This cannot be confirmed but is noted.
• One review (2019-07-23) appears to be a near-verbatim duplicate of another review (2020-06-10) — same reviewer praising the same technicians with nearly identical language. This duplicate was counted only once per dimension.
• Negative reviews describe serious incidents: an owner allegedly entering a customer's home to intimidate them (2024-09-21), a driver attempting to instigate a physical altercation (2024-06-09), a plumber leaving without turning water back on causing additional damage (2019-05-22), a no-call no-show (2016-06-11), a rescheduled appointment with no notice (2016-01-15), and a sewer repair that only partially addressed the problem leading to a repeat backup (2022-11-25).
• The review corpus spans from 2006 to 2025. Reviews older than 3 years (pre-2022) were given reduced weight in scoring. The majority of recent reviews (2024–2025) are positive, which is a favorable recency signal, but the negative reviews are distributed across multiple years suggesting recurring issues rather than isolated incidents.
• One negative review (2014-01-20) describes a detailed and credible account of a leak caused by technician negligence, subsequent property damage, and a dismissive response from the office — this was weighted heavily in the project completion and professionalism scores.

This WW Score is based on a large review set (125 reviews) with high mention counts across all four dimensions, making it statistically reliable; however, the presence of credible and detailed negative reviews — including incomplete work, aggressive employee conduct, and poor complaint resolution — means the score should be interpreted as a moderate-confidence representation of a company with strong typical performance but meaningful and recurring service failures.

Zoom Drain demonstrates strong overall performance with a WW Score of 78.2, driven primarily by excellent professionalism (82.5) and solid project completion rates (81.0). Technicians are consistently praised for punctuality, friendliness, and technical knowledge. However, pricing emerges as a significant weakness (68.0), with numerous customers citing costs as excessive or overpriced relative to work performed. Experience scores are solid (79.5), reflecting genuine expertise in drain and sewer work, though some customers report incomplete diagnostics or unnecessary upselling. The company shows strong responsiveness and same-day service availability, which customers value highly.

• PRICING CONCERNS: 156 mentions of pricing issues reveal a consistent pattern of customer dissatisfaction. Many reviews explicitly state prices are 2-3x higher than competitors for identical work. Examples include $500+ for simple drain snaking, $638 for a quote without service, and $1000+ for jobs completed elsewhere for $200-300. This is the most frequently cited complaint.
• NO-SHOW AND SCHEDULING FAILURES: At least 25 reviews document missed appointments, no-call/no-shows, or failure to meet promised time windows. Customers report waiting full appointment windows (4-6 hours) with no technician arrival and poor communication from dispatch.
• INCOMPLETE WORK AND FOLLOW-UP ISSUES: Multiple reviews (15+) describe situations where initial service failed to fully resolve problems, requiring expensive return visits or customers hiring competitors to finish the job. Some customers report being charged for 'attempts' that didn't work.
• POTENTIAL UPSELLING PATTERN: Approximately 20 reviews suggest technicians recommend expensive solutions (full pipe replacement, hydro-jetting, etc.) when simpler/cheaper fixes would suffice. Some customers report being pressured into higher-cost options.
• DAMAGE AND LIABILITY ISSUES: At least 8 reviews document property damage (sprinkler pipes, water mains, driveways, electrical lines) caused by Zoom technicians, with the company refusing to cover repair costs or claiming 'not responsible per contract.'
• COMMUNICATION BREAKDOWN: Multiple reviews cite poor follow-up (missing estimates, unreturned calls, no response to complaints), particularly from management and administrative staff.
• INCONSISTENT QUALITY: Wide variance in technician competence noted. Some reviews praise specific technicians (Johnny Rodriguez, Ian, Kyle, Maurice) while others describe inexperienced or unknowledgeable technicians sent to the same locations.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK - MODERATE: Approximately 80-100 reviews are extremely generic 5-star ratings with minimal detail (e.g., 'Great service!' 'Excellent!' 'Highly recommend!') and no substantive information. Many lack dates or contain identical phrasing. However, the volume of detailed negative reviews and specific complaints suggests these are not entirely fabricated—rather, the company may be actively soliciting reviews post-service (one review explicitly mentions aggressive review-hunting via text/call within 24 hours).
• RECENCY BIAS: Most reviews are from 2023-2025 (past 12 months), with a concentration in June 2023 and January-June 2025. Older reviews (2014-2020) tend to be more positive, suggesting potential service quality decline or increased customer expectations.
• GEOGRAPHIC VARIATION: Reviews span multiple states (PA, CA, NJ, NC, TX, UT, CO, etc.), suggesting this is a franchise or multi-location operation. Quality and pricing may vary significantly by location.

This WW Score of 78.2 should be interpreted with caution: while Zoom Drain demonstrates genuine expertise and professionalism in technical execution, the consistent and detailed complaints about pricing (appearing in 13% of reviews) and scheduling failures (2% of reviews) represent material service gaps. The company excels at the core plumbing work but struggles with business operations and pricing transparency. Customers should obtain multiple quotes before engaging and clarify pricing in writing beforehand. The score reflects strong technical capability undermined by significant operational and pricing concerns.

TLC demonstrates strong professionalism and technical expertise across plumbing, HVAC, and electrical services, with many customers praising punctuality, courtesy, and knowledgeable technicians. Project completion is generally solid, though some customers report delays, incomplete follow-ups, and warranty issues. Pricing emerges as a significant weakness, with recurring complaints about high costs, unexpected charges, and aggressive upselling tactics. The company shows inconsistency: excellent service from individual technicians contrasts sharply with poor communication, scheduling failures, and unresolved issues in other cases.

• FAKE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: Multiple identical reviews appear verbatim on dates 2025-06-08, 2025-06-06, and 2025-05-07 (e.g., Judocus Goris review, Felice Maestas complaint, Alexander review, Isaac/Macy/Diego review, condensate pump review, long testimonial about Kyle). This suggests review manipulation or data duplication. Confidence in recent 2025 reviews is reduced.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS ARE CONSISTENT AND SPECIFIC: At least 12 reviews explicitly criticize pricing as excessive, with examples of $15,000 HVAC quotes vs. $8,200 elsewhere, $200 service calls, $75 door fees, and aggressive upselling. This is not isolated—it is a pattern.
• COMMUNICATION AND FOLLOW-UP FAILURES: Multiple customers report no callbacks, delayed responses, poor coordination between departments, and lack of proactive communication about delays or issues. This undermines professionalism scores.
• INCONSISTENT QUALITY CONTROL: Several reviews note that work quality depends heavily on which technician is assigned. Some technicians (Alfredo, Carlos, Joe Goris, Toni B) are repeatedly praised; others are criticized for poor diagnostics, incorrect installations, or dishonesty.
• WARRANTY AND CALLBACK ISSUES: Several customers report TLC refusing to honor warranty work, avoiding callbacks, or delaying follow-up repairs. One customer waited 2 months and 4 visits for a toilet issue diagnosis.
• RECENCY BIAS NOTED: Most 5-star reviews cluster in April-May 2025 and May 2023, with many older reviews (2012-2016) appearing generic. Recent negative reviews (Feb-Oct 2024) show pricing and service consistency concerns.
• POTENTIAL BAIT-AND-SWITCH PATTERN: Multiple reviews describe technicians recommending expensive replacements when repairs were possible, or misdiagnosing issues to justify higher-cost solutions.

This WW Score of 78.2 should be treated with MODERATE-TO-HIGH caution due to suspected review duplication in the 2025 dataset, which inflates professionalism and project completion scores. Pricing weakness is well-documented and credible. The company delivers competent technical work and responsive service from individual technicians, but organizational inconsistency, communication failures, and pricing practices are significant concerns. Customers should obtain written estimates, verify work before payment, and request specific technicians if possible.

Drain Surgeon demonstrates strong technical expertise and generally reliable service delivery, with most customers praising punctuality, professionalism, and knowledgeable workmanship. However, the company's score is tempered by significant and recurring issues with responsiveness and communication—multiple reviews spanning 2019–2021 document customers unable to reach the company despite repeated calls and messages. Pricing is a mixed dimension: while many customers report fair and competitive rates, several reviews explicitly cite overcharging or unexpected bills substantially exceeding initial quotes. Project completion is generally solid, though a handful of reviews describe incomplete work or problems that required callbacks. The company's performance appears inconsistent, with excellent service in some cases contrasting sharply with poor communication and follow-through in others.

• COMMUNICATION CRISIS PATTERN: Multiple independent reviews (2019–2021) report inability to reach the company despite multiple calls, messages, and voicemails. One review explicitly notes a switch to a problematic answering service during the pandemic. This is a systemic issue, not isolated incidents.
• PRICING TRANSPARENCY CONCERNS: At least 5 reviews cite unexpected charges or bills significantly higher than quoted amounts. Examples include: quoted $190 but charged $635 total; quoted $432 by competitor but charged considerably less (positive), yet another review charged $200 for 15-minute job with undisclosed service fee; charged $184 for 15 minutes of work; charged $250 for incomplete work. Lack of upfront pricing clarity is evident.
• QUALITY INCONSISTENCY: One detailed 2017 review describes a technician (Joey) damaging a bathtub drain flange by improper technique (not removing drain stopper before snaking), then denying responsibility. Another 2022 review describes a technician (Eric) spending 2 hours unsuccessfully attempting to clear a drain, then leaving without using diagnostic tools (camera) or providing solutions, despite charging over $300.
• OWNERSHIP/MANAGEMENT CHANGE IMPACT: One 2020 review explicitly notes deterioration after original owner Eric brought in partner Tracy Petragallo, describing hostile and belligerent behavior when the customer questioned code compliance. This suggests internal management issues may be driving inconsistency.
• INCOMPLETE WORK DOCUMENTED: At least 3 reviews describe jobs left incomplete or requiring callbacks: 2022 drain not fully cleared after 2 hours; 2014 clean-out quoted at $190 but required two visits totaling $635 with drain still slow; 2006 clog not fixed, customer called different company.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK - MODERATE: Approximately 8–10 reviews contain only ratings with no text or extremely generic single-word praise ('Excellent!', 'Awesome service', 'Best plumbers ever!'). While not conclusive, the pattern of empty/minimal reviews clustered around 2021–2023 warrants caution. However, the majority of reviews are detailed and specific, reducing overall fake review concern.
• RECENCY NOTE: Most recent reviews (2024–2025) are uniformly positive with no communication complaints, suggesting possible recent improvements. However, reviews from 2019–2021 show severe communication failures, indicating a historical systemic problem.

This WW Score of 78.2 is reliable at the HIGH confidence level due to the large sample size (127 reviews) and consistent mention counts across dimensions. However, the score masks significant operational inconsistency: the company excels at technical work and professionalism when engaged, but has documented systemic failures in communication, pricing transparency, and quality control. Customers should expect strong workmanship but should verify pricing upfront in writing and be prepared for potential communication delays. Recent reviews suggest improvement, but the historical pattern of unresponsiveness and billing disputes is substantial enough to warrant caution.

Davis the Plumber demonstrates strong technical expertise and generally professional service delivery, with many customers praising workmanship quality and responsiveness. However, significant pricing concerns emerge across multiple reviews, with customers reporting unexpectedly high bills, charges for work not completed, and lack of transparency in estimates. Project completion shows mixed results—while most jobs are finished, there are notable instances of incomplete work requiring callbacks and extended timelines. The company's professionalism is solid in terms of punctuality and courtesy, but customer service responsiveness and follow-through on commitments show inconsistency, particularly regarding emergency callbacks and scheduling.

• FAKE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: Multiple reviews contain only generic single words or phrases ('fine', 'unknown', '.', 'It went very well') with 5-star ratings and no substantive detail. At least 8 reviews fall into this category (dates: 2017-06-28, 2016-08-16, 2015-12-01, 2015-04-30, 2015-02-11, 2014-05-20, 2014-04-28, 2014-02-07, 2014-02-22). These appear to be placeholder or artificially inflated reviews and reduce confidence in the overall score.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS ARE CONSISTENT AND SPECIFIC: Multiple independent reviews cite overcharging, hidden fees, and lack of transparency (2022-01-11: $245 for pilot light; 2020-02-09: 2.5x quoted price; 2018-04-23: $521 for 2 hours labor; 2018-05-31: charged twice for same job; 2006-10-15: charged for materials customer provided). This pattern suggests systemic pricing issues, not isolated incidents.
• PROJECT COMPLETION ISSUES: Several reviews document incomplete work requiring multiple callbacks (2018-05-31: sink left with hole for 2 weeks; 2023-05-03: incorrect installation not caught until next season). One review (2018-10-09) describes abandonment of work mid-project after deposit collected.
• RECENCY BIAS: Most reviews are from 2006-2014 (older than 10 years). Only 8 reviews are from 2018 or later. Recent reviews (2022-2023) show more negative patterns (no availability, overcharging, incomplete work), suggesting possible service quality decline.
• INCONSISTENT CUSTOMER SERVICE: Emergency/after-hours responsiveness is unreliable. One customer (2018-05-31) had to escalate to owner to resolve scheduling issues; another (2010-06-07) was not notified of appointment delay and canceled.

This WW Score of 78.2 should be treated with MODERATE-TO-HIGH caution. While the score reflects genuine strengths in technical expertise and professionalism, it is significantly inflated by a cluster of suspicious low-detail 5-star reviews (likely fake) concentrated in the 2014-2017 period. The pricing dimension is particularly concerning—multiple specific, detailed complaints about overcharging and lack of transparency suggest real customer harm. Recent reviews (2022-2023) are more negative and may better reflect current service quality. Prospective customers should prioritize the detailed negative reviews and pricing complaints over the generic positive ones, and should obtain written estimates with clear scope definitions before engaging this company.

Wagner Mechanical demonstrates strong professionalism and technical expertise, with technicians consistently praised for courtesy, knowledge, and responsiveness. However, the company is significantly hampered by pricing concerns, with numerous customers reporting excessive charges, hidden fees, and what some describe as overpriced estimates. Project completion is generally solid but marred by scheduling inconsistencies, missed appointments, and occasional follow-up failures. The company shows particular strength in emergency response and technical problem-solving, but weakness in transparent pricing communication and administrative reliability.

• PRICING PATTERN: 32 mentions of pricing issues reveal systematic overcharging concerns. Multiple customers report 300-1000% markups on parts, minimum hour charges for short jobs, and aggressive upselling of unnecessary services. This is the most consistent negative theme across reviews.
• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: Identical review text appears multiple times (e.g., 'The guy that came out was very nice, professional and knowledgeable...' appears at least twice; 'Very efficient. Got here when they said...' appears twice; the long negative generator review appears twice verbatim). This suggests either data duplication or potential review manipulation. Confidence in overall score reduced slightly due to this anomaly.
• SCHEDULING FAILURES: Multiple reviews (at least 15+) document missed appointments, rescheduling without notice, and poor dispatch communication. One customer reported 7.5 weeks of repeated no-shows on a $15,000 job.
• QUALITY CONTROL ISSUES: Several reviews document incomplete work requiring callbacks (disposal installation missing drainage plug, AC installation with wrong thermostat, generator installation with faulty battery, HVAC vent louvers installed backwards). At least 8 reviews mention work that had to be redone.
• RECENCY NOTE: Most recent reviews (May-June 2025) are overwhelmingly positive with generic praise and minimal detail, contrasting sharply with detailed negative reviews from 2023-2024. This temporal pattern warrants caution regarding review authenticity for the most recent batch.
• CUSTOMER SERVICE INCONSISTENCY: Office staff performance varies dramatically. Some reviews praise responsiveness; others report rude staff, poor communication, and inability to reach supervisors despite promises to do so.

This WW Score of 76.8 should be treated with MODERATE-TO-HIGH confidence for professionalism and experience dimensions, but LOW confidence for the pricing dimension due to limited mention count (32) and clear systematic overcharging patterns. The score reflects a company with genuinely skilled, courteous technicians undermined by aggressive pricing practices and administrative/scheduling failures. Recent review duplication and temporal clustering of positive reviews suggest some data quality issues, but the volume and consistency of pricing complaints across multiple years and customers indicates this is a genuine, persistent problem rather than isolated incidents.