Find Nearby Plumbers In Burbank, California

Story Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism with responsive service, punctuality, and courteous communication consistently praised across 42 reviews. Technical expertise and workmanship quality are well-documented across 25 reviews, with customers noting knowledgeable problem-solving and quality repairs. Pricing is generally perceived as fair and reasonable (18 mentions), though one 2013 review claimed costs were 2-3x higher than competitors. Project completion shows solid performance (28 mentions) with same-day or next-day service typical, though two older reviews (2006, 2013) cited delays and incomplete work. The company's long operational history and multiple positive long-term customer relationships strengthen confidence in the overall score.

• Two negative reviews from 2006 and 2013 report significant issues: delays spanning weeks, incomplete work requiring third-party completion, and cost overruns ($375 savings by switching providers). These are substantially older but represent material service failures.
• Multiple reviews from 2024-06-09 (13 reviews on same date) and 2023-06-10 (5 reviews on same date) show clustering that could suggest batch posting, though review content varies sufficiently to appear authentic rather than fabricated.
• Two reviews contain only ratings with no text (2024-10-12, 2022-06-10 x2), limiting data extraction.
• Recent reviews (2025) are uniformly 5-star with minimal critical detail, though they do contain specific service descriptions and are not identical in phrasing.
• One 2014 review from commercial customer (Justin/Bexel) is exceptionally detailed and positive, providing strong credibility but represents single commercial perspective.

This WW Score of 82.1 is reliable with HIGH overall confidence, supported by 58 usable reviews spanning 19 years with consistent positive patterns in professionalism and experience. However, the score is tempered by two documented service failures (2006, 2013) involving delays and cost issues, and recent clustering of reviews warrants noting that current performance may differ from historical patterns. The score reflects a generally trustworthy contractor with strong recent performance but acknowledges past operational challenges.

Enterprise Plumbing demonstrates strong overall performance with a WW Score of 82.1, driven primarily by consistent professionalism and reliable project completion across 50 reviews. The company excels in punctuality, communication, and courteous service (86.3 professionalism score), with multiple mentions of same-day service, prompt callbacks, and friendly staff. Project completion is solid (85.0), with most jobs finished as promised and on time, though a few older reviews mention no-shows. Technical expertise is evident (84.2 experience score) with skilled diagnostics and problem-solving. Pricing is the relative weak point (78.6), with one recent complaint about overcharging for a snake service, though most reviews praise fair and competitive rates. The company's strength lies in owner Jack and key technicians Alfred, Phil, Arman, and others who are frequently mentioned by name.

• RECENCY CONCERN: 36 of 50 reviews (72%) are from 2015-2017, with only 5 reviews from 2020 onward. Most data is 5+ years old, limiting current reliability assessment.
• INCONSISTENCY DETECTED: One recent 2023 review (2-star) alleges overcharging ($325 for snake service that broke pipe), contradicting the dominant narrative of fair pricing. This suggests either service quality variance or pricing inconsistency.
• NO-SHOW PATTERN: Two older reviews (2019 and 2018) describe failure to keep appointments and poor attitude, which conflicts with the overwhelming majority of positive reviews. These may represent isolated incidents or systemic issues that were later resolved.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW RISK: Multiple reviews use nearly identical phrasing ('Jack and Alfred are the best', 'highly recommend', 'great guy', 'friendly and professional') and several contain minor grammatical errors consistent with rushed or template-based writing. However, reviews also contain specific details (names, job types, timelines) that suggest authenticity. Confidence reduced slightly due to this pattern.
• COMPETITOR CONFUSION: One 2021 review explicitly warns that there is another plumbing company also named 'Enterprise' (with I&J in the name), and some negative reviews may be misattributed. This creates potential data contamination.
• ATTITUDE INCIDENTS: Two 1-star reviews (2018, 2017) describe rude behavior and one describes a technician refusing to leave a home. These are serious but isolated and predate most positive reviews, suggesting possible personnel changes.

This WW Score of 82.1 should be treated with MODERATE-TO-HIGH confidence for historical performance, but LOW confidence for current service quality due to data age (72% of reviews older than 5 years). The recent 2023 overcharging complaint and older no-show incidents suggest the company may have experienced quality fluctuations. Recommend seeking recent references (past 6 months) before hiring for major work.

Goodwill Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism with consistent praise for responsiveness, politeness, and communication across 12 reviews. Project completion is solid with 10 mentions showing timely work and follow-through on emergency calls. Technical experience is evident from 8 mentions describing skilled diagnostics and problem-solving. However, pricing shows a critical vulnerability: while 5 reviews mention fair pricing, the January 2024 review alleges deliberate scamming through false diagnostics and inflated charges ($180 upsell for non-existent backup), which directly contradicts the positive pricing narrative and raises serious integrity concerns.

• CRITICAL: January 2024 review alleges fraudulent upselling and deliberate misdiagnosis. Customer claims plumber fabricated a backup issue to charge additional $180, then recreated the original leak when refused. This is a scam allegation that contradicts the overwhelmingly positive pricing feedback and suggests potential dishonest practices.
• RECENCY CONCERN: 13 of 15 reviews are from 2019-2023 (older than 12 months). Only 1 recent review from January 2024, which is the most damaging. Historical positive reviews may not reflect current service quality.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: Multiple reviews (2020-2022) use nearly identical phrasing: 'would highly recommend,' 'great work,' 'professional,' with generic praise and minimal specific detail. Review from April 2021 (Jay/Jora) is extremely brief and informal, possibly fake. Review from June 2022 lacks specifics. These may inflate the positive score artificially.
• NAME INCONSISTENCY: Reviews reference 'Greg,' 'Karen,' and 'Garen' as the plumber. Unclear if these are the same person, different staff members, or data entry errors. This ambiguity undermines review reliability.

This WW Score should be treated with CAUTION. While the numerical score of 81.2 appears solid, the January 2024 scam allegation is a serious red flag that directly contradicts the pricing dimension and suggests potential dishonest practices. The majority of positive reviews are older than 12 months and show signs of possible fake review patterns. The most recent and credible review is the most damaging. Prospective customers should heavily weight the January 2024 complaint and request detailed references before engaging this contractor.

Marc demonstrates strong professionalism with consistent punctuality, responsiveness, and helpful communication across both reviews. His technical expertise is evident through diagnostic capability and problem-solving approach. Project completion is reliable with timely service delivery and follow-through on callbacks. Pricing is positioned as fair and reasonable but explicitly not the cheapest option—customers accept this premium for quality. All four dimensions are supported by explicit evidence, though the sample size of only 2 reviews limits confidence in the overall assessment.

• Only 2 reviews analyzed—insufficient volume for high-confidence scoring. Both are 5-star ratings with no negative feedback, which may not represent the full customer experience spectrum.
• Both reviews are from satisfied long-term or referred customers, which may introduce selection bias toward positive outcomes.
• No explicit mention of timeline adherence or project delays in either review, so PROJECT_COMPLETION score is based on general satisfaction rather than specific delivery metrics.

This WW Score of 88.3 should be treated as preliminary and directional only. With only 2 reviews, all dimensions carry LIMITED confidence. Additional reviews (minimum 8–10) are needed to establish a reliable, trustworthy score.

The overwhelming majority of reviews praise this company's professionalism, punctuality, communication, and courteous technicians across a large and diverse team including Josh, Ryan, Brooke, Brian, Jason, Ric, Hugo, Matthew, Dan, and others. Pricing scores are pulled down by a meaningful minority of negative reviews explicitly citing overcharging, surprise charges, and quotes that were significantly higher than competitors or industry norms — including a $2,000 quote for a gas line job, a $1,460 charge that left gas still leaking, a $660 toilet wax seal job quoted at $280, and a $326 charge for a 10-minute repair. Project completion scores reflect a strong general record of jobs finished on time and correctly, but are tempered by several credible complaints of incomplete work, failure to follow through on callbacks, abandoned jobs, and at least one instance where a repair did not resolve the underlying issue after multiple visits. Experience scores are high overall, with many reviewers specifically praising technical skill and problem-solving, though a small number of reviews describe botched work, improper installations, and a technician who lacked equipment to properly test gas lines.

• Several reviews appear to be near-duplicate submissions: two reviews dated 2024-09-03 are nearly word-for-word identical ('Amazing service from Bob the Plumber Inc...'), and two reviews dated 2022-07-19 are nearly identical ('Just wanted to share with others that Bob the plumber was very pleasing...'). These may be duplicate submissions or coordinated reviews and have been treated with reduced weight.
• Two reviews dated 2021-02-25 appear to be from the same customer describing the same negative experience with gas line work, submitted on the same date — one with text and one without. Counted as one incident.
• A significant number of reviews (49+) contain no review text and only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable qualitative data.
• Reviews span from 2005 to 2025, a 20-year window. The business appears to have changed ownership at least once (original 'Bob' retired, replaced by Ryan and Brooke under the same brand name in one market, while the Bertolino brand operates separately). This suggests the reviews may reflect multiple distinct business entities operating under similar or shared branding, which could distort the aggregate score.
• Pricing complaints are credible and specific, not vague. Multiple 1-star and 2-star reviews cite exact dollar amounts and describe surprise charges, bait-and-switch pricing, or rates far above market. This pattern is notable enough to meaningfully suppress the pricing score.
• One review (2020-09-16) alleges the contractor is unlicensed and improperly installed a water heater resulting in a red tag from the gas company. A separate 2011 review also alleges no license and no insurance. These are serious allegations that could not be verified from reviews alone but are flagged as a significant concern.
• One review (2013-02-17) describes a detailed and specific pattern of substandard work, incomplete rough-in, drain installed in the wrong location, and the contractor 'marking' work by painting a city water access cover blue — a practice the city confirmed receiving complaints about. This is a credible and specific negative flag.
• Recency note: The majority of reviews with substantive text are from 2022 onward, which is positive for score reliability. However, the negative reviews are distributed across the full timeline, suggesting recurring issues rather than isolated incidents.

This WW Score is based on a very large review set (320 total, 271 with usable data) spanning 20 years and carries HIGH statistical confidence in its directional accuracy, but users should note that the reviews likely reflect multiple business entities or ownership periods operating under shared branding, that pricing complaints are specific and recurring enough to be treated as a genuine pattern rather than outliers, and that serious allegations regarding licensing and workmanship quality — while unverified — warrant independent verification before hiring.

Anthony's Plumbing earns strong marks for professionalism and experience, with the vast majority of reviewers praising courteous, knowledgeable technicians who communicate well, arrive on time, and go above and beyond. Project completion is also generally solid, with most jobs finished same-day or within the promised timeframe, though a meaningful cluster of negative reviews describes work that failed shortly after completion and a company unwilling to honor callbacks or warranties — a significant drag on this dimension. Pricing is the weakest dimension: while many customers describe rates as fair or affordable, a notable and recurring pattern of complaints cites prices as outrageous, bait-and-switch quoting (phone quote vs. on-site quote), and charges perceived as exploitative — particularly for elderly or emergency customers. The score reflects a genuinely capable and often excellent service operation that is undermined by inconsistent pricing practices and occasional failures to stand behind completed work.

• PRICING INCONSISTENCY PATTERN: Multiple independent reviews across different years describe a significant gap between phone/advertised quotes and on-site prices. Examples include a $69 advertised special ballooning to $600, a $150 phone quote becoming $500 on arrival, and a $55 job becoming $100 on-site. This is a systemic concern, not isolated incidents.
• WARRANTY/CALLBACK FAILURES: At least 4 reviews explicitly describe the company refusing to honor warranty work or return for the same recurring issue within the warranty period, citing being 'too busy' or claiming the warranty had just expired. This materially impacts the project completion score.
• PRICING EXPLOITATION CONCERNS: Multiple reviews describe what they characterize as price gouging of vulnerable customers, including an 80-year-old on a fixed income and a 70-year-old family member charged $1,600 for a 3-hour job. One review describes a $400 charge for a 10-minute job using $5 in parts.
• UPSELLING COMPLAINTS: Several reviews describe technicians recommending unnecessary replacements or expensive services when simpler fixes were all that was needed (e.g., $775 garbage disposal replacement for a loose fitting, $950 toilet flange quote vs. $200 from a competitor, recommending full pipe replacement before checking a simple washer).
• BLANK REVIEWS: Approximately 38 reviews contained no text and only a star rating (mostly 5-star). These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data. Their presence slightly inflates the apparent star average.
• RECENCY NOTE: Reviews span from 2010 to June 2025. The majority of substantive reviews are from 2022 onward. Older reviews (pre-2018) reflect what appears to be a smaller, owner-operated business; more recent reviews reflect a larger team with multiple named technicians. Scores are weighted toward recent reviews.
• POSSIBLE DUPLICATE REVIEW: The review praising 'Brandon' for water heater phone troubleshooting appears to be posted twice with nearly identical text under different dates (2022-09-10 and 2022-12-20), suggesting a possible duplicate or copied review.
• ONE EXTREME NEGATIVE: One review (2016) contains a profanity-laced alleged response from the owner directed at a female customer. If authentic, this is a serious professionalism concern, though it is a single isolated incident from nearly a decade ago and the overall pattern does not corroborate this behavior.

This WW Score is based on a large and diverse review set spanning 15 years and carries HIGH statistical confidence in its directional accuracy; however, consumers should weight the pricing dimension concerns heavily, as the pattern of quote inflation and warranty refusal is consistent, multi-year, and credible — meaning the true pricing experience may be worse than the score of 63 suggests for customers in urgent or emergency situations.