Find Nearby Plumbers In Modesto, California

Professionalism received mixed signals: one reviewer praised customer service warmth and professional intention, another was turned away with a week-long wait time and left dissatisfied, and a third noted promptness. Project completion is similarly mixed — one reviewer reports excellent, prompt service with no charge for a no-leak visit, another used the company repeatedly with satisfaction, but a third ended up hiring a different plumber entirely due to availability issues. Pricing received a single positive data point — no service fee charged when no leak was found — which is encouraging but insufficient to draw firm conclusions. Experience was mentioned in only two reviews, both positively, but with little technical detail to support a high score. All reviews are from 2013–2016, making this data significantly outdated and reducing overall reliability.

• ALL reviews are more than 8 years old (2013–2016). This data is severely outdated and may not reflect current business quality or practices.
• One review (2014-01-18, rating 2.0) contains only a period as its text and provides no usable information — excluded from scoring.
• One 5-star review (2014-10-31) explicitly states no service was rendered, making it unreliable as a quality indicator for actual work performed.
• Sample size is very small (6 reviews total, 5 usable), severely limiting statistical reliability.
• The 2-star review citing a one-week wait time is a concrete negative data point for responsiveness that meaningfully drags down the professionalism score.

This WW Score should be treated as very low confidence due to a small review pool, all reviews being over 8 years old, one non-service review inflating sentiment, and one blank review providing no data — this score is not a reliable indicator of current contractor quality.

Carlin's Plumbing has a generally positive reputation across most reviews, with recurring praise for responsiveness, honesty, fair pricing, and quality workmanship. Multiple reviewers highlight fast turnaround times and professional conduct, and one long-term customer speaks highly of Bryan Carlin personally over a 20-year relationship. However, a notable 1-star review describes a botched faucet repair — including reversed hot and cold lines left uncorrected — which meaningfully drags down the project completion score. The majority of reviews are quite old (2012–2018), with only one review from 2018 and none from the past several years, which significantly limits confidence in how well these scores reflect current performance.

• RECENCY WARNING: All 8 reviews are dated between 2012 and 2018. The most recent review is from August 2018 — over 6 years ago. These scores may not reflect the contractor's current quality or ownership.
• OWNERSHIP CHANGE NOTED: One reviewer explicitly states that Carlin's was sold to Teeples Plumbing, and the negative experience was with Teeples staff, not the original Carlin's crew. This introduces ambiguity about which entity is being reviewed across different time periods.
• GENERIC PRAISE PATTERN: Several short reviews (2012–2013) contain vague, undetailed praise such as 'He is excellent and very honest' with no specifics. While not conclusively fake, these low-detail reviews reduce confidence in those data points.
• SMALL SAMPLE SIZE: Only 8 reviews total. Scores should be treated as directional indicators only, not statistically reliable assessments.
• PROJECT COMPLETION CONCERN: One verified negative review describes work left in a failed state (reversed hot/cold water) with no callback resolution, which is a meaningful quality signal despite the otherwise positive review set.

This WW Score carries LOW overall reliability due to a very small review sample, all reviews being more than 6 years old, a documented ownership/operator change mid-review history, and several vague reviews that lack verifiable detail.

Andrades Plumbing receives consistently positive feedback across most reviews for responsiveness, reliability, and attitude, with multiple customers citing fast response times and repeat usage. However, one detailed and credible 1-star review significantly tempers the scores, describing an $800 job that used cheap plastic parts resulting in a failed temporary fix within a month. This review raises serious concerns about workmanship quality and project completion integrity that cannot be dismissed. Pricing is mostly praised as transparent, but the 1-star reviewer's experience of paying $800 for substandard work undermines confidence in value. The small review pool of only 5 reviews limits the reliability of any dimension score.

• Small sample size of only 5 reviews — all scores should be treated with caution and are subject to significant change with additional data.
• The 1-star review (2023-01-27) is highly detailed and credible, describing use of cheap plastic parts, a failed repair within one month, and an $800 charge for what another plumber confirmed was a temporary fix — this materially impacts project completion and experience scores.
• Four of five reviews are 5-star with limited specifics beyond responsiveness, which is a mild generic praise pattern, though not conclusive evidence of fake reviews. No fake review flag is raised, but the lack of detail in positive reviews reduces their evidentiary weight.
• The negative review is the oldest in the dataset (January 2023), while positive reviews are more recent (late 2023 to early 2024). It is possible service quality has improved, but this cannot be confirmed from available data alone.

This WW Score is based on only 5 reviews and should be considered preliminary and low-reliability — prospective customers are strongly advised to seek additional references before hiring.

Valley Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism (82.5) with technicians consistently praised for punctuality, courtesy, and communication. Technical experience is solid (81.0), with many reviews highlighting knowledgeable and skilled work. Project completion is reliable (78.5), though some callbacks and follow-up issues are noted. However, pricing is a critical weakness (42.0), with overwhelming complaints about exorbitant charges—often 2-3x market rates, hidden fees, and aggressive upselling. This pricing problem significantly depresses the overall WW Score despite operational strengths.

• PRICING CRISIS: 89 reviews explicitly mention pricing concerns. Recurring pattern of quotes 2-3x higher than competitors, with numerous examples of $600-$2300+ charges for routine work. This is the dominant complaint across the review set.
• FAKE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: Multiple empty reviews with 5-star ratings (no text, only rating/date). At least 15 reviews contain only 'unknown' or blank text with 5-star ratings. These appear to be placeholder or artificially inflated reviews and reduce confidence in the 5-star aggregate.
• QUALITY INCONSISTENCY: Wide variance in outcomes—some reviews praise exceptional work; others report incomplete jobs, misdiagnosis, and damage caused by technicians (e.g., burned wall, broken pipes). Suggests inconsistent training or quality control.
• FOLLOW-UP FAILURES: Multiple reviews report promised callbacks never received, unresolved complaints, and poor management responsiveness. This undermines professionalism score despite individual technician praise.
• DAMAGE LIABILITY: At least 3 reviews document property damage (burned wall, broken pipes, flooded cabinet) with company refusing responsibility or offering inadequate compensation.
• RECENCY NOTE: Most recent reviews (2025, 2024) show continued pricing complaints and service inconsistencies. No evidence of improvement over time.

This WW Score of 68.2 is reliable and should be trusted. It is based on 234 reviews with high-confidence data across all four dimensions. The score accurately reflects a company with strong individual technician performance and professionalism but severely undermined by systemic pricing abuse and inconsistent quality control. The pricing dimension (42.0) is particularly well-evidenced with 89 explicit mentions and is the primary driver of the below-average overall score.

Golden State Plumbing shows a deeply polarized customer base with significant operational inconsistencies. While technicians like Jimmie, Cameron, and Nick consistently receive praise for technical skill and friendliness, the company suffers from severe office management issues—particularly involving manager Tracy, who is repeatedly cited for rudeness, yelling, hanging up on customers, and unprofessional conduct. Project completion is hampered by missed appointments, incomplete repairs, lack of follow-up callbacks, and failure to honor commitments. Pricing concerns are substantial, with multiple customers reporting overcharges, inflated estimates, and lack of transparency. The company's strongest dimension is technician experience and workmanship quality, but this is undermined by poor communication and accountability from management.

• CRITICAL: Manager Tracy Grimmett is named in 15+ negative reviews for aggressive behavior, yelling at customers, hanging up on calls, and unprofessional conduct. This is a systemic management problem affecting customer experience.
• PATTERN: Multiple reviews (8+) report incomplete work, missed callbacks, and failure to follow through on promised repairs or estimates.
• PATTERN: Pricing complaints appear in 12+ reviews, including allegations of overcharging, inflated estimates, unnecessary parts replacement, and lack of transparency on costs.
• PATTERN: Several reviews (6+) describe missed or no-show appointments with inconsistent explanations (technician claims to have knocked/left card when customer disputes this).
• SUSPICIOUS: A cluster of 5-star reviews from May 2025 with minimal detail and generic praise ('Great company,' 'Great experience') may indicate fake reviews, though some have specific technician names.
• CONCERN: Multiple reviews mention the company being assigned through home warranty companies (AHS, American Home Shield, etc.), suggesting potential warranty-specific issues or incentive misalignment.
• CONCERN: Allegations in 3+ reviews of fraudulent or misleading reporting to insurance companies (false mold/asbestos claims, misrepresented work completion).
• RECENCY: Most negative reviews cluster in 2020-2022; recent reviews (2025) are predominantly 5-star, but this may reflect selection bias or fake review activity rather than genuine improvement.

This WW Score of 68.2 should be treated with caution despite HIGH overall confidence. The score reflects a company with excellent technician-level work quality but severely compromised by management dysfunction, incomplete project delivery, and pricing transparency issues. The polarized review distribution (many 5-star and many 1-star with few middle ratings) and pattern of complaints about the same manager suggest systemic organizational problems rather than random variation. Customers should expect variable service quality heavily dependent on which technician is assigned and should be prepared for difficult interactions with office management.

All American Plumbing scores reasonably well on professionalism, with the large majority of reviews — particularly recent ones from 2025 — praising technicians like Jose, Rodrigo, and Stephen for being courteous, communicative, punctual, and thorough. Project completion is similarly solid, with most reviewers confirming their issues were resolved, though a handful of older reviews describe unresolved problems or misdiagnoses. Experience scores moderately well, with many customers noting skilled, knowledgeable work, but offset by several reviews citing wrong diagnoses and unnecessary upselling. Pricing is the company's most significant weakness and drags the overall WW Score down substantially — a large volume of reviews across multiple years describe charges as excessive, non-itemized, and in some cases predatory, with specific complaints about $800+ quotes for simple jobs, $3,200 water heater installs, and pressure tactics targeting elderly customers.

• PRICING CONCERN — HIGH SEVERITY: Multiple independent reviews spanning 2015–2024 consistently describe pricing as extremely high, non-transparent, and non-itemized. Specific dollar amounts cited ($304 to unplug a shower, $513 to replace a faucet in under 30 minutes, $3,200 for a water heater install, $929 for three water lines) suggest a systemic pattern of price gouging rather than isolated incidents.
• POTENTIAL VULNERABLE CUSTOMER TARGETING: At least two reviews explicitly describe elderly customers (ages 86 and 97) being upsold expensive services without family notification. One reviewer stated they intended to file an Elder Abuse report. This is a serious flag.
• POSSIBLE FAKE OR INCENTIVIZED REVIEWS — MODERATE CONCERN: The cluster of 40+ reviews from 2025 (mostly dated 2025-02-09, 2025-03-11, 2025-04-10, 2025-05-10, and 2025-06-02) are overwhelmingly 5-star, almost exclusively mention technician 'Jose,' and many use near-identical phrasing ('very professional,' 'knowledgeable,' 'friendly'). While some contain specific details, the volume and uniformity of this cluster is suspicious and may reflect a review solicitation campaign. One 2022 negative review explicitly mentions a technician asking the customer to complete a survey for his bonus, suggesting active review solicitation.
• RECENCY IMBALANCE: The 2025 reviews are heavily positive and dominate the recent record, while the majority of negative pricing and misconduct reviews are from 2014–2022. This temporal split may reflect genuine improvement or may reflect successful suppression/dilution of negative sentiment through solicited reviews.
• MISDIAGNOSIS INCIDENTS: At least two reviews (2015 and 2014) describe paying for incorrect diagnoses and unnecessary parts, suggesting quality control issues that may not be fully resolved.
• OWNER CONDUCT COMPLAINT: One 2013 review describes the owner as rude and accusatory toward customers during a callback dispute, and a 2022 review describes a technician asking inappropriate personal questions of a young woman. These are character and conduct flags beyond technical performance.

The WW Score of 68.2 carries HIGH data confidence given the large review volume, but should be interpreted cautiously due to strong evidence of a recent review solicitation campaign inflating professionalism scores, a persistent and well-documented pattern of pricing complaints spanning nearly a decade, and serious conduct flags involving vulnerable customers — prospective customers should weight the pricing dimension heavily in their decision-making.