Find Nearby Plumbers In Clovis, California

Cardinal Plumbing and P&D Plumbing collectively show strong professionalism signals across dozens of reviews, with repeated praise for punctuality, communication, friendliness, and responsiveness. Project completion is generally well-regarded, with jobs described as finished efficiently and follow-through honored, though one notable negative review from 2018 described collateral damage and poor workmanship on a pipe repair. Pricing is a mixed dimension: several reviews praise reasonable or competitive pricing, while one reviewer explicitly noted Cardinal is not the cheapest and another (2016) found P&D's estimate nearly double competitors, moderating the pricing score. Experience scores well overall, with multiple reviewers citing knowledgeable technicians, accurate diagnostics, and quality workmanship across a range of plumbing tasks.

• 14 reviews contain no text — only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence.
• The review set spans two distinct businesses: Cardinal Plumbing (2025 reviews) and P&D Plumbing/Wint Thein (2016–2023 reviews). Scores reflect the combined pool but the businesses should ideally be evaluated separately.
• Most P&D Plumbing reviews are older than 1 year (some dating back to 2016–2019), reducing their recency weight. Cardinal Plumbing reviews are all from 2025 and carry higher recency relevance.
• One 1-star review (2018) for P&D describes burn damage left on a wooden surface after a pipe repair and a $300 charge for what the reviewer considered poor work — this is a meaningful quality and project completion flag.
• One 2-star review (2016) for P&D explicitly flagged pricing as significantly higher than competitors.
• Several Cardinal reviews mention specific technician names (Stephen, Dara, Fabian, Willie, Angelo, Daniel, Jack, Gary) with consistent positive detail — this reduces fake review suspicion for that cluster. P&D reviews are more varied in specificity and appear genuine.
• No strong fake review patterns detected, though the high volume of blank 5-star reviews for Cardinal is a minor concern as they contribute no scorable data.

This WW Score carries HIGH overall confidence due to a large volume of text-bearing reviews across multiple dimensions, though users should note the score blends two separate businesses across a wide date range, and the pricing dimension is modestly penalized by explicit cost complaints.

Gary's Plumbing demonstrates strong overall performance across all dimensions, with particular strength in professionalism and technical expertise. The company excels at punctuality, responsiveness, and communication, with extensive evidence of same-day or next-day service and proactive customer contact. Pricing is generally perceived as fair and competitive, though some customers note higher costs relative to competitors. Project completion is reliable with strong follow-through, though a small subset of reviews indicate occasional scheduling or communication lapses. Technical skill and problem-solving ability are consistently praised, with customers appreciating honest assessments and willingness to educate homeowners.

• FAKE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: Reviews 1-4 contain identical or near-identical text ('Quality working. will use their services again' and 'Best care anywhere. Reasonably priced, responsive...') with same 5.0 rating and dates within 3 days, suggesting potential review manipulation.
• RECENCY BIAS: Approximately 35% of reviews are from 2024-2025 (past 12 months), while 40% are from 2013-2017, indicating older reviews may not reflect current service levels.
• CONFLICTING NARRATIVES: 23 reviews (4%) rate service as 1-2 stars, citing issues with responsiveness, professionalism, pricing disputes, and follow-through. These negative reviews describe aggressive communication, no-shows, and billing disputes that contradict the overwhelmingly positive majority.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS: Multiple 1-star reviews specifically cite overcharging (e.g., $465 for drain cleaning, $250 for cartridge replacement, $450 for washing machine faucet work), suggesting potential pricing inconsistency or lack of transparency.
• COMMUNICATION FAILURES: Several negative reviews cite no call-backs, missed appointments, and poor responsiveness despite positive reviews praising quick response times, indicating inconsistent service delivery.
• MULTIPLE BUSINESS NAMES: Reviews reference 'Gary's Plumbing,' 'Moses Plumbing,' 'Gary's D-Rooting,' and 'Gary Ohl,' suggesting either multiple locations, name changes, or potential review mixing from different entities.

This WW Score of 82.3 is reliable for understanding Gary's Plumbing's typical performance, supported by HIGH confidence across all dimensions with 150+ mentions each. However, the score masks significant variability: while 85-90% of customers report excellent service, approximately 4% report serious issues including no-shows, aggressive communication, and billing disputes. The presence of identical review text and the 10+ year review span suggest some data quality concerns. Prospective customers should expect generally strong professionalism and technical skill but should clarify pricing upfront and confirm appointments, as service consistency appears to vary.

ET Plumbing demonstrates strong overall performance across all four dimensions, with particular strength in professionalism (85.2) and technical experience (84.6). The company excels at punctuality, communication, and skilled workmanship, as evidenced by extensive positive feedback. However, the score is tempered by a notable cluster of negative reviews (approximately 6 one-star reviews) documenting serious interpersonal conflicts, payment disputes, and alleged unprofessional behavior by the owner Eric. While the majority of reviews are highly positive and recent (past 12 months), the severity and specificity of negative experiences—including harassment allegations, aggressive communication, and policy disputes—warrant conservative scoring despite the volume of praise.

• FAKE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: Approximately 15-20 reviews (mostly dated 2025-06-04 to 2025-06-08) exhibit suspicious characteristics: generic praise with minimal specifics, repetitive phrasing ('amazing,' 'fantastic,' 'best'), several with no substantive detail or empty text fields, and all 5-star ratings clustered within 4 days. This pattern suggests potential review manipulation or bulk submission. Confidence in recent scores should be reduced accordingly.
• SERIOUS NEGATIVE INCIDENTS: Six 1-star reviews document severe interpersonal conflicts with owner Eric, including allegations of harassment (multiple unwanted calls), aggressive voicemail/text messages, payment disputes, alleged profanity and threats of legal action, and policy violations (abandoning bids when competition present). These are detailed, specific, and credible-sounding accounts that contradict the overwhelmingly positive narrative.
• OWNER BEHAVIOR CONCERNS: Multiple negative reviews specifically cite the owner's unprofessional conduct—passive-aggressive behavior, irritability when questioned, scolding customers, and retaliatory communication. This pattern suggests potential systemic issues with management and customer relations that may not be fully captured in aggregate scoring.
• RECENCY BIAS: The bulk of positive reviews are from 2019-2022 with a recent surge of suspicious 5-star reviews in June 2025. Older reviews (2006-2018) are consistently positive and detailed. The recent spike in generic praise combined with serious negative incidents in 2023-2024 suggests the company may be experiencing operational or behavioral changes.
• PAYMENT/BILLING DISPUTES: At least 2 reviews document aggressive payment collection practices and billing disputes, suggesting potential issues with financial processes or owner temperament around money.

This WW Score of 82.3 should be treated with MODERATE-TO-HIGH caution. While the volume of positive data is substantial and the company demonstrates genuine technical competence and professionalism in most engagements, the presence of credible, detailed negative reviews documenting serious owner misconduct, combined with a suspicious cluster of recent generic 5-star reviews, significantly undermines confidence in the overall rating. The company appears capable of excellent work but carries material risk of interpersonal conflict, particularly if customers ask questions or seek competitive bids. Prospective customers should review the specific 1-star accounts before engaging.

Michael's Plumbing has a strong base of positive reviews praising punctuality, courtesy, and responsiveness, which drives solid professionalism and experience scores. However, several detailed 1-star reviews describe serious failures: incomplete work, unresolved leaks requiring multiple return visits, ignored callbacks, warranty disputes, and at least one instance of an elderly customer being charged for a job that was not properly completed. These negative reviews are highly specific and credible, significantly pulling down the project completion score. Pricing feedback is generally favorable among those who mentioned it, with multiple reviewers calling rates fair or reasonable. The overall picture is of a contractor who performs well on straightforward jobs but has a documented pattern of poor follow-through on complex or problematic work.

• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The review 'It went very well and did a great job.' with a 5-star rating appears twice on the exact same date (2020-11-11). One instance has been treated as a duplicate and effectively discounted.
• GENERIC/LOW-DETAIL REVIEWS: Multiple reviews contain only 1-3 words (e.g., 'Perfect!!!', 'Excellent job', 'Great job.', 'Perfectly.', 'First class service!', 'Done well and quickly', 'excellent service.'). These provide minimal usable signal and may inflate positive sentiment without substantive evidence.
• UNKNOWN REVIEWS: At least 6 reviews contain only the text 'unknown' with 5-star ratings and no descriptive content. These have been excluded from scoring as they provide no usable data.
• RECENCY WARNING: The majority of reviews are older than 12 months relative to the most recent review date (2022-05-03). Most reviews date from 2015-2020, with only one review from 2022 and one from 2021. The score may not reflect current service quality.
• SERIOUS NEGATIVE PATTERN: Four detailed 1-star reviews (2013, 2018 x2, 2020 x2) describe incomplete work, ignored warranty claims, repeated failed repair attempts, no-shows, and unresponsive management. These are highly specific and credible and represent a meaningful minority of the review pool.
• LEGITIMACY CONCERN: One 1-star reviewer (2018) claims the business entity 'Michael's Plumbing Services' was dissolved by the State of Tennessee as of 02/13/2013 and that the business was operating without a valid registration. This has not been verified but is a serious flag if accurate.

The WW Score of 74.2 is based on a reasonably large review set with HIGH confidence across all dimensions, but should be interpreted cautiously given the presence of multiple detailed, credible negative reviews describing incomplete work and poor follow-through, a cluster of uninformative generic reviews, duplicate and 'unknown' entries, and the fact that most reviews are more than two years old.

Plumbing Unlimited has a large base of satisfied customers who consistently praise individual technicians — particularly Lamont, Ronnie, Emanuel, and Nick — for being professional, knowledgeable, punctual, and personable. Pricing is generally viewed as fair and competitive, with multiple reviewers explicitly calling out affordability and value. However, the company is significantly dragged down by a recurring pattern of serious project completion failures: multiple 1-star reviews describe abandoned jobs, unresolved problems after payment, missed appointments with no communication, and situations left worse than before work began. These are not isolated incidents — they span multiple years and involve different customers and job types, lending them credibility. Experience scores are mixed: while many reviewers praise technical skill, several explicitly describe incompetent work, costly mistakes, and problems that required a second company to fix.

• 11 reviews contain no text — only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence.
• Two reviews (dated 2024-08-13 and 2024-07-19) are near-identical in wording and describe the same complaint about 'Major' and a gas stove installation. This appears to be a duplicate review posted by the same customer on two dates. Only one instance was counted per dimension.
• Several 5-star reviews are very brief and generic (e.g., 'Very professional and precise work!', 'Great workers. Above and beyond.') with no specific details. While not conclusively fake, they carry lower evidentiary weight and were scored conservatively.
• The review corpus spans from 2005 to 2025. Reviews older than 2 years (pre-2023) were given reduced weight in scoring, as they may not reflect current company performance. The majority of negative reviews are concentrated in 2022–2025, suggesting possible decline in quality control over time.
• Multiple serious 1-star reviews describe the company abandoning jobs mid-project, not returning calls after payment, and leaving customers without water or functioning toilets for extended periods. These are high-severity complaints that materially suppressed the project_completion score.
• The bait-and-switch pricing complaint (2022) and the $5,000 unresolved fix complaint (2024) are significant red flags for pricing transparency and were factored into the pricing score reduction.

This WW Score is based on a large and diverse review set spanning over a decade, giving it HIGH statistical confidence; however, the presence of serious and credible project abandonment complaints across multiple recent years means prospective customers should treat the score as a moderate-risk signal and carefully vet the company before committing to large or complex jobs.

Valley Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism (82.5) with technicians consistently praised for punctuality, courtesy, and communication. Technical experience is solid (81.0), with many reviews highlighting knowledgeable and skilled work. Project completion is reliable (78.5), though some callbacks and follow-up issues are noted. However, pricing is a critical weakness (42.0), with overwhelming complaints about exorbitant charges—often 2-3x market rates, hidden fees, and aggressive upselling. This pricing problem significantly depresses the overall WW Score despite operational strengths.

• PRICING CRISIS: 89 reviews explicitly mention pricing concerns. Recurring pattern of quotes 2-3x higher than competitors, with numerous examples of $600-$2300+ charges for routine work. This is the dominant complaint across the review set.
• FAKE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: Multiple empty reviews with 5-star ratings (no text, only rating/date). At least 15 reviews contain only 'unknown' or blank text with 5-star ratings. These appear to be placeholder or artificially inflated reviews and reduce confidence in the 5-star aggregate.
• QUALITY INCONSISTENCY: Wide variance in outcomes—some reviews praise exceptional work; others report incomplete jobs, misdiagnosis, and damage caused by technicians (e.g., burned wall, broken pipes). Suggests inconsistent training or quality control.
• FOLLOW-UP FAILURES: Multiple reviews report promised callbacks never received, unresolved complaints, and poor management responsiveness. This undermines professionalism score despite individual technician praise.
• DAMAGE LIABILITY: At least 3 reviews document property damage (burned wall, broken pipes, flooded cabinet) with company refusing responsibility or offering inadequate compensation.
• RECENCY NOTE: Most recent reviews (2025, 2024) show continued pricing complaints and service inconsistencies. No evidence of improvement over time.

This WW Score of 68.2 is reliable and should be trusted. It is based on 234 reviews with high-confidence data across all four dimensions. The score accurately reflects a company with strong individual technician performance and professionalism but severely undermined by systemic pricing abuse and inconsistent quality control. The pricing dimension (42.0) is particularly well-evidenced with 89 explicit mentions and is the primary driver of the below-average overall score.