Find Nearby Plumbers In Carson, California

Alpha Star Plumbing (Carlos) receives strong praise across most reviews for technical skill, responsiveness, and fair pricing, with multiple reviewers highlighting his diagnostic ability, thoroughness, and willingness to go beyond the scope of the job. However, one detailed and credible 1-star review describes a serious failure in professionalism and reliability — Carlos committed to a late-evening appointment, repeatedly delayed with excuses, then went completely silent, forcing the customer to call a competitor at 11pm at significant extra cost. This incident materially drags down both the professionalism and project completion scores, as it represents a clear case of an abandoned commitment. Pricing feedback is positive across the reviews that mention it, with multiple customers noting competitive and honest rates. Experience scores are high based on specific, detailed accounts of skilled troubleshooting and quality workmanship.

• One serious 1-star review describes a no-show with no communication after repeated delays — this is a significant reliability red flag and is weighted heavily in professionalism and project completion scoring.
• Five of the six positive reviews are clustered within a 7-week window (2023-01-17 to 2023-03-06), which is a mild pattern worth noting, though the reviews contain sufficient specific detail to be considered credible.
• Several positive reviews use enthusiastic, effusive language ('forever plumber', 'checks all the boxes', 'lucky day') which could suggest coached or incentivized reviews, though individual job details are present in most cases — confidence is not reduced but noted.
• Total review count is low (7 reviews). Scores should be interpreted cautiously as a single additional negative experience could significantly shift results.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability — the positive pattern is supported by specific, detailed reviews, but the small sample size and one serious no-show incident introduce meaningful uncertainty, and consumers should weigh the 1-star account carefully before booking for time-sensitive or after-hours work.

Fragoso Plumbing shows significant inconsistency across reviews spanning 2011–2024. While many customers praise fair pricing, responsiveness, and technical skill (particularly in complex diagnostics), serious concerns emerge around communication breakdowns, incomplete work, and follow-through on callbacks. Multiple recent reviews (2024, 2021) document poor communication, no-shows, delayed responses, and work that required rework or was never completed. Older reviews (2011–2018) are predominantly positive, suggesting either service degradation or inconsistent execution. The company excels at pricing transparency and technical problem-solving but struggles with professionalism and project completion reliability.

• TEMPORAL PATTERN: Positive reviews cluster heavily in 2011–2018; negative reviews concentrate in 2021–2024, suggesting possible service quality decline or operational changes.
• COMMUNICATION CRISIS: Multiple recent reviews (2021, 2024) cite severe communication failures—unreturned calls, voicemail full, vague quotes, delayed responses to emergencies. This is a systemic red flag.
• INCOMPLETE WORK: Review dated 2024-06-09 documents three separate failures: shower plumbing redone, toilet installed incorrectly (year-long leak), water purifier never installed. Review dated 2021-08-12 shows washing machine leak not fixed on first visit, requiring second visit.
• NO-SHOW PATTERN: Multiple reviews mention no-shows or extreme delays without notification (2013-09-11, 2021-08-12).
• PRICING INCONSISTENCY: While many praise fair pricing, several reviews cite overcharging (e.g., $1,800 estimate vs. $300 competitor solution; $275 for 15-minute snake work; $175 inspection fee not credited). One review in Chinese (2024-06-09) rates 1.0 citing 'high price and poor service.'
• POTENTIAL DUPLICATE REVIEW: Two nearly identical reviews dated 2013-03-06 and 2013-01-10 from 'Eddie Galindo' with identical phrasing and structure suggest possible duplicate submission.
• EMPTY REVIEWS: Four reviews contain no text (2022-06-10 [4.0], 2022-02-23 [5.0], 2020-06-10 [two 5.0 ratings]) and one marked 'unknown' (2015-07-17 [5.0]). These cannot be validated and reduce data reliability.
• WARRANTY DISPUTES: Multiple reviews cite refusal to warranty work or lack of clarity on warranty terms (2022-03-03, 2022-02-23).

This score should be treated with CAUTION. While based on 31 reviews with HIGH confidence in individual dimensions, the data reveals a company with stark temporal divergence: strong performance historically (2011–2018) but serious deterioration in recent years (2021–2024). Recent reviews document systemic communication failures, incomplete work, and no-shows. The presence of empty/unvalidated reviews and one suspected duplicate further reduces confidence. Customers considering Fragoso should prioritize recent reviews and demand written contracts with clear warranty terms and communication protocols before engaging.

The five usable customer reviews paint a consistently positive picture of the contractor, with multiple reviewers praising professionalism, reliability, and technical competence across a variety of plumbing jobs including drain cleaning, water line repair, and water softener installation. Project completion is a clear strength — reviewers specifically noted that the plumber stayed until the job was fully done and followed through on commitments. Pricing was mentioned positively in two reviews, with customers describing the rates as 'more than fair,' though the limited mention count means this score carries low confidence. The one-star review was entirely about unsolicited marketing text spam and contains no information about actual service quality, so it was excluded from dimension scoring but is flagged as a serious concern.

• SPAM/HARASSMENT FLAG: One review (1-star, dated 2024-09-13) documents repeated unsolicited marketing text messages from the business. The reviewer explicitly calls the business 'shady' and directs others to report them to the FTC. This is a significant reputational and legal concern unrelated to plumbing quality but relevant to overall business trustworthiness.
• LOW REVIEW VOLUME: Only 5 reviews contain usable service data. This is an extremely small sample size and scores should be treated with caution. The WW Score cannot be considered reliable at this volume.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Of the 5 usable reviews, only 2 are from the past 12 months (2024). Two reviews are from 2021–2022, which are over 2 years old. Business quality may have changed since those older reviews were written.
• POSSIBLE SELECTION BIAS: All 5 usable reviews are 5-star ratings with no mixed or negative service feedback. While the reviews do contain specific details (job types, names, scenarios) that reduce fake review suspicion, the uniformity of perfect ratings on a small sample warrants caution.
• MARKETING PRACTICES: The spam review includes what appear to be actual text messages sent by the business using high-pressure, time-limited discount tactics. This pattern of aggressive marketing may be worth noting when evaluating overall business conduct.

This WW Score is based on only 5 usable reviews, all of which are 5-star ratings, making it statistically insufficient and potentially unrepresentative — treat this score as a preliminary positive signal only, not a reliable measure of consistent performance.

Power Pro Plumbing scores reasonably on professionalism and experience at the individual technician level, with a large volume of reviews praising specific techs as knowledgeable, courteous, and thorough. However, these positives are significantly offset by a substantial and consistent pattern of serious complaints: repeated no-shows or extreme lateness, failure to communicate delays, and a deeply troubling pattern of wildly inflated pricing — with multiple reviewers documenting quotes 5x to 20x higher than what competitors charged for identical work. Pricing is the single most damaging dimension, with numerous detailed, credible accounts of price gouging, upselling unnecessary work, and targeting elderly or distressed customers. Project completion is mixed: many jobs are completed well, but there are credible accounts of abandoned work, jobs not fixed on the first visit, and in at least one case, alleged deliberate damage to create additional billable work. The overall score reflects a company with capable individual technicians but systemic issues in pricing integrity, scheduling reliability, and office management.

• FAKE REVIEW FLAG — HIGH SUSPICION: At least 6 reviews are exact word-for-word duplicates posted on different dates (two distinct Emiliano reviews each appear 3 times verbatim across June 6-9 2025; two distinct Ricky Bates reviews and two Julian reviews also appear as exact duplicates). This is a strong indicator of review manipulation. Confidence in the positive review pool is reduced accordingly.
• PRICING INTEGRITY CONCERN: Multiple detailed, specific, credible 1-star reviews document quotes ranging from 5x to 20x what competitors charged for identical work (e.g., $6,700 vs $128 for drain clearing; $2,300 vs under $100 for drain clearing; $7,000 for 13 hours of work; $425 vs $140 for cartridge replacement; $700 vs $135 for gas valve work; $3,200 for 2 toilets and a garbage disposal). This is a systemic pattern, not isolated incidents.
• SCHEDULING RELIABILITY CONCERN: Multiple reviews across many years document repeated no-shows, extreme lateness (hours beyond appointment windows), and failure to proactively communicate delays. This is a long-standing and recurring operational issue.
• ELDERLY CUSTOMER TARGETING: Multiple reviews explicitly describe technicians pressuring elderly customers into expensive unnecessary work, including one review alleging a technician drilled a hole in a pipe to create a new billable leak.
• RECENCY NOTE: The review set spans from 2005 to June 2025. The most recent reviews (2024-2025) skew heavily positive and include confirmed duplicate/fake reviews. Older reviews (2012-2021) contain the most detailed and credible negative accounts. The score weights all periods but flags that recent positive reviews may be artificially inflated.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Approximately 10+ reviews contained no text (only a star rating of 5.0). These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data per scoring rules.
• ONE REVIEW (2017) alleges a technician flooded a home with sewage, behaved erratically, and the company denied the incident occurred — a serious conduct and integrity concern.
• ONE REVIEW (2015) alleges a technician drilled a hole in a cast iron pipe to manufacture a new leak, supported by photographic evidence described in the review. This is an extreme allegation that, if accurate, constitutes fraud.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large review volume, but the score itself should be treated with caution given confirmed duplicate/fake positive reviews inflating the recent pool, a systemic and well-documented pattern of price gouging across many years, and serious allegations of deliberate property damage — consumers should seek multiple independent quotes before engaging this company.

This contractor has a deeply polarized review profile: a strong cohort of highly satisfied customers praise punctuality, technical expertise, fair pricing, and thorough job completion, while a significant minority of negative reviews describe serious failures including no-shows, unanswered calls, abandoned jobs, and alleged price gouging or outright scams. Professionalism is the most damaged dimension, with multiple reviews citing broken appointments, no callbacks, and unprofessional conduct — pulling the score well below what the positive reviews alone would suggest. Pricing is similarly split, with some customers reporting excellent value and others describing inflated or deceptive quotes. Project completion scores moderately, buoyed by several reviews praising thorough follow-through on complex jobs, but undermined by at least two explicit accounts of work left unfinished or guarantees not honored. Experience scores highest among the four dimensions, as the positive reviews frequently cite impressive technical knowledge and problem-solving, though two reviews directly questioned competence.

• MULTIPLE CONTRACTOR IDENTITIES: Reviews reference at least four different named individuals — Armando, John, Adam, Carlos, and Joe — suggesting this may be an aggregated profile spanning more than one business or trading name. Scores should be interpreted with caution as they may not reflect a single contractor.
• SERIOUS MISCONDUCT ALLEGATIONS: At least three reviews allege fraudulent or predatory behavior, including charging an elderly woman $800 for a 20-minute job without proper authorization, fabricating a need for sewer replacement, and rushing a distressed customer into signing an inflated contract. These are not mere dissatisfaction complaints — they describe potential contractor fraud.
• NO-SHOW PATTERN: At least four separate reviews describe scheduled appointments where the contractor failed to appear and did not call, spanning multiple years. This is a recurring and systemic reliability issue.
• SAFETY CONCERN: One reviewer reported that the technician left a gas line open after a failed repair attempt and did not follow up adequately despite the danger. This is a significant safety flag.
• WIDE DATE RANGE: Reviews span from 2006 to 2024, an 18-year window. Only a small number of reviews are from the past 12 months (2024). The most recent reviews (2024) are mixed — one very positive, one negative about pricing. Older reviews carry reduced reliability for assessing current performance.
• POSSIBLE FAKE REVIEW CONCERN (MINOR): Several 5-star reviews are extremely brief and generic (e.g., 'Good!', 'Great service great price') with no specific detail. These contribute minimal signal and were weighted conservatively.
• COUPON BAIT-AND-SWITCH ALLEGATION: One reviewer explicitly describes a coupon offer that was not honored, with the contractor failing to show up after confirming the coupon would be accepted — consistent with a bait-and-switch pattern.

The WW Score of 62.1 is based on a high volume of reviews and carries HIGH statistical confidence in its representation of the review set, but the extreme polarization of the review pool, multiple contractor identities, serious fraud and safety allegations, and an 18-year date range mean this score should be treated as a warning-flagged baseline rather than a straightforward endorsement — prospective customers should independently verify licensing, read recent reviews carefully, and obtain written quotes before engaging.

This contractor has a deeply split review profile. Three recent positive reviews (2023–2024) describe professional, friendly, skilled work across flooring, assembly, TV mounting, and painting — with strong follow-through and quality results. However, two highly detailed negative reviews from 2013 document serious failures in responsiveness, appointment fulfillment, and communication, with the contractor failing to show up and customers being unable to reach him despite repeated attempts. The pricing dimension is flagged because the negative reviews involved third-party coupon platforms (Groupon, Living Social), which introduced fulfillment chaos the contractor partially attributed to being overwhelmed — but this does not excuse the lack of communication or no-shows. The overall score is pulled down significantly by the completion and professionalism failures documented in the older reviews.

• Two 1-star reviews from 2013 describe complete service abandonment, no-shows, and sustained failure to communicate — these are serious red flags for reliability.
• The negative reviews are over 10 years old (2012–2013); the three positive reviews are from 2023–2024. Recency weighting favors the positive reviews, but the severity of the older complaints cannot be ignored.
• The contractor's pattern in 2013 — accepting more jobs than he could handle via Groupon/Living Social and then going silent — suggests a systemic organizational failure at that time.
• Only 5 total reviews are available. This is a very small sample size and limits the reliability of any score produced.
• No pricing information is explicitly mentioned in the positive reviews; pricing score is derived only from the coupon-related negative reviews, which involved discounted third-party deals.

This WW Score should be treated with caution — it is based on only 5 reviews spanning over a decade, with a stark quality divide between older failures and recent successes, making it difficult to assess the contractor's current reliability with confidence.