Find Nearby Plumbers In Hayward, California

Kevin demonstrates strong professionalism across all five reviews, with consistent praise for responsiveness, efficiency, and courteous demeanor. Pricing is a notable strength, with multiple customers explicitly highlighting fair and competitive rates—notably the lowest quote received in one case. Project completion is solid, with all jobs finished successfully and customers expressing satisfaction with work quality. Technical skill is evident from successful faucet installations and leak repairs, though experience mentions are somewhat limited in frequency. All reviews are recent (within the past 12 months) and highly positive, which supports the elevated score.

• All five reviews are 5-star ratings with uniformly positive language and no critical feedback—this pattern warrants caution, though reviews contain specific details (faucet types, leak locations, weekend availability) that suggest authenticity rather than generic praise.
• Sample size is small (n=5); score reliability would improve significantly with 10+ additional reviews.
• All reviews are from 2023; no data from 2024 limits recency assessment.

This score should be treated as a positive indicator but with moderate confidence due to the small sample size and absence of any negative feedback; additional reviews would be needed to validate consistency and identify potential weaknesses.

EZ Plumbing demonstrates strong technical expertise and generally professional service delivery, with particularly high marks for workmanship quality and knowledgeable staff. Pricing is perceived as fair and competitive by most customers. However, the company's overall score is significantly impacted by recurring and serious project completion failures, including multiple no-shows, missed appointments, poor communication during projects, and in several cases, incomplete or defective work requiring customer remediation. While many reviews praise responsiveness and professionalism, a substantial minority report communication breakdowns, scheduling failures, and abandoned projects that undermine reliability.

• CRITICAL: Multiple reviews (at least 8) report no-shows, missed appointments, or failure to appear despite confirmed scheduling. This is a systemic issue affecting project completion reliability.
• CRITICAL: At least 4 reviews report incomplete work, defective repairs, or work that had to be redone by other plumbers. This directly contradicts claims of quality workmanship.
• CRITICAL: Communication failures are documented across multiple time periods (2018-2023), including unresponsive staff, failure to return calls/texts, and lack of appointment confirmations.
• MODERATE: One review (2021-05-07) describes project abandonment with open trench and waste in yard for 2+ weeks, plus failure to file required permits on time.
• MODERATE: Pricing concerns noted in at least 3 reviews regarding overcharging or incremental costs not disclosed upfront, despite general perception of fair pricing.
• MODERATE: Inconsistent service quality appears correlated with different team members/locations; some technicians (Richard, Eric, Daniel, Isidoro) receive consistent praise while others receive complaints.
• NOTE: Three reviews contain no text (only 5-star ratings), and one review is marked 5-star but states 'Did not service my area' — these are anomalies but do not appear to be fake review patterns overall.
• NOTE: Most negative reviews are older (2018-2021), but recent negative reviews exist (2023-08-21, 2023-05-22), indicating ongoing issues despite potential improvements.

This WW Score of 76.8 should be treated with caution: while the HIGH confidence reflects substantial review volume, the score masks a critical reliability problem. The company excels in technical expertise and initial professionalism but has a documented pattern of scheduling failures and communication breakdowns that directly impact project completion. Customers should be aware that positive reviews often come from completed jobs, while negative reviews frequently cite no-shows and abandoned projects. The score is reliable as a measure of average experience but understates execution risk.

This contractor operates two distinct service models with markedly different customer outcomes. Recent reviews (2024-2025) from Roto-Rooter locations show consistently excellent professionalism, project completion, and experience scores (all 5-star ratings with detailed positive feedback). However, historical reviews (2012-2023) for Lil Rooter reveal significant pricing concerns and polarized customer experiences, with multiple complaints about overcharging, misdiagnosis, and incomplete work, offset by some highly satisfied long-term customers. The pricing dimension is notably weak (65.0) due to recurring complaints about rates 5X higher than competitors, hidden charges, and aggressive upselling tactics. Overall professionalism and experience remain solid due to the volume of recent positive feedback, but the pricing issues and pattern of negative experiences with the owner (Rommel) substantially reduce the overall trustworthiness of this contractor.

• CRITICAL: Two distinct business entities or service models detected. Recent Roto-Rooter reviews (2024-2025) are uniformly 5-star with specific technician names (Armando, Juan, Francisco, etc.) and detailed positive narratives. Older Lil Rooter reviews (2012-2023) show owner Rommel with polarized ratings and serious allegations of overcharging and misdiagnosis.
• PRICING RED FLAG: Multiple independent reviews (2024, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2014) explicitly state pricing is 5X-20X higher than competitors, with estimates ranging from $2,500-$32,000 for work quoted at $300-$850 by other plumbers. This pattern is consistent across different reviewers and time periods.
• OWNER CONDUCT CONCERNS: Rommel (owner) is named in multiple 1-star reviews alleging: insurance fraud schemes, aggressive debt collection (following customer to ATM), threatening liens, incomplete work, and misdiagnosis. Several reviews suggest deliberate upselling of unnecessary work.
• INCOMPLETE WORK PATTERN: Multiple reviews report work left unfinished, callbacks not honored, and problems recurring days after service (e.g., clog returned 2 days later after being charged premium price).
• RECENCY BIAS: Recent Roto-Rooter reviews (past 6 months) are overwhelmingly positive with high specificity. Older Lil Rooter reviews (2012-2023) contain serious allegations. It is unclear if these are the same company rebranded or separate entities.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: Recent reviews show repetitive structure (5-star, technician name, brief positive statement) but with sufficient variation in detail to appear authentic. No obvious fake review indicators in recent batch.
• GHOSTING ALLEGATIONS: At least 2 reviews report being abandoned mid-project or never contacted back after initial service call.

This score should be treated with CAUTION. While recent Roto-Rooter reviews are consistently positive and detailed, the historical pattern of serious pricing complaints, misdiagnosis allegations, and incomplete work associated with Lil Rooter (and owner Rommel) significantly undermines overall trustworthiness. The apparent business model shift or rebranding makes it difficult to assess whether current service quality represents genuine improvement or a different operational structure. Customers should independently verify current pricing against competitors and request detailed written estimates before committing to work.

Crizan Bravo receives strong praise across the majority of reviews for responsiveness, punctuality, and a wide range of handyman skills, with many customers noting same-day availability and thorough follow-through on jobs. However, professionalism is meaningfully dinged by one review describing a complete no-show with no callback, and the 2-star dishwasher review documents multiple quality failures including a loose door seal, dripping plumbing, and misaligned installation. Pricing is a mixed picture: several reviewers call his rates reasonable or competitive, while two separate reviewers explicitly flag overcharging concerns, one of whom stopped using him entirely due to pricing that was 2-3x competitors. Project completion scores are solid overall but are pulled down by the dishwasher job where the customer had to personally redo multiple elements of the work. Experience scores reflect genuine breadth of skill across electrical, plumbing, carpentry, and tile work, but the dishwasher installation quality issues introduce meaningful doubt about consistency of workmanship on more complex multi-trade jobs.

• One review (2023-07-29, 1 star) describes a complete no-show for an estimate appointment with no communication or callback — a significant professionalism failure that contrasts sharply with the majority of reviews praising responsiveness.
• One review (2024-05-02, 2 stars) documents multiple workmanship failures on a dishwasher installation: loose door seal, dripping plumbing connection, misaligned unit, and unverifiable electrical work — the customer had to personally fix several items after paying ~$900.
• Two separate reviewers (2023-08-29, 1 star and 2024-05-02, 2 stars) independently raised pricing concerns, with one stating his quote was 2-3x higher than competitors on Yelp. This pattern across unrelated reviews adds credibility to the pricing concern.
• A number of 5-star reviews are brief and light on specifics (e.g., 2024-05-30, 2022-04-04, 2022-01-14), which slightly reduces confidence in those individual reviews, though the overall volume and variety of detail across the full review set does not suggest a coordinated fake review pattern.
• Several reviews are from 2021-2022 and are now 2-3+ years old. The more recent reviews (2023-2024) include both the strongest praise and the most critical feedback, suggesting performance may be inconsistent in the current period rather than uniformly declining or improving.
• The 1-star review from 2023-08-29 explicitly states that early work was good but quality and pricing have deteriorated over time — this trajectory concern should be noted when interpreting older positive reviews.

With 23 reviews spanning multiple years and covering all four scored dimensions with HIGH confidence, this WW Score is reasonably reliable, but the presence of two substantive critical reviews documenting real failures in workmanship, communication, and pricing fairness means the score should be treated as a moderate-confidence indicator of a capable but inconsistent contractor rather than a uniformly excellent one.

This contractor has a strong base of positive reviews praising punctuality, professionalism, clear communication, and technical skill across a wide variety of plumbing jobs. Pricing is generally described as fair, reasonable, and transparent, with a few reviewers specifically calling out affordable or honest pricing. However, the score is meaningfully dragged down by five serious negative reviews documenting repeated no-shows, failure to respond after promising service, an incomplete repair that required a second visit with an additional charge, a misdiagnosed root cause, and a botched repair using the wrong part. These failures are not minor — two involve emergency situations where vulnerable individuals were left without water, and one involves a contractor who became unresponsive after faulty work. The recency split is also notable: the bulk of the most recent reviews (2025) are highly generic and pattern-consistent, raising a fake review flag that reduces confidence in the top-end scores.

• SUSPECTED FAKE REVIEWS: The 16 reviews dated between 2025-05-10 and 2025-06-06 show highly repetitive structure and phrasing — nearly every one includes 'arrived promptly,' 'highly recommend,' 'professional,' and 'explained everything clearly.' Several are nearly identical in sentence construction despite covering different job types. No reviewer names are mentioned, no specific technician is identified, and no unique detail distinguishes one review from another. This pattern is consistent with artificially generated or incentivized reviews and has been factored into scoring conservatively.
• NO-SHOW PATTERN: At least three separate reviews (2019-08-23, 2019-11-04, 2021-11-29) document the company failing to show up after confirming an appointment, with no follow-up communication. One of these involved a terminally ill patient requiring urgent plumbing access. This is a serious and recurring project completion failure.
• INCOMPLETE WORK / MISDIAGNOSIS: One review (2023-07-20) documents a plumber charging $350 for a repair that failed within two weeks, then demanding $375 more for the same issue. The reviewer also questioned the accuracy of the initial diagnosis. A second review (2015-09-11) documents a repair using the wrong part, a recurring leak, and the plumber refusing to return or accept responsibility.
• RECENCY BIAS: The majority of reviews from 2025 are flagged as potentially inauthentic (see above). The most credible detailed reviews span 2014–2024. Scores have been moderated to avoid over-weighting the 2025 review cluster.
• MULTIPLE TECHNICIANS / POSSIBLE MULTI-OPERATOR BUSINESS: Reviews reference at least five different named individuals — David, Adam, Dominick, Luis, Gonzo, Alberto, and Doug — suggesting this may be a multi-technician operation or an aggregated profile. Quality and reliability appear to vary significantly by technician, which limits the usefulness of a single aggregate score.

This WW Score is based on a large review set with HIGH mention counts across all dimensions, but reliability is materially reduced by a cluster of suspected fake 5-star reviews in 2025, a documented pattern of no-shows across multiple years, and confirmed instances of incomplete or faulty work — consumers should weight the negative reviews heavily when making a hiring decision.

AAA Affordable Plumbing has a strong base of loyal, repeat customers who consistently praise responsiveness, friendliness, and fair pricing across many years of reviews. However, several negative reviews raise meaningful concerns: one customer reported being charged beyond the agreed quote, another described a job done improperly with no follow-through, and a third documented repeated failed attempts to recover warranty-covered money with no callbacks — a direct project completion failure. Professionalism scores are tempered by reports of rude phone behavior, reckless driving, and refusal to provide documentation to HOA residents. Pricing scores are generally positive but are pulled down by the one confirmed instance of a quote being exceeded without prior notice. The experience dimension reflects mostly positive workmanship feedback but is moderated by at least two reviews citing incomplete or incorrect work.

• RECENCY WARNING: Several negative reviews date from 2012–2014 and may reflect older operational practices; however, negative reviews also appear in 2020 and 2021, suggesting some issues persist.
• PROJECT COMPLETION CONCERN: One reviewer (2013) explicitly describes a warranty dispute involving $577 with no callback resolution and threatened legal action — a serious follow-through failure.
• WORKMANSHIP CONCERN: One reviewer (2020) states the job was not done properly and they needed to hire someone else to fix it.
• PRICING CONCERN: One reviewer (2021) explicitly states they were charged more than the agreed quote after work was completed, citing unforeseen problems as justification — a transparency red flag.
• PROFESSIONALISM CONCERN: One reviewer (2012) describes staff hanging up the phone when maintenance or warranty topics were raised, across multiple contact numbers.
• FAKE REVIEW AWARENESS: The first review references over 1,200 reviews being 'all wonderful' and reads as unusually promotional in tone for a customer review. While not conclusively fake, it contains advocacy language atypical of organic reviews and should be treated with caution.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent reviews (2023–2024) are positive, but the sample size for recent reviews is small (3 reviews in the past 2 years), limiting confidence in current performance trends.

This WW Score is based on 28 reviews spanning over a decade and carries HIGH statistical confidence in volume, but the wide date range and presence of multiple substantiated negative experiences across pricing, project completion, and professionalism mean the score should be treated as a moderate-confidence indicator of current quality.