Find Nearby Plumbers In Rocklin, California

Mike demonstrates strong professionalism across all three reviews, with consistent praise for responsiveness, punctuality, friendliness, and reliability. Project completion is solid, with same-day service and follow-through on commitments noted. His technical skill is evident in ceiling fan installation and door hinge adjustment work. Pricing receives positive mention in one review as reasonable and cost-effective compared to electricians. However, the sample size is small (3 reviews) and all are from 2023, limiting confidence in the overall assessment.

• Small sample size (n=3) — scores should be treated as preliminary and updated as more reviews accumulate
• All reviews are from 2023 (oldest is January 2023, newest is September 2023) — no recent data from past 12 months relative to current date
• Pricing dimension based on only 1 mention — insufficient data for reliable pricing assessment
• All reviews are 5-star ratings with uniformly positive language — while not necessarily fake, lack of critical detail or negative feedback limits depth of analysis

This WW Score should be treated as preliminary due to the small sample size and age of reviews; the score is directionally positive but requires additional recent reviews to establish reliable confidence in Mike's current performance.

Craig Johnson Plumbing earns strong marks for professionalism, with dozens of reviewers explicitly praising punctuality, friendliness, courtesy, and responsiveness — including same-day and emergency service. Experience scores well overall, with multiple reviewers citing skilled diagnostics and quality workmanship from named technicians like Ivan, Don, Casey, and Joel. However, pricing is a notable weak point: several reviewers complained of parts marked up 3x retail, $165/hour labor rates, and charges that felt disproportionate to the work performed, pulling the pricing score down significantly despite other reviewers praising fair or competitive pricing. Project completion is moderately strong but is dragged down by a handful of credible complaints describing abandoned work, unresolved callbacks, a non-functioning recirculation system installed in 2021 that was never corrected, and a collapsed septic pipe caused by the crew. The overall WW Score reflects a business with genuine strengths in responsiveness and attitude, but with recurring and credible concerns around pricing transparency and follow-through on complex or warranty-related jobs.

• 5 reviews contain no text at all — only a 5-star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence.
• A cluster of 10+ reviews share the same date of 2024-06-09 and 2022-06-10, which is unusual and may indicate batch-imported or solicited reviews. These were included but treated with reduced individual weight.
• One review (2021-06-10) appears to be a near-duplicate of a 2020-09-22 review with identical text ('Craig, Cassy, and the team are professional, friendly, reliable, and super smart...'), suggesting a possible duplicate submission.
• The review dated 2010-08-24 references a 'Mark Davis' rather than Craig Johnson, raising a question about whether this review is correctly attributed to this business. It was included but flagged.
• Negative reviews are specific, named, and detailed — they describe failed warranty follow-through, overcharging on parts, abandoned jobs, and a condescending owner interaction. These are treated as credible and weighted accordingly.
• Recency note: The majority of reviews span 2013–2025. Negative patterns (pricing complaints, incomplete work, warranty refusals) appear across multiple years including recent reviews (2025, 2024, 2019), suggesting these are not isolated historical issues.

This WW Score is based on a large and diverse review set spanning over a decade, with HIGH confidence across all four dimensions; however, the score should be interpreted with caution given credible and recurring complaints about pricing transparency and incomplete or abandoned work that appear in both older and recent reviews.

BZ Plumbing receives consistently strong praise for professionalism, with multiple reviewers highlighting punctuality, friendly attitudes, clear communication, and tidy workmanship from named technicians like Santiago, Tom, John, and Brandon. Project completion scores well overall, with several large repipe jobs completed on time and on budget including drywall, texturing, and painting — however, one reviewer reports experiencing 4 or 5 recurring leaks from the same vendor, which is a meaningful negative signal for completion quality. Pricing is generally viewed favorably, with mentions of upfront estimates, no cost increases even when jobs grew more complex, and at least one reviewer citing excellent price as a reason to return. Experience is well-supported by reviews praising technical knowledge, problem-solving, and efficient execution, though the recurring leak complaint from 2023 tempers this dimension. Two negative reviews — one about unanswered emergency calls and one about repeated leaks — prevent higher scores and reflect real service gaps that cannot be ignored.

• One reviewer (2023-10-18) reports experiencing 4 or 5 separate leaks attributed to the same vendor, suggesting a possible pattern of incomplete or poor-quality repairs on at least one job. This is a significant quality concern.
• One reviewer (2014-04-24) reported inability to reach the company during a plumbing emergency and a non-functional website, indicating responsiveness issues — though this review is nearly 10 years old and may not reflect current operations.
• The majority of reviews are older than 12 months, with most clustered between 2016 and 2021. Only two reviews are from 2022 or later, limiting confidence in how well the scores reflect current performance.
• Several reviews mention Santiago by name with very similar praise (professional, friendly, thorough, explained work clearly). While this likely reflects genuine satisfaction with a specific technician, the repetitive framing across multiple reviews warrants mild scrutiny. No confirmed fake review pattern detected, but noted.
• Review from 2019-08-07 is extremely vague ('BZ Was amazing... You can't do wrong') with no specifics. It was counted in total reviews but contributes minimal usable data to any dimension.

This WW Score is based on 19 reviews spanning approximately 10 years, with strong mention counts across all four dimensions, but reliability is moderately reduced by the age of most reviews, one serious recurring-leak complaint, and limited recent data from the past 12 months.

General Plumbing Supply demonstrates strong technical expertise and product knowledge, with consistently high marks for staff experience and knowledgeable assistance. However, professionalism is significantly undermined by numerous reports of rude, dismissive, and unhelpful customer service, particularly toward DIY customers and those unfamiliar with plumbing. Pricing is generally viewed as fair to competitive, though some perceive it as premium. Project completion shows mixed results with delivery delays and order fulfillment issues reported in several cases. The company excels when individual staff members (Luis, Carlos, Jon, Ellen, etc.) provide exceptional service, but inconsistency across locations and personnel is a major concern.

• SIGNIFICANT PROFESSIONALISM VARIANCE: Multiple reviews (at least 15+) describe rude, dismissive, or unwelcoming staff behavior, particularly toward non-professional/DIY customers. This is a systemic issue affecting multiple locations and time periods.
• LOCATION-BASED INCONSISTENCY: American Canyon location receives disproportionately negative reviews for customer service, while Brentwood and Walnut Creek locations receive more positive feedback. Service quality appears highly dependent on which staff member assists the customer.
• DELIVERY AND ORDER FULFILLMENT ISSUES: Several reviews (2018-2021) report significant delays, wrong items shipped, incomplete orders, and poor communication regarding delivery timelines. One review describes a 3.5-week estimate that became 3.5 months.
• STAFF ATTITUDE TOWARD DIY CUSTOMERS: Recurring pattern of staff deflecting DIY customers to Home Depot or expressing disdain for non-professional customers, suggesting possible business model bias against retail customers.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: Cluster of 5-star reviews on 2022-06-10 and 2023-06-10 with minimal detail (e.g., 'Great service', 'Awesome staff!', 'Knowledge helps') alongside detailed negative reviews suggests possible review manipulation. However, many detailed positive reviews exist, so confidence in fake review detection is LIMITED.
• RECENCY NOTE: Most recent reviews (2024-2025) show improved sentiment with fewer extreme negatives, suggesting possible recent management changes or staff training improvements.

This WW Score of 76.8 is reliable at HIGH confidence due to 227 reviews with substantial data across all dimensions, but the score masks significant operational inconsistency: the company excels in product expertise and selection but struggles with customer service delivery and professionalism, particularly toward non-professional customers. Prospective customers should expect variable experiences depending on location and staff member encountered.

David's Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism, pricing fairness, and technical expertise across a large sample of reviews. However, project completion reliability is notably lower, with multiple documented instances of incomplete work, failed callbacks, and customer dissatisfaction with job outcomes. The company shows inconsistent follow-through: some customers report exceptional service and problem-solving, while others describe abandoned work, billing disputes, and unresolved issues. Positive reviews emphasize punctuality, knowledge, and fair pricing; negative reviews cite incomplete repairs, poor communication after initial contact, and quality concerns. The WW Score reflects this mixed performance—strong on initial interaction and expertise, weaker on delivery and accountability.

• CRITICAL: Multiple 1-star reviews document serious project completion failures: incomplete toilet/drain repairs (customer had to hire another plumber same day), disposal unit left in pieces and unable to be reinstalled, water heater work that created ongoing issues. These are not isolated complaints.
• BILLING DISPUTES: At least 3 reviews mention unexpected charges or billing issues—$150 diagnostic fee not disclosed upfront, charges for work allegedly not completed, and disputes over service scope.
• COMMUNICATION BREAKDOWN: Several reviews report difficulty reaching the company after initial contact, missed callbacks, and unresponsiveness to follow-up requests. One review explicitly states 'doesn't return calls.'
• OWNER CONDUCT: Two reviews document unprofessional behavior by the owner (David) directly—rudeness to a sick customer, hanging up on customers, and an 'insane rant' during a phone call. This suggests interpersonal issues at leadership level.
• QUALITY CONTROL: At least 2 reviews mention sloppy workmanship, leaks after repair, and incorrect parts ordered/installed. One customer reported a low-grade water heater installed when mid-grade was requested.
• RECENCY CONCERN: While recent reviews (2024) are predominantly 5-star, older reviews (2014-2018) show a higher concentration of 1-star complaints. This may indicate either improved operations or selection bias in recent reviewers.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK: LOW—Reviews show genuine specificity, varied complaint types, and detailed narratives. No obvious repetitive phrasing or generic praise patterns detected. Negative reviews are detailed and credible.

This WW Score of 76.8 should be treated with caution despite HIGH overall confidence. The score is pulled down significantly by documented project completion failures and billing disputes that appear in multiple independent reviews. While the company excels at initial customer interaction and technical knowledge, the pattern of incomplete work and poor follow-through suggests real operational or quality control issues. Customers should expect strong initial service but should verify work completion and obtain clear written agreements on scope and pricing before engaging.

Preferred Plumbing & Drain has a large and broadly positive review base, with the majority of customers praising individual technicians for being professional, courteous, knowledgeable, and responsive — particularly for emergency and same-day service. However, a persistent and significant minority of negative reviews (spanning the full date range from 2012 to 2025) consistently cite no-show or late appointments, poor communication from dispatch, warranty disputes, and in some cases damage caused by inexperienced technicians that was not properly remediated. Pricing receives mixed signals: many reviewers call rates reasonable or competitive, while others describe bait-and-switch quoting, unexpected charges, and inflated estimates. Project completion is the most penalized dimension, as multiple reviews describe jobs left incomplete, recurring problems after service, and failure to honor warranties or follow up on callbacks. The company's responsiveness to escalated complaints (e.g., manager callbacks, refunds) is noted positively in several updated reviews, but the underlying operational inconsistency prevents a higher score.

• Several reviews from the 2021–2022 period and earlier use generic praise with no job-specific detail (e.g., 'Exelent work, professional and good to work with.' and 'The guys were very nice and professional.') — these may be low-effort or solicited reviews and were weighted conservatively.
• Two reviews appear to be near-duplicate submissions from the same user on the same date (2022-05-02, Traci) and were counted as one data point.
• Two reviews appear to be near-duplicate submissions from the same user describing the same plumbing nightmare incident (2021-03-02 and 2021-03-03) and were counted as one data point.
• A cluster of reviews from 2021-06-09 with no specific dates and minimal detail suggests possible batch submission or platform migration artifact — confidence in those specific reviews is reduced.
• One reviewer explicitly states they were offered a refund in exchange for removing their negative review, which is a significant ethical flag and suggests the company may attempt to manage its review profile.
• Recency note: Negative patterns (no-shows, late arrivals, warranty non-compliance, inexperienced technicians) are present across all date ranges including the most recent 12 months (2024–2025), indicating these are not historical issues that have been resolved.

This WW Score is based on a very large review set (290 reviews) spanning over a decade, giving it HIGH statistical confidence, but the score should be interpreted cautiously because the company shows a well-documented and persistent split between excellent individual technician performance and systemic operational failures around scheduling reliability, warranty follow-through, and pricing transparency.