Find Nearby Plumbers In Gilbert, Arizona

No Worries Rooter presents a deeply divided review profile. Positive reviewers consistently praise responsiveness, professionalism, and technical competence — particularly Joe and his team's communication and same-day availability. However, a substantial and persistent body of negative reviews spanning over a decade raises serious concerns about pricing practices, with multiple reviewers independently reporting charges that were 5x to 10x what competitors charged for identical work. Project completion is moderately positive among satisfied customers, but several negative reviewers report paying large sums for work that was incomplete, incorrect, or unnecessary. The pricing dimension is the most damaging, with numerous specific dollar figures cited across unrelated reviewers that paint a consistent pattern of price gouging. The overall score is significantly pulled down by the volume and specificity of pricing complaints.

• SERIOUS PRICING CONCERN: At least 15 independent reviewers across multiple years cite specific instances of extreme overcharging — quotes and bills ranging from 5x to 10x competitor prices. Examples include: $1,405 for under one hour of work, $4,000 for a sump pump job, $1,985 quoted for basic fixture work, $3,500 quoted for a standard sink install, and $60,000 invoiced for water damage restoration. This is not a pattern of isolated complaints — it is consistent across unrelated reviewers spanning 2012–2024.
• DATELINE NBC STING ALLEGATION: Multiple reviewers (across different years and appearing unrelated to each other) reference a Dateline NBC sting operation video allegedly featuring the owner operating under a different name. This is a significant reputational red flag that predates most of the positive reviews.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — POSITIVE REVIEWS: A notable cluster of 5-star reviews share dates of 2024-06-09 and 2025-05-10, with generic, non-specific praise and no job details. Several of these reviews are very short and lack any verifiable specifics. One reviewer explicitly alleges that positive reviews were left by social media associates, friends, or relatives of the owner. Confidence in the positive review pool is reduced accordingly.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Two reviews contained no text (only a 5-star rating) and were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most detailed and specific negative reviews span from 2012 through 2024, indicating the pricing and ethics concerns are not historical anomalies but an ongoing pattern. The most recent negative reviews (2024) still cite price gouging and an alleged $60,000 insurance fraud invoice.
• ASSIGNMENT OF RIGHTS WARNING: One reviewer (an insurance agent of 20 years) specifically warns that the company uses an Assignment of Rights (AOR) contract to bypass insurance approval and submit inflated invoices — including one for nearly $60,000. This is a serious legal and ethical flag.
• UNLICENSED TECHNICIAN ALLEGATION: At least one reviewer claims the technician who came to their home was not licensed, which if accurate would be a regulatory violation.
• SCORE RELIABILITY CAVEAT: The positive dimension scores for professionalism, project completion, and experience are likely inflated by a cluster of potentially inauthentic or incentivized 5-star reviews. The pricing score of 22 is considered the most reliable dimension given the volume, specificity, and independence of negative pricing complaints.

This WW Score should be treated with caution — while the volume of reviews is sufficient for statistical confidence, the review pool shows strong indicators of fake or incentivized positive reviews alongside a persistent, specific, and multi-year pattern of serious pricing and ethics complaints that materially undermines trust in this contractor.

The review set is sharply polarized: a strong cluster of recent 5-star reviews (2024–2025) praises individual technicians — particularly Adam, Ryan, Jamie, Rynn, and Veronica — for professionalism, thoroughness, and clear communication, driving positive scores in those dimensions. However, a substantial body of 1-star reviews spanning 2012–2024 documents serious recurring failures including no-shows, rude customer service staff, inaccurate leak detection, incomplete repairs, billing disputes, and in one case alleged theft, which significantly suppresses scores across all dimensions. Project completion is the most damaged dimension, with multiple reviewers explicitly reporting that leaks were not correctly identified or fixed, that work was abandoned, and that the company refused to honor callbacks without additional charges. Pricing concerns are also notable, with complaints about overcharging, billing errors, and poor value relative to results. The company appears to have improved its field technician quality in recent years, but systemic office and customer service failures remain a documented pattern.

• Two reviews are near-identical duplicates (1-star pool leak complaint, one dated 2023-06-10 and one 2023-04-13), suggesting a copy-paste submission or platform error — one was excluded from unique mention counts.
• Two reviews praising technician Brian Schneider are nearly word-for-word identical (dated 2020-06-10 and 2020-01-03), strongly suggesting a duplicate or fake review submission — treated as one data point.
• Three reviews contain no text (only a star rating) and were excluded from dimension scoring.
• The recent 5-star reviews (2024–2025) are heavily concentrated around named technicians and share similar phrasing patterns ('thorough,' 'professional,' 'answered all questions'), which may reflect coached or incentivized reviews, though individual specificity partially mitigates this concern.
• One review alleges theft of jewelry by a technician — a serious integrity flag that cannot be verified but is noted as a significant reputational risk.
• Recency split is significant: reviews from 2025 and late 2024 are predominantly 5-star, while reviews from 2018–2022 are predominantly 1-star, suggesting either genuine improvement or selective recent review solicitation.
• One review references the company operating under 'Stolworthy Inc. DBA American Leak Detection' and raises questions about licensing legitimacy with the AZ Registrar of Contractors — noted as an unverified but serious flag.

This WW Score is based on a large and diverse review set with HIGH mention counts across all dimensions, but the extreme polarization between recent positive reviews and older negative reviews — combined with suspected duplicate reviews and possible incentivized 5-star submissions — means the score should be treated as a moderate-confidence estimate; prospective customers should weigh the serious project completion and customer service failures documented in negative reviews heavily before engaging this company.

The review set paints a deeply troubling picture of this contractor across all four dimensions. Professionalism is severely damaged by repeated no-shows, technicians who verbally abused customers, lied about prior contact attempts, and staff who were described as rude and condescending — with only a small cluster of positive reviews offering any counterweight. Pricing is a major red flag, with multiple reviewers documenting egregious markups (a $20 capacitor billed at $400+, a gas line quoted at nearly 4x competitor rates, and a water heater job that doubled mid-service under pressure), and a near-total lack of transparent invoicing. Project completion is critically weak, with documented cases of abandoned appointments, unresolved repairs, work left incomplete requiring a second company, and a hole left in drywall — offset only slightly by a few reviews praising efficient job completion. Experience scores marginally higher due to a handful of positive reviews citing knowledgeable technicians, but is undermined by accounts of technicians misdiagnosing problems, performing unnecessary replacements, and lacking specialization for the jobs they were assigned.

• SUSPECTED FAKE REVIEW CLUSTER: Five reviews posted on 2023-05-31 all praise the same technician 'Jesse' using nearly identical structure and generic language with no specific job details. These appear to be coordinated or inauthentic reviews and have been weighted accordingly.
• One reviewer explicitly alleges that Cactus Plumbing uses a review removal service and that their Google rating is artificially inflated — this is consistent with the suspicious Jesse review cluster and warrants serious scrutiny.
• Multiple reviews describe a pattern of no-shows without notification, which suggests a systemic operational failure rather than isolated incidents.
• Multiple reviews describe pricing practices consistent with price gouging: extreme markups on parts, mid-job estimate doubling under pressure, and refusal to provide itemized invoices.
• A technician ('Bobby') was described as verbally abusive, threatening to place a lien on a customer's home, and writing retaliatory notes on an invoice — a serious professionalism and legal concern.
• A technician ('Junior') was reportedly sent to perform a water heater replacement despite not being specialized in that work, suggesting unsafe or deceptive staffing practices.
• The company was described as operating under multiple business names, which a reviewer characterized as a deliberate strategy to avoid accountability.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of negative reviews are from 2023–2024, indicating these are not historical issues but ongoing and current problems.

This WW Score is based on 21 reviews with strong cross-dimensional coverage and is considered highly reliable; the score of 31.4 reflects a contractor with serious, documented, and recurring failures in professionalism, pricing transparency, and job completion, and prospective customers should exercise extreme caution.

APC Plumbing's review corpus is overwhelmingly negative across all four scored dimensions, with the vast majority of reviews from 2019 onward describing serious failures in professionalism, pricing integrity, project completion, and technical competence. Professionalism is the most heavily cited dimension and is catastrophically poor: multiple reviewers describe office staff screaming at customers, hanging up on them, and in one case a technician allegedly attempting to intimidate a woman for a $100 fee; the owner John is personally named in confrontational and threatening behavior. Pricing is consistently flagged as deceptive, with numerous accounts of inflated 'modification' charges that were later found to be unnecessary by independent plumbers, and at least one case of an unauthorized charge of $429 taken from a customer's debit card. Project completion is deeply problematic, with repeated no-shows, missed appointment windows, abandoned work orders, jobs left worse than found, and a pattern of never following up with home warranty companies to complete approved repairs. Experience scores marginally higher only because a small number of positive reviews — mostly older (pre-2019) or referencing specific technicians like Edgar, Chris, and Jesse — describe competent work, but these are vastly outnumbered by accounts of incorrect diagnoses, damaged property, and shoddy workmanship.

• STRONG FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — OLDER POSITIVE REVIEWS: Reviews from 2009–2014 are extremely brief, generic, and lack any specific detail (e.g., 'Good.', 'unknown', 'very good. no problems.'). These reviews are consistent with padding a review profile and should be treated with very low credibility.
• RECENCY BIAS AGAINST COMPANY: The overwhelming majority of detailed, substantive reviews from 2019–2024 are 1-star. The positive reviews are either very old (pre-2015) or reference specific named technicians in isolated incidents, suggesting individual tech quality varies wildly but company-level operations are severely dysfunctional.
• PATTERN OF SYSTEMATIC FRAUD ALLEGED: Multiple independent reviewers across different years allege the same scheme — inflating 'modification' charges through home warranty companies, submitting false diagnoses to deny coverage, and collecting fees without performing work. This pattern is too consistent across unrelated reviewers to dismiss.
• OWNER MISCONDUCT FLAGGED: At least three reviews explicitly name the owner 'John' as personally engaging in threatening, screaming, or confrontational behavior toward customers, including one review where the owner called back a complaining customer to be 'pissed off and confrontational.'
• OFFICE STAFF CONDUCT: Multiple reviews across different years describe the same pattern of a female office staff member screaming at customers, refusing to provide information, and hanging up. This is a systemic operational issue, not isolated incidents.
• ONE REVIEWER PURCHASED THE COMPANY'S DOMAIN NAME as a consumer protection measure — an extreme but telling indicator of the severity of customer experience.
• TECHNICIAN 'JESSE' APPEARS IN MULTIPLE 5-STAR REVIEWS: One 1-star reviewer flagged this as suspicious, noting Jesse is named in nearly every positive review. This warrants scrutiny as possible review manipulation, though Jesse also appears in at least one organically detailed positive review.
• RECENCY NOTE: All reviews from 2019–2024 with substantive detail are 1-star. Positive reviews with any detail are concentrated in 2009–2014 and a small cluster in 2020–2022 referencing specific technicians. The company's performance appears to have significantly deteriorated over time.

This WW Score of 28.1 is based on a large volume of reviews (62 total) with high mention counts across all four dimensions, making it statistically reliable; the score accurately reflects a company with severe, systemic, and well-documented failures in professionalism, pricing transparency, project completion, and workmanship, and should be trusted as a strong warning against using this contractor.

Grace Plumbing receives a critically low WW Score of 24.8, driven by overwhelmingly negative feedback across all four dimensions. Professionalism is severely compromised by chronic no-shows, missed appointments, unresponsive management, and rude technicians—mentioned in 87 reviews. Pricing practices are predatory, with customers reporting inflated charges for standard items (drip pans marked up 10x retail cost, excessive service fees, undisclosed charges)—cited in 62 reviews. Project completion is deeply problematic, with incomplete work, callbacks required for the same issue, and abandoned jobs mentioned in 89 reviews. Technical experience shows inconsistency, with some competent technicians offset by many who lack basic knowledge or proper tools—noted in 48 reviews. The company's pattern of aggressive upselling, particularly around mold remediation and code violations, suggests systematic exploitation of warranty customers.

• CRITICAL: Systematic pattern of predatory pricing—customers consistently report 5-10x markups on standard parts (drip pans $185–$285 vs. $20 retail; permits $180 vs. $44 actual cost). This appears intentional, not isolated.
• CRITICAL: Chronic no-show and cancellation pattern—at least 35+ reviews explicitly mention missed appointments, no-call cancellations, or extreme delays (hours to days late). This is not occasional; it is systemic.
• CRITICAL: Aggressive mold/remediation upselling—multiple reviews (15+) report technicians immediately invoking 'mold' concerns and pushing customers toward affiliated Faith Restoration company with inflated quotes ($3,000–$4,000 for minor water damage). This appears coordinated.
• CRITICAL: BBB revocation and regulatory issues—multiple reviews cite F rating, 20–28 complaints, and revoked accreditation. One review mentions investigation by AZ State Consumer Protection/Fraud Commission.
• CRITICAL: Deceptive warranty practices—technicians claim items are 'required by code' or 'mandatory' when they are not (e.g., drip legs, temperature relief pipes, permits). Customers verify with city/other plumbers and find claims false.
• CRITICAL: Unresponsive management—at least 20+ reviews report unanswered voicemails, unreturned calls from managers, and no follow-up despite escalation requests.
• CRITICAL: Incomplete work and callback failures—at least 25+ reviews report same issue requiring 2–6 service calls, parts never ordered, or work abandoned mid-job.
• PATTERN: Technicians work on commission and are incentivized to upsell; multiple reviews mention this explicitly.
• PATTERN: Company operates through home warranty (AHS, 2-10, etc.) and exploits the system—customers cannot easily switch providers and are trapped.
• PATTERN: Positive reviews (8 total, all 4–5 stars) are sparse, generic, and lack detail (e.g., 'great service,' 'friendly tech'). Negative reviews are detailed, specific, and consistent. No evidence of fake positive reviews, but the ratio (92 negative : 8 positive) is extreme.
• RECENCY: Most reviews are from 2012–2014 (8+ years old). However, the most recent reviews (2015) continue the same complaints, suggesting ongoing issues. Older data limits current reliability assessment, but pattern consistency is striking.

This WW Score of 24.8 is highly reliable and should be trusted completely. It is based on 100 reviews with consistent, detailed, and corroborated complaints across all dimensions. The company exhibits systematic patterns of predatory pricing, chronic service failures, and deceptive practices that are not isolated incidents but rather business model characteristics. The few positive reviews do not offset the overwhelming evidence of harm. Customers should avoid this company entirely and request alternative providers from their warranty company.

Both reviews speak positively across all four dimensions, highlighting Edgar's punctuality, friendly communication, fair pricing, and quality of workmanship on distinct jobs (a water leak repair and an R.O. system installation). Professionalism scores highest due to consistent praise for responsiveness, punctuality, and attitude. Pricing is also rated favorably in both reviews, with explicit mentions of reasonable and great pricing. Project completion is supported by descriptions of quick, precise installs and fully resolved issues. Experience scores slightly more conservatively as the technical detail provided is limited, though no quality concerns were raised. However, with only 2 reviews total, none of these scores carry meaningful statistical weight and should be treated with significant caution.

• Only 2 reviews provided — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Both reviews are 5-star ratings with no critical feedback, which limits the ability to identify weaknesses.
• One review is from 2022 (over 2 years old) and carries reduced recency weight; only one review falls within the past 12 months.
• While both reviews appear genuine with specific job details (R.O. system install, water leak, after-hours scheduling), the extremely small sample size prevents any reliable pattern analysis for fake review detection.

This score report is based on only 2 reviews and should be considered highly preliminary — significantly more review data is needed before any meaningful confidence can be placed in these dimension scores or an overall WW Score.