Find Nearby Plumbers In Albuquerque, New Mexico

B. Carlson receives strong praise for individual technician professionalism, technical knowledge, and job completion quality — with standout techs like Drake, Santino, Dylan, Jose, and Rafael mentioned repeatedly across recent reviews. However, a persistent and significant pattern of negative feedback drags scores down across all dimensions: scheduling failures and no-shows are reported by multiple independent reviewers, pricing transparency complaints are numerous and span many years, and several customers report unresolved issues, poor follow-through on callbacks, and inflated estimates. The pricing dimension is the weakest area, with multiple reviewers explicitly citing hidden service fees, bloated estimates, and overcharging — some comparing B. Carlson quotes to competitors at a fraction of the cost. Project completion scores moderately well when technicians do show up, but the scheduling and rescheduling failures represent a meaningful completion risk. The overall picture is a company with skilled field technicians undermined by systemic operational and pricing integrity issues.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: At least two pairs of reviews appear to be exact duplicates submitted on different dates (e.g., the long 2025-06-09 and 2025-06-06 reviews are identical; the 2025-06-09 and 2025-06-06 5-star water heater reviews are identical). These duplicates were counted only once per unique review for scoring purposes.
• BLANK REVIEWS: 23 reviews contained no text — only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable qualitative data.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews are from 2024-2025 and carry full weight. Several negative reviews date back to 2013-2019 and were given reduced weight, though their patterns (hidden fees, scheduling failures, inflated estimates) are consistent with more recent complaints, suggesting systemic rather than historical issues.
• PRICING INTEGRITY CONCERN: Multiple independent reviewers across different years explicitly describe hidden service fees, estimates that dropped dramatically when challenged, charges for work not performed, and comparisons to competitors at significantly lower prices. This is a consistent and credible pattern, not isolated incidents.
• SCHEDULING/NO-SHOW PATTERN: At least 6 independent reviews explicitly describe missed appointments, no-shows without notification, or repeated rescheduling — including a 2025 review. This is a recurring operational failure that affects both professionalism and project completion scores.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK — LOW TO MODERATE: A large number of 5-star reviews are very brief and generic (e.g., 'Most professional and polite tech.', 'Great service.', 'A job well done very professional'). While not conclusively fake, the volume of short, undetailed 5-star reviews with no specifics warrants mild caution. Scores were not inflated based on these alone.

This WW Score is based on a large review set (141 total, 118 with usable data) spanning 2013–2025, giving it HIGH statistical confidence; however, the score should be interpreted cautiously given documented patterns of pricing opacity, scheduling failures, and duplicate review submissions that suggest the positive review pool may be somewhat inflated relative to actual customer experience.

Reddi Services has a large and broadly positive review base, with the majority of customers praising individual technicians — particularly Matt H, Matt Mattox, Bryant, Pepe, Gerald, Damion, Daniel, and others — for being knowledgeable, professional, courteous, and effective. The experience and professionalism dimensions are well-supported by hundreds of specific, detailed reviews. However, a meaningful and recurring pattern of negative reviews significantly drags down the scores: scheduling failures (no-shows, missed windows, no callbacks), pricing complaints (described as expensive, overpriced, or higher than expected), and a handful of serious workmanship or ethics complaints (broken pipes, misdiagnosis, upselling, and one allegation of offering a refund in exchange for review removal) all weigh heavily. The pricing dimension is notably weak, with multiple reviewers explicitly calling the company too expensive or noting surprise at final bills. Project completion is moderately strong when technicians do show up, but the volume of no-show and abandonment complaints prevents a higher score.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: At least 4 reviews appear to be near-identical duplicates posted on different dates (e.g., the AC midnight emergency review and the Bryant leak review each appear twice within days of each other). This inflates positive review counts and reduces confidence in the authenticity of the review pool.
• REVIEW REMOVAL ALLEGATION: One reviewer (Dec 2024) explicitly states that Reddi Services offered a reimbursement in exchange for removing a negative review, and then failed to follow through. This is a serious ethical flag and suggests possible review manipulation.
• SCHEDULING/NO-SHOW PATTERN: A statistically significant number of negative reviews (15+) describe the same failure mode: confirmed appointments with no technician arrival, no proactive communication, and dismissive responses when customers called to follow up. This is a systemic operational issue, not isolated incidents.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS: Multiple reviewers across different time periods describe pricing as significantly higher than competitors or higher than quoted, including one reviewer charged $693 for under 30 minutes of labor, and another charged $8,200 for an AC unit that still did not work.
• WORKMANSHIP COMPLAINTS: Several reviews describe technicians causing damage (broken pipes, damaged wiring, incorrect installations) and the company refusing accountability. One review describes a septic job done incorrectly with no warranty offered.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Approximately 10 reviews contain no text and only a 5-star rating. These provide no usable data and may artificially inflate the star average.
• RECENCY NOTE: All reviews analyzed span from approximately 2014 to June 2025. The most recent 12 months (mid-2024 to mid-2025) show a continued mix of strong individual technician praise alongside persistent scheduling and pricing complaints, suggesting no material improvement in operational reliability.

This WW Score is based on a very large review dataset and carries HIGH statistical confidence in its directional accuracy, but the score should be interpreted cautiously given confirmed duplicate reviews, a credible review-manipulation allegation, and a persistent pattern of scheduling failures and pricing complaints that suggest the customer experience is highly inconsistent depending on which technician is dispatched and whether the company follows through on its commitments.

American Leak Detection receives consistently strong praise for individual technician professionalism, punctuality, communication, and attitude — the majority of positive reviews highlight friendly, courteous, and knowledgeable technicians by name. However, a substantial and recurring pattern of negative reviews significantly drags down the pricing and project completion dimensions: numerous customers report being charged hundreds to over a thousand dollars for failed or inaccurate leak detection, incorrect leak location markings that led to costly unnecessary excavation, and refusal to honor warranties or return without additional charges. The experience dimension is mixed — while many technicians demonstrate impressive diagnostic skill, a meaningful minority of reviews describe technicians who failed to find leaks that competitors located quickly, used outdated methods, or caused property damage. Pricing complaints are pervasive, with customers frequently describing the service as overpriced relative to results delivered, and several noting hidden or unexpected charges. The overall score reflects a company with genuinely skilled and professional staff in many locations, undermined by serious and repeated failures in leak detection accuracy, warranty follow-through, and pricing transparency.

• DUPLICATE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: Multiple reviews from June 2025 (dates 2025-06-04 through 2025-06-09) contain identical or near-identical text repeated across different dates — e.g., 'On time got the job done' appears twice, 'Chris got right to work and diagnosed the points of the leak quickly' appears twice, 'Very professional and thorough' appears twice, 'Pool kept going down way too fast...' appears twice, 'Etienne Hogue from American Leak Detection is a master of his trade...' appears twice, 'Matt was very thorough and friendly...' appears twice, 'I'm so impressed with the work performed by Casey...' appears twice, 'Appreciate the detectives who found the source of my ceiling leak...' appears twice, 'Matt was great. Arrived on time...' appears twice, 'Christian Lopez did a fantastic job...' appears twice. These are highly suspicious and likely fake or artificially inflated reviews. Confidence in the most recent review cluster is reduced accordingly.
• FRANCHISE INCONSISTENCY: This appears to be a national franchise with many independently operated regional offices. Review quality, technician skill, and customer service vary dramatically by location. Scores reflect the aggregate across all branches and may not represent any single local office accurately.
• RECURRING COMPLAINT PATTERN — FAILED DETECTION: A statistically significant number of negative reviews (estimated 60+ reviews) describe the same failure mode: ALD charges full price for leak detection but fails to locate the leak, marks the wrong location leading to costly unnecessary excavation by plumbers, and then refuses to refund or return without additional charges. This is not isolated to one branch.
• RECURRING COMPLAINT PATTERN — WARRANTY REFUSAL: Multiple reviews across different locations and years describe ALD refusing to honor stated warranties, citing expired 30-day windows, claiming a 'different leak' was found, or demanding additional payment to return after failed repairs.
• RECURRING COMPLAINT PATTERN — PRICING OPACITY: Multiple reviews describe being charged full rates ($300–$795+) for very short visits (10–30 minutes), being charged when no leak was found, and not being informed of pricing structure upfront. One review notes a contractor's license listed as 'inactive' with no liability insurance as of late 2022.
• PROPERTY DAMAGE COMPLAINTS: Several reviews describe technicians causing property damage (holes in walls, broken pipes, damaged flooring, dirty linens used as mops) with the company refusing to take responsibility.
• BLANK REVIEWS EXCLUDED FROM SCORING: Approximately 88 reviews contained no text and only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring but counted in total reviews analyzed.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent reviews (May–June 2025) are heavily dominated by 5-star ratings, many of which are duplicates or very brief. The longer, more detailed negative reviews span 2012–2025 and represent a consistent longitudinal pattern of service failures.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large volume of reviews, but the score itself should be interpreted cautiously — the aggregate masks extreme variance between regional franchise offices, a documented pattern of fake or duplicated recent reviews inflates the positive signal, and the recurring nature of serious complaints about failed detection, warranty refusal, and pricing practices suggests systemic issues that a blended score cannot fully capture.

Affordable Service receives strong and consistent praise for the professionalism, friendliness, and technical knowledge of individual technicians — names like Travis, Tony, Patrick, Freddie, Kevin, and others are repeatedly cited for courteous, thorough, and communicative service. However, pricing is a significant and recurring pain point: a substantial number of reviewers across multiple years explicitly describe feeling overcharged, with markups on parts and labor that they found excessive compared to competitors or retail prices. Project completion is mixed — many jobs are completed well and on time, but there are notable failures including a no-show for an emergency appointment, a multi-year refrigerant leak that went unresolved across repeated visits, a house fire caused during installation with disputed liability, and multiple complaints about technicians not following through or returning calls. Experience scores well on average due to the volume of positive technical feedback, but is tempered by a handful of reviews describing misdiagnosis, incomplete work, or technicians who appeared unskilled.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: At least 11 reviews appear to be exact or near-exact duplicates posted on consecutive dates (e.g., the Tony/swamp cooler review, the Lukas 'awesome' review, the 'Great worker' review, the Travis Rackley 'best of the best' review, the Bill Norton mini-split review, the Travis changeover review, the Tony 'open and friendly' review, the Patrick 5-year review, the Tony 'BEST employee' review, the Lukas 'professional knowledgeable' review, and the 'Very good/scheduled his visit' review all appear twice with dates one day apart). This is a strong indicator of review manipulation or artificial inflation. Confidence in the positive review pool is reduced accordingly.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS ARE SEVERE AND SPECIFIC: Multiple reviewers across 2015–2024 provide detailed, itemized complaints about markups — including a $208 pad billed at $398, a $30 thermostat billed at $135, a $69.99 part billed at $600–$800, and labor charges described as wildly disproportionate to time spent. These are not vague complaints but specific, verifiable allegations.
• SERIOUS UNRESOLVED INCIDENT: One detailed 1-star review describes a house fire caused during a water heater installation, with the company allegedly refusing to cover remediation costs and the matter being turned over to insurance with no follow-up. This is a significant liability and trust concern.
• PROJECT COMPLETION FAILURES: Multiple reviews describe no-shows for scheduled or emergency appointments, failure to return calls, and a multi-year pattern of a refrigerant system not being properly charged — requiring 3+ repeat visits before a leak was finally diagnosed.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of positive reviews are dated 2025 and late 2024, while the majority of negative reviews span 2014–2022. This may reflect genuine improvement over time, but the duplicate review pattern in 2025 raises questions about authenticity of the recent positive surge.
• ALL BLANK REVIEWS EXCLUDED: 12 reviews contained no text and were not scored for any dimension, though their 5-star ratings were noted.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large review volume, but should be interpreted cautiously given confirmed duplicate reviews suggesting artificial inflation of positive sentiment, a persistent and specific pattern of pricing complaints, and at least one serious unresolved service incident — the true score for pricing and project completion may be lower than reflected here.

Rocket Plumbing has a large and broadly positive review base, with many customers praising individual technicians — particularly Chris, Sam, Matt, Jose, and Anthony — for professionalism, punctuality, and technical competence. However, the score is meaningfully dragged down by a recurring pattern of serious complaints: multiple reviewers report no-shows or missed appointments without communication, pricing disputes and unexpected charges, and at least two detailed accounts of alleged dishonesty involving a water heater (aging it on the invoice to push a replacement sale). Pricing is the weakest dimension, with numerous reviewers calling costs high or excessive, and several negative reviews specifically citing overcharging or bait-and-switch pricing. Project completion is moderate — most jobs are finished, but there are credible accounts of incomplete work, recurring problems shortly after service, and one multi-visit failure requiring a competitor to redo the job. Experience scores reasonably well given the volume of positive technical feedback, but is tempered by a few accounts of poor diagnosis or work that did not hold.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: At least two reviews appear to be near-identical copies posted on different dates (the long 'I pray we never have another plumbing problem' Chris/Brian review appears verbatim on both 2016-06-10 and 2015-11-10; the Brian/water heater education review appears verbatim on both 2016-06-10 and 2015-06-18). These duplicates have been counted only once per unique text for scoring purposes but raise concerns about review authenticity.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION: A cluster of reviews dated exactly 2020-06-09, 2018-04-23, 2017-06-10, 2016-06-10, and 2015-06-11 contain multiple entries with no review text (rated 1 or 5 stars), generic one-liners with no specifics, and identical dates — consistent with bulk or incentivized review activity. Confidence is reduced accordingly.
• SERIOUS MISCONDUCT ALLEGATION: Two independent reviewers (one in 2019, one in 2018) allege the same plumber 'Chris' falsified a water heater's age on the invoice to pressure customers into an unnecessary $1,400 replacement. Both reviewers had the unit independently verified as functional by another plumber. This is a significant integrity flag.
• NO-SHOW / COMMUNICATION FAILURES: At least 5 distinct reviews describe technicians failing to show up for confirmed appointments with no proactive communication. This is a systemic issue, not isolated incidents.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews span 2014–2024. The most recent reviews (2024) are generally positive, but the no-show and pricing complaints persist across all years including 2023–2024, suggesting these issues have not been resolved.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS ARE SYSTEMIC: Overcharging, price changes mid-job, trip fees inconsistent with website, and charges for incomplete work appear across multiple years and multiple technicians — not isolated to one employee.

With 125 reviews analyzed and strong mention counts across all four dimensions, the WW Score of 72.1 carries HIGH statistical confidence in its accuracy; however, the presence of duplicate reviews, suspected bulk ratings, and serious recurring allegations of dishonesty and no-shows mean prospective customers should weigh the negative reviews carefully rather than relying solely on the aggregate score.

Rick's Heating and Plumbing has a large and loyal customer base that consistently praises individual technicians — particularly Jorge, Donavaughn, and Wes — for being punctual, courteous, knowledgeable, and thorough. Pricing is generally described as fair, transparent, and competitive, with multiple reviewers noting upfront quotes, no hidden fees, and even discounts for veterans and military. However, a significant and recurring pattern of serious complaints substantially drags down the scores across all dimensions: multiple reviewers across different years report being completely ignored after initial service, with unanswered calls, unreturned voicemails, and abandoned follow-through on warranty work, callbacks, and estimates. Project completion is the most penalized dimension, with documented cases of incomplete repairs requiring multiple return visits, a PRV installed backwards, a furnace cover left unattached, a water heater warranty ignored, and AC maintenance that was billed but not performed. The combination of genuinely excellent field technicians and a deeply unreliable follow-through and communication infrastructure creates a split profile that warrants a conservative overall score.

• RECURRING COMMUNICATION FAILURE: At least 10 separate reviews across multiple years (2018–2024) describe being completely unable to reach the company after initial service — unanswered calls, unreturned voicemails, and ignored texts. This is a systemic pattern, not isolated incidents.
• REPEATED PROJECT COMPLETION FAILURES: Multiple reviews document incomplete or incorrect work: a PRV installed backwards requiring a third-party plumber to fix, a furnace cover left unattached after installation, a water heater installed with a jumpered thermal switch (safety hazard), AC seasonal maintenance billed but not performed, and a sewer line evaluation that left a hole in a ceiling with no follow-up.
• WARRANTY REFUSAL: At least two reviews describe Rick's refusing to honor warranty obligations on installed equipment (water heater leaking 8 months post-install, gas valve replacement), with no response to repeated contact attempts.
• CONDITIONAL SERVICE REFUSAL: One review credibly documents the company refusing to complete a repair unless the customer removed a negative Yelp review — a serious ethical and reputational flag.
• PRICING COMPLAINT: One review explicitly states '$200/hr — not honest about fees,' and another describes being quoted $300 but billed $525 with no transparency. These are minority but credible complaints that temper the otherwise positive pricing narrative.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent reviews (2024–2025) still show both strong praise and serious complaints, indicating the communication and follow-through issues have not been resolved over time. Reviews span 2016–2025, providing a broad longitudinal view.
• NO FAKE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: Reviews vary significantly in length, detail, specificity, named technicians, and sentiment. No coordinated fake review pattern identified. The mix of 1-star and 5-star reviews with specific details increases overall credibility of the dataset.

This WW Score is based on 80 reviews spanning nearly a decade and carries HIGH data confidence; however, the score should be interpreted cautiously because the contractor's performance is highly inconsistent — exceptional when technicians are on-site, but with a documented and persistent failure pattern in post-service communication, warranty follow-through, and project completion that has not improved over time.