Find Nearby Plumbers In Davis, California

Walter demonstrates strong overall performance across all dimensions, with particular strength in pricing fairness (87.5) and technical experience (88.0). His professionalism score of 85.0 reflects consistent positive feedback on communication, responsiveness, and courteous demeanor, though two significant reliability complaints about missed appointments and scheduling issues temper this rating. Project completion scores at 79.0 due to explicit concerns about follow-through on commitments and one report of substandard work requiring professional remediation. The WW Score of 82.1 reflects a generally trustworthy contractor with notable strengths in value and skill, but with meaningful reliability concerns that prevent a higher rating.

• RELIABILITY CONCERN: Two 1-star reviews (2019-01-31 and 2017-10-18) explicitly cite failure to show up as scheduled and poor follow-through on commitments. The 2017-10-18 review describes a week-long wait followed by cancellation at 11:45 AM after being told 10:15-10:30 arrival time. This directly contradicts the 'punctuality' component of professionalism.
• QUALITY CONCERN: 2019-01-31 review states customer had to hire someone else to fix Walter's work, describing it as 'a nightmare.' This is a direct quality/experience issue that cannot be ignored despite being outnumbered by positive reviews.
• RECENCY BIAS: 27 of 31 reviews are from 2015-2019 (5+ years old). Only 1 review from 2020. Limited recent data means current performance is uncertain.
• POSITIVE REVIEW CONCENTRATION: 28 of 31 reviews are 5-star ratings. While not necessarily fake, the extreme concentration warrants noting that negative experiences may be underrepresented in this dataset.

This WW Score of 82.1 should be treated with MODERATE-to-HIGH confidence for historical performance, but current reliability is uncertain due to review age and explicit scheduling/follow-through complaints that suggest operational inconsistency; prospective customers should specifically inquire about scheduling reliability and request recent references.

Serg and his team (S&G Quality Builders) demonstrate strong performance across all measured dimensions. Professionalism is consistently praised with mentions of punctuality, responsiveness, communication clarity, and patient listening across all four reviews. Project completion is exemplary, with jobs finished on time or ahead of schedule, including a major 5-acre home build completed in under two years and multiple water heater installations completed same-day or within agreed timeframes. Technical expertise is evident through detailed workmanship, warranty offerings, and ability to explain complex systems to customers. Pricing feedback, while limited to two mentions, indicates competitive and transparent quotes with no hidden charges. The primary limitation is the small sample size (4 reviews) and recency skew, with 50% of reviews older than 3 years.

• Small sample size (n=4) limits statistical reliability; recommend collecting additional recent reviews before making major business decisions
• Recency concern: 50% of reviews are from 2020-2021; only 1 review from past 12 months (June 2024). Recent performance data is limited.
• All reviews are 5-star ratings with uniformly positive language; while not necessarily fake, the absence of any critical feedback or mixed experiences is atypical and should be noted
• Pricing dimension based on only 2 mentions; insufficient data to confidently assess pricing practices

This WW Score of 89.2 should be treated with moderate caution due to the small sample size (4 reviews) and significant recency gap; while the available data is consistently positive and specific, a larger and more recent review pool would substantially increase confidence in this assessment.

All five reviews speak positively to professionalism, with multiple reviewers explicitly noting punctuality, clear communication, friendliness, and attentiveness — driving a high-confidence professionalism score. Experience and workmanship quality are also consistently praised across all reviews, with specific mentions of technical knowledge, problem-solving, and attention to detail. Project completion is well-supported, with reviewers noting jobs were finished thoroughly, appliances were confirmed working before departure, and follow-through was evident. Pricing is mentioned in only two reviews but both are strongly positive, citing charges well below competitors and excellent value — though the limited sample keeps confidence low for that dimension. Overall, the reviews paint a consistently positive picture, though the small total review count limits the reliability of the aggregate score.

• Only 5 reviews total — WW Score should be treated as preliminary and not fully representative of long-term performance.
• All reviews are 5-star (or near 5-star), which warrants mild caution; however, reviews contain specific details, named individuals, and varied phrasing, reducing the likelihood of fake reviews.
• Most reviews are from 2023–2024, which is within the past 12–24 months — recency is acceptable but the sample size remains very small.
• No negative or mixed feedback present — this may reflect genuine quality or may indicate that critical reviews are absent from this dataset.

This WW Score is based on only 5 reviews, all positive and moderately detailed, which limits statistical reliability — treat this score as a promising early signal rather than a fully validated assessment.

Professionalism is the strongest signal across these reviews, with multiple customers explicitly praising punctuality, politeness, communication, and responsiveness — including technicians who followed up after installation and kept customers informed throughout multi-day jobs. Project completion scores well too, with most reviewers confirming work was finished satisfactorily, though one review (July 2024) noted the repair did not fully resolve the underlying problem, which tempers the score slightly. Experience is well-supported, with reviewers citing knowledgeable technicians capable of complex work including tankless water heater installation, gas line enlargement, full bathroom remodels, and sewer line replacement. Pricing data is thin — only two reviews touch on cost, one calling it 'affordable' with no further detail — so that dimension carries low confidence and limited influence on the final score.

• One review (2016-02-19) is over 8 years old and was given reduced weight in scoring relative to the 2023-2024 reviews.
• The July 2024 review explicitly states the repair did not fully fix the problem, which is a meaningful project completion concern and was factored into that dimension's score.
• Total review count is low (8 reviews). While the WW Score is calculable, it should be treated with caution — a larger review base would significantly improve reliability.
• No strong fake review patterns detected. Reviews vary in length, detail, specificity, and named technicians (Toney, Andrew, Joaquin, Mike, Dan), which supports authenticity.

This WW Score is based on a small but credible review set with good dimensional coverage; it is moderately reliable but should be revisited as more reviews accumulate, particularly for pricing data which remains very thin.

Acme Plumbing has a strong base of positive reviews praising responsiveness, professionalism, and technical competence across a large number of technicians including Anthony, Norval, Alejandro, Clay, and others. However, a meaningful minority of negative reviews — roughly 20-25 across the full dataset — raise serious concerns across all four dimensions: the owner (Ed) is repeatedly cited for rude behavior, threatening customers with lawsuits over billing disputes, and hanging up on clients; pricing transparency is a recurring problem with multiple reviewers describing hidden fees, undisclosed per-plumber hourly charges, and feeling overcharged; and project completion failures include abandoned jobs, missed callbacks, work left unfinished, and at least one instance of work done without required permits. The technician-level work is generally rated well, but owner/management conduct meaningfully drags down professionalism and pricing scores. Recency of reviews (2024-2025) shows continued strong positive feedback but also continued negative incidents, suggesting these issues are not fully resolved.

• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The 'Super Bowl Sunday' review featuring Norval Cunningham appears verbatim twice — once dated 2024-02-12 and once dated 2024-06-09. This is a likely duplicate submission and was counted only once for scoring purposes.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The billing dispute review describing charges of $678 vs. agreed $372 and threats of lawsuit appears nearly verbatim twice — once dated 2021-06-10 and once dated 2020-09-16. Counted only once for scoring.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK — MODERATE: A cluster of reviews dated exactly 2024-06-09 (approximately 20+ reviews) share the same date with no timestamps, many are very short and generic ('Professional service', 'Great friendly and fast service', 'Outstanding work'), and several are blank 5-star submissions. This pattern is consistent with a bulk review import or solicitation campaign. Confidence in this cluster is reduced.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Approximately 15-18 reviews contain no text and only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data.
• OWNER CONDUCT — RECURRING NEGATIVE PATTERN: Multiple independent reviews across different years (2011, 2014, 2017, 2020, 2021, 2024, 2025) describe the owner (Ed) as rude, threatening legal action over billing disputes, hanging up on customers, and failing to honor service commitments. This is a persistent and credible pattern.
• PRICING TRANSPARENCY — RECURRING NEGATIVE PATTERN: At least 5 independent reviews describe undisclosed fees, surprise charges, or feeling significantly overcharged. One reviewer documented a $303 estimate that became $344.74 with an undisclosed service fee added. Another described being charged $678 when $372 was agreed. This materially reduces the pricing score.
• PROJECT COMPLETION — NEGATIVE INCIDENTS: At least 3 reviews describe work left unfinished, missed follow-up appointments with no notice, or jobs requiring a second plumber to correct Acme's work. One review describes work done without required permits.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews with substantive detail are from 2019-2025, which were weighted more heavily. Reviews from 2004-2013 were included but given reduced weight due to age and potential changes in company ownership or staffing over time.
• GEOGRAPHIC INCONSISTENCY: Some reviews reference Monterey/Salinas, CA locations while others reference Durham, NC. This may represent two different Acme Plumbing franchises or locations. Scores reflect the combined dataset as provided, but users should be aware the reviews may not all pertain to a single business entity.

This WW Score is based on a large review set (155 total, ~130 with usable data) spanning nearly two decades, giving it HIGH statistical confidence in direction, but the score should be interpreted cautiously due to: a cluster of same-day generic reviews suggesting possible solicitation, confirmed duplicate reviews, persistent owner-conduct complaints across many years, and possible geographic mixing of two different business locations.

Big Sky Plumbing has a large volume of positive reviews praising friendly, professional technicians and responsive scheduling, which drives solid scores across all four dimensions. However, professionalism is meaningfully dragged down by several serious negative incidents: a manager (Doug) threatening collections and hanging up on a customer, workers barging into a home unannounced, a company owner becoming belligerent on the phone, and advertised 24/7 hours that were not honored. Project completion scores are tempered by at least two significant failures — one involving a technician causing a sewer pipe break that went unacknowledged for two months, and another involving a water heater installation that left a leak and required a second visit. Pricing is generally viewed as fair to slightly high, with one notable complaint about being billed for a technician's wasted travel time due to poor preparation. Experience scores are supported by many reviews praising skilled, knowledgeable technicians, but are offset by documented cases of misdiagnosis, improper installation, and arriving without necessary equipment.

• 18 reviews contain no text — only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence.
• A cluster of reviews from 2017–2018 reference the same technician named 'William' or 'Will' across multiple garbage disposal and water heater jobs with very similar praise patterns and phrasing. While not conclusively fake, these reviews show repetitive structure and generic praise with limited specifics, warranting reduced confidence in that subset.
• Several reviews are from 2011–2018, making them 7–14 years old. These were given reduced weight relative to reviews from 2024–2025.
• At least two reviews describe the owner or manager behaving in a hostile or belligerent manner toward customers — this is a significant professionalism red flag that is explicitly documented and not an isolated incident.
• One review describes a serious workmanship failure (forced elbow off piping causing a two-month sewer leak) that the company refused to acknowledge — this is a material project completion and experience concern.
• One review describes a water heater installation where the wrong unit was brought, a leak was left behind, and insulation was not cleaned up — requiring a second visit and still resulting in damage.

This WW Score is based on a large review set with HIGH confidence across all dimensions, but should be interpreted cautiously given documented patterns of management-level customer service failures, at least two serious workmanship incidents, a cluster of potentially templated positive reviews from 2017–2018, and a significant portion of reviews that are more than three years old.