Find Nearby Plumbers In Daly City, California

Mighty Plumbing earns strong marks across all four dimensions, driven by an enormous volume of reviews spanning over a decade. Professionalism is the most frequently praised attribute, with the vast majority of reviewers citing punctuality, courteous communication, cleanliness, and responsiveness — including multiple instances of staff proactively helping customers over the phone at no charge. Experience scores well due to consistent praise for diagnostic skill, problem-solving on complex jobs, and technical knowledge, with several reviewers specifically noting that Mighty Plumbing succeeded where other plumbers failed. Project completion is solid but slightly tempered by a handful of credible complaints about no-shows, a failed toilet installation that required a third party to fix, and one instance of a technician arriving unprepared and making multiple hardware store trips. Pricing is the weakest dimension: while many reviewers describe rates as fair or reasonable, there are multiple explicit complaints about high pricing, one accusation of a bait-and-switch service charge, and one reviewer who completed the job themselves for a fraction of the quoted price — these negative signals meaningfully pull the pricing score down from what would otherwise be a higher baseline.

• PRICING COMPLAINTS: At least 5 reviews explicitly flag pricing as high or unfair (1-star review quoting $485 for a job done DIY for $32; 2-star review alleging a $200 service charge was denied on the phone then charged on arrival; 3-star review noting cost was 'not reasonable'; multiple 4-star reviews noting price 'seemed a little high'). These are credible, specific complaints that materially reduce pricing confidence.
• NO-SHOW / RELIABILITY PATTERN: At least 3 reviews describe being stood up with no call or follow-up (2013-06-21, 2018-11-29, 2017-01-13). One additional review describes a technician arriving at the wrong address. This is a recurring pattern across multiple years and reduces project completion confidence slightly.
• WORKMANSHIP FAILURE: One 1-star review (2021-09-23) describes a toilet installation where the toilet was not secured to the floor and the flange was broken, causing a water leak discovered after the technician left. The reviewer lost confidence and hired someone else rather than call Mighty back.
• ABANDONED JOB: One 1-star review (2018-08-09) describes Trinidad disappearing hours before a scheduled job start after three weeks of coordination, then refusing to respond to calls, texts, and emails. This is a serious project completion failure.
• ATTITUDE COMPLAINT: One 3-star review (2019-01-28) describes the owner arriving with a dismissive attitude and arriving 2-3 hours late on the second day. One 1-star review (2023-03-20) describes a condescending and dismissive phone interaction.
• RECENCY NOTE: The review set spans from 2012 to 2024. Approximately 60+ reviews predate 2020 and carry reduced recency weight. The most recent reviews (2023-2024) are predominantly positive, suggesting current service quality is strong, but the historical no-show and pricing complaints are noted.
• MULTIPLE TECHNICIAN NAMES: Reviews reference Trinidad, Bobby, Adrian, David, Jason, Alain, Alan, Andrew, Matthew, Chris, Louis, Brent, Dawson, and others. This is consistent with a growing business and does not suggest fake reviews, but scoring reflects the full range of technician quality.
• NO STRONG FAKE REVIEW INDICATORS: While many reviews are 5-star, the majority contain specific details, named technicians, described job types, and varied writing styles. The presence of multiple credible 1-2 star reviews with specific complaints further supports authenticity. No fake review flag is raised.

This WW Score is based on 175 reviews spanning over 10 years with strong mention counts across all four dimensions, making it one of the most data-rich assessments possible; the score of 82.1 is considered highly reliable, though prospective customers should weigh the recurring no-show complaints and pricing transparency issues before hiring.

Bay Rooter & Plumbing, primarily represented by plumber Dan, earns strong marks across all four dimensions based on a large and detailed review pool spanning over a decade. Professionalism is consistently praised — punctuality, friendliness, cleanliness, and responsiveness appear in the vast majority of reviews — but is meaningfully penalized by a recurring pattern of no-callback complaints (at least 5 distinct reviews cite failure to return calls or follow through on scheduling), and two older reviews describe technically questionable work. Pricing is a genuine strength, with dozens of reviewers explicitly calling rates reasonable, fair, or lower than competitors, and multiple instances of Dan not charging for minor visits or honoring original quotes despite extra work. Project completion scores well overall — jobs are routinely described as finished quickly and correctly — but is moderated by the no-show and abandoned-work complaints, including one review describing a plumber who left and never returned, and another citing a misdiagnosis that required a second plumber to correct. Experience is broadly positive, with many reviewers highlighting Dan's diagnostic speed, technical knowledge, and problem-solving ability, though a small number of older reviews (2008–2010) describe competence concerns serious enough to warrant score moderation.

• At least 5 reviews explicitly cite failure to return phone calls or follow up on scheduled appointments — this is a consistent and recurring pattern across multiple years (2006, 2013, 2018, 2020, 2021) and meaningfully impacts professionalism and project completion scores.
• One review (2018-10-03, 1 star) describes a plumber who came, promised to return the next day, and never showed up — a clear project abandonment incident.
• Two older reviews (2008 and 2009) describe technically questionable work: one plumber misidentified a repair requiring a building-wide water shutoff when it did not, and another failed to locate a cleanout that a competing plumber found in 30 seconds. These are weighted less due to age but are not ignored.
• One review (2006, 1 star) describes a disputed garbage disposal installation linked to a subsequent dishwasher leak, with the plumber denying liability. This is an older review but relevant to experience and project completion.
• Several reviews (2021-06-10, 2022-06-10, 2022-08-17, 2019-06-11) contain no review text — only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data.
• One review references a plumber named 'Trieu' and another references 'Israel' and 'Micky' — suggesting multiple technicians work under this business. Quality and professionalism may vary by technician. The majority of detailed positive reviews reference Dan specifically.
• The review corpus spans 2006–2024. Reviews older than 2020 are given reduced weight in scoring. The most recent negative pattern (no-callback complaints) appears as recently as 2021, indicating it is not solely a historical issue.
• No strong fake review patterns detected. Reviews contain specific job details, named technicians, varied writing styles, and a mix of ratings including 1-star complaints. The review set appears authentic.

This WW Score is based on 90 reviews with a high volume of detailed, specific, and credible content spanning 14 years, yielding HIGH confidence across all four dimensions — however, the score should be interpreted with awareness that recurring no-callback and scheduling failure complaints represent a genuine and documented service gap that the high volume of positive reviews does not erase.

This plumbing company demonstrates strong performance across all measured dimensions. Professionalism is consistently praised across all four reviews, with customers highlighting friendly demeanor, responsiveness, and punctuality. Project completion is excellent, with all jobs finished promptly and thoroughly—from minor drain cleaning to major basement pipe replacement. Technical expertise is evident in the handling of complex issues like underground pipe replacement and emergency clogs. Pricing receives limited mention but one customer noted a 'saving offer' as a bonus. The WW Score of 88.3 reflects solid, reliable service with high customer satisfaction.

• All four reviews are from February-March 2023 (12+ months old); no recent reviews provided to assess current service quality
• Suspicious pattern: All reviews are 5-star ratings with no critical feedback or specific complaints
• Technician 'Joseph' is named in three of four reviews; high concentration on single technician may not represent full company capability
• Limited pricing data (1 mention only); cannot reliably assess value proposition
• Small sample size (4 reviews) limits statistical confidence; recommend collecting additional recent reviews

This score should be treated with caution due to small sample size, age of reviews (all 12+ months old), and absence of any critical feedback or pricing detail; the uniformly positive ratings suggest either genuinely excellent service or potential selection bias in review collection.

Stan Flow Plumbing demonstrates strong performance across all measured dimensions. Professionalism is consistently praised across all three reviews, with explicit mentions of responsiveness, punctuality, clean work areas, and professional demeanor. Project completion is solid, with timely arrivals and completed work noted in all reviews. Pricing receives positive mention in one review as 'very reasonable.' Technical competence is referenced in two reviews through descriptions of 'knowledgeable' work and successful problem-solving. However, the sample size is very small (only 3 reviews), limiting confidence in these scores.

• Sample size is minimal (3 reviews only) — scores should be treated as preliminary and updated as more reviews accumulate
• All three reviews are 5-star ratings with uniformly positive language — while not necessarily fake, this lacks the natural variance typical of larger review sets
• One reviewer explicitly notes this is the first Yelp review for the business, suggesting very recent platform presence — limited historical data available
• Pricing dimension based on only 1 mention — insufficient data for reliable assessment
• No negative feedback or complaints present to validate claims or identify weaknesses

This WW Score should be treated as a preliminary indicator only. With only 3 reviews, all recent and uniformly positive, the score reflects current sentiment but lacks the statistical robustness needed for high-confidence decision-making. Recommend revisiting this assessment once 8+ reviews have accumulated.

Hollon Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism across all three reviews, with consistent praise for responsiveness, promptness, and friendly demeanor. Project completion is solid, with evidence of problems being solved and work finished to customer satisfaction. Pricing appears fair and competitive based on two explicit mentions, with one customer noting the quote beat a competitor. Technical expertise is evident in problem diagnosis and honest recommendations about scope of work. However, the sample size is small (3 reviews) and all are older than 3 years, limiting confidence in the overall assessment.

• All three reviews are from 2019-2021; no recent reviews (past 12 months) available to assess current performance
• Small sample size (n=3) limits statistical reliability; recommend collecting more recent feedback
• Reviews are uniformly positive (all 5-star) with no critical feedback; while not necessarily fake, this lacks the natural variation typical of larger review sets

This WW Score of 88.3 should be treated with caution due to the small sample size and age of reviews; it reflects strong historical performance but does not provide current operational insight.

JK Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism with consistent punctuality, courteous communication, and responsive service across 58 mentions. Technical expertise is solid with 35 mentions of skilled workmanship and problem-solving. Project completion shows adequate follow-through on most jobs (42 mentions), though some callbacks and unresolved issues were noted. Pricing receives moderate support (28 mentions) with most customers finding rates fair and reasonable, though a few historical reviews cite overcharging concerns. The company shows particular strength in same-day/rapid response and customer service quality, but occasional gaps in emergency availability and callback responsiveness slightly temper the overall score.

• SUSPICIOUS REVIEW PATTERN: 16 empty/blank 5-star reviews all dated 2024-06-09 with no text content. This represents 18% of total reviews and suggests potential fake review inflation.
• TEMPORAL BIAS: Significant portion of reviews (40+) are from 2008-2013, over 10 years old. Recent reviews (past 12 months) show more mixed sentiment including 4 one-star ratings, suggesting possible service quality decline or increased negative review visibility.
• CONFLICTING EVIDENCE: Strong positive reviews from long-term customers (Kirill era, 2008-2014) contrast sharply with recent negative reviews (2025) citing damage, unprofessionalism, and non-responsiveness. This suggests either significant business changes or inconsistent service quality.
• PROJECT COMPLETION CONCERNS: Multiple reviews mention callbacks, unresolved issues (leak returned next day, clogged toilet still clogged after service, faucet leak after unclogging), and one instance of refusal to help emergency customer despite prior relationship.
• INCOMPLETE DATA: 5 reviews with ratings but no usable text content were excluded from analysis.

This score should be treated with MODERATE-TO-HIGH caution: while the overall WW Score of 78.2 is supported by substantial recent positive data (58 professionalism mentions, 42 completion mentions), the presence of 16 suspicious blank 5-star reviews, a sharp recent decline in sentiment (4 one-star reviews in 2025 vs. predominantly 5-star in 2024), and documented service failures (damage caused, unresolved issues, emergency refusal) suggest the company may be experiencing quality degradation or inconsistency. The score reflects historical strength but may overweight older reviews; recent customers should weight the 2025 negative reviews heavily in their decision.