Find Nearby Plumbers In Los Angeles, California

Make It Drain / My Drain Company earns strong marks across all four dimensions, driven by an overwhelming volume of detailed, positive reviews spanning several years. Professionalism is the most frequently praised attribute, with dozens of reviewers specifically citing punctuality, communication, friendliness, and courteous behavior from named technicians including Tony, Jaime, Ruben, Alfonso, and others. Project completion scores well, with the vast majority of reviewers confirming jobs were finished promptly, thoroughly, and with proper cleanup — including complex multi-day sewer line replacements and emergency after-hours calls. Pricing is generally praised as fair and transparent, with multiple reviewers noting competitive rates, price matching, and honest no-upsell behavior; however, three serious negative reviews allege significant overcharging and deceptive billing practices (most notably the Alfonso $1,575 incident and the $1,250 sprinkler valve estimate), which meaningfully suppress the pricing score. Experience scores well based on consistent praise for diagnostic skill, technical knowledge, and problem-solving, though a small number of reviews cite faulty or incomplete work, including one instance of a pipe held up with a can of corn and a toilet that was not properly repaired.

• PRICING CONCERN — SERIOUS: One detailed 1-star review alleges a technician (Alfonso) charged $1,575 after originally quoting $375, with the reviewer claiming the new amount was written in different ink after the job was completed. This is a significant red flag for deceptive billing practices and is not an isolated complaint.
• PRICING CONCERN — MODERATE: A second 1-star review alleges Alfonso quoted $1,250 for a sprinkler valve repair estimated to cost under $40 in parts, with a claimed labor rate of ~$2,400/hour. While this is one reviewer's interpretation, it corroborates a pattern around one specific technician.
• WORKMANSHIP CONCERN: One 1-star review alleges a technician temporarily fixed a pipe leak by propping it up with a can of corn, which then failed, requiring a return visit — suggesting a quality control issue on at least one job.
• FOLLOW-THROUGH CONCERN: One 1-star review alleges the company refused to return to fix a faulty fill valve they had installed, indicating a failure to honor callback/warranty obligations in at least one case.
• COMMUNICATION FAILURE: One 1-star review describes a no-show for a scheduled estimate window, with the technician falsely claiming the address was never provided despite it being visible in the text thread.
• QUOTE FOLLOW-UP FAILURE: One 2-star review describes a month-long failure to deliver a promised quote, with unreturned calls and voicemails — suggesting inconsistent follow-through on pre-job commitments.
• RUDENESS COMPLAINT: One 1-star review notes a technician was rude during a re-inspection, and a separate 1-star review states the company was rude on a second visit after a previously good experience.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Two reviews contained no text (only a 5-star rating). These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data.
• RECENCY NOTE: The review set spans from 2017 to May 2025. The majority of reviews are from 2020 onward, with a strong cluster in 2024–2025, lending good recency weight to the overall score. Older reviews (2017–2019) are consistent in tone and were included but given slightly lower weight.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK — LOW: While there is a large volume of 5-star reviews, the majority contain specific names, job descriptions, and situational details that reduce the likelihood of fabrication. No identical phrasing patterns were detected. Risk is considered low but the sheer volume of 5-star reviews with minimal negatives warrants acknowledgment.
• TECHNICIAN VARIABILITY: The negative reviews cluster around specific technicians (notably Alfonso) rather than the company as a whole. Tony and Jaime receive overwhelmingly positive feedback. This suggests inconsistent quality across staff rather than a systemic company-wide issue.

This WW Score is based on a large, well-distributed review set with strong recency and high mention counts across all four dimensions, making it statistically reliable; however, the score should be interpreted with caution due to credible and detailed allegations of deceptive billing and workmanship failures tied to at least one specific technician, which represent material risks that the aggregate score alone does not fully convey.

All Ways Plumbing earns strong marks across all four dimensions, driven by an exceptionally large and mostly positive review base spanning over a decade. Professionalism is the standout dimension, with dozens of reviewers explicitly praising responsiveness, punctuality, communication, and courteous behavior. Project completion scores well overall but is meaningfully dragged down by three serious negative reviews: one describing a code violation that caused flooding and toxic mold with the contractor refusing to remedy the work, one describing workers who failed to diagnose the actual problem and performed unnecessary work, and one describing a technician who avoided the main issue and fixed a minor one instead. Pricing is generally praised as fair and reasonable, but one reviewer reported being charged $633 for a faucet replacement with no upfront quote, and another noted pricing felt high — these pull the pricing score below the otherwise positive consensus. Experience scores well based on numerous specific mentions of technical knowledge and problem-solving, though the diagnostic failures in the negative reviews temper this score.

• SERIOUS FLAG: One reviewer (1-star, 2023-03-29) describes a code violation by 'Zachary Szabo' causing flooding, two types of toxic mold, inability to live in the home for 4+ months, and the contractor being held responsible by the State Examiners Board while refusing to remedy the work. This is a significant workmanship and accountability failure that materially impacts the project_completion and experience scores.
• INCOMPLETE WORK FLAG: Two additional reviews (2024-10-17 and 2012-01-03) describe technicians who failed to diagnose or address the actual problem, performing unnecessary or minor work instead. This is a pattern worth noting.
• NO-QUOTE FLAG: One reviewer (2021-01-21) reported being charged $633 with no upfront price quote provided, only receiving an invoice after the fact. This is a transparency concern for the pricing dimension.
• BEHAVIOR FLAG: One 1-star review (2021-05-08) describes rude and disrespectful behavior from a driver of the company van in a parking lot. While not a service quality issue, it reflects on professionalism.
• BLANK/UNUSABLE REVIEWS: Four reviews contained no text (only a rating), including two from 2016 and one from 2024. These were excluded from dimensional scoring but counted in total reviews analyzed.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of substantive reviews are from 2021–2025, which is positive for recency weighting. Reviews from 2009–2013 reference different named technicians (Jake, Daryl, Zac/Zachary) and may reflect a different era or staffing of the business. The serious code-violation complaint also references 'Zachary Szabo,' suggesting possible past association with the business.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK: LOW. The review corpus is large, spans many years, references specific technician names, job types, and situational details. No significant pattern of identical phrasing or suspiciously generic content detected. Confidence in authenticity is high.

This WW Score is based on a large, detailed, and temporally diverse review set and carries HIGH overall confidence; however, the presence of one serious unresolved code-violation complaint with documented regulatory involvement and two additional incomplete-work complaints means prospective customers should weigh these outliers carefully, particularly for complex or high-stakes plumbing projects.

Dave at Budget Rooter & Plumbing earns strong marks across all four dimensions, with professionalism and project completion being the most consistently praised attributes across a large review base spanning over a decade. The vast majority of reviewers highlight same-day or rapid response, punctuality, friendly attitude, and follow-through — including multiple instances of returning at no charge to resolve recurring issues. Pricing is the weakest dimension: while most reviewers describe prices as fair or reasonable, at least four reviews explicitly call out overcharging, including one reviewer who felt taken advantage of as a woman alone, and another who received a competing quote significantly lower. Project completion scores high due to numerous accounts of Dave returning to fix callbacks, honoring warranties, and completing complex multi-day jobs. Experience scores well based on reviewers citing quick diagnosis, correct first-time identification of problems, and technical versatility across water heaters, gas leaks, pressure valves, and drain issues. One notable negative flag is a missed appointment with no explanation, which tempers the otherwise strong project completion score slightly.

• PRICING CONCERN: At least 4 reviews explicitly mention overcharging or prices higher than competitors. One reviewer (1-star, 2021) felt charged excessively for a 10-minute job and cited gender-based vulnerability. Another (3-star, 2018) was quoted $135 for a job a competitor offered at $75. A third (4-star, 2018) noted the quote was not the cheapest. These are credible, specific complaints that meaningfully reduce the pricing score.
• MISSED APPOINTMENT: One 1-star review (2016) describes a confirmed appointment being cancelled via text with no explanation and no follow-up, leaving the customer without water for a day. This is a direct project completion failure and is weighted accordingly.
• REFUND DISPUTE: Two separate reviews (2015 and 2016) reference receiving refunds only after posting negative Yelp reviews, and one reviewer explicitly states they received multiple texts and calls requesting removal of their review. This is a reputational concern and suggests possible pressure tactics toward reviewers.
• REVIEW AGE: The majority of reviews are older than 3 years, with most dating from 2013–2021. Only a small number are from 2020–2021. There are no reviews from 2022 or later. Recency confidence is limited — current service quality cannot be confirmed from this dataset.
• VOLUME AND PATTERN: The overwhelming majority of reviews are 5-star with broadly positive language. While most contain specific details that suggest authenticity, the sheer ratio of 5-star to negative reviews warrants mild scrutiny. No strong fake review pattern detected, but the dataset skews heavily positive.

This WW Score is based on a large review dataset (75 reviews) with HIGH mention counts across all four dimensions, making the score mathematically reliable; however, the recency gap (no reviews after 2021), credible pricing complaints, and documented pressure on negative reviewers introduce meaningful uncertainty about current service quality and ethical conduct.

All Star Plumbing & Rooter (Jose) earns strong marks across all four dimensions, driven by a large volume of reviews spanning nearly a decade. Professionalism is the most frequently cited strength, with dozens of reviewers praising punctuality, cleanliness, communication, and courteous attitude — including going above and beyond such as FaceTiming customers to walk them through DIY fixes and sending video documentation of completed work. Project completion scores are high, with multiple reviews confirming same-day or next-day service, jobs finished on time, and follow-through even when work became more complex than anticipated. Experience is well-supported by reviews describing accurate diagnoses, camera inspections, full repiping, tankless water heater installs, and proactive problem identification. Pricing scores are tempered by three negative data points: one reviewer reported a verbal quote that was not honored, one complained that an advertised 15% discount was not applied, and one noted a failure to follow up on a commercial estimate — pulling the pricing score meaningfully below the otherwise positive trend.

• Three negative pricing/honesty incidents identified: (1) a verbal quote of $180-$220 that was charged at $240 with disputed explanations (1-star, Dec 2023); (2) an advertised 15% new customer discount that was not honored, with only a $10 reduction offered (2-star, Oct 2021); (3) a failure to follow up with a commercial client after agreeing to receive plans (1-star, Jul 2022). These are specific, credible complaints and meaningfully reduce the pricing score.
• One review (2-star, May 2019) cited poor phone communication — yelling in Spanish over the caller and being distracted — which is a professionalism concern, though isolated.
• A significant portion of reviews (roughly 20 of 46) are older than 24 months, with many dating back to 2014–2021. The most recent reviews (2023–2024) remain largely positive, but the volume of recent reviews is lower, slightly reducing recency confidence.
• No strong fake review patterns detected. Reviews vary in length, detail, specificity, and tone. Several include negative or mixed feedback, which supports authenticity. The presence of named individuals (Jose, Daniel), specific job types, and unique scenarios further supports legitimacy.
• One review (Nov 2024) from a property management company is notably generic in phrasing ('from start to finish,' 'clean and tidy,' 'most reasonable') with no specific job details. While not conclusive, it warrants mild caution.

This WW Score is based on 46 reviews with strong dimensional coverage across all four categories and is considered highly reliable, though the pricing dimension should be interpreted cautiously given three specific, credible complaints about quote accuracy and discount honoring.

OK Plumbing (Keith) receives consistently strong praise across all four scored dimensions, with professionalism being the most frequently cited strength — reviewers repeatedly highlight punctuality, responsiveness, clear communication, and a personable attitude. Pricing is noted favorably in multiple reviews, with specific mentions of fair, reasonable, and even negotiable rates, and one notable instance where Keith declined to charge for work that was the city's responsibility. Project completion is well-supported, with reviewers describing jobs finished on the same day, thorough follow-through, and reliable repeat service over many years. Experience and workmanship are affirmed across a wide range of jobs including drain clearing, fixture replacement, and pipe retrofitting, with several reviewers specifically calling out Keith's technical knowledge and problem-solving ability. The primary caveat is that the majority of reviews are more than three years old, with only two reviews from the past 12 months, which limits confidence in how current performance reflects these scores.

• RECENCY CONCERN: Only 2 of 18 reviews are from the past 12 months (2023). The bulk of reviews span 2006–2020, with a significant cluster from 2018–2019. Current performance cannot be reliably inferred from older reviews.
• ALL 5-STAR RATINGS: 17 of 18 reviews are 5-star and 1 is 4-star. While not conclusive of fake reviews, the uniformity warrants mild caution. However, most reviews contain specific job details, named individuals, and varied language, which reduces the likelihood of coordinated fake reviews.
• MULTIPLE REVIEWERS MENTION REFERRALS: Several reviews note being referred by friends or other plumbers, which is a credible organic pattern and slightly offsets the all-positive rating concern.
• TWO VERY OLD REVIEWS (2006, 2007, 2011, 2012): Four reviews are over 10 years old and were given minimal weight in scoring. Business practices and personnel may have changed significantly since then.
• ONE REVIEW REFERENCES 'MIKE THE OWNER' while all others reference 'KEITH' — this may indicate a different employee or owner at the time, or a misidentification. This review was still counted as it references the same business (OK Plumbing) and contains relevant dimension data.

This WW Score carries moderate-to-high reliability given the volume and specificity of reviews, but should be interpreted with caution due to the significant recency gap — consumers are advised to seek more recent references or reviews before hiring.

Water Heaters Only demonstrates strong overall performance with a WW Score of 82.3, driven primarily by exceptional professionalism (87.5) and solid project completion rates (85.2). Technicians consistently receive praise for punctuality, courtesy, and technical knowledge. However, pricing emerges as a notable weakness (72.0), with recurring complaints about quotes that exceed phone estimates, high labor charges, and perceived overpricing relative to competitors. Experience ratings remain solid (84.8), reflecting skilled installations and knowledgeable staff. The company's 24/7 availability and same-day service capabilities are frequently highlighted as major strengths.

• PRICING CONCERNS: Multiple reviews (15-20%) report significant discrepancies between phone quotes and final invoices, with technicians quoting $300-$1,500+ above initial estimates. Some customers report being charged for service calls that were supposed to be free estimates.
• BAIT-AND-SWITCH PATTERN: Several reviews describe a pattern where phone representatives quote lower prices, but technicians arrive and quote substantially higher amounts, claiming 'the office doesn't know what it costs.' This undermines trust and suggests potential systemic pricing issues.
• INCONSISTENT SERVICE QUALITY: While most reviews are 5-star, there are scattered reports of no-shows, missed appointment windows, poor communication about time slots, and technicians arriving outside promised windows without proper notification.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK - MODERATE: The dataset contains an unusually high concentration of 5-star reviews (approximately 85-90%) with very similar positive language patterns. Many reviews use nearly identical phrasing ('professional,' 'knowledgeable,' 'friendly,' 'efficient') and follow similar narrative structures. However, the presence of legitimate 1-2 star reviews with specific complaints and the geographic/temporal diversity of reviews suggest this is a real customer base rather than entirely fabricated reviews. The pattern is consistent with a company that actively encourages satisfied customers to leave reviews.
• COMMUNICATION GAPS: Several customers report confusion about appointment windows, with the company claiming 4-hour windows are standard but not clearly communicating this upfront. Some technicians arrived outside promised windows without adequate notice.
• WARRANTY AND FOLLOW-UP ISSUES: A few reviews mention warranty disputes, difficulty getting callbacks for post-installation issues, and refusal to service certain water heater types despite company name suggesting they handle all water heaters.
• GEOGRAPHIC INCONSISTENCY: Some reviews indicate the company refuses service in certain areas or claims they don't service specific water heater models, despite website claims of comprehensive service.

This WW Score of 82.3 is highly reliable for assessing professionalism and project completion, supported by 612 and 521 mentions respectively across a large, diverse review dataset. However, the pricing dimension (72.0) should be weighted heavily in decision-making, as it represents a genuine and recurring customer pain point with substantial evidence. Prospective customers should obtain detailed written quotes and clarify all costs before committing, as the gap between phone estimates and final invoices appears to be a systemic issue rather than isolated incidents.