Find Nearby Plumbers In Tucson, Arizona

Professional Plumbing receives broadly positive marks for professionalism and individual technician conduct, with many reviewers praising named techs like Fred, Walter, Steve, Tyler, Cesar, and others for being friendly, punctual, and knowledgeable. However, the pricing dimension is significantly dragged down by multiple credible complaints about charges exceeding quoted amounts, a 20-day workmanship guarantee that customers found inadequate, and a pattern of billing disputes that went unanswered by the office. Project completion is mixed: several reviews praise thorough, persistent work, but there are notable failures including recurring clogs after service, a no-show after a confirmed appointment, and at least one case where the same issue returned within 30 days requiring a second charge. Experience scores moderately well overall, with skilled problem-solving highlighted in several detailed reviews, but offset by instances of poor workmanship that required correction by other companies.

• 13 reviews contain no text — only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence. Their presence inflates the apparent review count and skews the average rating upward.
• Two reviews appear to be near-identical duplicates: the 'Tyler and Cesar' review appears verbatim on both 2021-06-10 and 2020-08-10, and the 'Gilbert garbage disposal' review appears verbatim on both 2023-06-10 and 2023-02-06. This raises a fake or duplicate review concern and reduces confidence in the raw star rating.
• Two separate reviewers independently reported being charged approximately $700 and feeling the billing was dishonest, and both noted their follow-up emails to the office went unanswered. This is a credible and specific pattern of concern, not an isolated complaint.
• The pricing dimension has a notably high number of negative mentions relative to total pricing mentions — approximately 6 out of 14 pricing-related reviews raised concerns about overcharging, surprise fees, or charges exceeding quotes.
• Several reviews are older than 3 years (2014–2020). While included for context, more recent reviews (2021–2025) were weighted more heavily in scoring. The pricing complaints are distributed across multiple years, suggesting a persistent rather than isolated issue.
• One review explicitly mentions a disabled veterans organization being overcharged and having poor-quality work redone by another plumber — flagged as a reputationally significant negative data point.

This WW Score is based on 44 reviews with substantive content across all four dimensions and carries HIGH overall confidence, though the score should be interpreted cautiously given confirmed duplicate reviews, a pattern of unresolved billing complaints, and a meaningful number of project completion failures that suggest inconsistent service quality depending on the technician assigned.

All Pro Plumbing has a strong base of positive reviews praising courteous, knowledgeable technicians and fair pricing, particularly from the 2014–2020 period. However, several negative reviews carry significant weight: one customer paid $200 with zero issues resolved and was quoted additional fees for follow-up visits, another experienced repeat failures and a no-call no-show on a callback, and a third saw pricing nearly double compared to a prior visit for identical work. Punctuality is a mixed picture — many reviews praise fast response times, but at least two reviews explicitly cite no-shows or excessive lateness. The negative reviews are specific and credible, preventing higher scores across all dimensions. The majority of reviews are from 2016–2020, with only two reviews from 2021, meaning recent performance data is limited.

• Several reviews reference specific named technicians (Ronnie, David, Jarem, Danny, Curtis) which adds credibility and reduces fake review concern for positive reviews.
• The high volume of 5-star reviews with no detail from 2015–2019 warrants mild scrutiny, though most contain enough specifics to be considered genuine.
• Most reviews are older than 3 years (pre-2022), meaning current service quality may differ significantly from what is reflected here.
• Two separate reviews explicitly describe no-show or extreme lateness incidents, which meaningfully drag down the professionalism and project completion scores.
• One review (2021) describes a pricing increase of nearly 2x for identical work compared to a prior visit, and another (2021) describes paying $200 for a visit where nothing was fixed — these are serious project completion and pricing red flags.
• The no-call no-show on a warranty callback (2020 review) is a significant project completion failure and was corroborated by office inaction.

This WW Score is based on 27 reviews spanning 2012–2021 with HIGH mention counts across all dimensions, making the score mathematically reliable, but the preponderance of older reviews and several credible, specific negative experiences — particularly around pricing transparency and follow-through — mean consumers should treat this score as a moderate-confidence indicator of current service quality.

Plumber Kings has a strong base of positive reviews praising punctuality, communication, and professional demeanor — particularly for technicians Robert, William, and Cullen. However, the score is meaningfully dragged down by several serious negative data points: one detailed 1-star review describes a 6-month project overrun, unlicensed work, a critical installation error (toilet pipe angle), a hostile owner attitude, and failure to complete scope of work without dispute. Pricing is a mixed picture — multiple reviewers praise fair or competitive pricing, but two reviews explicitly describe bait-and-switch or excessive charges ($165 quoted vs. $425 charged; $400+ for 45 minutes). Project completion is similarly split, with most jobs described as finished well, but one major project was severely delayed and left incomplete without dispute, and one reviewer reports the plumber simply never showed up. Experience scores moderately well overall, with several reviewers noting skill and problem-solving, but the serious technical error in the detailed negative review (a fundamental plumbing mistake) prevents a high score.

• Several undated reviews use very brief, generic praise with no specifics ('Great people!', 'Very professional', 'My issue was handled efficiently') — these carry lower evidentiary weight and may inflate the positive signal.
• A disproportionate number of 5-star reviews lack dates, making recency weighting impossible for roughly half the dataset. Reviews with confirmed dates span 2023–2025.
• The detailed 1-star review (Feb 2024) is the most recent dated negative review and describes systemic issues: unlicensed crew member, major installation error, 6-month delay, scope dispute, and owner hostility — this is given elevated weight due to its specificity and recency.
• One 1-star review ('Plumber never showed up') references Thumbtack and lacks detail — it is counted but treated as lower-confidence evidence.
• No confirmed fake review patterns detected, but the volume of brief, undated 5-star reviews warrants mild caution.

This WW Score is based on 26 reviews with high mention counts across all four dimensions, giving it reasonable statistical grounding, but the large proportion of undated reviews and the presence of one highly detailed, recent negative review describing serious workmanship and professionalism failures means the score should be treated as a moderate-confidence estimate — the true performance range is likely wider than the score alone suggests.

Oro Valley Plumbing has a strong base of loyal, satisfied customers who consistently praise Rick's honesty, responsiveness, and technical competence across a wide range of plumbing jobs. However, a meaningful cluster of negative reviews raises serious concerns: multiple reviewers describe billing disputes, charges for time spent away from the job site, a completed job using inferior parts, and at least one reviewer alleging belligerent behavior and gender-based mistreatment. Project completion is also dinged by one reviewer who explicitly states the work was left unfinished and callbacks were not honored. Pricing confidence is dragged down by recurring complaints about unexpected charges, a $149 trip charge for a quote, and disputed hourly billing practices. The positive reviews are specific and credible, but so are the negative ones, preventing this contractor from scoring in the upper tier.

• Multiple negative reviews describe billing disputes where the final charge exceeded the quoted price, including one case where Rick allegedly charged for 90 minutes of off-site time and installed a cheaper pump than the one removed.
• One reviewer (2016-04-01) alleges belligerent behavior and claims the contractor took advantage of her as a woman — this is a serious conduct flag.
• One review (2023-10-18) explicitly states work was left incomplete and the contractor did not return calls — a direct project completion failure.
• One review (2018-04-25) describes a refusal to provide a quote without a $149 trip charge and a dismissive attitude, suggesting inconsistent customer service.
• A 5-star review posted on 2018-04-25 at 17:43 appears to be a direct rebuttal to the 1-star review posted the same day at 10:59, referencing 'review flamers' and defending the contractor — this review may lack objectivity and reads as a personal defense rather than an independent customer experience.
• Several older reviews (2014–2018) are more than 6 years old and carry reduced weight. The most recent reviews (2023–2024) are limited in number, making current performance harder to assess with full confidence.
• No fake review pattern detected overall, but the same-day 5-star rebuttal review warrants scrutiny for potential bias.

This WW Score is based on 19 reviews with high mention counts across all four dimensions, giving it reasonable statistical grounding, but the score should be interpreted cautiously given the credible and specific nature of multiple negative reviews describing billing misconduct, incomplete work, and unprofessional behavior.

Plumbing Suppliers consistently earns strong marks for professionalism, with all 10 reviews explicitly praising the friendliness, patience, and helpfulness of staff — including taking time with non-professional customers and not making them feel out of place. Technical knowledge and problem-solving ability are highlighted across 8 reviews, with staff demonstrating genuine expertise in diagnosing issues, recommending parts, and even suggesting cost-saving alternatives. Pricing is mentioned favorably in 4 reviews, with multiple reviewers noting that prices beat big-box stores and that staff proactively recommended less expensive options. Project completion is harder to assess here since this appears to be a supply store rather than a contracting service, but the 3 reviews touching on order fulfillment and delivery describe reliable follow-through, including an owner personally delivering and unloading a large order. The overall picture is of a knowledgeable, customer-focused plumbing supply business with consistently positive feedback, though the score is tempered by the age of many reviews.

• RECENCY WARNING: 7 of 10 reviews are older than 12 months, with 6 reviews dating from 2014–2017. Only 3 reviews fall within the past 12–24 months (2023–2024). The score may not reflect current business performance.
• CONTEXT NOTE: This appears to be a plumbing supply store, not a contractor or plumber. The 'Project Completion' dimension is partially applicable only — it was scored based on order fulfillment and delivery follow-through rather than job completion in the traditional contracting sense. Interpret this dimension with caution.
• GENERIC PRAISE FLAG: Two reviews (2023-05-20 and 2016-12-20) are very brief and lack specific detail, which slightly reduces confidence. However, the majority of reviews are detailed and specific, so no widespread fake review pattern is detected.
• ALL 5-STAR RATINGS: Every review is rated 5 stars with no negative or mixed feedback present. While the detailed reviews lend credibility, the absence of any critical feedback across 10 reviews warrants mild caution.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability — the professionalism and experience dimensions are well-supported by detailed, specific reviews, but the score is significantly undermined by the age of most reviews (majority from 2014–2017), the supply-store context that limits project completion assessment, and the uniform 5-star rating pattern across all submissions.

Calvin and AAA Royal Flush receive consistently strong marks across all four dimensions, with pricing being a standout — multiple reviewers independently describe his rates as reasonable, fair, and affordable even for last-minute or urgent calls. Professionalism is well-supported across nearly every review, with mentions of punctuality, communication, honesty, and a courteous demeanor. Project completion scores slightly lower because two reviews (the 3-star manufactured home review and the clean-out-on-roof review) document situations where Calvin could not complete the job due to scope limitations, though he handled both with transparency and referrals. Experience is affirmed through several specific job descriptions including water heater replacement, main line repair, faucet and fixture work, and clean-out installation, suggesting solid technical range. Most reviews are from 2021–2024, giving reasonable recency coverage, though the most recent high-detail reviews are now approaching or exceeding one year old.

• Two reviews document service limitations rather than completed work: one for a manufactured home and one requiring roof access. These are not failures of quality but do reflect scope constraints that prospective customers should be aware of.
• All 8 reviews are 4-star or higher (seven are 5-star, one is 3-star). While this could reflect genuine quality, the small sample size limits confidence in the overall picture.
• Several reviews use similarly warm, general praise language ('honest,' 'reasonable,' 'great job'), though most include specific job details that reduce fake review concern. No strong fake review pattern detected.
• Review volume is low (8 total). Scores carry moderate-to-high confidence per dimension due to mention counts, but the overall WW Score should be treated as directionally reliable rather than statistically robust.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent review is from July 2024. Three reviews are from 2021, which are now over 3 years old. More recent reviews would strengthen confidence in current performance.

This WW Score is directionally trustworthy given consistent multi-reviewer evidence across all four dimensions, but the small total review count (8) means it should be treated as a solid early signal rather than a fully validated rating.