Find Nearby Plumbers In Glendale, California

Spartan Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism with consistent praise for punctuality, communication, and technician courtesy across 187 mentions. Project completion is solid at 79.5, though some reviews cite delays, rescheduling issues, and occasional follow-up problems. Experience scores well at 80.0 with frequent mentions of technical knowledge and problem-solving ability. However, pricing emerges as a significant weakness (71.0), with numerous complaints about high costs, unexpected charges, vague estimates, and perceived overcharging relative to competitors. The company shows reliability but struggles with pricing transparency and value perception.

• PRICING CONCERNS: Multiple reviews (15+) explicitly cite high pricing, unexpected charges, and lack of transparency. Several customers report being charged significantly more than competitors for identical work ($900 vs $240 for disposal replacement, $728 vs $350 for quote, $1081 vs $169 part cost). This is a material weakness.
• AHS WARRANTY PATTERN: Approximately 12-15 reviews mention American Home Shield (AHS) assignments with concerning patterns—technicians allegedly denying coverage, misrepresenting issues as 'preexisting,' or refusing to perform warranty work. This suggests possible systemic issues with warranty claim handling.
• INCONSISTENT FOLLOW-UP: Multiple reviews (8+) report poor follow-up communication, unreturned calls, rescheduling without notice, or no-shows. This contradicts the strong professionalism score in other areas.
• QUALITY CONTROL VARIANCE: Several reviews describe damage caused during installation (broken tiles, chipped sinks, incorrect installations) and inadequate remediation. One detailed review describes spray foam misuse and poor workmanship.
• ESTIMATE TRANSPARENCY: At least 6 reviews cite refusal to provide phone estimates, vague itemization, or significant discrepancies between quoted and final prices. One review describes a $217 charge vs. $145 quoted.
• RECENCY BIAS: Most recent reviews (2025, 2024) are predominantly 5-star with minimal detail, while older reviews (2014-2018) contain more substantive criticism. This may indicate review quality degradation or selection bias.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK - MODERATE: Approximately 30-40 reviews from 2025 and late 2024 are either blank (rating only, no text) or contain generic praise with minimal specifics ('Amazing service!!!', 'Great job', 'Highly recommend'). While not conclusive, the volume of low-detail 5-star reviews in recent months warrants caution.
• CONFLICTING NARRATIVES: Company receives both 'honest and fair' and 'dishonest and overcharging' labels from different customers, suggesting either inconsistent service delivery or significant customer perception gaps.

This WW Score of 78.2 is reliable for professionalism and experience dimensions (both HIGH confidence with 140+ mentions each), but the pricing score of 71.0 should be weighted heavily in decision-making as it reflects genuine customer pain points across 68 substantive mentions. The company demonstrates strong technical competence and punctuality but has documented issues with pricing transparency and value delivery. Prospective customers should request detailed written estimates and compare pricing with competitors before committing. Recent review quality concerns (high volume of blank/generic 5-star reviews) suggest some caution in interpreting the most recent ratings.

This plumbing service demonstrates strong professionalism with consistent punctuality, courteous communication, and respectful behavior across the majority of reviews. Pricing is generally perceived as fair and competitive, with transparent quotes and no hidden charges frequently mentioned. Project completion shows solid execution with most jobs finished on time and to specification, though some warranty-related delays and incomplete work issues appear in older reviews. Technical expertise is evident with skilled diagnostics and quality workmanship. However, the dataset contains significant historical negative reviews (2013-2016) concentrated around home warranty claims, suggesting past operational challenges that may have been addressed. Recent reviews (2021-2025) are overwhelmingly positive, indicating substantial improvement.

• TEMPORAL BIAS DETECTED: Approximately 40% of reviews are from 2013-2016 with predominantly negative ratings (1-star) related to home warranty claims. These older reviews heavily criticize communication, scheduling, and claim handling. Recent reviews (2021-2025) are overwhelmingly 5-star positive, suggesting either significant company improvement or potential review manipulation.
• FAKE REVIEW PATTERN SUSPECTED: Multiple reviews from June 2023 and June 2010 contain nearly identical phrasing ('Great service!', 'Amazing service!', 'Professional and reliable') with minimal detail. Several reviews lack substantive content (empty text fields with 5-star ratings). This pattern warrants caution.
• INCONSISTENT COMPANY IDENTITY: Reviews reference multiple business names (Professional Plumbing Services, Emergency Plumbing Services, EPS, Edo's Plumbing, Best Plumbing & Electric) and multiple named technicians (Angel, Jose, Edmond, Greg, Gage, Jay, Mike, Lupe, etc.), suggesting either multiple locations, rebranding, or data aggregation from different companies.
• NEGATIVE REVIEW CONCENTRATION: Home warranty-related reviews (2013-2016) show systemic issues: no-shows, poor communication, claim denials, rude staff, and scheduling problems. These represent legitimate service failures distinct from recent positive reviews.
• RECENCY CONCERN: 65% of reviews are from 2021 onward. If company was recently acquired or restructured, older reviews may not reflect current operations. Score heavily weighted toward recent positive data.

This WW Score of 78.2 should be interpreted with MODERATE-TO-HIGH caution due to significant temporal clustering and suspected review manipulation in the dataset. Recent reviews (2021-2025) strongly support the score, but the dramatic reversal from 2013-2016 negative reviews raises questions about data integrity and whether all reviews reference the same company/management. The score reflects current service quality based on recent evidence, but historical warranty claim issues suggest past operational problems. Recommend verifying current ownership and management before relying on this score for high-stakes decisions.

Kings Plumbing demonstrates strong technical competence and generally fair pricing, with many customers praising quick response times and quality workmanship. However, the company's score is significantly impacted by a consistent pattern of serious professionalism failures, particularly around communication, follow-through, and accountability—especially when dealing with home warranty assignments. Multiple customers report being ignored, receiving no callbacks, incomplete work, and dishonest practices. While recent reviews (2024-2025) are predominantly positive, older reviews (2021-2022) reveal systemic issues with responsiveness and job completion that suggest recurring operational problems.

• CRITICAL: Pattern of communication failures and non-responsiveness documented across multiple reviews (2021-2022), particularly with home warranty assignments. At least 5 reviews explicitly mention no answer, no callback, or inability to reach the company.
• CRITICAL: Multiple allegations of incomplete work, dishonest practices, and code violations (2021-2022). One customer reported work not done to code, no permit pulled, and pressure valve left exposed—a safety hazard.
• CRITICAL: Discrepancy between recent reviews (2024-2025, all 5-star) and older reviews (2021-2022, multiple 1-star). Recent reviews show suspiciously generic praise with minimal specifics, while older reviews contain detailed complaints. This temporal pattern warrants caution.
• MODERATE: Several reviews allege misdiagnosis of plumbing problems, leading to unnecessary expensive solutions that other plumbers easily resolved with standard tools.
• MODERATE: Home warranty customers report significantly worse experiences than direct-pay customers, suggesting possible service quality degradation or prioritization issues based on payment source.
• MODERATE: One review (2022-03-06) documents corner-cutting on warranty jobs and explicit admission by company that they cut corners to maintain profit margins.
• LIMITED: One review (2020-03-03) reports failure to deliver promised quote after multiple follow-ups, though workmanship was never evaluated.

This WW Score of 76.8 should be treated with caution. While the company demonstrates genuine technical competence and has earned many satisfied customers, the historical pattern of serious communication failures, incomplete work, and dishonest practices (particularly 2021-2022) combined with the suspicious shift to uniformly positive recent reviews suggests operational inconsistency. The score reflects current performance based on recent data, but customers should be aware of documented systemic issues, especially if using home warranty coverage. Direct-pay customers report better experiences than warranty customers.

Bryan's reviews paint a broadly positive picture across all four dimensions, with consistent praise for reasonable pricing, responsiveness, and quality workmanship. However, one detailed negative review (2-star, dated April 2014) meaningfully tempers the otherwise glowing record — it describes a failed repair, a three-week callback delay, rude behavior toward a tenant, and a dismissive attitude when confronted, which directly contradicts claims of professionalism and project completion reliability. The majority of reviews are older than 12 months, with only two falling within the past 12 months (June 2023 and December 2023), which limits confidence in how well the historical pattern reflects current performance. Scores were held conservative across all dimensions to account for the negative review's specific and credible detail, the age of most reviews, and the relatively small total review count.

• RECENCY WARNING: Only 2 of 13 reviews are from the past 12 months (2023). The majority of reviews are from 2014 or earlier, some dating back to 2009–2010. Historical performance may not reflect current service quality.
• NEGATIVE REVIEW FLAG: One 2-star review (April 2014) contains specific, credible allegations — a repair failure within 30 days, a 3-week delayed callback, rude behavior toward a tenant, and blame-shifting. This is a meaningful data point that reduces confidence in professionalism and project completion scores.
• MILD PATTERN CONCERN: Two reviews posted on the same date (2014-10-04) within minutes of each other, both highly positive and brief, with generic praise. This could indicate coordinated or prompted reviews. Confidence slightly reduced for those data points.
• PRICING DISCREPANCY: One reviewer noted Bryan charged slightly more than his estimate, which is a minor but notable inconsistency against the otherwise strong pricing narrative.
• AVAILABILITY CONCERN: One reviewer noted Bryan can be hard to reach when busy, and the negative review cited a 3-week callback delay. This pattern suggests responsiveness may degrade under high demand.

This WW Score carries moderate-to-high structural reliability due to sufficient review volume and data across all dimensions, but should be interpreted cautiously given that most reviews are over 5 years old, only 2 are recent, and one credible negative review raises specific concerns about professionalism and follow-through that are not fully offset by the volume of older positive reviews.

This dataset covers two distinct businesses — Rapid Rhino Plumbing (Dave/David) and Rudy's Plumbing (Rico, Victor, Curtis, Ryan, etc.) — whose reviews appear to have been commingled. Rapid Rhino reviews are almost uniformly positive and recent (2023–2025), praising responsiveness, fair pricing, and job completion. Rudy's Plumbing has a much longer and more mixed history (2005–2024), with strong positive reviews for professionalism and technical skill but a meaningful pattern of serious complaints including abandoned jobs, no-shows, billing disputes, poor workmanship requiring re-do by other plumbers, and unresponsive communication. Project completion is the weakest dimension overall, dragged down significantly by multiple Rudy's reviews describing paid work left unfinished, repeated rescheduling, and failure to return calls. Pricing scores moderately well on balance — many reviewers praised fair or competitive pricing, but several Rudy's reviews flagged hidden upcharges, inflated material costs, and mid-job price increases. Experience scores reasonably well given the volume of positive technical feedback, but is tempered by documented cases of incorrect diagnosis, faulty installations, and work that failed within months.

• CRITICAL: Reviews from two separate businesses (Rapid Rhino Plumbing and Rudy's Plumbing) appear to have been mixed together in this dataset. These are distinct companies with different personnel, service histories, and quality profiles. The WW Score blends both and should not be attributed to either company individually.
• Rapid Rhino Plumbing (Dave/David): All 30+ reviews are 4–5 stars with no negative reviews present. While many contain specific details, the complete absence of any critical feedback and the clustering of many reviews on identical dates (e.g., multiple reviews dated 2024-06-09 and 2023-06-10) raises a moderate fake review concern. Confidence in Rapid Rhino's standalone score is LIMITED to MODERATE.
• Rudy's Plumbing: Multiple credible 1-star reviews describe abandoned jobs paid in full (hose bibs, repiping), repeated no-shows, mid-job upcharges after signed bids, unresponsive phone/voicemail, and work that caused new damage. These are specific, detailed, and credible negative signals.
• Several reviews for Rudy's are older than 5 years (2005–2014) and may not reflect current service quality. However, negative patterns (no-shows, abandoned work, billing disputes) persist across multiple time periods including as recently as 2024.
• Two nearly identical 1-star reviews dated 2019-03-30 describe the same billing dispute with the same technician (Steve) in nearly identical language — possible duplicate submission by the same reviewer rather than two separate incidents.
• Seven reviews contain no text (only a star rating) and were excluded from dimension scoring but counted in total reviews analyzed.
• Three reviews contain only the word 'unknown' and provided no usable scoring data.

This WW Score has HIGH data volume but MODERATE reliability due to the critical issue of two separate businesses being analyzed together, a suspicious clustering of same-date Rapid Rhino reviews suggesting possible review manipulation, and a documented pattern of serious service failures in the Rudy's Plumbing portion of the dataset — consumers should not use this blended score to evaluate either company individually.

All Star Plumbing has a strong overall reputation built on a large volume of reviews spanning roughly a decade, with the majority of customers praising responsiveness, punctuality, friendliness, and technical competence. Professionalism scores well but is meaningfully dragged down by a recurring pattern of no-shows, forgotten appointments, and at least one instance of rude office staff — issues that appear across multiple independent reviews and cannot be dismissed. Pricing is generally regarded as fair and reasonable, though one detailed negative review credibly describes unclear estimates, unexpected charges, and a credit card surcharge, preventing a higher score. Project completion is the most penalized dimension: multiple reviews describe cancellations, missed follow-ups, undelivered quotes, and at least one job left with an unpatched wall, alongside one 3-star review citing multiple cancellations on a major HVAC install. Experience scores highest, as the technical skill of Victor and named crew members is consistently praised across diverse job types including complex re-piping, HVAC installation, and creative problem-solving under difficult conditions.

• SCHEDULING AND RELIABILITY PATTERN: At least 6 independent reviews (2016-08-17, 2018-01-25, 2018-10-02, 2019-02-10, 2021-12-08, 2022-06-16) describe no-shows, forgotten appointments, unreturned calls, or undelivered quotes. This is a systemic issue, not isolated incidents.
• UNDELIVERED ESTIMATES: Two separate reviews (2016-08-17 and 2019-02-10) describe waiting weeks for quotes that never arrived after in-person assessments, suggesting a pattern of poor follow-through on non-emergency work.
• PRICING TRANSPARENCY CONCERN: One detailed 1-star review (2022-01-24) credibly describes a verbal-only estimate, unexpected charges, a potentially unnecessary upsell, and a credit card surcharge. No written invoice was left at time of service.
• WORKMANSHIP INCIDENT: One review (2019-01-16) describes a technician causing water damage during a service call, though the company did waive the service fee in response.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of highly positive reviews are from 2015–2020. Reviews from 2021–2024 are fewer in number and include a higher proportion of negative or mixed feedback, suggesting possible decline in consistency in recent years.
• REVIEW SPAN: Reviews span 2012–2024. Oldest reviews (2012–2014) carry minimal weight. The two oldest negative reviews (2012, 2014) are vague and were given reduced scoring influence.
• NO FAKE REVIEW PATTERNS DETECTED: Reviews vary substantially in length, detail, writing style, and sentiment. Named technicians differ across reviews. No coordinated fake review pattern identified.

This WW Score is based on 78 reviews with HIGH data density across all four dimensions and should be considered a reliable representation of this contractor's performance, though the recurring scheduling and communication failures documented across multiple independent reviews represent a genuine and material risk that prospective customers should weigh carefully.