Find Nearby Plumbers In Merced, California

Advanced Plumbing has an overwhelmingly positive review base spanning over a decade, with the large majority of customers explicitly praising professionalism, punctuality, communication, and technical skill across a wide range of jobs including full house repiping, slab leak repairs, drain clearing, and water heater installation. Pricing is frequently cited as fair, reasonable, or better than competitors, with multiple reviewers noting they were charged significantly less than rival quotes. Project completion scores are strong, with many reviews confirming jobs were finished on time or ahead of schedule, though three negative reviews (1-star ratings from 2015, 2018, and 2022) describe a misdiagnosis and billing failure, a price-doubling incident with poor workmanship requiring a second contractor, and one complaint about poor work quality and hygiene — these meaningfully temper the otherwise high scores. Experience scores are supported by dozens of detailed accounts of skilled problem-solving, efficient crew management, and quality workmanship, though the negative reviews introduce enough doubt to prevent a top-tier score.

• Three negative reviews (1-star: 2015, 1-star: 2018, 1-star: 2022) describe serious issues: a misdiagnosis leading to an unnecessary $10,000–$15,000 referral, a job where the final charge was nearly double the quoted price with poor workmanship requiring a second contractor, and a complaint about shoddy work and overpricing. These are significant red flags that reduce confidence in consistency.
• 13 reviews contain no text at all — only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence per scoring rules.
• Several short reviews (e.g., 'Excellent!!!', 'Good Experience', 'Great service') are generic and lack specifics. While not definitively fake, they add limited scoring value and were weighted conservatively.
• The review pool spans from 2008 to 2025, meaning a substantial portion of reviews are more than 3 years old. Recency weighting was applied — reviews from 2024–2025 were given higher weight. The most recent negative review is from 2022.
• Multiple technician names appear across reviews (Nick, Miguel, Jesus, Edward, Mr. Roark, Mr. Salazar, Ed), suggesting this may be a multi-operator or franchise-style listing aggregating reviews for different individuals or locations. Scores may reflect a blended reputation rather than a single contractor's performance.
• No confirmed fake review patterns detected, but the volume of short, undetailed 5-star reviews warrants mild caution.

This WW Score is based on a large and diverse review set spanning 14+ years with high mention counts across all four dimensions, making the score statistically meaningful — however, the presence of three substantive negative reviews describing misdiagnosis, price inflation, and poor workmanship, combined with multi-technician ambiguity and 13 content-free reviews, means this score should be treated as a reliable general indicator rather than a guarantee of consistent quality.

Quality Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism with consistently punctual, courteous, and responsive service across 118 reviews. Project completion is reliable with most jobs finished on time and to customer satisfaction across 112 mentions. Technical experience is solid with skilled workmanship noted in 89 reviews. However, pricing emerges as a significant weakness, with 68 reviews explicitly mentioning cost concerns—including multiple complaints of overcharging (water heater replacements at $1,200–$1,750 vs. market rates of $200–$1,200, and inflated parts markups). While the majority of reviews are positive and recent (past 12 months), the pricing pattern suggests inconsistent or opportunistic billing practices that undermine overall trustworthiness.

• PRICING INCONSISTENCY: Multiple reviews (2019, 2022, 2023) report significantly inflated pricing—e.g., $1,750 for 40-gal water heater (market: $700–$1,200), $460 for $11 in materials, $368 for $35 thermostat kit. This pattern suggests systematic overcharging, particularly on emergency/high-pressure jobs.
• FOLLOW-UP FAILURES: One 2022 review reports Juan failed to return calls after poor service (clogged toilet not properly cleared; promised callback never occurred). Another 2018 review documents 4 failed service visits over 2 weeks before issue resolved.
• QUALITY CONTROL ISSUES: 2022 review documents improperly installed faucet (loose, moving); 2018 review documents misdiagnosis of water heater problem (recommended unnecessary $100+ cartridge replacement when issue was $8 dip tube).
• DEFENSIVE BEHAVIOR: 2018 review reports owner called at 7pm to intimidate customer into removing negative post, then offered 50% refund if post removed—indicating awareness of overcharging and willingness to suppress complaints.
• RECENCY BIAS MITIGATED: While 90%+ of reviews are from 2022 onward, older reviews (2018–2019) reveal consistent pricing abuse pattern, suggesting systemic issue rather than isolated incidents.
• POSITIVE REVIEW CLUSTERING: Approximately 40 reviews posted on 2024-09-12 with generic phrasing ('highly recommend,' 'top-notch,' 'amazing') and minimal specificity raise minor authenticity concerns, though individual reviews contain sufficient detail to be credible.

This WW Score of 82.3 should be trusted with caution: professionalism and completion are genuinely strong (HIGH confidence), but the pricing dimension (73.2, HIGH confidence based on 68 explicit mentions) reveals a material and recurring problem that significantly undermines the company's overall value proposition. Customers should expect good work and service but should obtain detailed written estimates and compare aggressively with competitors before committing, particularly for emergency or high-cost jobs.

Johnson/Kayton Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism with consistent praise for friendly, courteous staff and prompt responsiveness across 26 reviews. Project completion is solid with most jobs finished same-day or within promised timeframes, though one significant 2022 review detailed poor workmanship (cross-threaded fitting) that required customer correction. Pricing is generally viewed as reasonable and fair across 13 mentions, with transparent quotes. Technical experience is adequate but not exceptional—most reviews praise speed and efficiency rather than complex problem-solving, with the notable 2022 negative review suggesting quality control gaps. The company's 65-year family history and long-term customer relationships (multiple 15-20+ year clients) provide credibility, but the single detailed negative review from 2022 indicates occasional lapses in attention to detail.

• FAKE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: 13 reviews contain no text or minimal generic praise ('You guys are the best!', 'Great service', empty reviews with 5-star ratings). These appear to be placeholder or auto-generated entries with no substantive detail.
• SIGNIFICANT NEGATIVE REVIEW (2022-10-21): One detailed 2-star review documents cross-threaded plumbing fitting with improper goop application, requiring customer correction. This contradicts the otherwise uniformly positive narrative and suggests quality control issues.
• RECENCY BIAS: Majority of detailed positive reviews cluster in 2025 (most recent 6 months) and 2024-2021. Older reviews (2010-2017) are sparse. Recent reviews may reflect current operations better than historical pattern.
• COMPANY NAME INCONSISTENCY: Reviews reference both 'Johnson Plumbing' and 'Kayton Plumbing'—unclear if same company, merger, or data error. This creates ambiguity about review attribution.
• GENERIC PRAISE DOMINANCE: Of 54 reviews, approximately 20+ contain only 1-3 word praise with no specific details about work performed, making substantive scoring difficult.

This score should be treated with MODERATE-TO-HIGH caution: while the company shows genuine strengths in professionalism and responsiveness supported by multiple detailed positive reviews and long-term customer loyalty, the prevalence of empty/generic reviews (24% of dataset), one detailed quality-control failure, and company name ambiguity reduce confidence. The WW Score of 82.1 is reliable for professionalism and completion dimensions but should not be interpreted as flawless—the 2022 negative review indicates real risk of workmanship lapses.

Roto-Rooter receives consistently strong marks for professionalism and responsiveness from individual technicians, with hundreds of reviews praising courteous, knowledgeable, and prompt service. However, pricing is the single most damaging dimension across this dataset, with an enormous volume of reviews describing charges as excessive, deceptive, or wildly inconsistent — including numerous accounts of bait-and-switch quoting, undisclosed fees, and charges for incomplete work. Project completion is significantly dragged down by a substantial minority of reviews describing failed repairs, no-shows, abandoned jobs, warranty disputes, and work that made problems worse. Experience scores moderately well overall, as many technicians are praised for skill and problem-solving, but this is offset by recurring accounts of misdiagnosis, wrong equipment, and upselling unnecessary services. The aggregate picture is a company with capable individual technicians but systemic issues around pricing transparency, scheduling reliability, and quality control.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: Multiple reviews appear to be exact or near-exact duplicates (e.g., two identical reviews from 'Paul arrived same day...', two identical 'Zach is the man...', two identical 'Based solely off customer service...', two identical 'Easy to schedule and a quick service...', two identical 'Great service. Would highly recommend!', two identical 'Efficient and effective...', two identical 'Excellent with Armando...', two identical 'Very prompt and helpful! Anthony...', two identical 'My name is Antoinette...'). These duplicates inflate positive scores and have been treated conservatively.
• FAKE REVIEW PATTERNS: A large cluster of reviews dated 1996-2001 consist of single-line responses ('NO', 'NOT REALLY', 'ON TIME AND DID THE WORK') with no detail, all rated 5 stars. These appear to be placeholder or fabricated entries and were excluded from scoring.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Approximately 100+ reviews contain no text content but carry 5-star ratings. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data, but their presence inflates the raw star average.
• EXTREME RATING POLARIZATION: The dataset shows a pronounced bimodal distribution — a very large number of 5-star reviews with minimal detail alongside a substantial volume of detailed 1-star reviews describing serious failures. This pattern is consistent with either review manipulation on the positive end or a company with highly inconsistent service quality.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS ARE SYSTEMIC: Pricing complaints are not isolated incidents — they span multiple years, multiple geographic locations, and multiple service types. Charges ranging from $200-$900 for simple drain snaking (15-30 minutes of work) are documented repeatedly. This is a structural business practice issue, not individual technician behavior.
• NO-SHOW AND SCHEDULING FAILURES: A significant number of reviews describe confirmed appointments where technicians never arrived and no communication was provided. This is a recurring operational failure across multiple franchise locations.
• MULTI-FRANCHISE DATASET: Reviews appear to span dozens of different Roto-Rooter franchise locations across the United States. Scores reflect the brand aggregate, not any single location. Individual location quality varies significantly.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews with substantive content are dated between 2020-2025, which is within the relevant scoring window. Older reviews (pre-2015) were given reduced weight.

This WW Score of 72.4 is based on a very large dataset (1,456 reviews) and carries HIGH statistical confidence in its directional accuracy, but should be interpreted as a brand-level aggregate across many franchise locations — individual location quality varies substantially, and the systemic pricing and scheduling issues documented here may not apply equally to all franchises.

535 Plumbing (formerly or also known as Creative Plumbing) has a strongly bifurcated review profile: the vast majority of recent reviews (2024–2025) are glowing, praising punctuality, friendliness, communication, and job completion, while older reviews (2008–2020) contain serious complaints about overbilling, unprofessional conduct, missed appointments, incomplete work, and poor workmanship. Professionalism scores well in recent years but is dragged down by multiple older reviews citing rudeness, a plumber urinating with the door open, workers disclosing confidential information to tenants, and no-shows. Pricing is a notable weak point, with multiple explicit complaints about overcharging, billing for time not worked, and rates described as three times the going rate, though a few reviewers found pricing reasonable. Project completion is generally strong in recent reviews but undermined by older accounts of abandoned jobs, unresolved problems after multiple visits, and a water heater installation that resulted in a closet wall being left open. Experience is similarly mixed, with recent technicians praised for skill and problem-solving, while older reviews describe plumbers who appeared inexperienced, made errors, and repeatedly retrieved wrong parts.

• RECENCY BIAS WARNING: The review set spans from 2008 to 2025. Reviews from 2015 and earlier account for roughly 15 reviews and contain the most severe complaints. Recent 2025 reviews are overwhelmingly positive. The WW Score reflects a blended picture but the older negative reviews meaningfully suppress scores.
• POSSIBLE BUSINESS TRANSITION: The company appears to have operated under the name 'Creative Plumbing' in older reviews and '535 Plumbing' in recent reviews. It is unclear whether this is the same legal entity, a rebrand, or a change in ownership. If ownership changed, older reviews may not reflect current operations and should be weighted accordingly.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — MODERATE: The 2025 reviews are heavily concentrated in a short window (June 2–9, 2025) with many reviews posted on the same dates, all 5-star, with similar praise structures. While they do contain specific technician names and job details (which reduces suspicion), the clustering pattern warrants caution.
• SEVERE HISTORICAL INCIDENT: One review (2015) describes a plumber urinating with the door open in front of a customer's wife and then leaving without completing the repair. The office was contacted and never followed up. This is a serious professionalism and conduct failure.
• BILLING COMPLAINTS: Multiple older reviews cite overbilling — one customer claims they were charged over $900 for a job worth $300, another was billed for 2.5 hours when the plumber was present for under 1.5 hours. These are explicit and specific complaints that reduce the pricing score significantly.
• INCOMPLETE JOB — NOTED: One review describes a water heater replacement where the wrong-sized unit was ordered by the office, resulting in a closet wall being left open permanently. The plumber received praise but the outcome was a failed project completion.
• ONE REVIEW FLAGGED AS UNUSABLE: The review with text 'unknown' and a 5-star rating (2015) contains no usable data and was excluded from dimension scoring.
• UNRESOLVED CALLBACK FAILURE: One 1-star review (2020) describes weeks of ignored phone calls regarding a solar hot water system the company originally installed, with the contact 'Todd' repeatedly failing to respond. This is a direct project completion and professionalism failure.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large number of reviews, but should be interpreted cautiously given the significant gap between recent glowing reviews and older severe complaints, a possible business rebrand, and clustering of 5-star reviews in a narrow recent window that may reflect review solicitation practices.

All three reviews praise professionalism, with explicit mentions of punctuality, respectfulness, and quick responsiveness. Pricing is consistently described as fair and reasonable across all reviews. Project completion is mentioned once with positive language about quality service and attention to detail. Experience is inferred from one mention of quality workmanship. However, the sample size is small (n=3) and two reviews are over 1 year old, limiting confidence in the overall assessment.

• Only 3 reviews analyzed — sample size is very small and limits statistical reliability
• Two of three reviews are from 2023 (over 1 year old); only one recent review from October 2024
• Reviews lack specific project details or challenges overcome — all are generic praise with no substantive examples
• No negative feedback or areas for improvement mentioned in any review — suspiciously uniform positivity
• First review appears to be about junk removal/yard cleanup, not plumbing work — may be different service line or contractor

This score should be treated with caution due to the very small sample size (n=3), age of most reviews, and lack of specific detail that would validate the claims. A minimum of 8-10 recent reviews with concrete examples would be needed to establish high confidence in this contractor's performance.