Find Nearby Plumbers In Redwood City, California

Ron Williams Plumbing and Heating earns strong marks across professionalism and experience, with dozens of reviewers praising prompt arrivals, courteous service, and skilled diagnostics across a wide range of plumbing and heating jobs. Project completion scores well overall, with the vast majority of reviewers reporting jobs finished correctly and on time, though one detailed 1-star review describes a serious workmanship failure involving improperly routed pipes and a failed sewer lateral with no remediation offered — a significant drag on that dimension. Pricing is the weakest dimension: while many reviewers call rates fair or reasonable, there are multiple credible complaints about overcharging, a misleading diagnosis leading to a costly quote, and false advertising of free estimates, preventing a higher score. The single unresponsiveness complaint (a week of unreturned calls) and one false advertising complaint are notable negatives that temper the otherwise strong professionalism score.

• RECENCY WARNING: The majority of reviews are older than 3 years, with most dating from 2013–2019 and only a handful from 2021 or later. The WW Score may not reflect current service quality.
• SERIOUS WORKMANSHIP COMPLAINT (2013): One detailed 1-star review describes pipes run across a roof that later burst in winter, a failed sewer lateral installed by this company, and a complete refusal to remedy the situation when contacted. This is a substantive quality and customer service failure, not a minor complaint.
• PRICING CONCERNS: Multiple independent reviewers flagged pricing issues — one was charged $155 for a 5-minute diagnosis plus an overpriced thermostat; another received a quote of $2,000 for a job completed by this same company for under $200; a third noted a $650 quote that a competitor resolved for $100. These are not isolated incidents.
• FALSE ADVERTISING FLAG (2013): One reviewer explicitly states the company's website advertised free estimates but the company denied offering them when called.
• RESPONSIVENESS FAILURE (2017): One reviewer reported calling every day for a week with no response, suggesting possible periods of poor availability or communication breakdown.
• MULTIPLE TECHNICIANS: Reviews reference Ron, Mark, Brian, Ken Woodall, Mike, and Gregg Dolling — indicating this is a multi-person operation. Quality and experience scores may reflect different individuals and should not be attributed uniformly.
• NO FAKE REVIEW PATTERNS DETECTED: Reviews vary in length, detail, rating, and tone. Negative reviews are substantive and specific. No artificial inflation patterns identified.

This WW Score is based on a substantial volume of reviews (51) spanning over 14 years, giving HIGH statistical confidence in the directional findings, but the heavy skew toward older reviews and several credible negative experiences — particularly around pricing transparency and one serious workmanship failure — mean the score should be treated as a moderate-confidence indicator of current service quality rather than a definitive endorsement.

George at Miramar Plumbing earns consistently strong marks across professionalism, experience, and project completion, with multiple reviewers over several years praising his responsiveness, quick turnaround, and quality workmanship on a variety of plumbing jobs. Pricing is mentioned positively in three reviews as reasonable, supporting a solid but moderately confident pricing score. However, two negative reviews meaningfully temper the overall picture: one describes a missed diagnosis that allowed additional property damage, and another cites poor responsiveness over 24 hours and an inability to complete the job. These are substantive complaints touching project completion and professionalism, and they prevent top-tier scores in those dimensions. The score reflects a contractor with a strong general track record but documented instances of failure in thoroughness and follow-through.

• Most reviews are older than 12 months; the most recent review is from April 2023 but the majority of reviews date from 2014–2022, limiting recency confidence.
• One 1-star review (2016) describes a missed leak diagnosis that caused additional property damage — a serious workmanship concern that directly impacts the experience and project completion scores.
• One 1-star review (2018) reflects a service refusal due to location, which is a minor operational note rather than a quality failure, but contributes to an incomplete service picture.
• No strong fake review patterns detected; reviews vary in detail, tone, and date, and include negative reviews, which supports authenticity.

This WW Score is based on 12 reviews spanning approximately nine years, with sufficient mention counts across all four dimensions to produce a moderately reliable score, though the age of most reviews and two substantive negative experiences mean the score should be treated as a reasonable historical indicator rather than a definitive current assessment.

Great White Plumbing demonstrates strong performance across all measured dimensions. Professionalism is consistently praised with mentions of efficient work, clean work areas, and attentive ownership across three reviews. Project completion is solid with explicit references to work done correctly on the first time and no callbacks needed. Pricing receives positive feedback for reasonable rates and transparent, detailed estimates. Technical expertise is evident through proper installations, quality part selection, and problem-solving ability. However, the sample size is small (3 reviews) and two are older than 2 years, which limits confidence in the overall assessment.

• Only 3 reviews analyzed — sample size is very small and limits statistical reliability
• Two of three reviews are older than 2 years (2018 and 2019), with only one from 2022 — recency is a concern
• All three reviews are 5-star ratings with no negative feedback mentioned — while not necessarily fake, the uniformity and lack of any critical detail warrants caution
• Minor concern: One review mentions a minor professionalism lapse (using customer's hand towel without permission) but customer still rated 5 stars, suggesting tolerance for minor issues

This WW Score should be treated with caution due to the very small sample size (3 reviews) and age of most data; scores are based on limited mentions and would benefit from additional recent reviews to validate reliability.

Maximus Plumbing & Heating demonstrates strong professionalism and technical expertise, with consistently positive feedback on responsiveness, punctuality, and skilled workmanship across plumbing and HVAC projects. However, the score is tempered by significant concerns around project completion and pricing transparency. Multiple reviews document incomplete work, abandoned jobs, and failure to follow through on promised callbacks, most notably a 2018 bathroom remodel that resulted in water damage requiring three months of remediation. Pricing complaints appear in several reviews citing charges substantially above market rates for relatively simple work, with some customers reporting markups of 200-300% compared to competitors. The company shows strong technical problem-solving ability but inconsistent execution and follow-through.

• CRITICAL: Multiple reviews document serious project completion failures including abandoned work (2018 bathroom remodel with incomplete shower installation and subsequent water damage), missed appointments with no follow-up communication (2021 assessment fee charged then no callback), and incomplete work billed at full price (2018 caulking job 60% complete, customer finished remainder). These are not isolated incidents.
• PRICING CONCERNS: Significant pattern of high pricing relative to market rates. Examples include $680 for 2-hour shower valve installation (customer had to correct valve angle and bury pipe), $525 for 15-foot cable run with promised follow-up camera inspection that never occurred, $225 for 30 minutes of caulking work (60% incomplete), and $350+ HVAC diagnosis when competitor fixed same issue for $180.
• ATTITUDE/PROFESSIONALISM INCONSISTENCY: While majority of reviews praise professionalism, several document poor attitude including raised voice/frustration during 2018 bathroom remodel, refusal to remove shoes when requested (2019 review), and dismissive communication about plumbing issues. One reviewer noted 'no manners' and unwillingness to explain work.
• RECENCY BIAS: Most negative reviews (project failures, pricing complaints, attitude issues) occurred 2018-2021. More recent reviews (2023-2024) are predominantly positive, suggesting possible service improvement or selection bias in recent reviewers. However, 2021 review documents serious follow-through failure (missed appointment, no callback after charging assessment fee).
• INCONSISTENT QUALITY BY TEAM MEMBER: 2018 bathroom remodel explicitly notes 'younger, lower-skilled man' used for non-plumbing work while Max handled plumbing. 2018 caulking review criticizes 'Toby' specifically while noting 'Max delivers solid work.' Suggests quality varies significantly by technician assigned.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: Approximately 20 reviews from 2016-2017 contain generic praise with minimal specific detail ('Great service!', 'Highly recommend!', 'Best experience!') and are predominantly 5-star. While not conclusive, this density of generic 5-star reviews warrants caution. However, reviews from 2018 onward show more specific detail and mixed ratings, suggesting earlier reviews may be less reliable.

This WW Score of 78.2 should be treated with MODERATE-TO-HIGH confidence for professionalism and experience dimensions, but LOW confidence for pricing and project completion assessments. The score is significantly dragged down by documented project failures and pricing complaints concentrated in 2018-2021, but recent reviews (2023-2024) show improvement. The company demonstrates strong technical skills and responsiveness but has a documented history of incomplete work, missed follow-ups, and above-market pricing that represents material risk. Customers should request detailed written scope, timeline, and pricing before engagement and establish clear callback/completion expectations.

Bullseye Plumbing has a large and generally positive review base spanning over a decade, with the majority of customers praising responsiveness, punctuality, fair pricing, and quality workmanship across a wide range of jobs from minor repairs to full sewer lateral replacements. However, a meaningful cluster of negative reviews — including a failed city inspection with an unresolved sag/belly in a lateral line, a sewage overflow caused during a service call, an attempted bribe to remove a negative review, multiple instances of no-shows or failure to follow up on estimates, and at least one case of alleged overbilling and incomplete work — significantly tempers the overall score. Pricing is generally regarded as competitive and transparent, though a few reviewers noted unexpected charges or feeling overcharged for small jobs. Project completion is the most variable dimension: large sewer lateral jobs show a pattern of both strong successes and serious failures, with at least two major jobs resulting in failed inspections or unresolved defects. The score reflects a contractor with genuine strengths but a non-trivial rate of serious service failures that prospective customers should weigh carefully.

• Seven reviews contain no text at all (only a star rating) and were excluded from dimensional scoring but counted in total reviews analyzed.
• At least two reviews (2021-12-22 and 2024-03-25) describe serious project completion failures: a failed city inspection due to a sag/belly in a newly replaced lateral line that the contractor refused to fix without additional large payment, and a sewer drain cleaning that was incomplete and required a second contractor.
• One review (2015-01-28) alleges the owner Ken offered a $240 payment to remove a negative review — a significant ethical red flag that reduces trust in the overall review pool.
• One review (2015-01-19) describes a sewage overflow caused during the service call, tracking of sewage onto carpets, and an unresolved clog within the 90-day warranty period.
• One review (2013-06-20) alleges unlawful down payment demands, botched rough plumbing work, and a refund dispute — raising concerns about workmanship and business ethics on that job.
• Multiple reviews (2014-07-17, 2014-08-15, 2013-07-26, 2013-03-22, 2017-10-31) describe no-shows, failure to return calls, or failure to provide promised estimates — indicating a recurring responsiveness problem.
• One review (2017-11-08) describes the owner hanging up on a potential customer who called for an estimate.
• One review (2019-07-01) describes arriving late without notice, overcharging, and failing to install a P-trap, then requesting $800–$1000 to correct the omission — and the reviewer alleges the contractor contacted them to request removal of the review.
• The review pool spans from 2005 to 2024. Reviews older than 3 years should be weighted with caution as they may not reflect current service quality. The most recent negative reviews (2021 and 2024) are particularly significant as they are recent and describe serious failures.
• Multiple technicians appear across reviews (Ken, Gavin, Luis, Daniel, Quinton, Rusty, Dennis, Chuck, Sal, Miguel) — scores reflect the company as a whole, but quality appears to vary by technician and job type.
• No clear fake review pattern detected, though a number of very brief or text-free reviews provide no usable data.

This WW Score is based on a large review sample (120 reviews) spanning many years and carries HIGH statistical confidence in its dimensions, but prospective customers should treat the score with caution given documented serious failures in project completion, credible allegations of unethical conduct, and a recurring pattern of communication breakdowns — particularly for large sewer lateral jobs.

Bernie at Be&Be Plumbing earns strong marks across all four dimensions, with the majority of reviewers praising his responsiveness, punctuality, clear communication, and honest approach to pricing. His willingness to honor warranty callbacks at no charge and to talk customers out of unnecessary spending reflects well on both his professionalism and integrity. However, four negative reviews (ratings of 1.0) meaningfully drag down the scores: one documents a no-show with no communication, one details repeated failed caulking repairs using the wrong sealant material, one describes a misdiagnosed water heater costing the customer over $400 with no resolution, and one reports a gas leak resulting from a poorly executed gas line reroute that required a full redo by another contractor. These are serious quality and completion failures that prevent any dimension from scoring in the high 80s or above. The overall picture is of a capable and trustworthy plumber for routine jobs who has demonstrated meaningful lapses on more complex or multi-visit work.

• Four 1-star reviews document serious failures: a no-show without communication, repeated incorrect caulking using latex instead of silicone sealant, a misdiagnosed water heater issue resulting in $430 in wasted costs, and a gas leak caused by a poorly executed gas line reroute requiring a full redo by another plumber.
• Several reviews mention being referred by 'Mike at He-Man Plumbing' — this is a recurring referral pattern across at least 5 reviews. While this likely reflects a genuine referral relationship rather than fake reviews, it is noted as a pattern.
• No suspected fake reviews detected. Reviews vary in length, detail, specificity, and rating, and include credible negative experiences with specific details. Language is sufficiently varied across reviews.
• Recency note: The two most recent reviews (2024 and 2023) are positive, but the bulk of reviews date from 2014–2020. The serious negative reviews (gas leak, water heater misdiagnosis, no-show) are from 2014–2020. The score reflects the full review history as provided.
• One reviewer (2020) explicitly updated a previously positive review to negative after a failed repair and a second failed attempt, indicating a pattern of incomplete follow-through on at least one job type.

This WW Score is based on 31 reviews with usable data across all four dimensions at HIGH confidence, and should be considered a reliable but cautious assessment — Bernie performs well on routine plumbing tasks but has documented failures on more complex jobs that prospective customers should weigh carefully.