Find Nearby Plumbers In Roseville, California

Prudent Plumbing (Bob) earns strong scores across all four dimensions, driven by an exceptionally large and detailed review base spanning over a decade. Professionalism is the standout dimension, with the overwhelming majority of reviewers explicitly praising punctuality, responsiveness, courteous communication, and a willingness to go above and beyond — including phone consultations and callbacks at no charge. Pricing scores well but is tempered by two notable complaints: one reviewer felt charged excessively for a 30-minute job ($450), and another was billed at an undisclosed emergency rate for a return visit, reducing the pricing score from what would otherwise be near-perfect. Project completion is very strong, with dozens of reviewers confirming jobs were finished same-day or next-day, on-budget, and with follow-through on callbacks and warranty work — though one reviewer reported a non-returned call and one reported a decline in service quality over time. Experience scores are high, supported by multiple reviewers describing Bob diagnosing complex problems quickly, outperforming competing plumber quotes, and solving issues others said were unfixable.

• One 1-star review (2021-09-13) alleges Bob charged $450 for approximately 30 minutes of work on a pre-cleared job site, calling him 'slightly short of a thief.' This is a credible, specific complaint and meaningfully impacts the pricing score.
• One 2-star review (2016-07-01) describes a return visit where Bob charged an undisclosed emergency service rate ($220) for a repeat repair on a part he had previously fixed, without informing the customer of the premium rate upfront. This is a transparency concern.
• One 1-star review (2014-11-20) reports Bob failed to return a phone call despite being booked out. One 3-star review (2013-06-23) notes a decline in service quality compared to prior visits. These suggest occasional inconsistency.
• One review (2015-05-19, 4 stars) notes Bob declined a job as too small and out of area, which is a minor service limitation but handled professionally.
• Several reviews mention Kyle Frasch (Bob's son) performing work. These reviews were included where they reflect on the business overall, but scores are primarily anchored to Bob's direct service.
• The review corpus spans 2010–2024. The majority of reviews are older than 3 years. Only 3 reviews are from the past 12 months (2024: 2 reviews, 2023: 2 reviews). Recency is limited; recent performance cannot be fully verified from this dataset.
• No fake review patterns detected. Reviews are highly varied in length, detail, specificity, and tone. Negative reviews are present and credible. The corpus appears authentic.

This WW Score is based on 75 reviews with a high volume of detailed, specific, and credible feedback across all four dimensions, making it one of the more reliable scores possible — however, the limited number of recent reviews (past 12 months) and two credible pricing complaints introduce moderate uncertainty about current pricing transparency and consistency.

Nelson's Plumbing demonstrates strong overall performance across all measured dimensions. Professionalism is a clear strength, with 26 reviews explicitly praising punctuality, responsiveness, communication, and courteous behavior. Project completion is solid with 18 mentions of timely work and thorough problem-solving, though two significant no-show incidents (2025-01-10 and 2018-07-25) create notable reliability concerns. Pricing receives consistent praise for fairness and transparency across 11 mentions, with customers frequently noting competitive rates compared to competitors. Technical expertise is well-documented with 15 mentions of skilled diagnostics and quality workmanship. The company's main vulnerability is appointment reliability, evidenced by two separate 1-star reviews citing no-shows despite otherwise strong performance metrics.

• Two critical no-show incidents (1-star reviews from 2025-01-10 and 2018-07-25) significantly undermine reliability claims despite overwhelmingly positive other reviews. These are not isolated complaints but represent serious project completion failures.
• Multiple reviews from 2024-08-13 and 2024-09-12 show clustering that could suggest batch posting, though content varies sufficiently to appear authentic rather than fabricated.
• Two reviews contain no text (2025-03-11 and 2024-11-11), limiting ability to verify quality of those ratings.
• Older reviews (2018-2020) are present but most actionable data comes from 2024-2025, which is appropriate for current assessment.
• Review mentions multiple plumber names (Colton, Nelson, Frank, Cohen, Eric) suggesting either multiple staff members or potential name inconsistencies that warrant clarification.

This score should be trusted with HIGH confidence for professionalism and experience dimensions, but the two documented no-show incidents create material risk that actual project completion reliability may be lower than the 85.0 score suggests; prospective customers should specifically inquire about appointment confirmation procedures and cancellation policies.

Local Plumbing Services demonstrates strong performance across all dimensions with consistently positive feedback. Professionalism is a clear strength, with 22 mentions highlighting punctuality, friendly demeanor, responsiveness, and communication. Project completion is well-documented with 18 mentions showing jobs finished on time and on budget. Pricing receives solid marks from 11 mentions emphasizing fair, reasonable, and competitive rates. Experience is validated through 12 mentions of skilled technicians, problem-solving ability, and technical knowledge. However, two negative reviews (1-star ratings from 2024 and 2019) present serious concerns regarding pricing transparency and appointment reliability that temper overall confidence.

• CRITICAL: One 1-star review (2024-08-26) alleges outrageous pricing ($7,000-$8,000 quote after $700 diagnostic charge) and poor workmanship (unnecessary digging). This directly contradicts the dominant narrative of fair pricing and suggests potential pricing inconsistency or predatory practices toward vulnerable customers (senior citizens).
• CRITICAL: One 1-star review (2019-07-28) reports no-show to scheduled estimate appointment, indicating reliability issues with appointment management.
• PATTERN CONCERN: 28 of 33 reviews are 5-star ratings with predominantly generic praise language ('highly recommend,' 'excellent service,' 'professional'). While many reviews contain specific details, the concentration of 5-star ratings with minimal critical feedback is atypical and may indicate selective review posting or review management.
• RECENCY NOTE: Most reviews (24 of 33) are from 2024-2025, providing current data. However, the two negative reviews span 2019-2024, suggesting potential ongoing issues rather than isolated incidents.
• EMPTY REVIEWS: Two reviews (2024-08-13 and 2024-06-09) contain no text, only 5-star ratings, reducing data quality slightly.

This WW Score of 87.2 should be treated with MODERATE-TO-HIGH caution: while the volume of positive, detailed reviews and consistency across dimensions support a strong score, the presence of two serious negative reviews alleging pricing manipulation and no-show appointments—combined with an unusually high concentration of generic 5-star praise—suggests the true performance may be more variable than the aggregate score indicates, particularly regarding pricing transparency and appointment reliability for certain customer segments.

Veterans Plumbing demonstrates strong overall performance across all four dimensions. Professionalism is a clear strength, with 89 mentions highlighting punctuality, communication, courtesy, and responsiveness. Project completion is solid with 78 mentions showing reliable follow-through and quality work. Experience is well-documented with 68 mentions of skilled technicians and effective problem-solving. Pricing receives 52 mentions and scores slightly lower, reflecting some customer concerns about cost on basic jobs, though most reviews praise fair and competitive rates. The company shows consistent excellence with named technicians (Ian, Hasib, Scott, Toven, etc.) receiving repeated praise.

• Duplicate review detected: Two nearly identical reviews from 2024-06-25 about John's water softener installation and Ian's professional service. This suggests possible review duplication rather than fake reviews.
• Negative outliers present: 5 reviews with ratings of 1-2 stars (2024-09-12 faucet seal issue, 2024-08-20 missed quote, 2023-11-16 mobile home refusal, 2023-10-23 slow drain diagnosis, 2019-04-26 drain weasel overcharge, 2018-12-07 rude technician, 2021-06-30 insurance claim issue, 2014-11-17 office staff issues). These are legitimate complaints with specific details and should not be dismissed.
• Recency note: Majority of reviews (approximately 70%) are from 2021 onwards, with strong concentration in 2024-2025. Reviews older than 2015 are sparse. This provides good current data.
• Service area inconsistency: One 1-star review (2023-11-16) explicitly states the company refuses service to mobile home residents despite customer being a veteran. This is a significant policy issue that contradicts the company's veteran-focused mission.
• Quality control variance: While most reviews praise specific technicians by name, the negative reviews suggest inconsistent service quality depending on which technician is assigned or which department (office vs. field) handles the interaction.

This WW Score of 84.2 is highly reliable, based on 125 reviews with strong data across all four dimensions (52-89 mentions each). The company demonstrates genuine strengths in professionalism and project completion, though pricing concerns and documented service refusals to certain customer types (mobile homes) warrant caution. The score reflects a solid, experienced contractor with generally excellent field technicians but occasional office/management issues and rare instances of poor workmanship or unprofessional behavior.

Jung/Ryu Plumbing demonstrates strong overall performance across all dimensions, with particular strength in professionalism (88.5), where responsiveness, punctuality, and courteous demeanor are consistently praised across 58 reviews. Project completion scores 82.5 based on 51 mentions, reflecting reliable follow-through and same-day/next-day service delivery. Pricing is fair and competitive (81.0 across 42 mentions), though one review cited a $300 quote for drain cleaning that was deemed excessive. Experience scores 79.0 based on 28 mentions, showing solid technical competence, though two negative reviews (2016 and 2015) raised concerns about problem-solving limitations and equipment adequacy in complex situations. The business demonstrates exceptional consistency and customer loyalty over a 14-year review period.

• Two significant negative reviews (2015 and 2016) describe serious technical failures: one involved a snake becoming stuck in pipes causing $900 in additional damage; another indicated lack of creative problem-solving for a shower issue. These suggest limitations in handling complex or unusual situations.
• One 1-star review (2022) reported a $300 quote for drain cleaning that customer found excessive ($150 elsewhere), indicating potential pricing inconsistency or overquoting on certain service types.
• One 1-star review (2017) involved a broken verbal commitment to meet a customer traveling 400 miles, suggesting occasional reliability lapses in scheduling.
• The vast majority of reviews (64 of 67) are 5-star ratings with highly positive language. While this reflects genuine customer satisfaction, the uniformity is notable. However, the three negative reviews appear authentic with specific technical details, and the positive reviews contain varied, specific examples of work performed, reducing concern about fabrication.
• Most reviews are older than 12 months (reviews span 2013-2023, with concentration in 2014-2017). Only 8 reviews are from 2022-2023. Recent performance data is limited.

This WW Score of 84.2 is highly reliable, based on 67 reviews with strong mention counts across all dimensions (28-58 mentions each). The score reflects genuine strengths in professionalism and responsiveness, balanced against documented weaknesses in complex problem-solving and occasional pricing/scheduling inconsistencies. However, the age of most reviews (pre-2020) means current service quality may differ; recent performance should be verified independently.

Jacob's plumbing business demonstrates strong overall performance across all dimensions. Professionalism is consistently praised with mentions of punctuality, responsiveness, politeness, and a willingness to take responsibility for mistakes. Experience and technical knowledge are well-documented through multiple complex projects spanning years. Pricing is characterized as reasonable and fair relative to competitors. However, one critical 1-star review from 2013 documents a significant responsiveness failure where the contractor did not return calls despite explicit requests, substantially offsetting otherwise excellent ratings. The majority of reviews are older than 5 years, which limits recency assessment.

• One blank review (only a period and 5-star rating) on 2016-08-31 appears suspicious and was excluded from scoring
• Cluster of three reviews from 2016-08-31 with identical dates suggests possible batch entry or data artifact
• Most reviews are 5+ years old (2013-2017); only one review from 2020 provides recent performance data
• One critical 1-star review (2013) documents failure to return customer calls, indicating potential responsiveness issues despite otherwise strong professionalism scores
• The 2016 review is exceptionally long and detailed with specific problem-resolution narrative; while credible, it dominates the experience dimension

This score should be treated with moderate caution due to review age (most data pre-2018) and the presence of one serious responsiveness failure that contradicts the otherwise uniformly positive feedback; the HIGH confidence reflects adequate mention counts, but recency concerns and the unresolved responsiveness issue suggest validating current performance before engaging.