Find Nearby Plumbers In Fremont, California

Clearwater Plumbing demonstrates strong technical expertise and professionalism, with consistently positive feedback on punctuality, courtesy, and skilled workmanship across numerous reviews. However, the company is significantly hampered by serious pricing concerns and notable project completion failures. Multiple reviews document instances of incomplete work, abandoned projects (particularly involving David Lopez), failure to honor callbacks, and pricing disputes where customers felt overcharged or misled. While the majority of recent reviews (2023-2025) are highly positive, older reviews reveal systemic issues with accountability and follow-through that persist despite the company's established reputation since 1951.

• CRITICAL: Multiple reviews (at least 6) document David Lopez taking full payment upfront and abandoning projects entirely, never completing work or refunding customers. This represents a serious fraud/embezzlement pattern within the company.
• PRICING CONCERNS: At least 8 reviews explicitly mention overcharging, excessive labor fees for simple jobs, or pricing that was 2-3x higher than competitors for identical work. Several customers report being charged $120-$350 for work that took 10-45 minutes.
• PROJECT COMPLETION FAILURES: Multiple reviews document incomplete work, failed callbacks, no-shows for scheduled appointments, and refusal to return to fix defective work (particularly 2016-2022 timeframe).
• CUSTOMER SERVICE ISSUES: Several reviews describe rude phone staff, owner rudeness, hanging up on customers, and dismissive attitudes toward complaints. One review documents the owner swearing at a customer.
• INCONSISTENT QUALITY: Wide variance in outcomes—some technicians (Larry, Tyler, Scott, Senad, Erin) receive exceptional praise; others (David Lopez, unnamed referrals) deliver poor results or fraud.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK - MODERATE: Multiple empty reviews with 5-star ratings (at least 6 instances) and several generic praise reviews with minimal detail suggest possible review padding, though the majority of detailed reviews appear authentic.
• RECENCY BIAS: Most negative reviews cluster in 2014-2022 period. Recent reviews (2023-2025) are predominantly 5-star with specific positive details, suggesting either genuine improvement or increased review curation.

This WW Score of 78.2 should be treated with caution: while recent performance appears strong and technical expertise is well-documented, the company has a documented history of serious issues including fraud, incomplete work, and pricing disputes that persist across multiple years and customer accounts. The score reflects current trajectory but does not fully capture the severity of past failures or the risk of recurrence.

Jaime demonstrates strong technical skills and project completion ability, with most customers praising work quality and timely delivery. However, professionalism and pricing consistency are significant concerns. Multiple recent reviews (2024) document serious pricing disputes where quoted prices were substantially increased on-site without justification, and instances of unprofessional behavior including anger and refusal to complete work. While many older reviews are highly positive, the pattern of pricing conflicts and communication breakdowns in recent months suggests deteriorating service standards. The contractor excels at technical execution but struggles with transparent pricing practices and maintaining composure during negotiations.

• CRITICAL: Multiple pricing disputes in recent reviews (July-August 2024) show pattern of quoting one price and charging significantly more on-site. Reviews from 2024-07-19, 2024-07-12, and 2024-07-07 all document this behavior.
• PROFESSIONALISM CONCERN: Several reviews document unprofessional responses to customer objections, including getting angry, refusing future work, and sending demeaning text messages (2024-01-07, 2024-07-07).
• COMMUNICATION ISSUES: Multiple reviews note poor communication, language barriers, and difficulty reaching contractor (2024-04-29, 2023-06-07, 2023-06-28).
• QUALITY INCONSISTENCY: One review documents contractor breaking water supply and refusing to fix damage (2023-06-28). Another notes poor work quality and sloppy job completion (2023-12-08).
• RECENCY PATTERN: Negative reviews cluster heavily in 2024 (most recent 6 months), suggesting recent deterioration in service quality and business practices. Positive reviews are more prevalent in 2022-2023.
• PAYMENT PRACTICES: Review mentions contractor discourages credit card/Zelle payments and prefers cash to avoid taxes (2024-04-29), raising compliance concerns.

This score should be treated with CAUTION despite HIGH confidence in data volume. While the numerical score of 78.2 reflects mixed performance across dimensions, the recent clustering of serious pricing disputes and unprofessional conduct in 2024 suggests the contractor's actual current reliability is likely LOWER than this score indicates. The score is heavily weighted by older positive reviews; customers considering this contractor should prioritize recent reviews and obtain detailed written contracts with fixed pricing before engaging services.

Wellman Plumbing demonstrates strong technical expertise and knowledge, particularly with water heater diagnostics and warranty work, earning an 85 on experience. However, professionalism is tempered by significant scheduling and communication failures documented in multiple reviews, resulting in a 76 score. Pricing is generally fair and transparent, though one review alleges aggressive upselling of unnecessary replacements, yielding a 72. Project completion suffers from at least one documented case of abandonment and rescheduling failures, though most jobs are completed satisfactorily when undertaken. The WW Score of 78.2 reflects a competent but inconsistently reliable service provider.

• CRITICAL: Two reviews (2022-02-21 and 2022-02-03) are nearly identical in wording and structure, suggesting possible duplicate submission or fabrication. Both describe identical water heater phone diagnosis scenario with identical phrasing ('went one step further', 'clogged air filter', 'did not accept my offer'). Confidence in pricing dimension reduced due to this pattern.
• SERIOUS PROFESSIONALISM ISSUE: 2017-04-14 review documents clear failure to honor scheduled appointment, lack of courtesy communication, and apparent abandonment of warranty work. Reviewer explicitly states Trevor recommended calling warranty for different plumber. This is a major red flag for reliability.
• PRICING CONCERN: 2024-03-28 review alleges aggressive upselling—$5,000 replacement quote for $1,349 unit plus $3,650 labor, with recommendation to use inferior Shark bites instead of proper sweated pipes. Reviewer obtained second opinion for $150 with warranty coverage. This suggests potential dishonesty or lack of technical competence in complex diagnostics.
• KNOWLEDGE GAP: 2012-12-12 review indicates failure to educate customer about anode rod maintenance on AO Smith water heaters, a standard professional practice. Reviewer questions whether this was negligence or intentional to generate future service calls.
• RECENCY BIAS: Most positive reviews are from 2015-2022 (older than 1 year). Recent reviews (2024, 2023) show mixed quality with one serious complaint. Trend suggests possible service degradation or inconsistency over time.

This score should be treated with MODERATE-to-HIGH caution: while technical expertise is well-documented across 12 mentions, professionalism and project completion are undermined by documented scheduling failures, communication lapses, and at least one allegation of aggressive upselling. The duplicate review pattern further reduces confidence in pricing claims. Wellman appears competent for straightforward warranty work but unreliable for complex projects or time-sensitive commitments.

Absolute Pro Plumbing has a strong base of positive reviews praising responsiveness, friendliness, and technical competence across a wide range of plumbing jobs. However, the score is meaningfully pulled down by a recurring pattern of serious failures: multiple 1-star reviews cite no-shows, ignored calls and texts, incomplete work, permit mismanagement, and misdiagnosis — including one case where a customer was quoted $8,000–$10,000 for a repair that another plumber resolved for $575. Pricing is generally viewed as fair to competitive, but at least one reviewer noted costs felt high and one was charged $650 for unsuccessful and inaccurate work. Project completion is the most penalized dimension, as several reviews describe jobs that were left unfinished, improperly installed, or required the customer to intervene to get basic follow-through. The gap between the best and worst experiences is wide, suggesting inconsistency across technicians and over time.

• Two reviews contain no usable text content — one is a single period ('.') and one is completely blank with only a 5-star rating. These were excluded from scoring.
• One review ('Great service, friendly staff and good food') appears to be a misdirected review for a food establishment, not a plumbing service. It was excluded from scoring.
• Several older reviews (2014–2017) reference 'Jason' as the owner, while a 2021 negative review explicitly states the company was sold to Ameer. This ownership transition may explain some inconsistency in service quality and should be noted when interpreting historical scores.
• A significant cluster of highly positive reviews use similarly enthusiastic but generic language ('highly recommend,' 'will definitely use again,' 'amazing service'). While not conclusive evidence of fake reviews, the volume of near-identical sentiment warrants mild caution.
• At least 6 reviews explicitly describe serious failures: a no-show with no follow-up (2024-01-17), ignored calls over a permit issue spanning 6 months (2023-05-31), a misdiagnosis leading to a $650 charge for unsuccessful work and a false $8,000–$10,000 repair quote (2022-11-13), a faulty garbage disposal installation with two no-shows and no refund (2022-03-05), a plumber who left before the scheduled window and never returned (2019-01-28), and a contractor who went silent after receiving the job (2019-04-03). These are not isolated incidents and represent a systemic reliability risk.
• Recency note: The most recent negative reviews are from 2024 and 2023, meaning reliability concerns are not historical artifacts — they appear to be ongoing.

This WW Score is based on a large review set (85 reviews) with HIGH confidence across all four dimensions, but the score should be interpreted cautiously given documented patterns of serious service failures, an ownership transition mid-history, and a wide variance in customer outcomes that suggests the contractor's performance is inconsistent rather than uniformly strong.

AAA Affordable Plumbing has a strong base of loyal, repeat customers who consistently praise responsiveness, friendliness, and fair pricing across many years of reviews. However, several negative reviews raise meaningful concerns: one customer reported being charged beyond the agreed quote, another described a job done improperly with no follow-through, and a third documented repeated failed attempts to recover warranty-covered money with no callbacks — a direct project completion failure. Professionalism scores are tempered by reports of rude phone behavior, reckless driving, and refusal to provide documentation to HOA residents. Pricing scores are generally positive but are pulled down by the one confirmed instance of a quote being exceeded without prior notice. The experience dimension reflects mostly positive workmanship feedback but is moderated by at least two reviews citing incomplete or incorrect work.

• RECENCY WARNING: Several negative reviews date from 2012–2014 and may reflect older operational practices; however, negative reviews also appear in 2020 and 2021, suggesting some issues persist.
• PROJECT COMPLETION CONCERN: One reviewer (2013) explicitly describes a warranty dispute involving $577 with no callback resolution and threatened legal action — a serious follow-through failure.
• WORKMANSHIP CONCERN: One reviewer (2020) states the job was not done properly and they needed to hire someone else to fix it.
• PRICING CONCERN: One reviewer (2021) explicitly states they were charged more than the agreed quote after work was completed, citing unforeseen problems as justification — a transparency red flag.
• PROFESSIONALISM CONCERN: One reviewer (2012) describes staff hanging up the phone when maintenance or warranty topics were raised, across multiple contact numbers.
• FAKE REVIEW AWARENESS: The first review references over 1,200 reviews being 'all wonderful' and reads as unusually promotional in tone for a customer review. While not conclusively fake, it contains advocacy language atypical of organic reviews and should be treated with caution.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent reviews (2023–2024) are positive, but the sample size for recent reviews is small (3 reviews in the past 2 years), limiting confidence in current performance trends.

This WW Score is based on 28 reviews spanning over a decade and carries HIGH statistical confidence in volume, but the wide date range and presence of multiple substantiated negative experiences across pricing, project completion, and professionalism mean the score should be treated as a moderate-confidence indicator of current quality.

Roto-Rooter scores very strongly on professionalism and technician experience, with hundreds of reviews praising individual technicians by name for being courteous, knowledgeable, communicative, and thorough. Project completion is generally solid, with most jobs resolved same-day or within a short timeframe, though a meaningful minority of reviews describe incomplete work, no-shows, broken promises on follow-up visits, and warranty disputes. The most significant drag on the overall WW Score is pricing, which is the single most-complained-about dimension across the entire review set — dozens of reviewers explicitly describe charges as 'outrageous,' 'ridiculous,' 'a scam,' or triple the price of competitors, with specific dollar amounts cited ranging from $315 for 4 minutes of work to $8,700 for a water heater installation. Several reviews also describe deceptive pricing practices, including quotes that changed after work began, failure to disclose service fees upfront, and pressure tactics targeting vulnerable customers including seniors and non-English speakers.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: A significant number of reviews appear to be exact or near-exact duplicates posted on different dates (e.g., multiple identical reviews for 'Gio,' 'Gabriel,' 'Daniel,' 'Gus,' 'Giovanni,' and others). This inflates the apparent review count and may indicate a review solicitation system that caused customers to submit the same review twice, or potential manipulation. Confidence in raw review count is reduced.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Approximately 150-200 reviews contain no text and only a star rating (almost all 5-star). These provide no usable data for any dimension and were excluded from scoring but inflate the total count.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS ARE SEVERE AND SPECIFIC: Negative pricing reviews are not vague — they cite specific dollar amounts, compare to competitor prices, and describe practices such as quoting after work begins, refusing to honor coupons, and charging elderly or non-English-speaking customers without disclosure. This is a systemic pattern, not isolated incidents.
• SCHEDULING AND NO-SHOW COMPLAINTS: Multiple reviews describe technicians failing to arrive within promised windows, no-call-no-shows, and dispatch communication failures. This is a recurring pattern affecting the project completion score.
• WARRANTY DISPUTES: Several reviews describe Roto-Rooter refusing to honor stated warranties, including a 6-month guarantee and a 30-day guarantee, with customers being charged again for the same recurring issue.
• WORK QUALITY FAILURES: A small but notable number of reviews describe active harm caused by technicians — flooding a kitchen, improperly setting a toilet, changing the wrong pipe, leaving sewage handprints, and damaging property with no accountability.
• PREDATORY PRICING PATTERN: Multiple reviews describe technicians quoting extremely high prices and then reducing them when customers push back, suggesting initial quotes are inflated as a negotiating tactic rather than honest pricing.
• RECENCY: All reviews are dated between approximately May 7, 2025 and June 9, 2025 — all within the past 12 months. Recency weighting is fully applied.

This WW Score is based on an exceptionally large review set and carries HIGH overall confidence, but the score should be interpreted with caution given confirmed duplicate reviews inflating volume, a strong and consistent pattern of severe pricing complaints that meaningfully suppresses the score, and documented instances of incomplete work and warranty non-compliance that suggest the positive technician-level experience does not always translate to a satisfactory overall customer outcome.