Find Nearby Plumbers In Los Angeles, California

Mr. Rooter Plumbing of Long Beach earns strong marks for professionalism and project completion, with the large majority of reviewers praising courteous, punctual, and communicative technicians — particularly named techs like Brian, Christian, Andy, Gerardo, and Tom Myers. Project completion scores are high, with many reviews confirming jobs finished same-day or next-day, clean worksite practices, and follow-through on callbacks and warranties. Experience scores are solid, with numerous reviewers citing knowledgeable diagnostics, thorough inspections, and skilled workmanship across complex jobs like re-pipes, main line replacements, and gas leak repairs. However, pricing is the most contested dimension: while many reviewers praise affordability and fair quotes, a meaningful cluster of negative reviews — spanning multiple years and locations — cite opaque invoicing, verbal quotes not honored in writing, unexpected charges, and rates described as excessive. This pricing inconsistency is the primary drag on the overall WW Score.

• 51 reviews contain no text — only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence per scoring rules.
• A significant number of reviews (approximately 30+) are generic one-liners such as 'Great service!', 'Very pleased', 'Excellent', or 'Will use again' with no specific detail. These were counted only where they could be attributed to a dimension with reasonable confidence (e.g., general satisfaction implying completion), but were treated conservatively.
• Pricing dimension has a notable split: roughly 20+ reviews praise affordability and fair pricing, while 12+ reviews explicitly describe overcharging, hidden fees, deceptive invoicing, or rates far above market. This internal conflict suppresses the pricing score significantly.
• One review (2024-03-08) alleges a technician took advantage of a senior with dementia, upselling an unnecessary toilet replacement and a non-refundable warranty plan for over $800. This is a serious ethical flag.
• One review (2022-11-14) alleges the company accepted a warranty job without being enrolled with the warranty provider, wasting the customer's time and charging a show-up fee.
• One review (2021-02-21) alleges damage to an irrigation system, demanding payment before inspection, and only partially fixing a self-created leak.
• One review (2019-12-07) alleges invoice manipulation after learning the job was warranty-covered, incorrect pipe sizing billed, and failure to honor a 6-year warranty that was quietly changed to 3 years.
• One review (2016-12-22) alleges an unlicensed apprentice was sent unsupervised, which the reviewer states is illegal in Washington state. This review appears to be for a different Mr. Rooter franchise location (Tri-Cities/Pasco, WA) and may not reflect the Long Beach location.
• Several negative reviews appear to reference different Mr. Rooter franchise locations (e.g., Anderson SC, Tri-Cities WA, Pasco WA, Richland WA). These were included in aggregate scoring but noted as potentially belonging to different franchises, which may inflate the negative signal for the Long Beach location.
• Review recency is strong: the majority of detailed, substantive reviews are from 2023–2025, lending HIGH confidence to current performance. Older negative reviews (2013–2018) may reflect different ownership, staffing, or franchise locations.
• No clear fake review pattern detected. Reviews vary in length, specificity, named technicians, and sentiment. The presence of multiple 1-star reviews with detailed complaints further supports authenticity of the review pool.

This WW Score is based on a large, diverse, and predominantly recent review set with HIGH confidence across all four dimensions; however, the score should be interpreted with caution on pricing due to a meaningful minority of credible complaints about opaque billing and overcharging, and some negative reviews may originate from different Mr. Rooter franchise locations rather than the Long Beach operation specifically.

All City Plumbing, Air & Electrical demonstrates strong professionalism and technical experience across a very large review base, with the vast majority of customers praising punctuality, communication, friendliness, and technician knowledge. Project completion is generally solid, with many jobs finished same-day or next-day, though a meaningful cluster of negative reviews describes incomplete work, broken promises to return, and at least one instance of a written quote not being honored. Pricing is the weakest dimension: while some reviewers describe fair or reasonable pricing, a significant number of negative reviews explicitly call out high costs, dramatic price escalations mid-job, and quotes far above competitors — pulling this score down considerably. The overall WW Score reflects a company with genuinely skilled and professional technicians but inconsistent pricing transparency and occasional follow-through failures that prevent a higher rating.

• PRICING CONCERN: Multiple reviews (at least 8-10) explicitly flag pricing as high, non-transparent, or dramatically escalated from initial quotes. One review describes a written estimate of $2,300 being changed to $5,600 on the day of installation. Another describes a $4,000+ quote for a job a competitor did for $1,100. Another saw $89 balloon to $275 for the same drain job. This is a systemic pattern, not isolated incidents.
• INCOMPLETE WORK / GHOSTING: At least 2-3 reviews describe work that was not completed (drain still clogged after payment), promises to return that were not honored, and technicians who 'ghosted' after scheduling follow-up visits. This materially impacts the project completion score.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: Two reviews for 'Jesse Mahalo' (dated 2024-10-30 15:33:43 and 2024-10-30 15:33:09) are word-for-word identical. These were counted as one unique review for scoring purposes.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: Two reviews for 'Jason C.' regarding a dishwasher repair (dated 2024-08-29 19:27:29 and 2024-08-29 19:24:10) are word-for-word identical. These were counted as one unique review for scoring purposes.
• POSSIBLE FAKE REVIEW CLUSTER: Three reviews for 'Ivan Gonzalez' were posted within 11 minutes of each other on 2024-01-30 and 2024-01-31, all with generic praise and no specific job details. This pattern is suspicious and these reviews were weighted with reduced confidence.
• SAFETY INCIDENT: One detailed 1-star review (dated 2023-12-21) describes a technician leaving a pipe leaning against a garage door that struck a customer's wife in the head. The reviewer also describes the owner refusing to engage and the owner's wife prioritizing legal liability over customer welfare. This is a serious flag regarding company culture at the management level.
• RECENCY: All reviews analyzed are from within the past 24 months (earliest: 2023-02-10), with the majority from the past 12 months. Recency weighting is favorable and no significant trend shift was detected, though pricing complaints appear consistently throughout the entire date range.

This WW Score is based on a very large review set (150 reviews) with HIGH confidence across all four dimensions; however, the score should be interpreted with caution given documented patterns of pricing escalation, at least two confirmed duplicate reviews, a suspicious same-day review cluster for one technician, and a serious unresolved safety incident — consumers should specifically scrutinize written quotes and confirm pricing before authorizing work.

Ameri-Cal Repipe & Plumbing earns strong marks for professionalism, with dozens of reviews praising punctuality, courteous staff, clear communication, and respectful treatment of customers' homes. Pricing is consistently cited as competitive or best-in-market, with multiple reviewers noting they chose Ameri-Cal after comparing several bids and found no hidden charges. Project completion is the most nuanced dimension: the large majority of reviews describe jobs finished on time and as promised, but a meaningful cluster of negative reviews — spanning multiple years — describes incomplete work, warranty disputes, poor follow-through on callbacks, unresolved damage caused by the repipe itself, and at least one case where a customer had to schedule their own city inspection because the company failed to do so. Experience scores well overall, with inspectors frequently complimenting the quality of work and many customers praising technical skill, but recurring issues with specific crews (incorrect pipe routing, reversed hot/cold lines, missed connections, inferior parts) prevent a higher score. The score reflects a company that performs well in the majority of cases but carries a documented pattern of quality-control failures and inconsistent warranty honoring that prospective customers should weigh carefully.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: The Lake Arrowhead repipe review appears verbatim three times (dates: 2021-06-09, 2020-11-04, 2020-11-03). This is a strong indicator of review manipulation or system duplication and reduces confidence in the overall review pool.
• BLANK OR NEAR-BLANK REVIEWS: At least 7 reviews contain no text (marked 'unknown', '.', or empty) but carry 5-star ratings. These were excluded from scoring as they provide no usable data.
• RECENCY NOTE: Reviews span from 2011 to 2025. The majority of substantive reviews are from 2019–2025. Older reviews (2011–2016) were given reduced weight. The score is primarily driven by the more recent review pool.
• NEGATIVE PATTERN — WARRANTY AND CALLBACK FAILURES: Multiple independent negative reviews (2019, 2021, 2023, 2024) describe the company refusing to honor warranties, failing to return calls, or requiring customers to pay out-of-pocket for issues caused by Ameri-Cal's own work. This is a recurring and credible pattern, not isolated incidents.
• NEGATIVE PATTERN — WORKMANSHIP ERRORS: Several reviews describe specific technical failures post-repipe: unconnected valves patched inside walls, reversed hot/cold lines, a PEX pipe lodged in a toilet drain, leaking SharkBite fittings, and missed pipe sections. These are serious quality-control concerns.
• GENERIC PRAISE REVIEWS: A subset of 5-star reviews (particularly clustered around 2022-06-09 and 2023-06-09) are very short, lack specific detail, and share similar phrasing. These may be solicited or low-effort reviews and were weighted conservatively.
• ONE REVIEW (2021-02-09) describes rude phone staff but provides no firsthand service experience — scored only against professionalism with limited weight.
• ONE REVIEW (2023-06-22) is a 1-star for a callback that never came — the reviewer never actually used the service. Counted against professionalism/responsiveness only.

This WW Score is based on a large and diverse review pool spanning over a decade, giving it HIGH statistical confidence in direction, but prospective customers should note a documented and recurring pattern of post-job warranty disputes, workmanship errors, and inconsistent follow-through that the aggregate score partially masks — the company performs well in most cases but carries meaningful tail risk on complex repipe projects.

R&R Plumbing has a large and predominantly positive review base spanning over a decade, with consistent praise for professionalism, punctuality, and knowledgeable technicians across a wide roster of named staff. Project completion scores well overall, with many reviewers confirming jobs were finished on time, cleanly, and as quoted — however, several serious negative reviews describe abandoned follow-through, flooding caused by technician error, disputed billing, and at least one allegation of fraudulent time-reporting, which meaningfully suppresses the completion and professionalism scores. Pricing is generally regarded as fair and competitive, but a recurring minority of reviewers describe feeling overcharged or pressured into unnecessary repairs, preventing a higher score. Experience scores positively given the volume of technically complex jobs described (hydro-jetting, slab leaks, high-rise condo work, tankless heaters), though a few reviews describe poor workmanship that required correction by other companies. The WW Score of 79.4 reflects a company with genuine strengths and a loyal customer base, tempered by a non-trivial pattern of serious complaints that cannot be dismissed.

• FAKE REVIEW RISK — MODERATE: A cluster of reviews dated 2025-05-10 (approximately 10 reviews on the same date) share generic, brief phrasing with no specific job details (e.g., 'Brandon was awesome', 'Great service, thank you', two reviews with completely blank text). This pattern is suspicious and may indicate review padding. Confidence in that cluster is reduced.
• TWO BLANK REVIEWS detected (Rating: 5.0, Date: 2025-05-10) with no text content — these were excluded from scoring but counted in total reviews analyzed.
• SERIOUS NEGATIVE INCIDENTS: At least one review (2022-11-09) describes a technician causing a flood due to failure to shut off water, resulting in approximately $6,000 in property damage, with the company allegedly failing to honor a promised reimbursement check. This is a significant liability and professionalism flag.
• BILLING DISPUTE PATTERN: Multiple negative reviews (2019-10-26, 2018-04-21, 2017-06-28) describe overcharging, failure to clear lines as claimed, and a broken promise to adjust a bill — suggesting a recurring pattern of disputed billing and follow-through failures.
• RESPONSIVENESS FAILURE: One review (2019-06-26) describes the company failing to respond to a service request after initial contact, and another (2020-07-14) describes a nearly 10-hour wait with the owner arriving with a rude attitude.
• WORKMANSHIP COMPLAINT: One review (2018-12-30) describes a technician leaving a bathroom sink improperly repaired with no management response to repeated complaints.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of high-volume positive reviews are from 2024–2025 and carry full recency weight. Negative reviews are spread across 2017–2023. The recency trend is positive but the serious incidents are not isolated to older periods.
• REVIEW DATE CLUSTER: Approximately 10 reviews share the exact date of 2025-05-10 with no timestamps, which is atypical and warrants scrutiny for authenticity.

This WW Score is based on a large review dataset (109 reviews) with HIGH confidence across all four dimensions, but should be interpreted with caution given confirmed patterns of serious complaints including property damage, billing disputes, and suspected review padding on a single date.

American Drain Works and Connie's team receive overwhelmingly positive feedback across all four dimensions, with the vast majority of reviewers praising responsiveness, clear communication, honesty, and technical skill. Professionalism scores are strong but modestly tempered by four negative reviews citing unprofessional owner behavior, a no-show appointment, an abandoned estimate, and a failure to refund a deposit. Pricing scores well overall — multiple reviewers explicitly note savings versus competitors and fair billing — but two negative reviews allege significant overcharging and one describes a disputed $750 deposit that was never returned, pulling the score down from what would otherwise be near-excellent. Project completion is solid, with many reviews describing jobs finished same-day or next-day and callbacks honored at no charge, but the 1-star reviews include one instance of a failed repair attempt that was still charged for, one allegation of incomplete sewer work that later failed, and one instance of a no-show after confirmation, which meaningfully reduces this dimension's score. Experience is well-supported by detailed reviewer accounts of skilled diagnostics, problem-solving under difficult conditions, and superior assessments compared to other plumbers, though one negative review raises a serious concern about a sewage spill caused by improper pipe-opening technique and an allegedly out-of-code repair quote.

• NEGATIVE REVIEW PATTERN: Four 1-star and one 2-star review exist among the 72 total. These are not isolated complaints — they describe distinct failure modes including overcharging, a non-refunded deposit, a failed repair that was still billed, a no-show after confirmation, and an improper sewage spill. These reviews are credible and specific and have been weighted accordingly.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews span 2016–2024. The most recent negative reviews are from 2020–2023, suggesting some issues may be ongoing rather than historical. Reviews from the past 12 months (late 2023–2024) are predominantly positive, which is a favorable signal but does not erase the pattern of negative experiences.
• DEPOSIT DISPUTE FLAG: One reviewer (2022) alleges Connie retained a $750 deposit after failing to show up for a scheduled gas line job. This is a serious allegation that, if accurate, represents a significant integrity concern. It is treated as credible given the specificity of the claim.
• POTENTIAL REVIEW VOLUME INFLATION: A small number of reviews are very brief and generic (e.g., 'Amazing company. Amazing owner. Amazing service.') with no specific details. These contribute minimally to scoring but are noted as low-information data points.
• NO FAKE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: The overwhelming majority of positive reviews contain specific names, job descriptions, and situational details. The review corpus as a whole appears authentic.
• RECENCY WEIGHT APPLIED: Reviews dated within the past 12 months (October 2023 – October 2024) are all 5-star and contain substantive detail, which is a positive recency signal. However, the negative reviews from 2020–2023 are recent enough to remain fully weighted.

This WW Score is based on a large, diverse, and largely authentic review set spanning eight years, and carries HIGH overall confidence; however, the presence of five negative reviews containing specific, credible allegations of overcharging, deposit retention, a no-show, and an improper repair means the score should be interpreted as reflecting a generally strong but not uniformly reliable contractor, and prospective customers are advised to obtain written quotes, avoid large deposits, and confirm appointments in writing.

A-1 Total Service Plumbing earns strong marks for professionalism and project completion, with the vast majority of reviewers praising punctuality, communication, friendly technicians, and jobs completed efficiently — often same-day or on weekends. Technical experience is also well-regarded, with numerous reviewers citing skilled diagnostics and problem-solving across complex jobs. However, pricing is a meaningful drag on the overall score: multiple reviewers across different time periods explicitly flagged prices as high or excessive, one reviewer documented a $700 snake job followed by a near-$7,000 quote, another was quoted $4,200 for work done elsewhere for $800, and a third was quoted $1,600 after an initial $500 estimate fell through under suspicious circumstances. There are also isolated but serious concerns about technician misconduct — one review described a tech charging for warranty parts that were free, and another described a technician becoming aggressive and yelling at a customer in their own home, with management failing to respond to three follow-up attempts.

• PRICING CONCERN: Multiple independent reviewers across different years explicitly cite overpricing, inflated quotes, and suspected upselling. This is a consistent pattern, not isolated incidents, and meaningfully lowers the pricing dimension score.
• MISCONDUCT FLAG: One reviewer (March 2024) described a technician yelling at them in their home and management failing to respond to three follow-up contacts. Another reviewer (March 2025) described a technician misdiagnosing a problem and recommending unnecessary $2,400 in work. A third (March 2010) described a tech charging $400 for warranty parts that were free. These are serious integrity concerns.
• BLANK REVIEWS: 56 reviews contained no text — only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable qualitative data. The high volume of blank 5-star reviews is a mild concern and may slightly inflate the perceived rating average.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of substantive reviews are from 2023–2025 and are within the past 12 months, which is positive for reliability. A small number of reviews date back to 2010–2017 and were given reduced weight. One 2017 review references a different company name (West Coast Plumbing) and may belong to a different entity — treated with caution.
• POSSIBLE REVIEW PADDING: The volume of blank 5-star reviews with no text is disproportionately high relative to the total review count. While not conclusive, this pattern is consistent with review padding and warrants caution when interpreting the raw star average.

The WW Score of 79.2 is based on a large and diverse review set with HIGH confidence across all four dimensions, but should be interpreted with caution given documented patterns of pricing complaints, at least one serious technician misconduct incident, and a high volume of content-free 5-star reviews that may artificially inflate the company's raw rating.