Find Nearby Plumbers In Fresno, California

Jared's Plumbing demonstrates solid overall performance with particular strength in project completion (82.0) and experience (80.0), supported by numerous recent reviews praising fast response times, thorough work, and technical competence. Professionalism scores 78.0, reflecting consistent politeness and punctuality in most recent reviews, though several older reviews (2012-2016) document serious attitude and communication failures. Pricing is the weakest dimension at 68.0, with recurring complaints about high costs, lack of transparency, and price discrepancies between phone quotes and on-site work. The company shows marked improvement in recent years (2024-2025) with predominantly 5-star reviews, but historical pattern of pricing disputes and occasional rudeness warrants caution.

• RECENCY BIAS DETECTED: 38 of 56 reviews (68%) are from 2024-2025, with only 18 reviews from 2012-2023. Recent reviews are overwhelmingly positive (5-star), while older reviews contain multiple 1-star ratings citing rudeness, poor follow-up, and pricing issues. This suggests either genuine service improvement or potential review platform bias.
• PRICING PATTERN: 16 mentions of pricing across reviews reveal consistent complaints about high costs (reviews from 2012, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2019, 2024) and price discrepancies between phone quotes and actual charges. One 2024 review explicitly states technician quoted $89 but demanded $200 on-site. However, recent reviews (2024-2025) frequently praise 'fair' and 'reasonable' pricing, creating conflicting signals.
• ATTITUDE/PROFESSIONALISM INCIDENTS: Multiple reviews document rude behavior and poor communication (1-star reviews from 2012, 2013, 2015, 2021, 2023, 2025). A February 2025 review describes technician walking out mid-job and refusing to listen. A December 2023 review reports dismissive phone behavior. These incidents are scattered across timeline, not isolated to old reviews.
• EMPTY REVIEWS: 3 reviews contain only 5-star ratings with no text (dates: 2025-05-10, 2024-06-09 x2). While not necessarily fake, these provide no substantive data.
• FOLLOW-UP FAILURES: 2013 review documents year-long failure to refund promised money despite 4 follow-up calls. 2023 review mentions poor follow-up on 'shotty work.' These suggest systemic accountability issues, though not mentioned in recent reviews.
• POSITIVE REVIEW CONSISTENCY: Recent reviews (2024-2025) show repetitive positive phrasing ('amazing,' 'highly recommend,' 'great service,' 'professional') with specific details (names like Alex, Jay; same-day service; cleanup). This consistency is appropriate for a service business but warrants noting.

This WW Score of 76.8 should be treated with MODERATE-TO-HIGH confidence for current service quality (2024-2025 reviews are abundant and detailed), but CAUTION is warranted regarding pricing transparency and occasional professionalism lapses—the company's historical pattern of attitude issues and pricing disputes persists into 2025, suggesting these are not fully resolved despite recent improvements. Customers should obtain detailed written quotes and clarify pricing before committing.

All Clean Sewer & Plumbing receives strong praise across most dimensions, with many reviewers highlighting prompt responsiveness, fair pricing, and quality workmanship on a wide variety of jobs. Professionalism scores are bolstered by repeated mentions of shoe covers, friendly demeanor, and quick arrival times, but are meaningfully dragged down by two separate no-show incidents where the contractor failed to appear for scheduled appointments and did not follow up or apologize. Project completion is similarly mixed: the majority of jobs described were finished quickly and thoroughly, including one impressive case where a problem two other plumbers and the city deemed unfixable was resolved, but the no-show reviews represent a complete failure of project initiation and follow-through. Pricing is consistently described as fair, reasonable, and competitive against other quotes, with no hidden fees reported. Experience scores are high based on specific technical mentions such as root intrusion diagnosis, leak detection equipment, and solving complex problems others could not, though the sample of experience-specific mentions is smaller than professionalism or completion mentions.

• Two serious no-show incidents recorded (June 2024 and December 2021): in both cases the contractor failed to appear for a confirmed appointment, did not respond to follow-up messages, and in one case the voicemail was full — suggesting a pattern of communication breakdown that may be systemic.
• The majority of reviews (approximately 22 of 28) are older than 12 months as of mid-2025, with most clustered in 2018–2019. Only one review is from the past 12 months (September 2024). Recency weighting significantly limits confidence in current service quality.
• Several reviews use very similar language and structure (e.g., multiple reviews praising shoe covers, near-identical phrasing around responsiveness and speed). While this may reflect genuine recurring behavior, it warrants mild scrutiny for possible coached or templated reviews.
• The most recent review (September 2024) references 'Daniel' rather than 'Dan' or 'Danny,' and the June 2024 no-show review also appears to reference a different appointment context. It is possible the business has changed personnel or ownership, which could explain the divergence in recent service quality.
• One review (2022) references 'Greg' as the technician, suggesting multiple staff members operate under this business name. Scores may reflect inconsistent service quality across different individuals rather than a single contractor.

This WW Score carries moderate-to-high reliability for historical performance (2018–2022) but limited reliability for current service quality, given that the two most recent reviews include one no-show complaint and only one positive data point, and the bulk of positive reviews are more than two years old.

PDS Plumbing and Air demonstrates consistently strong professionalism across the vast majority of reviews, with technicians frequently praised for punctuality, courtesy, shoe covers, pre-arrival texts with photos, and clear communication — these positives are well-documented across well over 100 reviews. However, pricing is a significant and recurring concern: multiple detailed negative reviews cite non-itemized invoices, quotes that ballooned dramatically after work began, labor charges perceived as grossly excessive (e.g., $900 labor for a 2-hour furnace visit, $1,500 for 1 foot of PVC pipe, $350 for 10 minutes of hose bib work), and at least one bait-and-switch complaint — dragging the pricing score down substantially despite many satisfied customers citing reasonable or competitive rates. Project completion is generally solid, with same-day and emergency service being a standout strength, but a meaningful cluster of negative reviews describes incomplete work, abandoned jobs, unresolved problems after payment, and at least one case where a repair failed the next day and another where the problem was never fixed despite multiple visits. Experience scores moderately well, with many reviews praising knowledgeable technicians, but offset by several reviews explicitly citing technicians who could not diagnose or solve problems that a subsequent plumber resolved easily. The WW Score of 74.2 reflects a company with genuine strengths in responsiveness and professionalism but meaningful and documented weaknesses in pricing transparency and consistent technical execution.

• PRICING TRANSPARENCY CONCERN: Multiple independent reviews (not isolated incidents) describe non-itemized invoices, quotes that escalated significantly after work began, and charges perceived as far exceeding market rates. This is a systemic pattern, not an outlier.
• PROJECT ABANDONMENT PATTERN: At least 3 reviews describe technicians leaving jobs incomplete or unresolved, including one where a technician explicitly said he spent too much time and left with the drain still clogged and a hole in the wall.
• FAILED REPAIRS: At least 2 reviews describe paying for a repair that did not fix the problem, with one customer also reporting the company became unresponsive afterward and the BBB could not get a response either.
• TECHNICIAN SKILL INCONSISTENCY: Several reviews note that a subsequent plumber easily solved a problem PDS could not, suggesting uneven technical competency across the team.
• THEFT ALLEGATION: One review (2021-12-08) alleges a technician stole a $200 pair of shoes and that the owner was dismissive when contacted. This is a serious integrity flag that cannot be verified but is noted.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews are from 2022–2024, giving this score good recency relevance. A smaller number of reviews date to 2018–2021 and were weighted slightly less.
• POSSIBLE GENERIC REVIEWS: A small number of very short 5-star reviews (e.g., 'Great quick work. Professional staff and respectful.', 'I can always count on them every time I call.') lack specifics and may be lower-signal, though they are not numerous enough to constitute a fake review flag on their own.
• ONE REVIEW FLAGGED AS LIKELY EMPLOYEE/FAMILY: The review dated 2022-05-17 explicitly identifies the reviewer as the wife/mother-in-law of employees ('My Husband Armando Garcia, My son JR Juan Rangel and My son in law Franky Garcia'). This review was excluded from scoring as it is not a genuine customer review.

This WW Score is based on a large and diverse review set (155 reviews) spanning 2018–2024 with strong recency, giving it HIGH overall confidence; however, the score should be interpreted with caution given documented and recurring concerns about pricing transparency and inconsistent project completion that are not isolated to one or two reviewers.

Noble Plumbing earns strong marks for professionalism and responsiveness across a large volume of reviews, with many customers praising courteous, punctual technicians and attentive office staff. Project completion scores well overall, with the majority of jobs described as finished efficiently and thoroughly, though a meaningful minority of negative reviews cite missed appointments, no-shows, failed repairs requiring return visits, and at least one job that failed city inspection multiple times. Pricing is the weakest dimension: while many reviewers praise fair or competitive rates, several credible negative reviews describe charges perceived as excessive, billing for travel time to buy parts, and a $500 charge for a 30-minute repair, pulling the score down significantly. Experience scores moderately well, with many reviewers noting knowledgeable and skilled technicians, but offset by documented cases of incorrect parts installed, failed repairs, and work that did not pass inspection. The score reflects a contractor with genuine strengths but a consistent pattern of service failures that cannot be ignored.

• 18 reviews contain no text whatsoever — only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence.
• Several reviews from 2013–2016 are labeled 'unknown' with no review text and appear to be placeholder or imported records with no substantive content. These were excluded.
• One review (2014-04-23) appears to describe a medical clinic or urgent care facility, not a plumbing company ('campus,' 'kids,' 'injury,' 'schedule depending on the injury'). This review is almost certainly misattributed or fraudulent and was excluded from scoring.
• A cluster of reviews from 2025-05-10 (approximately 8 reviews posted on the same date, several with no text) raises a mild concern about review manipulation or bulk solicitation, though the dated reviews with text on that day appear genuine.
• Multiple negative reviews describe missed appointments and no-shows (2019-10-03, 2020-05-06, 2024-12-11), suggesting a recurring operational issue with scheduling reliability.
• One detailed negative review (2020-12-22) describes a failed repair, an incorrect part installed, a $750 upsell attempt, and a $300 charge for unresolved work — this is a significant quality and ethics flag.
• One review (2017-11-03) describes a water line replacement that failed city inspection three times due to improper fittings, inconsistent technician assignments, a missed callback appointment, and an unresolved leak — a serious project completion failure.
• One review (2024-09-29, 2-star) raises a specific pricing concern: the customer was charged $250/hr labor rate and billed for over an hour of time during which the technician drove to Home Depot to buy parts. The promised itemized receipt was also never delivered.
• Recency note: The majority of reviews with substantive text span 2018–2025, with the most recent cluster in 2025. Reviews from 2013–2016 are sparse and mostly text-free. Scoring is appropriately weighted toward the more recent and detailed reviews.
• No strong evidence of fully fabricated bot reviews, but the volume of brief, generic 5-star reviews with no specifics (e.g., 'Amazing service!!!', 'excellent job', 'Fast and prompt service') moderately inflates the apparent positivity of the review set.

This WW Score is based on a large review set (125 total, ~107 with usable data) spanning multiple years, giving it HIGH overall confidence, but consumers should weigh the recurring negative patterns around missed appointments, pricing transparency, and occasional failed workmanship before making a hiring decision.

National Plumbing receives strong praise across professionalism, responsiveness, and technical skill from a large majority of reviewers, with many customers specifically naming technicians like Henry, Jaime, and Reynaldo for courteous, on-time, and competent service. However, a meaningful cluster of 1-star reviews — several involving home warranty assignments — describe serious concerns including double-billing, incomplete work, dishonest reporting to warranty companies, overcharging for parts not installed, and failure to follow up. These negative reviews are specific, credible, and span multiple years including recent 2025 dates, which meaningfully suppresses scores across all dimensions. Pricing confidence is dragged down by multiple accounts of inflated modification charges and suspected upselling through home warranty channels. Project completion is the most impacted dimension, with several reviewers explicitly stating work was left unfinished, incorrect, or abandoned without callback.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: At least 3 pairs of near-identical or word-for-word duplicate reviews were found (e.g., two identical 'Henry and his crew did a wonderful job' reviews dated 2023-11-04 and 2024-06-09; two identical reviews about water heater and shower cartridges dated 2023-01-26; two identical 'They are just great people, very honorable' reviews dated 2022-10-10). These duplicates inflate positive review counts and reduce reliability.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — MODERATE: Several 5-star reviews contain generic praise with no specific details ('Great people and amazing service highly recommend', 'These guys are awesome. Quick to respond professional and friendly.'). Combined with duplicate entries, there is a moderate risk that some positive reviews are artificially inflated.
• HOME WARRANTY FRAUD PATTERN: Multiple independent 1-star reviewers allege that National Plumbing deliberately misreported findings to home warranty companies (AHS) to deny coverage, then solicited the same customers directly for out-of-pocket repairs. This pattern appears in at least 3 separate reviews and is a serious ethical and legal concern.
• INCOMPLETE WORK PATTERN: At least 3 reviews explicitly describe work that was paid for but not completed or not completed correctly — including straps and valves charged but not installed, a toilet leak that persisted after repair, and a two-week unresolved toilet repair.
• RECENCY NOTE: Negative reviews are concentrated in recent dates (2024–2025), while many positive reviews are from 2021–2023. This suggests a possible decline in service quality over time. Recent performance should be weighted more cautiously.
• ONE REVIEW WITH NO TEXT (Rating 1.0, Date 2025-05-10) was excluded from dimension scoring but counted in total reviews analyzed.
• THREE REVIEWS WITH NO TEXT (Ratings 5.0) were excluded from dimension scoring but counted in total reviews analyzed.

This WW Score is based on a large review set and carries HIGH statistical confidence in volume, but reliability is meaningfully reduced by confirmed duplicate reviews, a credible pattern of home warranty fraud allegations from multiple independent sources, and a visible trend of worsening negative reviews in 2024–2025; prospective customers should treat this score as a moderate signal and independently verify recent performance before hiring.

Jack and 911 Plumbing & Electric receive consistently strong marks for professionalism, responsiveness, and friendliness across the majority of reviews, with many customers praising prompt arrival, clear communication, and courteous service. However, pricing is a notable weak point — two reviews explicitly call out the service as expensive or overpriced, and one reviewer flagged a $120 estimate fee, which meaningfully drags the pricing dimension down. Project completion is the most consequential concern: one detailed 1-star review describes wrong circuits being moved, poor workmanship inside the sub-panel (loose wire strands, unlabeled breakers), and a refusal to return and fix the mistake without an additional $200 charge — a serious flag for follow-through and accountability. Experience scores moderately well overall given the volume of positive technical feedback, but the sub-panel review introduces credible evidence of workmanship deficiencies that cannot be ignored. The WW Score reflects a contractor with genuine strengths in responsiveness and customer rapport, tempered by real concerns around pricing transparency and job completion integrity.

• One detailed 1-star review (2023-09-30) describes a serious project completion failure: wrong circuit moved, poor wire termination quality, unlabeled breakers, and refusal to correct the mistake without additional payment. This is a significant negative signal for both project completion and experience dimensions.
• Two reviews explicitly flag pricing as high or excessive (2023-10-18 and 2022-02-11), and one review (2023-03-17) objected to a $120 estimate fee. Pricing confidence is HIGH but the score is pulled down accordingly.
• Several reviews are generic in praise (e.g., 'Jack is the best of the best', 'excellent, beautiful, and fast work') with little specific detail. While not conclusive evidence of fake reviews, these contribute limited scoring value and were weighted conservatively.
• The majority of reviews are dated between 2021 and 2023, with only two reviews from the past 12 months (2024-04-03 and 2024-09-20). Recent data is sparse, reducing confidence in current performance trends.
• One reviewer (2021-11-17) explicitly stated they did not hire the contractor and could not comment on work quality. This review was excluded from experience and project completion scoring.

This WW Score is based on 21 reviews spanning approximately three years and carries HIGH overall confidence due to mention volume, but should be interpreted with caution given the presence of one credible and detailed negative review describing workmanship and accountability failures, sparse recent data, and consistent pricing complaints from multiple independent reviewers.