Find Nearby Plumbers In Roseville, California

All three reviews are positive, but the dataset is very small and detail is sparse. Professionalism is the best-supported dimension, with all three reviews touching on customer service, responsiveness, or attitude. Pricing is mentioned only once ('affordable'), making that score highly tentative. Project completion is supported by two reviews — one describing a completed duct and dryer vent cleaning with a same-day follow-up fix, and one mentioning a water heater and AC replacement — but neither provides detail on timeliness or full scope delivery. Experience is inferred from two reviews describing technical work (AC leak diagnosis and fix, HVAC/plumbing installation), though no reviewer elaborates on workmanship quality in depth.

• Only 3 reviews total — WW Score should be treated as preliminary and unreliable for decision-making.
• One review (2024-05-27) is extremely vague ('deepest situations') with no actionable detail — it contributes almost no scorable information.
• All reviews are 5-star with broadly positive language and limited specifics, which is a mild pattern consistent with either genuine satisfaction or selectively curated reviews. Cannot confirm fake reviews, but specificity is low.
• Review dates span from December 2023 to November 2024 — the most recent review is within the past 12 months, but the sample size is too small to draw recency-weighted conclusions.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews with limited detail across all dimensions and should not be considered a reliable indicator of contractor quality without a substantially larger and more descriptive review sample.

ABT Plumbing receives consistently positive marks for professionalism and attitude — technicians are frequently described as polite, friendly, timely, and respectful — but this is significantly undermined by a serious and recurring pattern of pricing complaints. Multiple reviewers across different years explicitly describe charges they considered excessive, non-transparent, or predatory, including a $125 diagnostic fee, a $450 faucet installation, a $700 drain snake quote, and a $4,500 water heater package, with one reviewer finding the same job done elsewhere for $225. Project completion scores are moderately positive, with several jobs described as completed well and on time, though the volume of customers who declined service due to pricing means fewer jobs were actually seen through. Experience scores are reasonable, with reviewers noting thorough and skilled work when jobs were completed, but the sample is partially skewed by older reviews and personal referrals.

• Three reviews posted on the same date (2014-10-30) with similarly generic praise and no specific job details — possible coordinated or solicited reviews; these were scored conservatively.
• Two of the three same-day 2014 reviews reference knowing Andrew personally, which raises a conflict-of-interest concern and reduces their evidentiary weight.
• The majority of positive reviews are from 2014–2020; the two most recent reviews (2022 and 2023) are both 1-star pricing complaints, suggesting a possible decline in value or pricing practices over time.
• Recency bias applied: reviews from 2022–2023 were weighted more heavily per Rule 6, and both are strongly negative on pricing.
• A clear pattern of pricing complaints targeting elderly or senior customers appears across at least two independent reviews, which is a notable reputational and ethical flag.

This WW Score is based on 13 reviews with usable data across all four dimensions and carries HIGH overall confidence in its directional accuracy, though the score should be interpreted cautiously given the concentration of positive reviews in older years and the presence of suspected solicited reviews from 2014.

AP Plumbing receives broadly positive marks for professionalism and technician demeanor — the majority of substantive reviews praise individual technicians as courteous, punctual, and communicative — but this is heavily counterbalanced by a very large volume of serious pricing complaints spanning the entire review history. Pricing is the single most-mentioned dimension and is overwhelmingly negative: dozens of reviewers across many years describe charges they consider grossly inflated for simple jobs (e.g., $400+ for a 15-minute faucet swap, $800–$2,000 to clear a drain, $1,200+ for a garbage disposal install), and multiple reviewers explicitly accuse the company of targeting elderly or vulnerable customers. Project completion is moderate: most jobs are finished, but there are meaningful complaints about return visits for the same problem, abandoned work orders, no-shows, and at least one case of a gas leak caused by improper installation. Technical experience is generally rated positively by satisfied customers, though several reviews describe technicians who failed to diagnose problems that were quickly found by others, undermining confidence in consistency.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: Multiple reviews appear to be exact word-for-word duplicates posted on different dates within the same week (e.g., the Kendal Rosa review from 2025-06-09 and 2025-06-06 are identical; the 'On their second trip back' 1-star review appears twice; the 'KendL was very professional' review appears twice; the 'Really enjoyed my experience with Kendal Rosa' review appears twice; the 'David was great' review appears twice; the 'Kendal solved the issue' review appears twice; the 'Honest work done well' review appears twice). This is a strong indicator of review manipulation or platform duplication artifacts. Confidence in the June 2025 review cluster is reduced.
• LARGE VOLUME OF BLANK REVIEWS: Approximately 20+ reviews contain no text and only a 5-star rating. These provide no usable data and were excluded from dimension scoring. Their presence in high concentration around specific date clusters (June 2025, May 2025) is consistent with fake review padding patterns.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS ARE SYSTEMIC AND SPAN OVER 15 YEARS (2006–2025): This is not an isolated pattern. Dozens of independent reviewers across multiple platforms and time periods describe the same core complaint — high flat-rate pricing, $89 dispatch fees, and charges perceived as exploitative for short or simple jobs. This is a structural business practice, not an anomaly.
• MANAGEMENT CONDUCT COMPLAINTS: Multiple reviews specifically name a manager ('Jason') as rude, dismissive, and unwilling to resolve legitimate complaints. One review describes a gas leak caused by improper installation followed by inadequate customer service response. These are serious operational red flags.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent reviews (2025) are heavily skewed toward 5-star ratings, many of which are blank or duplicated. Reviews from 2019–2024 contain a disproportionately high volume of 1-star pricing and professionalism complaints. The recent positive cluster should be treated with skepticism given the duplication evidence.
• ELDERLY TARGETING ALLEGATIONS: At least four independent reviews explicitly state that AP Plumbing took financial advantage of elderly or fixed-income customers. This is a serious reputational and ethical flag.
• INCOMPLETE WORK / CALLBACK FAILURES: Multiple reviews describe jobs that were not fixed on the first visit, return visits that introduced new problems, and instances where the company refused to honor callbacks without additional dispatch fees.

This WW Score is based on a very large review set spanning over 15 years and carries HIGH statistical confidence in its dimensions, but the score should be interpreted cautiously given strong evidence of duplicate and blank review padding in recent months, systemic pricing complaints that are deeply consistent across independent reviewers, and serious isolated incidents involving gas leaks, abandoned work, and alleged elder financial exploitation.

Metro Plumbing receives generally positive marks for professionalism, with multiple reviewers citing courteous, on-time, and communicative technicians across many years of reviews. However, pricing is a notable weak point: two separate reviewers explicitly called out overcharging or deceptive billing practices, and one detailed review described a significant upcharge for a minor additional task that soured an otherwise positive experience. Project completion is mostly positive, with jobs generally described as finished and functional, but one review (the 2013 home warranty case) involved a plumber who declined to fix the core issue and was later found to have misdiagnosed it. Experience scores moderately well, with several reviewers praising quality workmanship and technical knowledge, though the misdiagnosis incident and the 2019 drain-plunging complaint temper that score meaningfully.

• Several reviews are extremely old (2004–2006) and carry very low relevance to current business quality; these were included in counts but should be treated with caution.
• The 'unknown' review (2005) with a 5-star rating and no text was excluded from usable data as it provides no scorable information.
• Reviews from 2004 use all-caps formatting and are extremely brief, which may indicate a different review collection system rather than fake reviews, but they add minimal signal.
• The most recent negative review (2019) and the 2013 home warranty review both describe potential deceptive or exploitative pricing behavior — this is a meaningful pattern across different time periods.
• Only one review is from the past 12 months (June 2024), making it difficult to assess current business performance with confidence. The majority of reviews are 4–20 years old.
• No fake review pattern detected, but the review set is sparse and heavily skewed toward older dates, significantly limiting reliability.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability due to the heavy concentration of very old reviews (most predating 2020), a thin recent review base of only one review in the past 12 months, and documented pricing complaints that suggest inconsistent billing practices across multiple independent reviewers.

This contractor's review set is deeply mixed, with a clear divide between older positive reviews (mostly 2011–2013) and more recent negative reviews (2019–2022). Professionalism is significantly dragged down by multiple accounts of no-shows, missed appointments, poor dispatcher communication, and a manager who dismissed a customer's legitimate complaint. Pricing is a major concern, with several reviewers explicitly calling out prices as excessive — $325 to snake a drain, $750 for a routine job — and one reviewer finding a competitor $200 cheaper for the same work. Project completion suffers from documented cases of abandoned or incomplete work, a technician arriving without supplies, and a sewer repair job that was done incorrectly and required a second contractor to fix. On the positive side, several older reviews praise individual technicians as knowledgeable, professional, and thorough, which keeps the experience score from falling further.

• RECENCY CONCERN: The majority of positive reviews are from 2011–2013, making them 10+ years old. The most recent reviews (2019–2022) are predominantly negative (1-star). This suggests a possible decline in service quality over time and the older positive reviews should be weighted significantly less.
• GENERIC REVIEWS FLAGGED: Several reviews contain no usable detail — 'unknown' (x2), 'Awesome job guys.', 'They were excellent.', 'They are excellent.' — these were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no evidence for any specific dimension.
• POSSIBLE FAKE OR INCENTIVIZED REVIEWS: The cluster of vague 5-star reviews from 2012–2013 with no specifics is suspicious. Phrases like 'They were excellent' with no context may inflate the historical positive signal.
• DISPATCHER/SCHEDULING SYSTEM FAILURE: Multiple independent reviewers (at least 3) describe a broken appointment and dispatch system where the call center and dispatcher are not coordinated, resulting in repeated no-shows and reschedules. This is a systemic operational issue, not an isolated incident.
• WORKMANSHIP FAILURE DOCUMENTED: At least one review describes a sewer repair that was done incorrectly (confirmed by a subsequent plumber), a trench left improperly filled causing ground sinkage, and a sink mechanism left dirty and non-functional after service.

This WW Score is based on 31 reviews with reasonable mention counts across all four dimensions, yielding HIGH confidence mathematically, but the score's trustworthiness is tempered by the strong recency bias toward negative experiences and the presence of several vague, detail-free older positive reviews that may not reflect current service quality.

Budget Rooter presents a deeply polarized review profile with a large volume of 1-star reviews describing serious, recurring failures across all dimensions. The most dominant pattern in negative reviews is a near-total breakdown in communication — customers across many years and many states report unanswered phones, full voicemail boxes, unreturned calls, and no-shows for scheduled appointments. Project completion is severely impacted, with dozens of reviews describing jobs that were never finished, parts never ordered or delivered, and customers left without hot water or functioning toilets for weeks or months. Professionalism scores are dragged down by multiple accounts of rude office staff (particularly a woman named Shelly), technicians who misdiagnosed problems, falsified reports to home warranty companies, and in some cases aggressive or threatening behavior. Pricing and experience scores receive partial credit from a meaningful minority of positive reviews praising specific technicians (Darek, Les, Mike, Austin, Carlos, Dustin) who were described as knowledgeable, efficient, and fairly priced — but these positives are substantially outweighed by accounts of egregious overcharging, fraudulent upselling, and incompetent diagnoses.

• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — MODERATE: A cluster of 5-star reviews dated 2022-06-10, 2023-06-10, 2021-06-10, and 2020-06-10 contain no review text (blank body) with only a star rating. These are not usable for scoring and may represent artificially inflated ratings.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — MODERATE: Several very brief, generic 5-star reviews ('Great people', 'Very professional and courteous', 'Fast reliable service', 'Excellent work performed quickly') with no specifics, no technician names, and no job details appear clustered around the same dates and may not reflect genuine customer experiences.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: Two reviews with nearly identical text describing overcharging on a water heater installation (drip pan $250, earthquake straps $145, etc.) appear with different dates (2024-11-10 and 2024-10-11) and slightly different ratings. This may be a duplicate submission and was counted only once for scoring.
• RECENCY NOTE: The review corpus spans from 2010 to 2025. Reviews from 2025 (past 12 months) are mixed but include both strong positives and strong negatives, suggesting the company's inconsistency has persisted into the present day. No clear improvement trend is visible in recent reviews.
• SYSTEMIC PATTERN — HIGH CONCERN: An overwhelming number of negative reviews (spanning 2019–2025) describe the exact same failure mode: no answer on phones, voicemail full, no callbacks, no-shows, and jobs abandoned mid-service. This is not isolated — it is a structural operational failure that has persisted for years.
• FRAUD ALLEGATIONS: Multiple reviewers allege that Budget Rooter submitted false diagnoses or false completion reports to home warranty companies (AHS, Fidelity) in order to deny claims or collect payment for work not performed. One reviewer alleges the company claimed to have completed a repair they never returned to do. These are serious allegations that materially affect trustworthiness.
• HOME WARRANTY DEPENDENCY: The vast majority of reviews — both positive and negative — involve customers assigned to Budget Rooter through American Home Shield (AHS) or Fidelity Home Warranty. This context is important: many negative experiences may be compounded by home warranty restrictions, but the communication and no-show failures are clearly attributable to Budget Rooter directly.
• OWNER CONDUCT CONCERN: One reviewer alleges the owner (Randy) personally showed up at their home after a negative review was posted, which if accurate represents a serious boundary violation and intimidation concern.

This WW Score of 52.1 is based on a large, high-volume dataset and carries HIGH statistical confidence, but the score should be interpreted as a warning signal — the company demonstrates a well-documented, multi-year pattern of communication failures, abandoned jobs, and alleged fraudulent reporting that makes it a high-risk choice for any plumbing service.