Find Nearby Plumbers In Pasadena, California

All five reviews consistently praise the staff's friendliness, professionalism, and technical knowledge, driving strong scores in professionalism and experience. Staff members like Marquis and Mike are called out by name for their patience, respect, and ability to identify correct parts quickly, including for obscure or older plumbing systems. Project completion scores well based on evidence of responsive delivery, correct part selection, and follow-through that saved customers extra trips or effort. Pricing receives a limited but positive signal from one reviewer who noted a recommended plumber charged a 'very fair price,' though direct commentary on the shop's own pricing is sparse. Overall, the pattern of reviews is positive and credible, with specific details and named staff lending authenticity.

• Only 5 reviews total — sample size is small and limits statistical reliability of all scores.
• One review (2014) is over 10 years old and one (2020) is over 4 years old; recency weighting reduces confidence that current service levels match historical praise.
• No negative or mixed reviews present across all 5 reviews, which warrants mild caution, though specific details and named staff reduce fake review suspicion.
• Pricing dimension is based on only 2 mentions, both indirect (one references a recommended plumber's pricing, not the shop's own prices), making that score particularly conservative and low-confidence.

This WW Score carries moderate overall reliability due to a small review pool of only 5 reviews spanning a decade, though the specificity and authenticity of individual reviews lend credibility to the positive signals observed.

Foothill Drain Cleaning demonstrates strong performance across professionalism, project completion, and technical experience, with 8 detailed positive reviews praising Pedro's responsiveness, knowledge, and workmanship. However, a critical 1-star review from July 2024 documents a severe professionalism failure involving rude and disrespectful phone communication, with pricing discrepancies ($99 advertised vs. $425 quoted). Pricing feedback is mixed: three reviews mention fair/great prices, but the recent complaint suggests potential bait-and-switch tactics. The recency of the negative review and its specificity warrant serious consideration despite the overwhelming positive historical record.

• CRITICAL: Most recent review (July 2024) is a 1-star detailing alleged rude, disrespectful behavior by someone claiming to be the owner, with significant pricing discrepancy ($99 advertised service quoted at $425). This contradicts the company's otherwise consistent professionalism claims.
• RECENCY CONCERN: 7 of 10 reviews are from 2019-2020 (4-5 years old). Only 2 recent reviews (July 2024). The July 2024 negative review may indicate a recent decline in service quality or management change.
• PRICING INCONSISTENCY: Advertised $99 hydro/clean-out service allegedly quoted at $425 in recent interaction. Three older reviews mention 'fair prices,' but no recent pricing validation.
• POTENTIAL PATTERN: The negative review mentions the caller was told they were 'broke' when questioning price—this suggests possible aggressive sales tactics or customer screening that may not be isolated.

This score should be treated with CAUTION. While historical data strongly supports high professionalism and experience (8+ mentions each), the July 2024 complaint represents a serious and recent contradiction that undermines confidence in current service consistency. The score reflects predominantly older positive reviews; current reliability cannot be confidently assessed without more recent data.

This plumbing company demonstrates strong technical expertise and generally professional service, with most positive reviews praising punctuality, friendliness, and honest workmanship. However, the score is significantly impacted by three severe 1-star reviews documenting serious issues: excessive service call charges for incomplete work, failure to diagnose problems correctly on first visit, and a critical structural damage incident where a main beam was cut during installation without proper acknowledgment or resolution. Pricing feedback is mixed—some reviews praise fair rates while others report unexpected charges and inflated fees for incomplete service. Project completion shows inconsistency, with callbacks sometimes required and one case where the original problem was never fully resolved despite multiple service visits.

• CRITICAL: Three 1-star reviews document severe service failures including structural damage (beam cut during plumbing work), failure to diagnose leaks correctly, and aggressive collection of service charges for incomplete work. These are not isolated complaints but systemic issues.
• PRICING CONCERN: Multiple reviews report unexpected charges, service call fees for incomplete work ($130 for 30 minutes with no completion; $105 for diagnostic-only visit), and refusal to waive second service call charges when first visit failed to resolve the issue.
• PROJECT COMPLETION RISK: At least two reviews document callbacks required due to initial misdiagnosis or incomplete work (low water pressure not detected; faucet clogging issue not resolved after $250 spent).
• RECENCY BIAS: Most positive reviews are from 2013-2015 (7-9 years old). The three most recent reviews with substantive detail (2021, 2016, 2015) are all 1-star complaints. This suggests service quality may have declined or negative experiences are more recent.
• CONFLICT OF INTEREST NOTED: One review explicitly documents a conflict of interest where a technician (Gus) was sent to evaluate damage allegedly caused by his friend (Eddie), and refused to acknowledge the damage.
• OWNERSHIP TRANSITION: Multiple reviews reference Jim Laughlin (owner) who has passed away. Service quality may have changed post-transition, though this is not explicitly confirmed in reviews.

This score should be treated with CAUTION. While the company shows strong technical skills and professionalism in routine service, the three severe 1-star reviews documenting structural damage, billing disputes, and service failures represent material risks that are not offset by positive reviews. The recency of negative reviews (2021, 2016, 2015) versus age of positive reviews (mostly 2013-2015) suggests potential quality decline. Recommend requesting references for complex work and obtaining detailed written estimates before engaging.

All five reviews speak positively about Robert and his team, consistently praising their professionalism, attitude, and quality of workmanship across a variety of tasks including electrical diagnosis, plumbing, carpentry, and siding repair. Project completion is well-supported, with multiple reviewers noting timely, thorough, and clean work. Experience scores are bolstered by specific mentions of problem-solving ability, innovation, and technical range. Pricing receives only one explicit mention — a reviewer noting Robert hunts for the best material prices — so that dimension carries very limited confidence. Overall, the picture is positive but the small review pool and age of most reviews temper reliability.

• Only 5 reviews total — sample size is too small to draw high-confidence conclusions about any dimension.
• 4 out of 5 reviews are dated 2017–2018, making them 6–7 years old. Only 1 review is from the past 12 months (March 2024). Recent performance is largely unverified.
• All reviews are 5-star ratings with no negative feedback of any kind. While the reviews do contain specific details that reduce fake-review suspicion, the uniformly perfect ratings across a small sample warrants mild caution.
• One reviewer explicitly noted they delayed writing their review by over a year, which may affect the accuracy of their recollection.

This WW Score should be treated as a preliminary positive signal only — the extremely small review pool and predominantly outdated reviews (2017–2018) mean the score cannot reliably represent current contractor performance.

Next Level Plumbing presents a deeply polarized review profile. A substantial portion of positive reviews praise individual technicians — particularly Matthew, Evan, Ethan, Michael, and Byron — for punctuality, friendliness, and competence, which lifts professionalism and experience scores. However, a significant and detailed cluster of 1-star reviews describes serious failures: abandoned jobs, no-call/no-shows, unresolved leaks after multiple visits, poor communication, and in several cases allegations of fraudulent billing and check re-cashing. Pricing is a consistent pain point across both positive and negative reviewers, with multiple customers citing sticker shock, price gouging, and charges far exceeding market rates for simple repairs. Project completion is heavily penalized by numerous accounts of work left incomplete, problems made worse, and technicians failing to return as promised.

• FAKE REVIEW CONCERN: A notable number of reviews consist solely of emoji, single words ('good', 'Awesome'), or blank text with 5-star ratings — these provide no usable data and inflate the apparent star average without substantive evidence.
• FAKE REVIEW CONCERN: One reviewer explicitly alleges that positive reviews are fake and originate from California and Arizona, which is consistent with the geographic pattern of some generic 5-star reviews that lack any specific detail about the job, technician, or location.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The 1-star review alleging the owner cashed the same check twice (owner is a thief) appears verbatim twice in the dataset — once dated 2024-06-09 and once dated 2024-05-31. This was counted once for scoring purposes.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The detailed 1-star AHS review about a still-active leak and cash payment appears verbatim twice — dated 2024-06-09 and 2024-05-20. Counted once for scoring purposes.
• SERIOUS MISCONDUCT ALLEGATIONS: Multiple independent reviewers allege the company abandoned jobs mid-repair, left homes with sewage flooding, refused refunds, encouraged cash payments to avoid credit card disputes, and in one case the owner is accused of re-cashing a previously cashed check.
• HOME WARRANTY PATTERN: A disproportionate share of negative reviews involve customers assigned through home warranty companies (AHS, First American, HSA, Old Republic). This may indicate the company performs differently for warranty-assigned vs. direct customers, or that warranty work creates systemic communication and billing conflicts.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent reviews (2025) are predominantly positive with named technicians and specific details, suggesting possible improvement in service quality or a shift in the customer base being served. However, the volume of detailed negative reviews from 2023-2024 is too significant to discount.
• WIDE DATE RANGE: Reviews span from 2012 to 2025. Reviews older than 3 years (pre-2022) were given reduced weight as they may not reflect current operations. The business appears to have changed significantly over time.
• ONE REVIEW APPEARS UNRELATED: One review mentions 'Optimal plumbing' and states it was not Next Level Plumbing — this review was excluded from scoring as it likely belongs to a different company.

This WW Score of 62.1 is based on a large review set and carries HIGH data confidence, but the score should be interpreted cautiously given the extreme bimodal distribution — the company has genuinely excellent individual technicians alongside documented patterns of abandoned work, billing disputes, and communication failures that represent serious risk to prospective customers.

Freddy receives consistent praise for technical knowledge, honest diagnostics, and reasonable pricing across multiple reviews spanning several years. However, professionalism is meaningfully undermined by two credible complaints: one reviewer documented a no-show without any call in 2019, and a 2023 reviewer described an incomplete job where Freddy failed to return, missed follow-ups, and held county paperwork past a deadline. Project completion is the most concerning dimension, with at least two reviews describing abandoned or unfinished work and a third noting property damage with no callback. Pricing is generally viewed favorably but one reviewer noted an initial high quote that dropped only after pushback, introducing some concern about pricing transparency. The score reflects a contractor with genuine technical ability but inconsistent reliability and follow-through.

• FAKE REVIEW DETECTED: The review dated 2024-03-13 by 'thecybergoat_techie' is entirely unrelated to plumbing or this contractor — it is a fund recovery scam advertisement. This review was excluded from scoring.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Several positive reviews are from 2009 to 2017, which are 7 to 15 years old. More recent reviews (2019, 2023, 2024) include notable negative experiences, suggesting a possible decline in reliability over time.
• PROJECT COMPLETION RED FLAG: A 2023 review explicitly describes Freddy holding county forms, failing to return for incomplete work, and going unresponsive past a regulatory deadline — a serious reliability concern.
• NO-SHOW PATTERN: A 2019 review documents a missed appointment with no call. Combined with the 2023 no-show incident, this suggests a recurring pattern of unreliability.
• PROPERTY DAMAGE AND NON-RESPONSE: A 2013 review describes physical damage to floors and a cabinet, with Freddy refusing to return calls afterward. While older, this reinforces the non-responsiveness pattern seen in more recent reviews.
• CASH-ONLY POLICY NOTED: One reviewer flagged that Freddy only accepts cash, which may be relevant to consumer trust and accountability.

This WW Score is based on 15 usable reviews spanning 15 years with HIGH mention counts across all dimensions, but reliability is reduced by a clear pattern of project abandonment and non-responsiveness in multiple reviews, a detected fake/spam review, and the fact that the most recent credible negative reviews suggest the contractor's reliability may have declined compared to earlier years.