Find Nearby Plumbers In Glendale, California

Foothill Plumbing demonstrates strong overall performance across all four dimensions, with particular strength in professionalism and experience. The company excels at punctuality, communication, and technical skill, with the vast majority of reviews praising responsiveness, courteous staff, and quality workmanship. Pricing is generally perceived as fair and competitive, though some customers noted occasional discrepancies between quoted and final charges. Project completion is reliable with most jobs finished as promised, though a small number of reviews mention incomplete follow-up or delayed callbacks. The high mention counts across all dimensions (89–142 reviews per category) provide robust confidence in these scores.

• Multiple empty reviews (no text, only ratings) dated 2023-06-09, 2024-06-08, 2020-06-09, 2021-06-09, and 2015-06-01 suggest possible data quality issues or placeholder entries; these were included in analysis but may inflate apparent review volume
• Detected 8 negative reviews (ratings 1–2) citing serious issues: unresponsiveness to calls/texts, rude behavior on late-night calls, pricing discrepancies, incomplete work, unprofessional conduct, and poor follow-up. These are genuine complaints and not fake reviews
• One review (2023-06-09) from a long-time customer expressed disappointment with a technician's failure to present a less expensive option and lack of callback from owner Mike, suggesting potential service inconsistency
• A few reviews (2015-06-03, 2017-11-27, 2018-05-03) describe frustration with pricing surprises, incomplete job follow-up, and communication breakdowns, indicating occasional lapses in transparency and project management
• No evidence of fake review patterns detected; negative reviews contain specific, credible complaints; positive reviews vary in detail and tone, suggesting authentic customer feedback

This WW Score of 84.2 is highly reliable, based on 227 reviews with strong mention counts across all four dimensions (89–142 per category). The company demonstrates consistent excellence in professionalism and experience, with solid performance in pricing and project completion. However, the presence of 8 credible negative reviews citing unresponsiveness, pricing discrepancies, and incomplete follow-up indicates that service quality is not uniformly excellent and can vary by technician or situation. Customers should expect generally professional, skilled service at fair prices, but should confirm pricing in writing and follow up on callbacks to mitigate risk.

Saurer Bros. demonstrates strong performance across all dimensions with consistently high marks for professionalism, reliability, and technical skill. The company excels in responsiveness and punctuality, with multiple reviews highlighting same-day or next-morning service. Pricing is generally perceived as fair and transparent, with several customers noting significant savings compared to competitors. Project completion is reliable with long-term customer relationships spanning 10-30 years. However, two older negative reviews (2013, 2023) citing communication failures and unresponsiveness introduce some caution, though these are substantially outweighed by overwhelmingly positive feedback.

• Two negative reviews (1-star ratings from 2023-08-14 and 2013-12-30) report communication failures and unreturned calls, suggesting occasional responsiveness issues despite overall strong reputation
• One review (2012-08-05, 3-star) raises concerns about efficiency and billing practices during parts runs, though this is isolated and addressed by a supportive long-term customer
• One empty review (2022-06-10) with 5-star rating provides no usable data
• One review with minimal text ('unknown', 2014-05-31) provides no substantive information
• Most reviews are older than 12 months; only 3 reviews from 2024 and 1 from 2023 provide recent data. Recent negative review from August 2023 suggests potential service consistency issues that warrant monitoring
• No evidence of fake review patterns; reviews contain specific details, varied writing styles, and realistic criticisms

This WW Score of 84.2 is highly reliable based on 34 reviews with substantial mentions across all dimensions, though the recency of data is limited (only 4 reviews from past 12 months) and two documented communication failures suggest occasional service inconsistencies that should be considered when evaluating current reliability.

911 Plumbing and Rooter receives consistently strong feedback across all four scored dimensions, with professionalism being the most frequently and enthusiastically praised quality — nearly every reviewer commented on punctuality, responsiveness, and courteous demeanor. Pricing was repeatedly described as fair, reasonable, or affordable, with no reviewer raising concerns about hidden charges or overpricing. Project completion scores are high, supported by multiple accounts of jobs finished quickly and correctly, including at least one callback honored promptly when a follow-up issue arose. Experience and workmanship are well-supported, with reviewers citing technical knowledge, proper equipment, permit handling, and accurate diagnostics. The primary caveat is that the majority of reviews are more than 3 years old, with only two reviews dated within the past 12 months, which moderately limits confidence in how current this performance picture is.

• RECENCY WARNING: Only 2 of 18 reviews are dated within the past 12 months (2023–2024). The bulk of reviews span 2014–2019, meaning this score may not reflect current service quality.
• MILD REPETITION PATTERN: Several reviews use similar phrasing around punctuality and responsiveness, though most include specific situational details (emergency types, scheduling windows, follow-ups) that suggest genuine experiences rather than fabricated reviews.
• PERSONAL RELATIONSHIP DISCLOSURE: One reviewer (2016-02-10) explicitly states 'Arin is my friend,' which introduces potential bias. This review was still counted but treated with reduced weight in scoring.
• SINGLE OPERATOR DEPENDENCY: Many reviews reference Arin by name as the primary or sole technician. A few mention other staff (George, Greg, Art). It is unclear whether service quality is consistent across all team members or concentrated in one individual.

This WW Score carries HIGH statistical confidence based on mention volume across all dimensions, but should be interpreted with caution given that most reviews are 5 or more years old and only 2 reviews reflect recent experience.

Albert's Plumbing demonstrates consistently strong performance across all four dimensions, with professionalism and responsiveness being the most frequently praised attributes — customers repeatedly highlight same-day and emergency availability, punctuality, courteous demeanor, and clear communication. Pricing is generally regarded as fair and reasonable, though two negative reviews flag a mid-job price increase and a phone quote that nearly doubled, and one reviewer noted the service is 'not cheap,' which tempers the pricing score modestly. Project completion is very strong overall, with the vast majority of reviewers confirming jobs were finished correctly and promptly; however, one explicit 1-star review states the contractor was paid and never returned to finish the job, which is a serious flag that prevents a higher score. Experience and technical skill are well-supported by detailed reviews describing complex jobs — sewer line replacement, re-piping, gas leak repair, tree root clearing, and creative problem-solving to avoid tile demolition — though one 1-star review alleges a service was not performed as agreed (tankless water heater cleaning), reducing full confidence in this dimension.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: A significant number of reviews appear to be exact duplicates posted on the same or nearby dates (e.g., the 'If you are looking for excellent service' review appears twice on 2025-05-25; the 'I had Albert's Plumbing fix stubborn tree roots' review appears twice on 2025-05-10 and again on 2025-05-10; 'We've called Albert on three separate occasions' appears twice; 'Great service, would recommend everyone' appears twice; 'Albert and crew did a great job' appears twice; 'I had called late at night' appears twice; 'I called Albert's Plumbing because I had a stopped up kitchen sink' appears twice; 'Very happy with their service. They are not cheap' appears twice; 'Excellent customer service. Explains what is required' appears twice; 'Albert has become our go-to plumber' appears twice on 2025-02-09 and again on 2022-01-16; 'Great service. Comes when needed' appears twice; 'Called for an emergency. Came in 30 minutes' appears twice; 'Albert and his son, Alex were prompt' appears twice; 'We called Albert's Plumbing and they came within 30 minutes' appears twice; 'Albert and his son Alex did a fantastic job' appears twice; 'Albert has been a lifesaver to us several times' appears twice; 'Came to our house repaired our shower faucet' negative review appears twice; 'Albert did a great job with our bathroom sink' appears twice; 'We called Albert at 9pm tonight' appears twice and a third time; 'Literally the best! Within a couple hours' appears twice; 'Albert's Plumbing did a great job at our house' appears twice; 'The most professional and experienced plumbing company ever' appears twice; 'Albert is a true professional' appears twice; 'Albert is the BEST' appears twice; 'My water heater decided to stop working' appears twice; 'I called them on a Sunday around 4:30' appears twice; 'I am so happy with the service provided' appears twice; 'Very professional team. Completed the repair' appears twice; 'Albert's plumbing is THE BEST!!' appears twice; 'I recently had a gas leak problem' appears twice; 'Alex did such a great job' appears twice; 'My elderly mother needed a plumber' appears twice; 'Albert installed a new water heater for me' appears twice on 2023-06-10 and again on 2023-05-02; 'Strongly NOT recommended. Did not finish the job' appears twice). This pattern of mass duplication is a significant integrity concern and may indicate review manipulation or a platform data export artifact. Scores have been calculated using deduplicated unique review content only.
• NEGATIVE REVIEW — PROJECT ABANDONMENT: One reviewer (1-star, 2023-06-10) explicitly states the contractor was paid and never returned to finish the job. This is a serious project completion concern.
• NEGATIVE REVIEW — SERVICE NOT RENDERED AS AGREED: One reviewer (1-star, 2023-07-12) alleges that a tankless water heater cleaning was not performed as described and agreed upon, and that a refund was refused. This raises concerns about honesty and follow-through on quoted scope of work.
• NEGATIVE REVIEW — PRICING INCONSISTENCY: One reviewer (2-star, 2018-06-14) reports a phone quote that nearly doubled within minutes of the initial estimate, suggesting possible inconsistency in upfront pricing.
• NEGATIVE REVIEW — ATTITUDE/COMMUNICATION: One reviewer (1-star, 2017-11-16) reports rude behavior during an estimate call, including an unexpected $150 diagnostic fee not mentioned upfront.
• NEGATIVE REVIEW — WRONG PARTS INSTALLED: One reviewer (3-star, 2018-12-16) notes that replacement hardware installed did not match the existing fixtures in color, suggesting insufficient attention to detail on that job.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of substantive, unique reviews span from 2018 through 2025, with a strong cluster in 2024–2025. Reviews from 2012–2015 are sparse and carry less weight. Overall recency of the review base is favorable.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Multiple reviews contain no text and only a 5-star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data.

The WW Score of 83.1 carries HIGH overall confidence given the large volume of detailed, substantive reviews spanning multiple years; however, the extensive duplication of reviews is a notable integrity concern that warrants caution, and the presence of three credible 1-star reviews — including one alleging job abandonment after payment — prevents a higher score and should be carefully considered by prospective customers.

Master Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism and technical expertise across most reviews, with technicians consistently praised for punctuality, communication, and knowledgeable work. However, the company shows significant inconsistency in project completion and follow-through, with multiple serious complaints about no-shows, abandoned work, poor callbacks, and unresolved issues. Pricing feedback is mixed—some customers report fair and reasonable rates, while others cite high costs or unexpected charges. Recent reviews (2025) are overwhelmingly positive, but older reviews reveal systemic problems with accountability and customer service that appear partially resolved over time.

• CRITICAL: Multiple severe project completion failures documented—no-shows on scheduled appointments (2022, 2015, 2008), work left incomplete (2022, 2008), and technicians ghosting customers after payment (2022, 2009). These are not isolated incidents.
• CRITICAL: Serious follow-up and callback failures—customers reporting inability to reach company for warranty issues, repairs, and damage assessment (2022, 2009, 2008). One customer reported manager hanging up phone (2023).
• PATTERN: Significant quality control issues in older reviews—incorrect installations, damaged property during jobs, undersized systems, and poor workmanship that required re-repair by other companies (2022, 2008, 2007).
• RECENCY BIAS DETECTED: Reviews from 2025 and late 2024 are almost uniformly 5-star with generic praise and minimal specifics. Reviews from 2022-2023 show serious complaints. This suggests either significant operational changes or potential review manipulation in recent period.
• PRICING INCONSISTENCY: Multiple complaints about unexpected charges, high hourly rates ($175/hour noted as surprise), and quotes that don't match final bills (2008, 2015). Some customers report fair pricing; others report being overcharged.
• MULTIPLE TECHNICIAN NAMES: Reviews mention many different technicians (Doug, Meir, Jim, Kyle, Steve, Scott, etc.), making it difficult to assess whether issues are company-wide or individual. Quality appears highly variable by technician.
• FAKE REVIEW INDICATORS: Recent reviews (2025) contain repetitive structure, minimal detail, and suspiciously consistent 5-star ratings with vague praise ('Great service,' 'awesome,' 'highly recommend'). Multiple blank/minimal-text 5-star reviews suggest possible review padding.
• GEOGRAPHIC INCONSISTENCY: Reviews reference multiple locations (San Francisco, Boise, Idaho, Mountain View, etc.), suggesting either multiple locations or franchises with inconsistent quality standards.

This WW Score should be treated with MODERATE-TO-HIGH caution. While recent 2025 reviews are uniformly positive, historical data (2022-2023) reveals serious systemic issues with project completion, follow-through, and customer service that directly contradict the current narrative. The company may have improved significantly, but the recent review pattern shows signs of potential manipulation (generic praise, minimal detail, high concentration of 5-stars). Customers should verify current operational practices independently and request specific technician references before committing to major work.

Hamlet (LA Affordable Plumbing) demonstrates strong overall performance across all dimensions, with particular strength in professionalism and punctuality. The vast majority of reviews (120+ out of 125) are highly positive, praising responsiveness, fair pricing, and quality workmanship. However, four negative reviews (1-star and 2-star ratings) reveal legitimate concerns: incomplete repairs requiring callbacks, misinformation about repair scope, upselling of unnecessary parts, and poor communication. These negative experiences, while few, prevent a higher score and suggest occasional inconsistency in service quality and honesty. The pricing score reflects mixed feedback—many customers praise affordability, but some report higher costs than competitors for similar work.

• FAKE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: Reviews dated 2025-06-07 through 2025-02-08 (35 reviews) exhibit highly suspicious characteristics: identical phrasing patterns ('promptly arrived,' 'reasonable fee,' 'professional and polite,' 'strongly recommended'), generic praise with minimal specifics, all 5-star ratings with no variation, and suspiciously recent dates clustered in a 4-month window. These reviews lack the natural variation, specific details, and occasional critical nuance found in authentic reviews. This pattern suggests potential review manipulation or fake review generation.
• NEGATIVE REVIEWS REVEAL SERVICE INCONSISTENCY: Four low-rated reviews (1-star and 2-star) document serious issues: (1) incomplete repair requiring $400+ in failed attempts before a handyman solved it for $70; (2) poor communication and shifting messages about pricing and scope; (3) misinformation about repair requirements and upselling of expensive parts; (4) disrespectful behavior, loose installation work, and unwillingness to answer questions. These contradict the overwhelmingly positive narrative.
• RECENCY BIAS: The cluster of 35 suspicious 5-star reviews from Feb-Jun 2025 dominates recent activity. Authentic reviews from 2019-2024 show more balanced feedback with occasional 3-4 star ratings and specific details. The authentic review base (pre-2025) is substantially more trustworthy.
• PRICING INCONSISTENCY: Multiple reviews mention Hamlet's prices as 'extremely reasonable' and 'much cheaper than competitors,' but other reviews report costs that customers felt were high or questioned. One 2011 review noted $135 for hose replacement when HomeDepot hoses cost $20-30. This suggests either variable pricing, upselling tendencies, or customer perception gaps.
• QUALITY CONTROL VARIANCE: Authentic reviews document at least one instance of incomplete cleanup (sawdust, spills left for customer), loose faucet installation requiring future attention, and one case where a repair failed and required a callback. This indicates occasional lapses in thoroughness despite generally positive feedback.

This WW Score should be treated with MODERATE-TO-HIGH caution. While the authentic review base (2011-2024) strongly supports a score in the 80-85 range with genuine high confidence, the recent cluster of 35 suspicious 5-star reviews (2025) artificially inflates the score and undermines overall reliability. Removing the suspicious 2025 reviews would lower the WW Score to approximately 79-81 but increase confidence in that lower figure. The four documented negative experiences reveal real service inconsistencies that the overall score may underweight. Prospective customers should rely primarily on reviews from 2019-2024 and contact references directly to verify current service quality.