Find Nearby Plumbers In Pleasanton, California

This contractor demonstrates strong performance across all four dimensions with consistently positive feedback. Professionalism is a clear strength, with 11 reviews explicitly praising punctuality, responsiveness, communication, and courteous behavior. Project completion is nearly universal, with 12 of 13 reviews confirming work was finished on time and to satisfaction. Experience and skill are well-documented across 8 reviews, with customers noting quality workmanship, problem-solving ability, and technical knowledge. Pricing feedback, while limited to 5 mentions, is uniformly positive with descriptions of 'reasonable' and 'good value.' The WW Score of 88.2 reflects reliable, professional service delivery.

• All 13 reviews are 5-star or 4-star ratings with no negative feedback; this is unusually uniform and may suggest selection bias or review filtering rather than fake reviews per se
• Most reviews (10 of 13) are from 2023 or earlier; only 2 reviews from 2024, limiting recency of data
• Multiple reviews reference the same technician names (Nikolai/Nik, Derek, Max, Vlad), suggesting this may be a team-based service; individual performance variation is not captured
• Pricing dimension has limited mentions (5) despite strong positive sentiment; insufficient detail on quote transparency or hidden charges

This score is highly reliable based on 13 reviews with consistent positive patterns across all dimensions and strong mention counts (8-12 per dimension), though the absence of any critical feedback and older review dates (mostly 2023) suggest caution in treating this as current performance; recommend requesting recent references or follow-up communication to verify current service levels.

CLA Construction demonstrates strong overall performance with particular strengths in technical expertise and project completion. Chris Anthony consistently receives praise for skilled workmanship, especially in drainage and deck construction, and most projects are completed on time and within budget. Professionalism is generally high with punctuality and responsiveness noted frequently, though two serious incidents (contract violations, unprofessional communication) and one unresponsive interaction create meaningful concerns. Pricing is fair and competitive according to most reviews, though one customer experienced aggressive upselling tactics during a home inspection. The WW Score of 81.2 reflects reliable execution tempered by occasional lapses in professional conduct and communication.

• CRITICAL: Two 1-star reviews describe serious misconduct—contract violations, yelling at customer's wife, theft of tools, and materials taken without permission (2021-11-29); and potentially fraudulent inspection practices with inflated estimates and deliberate property damage during inspection (2014-04-11). These are not minor complaints.
• PROFESSIONALISM CONCERN: One 4-star review (2019-06-10) documents unprofessional invoice practices and guilt-tripping a customer for requesting a proper invoice—described as 'lazy and unprofessional.'
• RESPONSIVENESS ISSUE: One 1-star review (2016-09-12) states the company never responded to contact attempt.
• RECENCY BIAS: Most reviews are 8+ years old (2005-2015). Only 6 reviews are from 2018 onward. Recent reviews show mixed signals: one 5-star (2022-05-24) praising reliability, but the 2021 reviews include both a 5-star and a damaging 1-star complaint.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK: Two reviews from 2005 (2005-07-27, 2005-07-26) use identical ALL-CAPS formatting and generic language ('THEY WERE PROFESSIONAL', 'VERY SATISFIED') with no specific details. These may be fabricated or template-based. One review (2016-07-12) contains only 'unknown' as text—unusable.
• PATTERN INCONSISTENCY: The contractor receives overwhelming 5-star ratings (24 of 33 reviews) but the 1-star reviews describe serious, specific misconduct. This stark polarity suggests either highly variable service quality or selective review posting.

This score should be treated with CAUTION. While the numerical WW Score of 81.2 appears solid, it is heavily weighted by older reviews (most from 2012-2015) and masks serious red flags: documented contract violations, potential fraud in inspection practices, and unprofessional conduct toward customers. The recent 2021-2022 reviews show the problems may persist. Prospective customers should request references from recent projects (past 12 months) and carefully review the specific 1-star complaints before engaging this contractor. The score reflects average performance across many projects, but individual risk is elevated.

The contractor demonstrates strong professionalism with explicit mentions of punctuality and excellent customer service across multiple reviews. Project completion is supported by evidence of rapid service and problem-solving (water heater emergency handled efficiently). Pricing receives positive mention as 'very reasonably priced' in one detailed review. However, all scores are based on limited mention counts (1–3 reviews per dimension) and the review set is small (5 total) with all ratings being 5-star, which limits confidence in the overall assessment. The oldest reviews date to May 2021, indicating limited recent data.

• All 5 reviews are 5-star ratings with no negative feedback — potential selection bias or incomplete review dataset
• Reviews are predominantly generic praise ('Excellent', 'They were excellent') with minimal specific detail in most cases
• All reviews are older than 12 months (May 2021 – October 2021); no recent reviews available to assess current performance
• Very small sample size (5 reviews) limits statistical reliability
• Only one review provides substantive detail about service quality; others lack specificity

This score should be treated with caution due to the small sample size, age of reviews, and lack of recent performance data. The uniformly positive ratings without critical feedback suggest either exceptional service or incomplete review representation. Additional recent reviews are needed to validate this assessment.

New Age Plumbing has a strong and consistent reputation for fair, transparent pricing and responsive service, with the vast majority of reviewers praising Primo and his team as honest and reasonably priced. Professionalism scores are solid overall but are meaningfully dragged down by several credible negative reviews describing no-shows without communication, a technician giving a customer the finger, unanswered callbacks, and a stolen faucet — these are serious incidents that cannot be dismissed. Project completion is the most concerning dimension: while most jobs are described as completed efficiently, there are multiple explicit accounts of incomplete work (a hot water leak left unresolved), failure to clean up debris, refusal to provide receipts, and a significant sewer inspection failure that cost a customer $3,000 — all of which suppress the score considerably. Experience scores are generally positive, with reviewers frequently citing skilled diagnosis and quality workmanship, though the sewer misdiagnosis and the incomplete hot water heater job introduce meaningful doubt. The review base spans over a decade (2011–2024), and more recent reviews (2023–2024) trend positively, suggesting some improvement over time.

• RECENCY NOTE: Reviews span from 2011 to 2024. Approximately 18 reviews are older than 3 years and 10 are older than 5 years. More recent reviews (2023–2024) are predominantly positive, but older negative incidents are substantive and should not be ignored.
• SERIOUS INCIDENT — PROJECT COMPLETION: One reviewer (2023-08-01) explicitly states the technician left without fixing a continuous hot water leak after replacing the water heater, and the company then avoided their calls. This is a significant project abandonment flag.
• SERIOUS INCIDENT — PROFESSIONALISM: One reviewer (2016-05-20) states that 'Larry' gave them the finger when asked to wait and discuss an unresolved issue. This is an extreme professionalism failure.
• RELIABILITY INCIDENT: One reviewer (2017-07-14) describes a confirmed appointment where 'Larry' never showed, never called, and never responded to texts or voicemails. A second reviewer (2021-12-22) describes two consecutive days of no-shows with no communication.
• TRUST/ETHICS INCIDENT: One reviewer (2022-12-13) states the plumber took their old faucet without permission and never returned calls about it. Another reviewer (2021-03-19) states the plumber refused to show a receipt for parts and became angry when asked.
• SERIOUS COMPETENCE INCIDENT: One reviewer (2012-12-28) paid $250 for a sewer inspection that declared pipes 'old but in good condition.' A contractor's plumber subsequently found extensive blistering and rust, requiring $3,000 in sewer replacement work. This is a significant diagnostic failure.
• CLEANUP FAILURES: Multiple reviews (2020-07-23, 2021-03-19) explicitly mention failure to clean up debris or patch holes after completing work.
• NO FAKE REVIEW PATTERNS DETECTED: Reviews vary meaningfully in tone, detail, length, rating, and content. Negative reviews are specific and credible. No suspicious clustering of identical phrasing was observed.
• PAYMENT NOTE: One reviewer (2021-04-17) notes the company does not accept credit cards, which may be a consideration for some customers.

This WW Score is based on 42 reviews spanning 13 years with high mention counts across all four dimensions, making it statistically reliable; however, the presence of multiple credible, specific negative incidents — including job abandonment, no-shows, a physical gesture of disrespect, a stolen item, and a costly inspection failure — means the score should be interpreted cautiously, and prospective customers are advised to confirm scope of work in writing and verify follow-through commitments before hiring.

Ortiz Plumbing demonstrates strong responsiveness and generally professional conduct across the majority of reviews, with many customers praising quick arrival times, clear communication, and courteous service. However, several serious negative reviews meaningfully drag down all dimensions: a tankless water heater installation was left incomplete for months with no permit obtained, a customer was charged $849 for a garbage disposal installation and treated dismissively, and another customer was charged $400 for incomplete drain work with inadequate equipment. Project completion is the most penalized dimension due to the abandoned water heater job and the unresolved drain clog, which represent significant failures of follow-through. Pricing receives the lowest score because of multiple explicit complaints about overcharging, lack of upfront transparency, and one instance of a condescending response to a pricing concern that also included a gender-bias complaint.

• PRICING CONCERN: One customer was charged $849 for a garbage disposal installation (labor only, no parts) and reported the owner responded dismissively when questioned. The same customer alleged gender-based differential treatment and reported being called 'sweetheart,' which is a professionalism red flag.
• ABANDONED JOB: One customer paid $4,800 for a tankless water heater installation that was never fully resolved, a required permit was never obtained, and the contractor became unresponsive for months. This is a serious project completion failure.
• INCOMPLETE WORK / EQUIPMENT CONCERNS: One customer reported paying $400 for snaking and camera work where the clog was not fixed, equipment was described as inadequate, and pricing was alleged to be well above market rate.
• COMMUNICATION FAILURE: One review explicitly describes a mismatch between what the owner and employee communicated regarding arrival time, and the owner became unresponsive when asked to resend an invoice — requiring a negative review to prompt a response.
• NO-SHOW / UNRESPONSIVE: One review (1-star, June 2023) describes a contractor who read a message and never responded, suggesting a pattern of selective responsiveness.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent reviews (2024) include the most severe complaints (garbage disposal overcharge). The bulk of positive reviews are from 2020-2021. This suggests a possible decline in service quality or consistency in more recent engagements.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK — LOW TO MODERATE: Several 5-star reviews from late 2020 and early 2021 are brief, generic, and lack specific detail (e.g., 'Great great work very great customer service,' 'Very quick response to fix my broken water line. Great service!'). While not conclusive, the clustering of short, undetailed 5-star reviews in a narrow time window warrants mild caution. Confidence is not reduced to a lower tier but is noted here.

This WW Score is based on 38 reviews with broad dimension coverage and HIGH confidence across all four dimensions; however, the score should be interpreted cautiously given documented serious failures in project completion and pricing transparency, a possible recent decline in service quality, and a small cluster of suspiciously generic 5-star reviews that may inflate the positive signal.

Geoff, the primary operator associated with Quality American Plumbing, receives consistently strong praise across professionalism, workmanship, communication, and pricing across five recent-to-moderately-recent reviews. Reviewers highlight his responsiveness, pride in his craft, and ability to handle complex or awkward jobs. However, one 1-star review from 2010 describes a different owner ('Nate') who no-showed twice without contact, which is a serious professionalism failure — though its age and the apparent change in ownership reduce but do not eliminate its relevance. Pricing is noted as fair and reasonable by multiple reviewers, supporting a solid but not exceptional pricing score. Project completion is well-supported, with multiple reviewers describing full job follow-through across varied and complex projects.

• One 1-star review (2010) references a different owner named 'Nate,' suggesting possible ownership or business change. This review is over 14 years old and may not reflect current operations, but it describes a serious reliability failure (two no-shows, no communication) and cannot be ignored entirely.
• The five positive reviews all carry 5-star ratings with no mixed feedback, which warrants mild scrutiny. However, most include specific project details, named individuals, and varied language, reducing the likelihood of fabrication.
• RECENCY NOTE: One review is from 2020, one from 2021, and one from 2023. Only two reviews are within the past 12 months (2024). The score is moderately weighted toward recent data but the sample size is small.
• Total review count is low (6 reviews). Scores should be treated as directional rather than definitive until more reviews are available.

This WW Score carries moderate reliability — the positive signal from Geoff's reviews is consistent and specific, but the very small total review count, the presence of one serious negative outlier from a potentially different era of ownership, and limited recency data mean this score should be treated as a reasonable early indicator rather than a fully validated assessment.