Find Nearby Plumbers In Tucson, Arizona

88 Drain earns strong marks across most dimensions, with the majority of reviewers praising punctuality, friendliness, and efficient job completion — often within 30 minutes. Pricing is generally viewed as fair and below competitors, though two notable complaints involve billing transparency: one reviewer was charged more than the low-end estimate, and another alleged a significant markup on a faucet part without customer consent. Project completion is solid overall but is meaningfully dragged down by one serious case where a part was never ordered despite three weeks of promises, and a recurring complaint that the company's reliability has declined over time. Professionalism scores well in most interactions but is tempered by one incident involving a rude response to a legitimate damage complaint and accusations of dishonesty. Experience is consistently praised, particularly for diagnostic skill and drain-specific expertise, though the scope of services is limited primarily to drain clearing and minor plumbing.

• Two reviews explicitly state the company has declined in quality over recent years, suggesting a possible downward trend in service consistency.
• One 1-star review (2023) describes a serious project abandonment: a part was promised but never ordered over three weeks, indicating a potential systemic follow-through issue.
• One 1-star review (2022) alleges property damage was caused and denied, and that the owner (Hugh) was rude and unresponsive to a legitimate complaint — this is a significant professionalism and accountability concern.
• One 1-star review (2015) alleges a $155 markup on a faucet part without customer consent and refusal to refund — raises pricing transparency concerns that recur in a milder form in a 4-star review from 2018.
• One 1-star review (2020) states the bill is never what is advertised and that the company does not guarantee their work — corroborates the pricing transparency pattern.
• Several older reviews (2015–2019) are beyond 5 years old and carry reduced weight per recency rules. The most recent reviews (2023–2024) show a mixed picture, with both a strong 5-star and a serious 1-star, making current reliability uncertain.
• No fake review patterns detected. Reviews vary in length, detail, specificity, and rating — language is sufficiently distinct across submissions.

This WW Score is based on 27 reviews spanning nearly a decade and carries HIGH statistical confidence due to mention volume, but the score should be interpreted cautiously given a clear pattern of recurring complaints about billing transparency, declining reliability, and at least two serious unresolved customer disputes.

Pioneer Plumbing has a strong overall reputation built on a large volume of reviews spanning over a decade, with consistent praise for individual technicians by name — particularly Terrell, Red, Aaron, Cassius, Dwayne, Brian, and Ray. Professionalism scores well in the majority of reviews, with customers frequently citing punctuality, courtesy, and responsiveness including same-day and emergency service. However, professionalism is meaningfully dragged down by a recurring pattern of negative reviews citing missed appointments, no-shows, rude staff behavior (including a racially charged comment about a neighborhood), and poor communication from the back office. Pricing is the weakest dimension: while many customers report fair or reasonable pricing, a notable cluster of negative reviews explicitly describe overcharging, lack of upfront estimates, billing for wait time, fraudulent labor hour claims, and sticker shock — these are specific and credible complaints that significantly reduce the pricing score. Project completion is generally strong, with many reviews confirming jobs finished same-day or on schedule, but several reviews describe abandoned work, failed repairs requiring callbacks, and one instance of a flooded home due to improper work. Experience scores well overall, with many reviewers praising technical skill and problem-solving, though a few reviews describe incorrect diagnoses, improper installations, and work not up to code.

• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The review beginning 'Fantastic company, fantastic people I would trust them with any size project' appears twice with identical text, posted on 2025-06-06 and 2025-06-03. This is a likely fake or copy-pasted review and has been counted only once for scoring purposes.
• CLUSTER OF SAME-DATE REVIEWS: An unusually high number of reviews (13+) share the exact date of 2025-05-07, many praising the same technician (Terrell). While some variation in content exists, the volume and date concentration raises a moderate concern about review solicitation or manipulation. Scores have been treated conservatively as a result.
• MULTIPLE BLANK REVIEWS: At least 10 reviews contain no text and only a star rating (mostly 5 stars). These have been excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data.
• BACK-OFFICE VS. FIELD STAFF SPLIT: A clear pattern emerges where field technicians receive strong praise but back-office staff (scheduling, billing, management) generate the majority of negative feedback. This suggests an operational inconsistency that the aggregate score partially masks.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS ARE SPECIFIC AND CREDIBLE: Multiple negative pricing reviews include specific dollar amounts, itemized grievances, and references to undisclosed fees, altered invoices, and billing for non-work time. These are not vague complaints and carry significant weight in the pricing dimension score.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews with substantive content are from 2024-2025, which are weighted more heavily. A meaningful number of older reviews (2013-2018) exist and show a similar mixed pattern, suggesting these issues are longstanding rather than recent anomalies.
• ONE REVIEW (2024-06-06, 1-star) describes a technician leaving an apartment unlocked and a steak knife covered in silicone — a serious professionalism and security concern that is factored into the professionalism score.
• ONE REVIEW (2017-03-11, 1-star) describes a severely botched shower installation resulting in flooding, unpermitted work, and the owner threatening to walk off the job. This is a significant project completion and experience flag.

This WW Score is based on a large and diverse review set (155 reviews) spanning over a decade, giving it HIGH statistical confidence, but the score should be interpreted with caution given credible and specific negative reviews around pricing transparency, appointment reliability, and back-office conduct — issues that are consistent across multiple years and reviewers.

Curtis Plumbing has a strong base of loyal, long-term customers who consistently praise individual technicians — particularly Anthony, Matt, Joe, Jaime, and Chris — for punctuality, professionalism, and technical competence. Professionalism scores well overall but is meaningfully dragged down by a recurring pattern of negative reviews citing missed appointments, no-shows, lack of follow-up communication, and dismissive responses from management when complaints were raised. Pricing is the weakest dimension: while many customers report fair or even below-expectation costs, a notable cluster of negative reviews describes significant markups on parts (3-4x retail), undisclosed travel fees, billing for time not worked, and estimates that were promised but never delivered. Project completion is generally solid — most jobs described are finished and customers return repeatedly — but there are credible accounts of unresolved issues (septic problem recurring after payment, dishwasher left non-functional, pipe installed below code) that prevent a higher score. Experience scores highest among the dimensions, with many reviewers specifically noting technical skill, problem-solving ability, and quality workmanship across complex jobs.

• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW CLUSTER: A high concentration of reviews from June 2025 (approximately 14 reviews within a 9-day window) feature near-identical structure — short praise, named technician (predominantly 'Jaime'/'Jamie' and 'Conner/Connor'), and no specific job details. Several are suspiciously brief (e.g., 'Jaime and Connor were fantastic!', 'great work Devon and Scott', 'Jaime and Conner did a great job keep it up'). One review (June 3, 2025) describes meeting a technician at a gas station handing out brochures — this is atypical and may represent a solicited or incentivized review rather than a genuine service experience.
• RECENCY BIAS RISK: The majority of highly positive reviews are concentrated in 2024-2025, while a disproportionate share of negative reviews span 2011-2021. This may reflect genuine improvement over time, but it may also reflect review solicitation practices skewing recent scores upward.
• BILLING AND TRANSPARENCY CONCERNS: Multiple independent negative reviews across different years (2011, 2016, 2018, 2020, 2021, 2023) describe undisclosed fees, parts marked up 3-4x retail, billing for hours not worked, and estimates charged but never delivered. This is a consistent pattern across unrelated reviewers and time periods, indicating a systemic issue rather than isolated incidents.
• COMMUNICATION AND FOLLOW-UP FAILURES: At least 5 separate reviews describe the company failing to send promised estimates, failing to return calls or emails, or failing to show up for scheduled appointments without notice. One reviewer documented 4-5 unanswered follow-up contacts. This pattern meaningfully impacts the professionalism score.
• MANAGEMENT RESPONSE CONCERNS: Two reviews describe the owner or office manager responding to complaints in a dismissive or retaliatory manner, including one instance where a refund was reportedly rescinded after a negative review was posted. This is a significant integrity flag.
• 9 reviews contained no text (blank body with only a star rating) and were excluded from dimension scoring but counted in total reviews analyzed.
• GEOGRAPHIC INCONSISTENCY: One negative review references Tucson, AZ and another references Oracle/Rancho Vistoso (also Arizona), while the majority of reviews reference Tampa Bay/Riverview, FL. This may indicate the business has operated in multiple locations or that some reviews are misattributed, which could affect score reliability.

This WW Score is based on a large review set (109 reviews) spanning over a decade, giving it HIGH statistical confidence in volume terms, but the score should be interpreted cautiously due to a credible fake review cluster in June 2025, a consistent multi-year pattern of billing and communication complaints from independent reviewers, and evidence of management responses that raise integrity concerns — the true score for a new customer's experience may be lower than the calculated 74.2.

Noble Plumbing earns strong marks for professionalism and responsiveness across a large volume of reviews, with many customers praising courteous, punctual technicians and attentive office staff. Project completion scores well overall, with the majority of jobs described as finished efficiently and thoroughly, though a meaningful minority of negative reviews cite missed appointments, no-shows, failed repairs requiring return visits, and at least one job that failed city inspection multiple times. Pricing is the weakest dimension: while many reviewers praise fair or competitive rates, several credible negative reviews describe charges perceived as excessive, billing for travel time to buy parts, and a $500 charge for a 30-minute repair, pulling the score down significantly. Experience scores moderately well, with many reviewers noting knowledgeable and skilled technicians, but offset by documented cases of incorrect parts installed, failed repairs, and work that did not pass inspection. The score reflects a contractor with genuine strengths but a consistent pattern of service failures that cannot be ignored.

• 18 reviews contain no text whatsoever — only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence.
• Several reviews from 2013–2016 are labeled 'unknown' with no review text and appear to be placeholder or imported records with no substantive content. These were excluded.
• One review (2014-04-23) appears to describe a medical clinic or urgent care facility, not a plumbing company ('campus,' 'kids,' 'injury,' 'schedule depending on the injury'). This review is almost certainly misattributed or fraudulent and was excluded from scoring.
• A cluster of reviews from 2025-05-10 (approximately 8 reviews posted on the same date, several with no text) raises a mild concern about review manipulation or bulk solicitation, though the dated reviews with text on that day appear genuine.
• Multiple negative reviews describe missed appointments and no-shows (2019-10-03, 2020-05-06, 2024-12-11), suggesting a recurring operational issue with scheduling reliability.
• One detailed negative review (2020-12-22) describes a failed repair, an incorrect part installed, a $750 upsell attempt, and a $300 charge for unresolved work — this is a significant quality and ethics flag.
• One review (2017-11-03) describes a water line replacement that failed city inspection three times due to improper fittings, inconsistent technician assignments, a missed callback appointment, and an unresolved leak — a serious project completion failure.
• One review (2024-09-29, 2-star) raises a specific pricing concern: the customer was charged $250/hr labor rate and billed for over an hour of time during which the technician drove to Home Depot to buy parts. The promised itemized receipt was also never delivered.
• Recency note: The majority of reviews with substantive text span 2018–2025, with the most recent cluster in 2025. Reviews from 2013–2016 are sparse and mostly text-free. Scoring is appropriately weighted toward the more recent and detailed reviews.
• No strong evidence of fully fabricated bot reviews, but the volume of brief, generic 5-star reviews with no specifics (e.g., 'Amazing service!!!', 'excellent job', 'Fast and prompt service') moderately inflates the apparent positivity of the review set.

This WW Score is based on a large review set (125 total, ~107 with usable data) spanning multiple years, giving it HIGH overall confidence, but consumers should weigh the recurring negative patterns around missed appointments, pricing transparency, and occasional failed workmanship before making a hiring decision.

Cal's Plumbing scores well on professionalism and experience, with dozens of reviewers praising named technicians like Nick, Billy, Leonard, Jonathan, and Tyler for being courteous, knowledgeable, punctual, and thorough. Project completion is generally strong, with most jobs described as fully resolved, though a handful of notable failures — including an unresolved leak left for elderly clients, a plumber who never followed up on a promised valve replacement, and a video inspection file that was never properly delivered — pull the score down meaningfully. The most significant drag on the overall WW Score is pricing: a large and consistent body of complaints across multiple years describes charges as excessive, sometimes 2–3 times higher than competitors for identical work, with specific examples including $517 for a toilet repair, $400 for a 20-minute toilet pull, $262 for a 10-minute cartridge swap, and $500 for a straightforward sink swap. While some reviewers describe pricing as fair or reasonable, the volume and specificity of overpricing complaints is too substantial to ignore. Experience scores well overall but is tempered by a few instances of misdiagnosis or incomplete problem-solving.

• PRICING CONCERN — HIGH VOLUME: At least 10 reviews across multiple years explicitly describe pricing as excessive, overpriced, or significantly higher than competitors. This is a consistent and credible pattern, not isolated complaints.
• PROJECT COMPLETION FAILURES: At least 3 reviews describe work that was not fully completed — an elderly client's leak left unresolved, a promised valve follow-up that never happened, and a video inspection file that was never successfully delivered despite multiple attempts.
• MISDIAGNOSIS INCIDENT (2017): One reviewer reported Cal's performed two smoke tests and punched a hole in a plaster wall without bringing the camera that was specifically requested, charging $625 for fruitless diagnostics. A second company with a camera resolved the issue cheaply.
• RESPONSIVENESS FAILURE: One review (2018) describes being unable to reach the on-call plumber due to a full voicemail box, and when contact was finally made, the plumber laughed and said he was unavailable. One review (2023) describes a confirmed appointment that was cancelled same-day with no prior notice.
• POSSIBLE PERMIT CONCERN: One reviewer noted the technician asked whether they wanted the work done with or without permits, which raises a compliance concern.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK — LOW TO MODERATE: The majority of 5-star reviews are specific, name individual technicians, and describe distinct scenarios, which reduces fake review suspicion. However, a small number of very short, generic 5-star reviews with no detail (e.g., 'Highly recommend', 'Great service') offer no verifiable substance and should be weighted lightly.
• RECENCY NOTE: Reviews span from 2014 to 2024. The most recent reviews (2023–2024) include both strong positives and notable negatives (video file failure, appointment no-show, pricing shock). The pricing complaints are consistent across the full date range, suggesting this is a structural issue rather than a temporary one.
• UPSELLING CONCERN: At least one reviewer explicitly complained about aggressive upselling tactics during service calls.

This WW Score is based on 75 reviews spanning a decade, with strong mention counts across all four dimensions, yielding HIGH confidence in each dimension score; however, the pricing score in particular reflects a well-documented and recurring pattern of overcharging that prospective customers should weigh carefully before hiring.

ASG Plumbing has a strong base of positive reviews praising punctuality, clear communication, and quality workmanship across a wide range of plumbing and irrigation jobs. Warranty offerings (3–5 years) and detailed explanations of work were recurring positives that boosted project completion and professionalism scores. However, three 1-star reviews introduce meaningful concerns: one describes a no-show with no follow-up communication, one alleges pricing far above licensed competitors from an unlicensed plumber, and one alleges predatory pricing based on perceived client wealth — all of which significantly dragged down professionalism and pricing scores. The licensing concern raised in two separate negative reviews is a serious flag that cannot be dismissed, as it directly affects trustworthiness and legal standing. The spread of reviews across 2012–2024 means older reviews carry reduced weight, and the most recent reviews (2023–2024) are generally positive, suggesting some improvement over time.

• LICENSING CONCERN: Two separate negative reviewers (2020 and 2017) independently allege the operator is unlicensed. If accurate, this is a significant legal and safety risk for consumers and substantially undermines credibility.
• PREDATORY PRICING ALLEGATION: One reviewer (2017) alleges the contractor stated he charges based on his personal assessment of what clients can afford ('they look like they can afford it'), which if true represents a serious ethical violation.
• NO-SHOW / ABANDONMENT: One reviewer (2017) reports the contractor confirmed an appointment, caused the client to drive 100+ miles, then texted a reschedule notice 15 minutes before the appointment and did not respond to follow-up contact.
• RECENCY IMBALANCE: Several reviews are from 2012–2019 and carry reduced weight. The three negative reviews are all from 2017–2020, while 2023–2024 reviews are uniformly positive — this may indicate improvement, but the serious allegations have not been publicly addressed or rebutted.
• OPERATOR NAME INCONSISTENCY: Reviews reference both 'Anthony' and 'Alex' as the technician. This may indicate multiple workers, or could reflect reviewer confusion, but warrants attention as it creates ambiguity about who performed which work.
• MILD GENERIC PRAISE PATTERN: Several short reviews ('On time, great price, professional' and 'conscientious, good cleanup, on time!') lack specifics. While not conclusive evidence of fake reviews, they contribute limited evidentiary weight and were scored conservatively.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to 21 reviews with broad dimension coverage, but the score should be interpreted cautiously given unresolved and serious allegations of unlicensed operation, predatory pricing, and a confirmed no-show — issues that are not offset by volume of positive reviews alone.