Find Nearby Plumbers In Glendale, California

Pasadena Plumbing / Plumbing Professionals (Jason Bingham) has a long and largely positive review history spanning over a decade, with consistent praise for punctuality, communication, friendliness, and fair pricing across dozens of reviews. Professionalism is the most frequently mentioned dimension and scores well, with many reviewers explicitly noting on-time arrivals, proactive communication, and courteous behavior. Pricing is also frequently cited as a strength, with multiple reviewers noting Jason beat competitor quotes significantly. However, a detailed 1-star review from October 2024 — the most recent substantive review — raises serious concerns about workmanship quality, project abandonment, ignored calls, broken promises, and a faulty installation that is currently leaking, which materially drags down the project completion and experience scores. The first nine reviews (all 5-star, all from May–June 2025) appear to be for a different or rebranded entity ('Pasadena Plumbing') with generic, formulaic language and no mention of Jason Bingham, which raises a fake review flag and were treated with reduced weight.

• SUSPECTED FAKE REVIEWS: The first 9 reviews (dated May–June 2025) are highly formulaic, all 5-star, reference 'Pasadena Plumbing' rather than 'Plumbing Professionals' or Jason Bingham, use repetitive sentence structures ('The tech was...', 'way faster than I expected', 'respectful and tidy'), and contain no specific details about the customer, location, or outcome. These are consistent with AI-generated or incentivized reviews and were given minimal weight in scoring.
• SERIOUS NEGATIVE REVIEW (Oct 2024): A detailed 1-star review from a long-term customer describes multiple failures including an incorrect sewer evaluation, a currently leaking water line installation secured with drywall screws, selective completion of contracted work, ignored phone calls, repeated broken promises to return, and a 4-month open trench. This is the most recent substantive review and carries significant weight.
• RECENCY CONCERN: The majority of detailed, credible reviews are from 2011–2019. Only a handful of reviews are from 2020–2024, and the most recent credible non-generic review is the 1-star complaint from October 2024. The contractor's recent performance track record is therefore limited and concerning.
• REVIEW PLATFORM MIXING: Reviews appear to be aggregated from multiple platforms (Angie's List, Home Advisor, Yelp, and possibly others), which is normal but means some reviews may reference different service contexts or time periods.
• THREE REVIEWS WITH RATING 0.0: Multiple reviews carry a 0.0 star rating, which likely reflects a platform default or missing data rather than a true zero-star rating. These were treated as neutral/unrated rather than negative.
• ONE REVIEW CONTAINS ONLY '123' AND ONE CONTAINS 'unknown' OR 'See above': These were excluded from scoring as they contain no usable data.
• POSSIBLE ENTITY CONFUSION: Some reviews reference 'Patrick' rather than Jason Bingham, and the 2015 review references 'Mr. Rosario.' It is unclear whether these are the same business or co-mingled reviews from different contractors on the same profile.

This WW Score carries moderate-to-high statistical confidence due to the large volume of reviews, but the trustworthiness of the score is meaningfully undermined by suspected fake reviews in the most recent period, a serious and detailed 1-star complaint from 2024, and the fact that the bulk of positive evidence is more than 5 years old — prospective customers should weight the 2024 negative review heavily when making a hiring decision.

Connors Plumbing shows a strongly split profile across its review history. Recent reviews from 2024–2025 are overwhelmingly positive, praising prompt response times, friendly and knowledgeable technicians, and solid workmanship — which meaningfully lifts the professionalism, experience, and project completion scores. However, a persistent and credible pattern of pricing complaints spans multiple years and multiple reviewers, with specific dollar amounts cited for what reviewers describe as grossly inflated labor charges, undisclosed fees, and high-pressure upselling of service membership plans — driving the pricing score significantly down. Project completion is also tempered by several serious failures: a no-show appointment, an abandoned job with no callback, a repair that failed immediately after completion, and a dishwasher hose job left unresolved. The experience dimension scores moderately well due to consistent praise for technical knowledge and problem-solving, but is offset by at least two cases where a diagnosis led to an incorrect or incomplete fix.

• PRICING CONCERNS — HIGH SEVERITY: Multiple independent reviewers across different years cite specific, detailed examples of what they describe as extreme overpricing: $475 for a wax ring, $363 for a 5-minute cartridge replacement, $1,600 labor for a warranty-covered compressor, $267 for a 1-hour pipe repair. These are not vague complaints — they include part costs, time estimates, and comparisons to competitor quotes. This pattern is credible and consistent.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — MODERATE: 14 reviews contain zero text (rating only). These blank reviews are all 5-star and clustered around the same dates (especially 2025-04-10 and 2025-05-26). Blank reviews with no content provide no usable data and inflate perceived volume. They were excluded from dimension scoring.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — MODERATE: One negative reviewer (2016-01-29) explicitly alleges that positive reviews on CitySearch are fabricated, citing cross-platform review patterns. While this cannot be verified, the clustering of generic, short, all-5-star reviews with no specifics warrants caution.
• BUSINESS IDENTITY CONCERN: Multiple reviewers report that Connors Plumbing answers calls under different business names (Kato Plumbing, Gehring Plumbing) after acquiring those phone numbers. Two separate reviewers describe this as deceptive or misrepresentation. This is a material trust and transparency flag.
• RECENCY BIAS NOTE: The majority of detailed negative reviews are from 2012–2023. Reviews from 2024–2025 are almost entirely positive. This could reflect genuine improvement in service quality, or it could reflect a change in review sourcing. The improvement trend is noted but treated conservatively given the volume of older negative data.
• PROJECT FAILURE — DOCUMENTED: At least three reviews describe jobs that were not completed or failed shortly after completion: (1) AC motor replaced for $1,500 but unit still did not work; (2) dishwasher hose job left unresolved with technician no-showing follow-up; (3) technician left a job site without fixing either sink after causing a mess. These are serious project completion failures.
• NO-SHOW / ABANDONMENT: Two separate reviewers report that Connors scheduled appointments and never showed up or called back, with no explanation provided. This directly impacts the project completion and professionalism scores.

This WW Score is based on a large and diverse review set spanning over a decade, giving it HIGH statistical confidence in terms of volume, but the score should be interpreted cautiously given credible and specific pricing complaints, documented project failures, blank review clustering, and business identity concerns that suggest the true customer experience may be more variable than recent 5-star reviews alone would indicate.

Pasadena Plumbing has a strong base of loyal, long-term customers who consistently praise Mike's technical expertise, responsiveness, and honest pricing — with multiple reviewers citing specific examples of him refusing to upsell, returning money owed, and even resolving issues remotely at no charge. However, professionalism is the most heavily penalized dimension due to a recurring and serious pattern: multiple independent reviewers across different years describe Mike abruptly abandoning jobs, hanging up on customers, becoming verbally aggressive, and in one alarming case, walking away from a household with a CO alarm emergency involving young children. Project completion scores moderately well overall, but is tempered by at least two reviews describing incomplete or shoddy work and a refusal to honor callbacks. Pricing is generally viewed as fair to reasonable, though two reviewers felt overcharged, and one noted parts prices seemed inflated. The WW Score of 72.1 reflects a contractor with genuine skill and many satisfied customers, but with a documented and repeated pattern of unprofessional conduct that poses a real risk to prospective clients.

• SERIOUS CONDUCT FLAG: Multiple independent reviews across different years (2013, 2014, 2015, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2023, 2024) describe Mike becoming suddenly hostile, hanging up on customers, abandoning jobs mid-service, or refusing to return for warranty work. This is not an isolated incident — it is a recurring behavioral pattern.
• SAFETY CONCERN: One 2024 review (1-star) alleges Mike canceled an appointment and refused further contact while the customer had a CO monitor alarm going off with a 2-year-old present. If accurate, this represents a serious ethical and safety failure.
• ALLEGED HARASSMENT: One 2017 reviewer alleges Mike called back after a negative review was posted and made threatening statements about contacting city officials, which the reviewer characterized as blackmail/extortion to remove the review. This is a significant red flag.
• INCOMPLETE WORK PATTERN: At least two reviews (2019 1-star, 2014 3-star) describe work that was left incomplete, done incorrectly, or where Mike refused to address certain materials or tasks without adequate explanation.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent reviews (2022–2024) include both strong positive reviews and the most serious negative incidents (CO alarm abandonment, no-show with hang-up). The negative behavioral pattern has not resolved over time and appears in recent data.
• NO FAKE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: Positive reviews are generally specific, varied in detail, and span many years with different scenarios. The positive reviews appear organic. However, the volume of detailed negative reviews also appears credible and should not be discounted.
• OLDER REVIEWS NOTE: Approximately 20 reviews predate 2018 and are given reduced weight in scoring. The behavioral issues described in older reviews are consistent with those in more recent reviews, suggesting a persistent pattern rather than an isolated period.

This WW Score is based on 50 reviews spanning over a decade with HIGH data confidence across all four dimensions; however, the score should be interpreted cautiously given the well-documented and recurring pattern of unprofessional conduct that appears consistently across independent reviewers and multiple years, which meaningfully limits the reliability of the professionalism dimension despite the high mention count.

Monkey Wrench Plumbing receives consistently strong marks for professionalism and technical knowledge, with the vast majority of positive reviews praising technicians by name for being punctual, courteous, communicative, and knowledgeable. However, pricing is the single most damaging dimension in this dataset: a substantial and recurring pattern of negative reviews explicitly describes quotes that are 2x to 5x higher than competitors for identical work, aggressive upselling, commission-driven sales behavior, and in several cases outright misdiagnosis of problems that other plumbers resolved cheaply. Project completion is moderately positive overall but is dragged down by multiple credible accounts of abandoned work, missed appointments, jobs left incomplete, and at least one multi-month installation failure involving a furnace. The WW Score of 71.2 reflects a company with genuinely skilled and personable technicians operating within a business model that a significant minority of customers describe as predatory and untrustworthy.

• PRICING CONCERN — HIGH SEVERITY: Dozens of independently written negative reviews describe quotes 2x–5x above market rate for identical work. Multiple reviewers obtained second opinions and had the same job completed for a fraction of the Monkey Wrench quote. This is a systemic pattern, not isolated incidents.
• UPSELLING / COMMISSION CONCERN: Multiple reviewers explicitly state that technicians appear to work on commission and are incentivized to recommend replacements over repairs, catastrophize minor issues, and push unnecessary add-on products (e.g., Flow-Tech, water softeners, full system replacements).
• MISDIAGNOSIS PATTERN: At least 8 reviews describe technicians recommending expensive replacements or repairs for problems that other plumbers fixed for under $200, including cases where a breaker reset, cleaning ignition rods, or adjusting a gas valve resolved the issue entirely.
• PROJECT COMPLETION FAILURES: Multiple reviews describe incomplete work, missed appointments with no notice, jobs abandoned mid-project, and at least one case where a furnace installation failed for four months with no resolution, requiring the customer to hire another company.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — MODERATE: A large volume of 5-star reviews are extremely brief (e.g., 'Luis was great', 'Perfect', 'Excellent', blank rating with no text), lack specific detail, and cluster around the same dates. One reviewer explicitly states they were offered a discount in exchange for a 5-star review. Confidence in the positive review pool is reduced accordingly.
• APPOINTMENT RELIABILITY: Multiple reviews across different time periods describe last-minute cancellations, no-shows after confirmed appointments, and being told on the day of service that no technicians were available.
• RECENCY NOTE: Reviews span from 2020 to June 2025. The pricing complaints and upselling concerns are present across all time periods and are not improving. The most recent reviews (2025) still contain both strong praise for individual technicians and serious pricing/completion complaints.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: Two reviews dated 2024-03-22 from the same user about Ruben Gaeta and the Noritz tankless water heater replacement are nearly word-for-word identical and appear to have been submitted twice. These were counted as one data point.

This WW Score is based on a very large review sample (310 reviews) spanning over four years and carries HIGH overall confidence; the score reliably reflects a company with skilled, professional technicians but a well-documented and systemic pattern of aggressive pricing, upselling, and occasional project completion failures that prospective customers should weigh carefully before hiring.

Mesrop and Azaryan Brothers Plumbing receive consistently positive feedback across all four scored dimensions. Professionalism is well-supported, with multiple reviewers explicitly noting courteous, responsive, and timely service — including a 15-minute emergency response. Project completion is similarly strong, with reviewers describing jobs finished correctly and thoroughly, including complex upgrades from plastic to copper piping. Experience is backed by specific technical references such as backflow valve replacement, pressure release valve adjustment, and multi-year repeat use by at least one client. Pricing is mentioned positively in three reviews with phrases like 'fair prices' and 'great deal,' though without detailed cost breakdowns, the score is held conservative. The overall picture is positive but the small review pool and age of most reviews limit full confidence.

• Only 7 total reviews — small sample size limits statistical reliability of all scores.
• 5 of 7 reviews are dated between 2018 and 2020, making them 4–6 years old. Only 2 reviews are from the past 12 months (2024). Recency weighting is a concern — recent performance may differ from historical pattern.
• All reviews are 5-star with no negative feedback or constructive criticism. While not conclusively fake, the uniformly perfect ratings with no nuance warrants mild caution.
• Some reviews use generic praise ('above and beyond,' 'amazing,' 'stellar') without granular specifics, which is a minor flag for authenticity. However, several reviews do include job-specific technical details that suggest genuine experience.

This WW Score carries moderate reliability due to a small review pool of only 7 reviews, the majority of which are over 4 years old, though the presence of specific technical detail in several reviews and two recent 2024 reviews provide a reasonable foundation for the scores assigned.

Harry's plumbing service shows mixed performance across reviews spanning 2014–2021. Positive reviews (6 of 8) consistently praise fair pricing, quick response times, politeness, and willingness to complete multiple jobs same-day without upselling. However, two older negative reviews (2014, 2016) report significant failures: one job left a line still clogged after 35 minutes and $145 charge; another involved a $900 quote that a competitor completed for $85 in 10 minutes. Professionalism is generally strong but undermined by one report of being late and distracted on phone. The service quality appears inconsistent, with strong execution on routine jobs but potential gaps in diagnostic accuracy or complex problem-solving.

• Second review (2019-05-29) shows suspicious patterns: excessive repetition of 'Los Angeles' and 'emergency plumber' (appears 8+ times), repetitive phrasing ('best plumbing services'), and overly generic praise structure. This review may be artificially inflated or template-based.
• Significant recency gap: 6 of 8 reviews are from 2017–2021, but 2 critical negative reviews are from 2014–2016. Cannot determine if service quality has improved or declined over time.
• Two 1-star reviews report serious failures (incomplete work, severe overpricing) that directly contradict the narrative of 6 five-star reviews. This polarity suggests either inconsistent service delivery or potential review authenticity issues.
• First review (2021-09-26) is extremely brief and lacks detail, making it difficult to extract meaningful dimension data.

This WW Score should be treated with caution. While the MODERATE overall confidence reflects adequate mention counts, the stark polarity between 6 five-star and 2 one-star reviews, combined with suspected review manipulation in at least one positive review and a 7-year gap between oldest and newest reviews, significantly undermines confidence in the score's predictive reliability. The score of 76.8 represents an average across inconsistent performance; actual outcomes may vary considerably.