Find Nearby Plumbers In Las Cruces, New Mexico

Medina's Plumbing receives consistently strong marks across all four dimensions, with professionalism being the most frequently cited strength — reviewers repeatedly highlight punctuality, clear communication, responsiveness, and a customer-focused attitude. Pricing is described as fair, reasonable, and transparent across multiple reviews, with one reviewer explicitly noting costs were lower than competing 'big name' plumbers. Project completion scores are high, supported by accounts of same-day and emergency resolutions, a multi-day re-pipe job completed on schedule, and consistent follow-through. Experience and technical skill are well-documented, with references to whole-house re-pipes, gas leak resolution, water heater installation, and pressure regulator replacement. The volume and specificity of reviews across the past 12–18 months lend strong credibility to these scores.

• Two reviews dated 2024-08-15 describe nearly identical scenarios (water loss at 5:30 PM, restored by 7:30 PM) with very similar phrasing — these may represent duplicate submissions from the same job or the same customer. Scores were not double-counted for this event.
• Three reviews dated 2023-05-25 are very brief and generic ('Very professional', 'Great work and knowledgeable', 'Good work, reliable, professional, fair price') with no job-specific detail, which is a mild flag for authenticity. However, they are consistent with the broader review pattern and were weighted conservatively.
• All 14 reviews are 5-star ratings with no negative or mixed feedback present. While the specificity of most reviews supports legitimacy, the absence of any critical review warrants mild caution.

This WW Score is based on 14 reviews, the majority of which are recent (within the past 12 months), detailed, and specific — lending HIGH overall confidence, though the all-5-star pattern and two near-duplicate reviews introduce a small degree of caution.

Chuy's Plumbing demonstrates strong performance across all four dimensions with consistently high marks. Professionalism is a standout strength, with 42 reviews explicitly praising punctuality, responsiveness, communication, and courteous behavior—the team frequently arrives on time or early and maintains excellent customer interaction. Pricing receives strong validation from 28 reviews highlighting fair, transparent, and competitive rates compared to competitors. Project completion is solid with 38 reviews confirming jobs finished on time, within budget, and with thorough cleanup. Experience is well-documented across 32 reviews showcasing skilled diagnostics, quality workmanship, and problem-solving ability. However, two negative reviews (1-star ratings from 2023 and 2022) raise concerns about warranty follow-through, scope creep, and one no-show appointment, which moderately temper the otherwise exceptional profile.

• Two 1-star reviews (Sept 2023, Dec 2022) allege warranty issues, scope creep, and one no-show appointment—these are material complaints that contradict the overwhelmingly positive narrative and suggest inconsistency in service delivery or follow-through on certain engagements.
• The Sept 2023 review specifically alleges the owner does not back warranties, works in phases with delays, changes quotes mid-project, cuts corners, and prefers cash payments to avoid taxes—these are serious integrity concerns that warrant caution despite the volume of positive reviews.
• Review dates show heavy concentration in 2023–2024 (38 of 50 reviews), with older reviews (2019–2022) also predominantly 5-star; recency bias may inflate current perception.
• No fake review patterns detected; reviews contain specific details, varied language, and credible specificity (names, job types, pricing comparisons, technical explanations).

This WW Score of 87.2 is reliable and well-supported by high-confidence data across all dimensions, but should be interpreted with the caveat that two substantive negative reviews raise legitimate concerns about consistency in warranty practices and project management that are not fully resolved by the volume of positive feedback.

Maddox Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism with consistent praise for punctuality, courtesy, and communication across 32 reviews. Technical competence is solid with 15 mentions of skilled workmanship and problem-solving. However, project completion reliability is notably weakened by three detailed 1-star reviews (2019, 2022) documenting significant installation failures, incomplete work, and poor follow-through, which substantially offset the 18 positive completion mentions. Pricing receives moderate support (11 mentions) with most customers finding value fair, though one recent review flagged excessive charges for brief work. The company's reputation appears bifurcated: recent reviews (2025, 2024) are uniformly excellent, while older reviews (2019-2022) reveal serious execution problems that were not adequately resolved.

• RECENCY BIAS DETECTED: 38 of 56 reviews are from 2025 (past 6 months), creating potential skew toward current performance. Older reviews (2019-2022) contain three detailed 1-star accounts of major failures (incorrect disposal installation, improperly installed sewer caps, water heater mishandling) that contradict the uniformly positive recent pattern.
• QUALITY VARIANCE: Three substantive negative reviews (2019-2022) describe repeated failures by the same crew members, poor workmanship, and inadequate remediation. These are not generic complaints but specific technical failures with documented consequences.
• GENERIC PRAISE PATTERN: Multiple recent reviews (2025) use very brief, generic language ('Great job', 'It was great', 'Josh was awesome') with minimal detail, which may indicate review solicitation or template responses, though not conclusive.
• INCOMPLETE REVIEWS: 6 reviews contain only ratings with no text, reducing data quality.
• RESPONSIVENESS GAP: One 2019 review (2-star) explicitly states Maddox failed to return RFQ inquiries for weeks, suggesting communication inconsistency.

This WW Score of 82.3 should be treated with CAUTION due to extreme recency bias and documented historical quality failures. Recent performance (2025) appears genuinely strong, but the three detailed 1-star reviews from 2019-2022 describing serious installation errors and poor remediation suggest systemic issues that may recur. The score reflects current trajectory but does not fully capture the company's track record of significant failures. Recommend requesting references from jobs completed in the past 6 months and explicitly discussing quality assurance protocols before hiring.

AAA Service Express (Joe/Jozsef) earns consistently strong marks across all four dimensions, with particular praise for technical skill, same-day responsiveness, and punctuality appearing repeatedly across many reviews. Professionalism scores well but is tempered by two reviews citing complete non-response to calls and one noting scheduling confusion, which are meaningful service failures. Project completion is solid overall — jobs are typically finished quickly and in a single visit — but is modestly penalized by one instance where a repair attempt failed and a refund was issued, and two reviews that provided no usable detail. Pricing is described as reasonable and fair by multiple reviewers, with one noting a charge was slightly higher than expected, keeping the score honest rather than inflated. Experience is the strongest dimension, with multiple reviewers specifically calling out Joe's diagnostic speed, technical knowledge, and ability to carry parts on his truck to avoid return visits.

• Four reviews contain only the text 'unknown' with no usable content — these were excluded from dimension scoring but counted in total reviews analyzed.
• Two reviews (2013-08-13 rated 1.0 'No service provided' and 2013-12-23 rated 1.0 citing no callback) indicate a pattern of non-responsiveness that may be underrepresented given the volume of positive reviews.
• The majority of reviews are dated between 2011 and 2017 — all reviews are more than 7 years old as of 2024. Recency weighting significantly reduces confidence in current service quality. This score reflects historical performance only.
• No reviews from 2018 or later are present. The contractor's current operational status and quality cannot be assessed from this dataset.
• Several reviews use similarly enthusiastic language and all-5-star ratings, but most include specific details (names, parts, prices, timeframes) that reduce the likelihood of fabrication. No strong fake review pattern detected, though the absence of any moderate negative feedback across 25 usable reviews warrants mild caution.

This WW Score is based on a reasonable volume of reviews with sufficient dimension coverage, but all data is over 7 years old, which substantially limits its reliability as a predictor of current contractor performance.

Advanced Leak Detection earns strong marks across all four dimensions, driven by a large volume of reviews praising punctuality, same-day or next-day responsiveness, and friendly, communicative technicians. Project completion scores are solid but tempered by three negative reviews in which technicians failed to locate leaks yet still charged full price, and one review alleging poor workmanship, unprofessional behavior, and incomplete work. Pricing is generally viewed as fair and transparent, with one reviewer explicitly praising honest pricing and another noting a promo special was worth the cost, though the negative reviews raise concerns about value when detection fails. Experience scores are high overall, with multiple reviewers citing pinpoint accuracy and skilled problem-solving, but the failed-detection complaints and one allegation of shoddy installation work prevent a top-tier score. The presence of a small number of serious negative reviews meaningfully pulls down what would otherwise be a near-excellent profile.

• Three reviews (1-star: 2023-12-28, 2021-06-26, 2023-10-12) describe failed leak detection with full charges still applied, or outright poor workmanship — these are substantive complaints that directly impact project completion and experience scores.
• The 2023-10-12 1-star review alleges fake reviews from family, friends, and staff, and describes highly unprofessional behavior including drug use on site and damaged equipment. This review appears to reference a pool/plumbing contractor and may relate to a different service line or technician than the core leak detection business, but cannot be dismissed.
• Several 5-star reviews are very brief and generic (e.g., 'Excellent service from Robert!', 'Hands down the most accurate and thorough leak detection service around.', 'Fast easy leak detection. Very professional.') with no specific detail, which is consistent with the fake review concern raised in the 1-star review. Confidence in these specific reviews is reduced.
• Review dates span from 2012 to 2024. Reviews older than 12 months from the analysis date (i.e., before mid-2023) should be weighted less heavily. The majority of reviews are from 2020–2022, meaning recent data is relatively sparse.
• Multiple technician names appear across reviews (Paul, Eddie, Larry, Chris, Carl, Robert, Tim, Eddie) suggesting either a multi-technician operation or possible review aggregation across related entities. The 2023-12-29 review explicitly questions whether this is the same company as 'Affordable Sprinkler Repair LLC,' which raises a concern about review pool integrity.
• The 2012 review from Tim Moffatt is over 10 years old and should carry minimal weight in any current assessment of service quality.

This WW Score is based on a reasonably large review set with HIGH confidence across all dimensions, but reliability is moderately reduced by credible negative reviews alleging failed detection with full charges, at least one allegation of fake reviews, a multi-year date range diluting recency, and several suspiciously generic 5-star reviews that lack verifiable detail.

Jackson Plumbing demonstrates strong technical expertise and generally professional conduct, with many customers praising punctuality, politeness, and quality workmanship. However, the company is significantly hampered by serious and recurring communication failures—numerous customers report difficulty reaching the company, missed callbacks, no-shows, and unresponsiveness to voicemails. Project completion issues are also evident, with multiple reports of incomplete work, follow-up failures, and quality problems requiring additional repairs. Pricing is generally viewed as fair and reasonable, though some customers report inflated estimates. The stark contrast between positive recent reviews (mostly 5-star, June 2025) and numerous negative historical reviews (2013–2022) raises concerns about review authenticity and suggests potential operational inconsistencies.

• SUSPICIOUS REVIEW PATTERN: 40+ reviews from June 2–7, 2025 are nearly identical in structure (5-star, minimal detail, generic praise: 'prompt,' 'courteous,' 'professional,' 'great service'). Many contain no substantive information. This clustering and repetitive language is inconsistent with organic review distribution and suggests potential fake or incentivized reviews.
• CRITICAL COMMUNICATION FAILURE: At least 15 reviews explicitly report inability to reach the company, missed callbacks, no-shows, or unresponsiveness. This is a systemic issue spanning 2013–2022, indicating chronic operational dysfunction.
• SAFETY AND QUALITY CONCERNS: Multiple reviews report serious defects including gas leaks (2025-02-09), incomplete work requiring additional plumbers, drainage failures causing home flooding, and improper installations. One review documents $19,000 in water damage caused by failure to replace deteriorated gaskets.
• CUSTOMER SERVICE INCIDENTS: Several reviews describe unprofessional behavior including rudeness, anger, profanity, and confrontational attitudes from the owner/technicians (2022-01-28, 2021-10-21, 2019-04-09, 2019-03-03).
• INCONSISTENT QUALITY: Historical reviews (2013–2022) show a pattern of incomplete jobs, missed appointments, and poor follow-through. Recent reviews (2025) show uniformly positive ratings with minimal detail, creating a credibility gap.
• PRICING INCONSISTENCY: Some customers report fair pricing; others report inflated estimates (e.g., $1,455 for a $300 water heater + 2 hours labor in 2013; $720 in unexplained 'code upgrades' in 2020).

This WW Score should be treated with CAUTION. While the numerical score of 72.8 reflects mixed performance across dimensions, the data quality is compromised by a large cluster of potentially fake reviews from June 2025 that artificially inflate professionalism and project completion scores. The company exhibits a genuine pattern of communication failures and quality issues documented across multiple years (2013–2022), but recent reviews lack credibility. A more reliable assessment would exclude the suspicious June 2025 cluster and weight historical reviews more heavily, which would lower the overall score significantly. Prospective customers should prioritize the documented communication and follow-through failures over the recent 5-star reviews.