Find Nearby Plumbers In Santa Fe, New Mexico

Aranda's Plumbing presents a deeply polarized review profile, with a significant volume of detailed negative reviews describing serious failures across all four scored dimensions. Professionalism is heavily penalized by multiple accounts of no-shows, ghosting, rude scheduling staff, technicians abandoning jobs mid-service, and an owner who failed to respond to written complaints. Pricing drew repeated criticism for egregious markups — including a $9,735 quote for a repair fixed by a competitor for $231, and a valve charged at nearly double Aranda's own retail price — with only a handful of reviewers describing fair or reasonable pricing. Project completion is a major liability: multiple reviews describe work left unfinished, return visits that never materialized, incorrect parts installed, and jobs that required a second company to actually resolve. Experience scores slightly higher due to a subset of positive reviews praising specific technicians (Raul, Jake, Steve, Jason) and the supply store staff's parts knowledge, but this is offset by documented instances of code violations, misdiagnosis, and inability to fix the original problem after multiple visits.

• 9 reviews contain no text whatsoever — only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data.
• Several 5-star reviews are extremely brief and generic (e.g., 'Helpful staff', 'The best', 'Great work') with no specifics, raising mild concern about authenticity, though not enough to constitute a definitive fake review flag.
• A notable portion of positive reviews relate specifically to the supply store counter experience (buying parts), not to plumbing service work. These represent a different service context and may inflate perception of the business overall.
• Multiple reviews span back to 2013–2018. Reviews older than 12 months from the current date (June 2025) were down-weighted in scoring. The most recent reviews (2024–2025) skew heavily negative, suggesting possible deterioration in service quality over time.
• A pattern of scheduling failures — ghosting, no-shows, appointments not entered into the system — appears across multiple independent reviews spanning several years, indicating a systemic operational problem rather than isolated incidents.
• Pricing complaints are specific, detailed, and cross-verified (e.g., reviewer independently confirmed valve retail prices at six locations), lending high credibility to price-gouging allegations.

This WW Score of 42.1 is based on a substantial volume of reviews (62 total, 53 with usable data) with high mention counts across all four dimensions, making it a HIGH confidence assessment that reflects a contractor with serious and recurring deficiencies in professionalism, pricing transparency, and project completion.

Waller's Plumbing exhibits a deeply polarized performance pattern with severe structural problems. While early positive reviews (2011–2015) praised responsiveness and fair pricing, a consistent pattern of serious failures emerges: incomplete repairs requiring callbacks, dangerously defective work (carbon monoxide exposure, improperly seated toilets), grossly inflated billing ($1,700+ for failed repairs, $120/hour for simple fittings), and poor follow-up communication. Multiple customers report being overcharged, abandoned mid-project, or charged for diagnostic visits that missed obvious problems. The company's professionalism score is dragged down by unresponsiveness, lack of accountability, and documented instances of hanging up on customers. Project completion failures are pervasive—jobs left unfinished, problems recurring within days, and owner non-responsiveness to legitimate complaints.

• SEVERE PATTERN OF INCOMPLETE/FAILED WORK: Multiple reviews document jobs that failed immediately after completion or were abandoned mid-project. This is not isolated—it appears systemic.
• PRICING ABUSE: Consistent pattern of excessive billing ($120–$162/hour for routine work, $100 diagnostic fees for misdiagnosed problems, charges for customer-supplied materials). One customer hired an attorney due to billing disputes.
• DANGEROUS WORKMANSHIP: Carbon monoxide exposure from improperly installed exhaust pipe; toilet installed incorrectly causing leaks; sewer line misdiagnosed (trap omitted from professional diagram, later fixed for $7 by homeowner).
• COMMUNICATION FAILURES: Multiple documented instances of owner/dispatcher not returning calls, hanging up on customers, and refusing to discuss billing disputes.
• RECENCY BIAS: Most negative reviews are older (2009–2022), but the 2024 review is positive and recent. However, the 2021–2022 reviews show the pattern persisted into recent years.
• ETHICAL CONCERNS: One review alleges predatory targeting of vulnerable elderly customer (94-year-old widower); another suggests unnecessary work recommendations (removal of all pipes for dishwasher installation).

This score should be treated with MODERATE-to-HIGH caution: while the data volume is adequate (12 reviews with consistent mention counts across dimensions), the company exhibits a stark bifurcation between older positive reviews and a sustained pattern of serious failures, overcharging, and unprofessional conduct documented across multiple recent reviews. The WW Score of 42.8 accurately reflects a business with fundamental operational and ethical problems; however, the presence of some positive recent work (2024) suggests inconsistent performance rather than uniform failure. Customers should seek independent verification and detailed references before engaging this company.

This contractor shows extreme inconsistency across only two reviews. One recent review (Nov 2024) reports complete project abandonment after initial assessment, indicating severe professionalism and completion failures. A much older review (Jan 2023) praises technical expertise, fair pricing, and responsiveness over a four-year relationship. The stark contradiction between these accounts—one describing no-show behavior and the other describing reliable service—suggests either a significant recent decline in service quality or a fundamental reliability issue. With only two reviews and conflicting narratives, confidence in any score is severely limited.

• CRITICAL: Extreme contradiction between reviews. One describes complete project abandonment; the other describes four years of reliable service. This suggests either recent service degradation or inconsistent performance.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Positive review is from January 2023 (nearly 2 years old). Most recent review (November 2024) is highly negative, suggesting possible recent deterioration.
• INSUFFICIENT DATA: Only 2 reviews total. Score reliability is very low and should not be used for major decisions.

This WW Score should NOT be trusted for decision-making. With only two reviews showing contradictory experiences and limited mention counts across all dimensions, the score lacks statistical validity and may not represent current service quality.

Comfort Doctor scores significantly below acceptable standards across all dimensions. While the company demonstrates occasional professionalism and responsiveness (3 positive reviews from 2015-2017), the overwhelming majority of reviews document systematic failures in communication, follow-through, and honest pricing. Critical patterns include: repeated no-shows and scheduling failures (8+ mentions), aggressive upselling with inflated estimates later contradicted by competitors (7+ mentions), refusal to provide detailed quotes, and poor technical diagnosis leading to unnecessary repairs. The company's pricing practices are particularly concerning, with multiple customers reporting estimates 2-4x higher than competitors for identical work. Project completion is severely compromised by missed appointments, incomplete work requiring callbacks, and warranty disputes.

• RECENCY BIAS: Most negative reviews are from 2015-2021; only 3 positive reviews exist, all from 2015-2017. Recent data is sparse, but pattern consistency across years suggests systemic issues rather than isolated incidents.
• OWNER BEHAVIOR RED FLAG: Multiple reviews document owner 'Rich' engaging in manipulative tactics—requesting review removal after promising refunds (2015), making threats about court action over documented payments (2017), pressuring customers to sign loans before providing estimates (2018), and consistently blaming customers or external factors for failures.
• PRICING MANIPULATION PATTERN: At least 6 reviews document bait-and-switch pricing, inflated estimates, surprise charges, and refusal to provide itemized quotes. One customer was quoted $7,700 vs. competitor's $3,500 for identical work; another quoted $10,000+ vs. competitor's $1,500.
• TECHNICAL COMPETENCE CONCERNS: Multiple reviews indicate misdiagnosis (false leak claims later disproven, unnecessary part replacements, overcharging refrigerant leading to compressor failure). Competitors consistently identified actual problems as minor ($1,000 vs. $6,000-8,000 estimates).
• COMMUNICATION FAILURE: 7+ reviews explicitly document weeks of non-responsiveness, ignored calls/texts, missed appointments without notice, and rescheduling without explanation.
• WARRANTY DISPUTES: Multiple customers report owner denying valid manufacturer warranties based on technicalities (lack of annual maintenance during COVID, alleged customer tampering) to force expensive repairs.

This WW Score of 32.8 is highly reliable (HIGH confidence) based on 20 reviews with consistent, detailed documentation of failures across all dimensions. The score reflects a company with severe operational and ethical deficiencies; the few positive reviews (15% of total) are substantially outweighed by detailed accounts of financial harm, broken commitments, and manipulative business practices. This score should be trusted as a strong warning against using this contractor.

Baseline Plumbing has a deeply mixed and concerning review profile across only 4 reviews. The two most recent reviews (2023–2024) both raise serious issues: one details significant overcharging on parts, billing for travel time to purchase basic supplies, and leaving a mess; the other describes the owner as rude, unprofessional, and billing for hours not worked, with a second plumber required to complete and verify the job. The two positive reviews are older (2015 and 2023), brief, and lack specific detail, which limits their evidentiary weight. The pattern of overcharging on parts and labor appears in multiple independent reviews, which is a meaningful red flag for pricing integrity and professionalism.

• Only 4 reviews total — WW Score has very low statistical reliability and should be treated with caution.
• Two of the four reviews are older than 1 year (2015 and 2016); the 2016 review is nearly 8 years old and may not reflect current business practices.
• The two positive reviews (2015, 2023) are generic and lack specific operational detail, raising mild concern about their authenticity or depth of experience.
• Multiple independent reviews (2024 and 2016) independently cite overcharging on labor hours — this is a recurring pattern that significantly impacts the pricing and professionalism scores.
• One review explicitly states a second plumber was required to complete and verify work left unfinished or unchecked — a serious project completion concern.
• The most recent negative review (2024) describes the plumber lacking basic parts in his van and billing the customer for travel time to purchase them — a notable professionalism and pricing issue.

This WW Score is based on only 4 reviews spanning nearly a decade and should be considered highly unreliable as a definitive assessment; the score directionally reflects serious concerns raised in the two most recent reviews, but far more data is needed for a trustworthy evaluation.

The overwhelming majority of reviews across all four dimensions are deeply negative, with recurring and detailed complaints about dishonest upselling, fabricated repair needs, dangerous incomplete work (including uncapped carbon monoxide vents and untightened gas lines), no-shows, rude staff, and hidden or inflated charges. Positive reviews exist but are few, older, and in some cases lack specificity. The pricing dimension is the lowest-scoring, driven by extensive and consistent accounts of price gouging, non-itemized bills, quotes that far exceeded competitors, and charges for work not performed. Project completion scores are also critically low, with multiple reviewers describing abandoned jobs, work left in dangerous states, and failure to honor callbacks or follow-through commitments. Professionalism and experience scores are marginally higher only because a small number of positive reviews describe competent, timely, and courteous service, but these are vastly outweighed by detailed negative accounts spanning over a decade.

• FAKE REVIEW CONCERN: The positive reviews are generic in tone and lack the operational specificity seen in the negative reviews. Several 5-star reviews use nearly identical praise language ('professional,' 'prompt,' 'on time') with no verifiable detail, while negative reviews consistently name staff, describe specific dollar amounts, job sequences, and third-party confirmations. Positive review confidence is reduced accordingly.
• RECENCY WARNING: The majority of reviews span from 2010 to 2023. Most negative reviews are distributed across the full date range, indicating persistent and systemic problems rather than isolated incidents. The most recent reviews (2022–2023) include both positive and negative entries, suggesting the pattern has not clearly improved.
• SAFETY CONCERN: Multiple reviews describe dangerous outcomes attributed to this contractor, including an uncapped carbon monoxide vent, an untightened gas line that filled a utility closet with gas, and disconnected heating equipment left inoperable in winter. These are not merely service quality issues but potential public safety violations.
• PATTERN OF PREDATORY PRICING: At least 10 independent reviews describe a consistent pattern of inflated quotes for unnecessary work, with multiple reviewers obtaining second opinions that confirmed the recommended work was either unnecessary or available at a fraction of the quoted price.
• BBB ACCREDITATION LOSS: One reviewer explicitly states the company lost its BBB accreditation, and another describes filing a formal BBB complaint. This is an external corroborating signal of systemic business conduct issues.
• ABANDONED WORK AND CONTRACT VIOLATIONS: At least two reviewers describe paying deposits or signing contracts for work that was never performed, requiring credit card disputes or legal intervention to recover funds.
• DISPATCHER AND MANAGEMENT CONDUCT: Multiple reviews independently describe rude, belligerent, or evasive behavior from dispatch and management (named as 'Mike' in one review), suggesting the conduct issues are not limited to field technicians.

This WW Score is based on 33 reviews spanning over a decade with HIGH mention counts across all four dimensions, making it statistically reliable; the score of 22.1 should be treated as a strong and well-evidenced signal that this contractor poses significant risk to consumers across professionalism, pricing transparency, project completion, and workmanship quality.