Find Nearby Plumbers In Fresno, California

All Pro Plumbing has a large and highly polarized review base. The majority of reviews praise individual technicians — particularly Ifran, Eddie/Lalo, Brandon, Jerry, and others — for punctuality, friendliness, clear communication, and technical skill. However, a significant and recurring minority of negative reviews describe serious failures: no-shows without notification, ghosting after payment, incomplete work, overcharging (especially of elderly and vulnerable customers), and confrontational or dishonest office staff (particularly referencing 'Michelle' and 'Ifran' in separate negative contexts). Pricing is a mixed picture — many reviewers cite fair or below-market rates, while others describe feeling gouged or misled on costs. Project completion is the most concerning dimension, with multiple credible accounts of abandoned jobs, failed callbacks, and warranty promises that were never honored. The experience dimension scores highest, as technical competence is frequently praised when work is actually completed, but is undermined by instances of misdiagnosis and substandard workmanship.

• SUSPECTED FAKE OR LOW-QUALITY REVIEWS: A cluster of reviews dated 2025-05-09, 2025-05-18, and 2025-05-25 use nearly identical templated language ('arrived on time,' 'fixed the issue quickly,' 'very polite,' 'highly recommend') with no specific technician names, job details, or unique context. These appear to be generic, possibly fabricated 5-star reviews and have been discounted in scoring.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The review from 'Ifran came and did a thorough inspection...' (grey water leak, toilet) appears verbatim twice with dates 2024-09-19 and 2024-09-20. Similarly, the emergency kitchen sink leak review appears twice on 2024-09-10. These duplicates were counted once each.
• MULTIPLE CREDIBLE ACCOUNTS OF NO-SHOWS AND GHOSTING: At least 15 distinct reviews across multiple years describe confirmed appointments where technicians never arrived and the company did not call to reschedule or apologize. This is a systemic pattern, not isolated incidents.
• FINANCIAL MISCONDUCT ALLEGATIONS: Multiple reviews allege technicians kept cash payments without crediting the company, that promised refunds were never issued, that a warranty water heater check was cashed by the technician personally, and that discounts (first responder, veteran, senior) were promised but not applied. These are serious credibility and trust concerns.
• INCOMPLETE WORK AND WARRANTY FAILURES: Multiple reviews describe jobs left unfinished, work that failed inspection, and warranty promises that were explicitly not honored when customers called back. This pattern significantly depresses the project completion score.
• OFFICE STAFF COMPLAINTS: Multiple reviews specifically name 'Michelle' (described as an owner or manager) as dishonest, confrontational, or unresponsive. This suggests a systemic customer service issue at the administrative level, separate from individual technician quality.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews are from 2019 to present, with a strong concentration in 2024-2025. Older reviews (pre-2018) are sparse and have been given reduced weight. The most recent 12 months (mid-2024 to mid-2025) show continued mixed patterns — both strong positive individual technician reviews and continued no-show and communication complaints.
• ENTITY AMBIGUITY: Reviews reference multiple different owners, managers, and operating locations (Bay Area CA, Camarillo CA, McHenry IL, Fresno CA, Reno NV, Texas, Florida, Indiana, and others). It is likely that 'All Pro Plumbing' is a name used by multiple unrelated businesses. Scores reflect the aggregate of all reviews as submitted but users should be aware that this may not represent a single unified company.
• ROAD RAGE INCIDENTS: Two separate reviews (2024 and 2019) describe dangerous or aggressive driving by employees in marked company vehicles. While not directly related to plumbing quality, these reflect on company culture and employee conduct.

This WW Score of 72.1 is based on a very large review set and carries HIGH statistical confidence in its direction, but should be interpreted cautiously due to strong evidence of fake or templated reviews inflating the positive signal, serious and credible recurring complaints about no-shows, financial misconduct, and incomplete work, and likely entity ambiguity across multiple unrelated businesses operating under the same name.

Premier Plumbing draws a large volume of positive reviews praising individual technicians by name for professionalism, communication, punctuality, and technical skill, which drives reasonably strong scores in professionalism and experience. However, a meaningful minority of negative reviews — spanning the full date range of the dataset — document serious concerns including missed appointments with no communication, incorrect diagnoses charged at full price, abandoned work, and billing disputes, which significantly tempers all dimension scores. Pricing is the weakest dimension: multiple reviewers across different years describe charges they considered excessive, hidden fees, bait-and-switch quoting, and charges for work not performed, pulling the pricing score well below average. Project completion is also mixed, with several reviews describing jobs left incomplete, recurring problems not resolved, and callbacks that were never honored. The overall WW Score of 72.1 reflects a company with genuine strengths in individual technician quality but persistent systemic issues in billing transparency, communication, and follow-through.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: Three reviews dated 2016-05-03 and 2016-05-05 are nearly word-for-word identical regarding a boiler/Rinnai/Trane installation. These appear to be duplicate submissions of the same review and were counted only once for scoring purposes.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Approximately 10 reviews contain no text and only a star rating (all 5-star). These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence per scoring rules.
• MULTI-ENTITY CONCERN: The review corpus appears to aggregate reviews from multiple businesses operating under similar 'Premier Plumbing' names across different geographic markets (Texas, California, South Carolina, Iowa, etc.). This significantly reduces the reliability of the aggregate score as it may not reflect a single contractor's performance.
• RECENCY NOTE: Negative reviews are distributed across the full date range (2006–2025), indicating that communication failures, no-shows, and billing disputes are not isolated incidents but recurring patterns over many years.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK — LOW-MODERATE: A subset of 5-star reviews from 2021–2023 use generic praise with no specifics ('Great company,' 'Always good service,' 'Excellent service'). These add minimal evidentiary weight and were not used to inflate dimension scores.
• ABANDONED WORK: At least two reviews explicitly describe technicians removing fixtures or cutting into walls and then not returning to complete the job, which is a serious project completion red flag.
• BILLING INTEGRITY CONCERNS: Multiple independent reviewers across different years describe being charged for work not performed, incorrect diagnoses billed as repairs, and prices significantly higher than competing quotes for identical work.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large review volume, but its reliability as a reflection of any single contractor is MODERATE at best, given strong evidence that reviews span multiple unrelated businesses operating under the 'Premier Plumbing' name across different states, and that recurring negative patterns in billing, communication, and project completion are documented consistently across many years.

Art Douglas Plumbing has a large and deeply mixed review record spanning nearly two decades. Recent reviews from 2024–2025 are overwhelmingly positive, praising named technicians like Dustin, Erik, Dazhon, and Jack for punctuality, professionalism, and effective repairs, which lifts the professionalism and experience scores considerably. However, a substantial body of negative reviews — many highly detailed and credible — documents serious concerns including overcharging vulnerable elderly customers, incomplete or failed repairs requiring follow-up by other companies, aggressive and abusive behavior by management (including the owner 'Doug'), and at least one instance of a potentially dangerous carbon monoxide repair being left incomplete. Pricing is the weakest dimension, with numerous reviewers across multiple years citing excessive charges, surprise fees, and quotes dramatically higher than competitors. Project completion is also dragged down by multiple documented cases of work that failed shortly after completion, refused callbacks, and jobs abandoned or inadequately performed.

• RECENCY BIAS RISK: The most recent 30–35 reviews (2024–2025) are almost uniformly 5-star with specific technician names and positive language, while older reviews (2012–2021) contain a much higher proportion of serious complaints. The score reflects the full dataset but recent reviews carry more weight per scoring rules.
• PATTERN OF PREDATORY PRICING TOWARD ELDERLY: Multiple independent, detailed reviews (2015, 2016, 2021, 2023) allege that the company systematically overcharged elderly or vulnerable customers, recommended unnecessary work, and failed to apply advertised senior discounts. This is a serious and recurring pattern, not isolated incidents.
• MANAGEMENT CONDUCT: Multiple reviews describe the owner or manager 'Doug' using profane and abusive language toward customers, hanging up on complainants, and refusing to honor callbacks or stand behind completed work. This is corroborated across multiple independent reviews spanning several years.
• FAILED CALLBACKS AND INCOMPLETE WORK: Several reviews document work that failed within days or weeks of completion, with the company refusing to return without additional charges. This materially lowers the project completion score.
• POTENTIAL SAFETY INCIDENT: One review (2017) describes a technician failing to properly fix a carbon monoxide ventilation issue, with PG&E confirming the repair was inadequate. This is a serious workmanship and safety concern.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — LOW LEVEL: The cluster of 2017-09-05 reviews (5 reviews posted on the same date with very short, generic text and no specifics) appears suspicious and may represent solicited or artificial reviews. These were treated as low-information data points rather than strong positive signals.
• BLANK AND UNKNOWN REVIEWS: Approximately 20 reviews contained no text ('unknown', '.', or blank). These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data, though their ratings were noted.
• PERMIT VIOLATION: One review (2016) documents that Art Douglas performed work requiring a city permit without obtaining one, resulting in uninspected work and subsequent structural issues with the installed sewer line.

This WW Score of 72.1 is based on a large and diverse review dataset spanning 2006–2025 and carries HIGH statistical confidence, but consumers should weigh the serious and recurring negative patterns — particularly around pricing transparency, management conduct, and work quality on complex jobs — against the genuinely strong recent field technician performance before making a hiring decision.

Bob's Plumbing has a strong base of loyal, long-term customers who consistently praise responsiveness, punctuality, and friendly technicians — many reviewers mention using the company for years or decades. However, professionalism is meaningfully dragged down by a recurring and credible pattern of complaints about rude office/receptionist staff, with at least 7 distinct reviews citing dismissive or unprofessional phone interactions. Pricing is the weakest dimension: multiple reviewers with specific detail allege overbilling, undisclosed credit card surcharges, quotes not honored, and charges significantly exceeding estimates — these are not vague complaints but include documented evidence such as Ring doorbell footage and itemized disputes. Project completion scores moderately well, with most jobs described as finished promptly, but there are notable failures including a misdiagnosed water heater issue requiring a second plumber, an abandoned leak, a shower pan installed without proper floor support, and at least one no-show appointment. Experience scores positively overall, with many reviewers praising skilled diagnosis and quality workmanship, though a handful of reviews describe incorrect installations or work that had to be redone.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: The review about a tub drain line leak saving $450 (Mike, Frank) appears verbatim twice with different dates (2024-06-09 and 2023-08-02). The negative water heater review ('Quoted $950, Tech installed without a pan, then told me $1150') also appears verbatim twice with different dates (2024-06-09 and 2024-02-26). The negative water heater misdiagnosis review ('Bob's came out and moved our downstairs Water Heater...') appears verbatim twice (2022-06-10 and 2021-07-06). These duplicates suggest either review platform artifacts or potential manipulation and have been counted only once each for scoring purposes.
• IRRELEVANT REVIEW DETECTED: One 5-star review (2024-06-09) references a 'tea room,' 'cucumber finger sandwiches,' and 'walking the zoo' — this is clearly a review left for the wrong business and was excluded from scoring.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Several reviews contain no text (only a star rating). These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence.
• RECEPTIONIST/OFFICE STAFF COMPLAINTS: At least 7 distinct reviews specifically cite rude, dismissive, or unprofessional behavior from the person answering the phone. This is a consistent and credible pattern that materially lowers the professionalism score.
• PRICING INTEGRITY CONCERNS: Multiple detailed, credible reviews allege overbilling by hours (supported by Ring doorbell footage in one case), quotes not honored (job went from $2,700 to $4,200 in one review; $950 quote became $1,150 in another), undisclosed credit card surcharges, and material prices charged at double retail. These are serious and specific allegations that significantly reduce the pricing score.
• RECENCY NOTE: The review corpus spans from 2014 to 2025. Reviews from 2014–2019 are given reduced weight. The majority of reviews are from 2021 onward. Negative pricing and professionalism complaints are present across multiple recent years (2022–2025), suggesting these are not isolated historical issues.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — LOW-MODERATE: A cluster of reviews dated exactly 2024-06-09 and 2023-06-10 contain very generic, short praise with no specifics ('Great work,' 'amazing love them,' 'Reliable, do good work,' 'Excellent service! You cannot beat it!'). While not conclusive, the identical dates and lack of detail for multiple reviews in these clusters is a mild flag. Confidence is not significantly reduced given the large volume of detailed, specific reviews overall.

This WW Score is based on a large and diverse review set (155 reviews spanning 2014–2025) with HIGH confidence across all four dimensions; however, the score should be interpreted cautiously due to confirmed duplicate reviews, a clearly irrelevant review, a persistent pattern of credible pricing complaints with documented specifics, and recurring office staff professionalism issues that represent a genuine and ongoing operational weakness.

Mike's Handyman Services has a large and long-running review history with a strong core of satisfied customers who consistently praise punctuality, communication, professionalism, and quality of workmanship across a wide variety of tasks. However, a meaningful and recurring pattern of 1-star reviews — spanning from 2006 through 2024 — documents a serious responsiveness problem: multiple customers across many years report unanswered voicemails, being ghosted after initial contact, and in at least one case, work being abandoned mid-job (plumbing left disassembled with no return). Pricing drew mixed signals, with several reviewers noting costs came in higher than expected or higher than competitors, and one instance of an undisclosed additional charge after work began. Project completion scores are dragged down significantly by the abandoned-work incident and multiple no-show or cancellation complaints. The experience dimension scores highest, as customers who did receive service almost universally praised the quality of the actual work performed.

• RECURRING RESPONSIVENESS FAILURE: At least 14 reviews across the full date range (2006–2024) explicitly report no callback, being ignored, or being ghosted after initial contact. This is a systemic pattern, not isolated incidents.
• ABANDONED WORK (CRITICAL): One review (2024-06-03) describes Mike disassembling plumbing under kitchen and bathroom sinks and then never returning, which represents a serious project completion failure.
• PRICING TRANSPARENCY CONCERN: One review (2022-04-21) explicitly states Mike charged an additional $40 beyond the quoted price after work began, and then failed to return to fix a messy job. Another reviewer (2021-08-23) noted pricing was approximately 30% higher than competing quotes.
• HIDDEN/SURPRISE CHARGES: Two older reviews (2017-02-15) mention charges being higher than expected with no prior discussion of costs.
• COUPON DISPUTE: One review (2011-05-31) notes Mike refused to honor a coupon listed on his Angie's List page.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent reviews (2022–2024) still show the same responsiveness issues that appear in reviews from 2006, suggesting this is a persistent and unresolved operational problem rather than a temporary issue.
• REVIEW SPAN WARNING: Reviews span from 2005 to 2024 — nearly 20 years. The business or personnel may have changed significantly over this period. Older reviews (pre-2018) may reflect a different operator (Janie/Mike Sr.) than more recent reviews. Scores should be interpreted with this context in mind.
• POSSIBLE MIXED BUSINESS IDENTITY: Several older reviews reference 'Janie' as the primary worker, while more recent reviews reference 'Mike' exclusively. This may represent a business transition or different operators operating under the same name, which could affect score reliability.
• ONE REVIEW APPEARS UNRELATED: The review mentioning 'Handslick Painting' and 'interior designer Monica Ensign' (2016-11-27) appears to be for a completely different business and was excluded from scoring.

This WW Score is based on a large volume of reviews (136 total) spanning nearly two decades, giving it HIGH statistical confidence in terms of mention counts, but the score's reliability is meaningfully reduced by a persistent and documented pattern of responsiveness failures, at least one serious project abandonment, and possible business identity changes over time that make it difficult to assess the current operator's consistency.

Mid Valley Rooter Services receives strong praise across professionalism, responsiveness, and communication from the majority of reviewers, with Jonathan frequently cited as courteous, knowledgeable, and willing to explain work thoroughly. Pricing is generally viewed as fair or better than competitors, with multiple reviewers noting affordability and one explicitly comparing favorably against Roto-Rooter. However, project completion is the most concerning dimension: multiple negative reviews describe abandoned work, jobs left incomplete for weeks, price estimates that nearly doubled, and collateral damage (e.g., broken sprinkler lines) that was never remedied. Experience scores are also tempered by two credible reviews describing technicians who failed to diagnose or resolve problems, with one reviewer noting a fix was accomplished in 5 minutes by a different plumber after Mid Valley could not resolve it. The volume of blank 5-star reviews with no text is a notable concern that reduces overall confidence in the aggregate rating.

• 14 out of 57 reviews contain no review text whatsoever — only a 5-star rating. This is a significant pattern that may indicate inauthentic or incentivized reviews and inflates the perceived rating artificially.
• Several blank 5-star reviews share identical dates (e.g., multiple on 2025-05-10, 2025-05-19, 2025-06-02, 2025-04-10, 2025-05-12), which is suspicious and may suggest coordinated or fake review activity.
• Multiple credible 1-star reviews describe serious project completion failures: work abandoned mid-job, no-shows for days or weeks, final prices nearly double the estimate, and collateral damage left unaddressed.
• One 1-star review (2025-03-28) alleges substandard licensed work on a slab leak repair and threatens a CSLB complaint — this is a serious flag regarding workmanship quality.
• One 1-star review (2020-08-14) describes over $4,000 paid with incomplete work and no reliable hot water as a result — a significant financial harm complaint.
• A 1-star review (2021-04-24) describes weeks of non-response and incomplete work, only resolved after the negative review was posted — suggesting responsiveness may be reactive rather than proactive.
• Several older reviews (2020–2021) describe recurring patterns of incomplete work and poor follow-through, suggesting these are not isolated incidents.
• Recency note: The majority of reviews are from 2024–2025 and are within the past 12 months, which is positive for recency weighting. However, the blank 5-star reviews are disproportionately recent, which may skew the recent record.

The WW Score of 72.1 is based on a substantial volume of reviews with usable data and carries HIGH overall confidence, but should be interpreted cautiously given the significant number of blank 5-star reviews that suggest possible review manipulation, and a consistent pattern of serious project completion failures documented across multiple years by credible negative reviewers.