Find Nearby Plumbers In Hawthorne, California

Miller Plumbing has an overwhelmingly positive review base spanning over 15 years, with the vast majority of customers praising Mike and his team for responsiveness, professionalism, and technical expertise across a wide range of plumbing jobs. Pricing is generally described as fair, reasonable, and competitive, though a small number of negative reviews specifically cite overcharging and billing disputes, which temper the pricing score modestly. Project completion is strong overall, with many reviewers noting jobs were finished on time, cleanly, and with follow-through — however, one credible negative review describes unfinished paid work and a rude dismissal, and another details a warranty dispute, which meaningfully reduce the completion score. Experience scores highest in terms of consistency, with dozens of reviewers across many years independently describing Mike as knowledgeable, skilled, and a master of his craft. The handful of negative reviews (7 total, covering rudeness, overcharging, no-show estimates, parking complaints, and incomplete work) are credible and specific enough to prevent top-tier scores across all dimensions.

• FAKE REVIEW RISK — MODERATE: A large cluster of reviews share the date '2023-06-10', '2022-06-10', '2021-06-10', '2020-06-10', and similar June 10 dates across multiple years with no specific timestamps. This pattern is consistent with bulk review imports or date normalization artifacts from a third-party platform, not organic posting. These reviews should be treated with reduced individual weight, though their content is varied enough to suggest they are not entirely fabricated.
• MULTIPLE TECHNICIANS MENTIONED: Reviews reference Mike, Greg, Jeff, Chad, Don, Brian, Pat, and Jimmy — suggesting this is a multi-person operation or a shared business name across different regions/franchises. Some negative reviews (e.g., the estimate no-show review referencing Greg, and the rude technician review referencing a young Hispanic man) may describe different employees than the Mike Miller praised in most reviews. This reduces score reliability as a unified entity.
• NEGATIVE REVIEW — OVERCHARGING (2021): One detailed 1-star review describes a $670 bill for under 3 hours of work on simple jobs, with the customer calculating a fair charge of no more than $400. This is a specific, credible pricing complaint that meaningfully impacts the pricing score.
• NEGATIVE REVIEW — INCOMPLETE WORK AND RUDE BEHAVIOR (2015): A 1-star review describes a toilet flange set crooked, unfinished paid work, and Mike telling the customer to 'stop wasting his time' and 'never call him again.' This is a serious project completion and professionalism flag.
• NEGATIVE REVIEW — ESTIMATE NO-SHOW (2019): A detailed 1-star review describes weeks of waiting for an estimate that never arrived, and an unhelpful staff response. This reflects a systemic communication failure and impacts professionalism scoring.
• NEGATIVE REVIEW — WARRANTY DISPUTE (2014): A 1-star review describes Miller Plumbing denying they offered warranty service after charging $125 for a call on a unit they installed. This is a credible project completion and trust concern.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of highly detailed, positive reviews are from 2021–2025 and carry the most weight. Reviews from 2006–2014 are older than 10 years and are given reduced weight in scoring, though they are consistent in tone with recent reviews.
• THREE REVIEWS CONTAIN NO USABLE TEXT: Reviews with content 'unknown', '.', or blank were excluded from dimension scoring but counted in total reviews analyzed.

This WW Score is based on a large and diverse review set spanning 15+ years with 110 total reviews, giving it HIGH overall confidence, but the score should be interpreted with awareness that multiple technicians operate under the Miller Plumbing name, a cluster of same-date reviews suggests possible platform import artifacts, and a small but credible set of negative reviews raises legitimate concerns about pricing transparency, project follow-through, and occasional unprofessional conduct.

The overwhelming majority of reviews praise professionalism, punctuality, and friendly technicians across both the 702 PlumbAIR and Phillips Plumbing entities represented in this dataset. Pricing is generally described as fair and reasonable, though a meaningful minority of negative reviews cite billing surprises, overcharging, and hidden fees that temper the pricing score. Project completion is strong overall, with many reviewers noting jobs finished correctly and on time, but several serious negative reviews describe abandoned work, incomplete repairs, no-shows, and failure to follow through on callbacks — including one detailed account of a major repipe left unfinished for months. Experience scores well due to numerous specific mentions of skilled diagnostics, knowledgeable technicians, and quality workmanship, though a handful of reviews describe poor-quality work, wrong fittings, and recurring leaks after repairs.

• MIXED ENTITY ALERT: This review set appears to contain reviews for at least two distinct businesses — 'Phillips Plumbing' (multiple locations including Sarasota FL, Las Vegas NV, El Cerrito CA, and others) and '702 PlumbAIR' (Las Vegas NV). Scores reflect an aggregate that may not accurately represent either business individually.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — MODERATE: A cluster of reviews dated 2025-05-10 contains 15+ reviews posted on the same date, many with generic praise ('Great service', 'Excellent service', 'Amazing service'), no specific job details, and identical 5-star ratings. This pattern is consistent with review padding or solicited bulk reviews and reduces confidence in the overall positive skew.
• BLANK REVIEWS: At least 8 reviews contained no text content (only a star rating). These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data.
• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: At least 3 reviews appear to be near-identical or exact duplicates (e.g., the Donald/Marty kitchen repair story appears three times; the Phillips/El Cerrito Ralph review appears twice; the 'Solid 5 star company' Anthony review appears twice). Duplicates were counted only once per dimension to avoid score inflation.
• RECENCY NOTE: A significant portion of reviews date from 2014–2019, which is more than 5 years old. While recent 2025 reviews are present and weighted more heavily, the older negative reviews (including serious complaints about abandoned work, billing fraud, and unprofessional conduct) remain relevant to the overall assessment.
• SERIOUS NEGATIVE INCIDENTS: Multiple 1-star reviews describe significant failures including: a major repipe left incomplete for 5+ months with an open foundation hole and missing P-trap; a repair that caused water damage to an AC system twice with no callback; a technician who damaged a new wood floor and refused accountability; a billing dispute where a promised refund was never issued; and a technician described as condescending and threatening. These incidents meaningfully reduce scores for project completion and professionalism.
• PRICING CONCERN: At least 3 reviews explicitly describe being charged more than quoted, hidden fees (credit card surcharges, undisclosed material charges), or rates described as higher than competitors. One review noted a 30% premium over comparable companies.

This WW Score carries moderate-to-high reliability for general trend assessment given the large review volume, but should be interpreted cautiously due to the mixed-entity dataset, suspected bulk review padding on 2025-05-10, and a pattern of serious unresolved complaints that suggest meaningful quality inconsistency across technicians and locations.

Atech Plumbing has a strong base of positive reviews praising professionalism, responsiveness, and technical knowledge across many years of service, with particular standout performance during the 2021 Texas winter storm emergency. However, several serious negative reviews meaningfully drag down the score: one review alleges employee theft of jewelry with no accountability from ownership, one describes work done entirely against plumbing code with structural damage, and one describes an abandoned job where disassembled faucets were left unusable for over a month. Pricing is a mixed signal — multiple reviewers praised fair or competitive pricing, while others explicitly accused the company of price gouging (especially during the 2021 storm) and overcharging. Project completion is similarly mixed, with most jobs completed well but at least two reviews describing incomplete or defective work with poor follow-through. The score reflects genuine quality in many interactions tempered by serious, credible negative incidents that cannot be dismissed.

• SERIOUS FLAG: One reviewer (2024-03-04) alleges that an Atech employee stole jewelry from their home during a service call, that the repair was faulty requiring additional correction, and that owner Joe Arce provided no meaningful response or resolution. This is a severe integrity and accountability concern.
• SERIOUS FLAG: One reviewer (2021-07-13) states that all work performed was against plumbing code, that structural integrity of walls was compromised by improper notching of studs, and that other contractors described the work as newsworthy in its negligence. This suggests a potential serious workmanship failure.
• SERIOUS FLAG: One reviewer (2020-06-02) describes a job abandoned mid-completion for over a month, with bathroom faucets left disassembled and unusable, and the company ultimately emailing to say they were 'finished' with the customer rather than completing the work. This is a direct project completion failure.
• PRICING CONCERN: One reviewer (2021-02-23) explicitly accused Atech of price gouging during the 2021 Texas freeze, quoting 2-3x the price of competitors. A separate reviewer (2020-09-10) said the company 'will clean out your bank account.' A third reviewer (2019-09-27) described feeling overcharged for a slab leak repair with missed code items. These are credible and specific pricing complaints.
• WORKMANSHIP CONCERN: The 2019-09-27 reviewer, who identified themselves as being in construction, noted that the plumber failed to insulate new PEX pipe and omitted required metal stud guards — items they described as known to even beginner plumbers. A second trip was also required due to the plumber not bringing necessary parts.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent reviews are from 2024 (1 review) and 2022 (3 reviews). The bulk of reviews — including most positive ones — are from 2015–2021. The most recent review (2024) is the most severe negative review. Score confidence is somewhat reduced by the lack of recent positive data to confirm current service quality.
• POSSIBLE MIXED ENTITY: Several reviews mention 'Ralph' as the plumber, while others reference 'Joe Arce' and technicians named 'Nick' and 'Jack.' It is possible some reviews may reference a different business or operator operating under a similar name (e.g., 'Altech' vs 'Atech'). One review (2021-07-05) references 'Altech Plumbing' specifically. This has been included but noted as a potential data quality issue.
• NO FAKE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: Reviews vary significantly in length, detail, writing style, and sentiment. Negative reviews are specific and credible. No coordinated fake review pattern identified.

This WW Score is based on 49 reviews spanning 2015–2024 with high mention counts across all dimensions, giving the score mathematical reliability — however, the presence of multiple serious, specific, and credible negative reviews (theft allegation, code violations, abandoned work, price gouging) means the score should be treated with caution, and prospective customers should read the negative reviews in full before hiring.

Best Rooter & Plumbing, led primarily by Gonzalo, earns strong praise across the majority of reviews for punctuality, professionalism, and technical competence on a wide variety of plumbing jobs. Pricing is frequently cited as fair and transparent, with multiple reviewers specifically noting he did not attempt to upsell unnecessary services. However, several credible negative reviews — including a no-show complaint, a failed callback to fix a loose faucet installation, a three-month unresolved warranty issue, and a dismissive inspection — meaningfully drag down scores in professionalism and project completion. These are not isolated incidents and represent a real pattern of follow-through failures that must be weighted seriously. The volume of positive reviews is encouraging, but the negative reviews contain specific, detailed, and credible accounts that prevent top-tier scores.

• 17 reviews have completely empty review text with only a star rating — these were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable qualitative data.
• One review (2024-08-20, rating 2.0) appears to be a nonsensical or misdirected submission ('It is a lot of fun and I can do a lot of new things...') with no plumbing relevance — excluded from scoring.
• Two reviews (2021-06-10 and 2021-03-02) are word-for-word identical, suggesting a duplicate submission or potential fake review padding — treated as a single data point.
• A notable cluster of reviews share the same date (2024-06-09, 2023-06-10, 2022-06-10) with no specific timestamps, which may indicate batch imports or platform migration artifacts rather than organic review activity — treat with mild caution.
• Four credible 1-star reviews describe: repeated no-shows without communication (2022-07-23), a failed faucet installation with no callback and a potentially inflated quote (2022-04-23), a three-month unresolved warranty repair through a home insurance referral (2022-02-14), and a dismissive inspection visit (2020-05-14). These are specific, detailed, and plausible and were fully weighted in scoring.
• One 1-star review (2016-04-02) describes a no-show and failure to communicate about a scheduling conflict — older than 1 year but included as a pattern indicator for reliability concerns.
• The majority of reviews are older than 12 months. Only 4 reviews fall within the past 12 months (2025-04-10 x2 empty, 2025-02-09 x1 with text, 2025-01-10 x1 updated). Recent data is very thin and limits confidence in current performance.

This WW Score is based on a reasonably large review set with high mention counts across all dimensions, but is tempered by multiple credible negative reviews describing no-shows, incomplete work, and poor follow-through, as well as a significant lack of recent substantive reviews — the score should be treated as a moderate-confidence historical indicator rather than a reliable reflection of current service quality.

Dynamic Plumbers / No Limits Plumbing has a large volume of positive reviews praising punctuality, professionalism, and completed work across a wide range of plumbing tasks. Pricing is generally described as fair and transparent, with one reviewer specifically noting a significantly lower bid than a competitor. However, four substantive negative reviews — including one describing an abandoned mid-job remodel, one describing unreturned calls after a paid diagnostic, and two describing incompetent workers and poor quality control on larger jobs — meaningfully drag down scores across all dimensions. These negative reviews are older (2014–2022) but are serious in nature, particularly the job abandonment and worker quality complaints. The bulk of recent reviews (2025) are highly positive but show patterns consistent with possible review inflation, which limits their individual weight.

• SUSPECTED REVIEW INFLATION — 2025 reviews: The 40+ reviews dated between February and June 2025 are overwhelmingly 5-star, use highly generic and repetitive praise language ('professional,' 'punctual,' 'polite,' 'explained everything'), and many lack specific details about the job, technician name, or unique circumstances. Several are near-identical in structure and phrasing. This pattern is consistent with solicited or potentially inauthentic reviews.
• 6 BLANK REVIEWS — Six reviews contain no text at all (only a 5-star rating). These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data.
• JOB ABANDONMENT — One reviewer (2022) explicitly states the plumber got halfway through a bathroom remodel and stopped returning calls, leaving the job unfinished. This is a serious project completion failure.
• REPEATED NON-RESPONSE PATTERN — A 2021 reviewer paid $300 for a diagnostic and then could not reach the company for months. This corroborates the 2022 abandonment complaint and suggests a systemic responsiveness issue.
• WORKER QUALITY COMPLAINTS — Two older reviews (2014, 2016) describe incompetent workers, lack of quality oversight, costly mistakes, and an unprofessional attitude when confronted. These are serious experience and professionalism flags.
• RECENCY IMBALANCE — The majority of detailed, named reviews are from 2025 and show the inflation pattern noted above. Older reviews (2010–2023) are more varied and include the most credible negative feedback. Scores are weighted to account for this imbalance.
• DUAL BRAND IDENTITY — Reviews reference both 'Dynamic Plumbers Inglewood' and 'No Limits Plumbing' with named individuals Rudy and Diego. It is unclear if these are the same business entity or related operations, which may affect score reliability.

This WW Score carries moderate-to-high data volume but should be treated with caution due to strong indicators of review inflation in the 2025 batch, a documented job abandonment, and multiple serious complaints about worker quality and non-responsiveness — the true performance profile is likely more variable than the raw star average suggests.

The aggregate review pool spans multiple businesses operating under similar names (Pro Plumbing, Oro Pro Plumbing, Pro Plumbing Heating and Air), which introduces noise but also reflects a broad pattern of service quality. The majority of positive reviews praise punctuality, politeness, and clear communication, driving a moderate-to-good professionalism score. However, a meaningful cluster of negative reviews — including complaints about rude staff, missed appointments, no-shows, and unresponsive management — prevents a high professionalism score. Pricing is the weakest dimension: multiple reviewers explicitly called out overcharging, non-itemized invoices, inflated quotes (sometimes 4x competitors), and questionable billing practices, pulling the pricing score down significantly. Project completion is mixed — many jobs were completed well and on time, but several reviews describe abandoned work, failed inspections, jobs requiring correction by other companies, and warranty disputes. Experience scores moderately well overall, with many reviewers praising knowledgeable technicians, but offset by reviews citing misdiagnosis, incorrect installations, and work that failed inspection multiple times.

• MULTIPLE BUSINESS ENTITIES: Reviews appear to reference at least three distinct businesses — 'Pro Plumbing', 'Oro Pro Plumbing', and 'Pro Plumbing Heating and Air' — operating under similar names. Scores may reflect blended performance across different companies and should be interpreted with caution.
• 25 reviews contain no text (rating only). These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence per scoring rules.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK — MODERATE: A significant cluster of reviews dated 2024-06-09 and 2025-05-10 share very similar generic phrasing ('great job', 'very professional', 'highly recommend') with no specific job details. While not conclusive, this pattern warrants reduced confidence in the upper end of positive scores.
• DRIVER CONDUCT REVIEWS: At least 4 reviews (2019, 2023, 2024) describe dangerous or rude driving by company vehicle operators. These are not directly scorable under the four dimensions but reflect negatively on overall brand professionalism.
• RECENCY NOTE: Reviews span from 2009 to 2025. A large volume of reviews are from 2024-2025 and carry full recency weight. Older reviews (pre-2020) were down-weighted in scoring. Negative patterns (overcharging, incomplete work, warranty disputes) appear consistently across all time periods, suggesting systemic rather than isolated issues.
• BILLING AND WARRANTY CONCERNS: Multiple independent reviewers across different years explicitly describe non-itemized invoices, charges for work not performed, warranty fees on warranted equipment, and refusal to provide cost breakdowns. This is a recurring and credible pattern that materially depresses the pricing score.
• INCOMPLETE WORK PATTERN: At least 4 reviews describe jobs that were not completed, required a second company to finish or correct, or failed inspection multiple times. This is a credible and recurring pattern affecting the project completion score.

This WW Score is based on a large review volume (196 total, 171 with usable data) spanning over a decade, giving HIGH statistical confidence in the score direction, but reliability is moderated by the likely blending of multiple business entities under similar names, a detectable cluster of generic positive reviews suggesting possible review inflation, and consistent negative patterns around pricing transparency and project completion that appear across independent reviewers and multiple time periods.