Find Nearby Plumbers In Long Beach, California

Jet Drain demonstrates strong overall performance across all dimensions, with particular strength in professionalism and project completion. The company excels at punctuality, communication, and follow-through, with numerous reviews praising owner Abi and his team for responsiveness and honesty. Technical competence is consistently highlighted, with customers noting skilled problem-solving and thorough diagnostics. Pricing is generally perceived as fair and competitive, though some reviews indicate occasional high estimates on specialized work. The primary weakness is inconsistent pricing transparency on complex jobs, with a few customers reporting unexpectedly high quotes relative to actual work required.

• Three negative reviews (1-star ratings from 2024-08-20, 2022-10-18, 2022-04-26, 2021-09-30, 2019-09-05) suggest occasional service failures and pricing disputes that warrant attention despite overwhelmingly positive overall sentiment.
• Multiple reviews from 2021-06-10 contain no review text (empty fields), making it impossible to verify specific claims; these appear to be placeholder entries or incomplete submissions.
• Two pricing-related complaints (2022-04-26 and 2021-09-30) describe quotes significantly higher than market rates ($1200-1600 for simple gas line work; $1650 for steam shower installation), suggesting potential inconsistency in estimating practices for specialized or unfamiliar work.
• One review (2024-08-20) documents poor follow-up communication and unavailability during emergency situation, contradicting the company's typical responsiveness narrative.
• Review from 2019-09-05 reports failed repairs (toilet still leaking, knob fell off) and customer dissatisfaction despite owner's offer to remedy, indicating occasional quality control issues.
• Recency analysis: Majority of reviews are from 2019-2021 (older than 1 year); more recent reviews (2024-2025) show mixed results with both exceptional service and significant service failures, suggesting possible recent operational changes or inconsistency.

This WW Score of 84.2 is highly reliable based on 100 reviews with strong data across all dimensions, though the score should be interpreted with awareness that recent reviews (2024-2025) show greater variability than the historical average, and the company appears to have occasional struggles with complex job estimation and emergency responsiveness that may not be fully captured in the overall score.

True Rooter & Plumbing demonstrates strong overall performance across all dimensions. Professionalism is a key strength, with 78 mentions highlighting punctuality, communication, and courteous staff (particularly Jordan, Tony, Miguel, and Anthony). Pricing receives consistent praise for fairness and competitiveness, with 42 mentions noting reasonable rates and transparent quotes. Project completion is solid with 68 mentions of timely work, same-day service, and thorough follow-through. Experience is well-documented across 55 mentions, reflecting skilled technicians who diagnose problems accurately and explain work clearly. However, three negative reviews (1-star ratings from 2024, 2023, and 2022) reveal occasional lapses in professionalism, follow-up, and job completion quality, preventing a higher score.

• Three 1-star reviews indicate serious service failures: (1) July 2024 slab leak repair with incomplete work, poor cleanup, unprofessional employee behavior, and missing promised follow-up documentation; (2) June 2023 complaint about unprofessional handling of general contractor relationship and delayed communication; (3) March 2022 complaint about technician refusing to perform work and abandoning a repeat customer without explanation.
• One review (May 2024) reports unprofessional request for food in exchange for free estimate, rated 1-star.
• One review (March 2022) describes technician arriving late, refusing to believe customer account of HOA approval, and abandoning the job after 15 minutes of assessment.
• Recency concern: Most reviews are from 2024 (88 reviews), with older reviews from 2023, 2022, 2021, and 2020. The negative reviews span multiple years (2024, 2023, 2022), suggesting occasional systemic issues rather than isolated incidents.
• One blank review with 5-star rating (June 2024) provides no usable data but was counted in total.
• Pattern observed: Negative reviews often involve miscommunication, incomplete work, or unprofessional employee conduct, while positive reviews consistently praise owner Miguel's responsiveness and honesty. This suggests quality may vary by technician assigned.

This WW Score of 84.2 is reliable and based on substantial data (104 reviews with 78+ mentions per dimension), but should be interpreted with caution: the company demonstrates strong baseline professionalism and pricing, yet the three serious 1-star reviews from different years indicate occasional but significant service failures that affect overall trustworthiness. Customers should expect generally excellent service but acknowledge elevated risk of poor outcomes in complex jobs or with certain staff members.

Dry Pro Restoration demonstrates strong overall performance across all four dimensions, with particular strength in professionalism and technical expertise. The company excels at responsiveness, communication, and honest assessment of customer needs—frequently declining unnecessary work to save customers money. Project completion is generally reliable, though some reviews note occasional delays with subcontractors. Pricing is consistently described as fair and competitive, with transparent quotes. The primary weakness is inconsistent punctuality and communication from field crews, with multiple reviews citing late arrivals and missed appointments despite strong management-level responsiveness.

• Pattern of 5-star reviews (92 out of 100) is unusually high and may indicate selection bias or review filtering, though individual reviews contain specific, credible details that suggest authenticity rather than fake reviews.
• Multiple reviews mention the same key personnel (Merco, Tony, Marco/Marco) across many years, which is consistent with a real business but also concentrates reputation on a few individuals.
• One 1-star review (2024-08-06) provides detailed, credible criticism about unqualified subcontractors and poor mold remediation practices—this is a significant red flag that contradicts the overwhelmingly positive narrative and suggests quality control issues with subcontractor vetting.
• One 3-star review (2024-08-11) explicitly criticizes communication and timeliness, with crew arriving 1-2.5 hours late or not showing up at all—this pattern appears in at least 3-4 other reviews, indicating a systemic issue with scheduling/punctuality despite strong management communication.
• Review dates span from 2015 to 2024; most recent reviews (past 12 months) are predominantly 5-star, while older reviews show more variation, suggesting possible recent quality improvements or increased review curation.

This WW Score of 84.2 is reliable for assessing overall professionalism and expertise, but should be interpreted with caution regarding project completion consistency due to documented subcontractor punctuality issues and one credible complaint about inadequate mold remediation expertise. The score reflects strong management and honest business practices, but field-level execution appears variable.

Ted (The Response Team) demonstrates strong overall performance across all dimensions, with particular strengths in project completion and professionalism. The contractor consistently receives praise for responsiveness, punctuality, friendly demeanor, and ability to solve complex problems. Work quality is generally excellent with high follow-through on callbacks and commitments. Pricing is perceived as fair and reasonable by most clients, though a few reviews indicate concerns about material cost markups and transparency. The primary weaknesses are isolated instances of poor communication follow-up, one significant quality/honesty issue with caulking work and parts overcharging, and occasional unresponsiveness to initial inquiries.

• Three negative reviews (1-star ratings) identified: (1) Caulking job with improper application, mold issues, and ghosting after callback request; (2) Bathroom ventilation fan installation with poor sealing and alleged parts overcharging ($134 charged vs. $89 actual cost); (3) Licensing misrepresentation claim regarding electrical work. These represent quality control and integrity concerns that warrant caution.
• Two additional low-rated reviews (1-2 stars): (1) No response to drywall estimate inquiry after initial contact; (2) No follow-up after email inquiry for can light installation. These suggest inconsistent communication protocols.
• Pattern of 5-star reviews is very high (95 out of 100 reviews are 5-star), which is statistically unusual. However, reviews contain specific project details, varied work types, and authentic-sounding language variations that suggest genuine customer feedback rather than fabricated reviews. The negative reviews provide credible counterbalance.
• Recency note: Most reviews span 2018-2024, with strong representation from past 12 months (approximately 35 reviews from 2024 and 2023). Recent reviews maintain consistent 5-star pattern, suggesting current performance aligns with historical reputation.

This WW Score of 84.2 is reliable and should be trusted as a fair assessment. The score is based on 100 reviews with strong data across all dimensions (HIGH confidence for three dimensions, MODERATE for pricing). However, the presence of credible negative reviews documenting quality failures, communication breakdowns, and potential dishonesty in parts pricing indicates that while Ted generally performs well, clients should verify specific work scope, obtain itemized parts receipts, and establish clear quality standards before engagement. The contractor's responsiveness and problem-solving ability are genuine strengths, but quality control and follow-through on corrections appear inconsistent.

LC Doctor Plumber (Leo) demonstrates strong overall performance across all dimensions. Professionalism is a standout strength with 68 mentions emphasizing punctuality, responsiveness, communication, and courteous demeanor. Project completion is consistently reliable with 62 mentions confirming timely job delivery and follow-through. Experience is well-documented with 48 mentions highlighting technical knowledge, problem-solving ability, and skilled workmanship. Pricing receives a moderate score of 78 based on 32 mentions; while most reviews praise fair pricing, three negative reviews (1-star and 2-star) specifically cite overcharging concerns, which tempers confidence in this dimension. The WW Score of 84.2 reflects a trustworthy, competent contractor with minor pricing consistency issues.

• Three negative reviews (Sept 26, 2024; July 9, 2022; Sept 22, 2021) allege pricing problems: one claims poor workmanship decision on condensation pipe placement requiring rework; one reports inconsistent quotes and poor responsiveness; one alleges emergency overcharging ($1600 vs. typical $500). These are material concerns that reduce confidence in pricing dimension.
• The Sept 26, 2024 review (1-star) describes a significant workmanship issue where Leo installed a condensation pipe in a highly visible location that clogged an existing drain, requiring customer to pay for rework. This is the only explicit quality/workmanship complaint in the dataset and suggests occasional lapses in judgment despite generally positive experience feedback.
• The July 9, 2022 review (1-star) reports Leo gave three different prices for the same job and became unavailable after initially offering free estimate, suggesting potential inconsistency in business practices.
• Vast majority of reviews (72 of 75) are 5-star ratings. While this is not necessarily indicative of fake reviews (the three negative reviews are detailed and specific), the uniformity is notable. No obvious patterns of identical phrasing or generic praise detected across positive reviews—most contain specific job details and personal observations, which supports authenticity.
• Review dates span from May 2020 to October 2024. Approximately 60% of reviews are from 2023-2024 (past 12 months), providing good recency weighting. Older reviews (2020-2022) show consistent 5-star patterns, suggesting sustained service quality over time, though the three negative reviews are scattered across different years (2021, 2022, 2024).

This WW Score of 84.2 is reliable and should be trusted as a fair assessment. The score is based on 75 reviews with strong data density across all dimensions, particularly professionalism (68 mentions) and project completion (62 mentions). However, the pricing dimension (78.0) is tempered by three credible negative reviews alleging overcharging or inconsistent quotes, which prevents a higher overall score. The contractor demonstrates genuine expertise and professionalism but shows occasional inconsistency in pricing practices and rare judgment lapses in workmanship decisions.

Go Go Plumbing demonstrates strong overall performance driven by exceptional professionalism (88.5) and solid project completion (86.0), with extensive evidence across 48 and 42 reviews respectively. Technical expertise and experience score well at 87.5 based on 22 mentions highlighting problem-solving ability and skill. However, pricing presents a notable weakness at 72.0, with 18 mentions revealing significant concerns: two 1-star reviews explicitly cite overpricing (one $6k re-pipe with poor results, another claiming prices twice competitors' rates), while positive reviews frequently emphasize 'fair' or 'reasonable' pricing—suggesting pricing is inconsistent or context-dependent. The weighted WW Score of 84.2 reflects strong execution and reliability tempered by pricing concerns.

• PRICING INCONSISTENCY: Two explicit 1-star reviews cite severe overpricing ($6k re-pipe, claims of 2x competitor rates), while 16 other reviews praise 'fair' or 'reasonable' pricing. This suggests either inconsistent pricing practices, variable job complexity, or potential upselling on larger projects.
• QUALITY CONTROL ISSUE: First 1-star review (2024-04-25) reports scratched hardware during installation and pressure loss post-re-pipe, plus aggressive upselling ($7k drain work later done for $200 elsewhere). This is recent and serious.
• REVIEW RECENCY SKEW: 39 of 56 reviews (70%) are from 2019-2023, with only 1 review from 2024. Most data is 1-5 years old; recent negative reviews may indicate declining service quality.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: Multiple reviews use nearly identical phrasing ('highly recommend,' 'great guy,' 'fair prices,' 'professional') with minimal specifics. However, many also contain detailed narratives and specific problem descriptions, reducing fake review confidence. Pattern is suggestive but not conclusive.
• SECOND 1-STAR REVIEW (2017-10-09): Cites pricing 'at least twice as much as other reputable plumbers' and cash discount offer (red flag for tax avoidance). Work quality was good but pricing was 'total rip off.' This is older but consistent with 2024 complaint.

This WW Score of 84.2 is reliable for assessing professionalism and project completion (HIGH confidence), but the pricing dimension (MODERATE confidence, 18 mentions) is a significant caveat—two recent/historical 1-star reviews combined with inconsistent positive pricing language suggest Ed's pricing may be unpredictable or context-dependent, particularly on larger jobs like re-pipes. Recommend obtaining firm written estimates before engaging, especially for major work. Overall score should be trusted for service quality but not for cost predictability.