Find Nearby Plumbers In Gilroy, California

Disalvo Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism and fair pricing across most reviews, with crews consistently described as friendly, punctual, and efficient. However, the score is significantly impacted by recurring responsiveness failures: multiple customers report being ignored after initial contact or promises to follow up, with no callbacks despite explicit commitments. Project completion is solid for jobs that proceed, but the pattern of abandoned leads and poor communication follow-through creates reliability concerns. Technical skill is generally strong, though one review noted struggles with high-end fixtures requiring specialized knowledge.

• RESPONSIVENESS PATTERN: Three separate reviews (2015-07-07, 2015-02-26, 2012-08-15) explicitly describe Joe or his team failing to return calls or follow up on estimates after promising to do so. This is a systemic issue, not isolated incidents.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most reviews are from 2009-2015 (15 years old). Only 4 reviews are from 2016 or later. Historical data may not reflect current operations.
• INCONSISTENT SERVICE QUALITY: One 2013 review (rating 3.0) indicates the crew lacks familiarity with high-end fixtures and blames manufacturers rather than acknowledging knowledge gaps.
• DIAGNOSTIC CREDIBILITY: One 2009 review describes aggressive upselling of unnecessary plumbing replacement ($90 diagnostic fee, no work completed, second opinion contradicted findings). Suggests possible pressure-sales tactics.
• POSITIVE REVIEW CLUSTERING: 16 of 24 reviews are 5-star with enthusiastic language. While many include specific details, the high concentration warrants noting potential selection bias.

This score should be trusted with caution: while professionalism and pricing dimensions are well-supported by multiple recent mentions, the critical weakness in project completion and responsiveness is evidenced by a clear pattern across multiple years. The age of most reviews (pre-2016) limits confidence in current operational standards. Prospective customers should prioritize getting commitments in writing and following up proactively rather than relying on callbacks.

Mercury Plumbing has a strong base of positive reviews spanning nearly two decades, with consistent praise for punctuality, friendly technicians, and responsive service across a large volume of reviews. However, a meaningful cluster of negative reviews — including billing disputes, incomplete work, rude office staff (particularly one named Melinda), and at least one bait-and-switch pricing complaint — prevents top-tier scores across all dimensions. Pricing confidence is tempered by multiple complaints about unexpected charges, hidden fees, and at least one allegation of a quoted price being significantly exceeded. Project completion scores are solid overall but are dragged down by documented cases of incomplete repairs, return visits required, and one instance of abandoned follow-through. The ownership change noted in 2023 appears to have introduced some instability, with several negative reviews specifically referencing a decline in quality under new management.

• 35 reviews contain no text (marked 'unknown', '.', or blank) and were excluded from dimension scoring — these inflate the raw review count and may represent low-quality or placeholder entries.
• Multiple reviews from 2015–2016 with 'unknown' text and 5-star ratings are suspicious and may represent fake or incomplete reviews submitted via Angie's List bulk import.
• At least 3 separate reviewers mention rude or unprofessional behavior from office staff, specifically a person named Melinda — this is a recurring and credible pattern, not an isolated incident.
• Two reviews dated 2021-06-28 appear to be near-identical duplicates (same complaint about $150 shower unclog), suggesting a double-posted review — counted as one incident.
• One review (2016-07-25) alleges bait-and-switch pricing with police involvement — this is a serious allegation and was weighted accordingly in the pricing score.
• One review (2015-04-13) alleges Mercury refused to honor a quoted price for phase 2 of a multi-phase job — another credible pricing integrity concern.
• One review (2017-01-16) alleges Mercury denied a warranty on a recently replaced part and denied a previously offered service credit — credible pattern of post-sale disputes.
• Ownership change noted as of 3/14/23 — several negative reviews post-2023 reference a decline in quality and toxic work environment, suggesting the score may be inflated by the large volume of older positive reviews.
• Recency note: The majority of detailed, substantive positive reviews are from 2024–2025 and appear genuine with named technicians and specific job details. However, the negative reviews from the same period are also credible and specific.
• Overall review corpus spans 2005–2025 — older reviews (pre-2018) were given reduced weight in scoring as they may not reflect current ownership or operations.

This WW Score is based on a large review corpus (155 total, ~120 with usable data) and carries HIGH overall confidence in its directional accuracy, but consumers should note that recurring complaints about billing transparency, office staff conduct, and post-ownership-change quality represent genuine risks that the aggregate score partially masks.

This review set spans multiple businesses — primarily Advanced Quality Plumbing (AQP), Alfred Williams Plumbing (Steve), and Cal Steam (a plumbing supply store) — which significantly complicates scoring and reduces reliability. The majority of reviews for AQP and Alfred Williams are positive, praising responsiveness, punctuality, friendliness, and same-day availability, which drives professionalism and project completion scores upward. However, there are multiple credible, detailed negative reviews for AQP specifically alleging price gouging, misdiagnosis, incomplete work, a messy job site, and dishonest quoting practices — including one reviewer who was quoted $665 for a job another plumber completed for $300, and another who paid $8,000 without resolution. Pricing is the weakest dimension, with several reviewers explicitly calling AQP expensive or excessive, and at least two reviewers citing quotes 2–4 times higher than competitors. Experience scores are tempered by multiple reviews describing poor diagnosis, incorrect pipe identification, and failed repairs requiring follow-up by other contractors.

• MIXED BUSINESS PROBLEM: Reviews appear to cover at least three distinct entities — Advanced Quality Plumbing (AQP/Kory), Alfred Williams Plumbing (Steve), and Cal Steam plumbing supply store. Scores are therefore aggregated across businesses that should not be combined. This significantly reduces the reliability of the WW Score as a reflection of any single contractor.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — MODERATE: Several reviews for Alfred Williams Plumbing (2010–2017) follow a highly consistent pattern: same-day service, Steve calls back within minutes, arrives early or on time, finishes quickly, charges a very reasonable price, reviewer is delighted. While individually plausible, the uniformity of narrative structure and outcome across many reviews raises moderate concern. No negative reviews exist for Alfred Williams at all.
• RECENCY CONCERN: A substantial portion of Alfred Williams Plumbing reviews are from 2010–2017, making them 7–15 years old. These should be weighted minimally. AQP reviews are more recent (2019–2025) and include both strong positives and serious negatives.
• SERIOUS NEGATIVE PATTERN FOR AQP: Multiple detailed 1-star reviews allege price gouging (quotes 2–4x competitors), misdiagnosis, incomplete or failed repairs, scare tactics, verbal-only quotes with no guarantees, and unprofessional owner behavior when complaints were raised. These are specific, credible, and consistent enough to represent a genuine pattern rather than isolated incidents.
• NO-SHOW INCIDENT: One reviewer (2019) reported scheduling an appointment, waiting all afternoon, and receiving no call, no show, and no explanation from AQP — a serious professionalism failure.
• MASK/COVID COMPLAINT: One reviewer (2022) noted the plumber entered their home without a mask during COVID and had to be asked to put one on — flagged as a professionalism concern.
• CAL STEAM SUPPLY STORE REVIEWS INCLUDED: Several reviews are clearly for a plumbing supply store (Cal Steam), not a contractor. These were included in mention counts only where relevant dimensions were explicitly discussed (e.g., staff friendliness for professionalism, pricing for price dimension), but they dilute the contractor-specific scoring.

The WW Score of 74.2 should be treated with MODERATE-to-LOW trust for any single business decision, as it aggregates reviews across at least three distinct businesses, includes a significant volume of older reviews of uncertain authenticity, and contains credible, detailed negative reviews for the primary contractor (AQP) alleging dishonest pricing and failed workmanship that meaningfully offset the large volume of positive feedback.

Plumbing America has a strong base of positive reviews praising responsiveness, professionalism, and technical skill — including several cases where they solved problems that multiple other plumbers could not. However, the negative reviews carry meaningful weight: one customer was fired for overcharging and slow work, one experienced a complete failure to follow through on a city-required backflow inspection (resulting in a compliance notice), one reported rude owner behavior when questioning a billing dispute, and one reported persistent failure to return calls for a quote. Pricing is a mixed signal — several reviewers praised fair and reasonable pricing, while others noted overcharging or billing disputes, pulling the price score down significantly. Project completion is similarly mixed: the majority of jobs were completed well, but the backflow inspection abandonment and the billing/communication failures represent genuine follow-through failures that cannot be ignored. The review set spans from 2010 to 2024, with the majority of reviews being older than 3 years, which limits confidence in current performance.

• RECENCY WARNING: The majority of reviews (27 of 31) are older than 3 years, with most clustered between 2013–2018. Only 2 reviews are from the past 12 months (2022 and 2024). Current performance may differ significantly from historical patterns.
• NEGATIVE PATTERN — FOLLOW-THROUGH FAILURES: At least two reviews describe serious project completion failures — one involving an abandoned backflow inspection that led to a city compliance notice and threatened water shutoff, and one involving a billing dispute where the owner responded rudely when questioned.
• NEGATIVE PATTERN — COMMUNICATION FAILURES: Two separate reviews (2014 and 2016) describe unreturned calls and inability to reach the company, which directly contradicts the responsiveness praised in positive reviews.
• BILLING DISPUTE FLAG: One reviewer (2014) was charged for three trips despite being told additional trips would be free, and reported the owner responded rudely when the invoice was questioned. This is a significant professionalism and pricing concern.
• NO SUSPECTED FAKE REVIEWS: The reviews contain specific names, job details, dates, and a realistic mix of positive and negative experiences. No patterns of fake reviews detected.

This WW Score is based on a moderately large review set with HIGH mention counts across all dimensions, but reliability is reduced by the age of most reviews (majority over 3 years old), a meaningful cluster of serious negative experiences involving billing disputes, abandoned work, and communication failures, and only 2 reviews from the past 12 months — consumers should treat this score as a historical indicator and seek more recent references before hiring.

This plumbing contractor demonstrates solid professionalism with strong punctuality and communication when engaged, supported by 156 mentions across reviews. Technical expertise is evident with a score of 75 across 89 mentions, showing skilled problem-solving and workmanship. However, project completion reliability is a significant concern (71.5/100, 118 mentions), with recurring complaints about incomplete work, failure to return for callbacks, and abandoned jobs. Pricing fairness is moderate (68/100, 52 mentions), with mixed feedback on transparency and value—some customers report excellent deals while others cite unexpected charges or overpricing. The company shows inconsistency: excellent service in some cases contrasts sharply with unresponsiveness and poor follow-through in others, particularly when assigned through home warranty companies.

• CRITICAL: Severe responsiveness issues flagged in 40+ reviews—customers report unanswered phones, unreturned voicemails, and no callbacks for days/weeks. This is the most consistent negative pattern.
• PATTERN: Multiple reviews (15+) describe no-shows or extreme tardiness (1-4+ hours late) with no communication, particularly for home warranty appointments.
• PATTERN: Incomplete work and failure to return for callbacks documented in 20+ reviews; customers left without resolution for extended periods.
• CONCERN: Home warranty customers report significantly worse experiences than direct-pay customers, suggesting potential two-tier service quality or deprioritization of warranty work.
• RED FLAG: Several reviews (8+) describe dishonest practices—misdiagnosis to justify unnecessary work, charging for incomplete jobs, or billing for work not performed.
• RECENCY: Most negative reviews cluster in 2014-2018 and 2023-2025, with some improvement in 2019-2022 period, but recent 2025 reviews show problems persist.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK: LOW—reviews show genuine variation in detail, specific names, and outcomes. Negative reviews are detailed and credible; positive reviews include specific examples and criticisms.
• INCONSISTENCY: Same company name appears with vastly different service quality across reviews, suggesting either significant staff variability or management inconsistency.

This WW Score of 72.8 should be treated with CAUTION: while the score reflects genuine strengths in technical expertise and professionalism when the company is engaged, it masks a critical operational weakness in responsiveness and follow-through that affects roughly 25-30% of customers. The score is reliable for assessing workmanship quality but significantly understates customer service risk, particularly for home warranty assignments. Customers should expect inconsistent service and should verify responsiveness before committing.

This aggregated review set spans many years and appears to represent multiple businesses operating under similar or identical names (Royal Flush Plumbing, Pro Plumbing Service, and others), which significantly complicates scoring reliability. The majority of reviews are strongly positive, praising punctuality, communication, professionalism, and technical skill — with many customers citing same-day or emergency responsiveness as a standout quality. However, a meaningful minority of negative reviews (roughly 15-20% of substantive reviews) describe serious issues including no-shows, missed appointments without notification, overcharging without upfront disclosure, incomplete or defective work, and poor customer service when complaints were raised. Pricing is the weakest dimension, with multiple reviewers across different time periods describing charges they felt were excessive, non-transparent, or inconsistent with quoted amounts. Project completion scores are dragged down by recurring complaints about abandoned work, callbacks not honored, and jobs requiring multiple return visits to fix errors.

• MULTI-ENTITY CONCERN: Reviews reference multiple distinct business names including 'Royal Flush Plumbing,' 'Pro Plumbing Service,' and references to individual owner-operators (Jarrod, Steve, Ben, Doug, Ted, Jose, etc.) across different geographic markets (Atlanta GA, Philadelphia PA, Providence RI, Las Vegas NV, Hollister CA, Cleveland OH, Oregon City OR, and others). This dataset almost certainly aggregates reviews from multiple unrelated businesses, severely limiting the reliability of any single composite score.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION: A significant number of reviews contain zero substantive detail — only a star rating or a single generic phrase like 'Great service!' or 'Amazing!' with no specifics. Approximately 60-80 reviews fall into this category. Several clusters of reviews share identical or near-identical dates (e.g., dozens of reviews dated 2025-05-10, 2025-04-10, 2025-03-11, 2025-02-09, 2025-01-10) which is statistically anomalous and suggests possible review manipulation or bulk import artifacts.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: At least one review (Ted and his crew sewer line replacement) appears to be posted twice with identical text and nearly identical dates (2024-07-18). Additionally, two reviews from 2021-09-24 are near-identical complaints about overcharging for a kitchen faucet installation.
• RECENCY NOTE: The dataset spans from approximately 2003 to June 2025. Reviews older than 12 months (pre-June 2024) should be weighted less heavily. The most recent reviews (2025) are predominantly positive, but the volume of blank or generic 5-star reviews in recent months raises authenticity concerns.
• PRICING TRANSPARENCY PATTERN: Multiple independent negative reviews across different years and locations describe a consistent pattern of pricing not disclosed upfront, charges significantly exceeding verbal quotes, and management being unresponsive or dismissive when customers raised billing concerns. This is a recurring structural issue, not isolated incidents.
• NO-SHOW / SCHEDULING PATTERN: A recurring theme across negative reviews spanning 2008 to 2022 involves technicians failing to appear within scheduled windows, no calls to notify customers, and rescheduled appointments also being missed. This pattern appears in enough reviews to be considered a systemic reliability concern rather than isolated incidents.
• WORK QUALITY FAILURES: Several detailed negative reviews describe defective workmanship including broken components attributed to technician error, incomplete jobs, and refusal to return to fix mistakes under warranty. These are high-severity complaints that meaningfully reduce the project completion score.

This WW Score carries LIMITED-to-MODERATE reliability for any single business decision due to strong evidence that the review dataset aggregates multiple unrelated businesses across different markets, combined with a statistically anomalous clustering of blank and generic 5-star reviews that suggests possible review inflation; the score is best interpreted as a broad industry-level benchmark rather than a precise assessment of any one contractor.