Find Nearby Plumbers In Long Beach, California

Juan and Perez Re-Pipe & Plumbing receive consistently strong praise across all four scored dimensions. Professionalism is the most frequently cited strength, with nearly every reviewer highlighting punctuality, communication, friendliness, and a polished work ethic — including protective measures like drop cloths during a full repipe job. Pricing is explicitly called out as reasonable or better than competitors in six reviews, with one reviewer noting Juan's quote beat two prior bids. Project completion is well-supported, with reviewers describing jobs finished efficiently and on time, including complex tasks like rerouting a water line under a driveway and a full single-day repipe of a two-bathroom home. Experience and technical knowledge are affirmed across eight reviews, with specific mentions of problem-solving ability, knowledgeable assessments, and competent handling of diverse jobs ranging from water heater installation to leak detection and full repiping.

• All 10 reviews are 5-star ratings with no negative or mixed feedback — this warrants mild caution, though the reviews do contain specific job details and varied language that reduce the likelihood of fabrication.
• Several reviews use similarly enthusiastic phrasing ('can't say enough,' 'highly recommend,' 'amazing') which is common in genuine contractor reviews but worth noting as a minor pattern.
• Six of the ten reviews are dated 2022, with only four from 2023–2024. The most recent review is April 2024. The score is weighted toward more recent reviews where possible, but the volume of older reviews slightly reduces recency confidence.
• No negative reviews or constructive criticism exist in this dataset, which may reflect a genuinely strong service record or selective review solicitation — impossible to determine from available data alone.

The WW Score of 87.6 carries HIGH overall confidence given that all four dimensions are supported by multiple specific, detailed reviews; however, the absence of any critical feedback and the all-5-star rating pattern means consumers should treat this score as a strong positive signal rather than a fully verified benchmark.

Royalty Plumbing has an overwhelmingly positive review base across a large volume of reviews spanning over a decade, with consistent praise for professionalism, punctuality, communication, and technical skill. Pricing is frequently cited as fair, reasonable, or best-in-market, with multiple reviewers explicitly noting they compared quotes and chose Royalty as the lowest or most transparent bidder. Project completion scores are strong, with numerous reviews confirming jobs were finished on time, on budget, and with thorough cleanup — including one standout review of a sewer line replacement completed within 48 hours with landscaping restored perfectly. However, five negative reviews (1–2 star ratings) introduce meaningful deductions: one describes unauthorized work and a forced charge, one cites a no-call/no-show, one describes being blown off after a referral fell through, one reports a rude office manager and a warranty dispute over a faulty installation, and one describes unprofessional phone conduct. These are not isolated to a single era and span multiple years, preventing a top-tier score.

• Two reviews contain no text — only a 5-star rating with no content (dated 2021-06-10 and 2021-06-10). These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data.
• A cluster of reviews dated exactly 2021-06-10 and 2022-06-10 with no specific timestamps may indicate batch-imported or backdated reviews. Language across these is varied enough to not suggest fabrication, but the identical dates warrant mild caution.
• One review (2022-08-22) is a 1-star complaint about a rude office staff member (Kristen) with no plumbing work performed — this was counted under professionalism as a negative data point.
• One review (2022-01-11) describes unauthorized work performed without a quote and a forced charge of $125 — this is a significant professionalism and pricing concern and was weighted accordingly.
• One review (2023-04-20) describes a warranty dispute, a faulty installation by a former employee, and a rude manager response — this is a notable negative signal for both project completion and professionalism.
• One review (2014-08-25) describes a no-call/no-show by Leon — this is an older data point but relevant to reliability history.
• One review (2017-11-13) describes Leon as unprofessional over the phone, resulting in the customer requesting a different contractor — another older but relevant negative signal.
• One review (2022-04-30) describes being referred to a granite company that refused the job, followed by no callback from Royalty — a project abandonment/follow-through failure weighted against project completion.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews are from 2020 onward, with strong recent activity through mid-2025. Older reviews (2013–2017) are present but carry reduced weight per scoring rules. Recent reviews remain consistently positive with only isolated negatives.
• No strong evidence of fake reviews detected. Reviews are specific, name individual technicians, describe distinct job types, and vary in writing style and detail level. The volume and specificity support authenticity.

This WW Score is based on 125 reviews spanning over a decade, with strong recency and high mention counts across all four dimensions, making it one of the more reliable assessments possible — however, the presence of five credible negative reviews (including a no-show, unauthorized charges, a warranty dispute, and reported rudeness) prevents a top-tier score and should be considered by prospective customers.

A-1 Performance Rooter and Plumbing earns a strong WW Score driven primarily by an overwhelming volume of positive reviews praising punctuality, responsiveness, and friendly demeanor across a large and consistent technician team including Bradley, Scott, Harry, and Eric. Project completion scores are high but are modestly penalized by three notable negative reviews: one customer explicitly paid over a thousand dollars for a job that was never finished and required a second plumber, one customer reported a technician damaging their shower and taking property, and one customer was promised a callback to schedule work that never came — resulting in them hiring a competitor. Pricing feedback is broadly positive with multiple reviewers citing fair, reasonable, or even surprisingly low costs, and several specifically noting transparency and no pressure upselling. Experience scores are strong, with numerous reviewers describing fast, accurate diagnoses, complex multi-day repipe jobs completed successfully, and technicians who proactively identified hidden issues that saved customers from future damage.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: At least two pairs of near-identical reviews appear in the dataset. The review praising Bradley for fixing a leaky kitchen faucet and crawling under the house (attributed to 'Michael H') appears twice with slightly different wording on 2023-06-09 and 2023-05-25. The review about 'AMAZING PEOPLE & SERVICES' for a whole-house repipe appears verbatim on both 2024-06-08 and 2023-07-04. These duplicates were counted only once each for scoring purposes.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Two reviews contain no text (only a 5-star rating, dated 2024-06-08 and 2023-06-09). These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data.
• NEGATIVE REVIEW — INCOMPLETE JOB (1-star, 2024-07-18): Customer explicitly states they paid over $1,000 and the job was never finished, requiring a second plumber. This is a serious project completion failure and was weighted accordingly.
• NEGATIVE REVIEW — TECHNICIAN MISCONDUCT (1-star, 2023-06-09): Customer alleges Harry used their personal property (a knife) as a tool, damaged their shower sink, and left with a part belonging to the customer. Also cites poor handling by office staff. This is a significant professionalism and experience concern.
• NEGATIVE REVIEW — NO CALLBACK / ABANDONED ESTIMATE (1-star, 2021-11-13): Customer agreed to an estimate for gas line relocation, was promised a follow-up call that never came despite a second attempt to reach the company. Customer hired a competitor and saved $1,000. This reflects a project follow-through and communication failure.
• NEGATIVE REVIEW — STAFF QUALITY INCONSISTENCY (1-star, 2022-06-11): Reviewer warns that Bradley is the only technician who provides good service and that others 'will screw you up.' While vague, this suggests inconsistency in service quality across the team.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews span 2019–2025 with a strong concentration in 2023–2025. Reviews from 2018–2020 were given reduced weight. Recent reviews (past 12 months, mid-2024 to mid-2025) remain predominantly positive with no new pattern of complaints, which supports current score reliability.
• VOLUME CONCENTRATION WARNING: A large cluster of reviews share the date 2024-06-08 (approximately 14 reviews). While the content varies enough to suggest they are likely genuine, this date clustering is unusual and may indicate a coordinated review solicitation campaign. Confidence is not reduced but this pattern is flagged for transparency.

This WW Score is based on a large and diverse review set spanning multiple years and is considered highly reliable, though the presence of three substantive negative reviews describing incomplete work, technician misconduct, and a broken follow-up promise introduces meaningful risk that the score does not fully capture worst-case service outcomes.

Rooter Champion earns strong scores across all four dimensions, driven by an overwhelming volume of detailed, specific reviews praising punctuality, clear communication, and courteous technicians. Project completion scores are particularly high, with numerous reviewers describing complex multi-day jobs finished on time, thorough camera inspections, and follow-through on callbacks. Pricing scores are solid but modestly tempered by two credible negative reviews describing a bait-and-switch pattern — a low advertised price ($59–$99) used to get on-site, followed by a push toward much more expensive hydro-jetting, with one reviewer alleging the technician refused to perform the originally quoted snake service and left. Experience scores reflect consistent praise for diagnostic skill, problem-solving on difficult jobs, and use of advanced technology such as trenchless pipe bursting and CIPP lining. The two negative reviews are substantive and specific enough to be treated as credible signals, preventing a higher pricing score despite the majority of positive feedback.

• PRICING CONCERN — BAIT-AND-SWITCH PATTERN: Two independent reviewers (Oct 2024, 1-star; Jun 2022, 2-star) describe a consistent pattern: a low advertised price ($55–$99) is quoted to secure the appointment, but upon arrival the technician recommends hydro-jetting at significantly higher cost and, in one case, refused to perform the originally quoted snake service and departed without completing any work. This is a meaningful and credible pattern that suppresses the pricing score.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK — MODERATE: The vast majority of reviews are 5-star with no negative detail. Several reviews are very brief and generic (e.g., 'Really professional and good service. Fixed our issue. Strongly recommend. Price was reasonable'). However, the majority of reviews contain specific technician names, job descriptions, and situational details, which reduces the likelihood of widespread fabrication. Risk is flagged but not severe.
• RECENCY NOTE: The bulk of reviews (approximately 60+) are dated between 2022 and 2024, with the most recent in October 2024. One review dates to October 2020. The review base is sufficiently recent to be considered reliable. No significant quality degradation trend is visible across time periods.
• UNRESOLVED COMMUNICATION FAILURE: One reviewer (Apr 2022, 1-star) reported that Rooter Champion never responded to their estimate request on Yelp, suggesting possible gaps in responsiveness or platform integration issues at that time. This is an isolated incident and may be outdated.
• SCORE ADJUSTMENT APPLIED: Pricing score was conservatively reduced from a potential high-80s score to 78 due to the two credible bait-and-switch complaints, which represent a structural business practice concern rather than isolated service failures.

This WW Score is based on 78 reviews spanning 2020–2024, the large majority of which are recent and contain specific, verifiable details; the score carries HIGH overall confidence, though consumers should independently verify pricing terms and get the full scope of service and cost in writing before work begins, given the documented bait-and-switch pattern flagged by two credible reviewers.

Strong Beach Plumbing and Robinett Plumbing collectively earn strong marks across all four dimensions, with professionalism being the most frequently cited strength — reviewers consistently highlight punctuality, cleanliness, courteous communication, and responsiveness. Pricing is frequently described as reasonable, affordable, and transparent, with multiple reviewers noting they were not upsold on unnecessary work. Project completion scores are solid but slightly tempered by one notable 1-star review describing an abandoned job where a plumber never returned after promising to order parts, and a second 1-star review citing overcharging, incomplete work, and unresponsiveness. Experience scores are high, with many reviewers specifically praising technical knowledge, especially around older homes and specialty systems like floor heaters and tankless water heaters. The volume and span of reviews across both businesses provide reasonable confidence in these scores, though the mixed-business nature of the review pool is a notable caveat.

• WARNING: Reviews appear to be drawn from TWO distinct businesses — 'Strong Beach Plumbing' (owner: Daniel) and 'Robinett Plumbing' (owners: Cris and Curtis). These are separate companies and their reviews should not be combined into a single WW Score for any one contractor. This analysis treats them as a pooled dataset, which may distort accuracy.
• 15 reviews contain no text — only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable qualitative data.
• Two 1-star reviews exist and carry significant weight: one describes an abandoned job with no follow-through (Robinett, 2020), and one describes overcharging, incomplete work, and the plumber becoming unresponsive (Robinett, 2017). These directly impact project completion scoring.
• A large number of reviews (particularly for Strong Beach Plumbing) use enthusiastic, superlative language ('best plumber in Long Beach hands down', 'legendary service', 'only ones I will call') with limited specific detail. While not conclusively fake, this pattern warrants mild caution.
• RECENCY NOTE: Many Robinett Plumbing reviews date from 2013–2021, with limited recent activity. Strong Beach Plumbing reviews are more recent (2020–2025). Older reviews were weighted slightly less in scoring.
• One Strong Beach Plumbing review (2024) is unusually long and effusive with motivational language unrelated to the service, which is atypical and may indicate a personal relationship with the business owner rather than an arms-length customer review.

This WW Score carries moderate-to-high reliability for general contractor quality assessment, but should be interpreted cautiously given that it aggregates reviews from two separate businesses, includes 15 content-free reviews, and contains two substantive negative reviews describing incomplete work and unresponsiveness that suggest real quality-control risks.

Pacific Standard Plumbing receives consistently strong marks across all four dimensions, with professionalism being the most frequently cited strength — reviewers repeatedly highlight punctuality, courteous communication, and responsiveness. Experience and technical skill are well-documented, particularly around Jeff (described as a 30-year master plumber) and owner Curtis, with specific praise for diagnosing complex issues, explaining processes clearly, and delivering quality workmanship. Project completion scores are solid, with multiple reviewers confirming jobs were finished on time, same-day service was offered, and follow-through was thorough. Pricing is noted favorably in several detailed reviews, including references to new-customer discounts, Yelp vouchers, competitive estimates, and a military/first-responder discount, though fewer reviews address this dimension with specificity compared to professionalism. Overall, the body of evidence paints a reliable picture of a high-performing small plumbing operation.

• 7 reviews contain no text at all — only a 5-star rating. These have been excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data.
• A cluster of 18 reviews share the exact same date of 2024-06-09, which is highly unusual and may indicate a coordinated review push or incentivized review campaign. Many of these reviews are generic (e.g., 'Great service!', 'Incredible service. Friendly staff.', 'great work and easy to work with') with no specific job details.
• Two reviews (dated 2024-11-11 and 2024-05-14) are nearly word-for-word identical in full length, describing the same tankless water heater flush experience. This is a strong indicator of a duplicated or copy-pasted review, possibly submitted across multiple platforms and re-posted here. Confidence in these two reviews as independent data points has been reduced.
• The overwhelming proportion of 5-star ratings (43 out of 44 reviews) with almost no negative or mixed feedback warrants caution. While the business may genuinely be excellent, this pattern is statistically atypical for a real-world contractor profile.
• Despite the flags above, several reviews contain highly specific, credible detail (named technicians, specific jobs, part sourcing, warranty advice, cat anecdotes) that lend authenticity to a meaningful subset of the review pool. Scores have been calculated conservatively to account for the inflated review cluster.

The WW Score of 87.4 is moderately reliable — it is supported by a meaningful number of detailed, specific reviews, but confidence is tempered by a suspicious cluster of same-date generic reviews, one duplicate long-form review, and an unusually high proportion of 5-star ratings with no critical feedback.