Find Nearby Plumbers In Montebello, California

H.N. Harris Plumbing demonstrates strong performance across all four dimensions with a WW Score of 87.2. The company excels in professionalism (89.5), with consistent praise for punctuality, courteous staff, responsiveness, and attention to detail such as shoe covers and cleanup. Pricing is competitive and fair (84.0), with customers frequently noting transparent quotes and honest assessments that prevent unnecessary upsells. Project completion is solid (86.0), with most jobs finished as promised, though a few isolated instances of callback issues and communication lapses appear in older reviews. Technical expertise is strong (88.5), with technicians demonstrating problem-solving ability and knowledge of complex, older plumbing systems. The company's long track record and consistent positive feedback from repeat customers reinforce reliability.

• Review recency concern: Majority of reviews (approximately 65 out of 80) are from 2013-2015, with only 15 reviews from 2016 onward. Most recent substantive review is from February 2022. This age distribution limits confidence in current service quality.
• Isolated negative reviews (3 total: ratings 1.0, 2.0, 1.0) suggest occasional communication and follow-up failures, particularly around 2014-2018. These appear genuine and not fake, indicating real service inconsistencies during that period.
• One review (2014-02-05, rating 1.0) describes deteriorating communication and unresponsiveness to callbacks, contradicting the otherwise strong professionalism scores. This suggests potential operational issues in mid-2010s.
• One review (2014-03-10, rating 2.0) documents incomplete work (valve not fully opened) requiring customer follow-up months later, indicating occasional quality control lapses.
• No obvious patterns of fake reviews detected. Reviews contain specific details, varied language, and include both praise and legitimate criticism. The few negative reviews appear authentic rather than fabricated.
• Positive reviews show some repetitive themes (shoe covers, cleanliness, Javier/Ozzie praise) but this reflects genuine company practices rather than fake review patterns.

This WW Score of 87.2 is reliable for historical performance but should be interpreted cautiously regarding current service quality, as the majority of data is 7-10 years old and only limited recent reviews (2022) are available to confirm whether the company maintains these standards today.

Super Rooter Service demonstrates strong overall performance across all dimensions, with particular strengths in professionalism, experience, and pricing. The company receives consistent praise for friendly, courteous technicians (George, Oscar, AL, Sylvia), fair pricing compared to competitors, and competent technical work on complex jobs including main line repairs and trenchless repairs. However, two 1-star reviews reveal significant concerns: one customer experienced inadequate diagnostic work and aggressive upselling tactics ($550+ in questionable charges), and another faced poor follow-up service and unresponsive management when a repeat service was needed shortly after initial work. These negative experiences suggest inconsistency in service quality and customer service responsiveness that tempers the otherwise strong positive feedback.

• Two 1-star reviews (2023-09-25 and 2016-02-28) present serious concerns: inadequate diagnostics/aggressive upselling and poor management responsiveness. These are not fake reviews but legitimate complaints that significantly impact reliability.
• Potential pattern of incomplete work: The 2016-02-28 review suggests pipes were not thoroughly cleared on first visit, requiring a second service within one month. The company's response (5-star review dated 2017-02-28) appears to be a company rebuttal rather than independent customer feedback, which raises questions about accountability.
• Most positive reviews are from 2017-2021 (older than 12 months). Only 2 reviews from 2023 and 2019 provide recent data. Recency bias suggests current service quality may differ from historical performance.
• High concentration of 5-star reviews (12 of 15) with some generic praise language, though individual reviews contain specific details (names, job types, outcomes) that suggest authenticity rather than fake reviews.

This WW Score of 82.3 should be treated with moderate caution: while the company demonstrates genuine strengths in professionalism and technical competence supported by substantial positive feedback, the two serious 1-star reviews reveal critical gaps in diagnostic thoroughness, pricing transparency, and management responsiveness that are not anomalies but legitimate service failures. The score reflects a company with strong baseline capability but inconsistent execution and customer service recovery.

Torres Plumbing demonstrates strong technical expertise and competitive pricing, with many customers praising quality workmanship and fair rates. However, professionalism is significantly undermined by recurring no-show incidents and poor communication, with multiple reviews documenting failed appointments and lack of follow-up. Project completion is generally solid but marred by instances of incomplete work and refusal to address defects, as documented in the detailed contractor review. The company excels in emergency responsiveness and problem-solving but struggles with reliability and accountability in scheduling.

• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEWS DETECTED: Multiple reviews (dated 2024-06-09, 2020-06-10) contain nearly identical phrasing and suspiciously generic praise with minimal specifics. Two reviews appear to be duplicates of the same commercial project experience (dated 2024-06-09 and 2024-04-22) with nearly identical wording.
• CRITICAL PROFESSIONALISM ISSUE: Four separate 1-star reviews (2022-12-17, 2022-06-10, 2021-07-08, 2021-06-26) document repeated no-show appointments with false promises of next-day service, causing significant client impact. This pattern is consistent and credible.
• QUALITY CONTROL CONCERN: One detailed 1-star review from a general contractor (2024-12-11) documents serious workmanship errors (misaligned valves), refusal to correct defects, and hostile behavior including threats to file liens. This review provides specific technical details and documented costs ($4,000 in repairs).
• RECENCY BIAS: Most positive reviews cluster in 2020-2024, while no-show complaints span 2021-2022. Recent reviews (2025, 2024) are predominantly 5-star, but include the serious contractor complaint from December 2024.
• INCONSISTENT PERFORMANCE: Company demonstrates excellent emergency response and technical skill in many reviews, but simultaneously exhibits chronic scheduling failures and accountability issues in others, suggesting operational inconsistency.

This WW Score of 78.2 should be treated with MODERATE-TO-HIGH caution: while based on substantial data (45 reviews), the presence of suspected duplicate/fake reviews, a credible detailed complaint about serious defects and hostile behavior, and a consistent pattern of no-show appointments significantly undermine confidence in the company's reliability despite strong technical ratings. The score reflects a company with genuine expertise but serious operational and interpersonal problems that create real risk for customers.

RPM Plumbing demonstrates strong responsiveness and availability, with dozens of reviewers praising same-day, weekend, and emergency service — a clear operational strength. Professionalism scores are pulled down meaningfully by multiple credible negative reviews describing rude staff, a technician who became agitated with a customer, an owner who called to argue over a negative review, and a receptionist who hung up on a customer. Pricing is a mixed picture: many reviewers found prices fair or competitive, but a notable cluster of negative reviews describe high quotes, price changes after work began, and at least one instance of a $8,800 quote that another company resolved in 5 minutes for far less. Project completion is the most concerning dimension — there are multiple explicit accounts of incomplete work, return visits required to fix errors, pipes broken during service, work abandoned without follow-up, and at least one case of $4,000 in damages caused. Experience scores are similarly mixed, with many reviewers praising specific technicians (Lee, Ismael, Carlos, Arturo) as knowledgeable and skilled, while others describe technicians who misdiagnosed problems, used wrong tools, or performed work that failed within days.

• Multiple reviews from late 2023 and 2024 are very short, generic, and lack specific detail (e.g., 'Excellent service with quick turnaround. Definitely recommend!', 'These guys went above and beyond to make sure that we weren't dealing with more problems.', 'Very fast service and was able to help us after business hours. 10/10'). These may be authentic but warrant reduced confidence due to lack of verifiable specifics.
• Several 5-star reviews from September 2023 share the same date (2023-09-18) with no timestamps, which is a mild flag for potential review clustering or solicitation.
• One reviewer explicitly alleges the owner called them to argue about a negative Google review, which if accurate represents a significant professionalism concern and potential review manipulation behavior.
• One reviewer alleges their credit card information was stolen after using the company, though this is unverified and disputed by the owner.
• A significant number of negative reviews describe a pattern of: work not completed, technicians not returning calls, prices changed after work began, and callbacks not honored — suggesting systemic project completion issues rather than isolated incidents.
• Review span covers approximately 2016–2024. Reviews older than 2022 (roughly 40+ reviews) should be weighted less heavily as they may not reflect current business practices. The most recent reviews (2023–2024) show a more positive trend but include some generic entries.
• The owner (Josh) is mentioned by name in both positive and negative contexts. Negative mentions include arguing with customers and allegedly posting false information in public responses — this is a notable flag.

This WW Score is based on a large and diverse review set (85 reviews spanning 8+ years) with HIGH data confidence across all four dimensions, but the score should be interpreted cautiously given credible and specific negative reviews describing incomplete work, pricing disputes, and unprofessional owner conduct that meaningfully offset the volume of positive feedback.

Pride Plumbing receives strong praise for professionalism, punctuality, and courteous technicians across a large volume of reviews, with many customers specifically naming individual plumbers who went above and beyond. However, pricing is a significant and recurring concern: multiple detailed negative reviews describe bait-and-switch tactics, quotes that changed dramatically upon arrival, charges for incomplete work, and rates described as 400-500% above competitors. Project completion is mixed — many jobs are completed efficiently and same-day, but a meaningful subset of negative reviews describe work that failed shortly after completion, warranty disputes, abandoned jobs, and technicians who left without resolving the issue. Technical experience is generally rated positively by satisfied customers, but several negative reviews describe incompetent diagnoses, improper repairs, and work that had to be redone by other companies. The wide spread between glowing 5-star reviews and detailed 1-star complaints suggests inconsistent service quality across different technicians and locations.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: At least two pairs of reviews appear to be near-identical or exact duplicates (e.g., the 'Nobody wants to need a plumber' review from 2022-10-17 appears twice; the 'Bait and switch' review from 2024-08-12 and 2024-09-12 are near-identical). This inflates positive review counts and reduces reliability.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Approximately 15+ reviews contain no text and only a 5-star rating. These provide no usable data and were excluded from dimension scoring but may artificially inflate the star average.
• PRICING PATTERN — BAIT AND SWITCH: Multiple independent, detailed reviews (not duplicates) describe the same pattern: a low price quoted by phone ($89 or $150/hr), followed by a significantly higher charge upon arrival ($225 walk-in fee, $175/hr, or flat rates far above quote). This is a systemic concern, not isolated incidents.
• WARRANTY AND FOLLOW-THROUGH FAILURES: Multiple reviews describe work failing within days or weeks, warranty claims being denied or disputed, and management refusing to honor commitments made by technicians in the field.
• MANAGEMENT CONDUCT CONCERNS: Several reviews describe management calling customers liars, being dismissive of complaints, failing to return calls, and altering invoice language after the fact. One review describes a manager asking the customer to explain the fix so he could train his own plumber.
• RECENCY NOTE: Reviews span from 2008 to 2025. The most recent 12 months (mid-2024 to mid-2025) contain a notably higher proportion of negative pricing and completion complaints relative to earlier periods, suggesting possible decline in service consistency.
• POSSIBLE MULTI-LOCATION ENTITY: Reviews reference locations including San Diego CA, Summerville SC, North Charleston SC, Chula Vista CA, La Mesa CA, and Inland Empire CA. It is possible these reviews aggregate multiple businesses operating under the 'Pride Plumbing' name, which would reduce the reliability of treating this as a single contractor profile.
• IRRELEVANT REVIEWS: Two reviews (aggressive driving on I-805, rude parking behavior) describe conduct unrelated to plumbing service quality and were excluded from dimension scoring.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large review volume, but the score itself should be treated with caution given confirmed duplicate reviews, a high volume of blank star-only reviews, strong evidence of systemic pricing misrepresentation, and the possibility that reviews span multiple distinct business locations operating under the same name.

Perez Plumbing has a large and predominantly positive review base, with many customers praising responsiveness, fair pricing, and skilled workmanship across a wide range of jobs including water heater replacements, leak repairs, and pipe work. However, a meaningful minority of negative reviews — roughly 20-25% of substantive reviews — raise serious concerns including incomplete work left undiscovered for extended periods, alleged overcharging, rude office staff, no-show appointments, and at least one claim of $45,000 in uninsured damage. Professionalism scores are pulled down significantly by recurring complaints about the front-office/scheduling staff being rude or dismissive, and by multiple no-show or late-arrival incidents. Pricing scores are mixed: while many customers praise fair and competitive rates, several credible negative reviews describe charges that appear excessive or inconsistent with the work performed. Project completion is generally strong but is meaningfully penalized by the disconnected kitchen drain incident, the incomplete pipe replacement allegation, and the irrigation meter job that left the lawn torn up for weeks.

• Approximately 25 reviews contain no text — only a star rating. These blank reviews (mostly 5-star) cannot be scored and inflate the apparent rating without providing usable evidence.
• Several reviews appear to reference entirely different companies or locations (e.g., HVAC furnace work, A/C capacitor repair, tire change assistance, construction across the street) suggesting this review pool may aggregate reviews for multiple businesses sharing the 'Perez Plumbing' name or that some reviews were misdirected. These were excluded from scoring where clearly irrelevant.
• A pattern of very short, generic 5-star reviews with no specifics (e.g., 'Love their service!', 'Very good', 'Good', 'All went well', 'unknown') raises moderate fake review concern. These were treated as low-weight evidence.
• One 1-star review references a 'Marcos' and 'Damon' as owner — names not mentioned in other reviews — suggesting possible review bleed from a different Perez Plumbing entity.
• One review references dangerous driving behavior and another references road conduct — these are not plumbing service reviews and were excluded from scoring.
• A review dated 2005 describes workers with poor English proficiency and a 3-hour delay returning with an invoice — this and other pre-2015 reviews were given minimal weight due to age.
• The 1-star review alleging a disconnected kitchen drain left draining into a crawl space for an extended period is a serious workmanship and integrity flag that was weighted heavily in project completion scoring.
• At least two credible reviews allege billing for work not performed or for excessive amounts relative to time on site, which is a significant pricing integrity concern.
• Recency note: The majority of detailed, substantive reviews are from 2024-2025, which is positive for recency weighting. However, negative reviews are also well-represented in this recent window.

This WW Score is based on a large review volume with HIGH confidence across all four dimensions, but should be interpreted cautiously given the serious nature of several negative reviews, the presence of numerous blank reviews inflating star averages, and evidence suggesting this pool may include reviews for more than one business operating under the Perez Plumbing name.