Find Nearby Plumbers In Tucson, Arizona

Plumbologist presents a deeply divided review profile spanning 2017–2024, with strong positive experiences from some customers offset by serious, recurring complaints from others. Professionalism is the most contested dimension: multiple reviewers praise punctuality, clear communication, and responsiveness, while others report no-shows to multi-hour appointment windows, unanswered calls across many days, and a plumber who left without knocking or calling. Project completion is similarly split — several reviews describe fast, clean, effective repairs, but others document failed city inspections, unresolved issues, equipment that never worked, and a pattern of promising follow-through without delivering. Pricing drew explicit criticism from multiple reviewers who found quotes dramatically disproportionate to parts cost and labor time, though a few reviewers found pricing fair and competitive. Experience scores reflect genuine skill noted by satisfied customers alongside serious workmanship failures — including errors that caused two failed inspections and thousands of dollars in additional costs — attributed specifically to a technician named Paul.

• Two reviews dated 2018-06-27 are nearly word-for-word identical (same complaint about Paul, TWO failed inspections, $1800 electrical, $700 equipment refusal). These appear to be duplicate submissions of the same review, possibly posted twice by the same customer. Only one was counted for scoring purposes.
• One review (2018-06-11) contains no text — only a 1-star rating. This was excluded from dimension scoring as it provides no usable data.
• Several 5-star reviews are brief and generic (e.g., 'Nice, professional and punctual' with no specifics). While not conclusive, these warrant mild skepticism.
• A significant portion of reviews (roughly 60%) are dated before 2023, meaning the majority of the review base is more than 1–2 years old. The most recent reviews (2023–2024) include both a strong positive and a notable pricing complaint, suggesting the mixed pattern persists.
• Multiple distinct negative patterns appear across unrelated reviewers: no-shows, unanswered phones, and incomplete work. This consistency across different dates and reviewers increases the credibility of the negative reviews.
• The contractor appears to have multiple technicians (Geoff, Paul, David, Jeff) with notably different performance profiles. Paul is specifically named in the most severe negative reviews. Scores reflect the business as a whole, not individual technicians.

This WW Score is based on 24 usable reviews spanning 7 years with HIGH mention counts across all four dimensions, making it statistically meaningful, though the age of many reviews and the presence of one duplicate submission slightly temper full confidence in the score as a reflection of current performance.

Rooter King Plumbing presents a deeply polarized review profile spanning over 15 years. Positive reviews — concentrated among customers who hired the company directly or had straightforward jobs — consistently praise specific technicians (Jacob, Javier, Santos, Cullen, Jerry, David, Joel) for professionalism, friendliness, and competence. However, a very large volume of negative reviews — many from customers assigned through home warranty companies (AHS, 2-10, AHW) — describe a systematic pattern of inflated 'code upgrade' or 'modification' charges, misdiagnosis, incomplete work, rude office staff (particularly a figure named Pedro), and failure to honor callbacks or schedules. Pricing is the most damaged dimension, with dozens of reviewers explicitly alleging overcharging, fraudulent billing to both the customer and warranty company simultaneously, and charges for work not performed. Project completion is also significantly impaired, with multiple reviews describing jobs left unfinished, problems recurring shortly after service, and technicians refusing to perform agreed-upon work. The experience dimension is mixed: some technicians are clearly skilled, while others are described as incompetent or deliberately evasive to avoid difficult work.

• SYSTEMATIC PRICING FRAUD PATTERN: A very high number of independent reviewers across multiple years describe near-identical schemes involving inflated 'code upgrade' or 'modification' charges on water heater replacements, often ranging from $430 to $970+, which second-opinion plumbers consistently found unnecessary. This is not isolated — it appears to be a business practice.
• DUAL BILLING ALLEGATIONS: Multiple reviewers allege Rooter King billed both the customer out-of-pocket AND the home warranty company for the same work, or collected warranty payment for work never performed. These are serious fraud allegations.
• NAMED INDIVIDUAL 'PEDRO' REPEATEDLY CITED: Across reviews spanning 2015–2021, a supervisor or office manager named 'Pedro' is repeatedly named as rude, dismissive, threatening, and willing to hang up on or scream at customers. This suggests a persistent management-level customer service failure.
• RECENCY NOTE: Reviews span from 2005 to June 2025. The most recent reviews (2024–2025) show some improvement in technician quality and responsiveness, but pricing complaints and incomplete work complaints persist into 2025. Older reviews (pre-2020) carry less weight but establish a long-standing pattern.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Six reviews contained no text (rating only). These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data.
• POSSIBLE FAKE/GENERIC REVIEWS: A small number of very short, generic 5-star reviews ('Very professional', 'Fast and thorough', 'Great technician', 'Keep up the good work', 'Awesome best in the world superb customer service reasonable prices above and beyond quality workmanship') contain no specifics and may be inflating the positive review count. Confidence is not materially reduced given the large overall sample, but these reviews were weighted minimally.
• SENIOR CITIZEN TARGETING: At least two reviews explicitly allege that the company targeted or took advantage of elderly or senior customers with inflated pricing.
• WARRANTY COMPANY CONFLICT OF INTEREST: A significant portion of negative reviews come from customers assigned via home warranty companies. Some reviewers allege Rooter King deliberately misdiagnoses or inflates costs to extract out-of-pocket payments while also collecting warranty fees, suggesting a structural incentive problem when operating as a warranty contractor.

This WW Score of 52.1 is based on a very large sample of 125 reviews with HIGH confidence across all four dimensions, and should be considered a reliable representation of the contractor's overall performance — the score reflects a company with genuinely capable individual technicians undermined by serious, well-documented, and recurring issues with pricing transparency, billing integrity, job completion, and office-level customer service.

AquaVets presents a deeply mixed record across all four dimensions. Professionalism is severely dragged down by multiple credible accounts of the owner yelling at customers, failing to return calls or texts for weeks, going on vacation mid-project without notice, and ghosting clients entirely after taking payment — though a handful of positive reviews do praise responsiveness and friendliness in early interactions. Project completion is the most damaging dimension: multiple reviewers explicitly describe abandoned work, no-shows, months-long delays, paid-in-full jobs left incomplete, and one reviewer reporting they had to hire other companies to redo the work and repair damage caused. On the positive side, pricing is generally viewed favorably by those who received completed work, with several noting fair quotes, price matching, and no hidden charges. Workmanship quality is inconsistent — some reviewers praise skilled, custom installations while others describe incorrect pitch, holes left in walls, and gutters that failed to function properly.

• SERIOUS PATTERN — Multiple independent reviews (2021, 2022) describe the same failure mode: owner takes deposit or full payment, fails to complete work, stops responding to calls and texts entirely. This is a significant consumer protection concern.
• RECENCY CONCERN — The two most recent positive reviews (2024-02-09 and 2023-03-19) are for simpler gutter replacement jobs and do not address the systemic follow-through and abandonment issues raised in 2021–2022 reviews. It is unclear whether underlying business practices have improved.
• DAMAGE CAUSED — One detailed 1-star review (2021-09-10) describes physical damage to roof, fascia, and stucco caused by the installation team, requiring multiple third-party contractors to remediate. This is a serious workmanship flag.
• ABANDONED WORK WITH PAYMENT — At least three reviews explicitly state money was paid and work was either never started or left incomplete with no resolution offered (2021-04-17, 2022-06-17, 2022-12-02).
• FAKE REVIEW CHECK — No strong indicators of fake positive reviews detected; positive reviews contain specific details (crew names, project types, follow-up interactions). However, the stark contrast between positive and negative reviews suggests possible inconsistency in service delivery rather than fabrication.
• OLDER REVIEWS — Several reviews date from 2018–2020. While included in scoring, the most operationally relevant pattern appears concentrated in 2021–2022, with limited recent data to confirm recovery or continued decline.

This WW Score is based on 20 reviews spanning 2018–2024 with high mention counts across all dimensions, making the score statistically reliable; however, the score should be interpreted with serious caution given credible, detailed, and repeated accounts of payment taken without work delivered and owner misconduct.

This contractor's review set is deeply divided, with strong positive reviews from 2016–2019 contrasting sharply against serious failure reviews, most notably a 2023 complaint describing an unresolved leak, two no-shows, and complete communication breakdown. Professionalism is the most heavily flagged dimension: multiple reviews cite failure to return calls, missed appointments, and an inappropriately early morning contact attempt, dragging the score down significantly despite several older reviews praising promptness and courtesy. Project completion is similarly mixed — while some reviewers praise fast, effective work, the 2023 review documents a job that was never completed and required a second contractor to fix, which is a severe outcome. Pricing and experience scores are more favorable, with several reviewers explicitly calling out fair rates and skilled, knowledgeable work, though these positives are anchored in older reviews. The recency trend is concerning: the most recent review (2023) is the most damaging, and no positive reviews exist from 2021 onward.

• RECENCY CONCERN: The only review from the past 12 months relative to the most recent date (2023-08-09) is a 1-star review describing abandoned work and no-shows. All positive reviews are from 2022 or earlier, with most clustered in 2016–2019. This suggests possible service quality decline over time.
• COMMUNICATION FAILURE PATTERN: At least 3 separate reviews (2023, 2021, 2019) independently cite failure to return calls or respond to messages. This is a consistent and recurring pattern, not an isolated incident.
• NO-SHOW PATTERN: The 2023 review documents two consecutive missed appointments with no contact. This is a serious reliability red flag.
• INCOMPLETE WORK: The 2023 review explicitly states the contractor charged $85 for work that did not resolve the problem and then failed to return to correct it. This is the most recent data point and heavily weighs down project completion.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — LOW LEVEL: The 2019 5-star review mentions 'Sergio and Diana' by name and praises 24/7 availability, while the 2019 1-star review directly disputes the 24/7 claim and warns readers not to trust other reviews. No clear fabrication pattern detected, but the generic enthusiasm in some older 5-star reviews warrants mild caution.
• REVIEW VOLUME WARNING: Only 10 reviews span approximately 7 years, which is a low volume for a contractor. Scores should be treated with moderate caution despite some dimensions reaching HIGH confidence thresholds.

This WW Score carries moderate overall reliability — the HIGH mention counts on professionalism, project completion, and experience provide statistical grounding, but the strong recency skew toward negative outcomes and a multi-year gap in positive reviews mean the score likely overstates current service quality.

This contractor shows a stark divide in performance. Two recent reviews (2024) report critical no-show failures with poor communication, severely damaging professionalism and project completion scores. However, three older reviews (2017–2021) praise reliability, fair pricing, efficiency, and quality workmanship. The recency of the no-show incidents is deeply concerning and suggests a recent operational decline. While historical performance was strong, current reliability appears compromised, making this score unreliable for forward-looking decisions.

• CRITICAL: Two recent no-show incidents (Sept 2024, March 2024) represent catastrophic professionalism failures. These are the most recent reviews and directly contradict older positive reviews.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Three positive reviews are 3–7 years old (2017, 2020, 2021). Recent reviews show opposite pattern. This suggests deterioration in service quality or operational changes.
• INCONSISTENCY: Extreme polarity between recent failures and historical praise suggests either: (a) significant recent decline in business operations, (b) staffing/management changes, or (c) scheduling system breakdown. This inconsistency reduces confidence in predicting future performance.
• LIMITED PRICING DATA: Only 2 mentions of pricing across 5 reviews. Score is based on minimal evidence.

This score should be treated with caution. While the overall WW Score is 54.3, the recent no-show pattern (2 of last 2 reviews) is a major red flag that outweighs historical positive feedback. Do not rely on this score alone—investigate whether operational issues have been resolved before engaging this contractor.

This contractor shows a deeply mixed performance record across all dimensions. Professionalism is significantly dragged down by multiple reviews citing no-shows, ignored emails, failure to read client materials, and complete lack of follow-through on estimates — offset only partially by a handful of reviews praising responsiveness and availability. Project completion is a serious concern, with one job taking 13 months instead of 6, another taking 5 months instead of 5 days, and a pattern of abandoned or incomplete callbacks; positive completions exist but are outnumbered by problematic ones. Experience scores reflect a similar split — the 1998 detailed review documents multiple workmanship failures including improper valve installation, leaking roofs, and grout failure, while a few shorter reviews praise quality outcomes. Pricing data is limited but suggests the contractor is perceived as expensive by at least one reviewer, with another noting fair pricing, yielding a middling score. The overall picture is of an inconsistent contractor with meaningful red flags around reliability and follow-through.

• Several reviews are from 2012–2016, making all reviews older than 8 years as of 2024 — recency weighting significantly reduces reliability of this score for current performance assessment.
• One review (Rating: 5.0, Date: 2013-07-12, Text: 'unknown') contains no usable content and was excluded from dimension scoring.
• The 1998 review is extremely dated (26+ years old) but was included due to its high detail and relevance to workmanship patterns; its age was noted in scoring conservatism.
• No reviews are from the past 12 months; the entire dataset is stale and should be treated with caution for current hiring decisions.
• Multiple 1-star reviews cite complete non-response or abandonment of the customer relationship, which is a significant professionalism and project completion red flag.
• No suspected fake review patterns detected — reviews vary in length, tone, rating, and specificity, suggesting authentic submissions.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability due to a reasonable number of mentions across dimensions, but is substantially undermined by the age of all reviews (none within the past 8 years), making it a poor predictor of current contractor performance.