Find Nearby Plumbers In Anaheim, California

R&R Plumbing presents a deeply split profile across its review history. Recent reviews from approximately 2023–2025 are overwhelmingly positive, with customers consistently praising named technicians (Brandon, Raffi, Cristian, Javier, Tyler, Daniel, Berto) for punctuality, clear communication, technical skill, and fair pricing. However, a substantial volume of older reviews — particularly from 2015–2019 and largely tied to Lowe's subcontracted appliance installations — describe severe failures in communication, repeated no-shows, abandoned jobs, and rude or incompetent technicians. Project completion is the most penalized dimension because no-shows, abandoned installs, and unresolved callbacks are explicitly documented across dozens of reviews. Pricing scores moderately well overall, with several recent reviewers praising fair or competitive rates, though at least two reviews explicitly flag overpricing. The experience dimension scores higher than completion because when technicians did show up in recent years, workmanship was generally praised.

• TEMPORAL SPLIT WARNING: The review corpus spans 2005–2025. Reviews from 2015–2019 are predominantly 1-star and describe a fundamentally different operational profile (Lowe's subcontract work, chronic no-shows, no callbacks, abandoned jobs, property damage). Reviews from 2023–2025 are predominantly 5-star and describe a high-quality plumbing service. These may represent two distinct business eras or operational contexts and should not be averaged without caution.
• POSSIBLE DUAL-ENTITY ISSUE: Several negative reviews reference Lowe's appliance installation subcontracting (dishwashers, microwaves, cooktops), while positive reviews reference direct plumbing service calls. It is possible this is the same company operating in two different capacities, or that the Yelp/Google profile aggregates reviews for related but distinct service lines.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — MODERATE: A cluster of 5-star reviews dated 2025-06-07 and 2025-06-08 (approximately 10 reviews within 2 days) contain very brief, generic praise with no specifics ('Friendly and reliable service', 'Good work and professional!', 'Great service, thank you', 'A++'). Several are blank text with only a 5-star rating. This pattern is consistent with review padding. Confidence in the most recent cluster is reduced.
• BLANK REVIEWS: At least 5 reviews contain no text whatsoever (only a star rating). These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data.
• NO-SHOW AND ABANDONMENT PATTERN: At least 15 reviews explicitly describe technicians failing to appear for scheduled appointments without notice, or abandoning jobs mid-completion. This is a significant project completion risk signal, though concentrated in the 2015–2019 period.
• PROPERTY DAMAGE REPORTED: At least 2 reviews describe property damage caused by technicians (flooded cabinets, cracked toilet, holes in drywall) with disputed or no resolution. This is a serious workmanship and liability flag.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of positive, detailed reviews are from 2023–2025 and fall within the past 12–24 months. The majority of negative reviews are from 2015–2019, now 5–10 years old. The WW Score reflects the full corpus but recent performance appears substantially improved.

This WW Score carries MODERATE-to-HIGH reliability for recent plumbing service engagements (2023–2025), but should be treated with significant caution due to a large volume of historically severe negative reviews from the 2015–2019 Lowe's subcontract era, suspected review padding in the most recent cluster, and documented instances of property damage and job abandonment that meaningfully depress the project completion dimension.

B&B Plumbing has a large and long-running review history that reveals a genuinely mixed picture. Professionalism scores moderately well overall — the majority of reviewers praise punctuality, courteous technicians, and clean work habits — but a meaningful minority of negative reviews describe rude staff, unresponsive management, and broken promises, which prevents a higher score. Pricing is the weakest dimension: multiple detailed negative reviews describe hidden fees (vehicle charges, credit card surcharges, travel fees), charges for unproductive diagnostic time, and quotes significantly higher than competitors, while positive reviewers do cite fair pricing — the tension between these camps pulls the score down substantially. Project completion is similarly split: many reviewers report smooth, timely, complete jobs, but several credible negative reviews describe abandoned work, unkept guarantees, unresolved issues after multiple visits, and a notable case where the owner promised completion then went on vacation leaving the job unfinished. Experience scores moderately — most technicians are praised as knowledgeable, especially with Kohler products, but at least two detailed negative reviews describe a technician who lacked basic product knowledge and another whose work was found not to be up to code, which meaningfully reduces confidence in consistent skill levels.

• BLANK REVIEWS: Approximately 18 reviews contain no text at all — only a star rating (mostly 5-star). These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence. Their presence inflates the apparent star average without contributing meaningful data.
• POSSIBLE FAKE OR PADDED REVIEWS: A cluster of reviews dated '2024-06-09', '2023-06-10', '2022-06-10', '2021-06-10', '2020-06-10', and similar round dates with no review text are suspicious. Batches of blank 5-star reviews on the same date are a known pattern of review padding and should be treated with skepticism.
• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: The RHEEM tankless water heater review by what appears to be the same customer was submitted twice (2021-06-10 and 2021-03-23) with nearly identical text. Similarly, the 'So happy with the work done by B & B plumbing' concrete pipe review appears twice (2024-06-09 and 2023-10-20). Duplicate reviews may indicate platform cross-posting or manipulation.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent substantive negative reviews (2024-10-10 and 2024-09-12) are within the past 12 months and describe serious issues — hidden fees charged to a disabled person and complete non-responsiveness after initial contact. These recent negatives were weighted more heavily.
• MANAGEMENT RESPONSIVENESS CONCERN: Multiple negative reviews across different years describe the owner or management becoming unreachable after problems arose (2021-01-07, 2021-10-06, 2013-05-27). This is a recurring pattern, not isolated incidents.
• SERIOUS MISCONDUCT ALLEGATION: One review (2013-05-27) describes a technician making sexual advances toward and physically touching a customer's mother. The company's follow-up response was also described as inadequate. While this is an older review, it is a serious allegation.
• GUARANTEE VIOLATION: At least one review (2014-06-20) explicitly describes B&B refusing to honor their stated one-year workmanship guarantee, requiring payment for a return visit on the same issue within the warranty period.

This WW Score is based on a large volume of reviews spanning over 15 years and carries HIGH statistical confidence in its directional accuracy, but prospective customers should note that the score reflects a genuinely divided customer base — roughly 20-25% of substantive reviews describe serious problems with pricing transparency, follow-through, and management accountability, and these concerns appear consistently across multiple years including recent reviews.

Orange Coast Plumbing presents a deeply mixed picture across all four dimensions. Professionalism scores moderately well overall — the majority of positive reviews praise specific technicians (Henry, Bobby, Giovanni, Tayler, Jeff, Nolan, Chuck, Jesse, Steven, Tom) for punctuality, communication, and courteous behavior, but a meaningful minority of negative reviews cite being 2 hours late, confrontational behavior, no-shows, and rude billing staff, which significantly tempers the score. Pricing is the weakest dimension by far: multiple independent negative reviews describe charges of $720–$1,132 for basic toilet work, $875 for a garbage disposal swap, $855 for a 10-inch copper pipe replacement, and quotes dramatically higher than competitors — with one reviewer confirming a $2,000–$3,000 quote resolved elsewhere for $375, and another confirming a $1,500 faucet install quote resolved for $125; these are not isolated complaints and collectively indicate a systemic overpricing pattern. Project completion scores moderately — many reviews confirm jobs were finished same-day or as promised, but several describe abandoned or incomplete work, a plumber leaving a tub inoperable, a broken water heater not replaced until the customer supplied the unit, and a clog that worsened after service. Experience is similarly split: many technicians are praised for skill and problem-solving, but Danny's inability to diagnose a pressure valve issue, a tech breaking an auger and admitting he had no idea what was wrong, and shoddy workmanship on a shower faucet installation all indicate inconsistent technical quality across the workforce.

• POSSIBLE REVIEW CLUSTERING — Henry receives 9 reviews in a very short window (2024-01-07 to 2024-01-08 and surrounding dates), several with near-identical phrasing ('honest', 'professional', 'good job'). While some detail exists, the clustering pattern warrants caution and these reviews were scored conservatively.
• UPSELL PATTERN FLAGGED — At least 5 independent negative reviews explicitly describe high-pressure upselling tactics: unnecessary main line work quoted at $7,500, furnace replacement pushed when not needed, inflated permit costs, and scope creep across multiple visits. This is a recurring and credible pattern, not isolated incidents.
• PRICING OUTLIERS — Multiple reviewers independently confirmed that competitor plumbers completed the same work for a fraction of OCP's price (e.g., $125 vs $1,500; $375 vs $2,000–$3,000; $127 vs multiple OCP visits totaling hundreds more). This strongly corroborates the overpricing concern.
• WORKMANSHIP FAILURES DOCUMENTED — At least 3 reviews describe concrete technical failures: a broken auger with no resolution, a water heater damaged during service and reluctantly replaced only when customer supplied the unit, and a shower faucet installed with sealed weep holes, misaligned escutcheon, and no warranty honored.
• RECENCY NOTE — All 82 reviews fall between October 2021 and November 2024. The majority (approximately 70+) are from 2023–2024, making the dataset reasonably current. No significant recency discount applied.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK — MODERATE. The Henry cluster and a few other generic 5-star reviews with minimal specifics raise mild concern, but most positive reviews name specific technicians and describe specific jobs, which reduces the likelihood of wholesale fabrication. Confidence was not reduced at the dimension level but the Henry-specific reviews were weighted conservatively.

This WW Score of 72.1 is based on a large, diverse, and predominantly recent review set (82 reviews, 2021–2024) with HIGH confidence across all four dimensions, making it a reasonably reliable representation of the contractor's performance — however, the persistent and independently corroborated pricing complaints and documented workmanship failures mean prospective customers should treat the score as a ceiling rather than a floor, and should obtain competing quotes before engaging this company.

Plumbing Solution Specialists earns strong praise across the majority of reviews for fast mobilization, large crews completing repipe jobs in a single day, competitive pricing, and responsive communication from Marcos and Robert. However, the score is meaningfully pulled down by a cluster of serious negative reviews describing no-shows without communication, disrespectful phone interactions, incomplete work, property damage that was denied and not remedied, and at least one instance of what a reviewer described as deceptive overcharging. These are not minor complaints — they include a 1-star review alleging a supervisor threatened and lied to a customer, another alleging yelling at a spouse and charging $100 for an $8.99 part, and a third describing a wax ring replacement billed at $749. The business shows a clear pattern of excellence on large repipe jobs with established crews, but a troubling inconsistency on smaller, individual service calls. Recency is mixed: the two most recent reviews (2024) are both positive, but the negative reviews span 2016–2023 and are not isolated incidents.

• PATTERN OF NO-SHOWS: At least 3 reviews (2016, 2018, 2023) independently describe the company failing to show up at scheduled times without proactive communication, suggesting a systemic scheduling reliability problem.
• SERIOUS MISCONDUCT ALLEGATION: One review (2020, 1-star) alleges a supervisor threatened the customer, contradicted their own crew's admissions about causing floor damage, and attempted to manipulate the customer — this is a significant trust and integrity flag.
• PRICING INTEGRITY CONCERN: One review (2017, 1-star) describes being charged $749 for a wax ring replacement including $395 for unnecessary leak detection equipment use — a credible overcharging allegation that undermines the pricing dimension.
• DISRESPECTFUL CONDUCT ALLEGATION: One review (2018, 1-star) describes a technician yelling at the reviewer's wife, leaving work incomplete, refusing to clean up, and charging $100 for a part worth $8.99 — corroborating a pattern of inconsistent service quality on smaller jobs.
• REVIEW MANIPULATION FLAG: One reviewer (2016) explicitly states the company reported their negative review to Yelp and had it deleted, which is a serious platform manipulation concern and reduces confidence in the overall review pool.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of positive reviews are from 2018–2020, with only 2 reviews from 2024 and 1 from 2023 (which was a 1-star no-show). The business's current consistency cannot be fully confirmed from recent data alone.
• GENERIC PRAISE IN SOME REVIEWS: Several short 5-star reviews (e.g., 'Repiped our house quickly and professionally. Great work!', 'Marcos is a reliable plumber. He's responsive and does a good job.') lack specific detail, which slightly reduces confidence in those individual data points, though they are not numerous enough to flag as a coordinated fake review campaign.
• SERVICE TYPE SPLIT: The company performs significantly better on large repipe jobs (crew-based, structured) than on individual service calls. Consumers seeking smaller plumbing repairs should weigh the negative reviews more heavily.

This WW Score is based on 36 reviews spanning 2014–2024 with HIGH mention counts across all four dimensions, making the score mathematically reliable; however, the presence of credible, detailed negative reviews describing misconduct, no-shows, and pricing abuse — combined with an allegation of review suppression — means consumers should treat this score as a moderate-confidence indicator and read the negative reviews in full before hiring, particularly for non-repipe service calls.

All For 1 Plumbing receives consistently strong praise across all four dimensions, with professionalism being the most frequently and enthusiastically cited quality — every single reviewer mentioned Gabriel's friendly, professional, and communicative manner. Project completion scores well, with multiple reviewers noting jobs were finished efficiently, cleanly, and with a warranty offered in at least one case. Experience is well-supported, with reviewers specifically noting Gabriel's knowledgeability and ability to solve problems a previous plumber could not. Pricing is the least-evidenced dimension, mentioned in only two reviews, both positively but without specific detail, warranting a conservative score and LIMITED confidence. The overall picture is of a reliable, skilled, family-run operation with a strong track record.

• All 6 reviews are 5-star ratings with no negative feedback whatsoever — this warrants mild caution, though the reviews do contain specific, varied details that reduce the likelihood of fabrication.
• Four of the six reviews are older than 12 months (dating back to 2020 and 2021), with only two reviews from the past 12 months (2023–2024). The score may not fully reflect current performance.
• Sample size is small (6 reviews total), which limits the statistical reliability of all dimension scores. Scores should be interpreted with caution until more reviews are available.

This WW Score carries moderate overall reliability — the reviews are specific and credible enough to avoid fake review concerns, but the small sample size and age of most reviews mean the score should be treated as a promising but not fully validated indicator of current contractor quality.

Raul and Back in a Flush receive consistently strong praise across all four dimensions in this small review set. Professionalism is the most frequently cited strength, with all five reviewers noting punctuality, politeness, clear communication, and a caring attitude. Pricing is explicitly called out as fair and affordable in three reviews, with no hidden charges mentioned, supporting a solid but not perfect pricing score. Project completion is well-supported, with reviewers describing jobs finished same-day or within tight timeframes, including complex work like sewer line repair and flood remediation. Experience scores are grounded in specific mentions of diagnostic skill, technical know-how, and quality workmanship across four reviews, though the small sample size limits full confidence.

• All 5 reviews are 5-star ratings with no negative feedback of any kind — this warrants mild caution, though the reviews do contain specific details (names, job types, circumstances) that reduce the likelihood of fabrication.
• Review set is very small (5 reviews total), which limits statistical reliability regardless of score quality.
• One review is dated April 2023, making it over 12 months old at time of analysis; the remaining four are from February 2024 and carry more recency weight.
• No negative or mixed reviews are present — it is unclear whether this reflects a genuinely excellent track record or a curated/incomplete review sample.

This WW Score is based on only 5 reviews, all positive, which limits reliability — the score reflects a promising but statistically thin signal and should be treated as indicative rather than definitive until more reviews are available.