Find Nearby Plumbers In Modesto, California

Teeples Plumbing has a generally positive reputation across multiple dimensions, with strong recurring praise for responsiveness, courteous technicians, and fair pricing. However, two notable negative reviews — one citing a 3-hour late arrival, dishonesty about parts availability, and a technician who could not distinguish hot from cold water valves, and another citing dangerous driving behavior — meaningfully drag down scores in professionalism and project completion. The majority of positive reviews are older than 12 months, with only one review from the past 12 months (May 2024), which limits confidence in the current state of the business. Pricing feedback is consistently favorable, with multiple reviewers noting costs were below competitor quotes. Workmanship is generally praised but the single detailed negative review about technical incompetence prevents a high experience score.

• RECENCY WARNING: Only 1 of 14 reviews is from the past 12 months (May 2024). The majority of reviews are from 2015–2022, with several from 2018–2020. Scores may not reflect current business performance.
• NEGATIVE REVIEW — PROFESSIONALISM & EXPERIENCE: The 2022 1-star review explicitly describes a 3-hour late arrival, alleged dishonesty about parts availability, and a technician unable to correctly identify hot vs. cold water valves for a basic sink installation. This is a serious credibility concern for both professionalism and technical competence dimensions.
• NEGATIVE REVIEW — PROFESSIONALISM (DRIVING): The 2018 1-star review describes a company truck nearly sideswiping vehicles and running a customer off the road. While this is a single incident, it is a safety and professionalism concern.
• ONE REVIEW NOT SCORED AS USABLE DATA: The review noting the company 'doesn't service wells' was counted in total reviews but contributes no meaningful scoring data for any dimension beyond a brief positive note on callback speed.
• MILD FAKE REVIEW CONCERN: Several older 5-star reviews (2015, 2020) are very brief and generic with minimal specifics (e.g., 'fast service good prices cool professional guys'). These are not flagged as definitively fake but carry lower evidentiary weight and were scored conservatively.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability — the volume of reviews is low, the data is heavily skewed toward older reviews, and two credible negative reviews with specific details introduce meaningful uncertainty about consistent service quality.

Action Appliance Services has a strong base of positive reviews praising professionalism, communication, and technical knowledge, with multiple reviewers highlighting punctuality, floor protection, and proactive problem-solving. However, two significant negative reviews meaningfully drag down scores: one describes poor craftsmanship on a granite cut, incomplete caulking, and a failure to complete product registration that cost the customer a warranty year; another describes a no-show appointment with no courtesy call and a dismissive attitude from Perry. Project completion is penalized because the negative review documents genuinely unfinished and substandard work, and the no-show review reflects a failure to follow through on a commitment. Pricing receives a moderate positive score based on limited but favorable mentions. The overall picture is of a generally capable and professional team with notable inconsistency, particularly on complex or longer jobs.

• Several reviews are significantly dated — 7 of 13 reviews are from 2018 or earlier, with the oldest from 2013. These reviews carry reduced weight and may not reflect current service quality.
• The most recent reviews (2020–2024) present a mixed picture, including one detailed 1-star complaint about workmanship and an unresolved warranty issue, which tempers the otherwise positive older record.
• Some 5-star reviews are brief and generic (e.g., 'Excellent service with reasonable prices. Knowledgeable service representatives. Fast response time.') with no specific detail, which slightly reduces confidence in those data points.
• No suspected coordinated fake review pattern detected, but the generic short reviews are noted as low-information data points.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability: the sample size of 13 reviews is small, the majority of reviews are more than 5 years old, and two substantive negative reviews introduce meaningful uncertainty about consistency of workmanship and professionalism.

Applegate Septic and Sewer has a clearly mixed track record across its reviews. When Greg and his crew show up and complete the work, multiple reviewers praise their technical skill, professionalism, and care on the job site — including handling landscaping carefully and walking clients through complex permitting processes. However, there are three serious, independently detailed complaints describing a consistent pattern of no-shows, missed appointments without calls, and complete unresponsiveness — one reviewer documented being stood up twice and having calls ignored for weeks, and another spent six weeks unable to obtain even a bid. Pricing is generally viewed favorably by those who received completed work, with at least one reviewer confirming the final bill matched the original quote. The no-show and communication failure pattern significantly drags down both professionalism and project completion scores, as these are not isolated incidents but a recurring theme spanning multiple years.

• Three separate reviews (2013, 2014, 2019) describe a near-identical pattern of missed appointments, no callbacks, and unresponsiveness — this is a credible and consistent negative pattern, not an outlier.
• One 5-star review (2014-04-29) contains no specific detail and appears to be a direct rebuttal to a negative review posted days earlier, which raises authenticity concerns for that review.
• Most reviews are older than 12 months relative to a 2024 analysis date; the most recent review is from February 2023, and the majority of reviews are from 2019 or earlier, limiting recency confidence.
• The positive reviews, while generally specific enough to appear genuine, are heavily clustered in the 2020–2023 range and may not reflect current business practices given the older negative reviews.

This WW Score carries moderate overall reliability — the review volume is low (13 reviews), the data spans nearly a decade with limited recency, and the presence of three detailed and credible no-show complaints meaningfully undermines the otherwise positive signals from satisfied customers.

Michael receives consistently positive feedback across all three reviews, with professionalism and reliability being the most frequently cited strengths — including punctuality, responsiveness, and courteous communication. Project completion is well-supported, with reviewers noting jobs finished on time, same-day service delivery, and thorough clean-up. Pricing is mentioned favorably in one review, where Michael actively competed on price and offered additional work at no extra cost, suggesting strong value orientation. Workmanship quality is referenced in two reviews but without deep technical detail, keeping the experience score conservative. Overall, the picture is positive but the very small review pool limits confidence significantly.

• Only 3 reviews total — WW Score is at the minimum threshold for calculation and should be treated with caution.
• All three reviews are 5-star ratings with no negative feedback of any kind — while not conclusively fake, this warrants awareness.
• Reviews lack highly specific technical detail, which is common in genuine short reviews but also in generic praise; no fake review pattern is definitively detected.
• All reviews are from 2023 — no reviews in the past 12 months (relative to a 2024/2025 evaluation date), meaning recency data is limited.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews and should be considered a preliminary indicator only — significantly more reviews are needed before this score can be trusted as a reliable representation of contractor quality.

Across all six reviews, Precision Home Improvement and Brennan consistently receive praise for professionalism — punctuality, politeness, cleanliness, and communication are explicitly mentioned multiple times, driving a strong professionalism score. Project completion is also well-supported, with reviewers noting successful completion of electrical, HVAC, furnace, and bathroom remodel work across multiple visits. Experience is moderately supported, with references to skill, knowledge, and quality craftsmanship in four reviews. Pricing is only lightly touched on in two reviews, both positively framing value and fairness, but the limited mentions keep confidence low for that dimension. However, the overall reliability of this score is significantly tempered by the age of the reviews — five of six are more than five years old, with the most recent from January 2024 and the next most recent from 2019.

• RECENCY WARNING: Five of six reviews are older than 5 years (2014–2019), with only one review from the past 12 months (January 2024). The WW Score may not reflect current service quality.
• SMALL SAMPLE WARNING: Only 6 reviews total. Scores and the WW Score should be treated as preliminary and low-reliability until more reviews are available.
• POSSIBLE GENERIC PRAISE: Several reviews use broadly positive but non-specific language ('best in town', 'far exceeded expectations') with limited operational detail, which slightly reduces confidence in authenticity. No definitive fake review pattern detected, but noted.
• DUAL ENTITY NOTE: Reviews reference both 'Brennan' (individual technician) and 'Bill and his team at Precision Home Improvement', suggesting the business may have multiple operators. Scores reflect the business as a whole.

This WW Score carries LOW overall reliability due to a very small review sample (6 reviews), with the majority of reviews being 5–10 years old and only one review from the past 12 months; prospective customers should seek more recent and numerous reviews before making a hiring decision.

Steve the Plumber earns strong marks for professionalism across all five reviews, with consistent praise for friendliness, prompt arrival, and clear communication about scope and cost. Project completion is generally positive, though one review notes a job was only partially completed on the first visit with a return trip scheduled, which tempers that score slightly. Pricing is the weakest dimension: one reviewer explicitly called the $175 charge for a 20-minute drain snake job 'insane,' while others praised pricing as fair, creating a mixed signal. Experience is supported by a few mentions of effective problem-solving and technical follow-through, but the small review pool limits confidence in that assessment.

• Only 5 reviews total — WW Score should be treated as preliminary and not fully reliable.
• Mixed pricing signals: one reviewer rated 2 stars specifically due to cost concerns, while others praised pricing — the average masks a real split in customer experience.
• One review (2022-09-16) notes the job was not fully completed on the first visit, which is a mild project completion concern even though a return visit was planned.
• All reviews are from 2022–2023; no reviews from the past 12 months (relative to mid-2024) are present, so recency of data is a concern.
• No strong fake review indicators detected — reviews contain specific details, varied language, and include a negative rating, which adds authenticity.

This WW Score is based on only 5 reviews and should be considered a low-confidence preliminary rating; significantly more reviews are needed before this score can be trusted as a reliable indicator of consistent contractor performance.