Find Nearby Plumbers In Tucson, Arizona

Best Price Plumbing earns strong marks across all four dimensions, driven by a large volume of reviews praising punctuality, courteous communication, and professional demeanor from named technicians like Cody, Billy, Daniel, and Gilbert. Project completion scores are high, with multiple reviewers specifically noting jobs were finished thoroughly, cleanly, and with follow-through including warranty callbacks. Experience scores reflect consistent praise for technical problem-solving — technicians frequently attempted repairs before recommending replacements, saving customers money. Pricing scores are tempered by two notable complaints: one reviewer flagged an undisclosed additional charge for digging during a septic job, and another noted the company had become more costly over time, preventing a higher pricing score. One very old review (2013) alleged missing personal property, which while unverified, is noted as a flag.

• CLUSTERING WARNING: A large number of reviews (approximately 14) share the exact same date of 2023-06-10, which is statistically unusual and may suggest a batch of reviews submitted simultaneously. This pattern warrants caution and slightly reduces confidence in those specific reviews.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of detailed, specific reviews are from 2023 and earlier. Only one review is from 2024. The most recent period has limited data.
• NEGATIVE PRICING FLAG: One reviewer (2016) reported an undisclosed additional charge of $62.50/hr for digging during a septic pump job that was not communicated upfront by Best Price Plumbing. This is a transparency concern.
• NEGATIVE ATTITUDE FLAG: One reviewer (2023) noted the company became less friendly after a management change and that pricing increased, suggesting possible service quality drift over time.
• OLD NEGATIVE FLAG: A 2013 review alleged missing personal property (chainsaw case and oil) after a technician visit. This is over 10 years old and cannot be verified, but is noted for completeness.
• BLANK REVIEWS: 5 reviews contained no text and only a 5-star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence per scoring rules.

This WW Score is based on a substantial volume of reviews (45 with usable data) spanning 2013 to 2024, giving it HIGH overall confidence, though the suspicious date clustering on 2023-06-10 and the predominance of older reviews introduce moderate caution about the score fully reflecting current service quality.

The contractor receives strong marks across professionalism and project completion, with numerous reviewers explicitly praising punctuality, communication, and follow-through on complex jobs including excavation and pipe replacement completed same-day. Experience scores are solid, supported by multiple reviews citing technical competence, thorough explanations, and effective problem-solving. Pricing is the weakest dimension: one reviewer explicitly described feeling ripped off on a tankless water heater flush (initially quoted $425 vs. a $150–$250 national average), another noted cost was 'a bit steep,' one complained of a bait-and-switch pricing tactic with a rude technician, while others praised reasonable or competitive pricing — resulting in a conservative, mixed score. The volume of blank or content-free 5-star reviews (14 out of 52) is a notable concern that limits full confidence in the aggregate rating picture.

• 14 out of 52 reviews contain no text whatsoever — only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence.
• Several reviews are extremely brief and generic (e.g., 'Great service', 'Great service technician', 'Carlos and Chris were great!') with no specific details. These contribute minimally to scoring confidence.
• One review (2023-04-11) explicitly describes a bait-and-switch pricing tactic and a rude, argumentative technician who hung up on the customer — a significant negative signal that was factored into both professionalism and pricing scores.
• One review (2024-02-08) describes an initial pricing dispute, pressure for a trip fee, and a feeling of being ripped off, partially revised after a company refund — indicates pricing transparency issues.
• Review dates span from 2015 to 2025. Reviews older than 12 months (prior to June 2024) were given reduced weight. The majority of substantive reviews are from 2025, which is a positive recency signal.
• The high volume of blank 5-star reviews and some suspiciously brief generic praise warrants mild fake review concern, though not conclusive. Confidence has been modestly tempered as a result.
• Some reviews appear to reference 'Roto-Rooter' and 'Rootin Tootin Rooter' interchangeably — it is unclear if all reviews are for the same business entity, which introduces a minor data integrity concern.

This WW Score carries moderate-to-high reliability for professionalism, project completion, and experience given strong mention counts from recent reviews, but the pricing score should be treated cautiously due to mixed signals and the presence of explicit complaints about deceptive pricing practices.

B&B Plumbing receives consistently strong marks across all four dimensions, with professionalism being the most frequently praised attribute — reviewers repeatedly cite punctuality, courteous communication, and responsiveness to emergencies. Pricing is a clear strength, with multiple reviewers explicitly noting rates below competitors and quotes that matched final invoices. Project completion is generally solid, with jobs described as finished on time and thoroughly, though one negative review raises a meaningful concern: a drain was snaked incorrectly, the clog returned, the callback was delayed, and the final charge was double the advertised rate — a direct failure in both completion and pricing transparency. Experience and workmanship are praised across a wide range of jobs including water heaters, solar pool plumbing, sewer lines, and tankless systems, with one reviewer noting a minor cosmetic execution issue on exterior pipe routing. The single 1-star review meaningfully tempers what would otherwise be near-perfect scores.

• 6 reviews contain only 'unknown' or a single punctuation mark and provide no usable data — these were excluded from scoring.
• Several reviews from 2014–2015 use very similar superlative language (honest, courteous, reasonable, professional, knowledgeable) which could suggest coached or templated responses, though enough specific job details exist across the corpus to suggest most are genuine.
• The majority of reviews (approximately 25 of 34) are older than 12 months from a 2024 reference date, and most are from 2013–2019. Only 2 reviews are from 2022–2023. Recency confidence is LOW — the score may not reflect current performance.
• One 1-star review (April 2015) describes a misdiagnosed drain, a failed callback promise, and a charge more than double the advertised rate. This is a direct negative signal on project completion, pricing transparency, and experience that was factored into scoring.
• One review (2013) explicitly notes the contractor is 'unlicensed by choice' — this is a material flag for consumers and may affect insurability or permit compliance depending on jurisdiction.

The WW Score of 82.1 carries HIGH statistical confidence due to the volume of mentions across all dimensions, but should be treated with caution given that the overwhelming majority of reviews are 5 or more years old and the contractor's current performance cannot be reliably inferred from this dataset.

Day & Knight Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism with consistent praise for punctuality, courtesy, and responsiveness across 26 reviews. Project completion is solid at 85, with most jobs finished on time and to specification, though two negative reviews (2018 and 2022) cite incomplete problem-solving and unmet expectations. Experience scores well at 87 based on 15 mentions of technical skill and knowledge. Pricing is the weakest dimension at 72—while many reviews praise fair rates, three reviews explicitly criticize high hourly rates ($140/hour) and what customers perceived as overcharging for service time, creating meaningful price sensitivity concerns.

• Pricing dimension shows material inconsistency: 8 reviews praise 'reasonable' or 'fair' pricing, but 3 reviews (2022-10-01, 2022-09-06, 2018-07-10) explicitly criticize high costs and perceived overcharging. This suggests pricing may be a legitimate pain point for some customer segments.
• Two negative reviews (1-star ratings from 2022 and 2018) indicate service failures: incomplete diagnosis of recurring drain problem and misrepresentation of service capabilities (backflow check). These are not isolated complaints and suggest occasional lapses in follow-through.
• Review recency skew: 15 of 33 reviews are from 2016 or earlier (45% of dataset). More recent reviews (2024, 2023) are uniformly 5-star, while older reviews include the critical feedback. This may reflect improved service over time or selection bias in recent reviews.
• No fake review patterns detected. Reviews show specific details, varied language, and authentic negative feedback mixed with positive, suggesting genuine customer voices.

This WW Score of 82.1 is reliable with HIGH overall confidence. It is based on 33 reviews with strong mention counts across all dimensions. However, the pricing dimension (11 mentions, MODERATE confidence) and the presence of two documented service failures warrant caution—this company excels in professionalism and responsiveness but may not be the lowest-cost option and has occasional follow-through gaps on complex diagnostics.

Plumber of Tucson earns strong marks across all four dimensions, with the majority of reviewers praising punctuality, courteous staff, transparent pricing, and skilled workmanship. Multiple reviewers highlighted the company's ability to solve problems that other plumbers could not, and several noted that bids held firm without surprise charges. However, two significant negative incidents weigh meaningfully on the scores: one reviewer reported that workers stole personal property during a repiping job, and another detailed a deeply troubling experience involving an owner who screamed at a customer, an installer who arrived an hour early without warning, a co-owner who lied about crew readiness, and a failure to identify an electrical issue during a pre-installation inspection. The project completion score is modestly reduced by one reviewer noting incomplete cleanup and unrestored drywall. Despite these concerns, the volume of detailed, positive, and specific reviews across a multi-year span supports a moderately high overall score.

• SERIOUS FLAG: One 1-star review (2022-02-09) describes the owner screaming at a customer, a co-owner lying about crew location, installers arriving one hour early without consent, and a failure to identify a critical electrical issue during a paid inspection. This is a significant professionalism and project completion concern.
• SERIOUS FLAG: One 3-star review (2023-04-13) explicitly accuses workers of stealing personal property during a repiping job. This is a major trust and integrity concern that warrants caution.
• MINOR FLAG: One 4-star review (2021-04-12) noted sloppy cleanup — yard not restored and garage drywall not replaced, though a referral was provided.
• MINOR FLAG: One 5-star review (2024-03-27) noted workers disposed of an old faucet without customer consent, though management reimbursed the customer and apologized.
• RECENCY NOTE: Reviews span from 2018 to 2024. The majority of reviews (20 of 28) are from 2022 or later, providing reasonable recency. The two most serious negative incidents both occurred in 2022-2023, meaning they are not outdated concerns.
• NO FAKE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: Reviews vary substantially in length, detail, writing style, and sentiment. Named employees (Joe, Josh, Jon, Scott, Don, Chris, Brady, Stephen, Dillon) appear across multiple reviews with specificity. One 1-star and one 3-star review add credibility to the corpus.

This WW Score is based on 28 reviews with strong dimensional coverage and HIGH confidence across all four dimensions; however, the score should be interpreted with caution given two serious unresolved incidents — alleged theft by workers and documented owner misconduct — which represent meaningful risks that aggregate scores alone do not fully capture.

Southern Arizona Plumbing demonstrates strong overall performance with a WW Score of 81.2, driven by consistent professionalism (84.0) and solid technical expertise (85.0). The company excels in punctuality, communication, and workmanship quality across most engagements. However, pricing concerns (78.0) and project completion issues (80.0) prevent a higher score. Two significant negative reviews reveal serious problems: one customer experienced a no-show appointment with poor follow-up, and another was allegedly oversold unnecessary pipe replacement work while legitimate drain issues went unresolved for months. These incidents suggest inconsistency in service delivery and potential ethical concerns in sales practices that warrant caution.

• CRITICAL: Two 1-star reviews (2020-09-07 and 2018-12-05) allege dishonest upselling and misdiagnosis. The 2018 review specifically claims the company failed to clear drains while pushing expensive pipe replacement, which was later resolved by competitors with minor repairs. This pattern suggests potential predatory sales tactics.
• CRITICAL: 2019-07-30 review documents a no-show appointment with poor customer service recovery—customer was told someone would call back twice but received no follow-up. This contradicts the company's otherwise strong punctuality record and suggests inconsistent service standards.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most reviews are from 2019-2021 (older than 1 year). Only 3 reviews are from 2020 or later with substantive detail. Recent data is limited, making current performance assessment difficult.
• INCONSISTENCY PATTERN: The company receives overwhelming 5-star praise (17 of 20 reviews) but the two 1-star reviews describe serious failures (no-show, alleged fraud). This bimodal distribution suggests either highly variable service quality or potential review filtering/fake positive reviews. The 5-star reviews are detailed and credible, but the stark contrast warrants skepticism.
• PRICING AMBIGUITY: While many reviews praise 'reasonable' pricing, the 2018 review describes a $10,000-$14,000 estimate that may have been inflated, and the 2020 review mentions a $1,800 quote vs. $400 actual cost elsewhere. Pricing consistency is questionable.

This WW Score of 81.2 should be treated with MODERATE-TO-HIGH caution: while the company demonstrates genuine strengths in professionalism and technical skill (supported by detailed, credible positive reviews), the two serious allegations of dishonest upselling, failed diagnosis, and poor service recovery, combined with a recency gap and bimodal review distribution, suggest the score may not reflect current or consistent performance. Prospective customers should obtain multiple independent quotes and verify diagnoses before committing to major work.