Find Nearby Plumbers In Glendale, California

Service Squad demonstrates strong overall performance with a WW Score of 81.2, driven by consistently high marks in professionalism, project completion, and technical experience. The company excels at punctuality, responsiveness, and workmanship quality, with numerous reviews praising quick response times, on-time arrivals, and friendly demeanor from named technicians (Emmanuel, Miguel, Samuel, etc.). However, pricing emerges as a notable weakness, with several customers reporting unexpectedly high charges, overquoting, and at least two instances of alleged deceptive pricing practices. While most recent reviews (past 12 months) are highly positive, older reviews reveal recurring concerns about follow-through on callbacks and occasional quality control issues.

• PRICING CONCERNS: Multiple reviews (2024-07-23, 2023-04-27, 2020-06-13, 2020-03-09, 2017-02-08, 2016-12-15) report significantly overpriced quotes or unexpected charges. One customer paid ~$1,000 for emergency work they felt was excessive; another reported being quoted $4,400 for a shower installation when comparable units cost ~$1,000 at retail.
• FOLLOW-UP FAILURES: Several reviews (2025-05-09, 2021-12-22, 2021-09-10, 2021-09-03, 2021-06-14) document failures to follow up on promised callbacks or no-show appointments despite confirmed scheduling. One customer experienced two consecutive no-shows with no communication.
• QUALITY CONTROL ISSUES: Reviews from 2022-12-16, 2019-08-25, and 2021-12-22 describe incomplete work, abandoned jobs, or poor workmanship (e.g., pipes left under house creating health hazards, broken pipes during service, low water pressure after repair).
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: Approximately 15-20 reviews dated 2024-06-08 contain suspiciously generic praise with minimal specifics ('Fast and Efficient!', empty review text with 5-star rating, highly similar phrasing). This clustering warrants caution in weighting recent scores.
• SAFETY/PROFESSIONALISM INCIDENT: One 2021-01-18 review documents lack of COVID-19 precautions in office (no masks, smoking) and dismissive attitude toward safety concerns.
• RECENCY BIAS: Most reviews are from 2024-2025 (heavily weighted toward June 2024), which may not reflect current operational consistency. Older reviews (2015-2019) show more varied quality and several serious complaints.

This WW Score of 81.2 should be treated with MODERATE-TO-HIGH caution: while professionalism and experience scores are well-supported by 50+ mentions each, the pricing dimension relies on only 22 mentions and shows high variability (ranging from 'very reasonable' to 'outrageous'). The clustering of generic 5-star reviews in June 2024 and recurring complaints about overpricing and follow-up failures in older reviews suggest the company may have inconsistent service quality and pricing practices. Customers should request detailed written quotes and verify pricing before committing, and should be aware of documented instances of no-shows and incomplete work.

Verdugo Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism with consistent praise for punctuality, communication, and courteous staff across 28 reviews. Project completion is solid with most jobs finished as promised, though one major project (6-day sewer work) revealed scheduling and coordination issues. Experience and technical skill are well-documented across 18 reviews with positive feedback on workmanship quality. However, pricing emerges as a significant concern: multiple reviews (10 mentions) document aggressive upselling, bait-and-switch tactics, and substantial price increases after initial quotes, with customers finding competitors offering 40-60% lower prices for identical work. This pricing pattern is the primary factor limiting the overall score.

• PRICING RED FLAG: At least 4 reviews (2023-09-14, 2021-08-13, 2022-02-26, 2020-09-18) document significant pricing discrepancies and aggressive upselling. Review from 2023-09-14 reports $1,200 initial charge that didn't fully resolve the issue, then $2,200 additional charge for sewer pipe replacement—customer obtained competing quote for less than half the total price ($3,400 vs. <$1,700). Review from 2021-08-13 shows quote escalation from $1,800 to $3,400 to $3,100 for a single sprinkler pipe repair. This pattern suggests potential bait-and-switch or inadequate initial assessment.
• SCHEDULING CONCERN: 2023-06-19 review documents significant project delays (estimated 2.5 days, took 6 days) with poor communication, work sprinkled across the week, and language barrier issues with lead technician requiring owner translation. Customer explicitly states work was not prioritized despite $12.8k contract value.
• QUALITY CONTROL ISSUE: Same 2023-06-19 review notes customer had to catch incomplete work (cast iron pipes left under house) before job completion, and owner was unaware of remaining pipes requiring Sunday pickup.
• RECENCY NOTE: Most reviews are from 2020-2022 (older than 12 months). Only 6 reviews from past 12 months (2024 and late 2023). Recent reviews show mixed sentiment with the 2023-09-14 one-star pricing complaint being most recent negative feedback.
• INCONSISTENT SERVICE QUALITY: Multiple reviews mention specific technicians (Frank, Ed, Emil) positively, but negative reviews suggest inconsistent quality depending on assigned technician or job complexity.

This WW Score of 81.2 should be treated with MODERATE-TO-HIGH caution: while professionalism and experience scores are well-supported by 28 and 18 mentions respectively, the pricing dimension is a material concern with documented evidence of aggressive upselling and bait-and-switch tactics across multiple independent reviews. The score reflects strong operational execution but significant ethical concerns around pricing transparency. Customers should obtain multiple quotes and carefully document scope before engaging, as this company's initial estimates appear unreliable.

A-Team Plumbing earns strong marks for professionalism, with the vast majority of reviewers praising punctuality, responsiveness, courteous technicians, and same-day or emergency availability across many years of reviews. Experience and workmanship scores are also solid, supported by numerous accounts of technically complex jobs handled competently, though a handful of reviews raise concerns about incomplete work, misdiagnosis, and one instance of a job requiring a return visit to finish what was missed. Project completion is moderately strong but is meaningfully dragged down by several credible negative reviews describing unresolved problems, a no-show after rescheduling, incomplete installations, and at least one case where the underlying issue was not fixed on the first attempt. Pricing is the weakest dimension: while many reviewers praise fair and affordable rates — and the $49 drain special is cited positively multiple times — there are six distinct, detailed negative reviews alleging significant overquoting (in some cases 3-4x competitor prices), one allegation of being scammed, and one reviewer who felt taken advantage of as a woman, which collectively suppress confidence in pricing consistency.

• Six reviews with no text content (rating only) were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data.
• Two reviews appear to be near-identical duplicates: the 'A Team did a fantastic job start to finish' review dated 2024-06-09 and 2024-02-02 share almost identical text with only minor edits. Similarly, the 'Wonderful experience! From the timeliness...' review appears twice (2024-10-11 and 2024-09-20). These may be duplicate submissions or potentially manipulated reviews and were counted only once each for scoring purposes.
• A significant cluster of reviews share the date 2025-05-09 and 2024-06-09, which may indicate a solicited review campaign. While the content varies enough to be plausible, this pattern warrants caution.
• Six credible 1-star reviews with specific dollar amounts, named technicians, and detailed narratives allege substantial overpricing (quotes of $1,400, $3,000, $3,200, and $800 for jobs competitors completed for $416, $850, and $900 respectively). These are not vague complaints and meaningfully impact the pricing score.
• One 1-star reviewer alleges a technician called to harass them after a negative review was posted, which is a serious professionalism concern if accurate.
• One reviewer (2023-09-09) raises concerns about honesty and transparency regarding diagnosis of under-house plumbing issues, and noted inability to reach management for follow-up.
• Reviews span from 2020 to 2025. Reviews older than 12 months (prior to mid-2024) were given reduced weight in scoring. The majority of reviews are recent enough to be relevant, but some older negative reviews (2020-2023) may reflect prior operational issues that have since improved or worsened.

This WW Score is based on a large review set with HIGH confidence across all four dimensions, but the presence of credible and detailed negative reviews — particularly around pricing transparency and occasional project completion failures — means the score of 79.4 should be treated as a realistic mid-range assessment rather than a near-perfect endorsement; prospective customers should obtain competing quotes before committing to larger jobs.

Rave Plumbing & Rooter earns strong marks for professionalism and project completion, with dozens of reviewers praising prompt response times, courteous technicians, clean workmanship, and follow-through on callbacks — including a notable instance where they proactively refunded an overcharge. Experience scores are solid, with multiple reviews citing skilled diagnosis and problem-solving, though a handful of reviews describe misdiagnoses and technicians proposing unnecessary or overly expensive solutions. Pricing is the weakest dimension: while many customers praise fair or competitive rates, a meaningful cluster of negative reviews — including two near-identical 1-star reviews describing an $850 charge for a 30-minute repair — describe feeling overcharged, particularly in emergency situations. Project completion is high but slightly tempered by one instance of a failed first attempt requiring a return visit, and one review describing incomplete work and upselling behavior.

• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: Two reviews (dated 2024-06-08 and 2024-04-05) are nearly word-for-word identical, both describing an $850 charge for a Friday emergency repair. This appears to be the same reviewer posting twice, or a copy-paste duplication. Only one instance was counted in scoring.
• IRRELEVANT REVIEWS DETECTED: At least 3 reviews (dated 2024-06-08) appear to be for a completely unrelated business — a salon or spa — mentioning waxes, haircuts, and 'all the girls are very professional.' These were excluded from scoring as they do not pertain to Rave Plumbing.
• DRIVING COMPLAINT REVIEW: One 1-star review (2019-12-04) is based entirely on a tailgating incident involving a company van, not on plumbing service quality. This was excluded from dimension scoring but noted as a flag regarding owner response conduct — the owner's reply was defensive and dismissive rather than apologetic.
• RELATED-PARTY DISCLOSURE: One reviewer explicitly states they are related to the owner (2025-05-09). This review was included but treated with reduced weight due to potential bias.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of detailed, substantive reviews span 2017–2024. The 2025 reviews (all dated 2025-05-09) are brief, generic, and clustered on the same date, which may indicate a review solicitation campaign. Several of these lack specific detail and follow a pattern of short, unverifiable praise.
• PRICING CONCERN PATTERN: Multiple independent reviewers across different years (2018, 2021, 2022, 2024) describe feeling overcharged for relatively simple or short jobs. This is a consistent and credible pattern that meaningfully suppresses the pricing score.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK — MODERATE: The cluster of 8+ reviews all dated 2025-05-09 with minimal detail, no specifics, and uniformly 5-star ratings raises a moderate concern about authenticity. Confidence in the 2025 batch is LOW individually, though the overall score is anchored by the large volume of detailed older reviews.

This WW Score is based on a large and diverse review set spanning approximately 10 years, with sufficient detail across all four dimensions to produce a HIGH-confidence result; however, the pricing dimension reflects a genuine and recurring concern that prospective customers should weigh carefully, and the cluster of vague same-day 2025 reviews introduces a minor inflation risk to the overall score.

Care Plumbing earns strong marks across all four dimensions, driven by a large volume of detailed, specific reviews spanning nearly a decade. Professionalism is consistently praised — office staff (Zara, Carlos, Jenny, Tania), estimators, and field crews are repeatedly described as courteous, communicative, punctual, and organized. Pricing scores well, with the majority of reviewers noting Care was the most competitive or among the lowest of multiple bids, and several explicitly praised transparent, detailed contracts; however, a meaningful minority of negative reviews allege bait-and-switch pricing tactics and undisclosed costs, which tempers the score. Project completion is the most nuanced dimension: the overwhelming majority report jobs finished on time, often in a single day, with permits and inspections handled seamlessly — but a notable cluster of 1-star reviews describes abandoned follow-up work, unresolved property damage, no-shows for warranty callbacks, and incomplete contracted items, pulling the score down from what would otherwise be exceptional. Experience scores well overall, with city inspectors, general contractors, and property managers independently praising workmanship quality, and the use of pipe-burst technology and complex slab work demonstrating advanced technical capability; however, several reviews document cut electrical wires, broken fixtures, and substandard patch work, preventing a top-tier score.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: Two reviews are near-identical word-for-word (the school repiping review dated 2023-06-09 and 2023-01-18), and two more are near-identical (the PEX repiping raised-foundation review dated 2022-06-09 and 2022-02-23). These appear to be the same reviewer posting twice or a copy-paste duplication. They were counted once each for scoring purposes.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Three reviews contain no text (only a 5-star rating, dated 2021-06-09, 2020-06-09 x2). These were excluded from dimension scoring as they contain no usable data.
• RECENCY NOTE: The review corpus spans 2013–2025. Reviews from 2013–2018 were given reduced weight relative to 2022–2025 reviews. The most recent reviews (2024–2025) remain predominantly positive, suggesting the company has not materially declined, but negative patterns persist across all time periods.
• NEGATIVE REVIEW PATTERN — PROPERTY DAMAGE AND ACCOUNTABILITY: Multiple 1-star reviews across different years (2017, 2022, 2023) describe the same pattern: property damage caused during work, denial of responsibility by owner Mike, threats when complaints were escalated, and failure to honor warranty callbacks. This is a recurring and credible pattern that meaningfully suppresses project completion and professionalism scores.
• NEGATIVE REVIEW PATTERN — BAIT AND SWITCH PRICING: At least two independent reviewers (2021 and 2022) allege that the initial quote omitted required work items, and workers demanded additional payment on-site. This is a serious flag for the pricing dimension and reduces confidence in the uniformly positive pricing praise from other reviewers.
• CALIFORNIA STATE LICENSING BOARD INVESTIGATION CLAIM: Two reviews (2022) allege the company was under investigation by the CSLB for bad workmanship and by their bond company. This cannot be verified from reviews alone but is flagged as a material concern.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — MODERATE: A subset of very short, generic 5-star reviews (e.g., 'Great work very professional.', 'Amazing pricing, and great service, they repiped my whole house in few days', 'I'm very impressed...Great value, very clean and done in one day') lack any specific detail and follow a pattern consistent with low-effort or potentially incentivized reviews. These were scored conservatively and given minimal weight. The overall volume of highly detailed, specific reviews provides sufficient signal to proceed with scoring.

This WW Score is based on a large, high-volume review set (91 reviews) with strong mention counts across all four dimensions, making the score statistically reliable; however, the presence of a recurring negative pattern involving property damage denial, alleged bait-and-switch pricing, and a reported licensing board investigation introduces meaningful downside risk that the aggregate score alone does not fully capture — prospective customers should read the 1-star reviews carefully before hiring.

FC Construction/Alta Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism across multiple reviews, with consistent praise for responsiveness, communication, friendliness, and politeness. Project completion is well-documented with customers reporting work completed as promised and follow-through on callbacks. Pricing feedback is positive with customers noting fair value and transparent quotes, though fewer reviews explicitly address cost. Technical skill and workmanship quality are mentioned positively but with limited specificity. All seven reviews are 5-star ratings from the past 12 months, indicating recent consistent performance.

• All 7 reviews are 5-star ratings with no negative feedback — this uniformity warrants caution and suggests possible review curation or selection bias
• Generic praise language appears across multiple reviews ('great guys,' 'highly recommend,' 'professional and efficient') with limited specific technical details about work performed
• Two different business names appear (FC Construction and Alta Plumbing) — unclear if this is the same entity or data inconsistency
• Limited sample size (7 reviews) reduces statistical reliability despite recent dates
• Minimal negative or critical feedback makes it difficult to assess how the contractor handles problems or complaints

This score should be treated with moderate caution. While recent reviews show consistent positive sentiment across professionalism and completion dimensions, the small sample size, absence of any critical feedback, and generic praise language suggest the score may not fully represent the contractor's typical performance across all customer segments.