Find Nearby Plumbers In Glendora, California

J.B. Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism and pricing practices, with multiple reviews praising punctuality, cleanliness, and fair costs. However, project completion reliability is significantly undermined by recurring issues: multiple no-shows, failure to follow up on callbacks, incomplete repairs requiring return visits, and warranty work not honored consistently. Experience and workmanship quality are generally solid when work is completed, but execution inconsistency and communication breakdowns during complex jobs lower overall confidence. The company shows capability but suffers from operational reliability problems that directly impact customer satisfaction.

• CRITICAL: Multiple reviews (at least 5) document no-shows, missed appointments, and failure to return calls—a pattern suggesting systemic scheduling/communication issues rather than isolated incidents
• CRITICAL: Several reviews describe incomplete or faulty work requiring callbacks and rework (water heater installations with leaks, burned-out tankless units, improper electrical connections, unsealed lines)
• WARRANTY CONCERNS: Review from 2014-08-08 praises warranty work, but reviews from 2012-2013 describe warranty work being refused or delayed, suggesting inconsistent warranty policy application
• CONFLICT PATTERN: One detailed 2012 review contains a lengthy defensive email from 'Brock' disputing charges and explaining technical issues—suggests customer disputes and communication friction
• RECENCY ISSUE: Most recent reviews (2024, 2019) are positive, but critical failures cluster in 2012-2014 period. Recent reviews may not reflect current operational status, or company may have improved significantly
• ONE INCOMPLETE REVIEW: Review dated 2019-03-06 is truncated mid-sentence ('When asked to speak to the younger it was...'), making full assessment impossible, but rated 1-star suggesting serious issue
• GENERIC REVIEWS: Three reviews contain only 'unknown' text with 5-star ratings (2016-02-26, 2014-08-28, 2014-06-18)—cannot assess validity; treated as unusable data

This WW Score of 78.2 should be treated with MODERATE-TO-HIGH caution: while professionalism and pricing are well-documented as strong, the project completion dimension is significantly compromised by documented patterns of no-shows, missed callbacks, and rework requirements. The company appears capable but operationally unreliable. Recent positive reviews suggest possible improvement, but the historical pattern of failures (especially 2012-2014) indicates systemic issues. Customers should verify current operational practices before engaging, particularly regarding appointment reliability and warranty follow-through.

Cypress Heating & Air Conditioning receives overwhelmingly positive feedback on professionalism and technical experience, with dozens of reviewers praising named technicians — particularly Joshua, Alex, Ivan, and Cooper — for punctuality, courtesy, and clear communication. Project completion scores are strong, with multiple reviews describing thorough, same-day or next-day service and complete follow-through on installations and repairs. However, pricing is a significant drag on the overall score: multiple credible negative reviews describe price gouging on parts (capacitors, thermostats, motors), a quote that increased by $1,400 overnight, a $670 fitting charge questioned as excessive, and at least one reviewer citing a competitor completing the same job for a fraction of the cost. There are also several serious negative reviews alleging incomplete diagnostics, a disconnected duct left after installation, an owner behaving rudely, and a failure to deliver a promised inspection report — these meaningfully reduce confidence in consistency. The high volume of positive reviews is tempered by a recurring pattern of pricing complaints and a handful of serious service failures that cannot be dismissed.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: The review 'On time service. Very detail.' (5-star) appears on both 2025-06-08 and 2025-06-06 with identical text. The review 'Alex was wonderful, knowledgeable, and very responsive...' appears on both 2025-06-07 and 2025-06-05 with identical text. These are likely fake or inflated submissions and have been discounted in scoring.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS — MULTIPLE CREDIBLE NEGATIVE REVIEWS: At least 6 separate reviewers explicitly allege price gouging or unfair pricing: $350 for a basic capacitor worth $10-$30, $350 for a basic thermostat, $2,500 motor quote vs. $400 from a competitor, $670 fitting charge with a $400 part cost questioned, a quote rising $1,400 overnight between verbal and written proposal, and a reviewer directing customers to a competitor for significantly lower prices.
• SERVICE QUALITY FAILURES: One reviewer (1-star, 2023) alleges a technician damaged a wire clip and misdiagnosed the unit, then solicited a positive review before the customer could inspect the work. One reviewer (1-star, 2017) alleges a tech disassembled a furnace and left it in pieces without completing the job or following up. One reviewer (1-star, 2023) alleges a disconnected duct was left after installation causing elevated gas bills, and Cypress denied responsibility.
• PROFESSIONALISM COMPLAINT: One reviewer (1-star, 2022) alleges the owner arrived on-site, was rude and used profanity, and ordered the tech to leave without completing the job. One reviewer (1-star, 2020) alleges a failure to deliver a promised inspection report and that the office accused the reviewer of extortion when they gave advance notice of a negative review.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews are from 2024-2025 and are within the past 12 months, which increases the reliability of the current score. Older negative reviews (2017-2020) may reflect past management or staffing issues, but pricing complaints persist into 2024.
• GENERIC REVIEWS WITH NO DETAIL: Approximately 20+ reviews consist of blank text with only a star rating, and several others contain only 2-4 words (e.g., 'Excellent service', 'Always great', 'Fast efficient'). These were counted toward total reviews analyzed but provided no usable dimensional data and were excluded from mention counts.
• POSSIBLE REVIEW SOLICITATION PATTERN: One negative reviewer explicitly states the technician asked for a positive review before the customer could inspect the work, and that the company sent the rating request text immediately after. This raises concern that some of the high volume of brief 5-star reviews may be solicited before customers have fully assessed the service.

This WW Score is based on a large review set (175 reviews) with high mention counts across all four dimensions, giving it statistical weight; however, the score should be treated with moderate caution due to confirmed duplicate reviews, a recurring and credible pattern of pricing complaints spanning multiple years, at least three serious service failure allegations, and a meaningful volume of content-free 5-star reviews that may reflect solicitation rather than organic satisfaction.

This review set covers two distinct entities — Robert's Plumbing (a small independent plumber with largely positive reviews spanning 2008–2025) and Chas Roberts HVAC (a larger contractor with predominantly negative reviews concentrated in 2023–2025). When analyzed together, professionalism scores are dragged down significantly by Chas Roberts' repeated failures: missed appointments, poor communication, and unresponsive customer service, though Robert's Plumbing earns strong marks for punctuality and friendliness. Pricing is a major concern, with multiple explicit complaints about Chas Roberts' opaque 'block pricing' model charging hundreds of dollars per hour effectively, and at least two negative pricing reviews for Robert's Plumbing as well, offsetting the many positive affordability mentions. Project completion is the weakest dimension overall, driven by Chas Roberts' pattern of recurring HVAC failures, abandoned repairs, no-shows, and work that required third-party correction — including dangerous wiring errors and improper installations. Experience scores are mixed: Robert's Plumbing technicians are frequently praised for skill and problem-solving, while Chas Roberts technicians are repeatedly cited for shoddy workmanship, incorrect wiring, poor-quality parts, and installations requiring remediation by other companies.

• MIXED ENTITY WARNING: Reviews appear to cover at least two distinct businesses — 'Robert's Plumbing' (independent plumber, primarily West Sacramento/Tucson area) and 'Chas Roberts' (large HVAC contractor, Arizona). Scores are blended across these entities, which significantly reduces the usefulness of a single composite score. Scores should ideally be calculated separately per entity.
• RECENCY BIAS — CHAS ROBERTS: The most recent reviews (2024–2025) are overwhelmingly negative and relate almost exclusively to Chas Roberts HVAC. This pulls all dimension scores downward and reflects a current operational quality concern.
• SAFETY FLAGS — CHAS ROBERTS: Multiple reviews cite potentially dangerous workmanship including improper electrical wiring (fire hazard with burn marks), aluminum-to-copper line failures, and damper systems wired backwards. One review mentions an ROC license complaint filing.
• NO-SHOW / ABANDONMENT PATTERN — ROBERT'S PLUMBING: At least 5 reviews across different years describe Robert's Plumbing failing to show up for scheduled appointments, not returning calls, or abandoning incomplete jobs. This is a recurring pattern, not isolated incidents.
• BLANK REVIEWS EXCLUDED FROM SCORING: Approximately 15–20 reviews contained no text (only a star rating). These were counted in total_reviews_analyzed but excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable qualitative data.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — ROBERT'S PLUMBING (MODERATE): A large cluster of 5-star reviews for Robert's Plumbing share very similar structure: same-day service praise, mention of 'Robert' by name, short job descriptions, and near-identical sentiment. While many appear genuine and span years, the density and uniformity of positive reviews warrants moderate caution. No single review was definitively flagged as fake, but the pattern is noted.
• IRRELEVANT REVIEWS PRESENT: Several reviews appear entirely unrelated to plumbing or HVAC (e.g., a pest control business owner commentary, a review about a dangerous driver, a review about a spraying technician named Randy/Leah). These were excluded from dimension scoring.
• LICENSING CONCERN: One reviewer explicitly states Robert is not a licensed plumber and operates as an unlicensed handyman, which is a significant professional and legal concern if accurate.

This WW Score carries HIGH data volume confidence due to the large number of reviews, but LOW entity reliability because the dataset blends at least two distinct businesses with very different performance profiles — the score should not be used to evaluate either entity in isolation without separating the review sets.

Count-On Plumbing has a long track record of completing jobs efficiently and thoroughly, with many reviewers praising punctuality, tidiness, and follow-through — including a notable callback honored at no charge. However, two recent reviews (2024) raise serious concerns about Kenny's interpersonal conduct, including being described as condescending, impatient, and a poor communicator, which meaningfully drag down the professionalism score. Pricing is the most polarizing dimension: older reviews consistently describe rates as fair and reasonable, but two recent reviews document significant overcharging on parts (a cartridge marked up over 3x retail) and disputed labor hours, which substantially lowers confidence in current pricing practices. Experience scores remain solid based on multiple accounts of skilled problem-solving, including completing jobs others said could not be done, though the recency of positive experience reviews is limited. The contrast between the older glowing reviews and the two detailed 2024 complaints is the dominant story in this dataset.

• RECENCY CONCERN: The two most recent reviews (August 2024 and May 2024) are both highly negative and detailed, describing overcharging, poor communication, and condescending behavior. The majority of positive reviews are from 2009–2022, with several from 2005–2013. Current performance may be significantly worse than historical scores suggest.
• PRICING INTEGRITY FLAG: One reviewer documented that Kenny charged $91.35 for a cartridge with a retail price of $27.00 — a markup of over 3x. A second reviewer independently alleged overcharging on both labor hours and materials. This is a consistent and specific pattern across two unrelated recent customers.
• PROFESSIONALISM FLAG: Kenny refused to allow a customer to observe work being done and refused to answer a basic question about the tool used, citing that he 'does not teach.' A separate reviewer described him as condescending and said he 'forgot I was his customer.' These are specific, credible behavioral complaints.
• GENERIC REVIEW CONCERN: Several older reviews (e.g., 'Problems solved.', 'All work seems to be fine.', 'Superior, fast, fair and very satisfactory.', 'Their response very good.') are extremely brief and lack specific detail. While not conclusively fake, they contribute limited evidentiary weight and were treated conservatively in scoring.
• VOLUME AND RECENCY IMBALANCE: A large proportion of reviews are more than 5 years old, and several are over 10 years old. The two most recent and detailed reviews are both negative, suggesting a possible decline in service quality over time.

This WW Score carries moderate-to-high structural reliability due to the volume of reviews, but consumers should weight the two detailed 2024 negative reviews heavily, as they reflect the most current and specific evidence of pricing and professionalism issues.

Advanced Plumbing, Heating and Air Conditioning receives strong praise for professionalism, communication, and responsiveness across many reviews, with staff like Craig and Lupe frequently highlighted by name for their courteous and prompt service. Technical knowledge and diagnostic skill are positively noted in multiple reviews, supporting a solid experience score. However, the project completion dimension is significantly dragged down by a recurring and serious pattern: multiple reviewers (across different years) report technicians failing to submit warranty reports on time, leaving customers without AC for weeks, and not following through on promised callbacks. One detailed 1-star review also raises concerns about a potentially unnecessary and expensive repair recommendation. Pricing is mentioned positively in a small number of reviews, earning a moderate but conservative score. The mix of genuinely strong service reviews and genuinely serious failure reviews produces a middling overall WW Score that reflects real inconsistency in service delivery.

• RECENCY NOTE: Several positive reviews date from 2013–2016 and carry reduced weight. The most recent reviews (2024) are positive, but the negative reviews span 2018–2021, suggesting a persistent pattern of warranty follow-through failures over multiple years.
• PROJECT COMPLETION CONCERN: At least 4 separate reviews explicitly describe the company failing to submit warranty reports, failing to follow up, or leaving jobs unresolved for weeks. This is a consistent and serious pattern, not isolated incidents.
• POTENTIAL MISCONDUCT FLAG: One detailed 1-star review (2019) alleges the company recommended $3,470 in unnecessary repairs (duct work, dampers, attic fan) on a 4-year-old unit without checking basic diagnostics like the air filter or Freon levels. The actual fix cost $795. This raises concerns about diagnostic integrity and upselling.
• CALLBACK FAILURE PATTERN: Multiple reviews mention calling for updates and not receiving return calls as promised, indicating a systemic communication breakdown specifically around follow-through, even though initial responsiveness is praised.
• NO FAKE REVIEW FLAGS DETECTED: Reviews vary in length, detail, tone, and rating. Negative reviews are specific and credible. No suspicious patterns of identical phrasing or coordinated generic praise detected.

This WW Score is based on 17 reviews spanning 2013–2024 with usable data across all four dimensions, and carries HIGH overall confidence in its directional accuracy, though the score reflects genuine inconsistency in service quality rather than a uniformly strong or weak contractor.

Joe and All American Rooter Service receive consistently positive feedback across all four scored dimensions. Professionalism is the strongest signal, with all five reviews mentioning punctuality, friendliness, responsiveness, and a 24/7 availability that impressed multiple customers. Pricing is praised as fair and below market in three reviews, supporting a strong but not perfect pricing score. Project completion is well-supported, with reviewers noting jobs were finished without issue and that Joe accommodated unexpected additional work without hesitation. Experience is reflected in comments about Joe knowing his craft and solving problems effectively, though reviews lack deep technical specifics to justify a higher score.

• All 5 reviews are 5-star ratings with no negative feedback whatsoever — this warrants mild caution, though the reviews do contain specific details that reduce fake review suspicion.
• RECENCY WARNING: All reviews are older than 5 years, with the most recent dated December 2019 and the oldest from December 2012. None fall within the past 12 months. This significantly limits the reliability of the score as a reflection of current service quality.
• Small sample size of only 5 reviews limits statistical confidence across all dimensions. Scores should be treated as directional rather than definitive.

This WW Score carries moderate directional reliability due to consistent positive signals across all dimensions, but should be treated with caution given that all reviews are over 5 years old and the total sample size is very small.