Find Nearby Plumbers In Farmington, New Mexico

Steele Plumbing demonstrates strong performance across professionalism, project completion, and technical experience, with consistently positive feedback on responsiveness, punctuality, and workmanship quality. The company excels at handling complex plumbing challenges and maintains high customer satisfaction. However, pricing emerges as a notable weakness, with multiple customers explicitly citing high costs relative to competitors, though most acknowledge the work quality justifies the expense. The WW Score of 82.3 reflects a reliable, professional contractor with excellent execution but premium pricing that may not suit budget-conscious customers.

• Pricing concern: 8 mentions of high/expensive pricing across reviews. While quality is praised, cost is a consistent friction point. Three reviews (2024-08-16, 2023-09-16, 2012-11-04) explicitly flag pricing as problematic or excessive.
• Service quality inconsistency: One 2023 review alleges predatory pricing toward elderly customer ($275 initial visit, then $1200 quote for faucet replacement). Another 2015 review describes poor callback service and unhelpful phone staff. These suggest occasional lapses in customer care despite overall strong reputation.
• Older review concentration: 15 of 40 reviews are from 2019 or earlier (pre-2020). Recent reviews (past 12 months) are predominantly 5-star with high praise, which may reflect selection bias or improved operations. Recency-weighted analysis shows stronger recent performance.
• One scheduling/communication failure (2020-01-23): Customer reported being scheduled but not in system, resulting in missed appointment and unprofessional phone interaction. This contradicts the otherwise strong professionalism scores.

This WW Score of 82.3 is highly reliable, based on 40 reviews with strong mention counts across all dimensions. Steele Plumbing is a competent, professional contractor with proven technical expertise and strong project completion rates, but customers should expect premium pricing and should clarify scope and costs upfront to avoid disputes.

Platinum Plumbing earns strong marks across all four dimensions based on a very large volume of reviews spanning over 15 years, with the majority of customers praising responsiveness, punctuality, friendliness, and technical competence. Professionalism scores well but is tempered by several serious negative reviews describing road rage incidents from technicians in company vehicles, unprofessional political commentary during service calls, and at least one report of a technician abandoning a job mid-completion. Pricing is the weakest dimension: while many reviewers cite fair or competitive pricing, a meaningful cluster of negative reviews describes dramatically inflated quotes (including a $9,900 quote for a tank replacement worth under $400, and $500+ for a simple fill valve job), required prepayments, and upselling of unnecessary work — these are significant red flags that substantially drag the pricing score down. Project completion is generally strong, with most jobs described as finished on time and correctly, but there are credible reports of incomplete work, failure to return for follow-up, and one detailed account of a botched bathtub installation requiring three attempts and still leaving defects. Experience scores well overall given the volume of positive technical feedback, but is undermined by the bathtub installation disaster and the AC/water line misdiagnosis complaint.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: A significant number of reviews appear to be exact duplicates posted on the same or adjacent dates (e.g., identical text for 'Very efficient, polite, and overall good quality', 'They were very prompt and professional', 'Good service', 'Highly recommend them', 'Outstanding job!! Professional and friendly', 'Replaced 16 year old shower fixtures', 'They were attentive', 'My family and I are very satisfied', 'We had a leaking pipe', 'Polite and professional', 'Merry Christmas merry Christmas', 'Nothing', 'They were very polite and did a wonderful job', 'Eric & Bacon installed my toilet', 'They guys were on time and very professional', 'very useful and very effective', 'They were very quick to respond', 'They were very prompt and always showed up'). These duplicates inflate review counts and may indicate review manipulation or platform aggregation artifacts. Confidence in raw review volume is reduced.
• ROAD RAGE / CONDUCT INCIDENTS: Multiple independent reviewers (at least 3) describe dangerous or aggressive driving behavior by technicians in company vehicles, including tailgating, cutting off vehicles, running red lights, and intimidating a woman with a baby in the car. One reviewer also describes a technician making politically inflammatory comments during a service call. These are serious professionalism and liability concerns.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS — POTENTIAL UPSELLING: Multiple credible negative reviews describe quotes that were dramatically higher than market rate (e.g., $9,900 for a pressure tank worth under $400; $500+ for two fill valves; $1,700 quote for work done DIY for $200; $4,000+ for allegedly unnecessary water line work). One reviewer describes being charged $500 upfront and then told the job could not be completed, with only a partial refund offered.
• INCOMPLETE WORK / ABANDONMENT: One reviewer reports paying $1,200 upfront for a shower, door, toilet, and water heater and receiving only a shower door, with calls going unanswered. Another describes a botched freestanding tub installation requiring three attempts, still leaving defects including improper drainage. A third describes a carbon monoxide vent improperly routed into an attic with no cleanup and no response to follow-up calls.
• MULTI-ENTITY AGGREGATION SUSPECTED: Reviews reference many different named technicians and owners (Nick, Matt, Jose, Paul, Colton, Greg, Scott, Gary, Joseph, Logan, Brandon, Chris, Cedar, Nate, Jason, Justin, Eric, Joshua, Jack, Isaac, Walt, JD, Zach) across very different geographic locations and time periods. This strongly suggests these reviews may be aggregated from multiple distinct business entities operating under the 'Platinum Plumbing' name, which significantly reduces the reliability of treating this as a single contractor profile.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews with substantive content are from 2020 onward, with the most recent cluster from 2025. Older reviews (pre-2016) are fewer in number but generally positive. The negative conduct and pricing complaints are concentrated in the 2020–2024 period, which is the most relevant window for current assessment.
• GENERIC PRAISE PATTERN: Several reviews (particularly those dated 2025-05-10 referencing 'Colton') use slightly unusual phrasing consistent with non-native English or templated language (e.g., 'Super blissful with the service', 'used to be visited the subsequent day', 'Colton has simply completed some work in my flat', 'would exceedingly advocate him'). These may be inauthentic reviews and should be treated with caution.

This WW Score carries MODERATE-to-HIGH data reliability in terms of volume, but should be interpreted cautiously due to strong evidence of duplicate reviews, suspected multi-entity aggregation across different geographic markets and business owners, several credible reports of serious misconduct and pricing abuse, and possible inauthentic reviews — consumers should verify they are engaging the specific local branch of 'Platinum Plumbing' they intend to hire and request references and itemized quotes before committing.

The overwhelming majority of reviews praise professionalism, punctuality, communication, and friendly attitudes across multiple technicians and companies represented in this dataset (Blue Star Plumbing, Bulldog Plumbing). Pricing is generally described as fair and reasonable, though a notable minority of reviews flag high costs — one reviewer calculated an effective rate of $420/hour, another noted $390 for a garbage disposal, and a long-term reviewer acknowledged the company is 'nowhere near the cheapest.' Project completion scores are tempered by several serious negative reviews: one customer reported a gas line job was cancelled after a 6-month wait with poor communication, another described a basement plumbing project left more than half-incomplete after receiving 90% payment, one reported a leak repair that was never fixed and calls went unanswered, and a water softener was installed incorrectly with the owner refusing to remedy it. Experience scores are strong overall, with many reviews citing skilled diagnostics and quality workmanship, but are modestly reduced by the installation errors and incomplete work documented in negative reviews.

• 23 reviews contain no text — only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence.
• This dataset appears to aggregate reviews from at least two distinct businesses: 'Blue Star Plumbing' (TX) and 'Bulldog Plumbing' (IL/PA area). Scores reflect a blended profile and may not accurately represent either company individually.
• Several reviews from 2011–2019 are significantly older than 12 months and were given reduced weight. The most recent reviews (2025) are more heavily weighted.
• Two reviews dated 2024-04-30 appear to be from the same household or coordinated parties describing the same water softener incident with nearly identical complaints. This may represent a single incident counted twice rather than two independent experiences.
• The 1-star review from 2014 describing $20,000 in ceiling damage from a water heater gasket failure with no apology or insurance response is a serious workmanship and liability flag.
• The 1-star review from 2020 describing an incomplete basement plumbing project, failed city inspections, switched hot/cold lines, and predatory payment terms is a significant project completion red flag.
• The 1-star review from 2016 describes a contractor who never followed up after providing a quote — a responsiveness and reliability concern.
• Some positive reviews are generic and brief (e.g., 'Good Work', 'Great service', 'He is very professional') with no specific details, which limits their evidentiary value and slightly reduces confidence in the upper end of scores.

This WW Score is based on a large volume of reviews (130 total, 107 with usable text) spanning over a decade, providing HIGH statistical confidence in the directional accuracy of the scores, but users should note the dataset blends two or more distinct businesses and contains credible negative reviews documenting serious project completion failures, warranty disputes, and incomplete work that meaningfully constrain the final score.

Alexander's Plumbing earns strong marks across all four dimensions, with consistent praise for responsiveness, same-day service, fair pricing, and knowledgeable workmanship spanning many years of reviews. Professionalism is well-supported by numerous mentions of punctuality, communication, and courteous behavior, though two notable negative reviews — one describing a week-long callback delay and a misdiagnosed repair, and another citing an unresolved recurring leak and poor follow-up — meaningfully drag down both the project completion and professionalism scores. Pricing is one of the strongest dimensions, with many reviewers explicitly noting rates well below competitors and no hidden charges. Project completion is the most penalized dimension due to the 1-star and 2-star reviews documenting abandoned callbacks, a failed repair, and a refusal to honor follow-through work, which represent serious reliability concerns that cannot be ignored. Experience scores moderately well given broad praise for technical skill and problem-solving, tempered slightly by the documented case of an incorrectly installed float switch and a misdiagnosis.

• Three reviews contain no usable content ('unknown', '.', 'Everything was ok. They were great.') and were excluded from dimension scoring.
• The majority of reviews are older than 12 months, with only one review from the past 12 months (July 2024). Most reviews date from 2009–2021, significantly reducing recency confidence.
• One 1-star review (2011) documents a serious pattern: incorrect installation, false claim that a setting was non-adjustable, advice to purchase an unnecessary toilet, refusal to return for warranty work, and a week-long non-response. This is a significant project completion and professionalism failure.
• One 2-star review (2011) documents a failed repair that recurred and multiple weeks of no response from the contractor, indicating a potential pattern of poor follow-through during that period.
• Some generic 5-star reviews with no detail ('We will definitely use them for all our plumbing needs!', 'Service was excellent') may inflate overall star ratings but were not used for dimension scoring per scoring rules.
• No fake review pattern detected overall, but several reviews are suspiciously brief and content-free, which limits their analytical value.

This WW Score is based on a reasonable volume of reviews (34 total, 31 with usable data) and carries HIGH overall confidence in its directional accuracy, but should be interpreted with caution given that the vast majority of reviews are more than 3 years old and the single most recent review (2024) provides minimal detail.

Foster Plumbing & Heating demonstrates strong professionalism with consistent praise for punctuality, courtesy, and communication across 52 reviews. Technical competence is solid with 22 mentions of skilled workmanship and problem-solving. However, pricing emerges as a significant weakness, with 15 reviews citing excessive charges, hidden fees, and quotes substantially above market rates. Project completion shows mixed results (28 mentions): while many jobs are finished promptly and thoroughly, several reviews document incomplete work, callbacks that were not honored, and follow-up issues requiring additional service calls. The company's performance is notably inconsistent across different technicians and locations.

• PRICING CONCERNS: Multiple reviews (2023-2024) report travel charges quoted at $45-50 but billed at $500+; faucet installations charged $299-300 each; bathroom work quoted at $920+ for tasks completed in under 1.5 hours by non-professionals. Pattern suggests aggressive job-based pricing without transparent upfront estimates.
• PROJECT COMPLETION ISSUES: Several reviews document incomplete work requiring multiple callbacks (2023 faucet repair required two visits; 2020 HVAC zone installation left 2 zones non-functional, missing registers and filters; 2019 sewer line repair required multiple visits for same issue). One review explicitly states 'charged for duplicate work' with technician only solving problem when customer supervised.
• CUSTOMER SERVICE INCONSISTENCY: Multiple older reviews (2018-2019) report rude office staff, hang-ups on elderly customers, non-responsive phone lines, and failure to return calls for weeks. More recent reviews (2025) show dramatically improved professionalism, suggesting management or staffing changes.
• QUALITY CONTROL VARIANCE: Reviews document technician errors including property damage (countertop gouging in 2021), incorrect diagnoses (blown fuse missed in 2023; freon leak misdiagnosed in 2013), and poor workmanship (sloppy bathtub install in 2018; damaged tile). One 2020 review details multiple installation failures on HVAC zones.
• RECENCY BIAS NOTED: 40+ reviews from June 2025 (all 5-star, mostly brief, generic praise with minimal specifics) create clustering concern. While not definitively fake, the volume of identical-length positive reviews in a single month warrants caution. Older reviews (2013-2021) show more critical detail and balanced perspectives.
• RESPONSIVENESS GAPS: Multiple reviews from 2018-2019 document failure to return calls, no-show appointments without notification, and unresponsiveness to service requests. However, 2025 reviews consistently praise quick response times, suggesting operational improvement.
• MANAGEMENT ACCOUNTABILITY: Several reviews note management defensiveness when complaints were raised (2022 toilet repair review; 2023 faucet pricing review). One 2022 review praised follow-up by 'Jennifer' who offered personal cell phone and remedied situation, indicating selective accountability.

This WW Score of 72.8 is reliable for understanding Foster's overall performance but should be interpreted with caution: professionalism and experience scores (HIGH confidence, 52 and 22 mentions respectively) are well-supported, but the pricing score (MODERATE confidence, 15 mentions) reflects genuine customer concerns about transparency and value. The dramatic improvement in recent reviews (2025) versus older reviews (2018-2021) suggests either significant operational changes or potential review clustering; customers should request detailed written estimates before work begins and verify pricing with competitors. The company appears capable of quality work but has a documented history of pricing disputes and inconsistent follow-through.

Roto-Rooter receives consistently strong marks for professionalism and responsiveness from individual technicians, with hundreds of reviews praising courteous, knowledgeable, and prompt service. However, pricing is the single most damaging dimension across this dataset, with an enormous volume of reviews describing charges as excessive, deceptive, or wildly inconsistent — including numerous accounts of bait-and-switch quoting, undisclosed fees, and charges for incomplete work. Project completion is significantly dragged down by a substantial minority of reviews describing failed repairs, no-shows, abandoned jobs, warranty disputes, and work that made problems worse. Experience scores moderately well overall, as many technicians are praised for skill and problem-solving, but this is offset by recurring accounts of misdiagnosis, wrong equipment, and upselling unnecessary services. The aggregate picture is a company with capable individual technicians but systemic issues around pricing transparency, scheduling reliability, and quality control.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: Multiple reviews appear to be exact or near-exact duplicates (e.g., two identical reviews from 'Paul arrived same day...', two identical 'Zach is the man...', two identical 'Based solely off customer service...', two identical 'Easy to schedule and a quick service...', two identical 'Great service. Would highly recommend!', two identical 'Efficient and effective...', two identical 'Excellent with Armando...', two identical 'Very prompt and helpful! Anthony...', two identical 'My name is Antoinette...'). These duplicates inflate positive scores and have been treated conservatively.
• FAKE REVIEW PATTERNS: A large cluster of reviews dated 1996-2001 consist of single-line responses ('NO', 'NOT REALLY', 'ON TIME AND DID THE WORK') with no detail, all rated 5 stars. These appear to be placeholder or fabricated entries and were excluded from scoring.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Approximately 100+ reviews contain no text content but carry 5-star ratings. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data, but their presence inflates the raw star average.
• EXTREME RATING POLARIZATION: The dataset shows a pronounced bimodal distribution — a very large number of 5-star reviews with minimal detail alongside a substantial volume of detailed 1-star reviews describing serious failures. This pattern is consistent with either review manipulation on the positive end or a company with highly inconsistent service quality.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS ARE SYSTEMIC: Pricing complaints are not isolated incidents — they span multiple years, multiple geographic locations, and multiple service types. Charges ranging from $200-$900 for simple drain snaking (15-30 minutes of work) are documented repeatedly. This is a structural business practice issue, not individual technician behavior.
• NO-SHOW AND SCHEDULING FAILURES: A significant number of reviews describe confirmed appointments where technicians never arrived and no communication was provided. This is a recurring operational failure across multiple franchise locations.
• MULTI-FRANCHISE DATASET: Reviews appear to span dozens of different Roto-Rooter franchise locations across the United States. Scores reflect the brand aggregate, not any single location. Individual location quality varies significantly.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews with substantive content are dated between 2020-2025, which is within the relevant scoring window. Older reviews (pre-2015) were given reduced weight.

This WW Score of 72.4 is based on a very large dataset (1,456 reviews) and carries HIGH statistical confidence in its directional accuracy, but should be interpreted as a brand-level aggregate across many franchise locations — individual location quality varies substantially, and the systemic pricing and scheduling issues documented here may not apply equally to all franchises.