Find Nearby Plumbers In Glendale, California

Western Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism with consistent punctuality, communication, and courteous service across 89 mentions. Technical expertise and workmanship are solid with 52 mentions of skilled problem-solving. However, project completion is significantly undermined by multiple documented failures including incomplete work, failed inspections, poor installation quality, and refusal to honor callbacks or warranty obligations. Pricing is generally fair (32 mentions), though some customers report overcharging for labor. The company shows a troubling pattern of quality control issues, particularly in complex remodel projects, which substantially reduces overall trustworthiness despite strong individual technician performance.

• CRITICAL: Multiple severe project completion failures documented across 2019-2022 period, including failed inspections, water damage to new hardwood floors, improper installations, and refusal to correct mistakes or provide refunds
• PATTERN DETECTED: Remodel projects show disproportionately high failure rate compared to simple service calls, suggesting quality control breakdown on complex jobs
• INCONSISTENCY: Excellent reviews heavily concentrated in 2013-2017 and 2020+ periods, with cluster of negative reviews in 2019-2022 suggesting possible ownership/management change or operational decline
• FAKE REVIEW RISK: 7 reviews with empty text but 5-star ratings (dates: 2025-05-10, 2025-05-10, 2025-05-10, 2025-05-10, 2025-04-10, 2025-04-10, 2023-06-10, 2023-06-10, 2023-06-10, 2022-06-10, 2025-01-10, 2025-01-10, 2025-01-10, 2024-12-11) raise suspicion of artificial rating inflation
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most recent reviews (2025) are overwhelmingly positive with minimal detail, contrasting sharply with detailed negative reviews from 2019-2022; recent positive trend may not reflect current operational reality
• BUSINESS STATUS UNCLEAR: Multiple reviews reference company closing (2022), yet reviews continue through 2025, creating confusion about current operational status
• PRICING INCONSISTENCY: Some customers report fair pricing while others report significant overcharges for labor and drive time, suggesting inconsistent billing practices
• COMMUNICATION FAILURES: Several documented instances of unreturned calls, unresponsiveness to customer concerns, and hostile office staff behavior

This WW Score should be treated with CAUTION. While professionalism and experience scores are supported by substantial evidence, the project completion score is significantly dragged down by well-documented failures in complex projects, failed inspections, and refusal to honor warranty obligations. The presence of empty 5-star reviews and the dramatic shift from negative reviews (2019-2022) to positive reviews (2025) suggests potential rating manipulation. The company's current operational status is unclear. Customers should prioritize recent detailed reviews over aggregate score and specifically avoid complex remodel projects based on documented failure patterns.

All three reviews consistently praise Greg's responsiveness, punctuality, and clear communication, driving a strong professionalism score. Project completion is well-supported across all reviews, with jobs described as finished efficiently and cleanly, including a water heater replacement and pipe leak repair. Experience is affirmed through mentions of technical knowledge, problem-solving, and practical maintenance guidance. Pricing data is thin — only one review touches on value ('you get what you pay for'), which limits confidence in that dimension and keeps its score conservative. Overall, the picture is positive but the very small review pool means these scores should be treated as promising early signals rather than definitive assessments.

• Only 3 reviews total — WW Score is calculated but reliability is significantly limited by sample size.
• All reviews are 5-star with uniformly positive sentiment. While the reviews do contain specific details (named contractor, specific jobs, distinct scenarios), the small sample size makes it impossible to rule out selection bias or an unrepresentative snapshot.
• No negative or mixed feedback present in any review — absence of criticism in a 3-review set should not be interpreted as a flawless track record.
• All reviews fall within a 5-month window (February–June 2024), providing no long-term performance data.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews and should be treated as a preliminary indicator only — significantly more reviews are needed before this score can be considered a reliable representation of contractor performance.

All three reviews are recent (2024) and consistently praise Kris's professionalism, including punctuality, responsiveness, and communication — driving a strong professionalism score. Project completion is supported across all reviews, with multiple job types mentioned as successfully finished. Experience is evidenced by practical problem-solving advice (e.g., recommending refinishing over demolition, advising on DIY options) and a wide range of trade work including plumbing, electrical, painting, and carpentry. Pricing is mentioned positively in two reviews, with one explicitly noting they are not overcharged, supporting a solid but conservatively scored pricing dimension.

• Only 3 reviews total — WW Score should be treated as preliminary and not fully reliable.
• All reviews are 5-star with uniformly positive tone; while the reviews do contain specific details and varied scenarios, the small sample size limits the ability to rule out selection bias.
• No negative feedback or constructive criticism present across any review — this may reflect genuine satisfaction but warrants caution given the limited sample.
• No review mentions any issue, delay, or imperfection, which is statistically unusual even for high-quality contractors.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews and should be considered a preliminary signal only — significantly more reviews are needed before this score can be trusted as a reliable indicator of contractor quality.

Professionalism received the most mentions but is meaningfully dragged down by a detailed 2-star review from October 2024 describing a failure to clean up after work and denial of responsibility — the most recent review in the dataset and therefore weighted heavily. Pricing and experience are mentioned positively in a few reviews, but the small sample size limits confidence in those scores. Project completion feedback is generally positive but lacks specific detail about timelines or follow-through. The overall picture is of a contractor with a reasonable reputation who has at least one documented recent lapse in professional conduct.

• FAKE REVIEW RISK — MODERATE: Four of the six reviews were posted within a 13-day window in late June to early July 2022, all 5-star, with generic praise and limited specifics. This clustering pattern is a common indicator of coordinated or solicited reviews and reduces confidence in those entries.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Four of six reviews are from 2022 and one from 2023. The only review from the past 12 months (October 2024) is the sole negative review, which may indicate a decline in service quality over time.
• LOW REVIEW VOLUME: Only 6 total reviews were analyzed. Scores and the WW Score should be treated as preliminary estimates only and not as statistically reliable assessments.

This WW Score carries LOW overall reliability due to a very small review pool, a suspicious clustering of same-week 5-star reviews in 2022, and the most recent review being a detailed negative account — consumers should seek additional references before making a hiring decision.

Awake Plumbing receives strong praise for professionalism and personal care — particularly from the detailed 2021 review describing Al's responsiveness, cleanliness, mask-wearing during COVID, and even a Christmas gift delivery months later. Project completion is generally positive, with multiple reviewers noting successful repairs that held up over time. However, pricing is a significant concern: one reviewer explicitly accused the company of attempting to overcharge by a factor of three, citing a $3,500 quote for work a competitor completed for $1,150, which substantially drags down the pricing dimension. Experience scores moderately well based on specific technical mentions, but the pricing complaint raises questions about whether upselling was being used to inflate job scope. Overall confidence is limited due to the small review pool and the wide date range spanning over a decade.

• RECENCY WARNING: Only 1 of 5 reviews is from the past 12 months (September 2024). Two reviews are from 2014–2015 and are over 9 years old. One is from 2018 and one from 2021. The score is heavily influenced by outdated feedback and may not reflect current service quality.
• PRICING CONCERN: One reviewer (2018) explicitly alleged price manipulation — claiming Awake Plumbing quoted $3,500 for a job completed by a competitor for $1,150, and stated the plumber gave false technical justifications to inflate the scope. This is a serious flag and significantly lowers the pricing score.
• SMALL SAMPLE SIZE: Only 5 reviews total. This is insufficient to draw reliable conclusions about consistent service quality. All scores should be treated with caution.
• POTENTIAL GENERIC REVIEWS: The 2014 and 2015 reviews are brief, lack specific detail, and follow a similar pattern of vague praise. While not definitively fake, they carry low evidentiary weight and were scored conservatively.

This WW Score should be treated with low confidence — the sample size is very small, most reviews are significantly outdated, and a credible pricing complaint introduces meaningful doubt about the contractor's trustworthiness in scoping and quoting jobs.

New-Pipe Plumbing has a large and diverse review base spanning roughly 2008–2018, with the vast majority of reviews predating 2016, making recency a significant concern. Professionalism scores moderately well overall — many reviewers praised punctuality, courteous technicians, and clean work habits — but is dragged down by a meaningful minority of reviews citing no-shows, late arrivals, upselling pressure, dishonest diagnoses, and technicians with poor attitudes. Pricing is the weakest dimension: while some reviewers found the company competitive or reasonable, a substantial number explicitly described prices as too high, felt misled by escalating quotes mid-job, or found significantly cheaper alternatives after the fact; hidden charges, bait-and-switch pricing, and refusal to honor advertised discounts appear across multiple independent reviews. Project completion is mixed — many jobs were finished on time and to satisfaction, but a notable cluster of reviews describes incomplete work, return visits required to fix errors, jobs running over schedule, and in several cases outright abandoned or botched work. Experience scores similarly: skilled technicians like Billy, Phillip, Jack, Marco, and Benny received strong individual praise, but multiple reviews document misdiagnosed problems, incorrect installations (hot/cold reversed, improperly sealed pipes, wrong parts), and technicians who lacked necessary equipment or knowledge.

• RECENCY WARNING: The overwhelming majority of reviews are dated between 2010 and 2015, with very few from 2016 onward. Only one review (2018) is within the past several years. The WW Score reflects a historical picture and may not represent current service quality.
• UPSELLING PATTERN: Multiple independent reviews across different years explicitly describe aggressive upselling, pressure tactics, and technicians recommending unnecessary work. This is a recurring and credible pattern, not isolated incidents.
• PRICING INCONSISTENCY: Several reviews describe quotes being significantly higher than competitors for identical work, mid-job price escalation, failure to honor advertised or quoted prices, and charges that reviewers later discovered were grossly inflated. This pattern is well-documented across many reviews.
• WORKMANSHIP ERRORS: Multiple reviews document concrete installation errors including reversed hot/cold pipes, improperly sealed connections, incorrect diagnoses leading to unnecessary work, and jobs left incomplete requiring follow-up visits.
• NO-SHOW AND SCHEDULING FAILURES: At least 5–6 reviews describe technicians or crews failing to show up for scheduled appointments with no advance notice, a serious reliability concern.
• SUBCONTRACTOR QUALITY VARIANCE: At least one review explicitly notes that quality varied significantly depending on which subcontractors were used, suggesting inconsistent service standards.
• REVIEW VOLUME NOTE: The large number of reviews (175) provides high statistical confidence, but the age of the data significantly limits its predictive value for current service quality.

This WW Score carries HIGH statistical confidence due to the large review volume, but should be treated with caution given that nearly all reviews are more than 5 years old and the dataset reveals a consistent pattern of pricing complaints, upselling, and workmanship errors that meaningfully offset the many positive experiences.