Find Nearby Plumbers In Rialto, California

Quality First Plumbing, Heating and Air Conditioning receives consistently strong marks across all four dimensions based on this review set. Professionalism is a standout theme, with multiple reviewers explicitly praising Mike Simon's promptness, communication, integrity, and courteous demeanor both on-site and over the phone. Pricing is frequently cited as reasonable or significantly better than competitors, lending genuine credibility to the value proposition. Project completion is well-supported, with reviewers describing jobs that were seen through to resolution — including a particularly difficult drain-clearing task that other contractors had failed or abandoned. Experience is evidenced by reviewers noting diagnostic accuracy, knowledgeable problem-solving, and the practical detail of carrying commonly needed parts on the truck. However, all reviews are dated between 2016 and 2020, with none in the past 12 months, which limits confidence in how well these scores reflect current performance.

• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: Reviews dated 2018-02-03 at 15:46:54 and 2018-02-03 at 15:00:07 are nearly identical in content, phrasing, and structure. These appear to be the same review submitted twice, possibly by the same reviewer or duplicated across platforms. Only one instance was counted for scoring purposes.
• ALL REVIEWS ARE OLDER THAN 12 MONTHS: The most recent review is from January 2020, meaning no reviews fall within the past 12 months (relative to a 2025 evaluation date). Current performance cannot be reliably inferred from this data.
• SMALL REVIEW POOL: Only 7 total reviews (6 unique) were analyzed. While scores are directionally meaningful, the limited sample size reduces statistical reliability.
• ALL REVIEWS ARE 5-STAR: The uniformity of perfect ratings warrants mild caution. However, most reviews include specific details, named individuals, and concrete scenarios, which reduces the likelihood of fabrication.

This WW Score is directionally trustworthy given the specificity and consistency of the reviews, but should be treated with moderate caution due to the small and entirely outdated review pool, a confirmed duplicate submission, and the absence of any reviews from the past five years.

DeMuth Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism with responsive communication, quick service delivery, and knowledgeable staff across 6 reviews. Experience is well-documented with 30+ years mentioned and consistent technical competence in complex jobs (slab leaks, septic repair, fixture installation). Pricing is generally described as reasonable and fair across 4 reviews. However, project completion is significantly undermined by one detailed 1-star review from 2016 documenting poor workmanship on a $9,000 fixture installation, lack of warranty follow-through, and failure to stand behind work—a critical gap in accountability. The seven 5-star reviews (2019-2023) suggest improvement or selective service quality, but the warranty refusal incident raises concerns about consistency.

• RECENCY CONCERN: One highly negative review from 2016 (7+ years old) contrasts sharply with seven consecutive 5-star reviews from 2019-2023. This temporal gap may indicate either past problems resolved or selective review posting.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: Seven consecutive 5-star reviews with generic praise language ('best plumber,' 'highly recommend,' 'great service') and minimal specific technical detail in several reviews. However, reviews 2, 3, and 4 contain sufficient specificity (slab leak details, valve replacement behind sink, emergency response timing) to suggest authenticity.
• CRITICAL QUALITY VARIANCE: The 2016 review documents a severe failure (incorrect high-end fixture installation, discarded parts, warranty denial) that contradicts the consistent excellence claimed in recent reviews. This suggests either a significant past problem or inconsistent quality control.
• WARRANTY/ACCOUNTABILITY GAP: The 2016 review explicitly states the owner refused to warranty work after several years, which is a material failure in project completion and professional responsibility.

This score should be treated with MODERATE caution. While recent reviews (2019-2023) are consistently positive and specific, the presence of one detailed, credible negative review documenting a $9,000 installation failure and warranty refusal creates material doubt about consistency and accountability. The score reflects strong recent performance but is tempered by documented past failures and the absence of evidence that systemic issues were addressed.

All four reviews are positive and consistently highlight professionalism, friendliness, and fair pricing, with multiple reviewers noting on-time arrival and no hidden charges. The experience dimension is supported by specific mentions of technical knowledge, complex plumbing systems, and a claimed 20 years in business. Project completion is well-supported across reviews, with one reviewer noting multiple completed jobs over time and another confirming no additional charges beyond the agreed amount. However, the total review count is only 4, all dated between 2020 and 2021, meaning scores are based on a small and somewhat dated sample, which limits overall reliability.

• Only 4 reviews analyzed — sample size is too small to draw strong conclusions about consistent performance.
• All reviews are from 2020–2021; no reviews from the past 12 months are present, meaning recent performance cannot be assessed.
• All reviews are 5-star ratings, which warrants mild caution, though the reviews do contain specific details and varied scenarios that reduce the likelihood of fabrication.
• One review (2020-04-29) reads partially like a promotional listing, including a phone number and service equipment list, which may indicate a non-organic review or owner-influenced submission.

This WW Score carries LIMITED overall reliability due to the small review count of 4 and the absence of any reviews within the past 12 months; the score should be treated as a preliminary positive signal rather than a definitive assessment.

All three reviews are positive and mention fast response times, which supports a reasonable professionalism score. Two reviews reference completed work (garbage disposal replacement, drain unclog), providing limited but usable project completion data. Only one review explicitly mentions pricing, making the price-friendly score highly conservative. Experience scores are inferred from two reviews describing competent, clean, and timely work, but the sample is too small to draw strong conclusions. Overall, the scores are deliberately conservative given the very small review pool.

• Only 3 reviews total — WW Score reliability is very low and should not be used as a definitive assessment.
• All reviews are 5-star with minimal detail, which is consistent with a pattern of generic praise. Cannot confirm or rule out authenticity.
• All reviews are dated from January–March 2022, meaning all data is over 2 years old. No recent reviews are available to assess current performance.
• Review 1 ('THE BEST') contains no specific details about any dimension and was excluded from dimension scoring but counted in total reviews analyzed.
• Small sample size (3 reviews) means a single negative experience could dramatically change this score.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews, all over 2 years old and all 5-star with limited specificity, making it LOW reliability — treat with significant caution and seek additional recent references before hiring.

Cabral Construction presents a deeply divided picture across 30 reviews spanning 2019–2024. Positive reviews consistently praise Erik's responsiveness, work ethic, cleanliness, and quality of craftsmanship across a wide range of projects. However, a significant cluster of negative reviews — including a 2024 review — describes serious and recurring failures: no-shows for scheduled appointments, abandoning work after final payment, using a suspended license, causing property damage and refusing to respond, and alleged gross overcharging for materials. Professionalism scores were heavily penalized because multiple reviewers explicitly documented ghosting, missed appointments, and unresponsiveness — not just one-off incidents but a repeated pattern across different customers and years. Project completion was similarly penalized due to at least two explicit accounts of work being left unfinished after payment. Pricing scored moderately well because the positive mentions of fair and on-budget pricing were not contradicted by many negative pricing-specific complaints, though one reviewer alleged a $7,000 charge for $1,004 worth of countertops, which is a serious red flag.

• REPEATED PATTERN OF NO-SHOWS: At least 3 separate reviewers (2020, 2021, 2021) describe Erik scheduling appointments and then failing to appear with no communication — this is a documented behavioral pattern, not an isolated incident.
• ABANDONED WORK AFTER PAYMENT: One reviewer (2021) explicitly states Erik stopped returning after receiving final payment and left work unfinished, including an entire door project.
• SUSPENDED LICENSE: One reviewer (2023) states Erik's contractor license (#1074066) was suspended at the time of work, despite being advertised as valid. This is a serious legal and consumer protection concern.
• PROPERTY DAMAGE AND NON-RESPONSE: One reviewer (2023) describes Erik causing roof tile damage during a tarp job using an umbrella stand, then going completely silent when contacted about the damage.
• ALLEGED MATERIAL FRAUD: One reviewer (2024) claims Erik charged $7,000 for countertops that cost $1,004.79, and that the work quality was substandard with inconsistent widths. The reviewer also states Erik denied knowing them in court.
• POSSIBLE FAKE REVIEW CONCERN — MODERATE: Two reviews posted on the same date (2019-12-08) with very similar generic praise and no specific project details raise mild suspicion. Two additional reviews from the same customer (2019-11-17 and 2019-11-21) are nearly identical in content and phrasing, suggesting a single reviewer posted twice or reviews were duplicated. Confidence slightly reduced for those specific data points.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent negative review is from January 2024, suggesting the problematic behaviors have not been resolved over time. The pattern of complaints spans from 2020 through 2024.
• SPLIT REVIEW PROFILE: Approximately 17 reviews are 5-star and 6 are 1-star with no middle-ground ratings, which is a polarized distribution that may indicate selective review solicitation from satisfied customers while dissatisfied customers self-post.

This WW Score is based on 30 reviews with a high volume of usable data across all dimensions, but the score should be treated with caution due to a documented and recurring pattern of serious misconduct — including license issues, property abandonment, no-shows, and alleged fraud — that persists as recently as 2024.

This review set presents a deeply polarized picture of a company operating under multiple brand names including Rapid Plumbing, Rapid Rooter, WiseWay Plumbing, and Up To Code Plumbing. A substantial cluster of recent positive reviews — many involving named technicians like Eduardo, Jonathan, Eddie, and Nathan — describe punctual, professional, and knowledgeable service, particularly for Moen Flo device installations. However, these are heavily counterbalanced by a large and detailed body of negative reviews spanning years, with consistent, credible allegations of gross overcharging, fraudulent diagnoses, predatory targeting of elderly customers, incomplete work, property damage, and aggressive upselling. Pricing is the most severely impacted dimension, with dozens of independent reviewers describing quotes 3x to 20x higher than competitors for identical work, and multiple references to an NBC News investigation into the company's fraudulent practices. Project completion is also significantly damaged by reviews describing abandoned jobs, work left incomplete, and problems recurring shortly after service. The professionalism and experience scores are modestly higher due to the genuine volume of positive recent reviews, but the weight of serious misconduct allegations prevents any dimension from scoring well.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: Numerous reviews appear to be exact duplicates posted on the same date, including multiple identical 5-star and 1-star reviews. This inflates both positive and negative review counts and suggests possible review manipulation on both sides.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — POSITIVE: A significant number of recent 5-star reviews are extremely brief, generic, or contain no text at all (rating only). Several positive reviews use near-identical phrasing across different dates and technician names, suggesting possible coordinated or incentivized posting.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — NEGATIVE: Some negative reviews also appear duplicated verbatim, which may indicate coordinated negative campaigns. However, the majority of detailed negative reviews contain specific names, dollar amounts, dates, and circumstances that lend them high credibility.
• MULTIPLE BRAND NAMES: Reviews reference at least four distinct business names — Rapid Plumbing, Rapid Rooter, WiseWay Plumbing, and Up To Code Plumbing — suggesting a franchise or rebranding structure. Scores may reflect inconsistent quality across different operators or locations operating under shared branding.
• NBC NEWS INVESTIGATION: Multiple independent reviewers reference an NBC Los Angeles I-Team investigation into this company for fraudulent practices, gross overcharging, and elder abuse. One reviewer states a victim recovered over $30,000. This is a significant credibility flag.
• ELDER TARGETING PATTERN: A statistically notable number of negative reviews — at least 25 — specifically describe elderly or disabled customers being targeted with inflated quotes, unnecessary work, or high-pressure tactics. This is a serious and recurring pattern.
• PRICING FRAUD ALLEGATIONS: Dozens of reviews describe quotes that were 3x to 20x higher than competitors for identical work, with multiple reviewers confirming via second opinions that the diagnosed problems either did not exist or were vastly overstated.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent reviews (2025) skew more positive and involve specific named technicians. Older reviews (2013–2022) are overwhelmingly negative. This may reflect genuine improvement in some service lines or locations, or may reflect a review management strategy. Caution is warranted.

This WW Score of 42.1 should be treated with HIGH caution — while the volume of reviews is large enough to produce a statistically meaningful score, the dataset is severely compromised by duplicate reviews, suspected fake positive reviews, multiple operating brand names, and a documented pattern of fraudulent business practices that fundamentally undermines trust in the company's service quality and integrity.