Find Nearby Plumbers In Santa Fe, New Mexico

Ron and PlumbTech receive consistently strong praise across all four dimensions, with professionalism being the most frequently and enthusiastically cited quality — reviewers highlight responsiveness, punctuality, genuine care for customers, and clear communication throughout projects. Pricing is noted positively in several reviews, with one reviewer explicitly stating PlumbTech was not the cheapest but offered strong value, and another praising fair labor pricing for a warranty replacement; this prevents a top-tier pricing score but still reflects solid value perception. Project completion scores are high, anchored by a detailed account of Ron returning the same evening and again on Monday to resolve a post-installation issue, demonstrating strong follow-through. Experience and workmanship are affirmed across multiple reviews referencing technical explanations, efficient execution, and successful complex installations such as tankless boilers and HVAC systems. The small total review count (7) and wide date range (2014–2023) limit overall confidence in the score's reliability.

• Only 7 reviews total — sample size is very small and limits statistical reliability of all dimension scores.
• Reviews span nearly a decade (2014–2023). The oldest review (2014) references a different name ('Don' instead of 'Ron') which may indicate a different owner or a name discrepancy; this review was still scored but treated with caution.
• Three reviews are from 2019 or earlier, meaning the majority of reviews are more than 4 years old. Only 2 reviews fall within the past 12 months relative to mid-2023, limiting recency confidence.
• All 7 reviews are 5-star ratings with no negative or mixed feedback. While the reviews contain specific details that reduce fake review suspicion, the uniformly perfect ratings across a small sample warrants mild caution.
• No reviews mention any negative experiences, delays, or unresolved issues — while this may reflect genuine quality, it could also reflect a curated or incomplete review set.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability due to the very small review pool of 7 reviews, a wide date range spanning nearly 10 years, and the fact that only 2 reviews are from the past 12 months — prospective customers should seek additional recent references before making a hiring decision.

Anytime Plumbing demonstrates strong overall performance across a very large review base spanning roughly 2006 to 2025, with professionalism and experience being the most consistently praised dimensions. The vast majority of reviewers highlight prompt response times, courteous technicians, clear communication, and technically competent work — with named technicians like Amer, Jerry, Miguel, Sam, Brian, Tom, and Victor repeatedly earning individual praise. However, a meaningful minority of negative reviews (approximately 20 out of 231) reveal recurring concerns that meaningfully suppress scores: pricing complaints appear in multiple reviews citing overcharging, upselling, and bills that felt disproportionate to the work performed; project completion is dinged by several credible accounts of abandoned jobs, no-call/no-shows, unresolved callbacks, and at least two serious allegations of incomplete or damaging work left unaddressed. Responsiveness failures — including multiple reviews citing no return calls, sometimes over days or weeks — are a notable pattern that contradicts the company's 'Anytime' branding and pulls the professionalism score below what the majority-positive reviews would otherwise support. Pricing receives the lowest score due to a consistent thread of customers feeling overcharged or upsold, even among otherwise satisfied reviewers.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: The review from 'Jerry came to take care of an old and leaky shower cartridge...' (Rating 5.0) appears verbatim on both 2025-06-02 and 2025-05-30. Similarly, 'The plumber arrived quickly, explained everything clearly...' (Rating 5.0) appears verbatim on both 2025-06-02 and 2025-05-30. These are likely duplicate submissions and were counted only once each for scoring purposes.
• POSSIBLE FAKE/PADDED REVIEWS: A cluster of reviews dated 2020-06-07 (approximately 10 reviews) share suspiciously similar generic phrasing ('Amer and his team', 'Amer and crew', 'Amer and his guys') with no specific job details, all rated 5 stars. These may be solicited or padded reviews and were weighted conservatively.
• RECENCY NOTE: Reviews span from 2006 to 2025. A significant portion of reviews (roughly 40%) are older than 3 years. The most recent 12 months (mid-2024 to mid-2025) show continued strong positive sentiment but also include fresh negative reviews about responsiveness and pricing, suggesting the pattern of mixed performance is ongoing rather than historical.
• NO-CALLBACK PATTERN: At least 7 distinct reviews across multiple years (2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2023) explicitly cite failure to return calls or follow up on appointments. This is a recurring operational weakness.
• UPSELLING COMPLAINTS: At least 4 reviews explicitly mention feeling upsold or pressured into unnecessary additional services, which is a meaningful signal for the pricing dimension.
• SERIOUS UNRESOLVED COMPLAINTS: At least two reviews describe significant property damage or failed repairs (hole left in bathroom wall, garbage disposal knockout plug not removed causing floor damage) with no apparent resolution from the company. One review describes a plumber allegedly staging a clog. These are serious credibility concerns even if they represent a minority of reviews.
• BLANK/EMPTY REVIEWS: Several reviews contain no text (only a rating). These were excluded from dimensional scoring as they provide no usable data.
• GEOGRAPHIC SCOPE NOTE: Reviews appear to reference multiple service areas including Santa Cruz CA, New Jersey, Virginia, and North Dakota, suggesting this profile may aggregate reviews for multiple businesses operating under similar names. Scores should be interpreted with this caveat in mind.

This WW Score is based on a large and diverse review dataset (231 reviews) with HIGH statistical confidence across all four dimensions, but should be interpreted with caution due to confirmed duplicate reviews, a cluster of suspected padded reviews, a persistent no-callback pattern across many years, and several serious unresolved complaints about workmanship and billing — the true score for an individual customer's experience may vary significantly depending on which technician is assigned and the nature of the job.

Clearwater Plumbing demonstrates strong technical expertise and professionalism, with consistently positive feedback on punctuality, courtesy, and skilled workmanship across numerous reviews. However, the company is significantly hampered by serious pricing concerns and notable project completion failures. Multiple reviews document instances of incomplete work, abandoned projects (particularly involving David Lopez), failure to honor callbacks, and pricing disputes where customers felt overcharged or misled. While the majority of recent reviews (2023-2025) are highly positive, older reviews reveal systemic issues with accountability and follow-through that persist despite the company's established reputation since 1951.

• CRITICAL: Multiple reviews (at least 6) document David Lopez taking full payment upfront and abandoning projects entirely, never completing work or refunding customers. This represents a serious fraud/embezzlement pattern within the company.
• PRICING CONCERNS: At least 8 reviews explicitly mention overcharging, excessive labor fees for simple jobs, or pricing that was 2-3x higher than competitors for identical work. Several customers report being charged $120-$350 for work that took 10-45 minutes.
• PROJECT COMPLETION FAILURES: Multiple reviews document incomplete work, failed callbacks, no-shows for scheduled appointments, and refusal to return to fix defective work (particularly 2016-2022 timeframe).
• CUSTOMER SERVICE ISSUES: Several reviews describe rude phone staff, owner rudeness, hanging up on customers, and dismissive attitudes toward complaints. One review documents the owner swearing at a customer.
• INCONSISTENT QUALITY: Wide variance in outcomes—some technicians (Larry, Tyler, Scott, Senad, Erin) receive exceptional praise; others (David Lopez, unnamed referrals) deliver poor results or fraud.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK - MODERATE: Multiple empty reviews with 5-star ratings (at least 6 instances) and several generic praise reviews with minimal detail suggest possible review padding, though the majority of detailed reviews appear authentic.
• RECENCY BIAS: Most negative reviews cluster in 2014-2022 period. Recent reviews (2023-2025) are predominantly 5-star with specific positive details, suggesting either genuine improvement or increased review curation.

This WW Score of 78.2 should be treated with caution: while recent performance appears strong and technical expertise is well-documented, the company has a documented history of serious issues including fraud, incomplete work, and pricing disputes that persist across multiple years and customer accounts. The score reflects current trajectory but does not fully capture the severity of past failures or the risk of recurrence.

Roto-Rooter receives broadly positive marks for professionalism and technician demeanor, with hundreds of reviews praising courteous, knowledgeable, and timely technicians by name. However, pricing is the single most damaging dimension in this dataset: an enormous volume of reviewers across many years and locations explicitly describe charges as excessive, deceptive, or wildly above market rate, with numerous accounts of undisclosed fees, commission-driven upselling, and charges for incomplete or failed work. Project completion is mixed — many jobs are resolved same-day and efficiently, but a meaningful minority of reviews describe recurring clogs after service, abandoned jobs, no-shows, warranty disputes, and work that made problems worse. Experience scores moderately well overall, with many reviewers impressed by diagnostic skill, but offset by recurring complaints about technicians lacking proper tools, misdiagnosing problems, or causing additional damage. The overall score reflects a company with genuine service capability undermined by systemic pricing and consistency issues.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: Several reviews appear to be exact or near-exact duplicates (e.g., multiple identical reviews for 'Cappy,' 'Arron C and Elijah,' 'Jarrett,' and 'Carlos and Chris' posted on the same date). This pattern is consistent with either copy-paste errors or potentially coordinated positive review activity. Confidence in the most recent positive reviews is slightly reduced.
• EXTREME RATING POLARIZATION: The dataset shows a pronounced bimodal distribution — a very large number of 5-star reviews with minimal detail alongside a substantial cluster of 1-star reviews with highly specific, credible complaints about pricing, incomplete work, and rude staff. This pattern is common in franchise operations where individual location quality varies significantly.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS ARE SYSTEMIC AND CROSS-LOCATION: Overcharging complaints span multiple cities, states, and years, suggesting this is a structural business practice rather than isolated incidents. Charges of 3x–10x competitor rates for identical work are documented repeatedly.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews analyzed span from 2005 to June 2025. Reviews from the past 12 months (mid-2024 to mid-2025) are predominantly positive with high technician praise, but the volume of older negative reviews — many highly detailed — significantly weighs on completion and pricing scores.
• FRANCHISE VARIABILITY WARNING: Multiple reviews explicitly note that Roto-Rooter is a franchise system and that quality, pricing, and accountability vary dramatically by location. This score should not be applied uniformly to all Roto-Rooter franchises.
• SEVERAL REVIEWS CONTAIN NO TEXT (rating only): Approximately 80+ reviews consist solely of a star rating with no written content. These were excluded from dimension scoring per evidence-required rules but are included in total review count.

This WW Score is based on an exceptionally large review dataset (1,000+ reviews) spanning nearly two decades and multiple geographic locations, giving it HIGH statistical confidence; however, the score reflects aggregate franchise-level performance and should be interpreted cautiously for any specific local Roto-Rooter office, as individual location quality varies substantially.

This aggregated review set spans multiple businesses operating under similar 'All About Plumbing' or 'Allison Plumbing' names, making direct attribution difficult, but the overall picture is a contractor with a strong positive majority offset by a meaningful minority of serious complaints. Professionalism scores are dragged down by recurring patterns of no-shows, missed appointments, poor communication, and failure to return calls — issues mentioned explicitly across dozens of negative reviews spanning multiple years. Pricing receives a moderate-to-low score because while many customers praise fair and competitive pricing, a notable cluster of reviews describe bait-and-switch tactics, charges added without consent, overcharging seniors, and prices that jumped significantly from quoted amounts. Project completion is similarly mixed: the majority of jobs are described as completed well, but multiple reviews describe abandoned work, callbacks not honored, problems made worse, and in at least two cases customers had to take legal action or dispute charges. Experience scores highest because the technical skill of individual plumbers is frequently praised, with many reviewers noting knowledgeable diagnosis and quality workmanship — though a handful of reviews describe misdiagnosis, broken pipes caused by the plumber, and failed repairs.

• MULTIPLE BUSINESS ENTITIES: Reviews appear to cover several distinct businesses operating under similar names including 'All About Plumbing,' 'All In A Day Plumbing,' 'Allison Plumbing,' and variations. Scores reflect an aggregate and may not represent any single contractor accurately.
• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: At least 6 reviews appear to be near-identical duplicates (e.g., two identical reviews about Ray Buchanan dated 2023-03-25, two identical reviews about the 'ALL ABOUT NOT CARING' experience dated 2024-05-27, two identical reviews about the Troy water hammering job, two identical reviews about the water filtration estimate with Xzavia). This inflates review count and may indicate review manipulation or platform aggregation artifacts.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Approximately 20+ reviews contain no text content and only a 5-star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data. Their presence in high volume is a mild fake-review signal.
• RECENCY NOTE: Reviews span from 2006 to 2025. A significant portion of reviews (roughly 40%) are dated 2022 or earlier, including many from 2019 and before. Older reviews carry reduced weight. The most recent reviews (2024-2025) continue to show both strong positives and serious negatives, suggesting persistent quality inconsistency.
• SERIOUS MISCONDUCT ALLEGATIONS: Multiple reviews allege fraud, unauthorized credit card charges, charging for work not performed, referring customers to fraudulent contractors, and in one case a customer reports winning a court judgment against the company. These are not scored but significantly reduce trust in the overall profile.
• NO-SHOW PATTERN: At least 10 distinct reviews across multiple years describe scheduled appointments where no plumber arrived and no call was made. This is a persistent and documented pattern affecting the professionalism score.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK — MODERATE: The large volume of very short, generic 5-star reviews with no detail (e.g., 'Great service,' 'Excellent,' 'Professional,' 'Fast reliable service') alongside blank-text 5-star entries raises moderate concern about review padding. Confidence is not reduced to LOW given the large volume of detailed genuine reviews, but the inflated positive count should be noted.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large review volume, but moderate trust reliability due to the presence of multiple business entities in the dataset, duplicate reviews, blank reviews, and serious misconduct allegations that suggest the true score for any single contractor may differ materially from this aggregate.

Glenn's Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism with consistent mentions of punctuality, politeness, respectfulness, and professional demeanor across multiple reviews. Project completion is solid, with customers reporting reliable service, timely responses (including holiday/late-night availability), and problems being resolved. Experience scores are supported by references to knowledgeable staff and quality workmanship, though one 2013 HVAC review raised concerns about troubleshooting willingness. Pricing data is minimal with only two mentions—one noting $220 labor as steep but justified, another praising honesty. The WW Score of 82.3 reflects strong execution on professionalism and completion, tempered by limited pricing transparency and one negative experience.

• RECENCY CONCERN: 10 of 14 reviews are older than 5 years (2011–2014). Only 1 review from past 12 months. Score reliability is significantly compromised by age of data.
• FAKE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: Reviews 3 and 4 contain only placeholder text ('unknown' and 'See above'), suggesting incomplete or low-effort submissions. Review 7 contains only a period. These 3 reviews were excluded from scoring.
• GENERIC PRAISE: Multiple reviews (e.g., 'Good service man was young but ok', 'They were very nice') lack specific detail about what was actually accomplished, limiting confidence in those assessments.
• MIXED SERVICE SCOPE: Reviews reference plumbing, HVAC, and air conditioning work. One 2013 HVAC review (3.0 rating) explicitly criticized the technician for unwillingness to troubleshoot and attempting to upsell, which contradicts the otherwise positive pattern. This suggests inconsistent quality or service variation.
• PRICING TRANSPARENCY: Only 2 reviews mention pricing. One calls $220 'steep' despite justification; the other praises 'honesty' without specifics. Insufficient data to assess pricing fairly.

This WW Score should be treated with caution due to severe recency bias (86% of reviews are 5+ years old), three unusable placeholder reviews, and limited pricing data. The score reflects historical performance but may not represent current service quality. The one recent positive review and consistent professionalism mentions provide some confidence, but a fresh set of recent reviews would be needed to validate this score.