Find Nearby Plumbers In Alhambra, California

E&M Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism across multiple reviews, with consistent praise for punctuality, politeness, communication, and responsiveness (5 mentions). Pricing is generally favorable with transparent quotes and fair rates (4 mentions), though one 2019 review reports a negative experience with a $120 diagnostic fee and incomplete service. Project completion is solid with thorough work and follow-through documented (4 mentions), though the 1-star review raises concerns about job abandonment. Technical skill and problem-solving are evident across reviews (3 mentions). The overall score is tempered by recency concerns—most positive reviews are from 2012–2021, with limited recent data, and one significant negative outlier from 2019.

• Recency concern: 4 of 6 reviews are older than 3 years (2012–2021). Only 2 reviews from 2024 and 2019. Limited recent performance data.
• One significant negative outlier (1-star, 2019): customer charged $120 diagnostic fee and company could not complete job, referred customer elsewhere. This contradicts the otherwise consistent positive pattern.
• Potential review age bias: The two oldest reviews (2012) contain unusually detailed praise and mention hand-written thank-you cards—while genuine, they may not reflect current operations.
• Small sample size (6 reviews) limits statistical confidence despite consistency in positive reviews.

This score should be treated with moderate caution. While the positive reviews are detailed and specific, the small sample size, significant age of most data, and one credible negative experience reduce confidence. The score reflects strong historical performance but may not accurately represent current service quality.

Nautilus Plumbing has a strong overall track record across a large review base spanning roughly 2016–2024, with the majority of customers praising punctuality, responsiveness, and professional demeanor. Project completion scores well because most jobs are described as fully resolved, though several notable negative reviews cite incomplete work, temporary fixes presented as permanent solutions, and one instance of workers refusing to continue mid-job without additional payment. Pricing is the weakest dimension: while many reviewers call fees reasonable or fair, a meaningful cluster of negative reviews describes unexpected upcharges mid-job, disputed billing, and charges perceived as grossly disproportionate to the work performed. Experience scores well overall given consistent praise for technical knowledge and problem-solving, but is tempered by a few reviews describing shoddy or deceptive workmanship. Professionalism is broadly positive but dragged down by recurring complaints about a specific lead technician (Sergio) behaving dismissively or aggressively in conflict situations, and one incident of a phone representative being rude to a prospective customer.

• PRICING CONCERN: Multiple independent reviews (2024-07-23, 2024-04-11, 2022-01-07, 2017-12-04, 2018-09-10) describe unexpected mid-job upcharges, disputed billing, or prices perceived as unfair. This is a consistent pattern across different years and reviewers, not isolated incidents.
• INCOMPLETE WORK / TEMPORARY FIX: The 2018-09-10 review describes a plumber (Sergio) knowingly providing a temporary fix and charging full price, with the problem recurring within months and the company refusing to remedy it without additional charge. The 2022-01-07 review also cites unresolved issues and a mess left behind.
• PROFESSIONALISM INCIDENTS: Multiple reviews cite unprofessional behavior by a specific technician named Sergio — including walking off a job (2019-04-26), raising his voice at a customer over a billing dispute (2020-10-17), and refusing to honor prior work (2018-09-10). The 2019-11-15 review cites a rude phone representative.
• RECENCY NOTE: The review base spans 2016–2024. The most recent reviews (2023–2024) are mixed, including two 1-star reviews in 2024 citing pricing disputes and one 5-star review. The volume of recent negative reviews warrants attention.
• NO STRONG FAKE REVIEW INDICATORS: While there are many 5-star reviews, they contain specific names, job details, and varied language. No strong pattern of fabricated reviews detected. However, the high volume of generic short 5-star reviews (e.g., 2023-09-28, 2021-08-28) slightly reduces confidence in the positive tail.
• CONFLICT RESOLUTION WEAKNESS: Several reviewers note that when disputes arose, the company was unresponsive, dismissive, or combative rather than attempting resolution. This is a systemic flag, not a one-off.

This WW Score is based on 79 reviews spanning approximately 8 years and carries HIGH statistical confidence in its dimensions, but consumers should weigh the recurring pricing dispute and incomplete-work complaints seriously, as these represent a consistent minority pattern that meaningfully offsets the strong majority of positive experiences.

Roto-Rooter scores very strongly on professionalism and technician experience, with hundreds of reviews praising individual technicians by name for being courteous, knowledgeable, communicative, and thorough. Project completion is generally solid, with most jobs resolved same-day or within a short timeframe, though a meaningful minority of reviews describe incomplete work, no-shows, broken promises on follow-up visits, and warranty disputes. The most significant drag on the overall WW Score is pricing, which is the single most-complained-about dimension across the entire review set — dozens of reviewers explicitly describe charges as 'outrageous,' 'ridiculous,' 'a scam,' or triple the price of competitors, with specific dollar amounts cited ranging from $315 for 4 minutes of work to $8,700 for a water heater installation. Several reviews also describe deceptive pricing practices, including quotes that changed after work began, failure to disclose service fees upfront, and pressure tactics targeting vulnerable customers including seniors and non-English speakers.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: A significant number of reviews appear to be exact or near-exact duplicates posted on different dates (e.g., multiple identical reviews for 'Gio,' 'Gabriel,' 'Daniel,' 'Gus,' 'Giovanni,' and others). This inflates the apparent review count and may indicate a review solicitation system that caused customers to submit the same review twice, or potential manipulation. Confidence in raw review count is reduced.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Approximately 150-200 reviews contain no text and only a star rating (almost all 5-star). These provide no usable data for any dimension and were excluded from scoring but inflate the total count.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS ARE SEVERE AND SPECIFIC: Negative pricing reviews are not vague — they cite specific dollar amounts, compare to competitor prices, and describe practices such as quoting after work begins, refusing to honor coupons, and charging elderly or non-English-speaking customers without disclosure. This is a systemic pattern, not isolated incidents.
• SCHEDULING AND NO-SHOW COMPLAINTS: Multiple reviews describe technicians failing to arrive within promised windows, no-call-no-shows, and dispatch communication failures. This is a recurring pattern affecting the project completion score.
• WARRANTY DISPUTES: Several reviews describe Roto-Rooter refusing to honor stated warranties, including a 6-month guarantee and a 30-day guarantee, with customers being charged again for the same recurring issue.
• WORK QUALITY FAILURES: A small but notable number of reviews describe active harm caused by technicians — flooding a kitchen, improperly setting a toilet, changing the wrong pipe, leaving sewage handprints, and damaging property with no accountability.
• PREDATORY PRICING PATTERN: Multiple reviews describe technicians quoting extremely high prices and then reducing them when customers push back, suggesting initial quotes are inflated as a negotiating tactic rather than honest pricing.
• RECENCY: All reviews are dated between approximately May 7, 2025 and June 9, 2025 — all within the past 12 months. Recency weighting is fully applied.

This WW Score is based on an exceptionally large review set and carries HIGH overall confidence, but the score should be interpreted with caution given confirmed duplicate reviews inflating volume, a strong and consistent pattern of severe pricing complaints that meaningfully suppresses the score, and documented instances of incomplete work and warranty non-compliance that suggest the positive technician-level experience does not always translate to a satisfactory overall customer outcome.

RPM Plumbing demonstrates strong responsiveness and availability, with dozens of reviewers praising same-day, weekend, and emergency service — a clear operational strength. Professionalism scores are pulled down meaningfully by multiple credible negative reviews describing rude staff, a technician who became agitated with a customer, an owner who called to argue over a negative review, and a receptionist who hung up on a customer. Pricing is a mixed picture: many reviewers found prices fair or competitive, but a notable cluster of negative reviews describe high quotes, price changes after work began, and at least one instance of a $8,800 quote that another company resolved in 5 minutes for far less. Project completion is the most concerning dimension — there are multiple explicit accounts of incomplete work, return visits required to fix errors, pipes broken during service, work abandoned without follow-up, and at least one case of $4,000 in damages caused. Experience scores are similarly mixed, with many reviewers praising specific technicians (Lee, Ismael, Carlos, Arturo) as knowledgeable and skilled, while others describe technicians who misdiagnosed problems, used wrong tools, or performed work that failed within days.

• Multiple reviews from late 2023 and 2024 are very short, generic, and lack specific detail (e.g., 'Excellent service with quick turnaround. Definitely recommend!', 'These guys went above and beyond to make sure that we weren't dealing with more problems.', 'Very fast service and was able to help us after business hours. 10/10'). These may be authentic but warrant reduced confidence due to lack of verifiable specifics.
• Several 5-star reviews from September 2023 share the same date (2023-09-18) with no timestamps, which is a mild flag for potential review clustering or solicitation.
• One reviewer explicitly alleges the owner called them to argue about a negative Google review, which if accurate represents a significant professionalism concern and potential review manipulation behavior.
• One reviewer alleges their credit card information was stolen after using the company, though this is unverified and disputed by the owner.
• A significant number of negative reviews describe a pattern of: work not completed, technicians not returning calls, prices changed after work began, and callbacks not honored — suggesting systemic project completion issues rather than isolated incidents.
• Review span covers approximately 2016–2024. Reviews older than 2022 (roughly 40+ reviews) should be weighted less heavily as they may not reflect current business practices. The most recent reviews (2023–2024) show a more positive trend but include some generic entries.
• The owner (Josh) is mentioned by name in both positive and negative contexts. Negative mentions include arguing with customers and allegedly posting false information in public responses — this is a notable flag.

This WW Score is based on a large and diverse review set (85 reviews spanning 8+ years) with HIGH data confidence across all four dimensions, but the score should be interpreted cautiously given credible and specific negative reviews describing incomplete work, pricing disputes, and unprofessional owner conduct that meaningfully offset the volume of positive feedback.

Monkey Wrench Plumbing receives consistently strong marks for professionalism and technical knowledge, with the vast majority of positive reviews praising technicians by name for being punctual, courteous, communicative, and knowledgeable. However, pricing is the single most damaging dimension in this dataset: a substantial and recurring pattern of negative reviews explicitly describes quotes that are 2x to 5x higher than competitors for identical work, aggressive upselling, commission-driven sales behavior, and in several cases outright misdiagnosis of problems that other plumbers resolved cheaply. Project completion is moderately positive overall but is dragged down by multiple credible accounts of abandoned work, missed appointments, jobs left incomplete, and at least one multi-month installation failure involving a furnace. The WW Score of 71.2 reflects a company with genuinely skilled and personable technicians operating within a business model that a significant minority of customers describe as predatory and untrustworthy.

• PRICING CONCERN — HIGH SEVERITY: Dozens of independently written negative reviews describe quotes 2x–5x above market rate for identical work. Multiple reviewers obtained second opinions and had the same job completed for a fraction of the Monkey Wrench quote. This is a systemic pattern, not isolated incidents.
• UPSELLING / COMMISSION CONCERN: Multiple reviewers explicitly state that technicians appear to work on commission and are incentivized to recommend replacements over repairs, catastrophize minor issues, and push unnecessary add-on products (e.g., Flow-Tech, water softeners, full system replacements).
• MISDIAGNOSIS PATTERN: At least 8 reviews describe technicians recommending expensive replacements or repairs for problems that other plumbers fixed for under $200, including cases where a breaker reset, cleaning ignition rods, or adjusting a gas valve resolved the issue entirely.
• PROJECT COMPLETION FAILURES: Multiple reviews describe incomplete work, missed appointments with no notice, jobs abandoned mid-project, and at least one case where a furnace installation failed for four months with no resolution, requiring the customer to hire another company.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — MODERATE: A large volume of 5-star reviews are extremely brief (e.g., 'Luis was great', 'Perfect', 'Excellent', blank rating with no text), lack specific detail, and cluster around the same dates. One reviewer explicitly states they were offered a discount in exchange for a 5-star review. Confidence in the positive review pool is reduced accordingly.
• APPOINTMENT RELIABILITY: Multiple reviews across different time periods describe last-minute cancellations, no-shows after confirmed appointments, and being told on the day of service that no technicians were available.
• RECENCY NOTE: Reviews span from 2020 to June 2025. The pricing complaints and upselling concerns are present across all time periods and are not improving. The most recent reviews (2025) still contain both strong praise for individual technicians and serious pricing/completion complaints.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: Two reviews dated 2024-03-22 from the same user about Ruben Gaeta and the Noritz tankless water heater replacement are nearly word-for-word identical and appear to have been submitted twice. These were counted as one data point.

This WW Score is based on a very large review sample (310 reviews) spanning over four years and carries HIGH overall confidence; the score reliably reflects a company with skilled, professional technicians but a well-documented and systemic pattern of aggressive pricing, upselling, and occasional project completion failures that prospective customers should weigh carefully before hiring.

Leo receives strong praise across professionalism, pricing, and experience from the majority of reviewers, with multiple customers highlighting his honesty, fair pricing, and technical knowledge. However, one significant negative review (1-star, dated June 2024) alleges that work performed by Leo or his worker caused damage to a bathroom sink drain joint, resulting in a leak discovered two months later — this is a serious project completion concern that meaningfully drags down the completion score. The honest overpayment return noted in a separate review is a positive integrity signal, but the alleged post-service damage introduces real doubt about workmanship quality in at least one case. With only 6 total reviews, the dataset is small and each review carries outsized weight, so the WW Score should be interpreted cautiously.

• Small sample size of only 6 reviews — scores are sensitive to individual outliers and should be treated with caution.
• One 1-star review (June 2024) alleges post-service damage to a drain joint with physical evidence described (grinding marks on threads), suggesting a potential workmanship defect or cover-up. This is a serious project completion and experience flag.
• The negative review is among the most recent in the dataset, which increases its relative weight under recency rules.
• Several 5-star reviews use somewhat generic praise ('amazing,' 'fantastic,' 'great') with limited specifics, though a few do include job-specific details that reduce fake review concern. No strong fake review pattern detected, but the generic phrasing in 2–3 reviews warrants mild caution.

This WW Score is based on a small review set of 6 and should be considered preliminary — the presence of a credible, detail-supported negative review alleging post-service damage meaningfully limits confidence in the overall score.