Find Nearby Plumbers In Long Beach, California

Jacob demonstrates strong professionalism across all four reviews, with consistent mentions of punctuality, clear communication, and courteous behavior. Project completion is well-supported with evidence of timely job resolution and follow-through on recommendations. Experience is evidenced by skilled workmanship on multiple plumbing tasks (drain routing, clogged bathtub, garbage disposal). Pricing receives limited mention but is described as straightforward and fair. The score reflects solid performance across all dimensions, though the small sample size (4 reviews) and limited pricing data warrant moderate overall confidence.

• Small sample size (4 reviews) limits statistical reliability; recommend collecting additional reviews before making major business decisions
• Pricing dimension based on only 1 mention; insufficient data to confidently assess value proposition
• All reviews are 5-star ratings with uniformly positive language; while not necessarily fake, the absence of any critical feedback or nuance is atypical and should be noted
• Most recent review is from October 2024; older reviews (January-April 2024) may reflect outdated service conditions

This WW Score should be treated as a preliminary indicator only. With only 4 reviews and no negative feedback, the score may not fully represent the contractor's typical performance range; additional reviews are needed to establish a reliable baseline.

These reviews span two distinct businesses — Prodigy Plumbing and Primo Plumbing & Heating — whose reviews appear to have been aggregated together, which is a significant data integrity concern. Professionalism scores are strong across both companies, with consistent praise for punctuality, communication, courtesy, and cleanliness. Project completion is generally positive, though two notable negative reviews for Prodigy describe failed gas leak repairs requiring third-party correction, and one Primo review describes a technician who never followed up with an estimate. Pricing is the weakest dimension: multiple reviews for Prodigy explicitly describe high-pressure upselling, inflated quotes, and pricing described as exploitative of customer desperation, while Primo generally earns praise for fair and competitive pricing — these opposing signals drag the pricing score down considerably. Experience is broadly positive, with many reviewers citing knowledgeable diagnostics and quality workmanship, though the failed gas line repair sequence at Prodigy (incorrect pressure testing, improperly installed valve) is a meaningful negative data point.

• CRITICAL DATA INTEGRITY ISSUE: Reviews appear to be drawn from two separate businesses — 'Prodigy Plumbing' and 'Primo Plumbing & Heating' — with different technician names, service areas, and business histories. These should not be scored together as a single entity. The WW Score produced here is of limited reliability as a result.
• Several reviews contain no text at all (only a star rating) and were excluded from dimensional scoring but counted in total reviews analyzed.
• Two reviews (rated 1-star) for Prodigy Plumbing describe serious pricing misconduct: one alleges quotes nearly 8x the final market price for a gas line repair, and another describes high-pressure sales tactics and a $5,800 charge for a leak repair the customer later learned was unnecessary in its urgency.
• One detailed 1-star review for Prodigy describes a multi-visit gas leak repair failure, incorrect pressure testing, an improperly installed valve, and work that had to be redone by a competing plumber — a significant project completion and experience red flag.
• One 1-star review for Primo (2014) describes a technician who never returned with an estimate after an inspection, and a separate 3-star review (2010) describes a price that exceeded the quoted amount without warning.
• A large portion of Primo Plumbing reviews are older than 3 years (many from 2009–2021), reducing their relevance to current service quality. Recency weighting was applied mentally but the formula does not formally discount older reviews.
• Some Primo reviews reference 'Tom' as the owner doing hands-on work, while more recent reviews reference 'Jordan' as the primary technician — suggesting a generational business transition that may affect consistency.
• No suspected fake reviews detected — reviews contain specific technician names, job details, and a realistic mix of positive and negative feedback.

This WW Score should be treated with LOW confidence as a unified score because the review set appears to combine two distinct businesses (Prodigy Plumbing and Primo Plumbing & Heating); if these are indeed separate companies, each would require independent scoring to produce a meaningful and trustworthy result.

Crandall's Plumbing earns strong marks for professionalism and experience, with dozens of reviewers explicitly praising technicians as courteous, knowledgeable, punctual, and communicative across many years of service. Project completion is generally solid, with most jobs described as fully resolved, though a handful of notable failures — including an incomplete sewer unclog requiring a second company, a diagnostic that involved unnecessary wall and slab demolition, and a scheduling breakdown — prevent a higher score. Pricing is the weakest dimension: while many customers describe fair or reasonable pricing, multiple credible negative reviews cite charges that were dramatically higher than competitors or market rates, including a $987 Freon recharge quote, a $995 PVC pipe extension quote versus $300–$350 elsewhere, and a $375 quote to insert a single screw. The pricing score is meaningfully dragged down by these specific, detailed complaints from real-sounding reviewers. Overall, the company demonstrates consistent quality in its best work but has a recurring pattern of pricing concerns that prospective customers should investigate before committing.

• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The review praising 'Nick from HVAC' as 'extremely professional and knowledgeable' and a 'true craftsman' appears twice with different dates (2024-06-08 and 2024-02-20) and nearly identical text — this is likely a duplicate submission or a copied review and was counted only once for scoring.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The 'Scott' review praising Crandall's for rentals appears twice with different dates (2023-06-09 and 2022-06-09) with identical text — counted only once.
• SUSPICIOUS CLUSTERING: A large number of reviews share the exact date of 2023-06-09 with no specific timestamps, suggesting a possible bulk import or solicited review campaign. These reviews were included but treated with reduced individual weight.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Five reviews contain no text (only a 5-star rating). These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data.
• PRICING RED FLAG: Multiple independent, detailed negative reviews cite specific dollar amounts that are significantly above market rate (Freon recharge at $987, PVC extension at $995 vs $300–$350 competitor quotes, $375 to insert a screw). These are credible and specific complaints that materially lower the pricing score.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews span 2019–2025. Negative pricing and project completion complaints appear across multiple years including recent ones (2024–2025), suggesting these are not isolated historical issues.
• VAGUE NEGATIVE REVIEW: The review stating 'so bad Eli hurt me' (2025-02-08) is too vague to score on any dimension and was excluded from scoring. It may be a fake or misdirected review.
• VAGUE NEGATIVE REVIEW: The review stating 'unbelievable how bad' (2024-09-11) contains no actionable detail and was excluded from dimension scoring.

This WW Score is based on a large volume of reviews spanning multiple years and carries HIGH overall confidence, but prospective customers should pay particular attention to the pricing dimension, where credible and specific complaints suggest a meaningful risk of above-market quotes that the high volume of positive reviews may obscure.

Mitch Clemmons Plumbing earns strong marks for professionalism, with dozens of reviewers explicitly praising punctuality, communication, friendly technicians, and the company's text-based appointment tracking system. Project completion scores well overall, with the large majority of reviews describing jobs finished same-day or within the promised timeframe, though two notable negative reviews describe an abandoned or incomplete job and a poorly executed attic reroute with denied damage. Experience is similarly strong, with many reviewers citing knowledgeable diagnostics and skilled workmanship across a wide range of plumbing tasks. Pricing is the weakest dimension: while many reviewers call prices fair or reasonable, multiple credible negative reviews describe quotes that were double or more than competitors, a surprise $500+ bill for a simple faucet swap, and undisclosed estimate fees — pulling this score down significantly. The WW Score reflects a genuinely capable and professional company with a meaningful pricing consistency concern.

• FAKE REVIEW CONCERN: One reviewer (1-star, 2024-03-05) explicitly alleges that the company's review solicitation system auto-posts 5-star reviews when customers click a link, which would artificially inflate the overall star rating. This cannot be verified from review text alone but is a serious allegation that warrants caution.
• REVIEW CLUSTERING: Two 5-star reviews posted on the exact same date and time (2023-08-31, within minutes of each other) both praise the same technician 'Glenn' in nearly identical enthusiastic terms from what appear to be different reviewers. This pattern is suspicious and may indicate coordinated or incentivized reviews.
• PRICING INCONSISTENCY: At least 4 independent reviewers across different years explicitly describe pricing as significantly higher than competitors or unexpectedly expensive (1-star 2022-12-16, 2-star 2023-01-20, 1-star 2023-10-12, 2-star 2022-12-15). This is a recurring and credible pattern, not isolated complaints.
• WORKMANSHIP CONCERN: One detailed 2-star review (2020-01-13) describes a botched attic pipe reroute with a broken frame, displaced air duct, and unplugged drill holes, followed by denial of responsibility by the owner. One 1-star review (2023-04-04) describes a technician leaving a job incomplete mid-task. These are substantive quality and accountability concerns.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews are from 2022–2024, which is favorable. A small number of reviews date to 2017–2020 and were given reduced weight in scoring. The negative pricing and workmanship reviews span multiple years, suggesting these are not isolated incidents.

This WW Score is based on a large and diverse review set (82 reviews) spanning multiple years, giving it HIGH overall confidence, but the score should be interpreted with caution given credible allegations of review manipulation, a consistent pattern of pricing complaints from multiple independent reviewers, and at least two substantive workmanship or job-completion failures.

Best City Rooter earns strong marks across most dimensions, with professionalism and pricing being consistent highlights across many years of reviews. The majority of customers praise punctuality, friendly communication, transparent pricing, and honest billing with no hidden charges. However, two detailed 1-star reviews from 2020 and 2021 meaningfully drag down the project completion and experience scores, describing incomplete repairs, a return visit that worsened a problem, an attempt to charge for damage caused by the plumber, and a warranty dispute handled poorly. These are not vague complaints — they are specific, credible accounts of failed follow-through that must be weighted seriously. The bulk of positive reviews are older than 12 months, with only one review from the past 12 months, which limits confidence in the contractor's current performance level.

• RECENCY WARNING: Only 1 review is from the past 12 months (September 2024). The majority of reviews are from 2013–2022, meaning this score may not reflect current service quality.
• TWO CREDIBLE NEGATIVE REVIEWS: The 1-star reviews from June 2020 and June 2021 are detailed, specific, and describe serious project completion failures including unfinished work, damage caused by the plumber, and a disputed warranty claim. These are weighted heavily in the project completion and experience scores.
• MILD REPETITION IN POSITIVE REVIEWS: Several positive reviews use similar phrasing ('professional,' 'on time,' 'great price') but most include specific job details and named technicians, suggesting they are likely genuine rather than fabricated. No fake review flag raised, but the pattern is noted.
• LONG REVIEW HISTORY SPAN: Reviews span from 2013 to 2024 — over 10 years. Business quality and staffing may have changed significantly over this period. Older reviews should be treated as lower-weight historical context.

This WW Score is based on a reasonably sized review set with high mention counts across all dimensions, but its reliability is moderated by the age of most reviews and two specific, credible negative accounts that reveal real project completion risks.

RS Plumbing Solutions has a strong overall track record built across many years of reviews, with consistent praise for professionalism, fair pricing, and technical competence across a wide variety of jobs ranging from minor repairs to major sewer line replacements and full remodels. Pricing is frequently called out as fair, reasonable, or competitive, which is a genuine strength. However, two notable negative reviews — one describing a missed diagnosis where a different company found and fixed the problem, and one vague but dissatisfied review from a property manager — introduce meaningful doubt about consistency of workmanship and reliability. A driving complaint unrelated to plumbing work was excluded from scoring but noted. The score is tempered by the fact that the majority of positive reviews are more than five years old, with only two reviews from 2022 or later, raising questions about whether current service quality matches historical performance.

• RECENCY CONCERN: The majority of reviews (13 of 17) are from 2019 or earlier, with only 2 reviews from 2022 and 1 from 2023. Current service quality cannot be reliably inferred from this review set. Scores should be treated with caution for present-day hiring decisions.
• NEGATIVE DIAGNOSTIC FAILURE: One reviewer (2018) explicitly states RS Plumbing found no leak, but a second company found and fixed the problem. This is a direct workmanship/experience failure and was factored into the experience and project completion scores.
• VAGUE NEGATIVE REVIEW: The 2-star review from 2014 is deliberately ambiguous — the reviewer hints at a poor experience but withholds specifics. As a self-described tradesman and property manager, this carries some weight and was factored conservatively into professionalism and project completion.
• NON-SERVICE REVIEW: The 1-star review from 2022-03-03 concerns a driver's road behavior and contains no information about plumbing services. It was excluded from all dimension scoring but is noted as a minor professionalism signal.
• NO FAKE REVIEW PATTERNS DETECTED: Reviews vary in length, specificity, tone, and rating. No suspicious repetition or templated language was identified.

This WW Score carries moderate-to-high structural reliability due to a reasonable volume of reviews with specific detail, but its practical reliability for current hiring decisions is reduced by the age of most reviews and two credible negative data points that suggest inconsistency in diagnosis and follow-through.