Find Nearby Plumbers In Tucson, Arizona

MacInnis Plumbing demonstrates strong performance across all four dimensions, with particularly high marks for professionalism (89.5) driven by consistent praise for punctuality, communication, courtesy, and responsiveness across 58 reviews. Experience scores (88.0) reflect widespread recognition of technical skill and problem-solving ability. Project completion (82.5) is solid but slightly lower due to one significant negative review detailing a failed repair that leaked again within 3 months, plus occasional mentions of scheduling complexity. Pricing (84.0) is consistently described as fair and reasonable, though the same negative review reported a $200 estimate that ballooned to $1,017.93. The company's owner Mike and staff members are frequently named and praised for going above and beyond, including emergency weekend service and follow-up work at no charge.

• One strongly negative review (2024-02-02, 1-star) describes a water line repair that failed within 3 months at the same location where work was performed, contradicting the company's diagnosis. This is a material quality concern that significantly impacts project completion confidence.
• The same negative review reports a $200 estimate that escalated to $1,017.93 without clear prior authorization, raising transparency concerns despite the company's otherwise strong pricing reputation.
• 67 of 67 reviews are 5-star ratings except for one 1-star review. While the overwhelming majority are genuinely detailed and specific (not generic), the extreme skew (98.5% perfect ratings) is unusual and warrants noting that this may not fully represent the customer experience distribution.
• Review dates span 2016–2024, with most reviews (approximately 80%) from 2019 onward. Recency is generally strong, supporting current reliability assessment.

This WW Score of 87.2 is highly reliable based on 67 reviews with consistent data across all dimensions and HIGH confidence across the board. However, the single but serious negative review documenting a failed repair and billing escalation introduces material doubt about quality consistency and transparency in complex jobs, suggesting the true score may be somewhat lower than indicated. The company's exceptional professionalism and responsiveness are well-established, but potential customers should be aware of the documented failure case before committing to major projects.

Hydro Rooter & Plumbing demonstrates strong overall performance across all dimensions. Professionalism is a standout strength with 42 mentions emphasizing punctuality, communication, courtesy, and responsiveness—particularly from technicians Martin, Jake, Frank, and Thomas. Project completion is consistently reliable with 28 mentions of jobs finished on time, often faster than promised, with thorough follow-through and cleanup. Pricing receives solid marks (82.0) across 18 mentions, though one recent review (Sept 2024) criticized lack of cost-saving alternatives and perceived upselling, and another older review noted being overpriced. Experience is well-documented with 22 mentions of technical knowledge, problem-solving ability, and quality workmanship. The company excels at emergency response and complex jobs (repiping, sewer line replacement, hydrojetting).

• Multiple empty reviews (5 reviews with 5.0 rating but no text) reduce usable data slightly but do not indicate fake reviews
• One negative review from Sept 2024 (rating 2.0) explicitly criticizes Thomas for refusing cost-saving alternatives and pushing expensive re-pipe solutions, suggesting potential upselling practice—this is a legitimate concern that moderates pricing confidence
• One older negative review from May 2012 (rating 3.0) states 'average' and 'overpriced' with minimal detail, limiting analytical value
• Majority of reviews are from past 12 months (Jan 2025–June 2025), providing strong recency. Older reviews (2010–2019) are present but represent minority of dataset
• No evidence of fake review patterns; reviews contain specific details, varied language, and legitimate criticisms mixed with praise

This WW Score of 87.2 is highly reliable, based on 55 usable reviews with strong mention counts across all dimensions and recent data (mostly 2024–2025). The score reflects genuine strengths in professionalism and project completion, tempered by legitimate pricing concerns raised in recent reviews regarding cost-saving alternatives and perceived upselling.

Hydro Rooter demonstrates strong performance across all dimensions, with particularly high marks for professionalism (89.5) driven by 24 mentions of punctuality, communication, politeness, and responsiveness. Project completion scores well at 88.0 based on 20 mentions of timely work and follow-through. Experience is solid at 85.5 with 15 mentions of technical skill and problem-solving. Pricing is the weakest dimension at 82.0, though still strong, with only 9 mentions but consistently described as fair, reasonable, and affordable. One significant negative review (1-star, October 2023) alleging unethical charging practices and pressure to upsell substantially impacts overall confidence, though it remains isolated among 29 reviews.

• One strongly negative review (October 2023) alleging unethical billing and aggressive upselling contradicts the overwhelmingly positive pattern. This review is credible and specific, warranting serious consideration despite being outnumbered.
• Fourteen reviews lack date information, making recency assessment difficult for approximately 48% of the dataset. This reduces ability to assess trend direction.
• High concentration of 5-star reviews (28 of 29) with limited variation in rating distribution is atypical. However, reviews contain specific details (names, service types, problem descriptions) that suggest authenticity rather than fake reviews.
• The single 1-star review from a dated customer (October 2023) suggests potential service quality inconsistency or customer satisfaction variance that should not be ignored despite overall positive trend.

This WW Score of 87.2 is reliable with HIGH overall confidence due to substantial mention counts across all dimensions and consistent positive feedback. However, the isolated but credible negative review regarding billing ethics introduces meaningful uncertainty—the true score likely ranges 82–90 depending on whether the October 2023 incident represents an anomaly or a pattern. Prospective customers should be aware of this risk and request clear written estimates before work begins.

Done Rite Services demonstrates strong overall performance across all four dimensions with a WW Score of 84.2. Professionalism is a clear strength (87.5), with extensive evidence of punctuality, courteous technicians, responsive communication, and positive customer interactions across 156 mentions. Project completion scores well at 85.5 with 142 mentions showing jobs finished on time, warranty honors, and follow-through on callbacks. Experience and technical skill are solid at 86.0 with 118 mentions of knowledgeable technicians who solve complex problems effectively. Pricing is the relative weak point at 81.0, with 68 mentions revealing mixed feedback—many customers praise fair pricing and value, but several reviews cite quotes significantly higher than competitors, and a few complaints about unexpected costs or aggressive upselling.

• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: Multiple reviews with identical or near-identical phrasing (e.g., 'Done Rite' vs 'Done Right' spelling variations, repetitive praise structure 'professional, knowledgeable, friendly') and suspiciously generic language without specific details. However, most reviews contain sufficient specificity (technician names, job types, problem descriptions) to suggest authenticity.
• RECENCY BIAS: Majority of reviews (approximately 70%) are from June 2024 onwards, with a notable cluster in June 2025. Earlier reviews (2021-2023) are sparse. This concentration may inflate current scores if recent service quality differs from historical performance.
• NEGATIVE REVIEW OUTLIERS: Three 1-star reviews (Aug 27 2024, Jan 29 2024, Aug 22 2023) describe serious issues: incorrect technician dispatch, failed repair requiring replacement, and alleged pipe damage during snaking. One 2-star review (Nov 11 2023) cites pricing 2x competitors. These are substantive complaints not addressed in company responses visible in data.
• PRICING INCONSISTENCY: Multiple reviews mention pricing 30-50% lower than competitors, yet others report quotes 2-2.5x higher. This suggests either significant variation by technician/job type or inconsistent quoting practices.
• MISSING FOLLOW-UP DATA: Several reviews mention owner/manager responses (e.g., David calling back on Aug 22 2023 sewer pipe issue, Jordan calling on Dec 15 2023 quote issue), but outcomes of these follow-ups are not documented in the review text itself.
• UNDATED REVIEWS: Approximately 15 reviews lack date stamps, making recency assessment incomplete for that subset.

This WW Score of 84.2 is reliable and should be trusted as a fair representation of Done Rite Services' typical performance. The score is based on 251 reviews with high confidence across all four dimensions (all rated HIGH), supported by 142+ mentions per dimension. However, the score reflects primarily recent performance (June 2024 onward); customers should note that pricing feedback is mixed and some negative experiences with dispatch accuracy and repair outcomes have been documented, suggesting the company performs well on average but is not perfect and may have inconsistent quality by technician or job complexity.

DrainMasters demonstrates strong overall performance across all four dimensions, with particularly consistent praise for professionalism, project completion, and technical expertise. The company excels at rapid response times, punctuality, and courteous technician behavior, with 68 mentions of professional conduct. Project completion is highly reliable with 72 mentions of jobs finished properly and on time. Pricing is generally perceived as fair and competitive (28 mentions), though some customers note higher costs relative to competitors. Technical skill and problem-solving ability are well-documented across 55 mentions. However, the company has a small but notable pattern of negative reviews (6 one-star ratings) related to customer service rudeness, warranty issues, and one significant case of inadequate communication regarding pipe damage after hydrojetting.

• NEGATIVE PATTERN DETECTED: Six 1-star reviews (2023-02-24, 2021-08-23, 2019-12-01, 2019-02-23, 2018-01-25, 2017-05-13, 2017-05-11) indicate recurring issues with customer service, communication, and business practices. Most concerning is the 2023-02-24 review detailing failure to communicate pipe damage after hydrojetting, resulting in potential $18-25K liability for customer.
• CUSTOMER SERVICE CONCERNS: Multiple reviews (2018-01-25, 2017-05-13) specifically cite rude or impatient office staff, particularly mentioning 'Mary' as owner/manager with poor communication skills.
• WARRANTY ISSUE: 2021-08-23 review flags removal of workmanship warranty under new ownership, which may indicate policy change affecting customer protection.
• RECENCY NOTE: Most reviews cluster in 2023 (June batch) and earlier. Recent negative reviews (2023-02-24) suggest ongoing issues despite predominantly positive historical feedback.
• PRICING VARIABILITY: While most reviews praise fair pricing, several customers report feeling 'gouged' (2019-12-01: $390 drywall cut fee) or charged for unnecessary diagnostics, indicating inconsistent pricing practices.
• HYDROJETTING RISK: One detailed review warns against hydrojetting old iron pipes without proper follow-up communication, suggesting potential knowledge gap in handling older infrastructure.

This WW Score of 84.2 is highly reliable based on 89 reviews with strong data across all dimensions, but should be interpreted with caution: the score reflects a company with genuinely strong technical performance and responsiveness, but with documented customer service vulnerabilities and at least one serious case of inadequate communication that caused significant financial harm to a customer. The score is pulled down appropriately by negative reviews, but the sheer volume of positive feedback (83 five-star reviews) suggests these issues may be isolated rather than systemic, though the pattern of customer service complaints warrants attention.

Dinosaur Plumbing demonstrates strong performance across professionalism, project completion, and technical expertise, with consistently positive feedback on punctuality, communication, and workmanship quality. The company excels at responsiveness and follow-through, with multiple reviews praising same-day or next-day service and thorough problem-solving. However, pricing emerges as a notable weakness, with several reviews citing high service call fees ($89–$164 for simple tasks) and estimates perceived as excessive relative to competitors. The owner Bobby and technicians Xavier and Tony are frequently praised by name, suggesting strong individual performance. Most reviews are recent (past 12 months), lending credibility to the current score.

• PRICING CONCERN: Multiple negative reviews (1–3 stars) specifically cite overpricing for service calls and estimates. One 2024 review called a $164 charge for toilet tank adjustment 'overpriced' for an easy job. A 2020 review reported an $89 diagnostic fee plus a quadruple-cost estimate. A 2018 review cited $645 total for valve installation and irrigation work. This pattern suggests pricing may not align with customer expectations despite quality work.
• INCONSISTENT SERVICE QUALITY: Two older reviews (2018) mention incomplete problem resolution—one customer reported a clog that returned after snaking, and another noted the company didn't know where the cleanout was located. These suggest occasional gaps in thoroughness or follow-up.
• EMPTY REVIEWS: 8 reviews contain only a 5-star rating with no text. These provide no actionable data and cannot be scored on any dimension.
• RECENCY BIAS: 45 of 67 reviews (67%) are from June 2024 onward, with a cluster of 18 reviews all dated 2024-06-09. While recent data is valuable, this concentration may reflect a recent review-gathering effort rather than organic feedback distribution.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK—MODERATE: The June 2024 cluster of 18 identical-date reviews, combined with 8 empty 5-star reviews, suggests possible bulk review solicitation. However, the detailed, specific, and varied content of most reviews (mentioning named technicians, specific problems, and honest pricing critiques) mitigates this concern. The presence of 4 negative reviews with specific complaints also supports authenticity.

This WW Score of 84.2 is reliable for assessing professionalism and project completion (HIGH confidence, 48 and 35 mentions respectively), but the pricing dimension should be interpreted cautiously (MODERATE confidence, 12 mentions) due to a clear pattern of customer dissatisfaction with service call and estimate costs that conflicts with the company's otherwise strong reputation. The score reflects a company that executes work well but may price above market expectations.