Find Nearby Plumbers In Murrieta, California

Anthony's Plumbing earns strong marks for professionalism and experience, with the vast majority of reviewers praising courteous, knowledgeable technicians who communicate well, arrive on time, and go above and beyond. Project completion is also generally solid, with most jobs finished same-day or within the promised timeframe, though a meaningful cluster of negative reviews describes work that failed shortly after completion and a company unwilling to honor callbacks or warranties — a significant drag on this dimension. Pricing is the weakest dimension: while many customers describe rates as fair or affordable, a notable and recurring pattern of complaints cites prices as outrageous, bait-and-switch quoting (phone quote vs. on-site quote), and charges perceived as exploitative — particularly for elderly or emergency customers. The score reflects a genuinely capable and often excellent service operation that is undermined by inconsistent pricing practices and occasional failures to stand behind completed work.

• PRICING INCONSISTENCY PATTERN: Multiple independent reviews across different years describe a significant gap between phone/advertised quotes and on-site prices. Examples include a $69 advertised special ballooning to $600, a $150 phone quote becoming $500 on arrival, and a $55 job becoming $100 on-site. This is a systemic concern, not isolated incidents.
• WARRANTY/CALLBACK FAILURES: At least 4 reviews explicitly describe the company refusing to honor warranty work or return for the same recurring issue within the warranty period, citing being 'too busy' or claiming the warranty had just expired. This materially impacts the project completion score.
• PRICING EXPLOITATION CONCERNS: Multiple reviews describe what they characterize as price gouging of vulnerable customers, including an 80-year-old on a fixed income and a 70-year-old family member charged $1,600 for a 3-hour job. One review describes a $400 charge for a 10-minute job using $5 in parts.
• UPSELLING COMPLAINTS: Several reviews describe technicians recommending unnecessary replacements or expensive services when simpler fixes were all that was needed (e.g., $775 garbage disposal replacement for a loose fitting, $950 toilet flange quote vs. $200 from a competitor, recommending full pipe replacement before checking a simple washer).
• BLANK REVIEWS: Approximately 38 reviews contained no text and only a star rating (mostly 5-star). These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data. Their presence slightly inflates the apparent star average.
• RECENCY NOTE: Reviews span from 2010 to June 2025. The majority of substantive reviews are from 2022 onward. Older reviews (pre-2018) reflect what appears to be a smaller, owner-operated business; more recent reviews reflect a larger team with multiple named technicians. Scores are weighted toward recent reviews.
• POSSIBLE DUPLICATE REVIEW: The review praising 'Brandon' for water heater phone troubleshooting appears to be posted twice with nearly identical text under different dates (2022-09-10 and 2022-12-20), suggesting a possible duplicate or copied review.
• ONE EXTREME NEGATIVE: One review (2016) contains a profanity-laced alleged response from the owner directed at a female customer. If authentic, this is a serious professionalism concern, though it is a single isolated incident from nearly a decade ago and the overall pattern does not corroborate this behavior.

This WW Score is based on a large and diverse review set spanning 15 years and carries HIGH statistical confidence in its directional accuracy; however, consumers should weight the pricing dimension concerns heavily, as the pattern of quote inflation and warranty refusal is consistent, multi-year, and credible — meaning the true pricing experience may be worse than the score of 63 suggests for customers in urgent or emergency situations.

Pulido Cleaning and Restoration earns strong marks for professionalism, with the overwhelming majority of reviewers praising responsiveness, courtesy, punctuality, and communication across many years and many different crew members. Experience and workmanship are also well-regarded, with numerous reviewers citing thorough, knowledgeable, and skilled work particularly in the mitigation and drying phases. However, project completion is a meaningful drag on the score: multiple negative reviews (1–2 stars) describe abandoned or incomplete work, subcontracted delays, jobs taking far longer than promised, and in one case a customer being dropped mid-project. Pricing is the weakest dimension, with at least one reviewer explicitly calling out inflated billing and hidden charges, another noting the quote was significantly higher than competitors, and only a handful of reviews addressing cost at all — those that do present a mixed picture. The overall score reflects a company with genuinely strong field staff but recurring systemic issues around follow-through, subcontractor management, and billing transparency.

• CLUSTER OF SAME-DATE REVIEWS: A large number of reviews (approximately 20+) share the exact date of 2024-06-09, which is statistically unusual and may indicate a coordinated review campaign or bulk submission. These reviews were included but treated with reduced individual weight.
• REPETITIVE PHRASING: Several reviews from the 2024-06-09 cluster use nearly identical structures (listing crew names followed by generic praise), which raises concerns about authenticity. No single review was excluded, but the pattern warrants caution.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: Two reviews with identical text about bathroom restoration (Christina, Ramon, Gabriel, Marco) were submitted on the same date (2022-01-19) from what appears to be two different accounts. One was counted once for scoring purposes.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: Two nearly identical reviews praising Daniel Castaneda with 'Aloha spirit' language appear on different dates (2024-06-09 and 2023-09-25). This may be a reposted review or coordinated submission.
• NEGATIVE REVIEW PATTERN: Multiple 1-star reviews across different years (2014, 2017, 2020, 2023) describe incomplete work, poor subcontractor management, lack of follow-through, and in one case fraudulent billing practices. These are specific, detailed, and credible complaints that meaningfully reduce the project completion and pricing scores.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Three reviews contained no text (ratings only: 1.0, 3.0, 5.0). These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent reviews (2025) are predominantly positive and recent, which is a good sign, but the volume of same-day 2024-06-09 reviews inflates the apparent positive consensus and should be interpreted cautiously.
• ONE REVIEW IS FROM A NEIGHBOR, NOT A CUSTOMER: The 2015-01-14 review is from a neighbor complaining about noise, not a direct customer. It was excluded from dimension scoring.

This WW Score is based on a large review set (101 reviews) spanning over a decade, giving it reasonable statistical depth, but confidence is moderately reduced due to a suspicious cluster of same-date reviews in June 2024, at least one duplicate review, and a consistent pattern of credible negative reviews describing incomplete work and billing concerns that contrast sharply with the majority of positive feedback.

RX Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism across multiple reviews, with consistent praise for responsiveness, punctuality, communication, and courteous behavior (Andrew, Jr., Xavier, and Tim all specifically commended). Pricing is viewed favorably in the reviews that address it, with customers noting fair and reasonable rates. Project completion is well-supported, with customers reporting problems solved and work finished to satisfaction. Experience and workmanship quality are highlighted through mentions of technical skill, problem-solving, and quality execution. However, the review set is small (6 total) and heavily skewed toward 5-star ratings with limited critical detail in some entries, which moderates overall confidence.

• Small sample size (6 reviews) limits statistical reliability
• All reviews are 5-star ratings with no negative feedback, which is atypical and suggests potential selection bias
• One review ('No problems') is extremely vague and provides no actionable detail
• Review dates span 11 years (2013–2024), with 3 of 6 reviews older than 3 years; recency is mixed
• Multiple reviews mention different technicians (Andrew, Jr., Xavier, Tim) by name, which adds credibility but also suggests variability in service delivery
• No reviews explicitly mention warranty, guarantees, or follow-up callbacks, limiting assessment of long-term accountability

This score should be treated with caution due to the small sample size, absence of any negative reviews, and significant age of some data; while the positive feedback is detailed and specific in most cases, a larger and more recent review set would be needed to establish robust confidence in the 88.2 rating.

Peiton's Plumbing scores strongly across all four dimensions based on consistent, specific praise from customers. Professionalism is the most frequently cited strength, with all six reviewers noting responsiveness, communication, punctuality, and trustworthy demeanor — including same-day and next-day service in urgent situations. Pricing is mentioned positively in three reviews, with customers describing costs as reasonable and affordable, and one reviewer specifically noting Dana steered them away from overpriced options. Project completion is well-supported, with five reviews confirming jobs were finished cleanly and completely, including a notable callback to finish work when a part was unavailable. Experience and workmanship quality are also affirmed across five reviews, with specific references to accurate diagnosis, clean installations, and knowledgeable guidance.

• All 6 reviews are 5-star ratings with no negative feedback of any kind — this warrants mild caution, though the reviews do contain specific details and varied language that reduce the likelihood of fabrication.
• Two of the six reviews are older than 2 years (2021 and 2022), and one is from late 2022. Only three reviews fall within the past 12 months (2024). Recency weighting is limited; the score reflects a mix of older and recent data.
• Sample size is small (6 reviews total). While scores are directionally reliable, they should be interpreted with caution until more reviews are available to confirm consistency.

This WW Score is directionally trustworthy given the specificity and variety of reviewer language, but should be treated as a preliminary assessment due to the small sample size of 6 reviews and the fact that two of those reviews are more than two years old.

All American Flood Restoration has an overwhelmingly positive review base spanning nearly a decade, with Tom and his crew consistently praised for responsiveness, professionalism, insurance navigation, and quality craftsmanship. Pricing is generally described as fair and competitive, with multiple reviewers noting they were not overcharged and that Tom was transparent about costs. However, four 1-star reviews introduce serious concerns that significantly temper the score: one describes a house still unfinished after a year with a near-electrocution incident caused by the crew; another describes a child being electrocuted and a cat severely injured due to exposed wires left by the crew; a third describes fraudulent insurance write-up attempts, hostile behavior, shoddy workmanship, and a recurring leak; and a fourth describes insurance consequences from over-filing claims. These negative reviews describe safety-critical failures — not minor complaints — and cannot be dismissed. Project completion and professionalism scores are penalized accordingly to reflect these serious outliers against an otherwise strong majority record.

• SAFETY CRITICAL: One reviewer (2019-07-10) reports a child was electrocuted and a cat severely injured due to exposed wires left by the crew after drywall work. No apology was offered and the company allegedly refused to assist with medical or vet bills.
• SAFETY CRITICAL: One reviewer (2024-09-16) reports a near-electrocution and potential gas explosion caused by the crew pushing a stove back and damaging the power prong. The house remains unfinished after nearly a year of work.
• FRAUD CONCERN: One reviewer (2020-12-06) alleges Tom explicitly offered to falsify insurance documentation to get a denied claim covered, stating 'I'll write it up so it's covered.' This is a serious allegation of insurance fraud.
• WORKMANSHIP FAILURE: The 2020-12-06 reviewer describes a repaired leak that recurred within months, replacement flooring that was cheap and misrepresented as premium, and hostile behavior including yelling and profanity when errors were pointed out.
• INCOMPLETE WORK: The 2024-09-16 reviewer states that after nearly a year, no room in the house has been fully completed, and the company allegedly asked the customer to withhold their review until the job was done.
• RECENCY NOTE: The four 1-star reviews span 2018 to 2024, indicating these are not isolated historical incidents. The most recent negative review (2024-09-16) is within the past 12 months and describes ongoing unresolved issues.
• VOLUME IMBALANCE: 61 of 65 reviews are 5-star and only 4 are 1-star. While this could reflect genuine quality, the severity and specificity of the negative reviews — including safety incidents — means the positive majority cannot fully offset them.
• POSSIBLE FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: Several 5-star reviews use very similar language ('better than before,' 'Tom to the rescue,' 'gold standard,' 'amazing') with limited specifics. However, many reviews do include specific crew names, project details, and timelines, which reduces but does not eliminate this concern.
• CONFLICT OF INTEREST: One 5-star review (2016-11-27) is explicitly written by the owner of a plumbing company who refers flood jobs to Tom, representing a potential business relationship that may bias the review.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large review volume, but the score itself should be treated with caution given documented safety incidents involving electrocution, alleged insurance fraud, and at least one severely incomplete multi-room restoration — these are not minor service complaints and represent material risks to prospective customers.

RS Plumbing, operated primarily by Robert, earns strong marks across all four dimensions based on a large volume of reviews spanning over a decade. Professionalism scores well with consistent praise for punctuality, phone responsiveness, and friendly demeanor, though two notable negative reviews describe a serious communication failure during an emergency call and an unreturned voicemail/invalid email situation, which meaningfully temper the score. Pricing is a clear strength, with numerous reviewers explicitly calling out fair, reasonable, or even surprisingly low prices, and one standout case where Robert saved a customer thousands versus a competitor's quote. Project completion is generally strong — jobs are described as completed correctly and efficiently — but is moderated by one unresolved warranty callback complaint and one review describing a failed follow-through on an emergency dispatch promise. Experience is the highest-scoring dimension, with many reviewers specifically praising Robert's technical knowledge, problem-solving creativity, and willingness to advise customers even at no charge.

• The vast majority of reviews are older than 12 months, with most dating from 2013–2018. Only 2 reviews fall within the past 3 years (2020–2022), significantly limiting insight into current service quality.
• One review (2015-06-05, 1-star) was self-edited by the reviewer who admitted their original review was 'too harsh' but still does not recommend the contractor. The underlying complaint was withheld, making it impossible to assess. This review was treated as a negative signal but given reduced weight due to lack of specifics.
• One review (2015-12-20, 1-star) describes a warranty callback failure — inability to leave a voicemail and an invalid email address on the website — suggesting possible operational or communication infrastructure issues at that time.
• One review (2021-08-29, 1-star) describes a serious emergency dispatch failure where the company confirmed availability and then reversed course two hours later, leaving a vulnerable family without water. This is a significant professionalism and project completion flag.
• One review (2015-10-06, 1-star) describes three unreturned calls. Combined with the voicemail/email failure review, there is a minor pattern of communication breakdown in the 2015 period.
• No strong fake review pattern detected. Reviews vary in length, specificity, and tone. Negative reviews are present and credible. The high volume of 5-star reviews is consistent with a genuinely well-regarded local contractor rather than manufactured reviews, though the absence of 2 and 3-star reviews (only one 3-star present) is mildly notable.
• One review references a technician named 'Alex' rather than Robert, suggesting the business may use multiple technicians. This introduces variability that cannot be fully assessed from the available data.

This WW Score is based on a high volume of reviews (55 total) with strong mention counts across all four dimensions, making it statistically reliable as a historical baseline, but the score should be interpreted with caution given that the overwhelming majority of reviews are more than 3 years old and current service quality cannot be confirmed from this dataset.