Find Nearby Plumbers In Roseville, California

The overwhelming majority of reviews praise the professionalism, punctuality, and communication of individual technicians — particularly Chris, Shane, Nick, Vince, Oscar, Rick, and Mark — across what appears to be a network of plumbers operating under similar or shared branding. Pricing is generally described as fair and reasonable, though a meaningful minority of negative reviews cite price gouging, bait-and-switch tactics, and unexpected upcharges, which meaningfully suppresses the pricing score. Project completion is strong overall, with many reviewers noting jobs completed same-day or next-day, but recurring complaints about no-shows, missed appointments, and failure to follow through on callbacks — particularly from Rick and Shane in isolated incidents — prevent a higher score. Technical skill and problem-solving ability are consistently praised, with multiple reviewers noting that these plumbers solved problems others could not, though a small number of reviews describe substandard workmanship or incomplete repairs.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: Multiple reviews appear verbatim or near-verbatim across different dates, including the 'Jay and Professional Plumbing team / bathtub stopper' review appearing at least 3 times, the 'On time, quality work, friendly and knowledgeable' Nick/Dustin/Vince/Oscar review appearing twice, the 'Nice job and customer service' review appearing twice, the 'Absolutely the best you will ever find' review appearing twice, the 'Awesome service, they get the job done quickly' review appearing twice, the 'Professional Plumbing saved the day' review appearing twice, the 'Started noticing a knocking sound' review appearing twice, the 'We had a kitchen sink back-up on a Sunday' Oscar review appearing twice, the 'Prompt, honest, and professional service' review appearing twice, and the 'Mark was friendly and prompt' review appearing twice. This pattern strongly suggests review padding or platform aggregation artifacts and reduces overall confidence.
• MULTI-ENTITY AGGREGATION SUSPECTED: Reviews reference a wide range of technician names (Chris, Shane, Nick, Vince, Oscar, Rick, Mark, Beto, Robert, Jon, Tim, Carlos, Fabian, Dustin, Joey, Steve, Matthew, Ammon, Richard, William, Cody, Terrance, Domingo, Adrian, etc.) across geographically diverse locations (Riverside CA, Shoreline WA, El Paso TX, Barrington IL, Grosse Pointe MI, Auburn WA, Edmonds WA, etc.). This dataset almost certainly aggregates reviews from multiple distinct businesses operating under similar 'Professional Plumbing' or related names. Scores should be interpreted with caution as they may not reflect any single contractor.
• NEGATIVE REVIEW PATTERN — NO-SHOWS AND GHOSTING: At least 8-10 reviews describe technicians or the company failing to show up for scheduled appointments without notice, failing to return calls, or abandoning jobs mid-project. This is a significant operational reliability concern.
• NEGATIVE REVIEW PATTERN — PRICING COMPLAINTS: Multiple 1-star and 2-3 star reviews cite price gouging, bait-and-switch pricing (quoted one price, charged significantly more), excessive charges for simple jobs, and upselling unnecessary work. These complaints span multiple technicians and locations.
• NEGATIVE REVIEW PATTERN — POOR WORKMANSHIP IN ISOLATED CASES: Several reviews describe work that was not completed correctly, required callbacks that were not honored, or caused additional damage (e.g., leaking valves after installation, incorrect diagnosis, disconnected pipes left unrepaired).
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews are from 2024-2025, which is positive for recency weighting. However, negative patterns (no-shows, pricing issues) appear across all time periods including recent reviews, suggesting these are not isolated historical issues.
• ALL 5-STAR PATTERN WITH EMPTY REVIEWS: Approximately 20-25 reviews consist of only a star rating with no text. These provide no usable data and were excluded from dimension scoring but inflate the apparent review count.

This WW Score carries MODERATE-to-HIGH reliability for the positive dimensions of professionalism and technical experience, but the score is materially undermined by confirmed duplicate reviews, strong evidence of multi-entity aggregation across geographically distinct businesses, and a consistent minority pattern of serious complaints around pricing transparency, appointment reliability, and follow-through — meaning this score should not be used to evaluate any single contractor without first confirming which specific technician or business entity is being assessed.

Domco Plumbing demonstrates strong overall performance with a WW Score of 82.1, driven primarily by exceptional professionalism (87.5) and solid project completion (85.0). The company excels in punctuality, communication, and technical expertise, with 156 mentions of professional conduct and 142 mentions of reliable job completion. However, pricing emerges as a notable weakness (72.0), with 38 reviews citing concerns about high costs, unexpected charges, and unfavorable comparisons to competitors. While most reviews are recent and highly positive (predominantly 5-star), the pricing complaints and occasional service failures prevent a higher overall score.

• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: Reviews dated 2025-06-08, 2025-06-07, and 2025-06-06 contain nearly identical phrasing ('They were at our home in 15 minutes. The plumber was personable, highly efficient and hard working, and answered all questions in an informative and polite manner') appearing twice. Additionally, reviews dated 2025-06-05 and 2025-06-07 are word-for-word duplicates about Justin installing a kitchen faucet. These appear to be artificially inflated reviews. Confidence in recent scores slightly reduced.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS ARE CONSISTENT AND SPECIFIC: Multiple reviews (at least 8-10) explicitly mention overcharging, unexpected price increases, or quotes significantly higher than competitors. This is not isolated criticism but a recurring pattern. Examples include $600+ overcharges, $3,200 estimates vs. $200 actual cost elsewhere, and discrepancies between phone quotes and on-site pricing.
• NEGATIVE REVIEWS SHOW LEGITIMATE SERVICE FAILURES: Several 1-2 star reviews describe genuine problems: incomplete work requiring multiple visits, rude technician behavior, failure to respond to after-hours emergencies, and refusal to accommodate customer needs. These are not price-only complaints but reflect actual service quality issues.
• RECENCY BIAS: Approximately 70% of reviews are from June 2024 onwards, with a heavy concentration in June 2024 and May-June 2025. Older reviews (2013-2022) show more balanced criticism. The recent surge in 5-star reviews combined with detected duplicate/similar phrasing suggests possible review manipulation.
• MINOR INCONSISTENCY IN PROFESSIONALISM: While professionalism scores high overall, 3-4 reviews mention rude or dismissive technicians, and 2-3 reviews cite poor communication or missed appointments. This suggests inconsistency in staff quality or training.

This WW Score of 82.1 is moderately reliable but should be interpreted with caution due to detected fake review patterns and a significant concentration of recent reviews that may not reflect long-term performance. The pricing weakness (72.0) is well-supported by consistent, specific complaints and should be weighted heavily in decision-making. Professionalism and project completion scores are robust across a large sample, but customers should expect potential pricing surprises and verify quotes carefully before committing to service.

Ted's Plumbing demonstrates strong overall performance across all four dimensions, with particular strength in professionalism (85.2) and pricing (84.6). The company excels at responsiveness, punctuality, and fair pricing, with extensive evidence of same-day or next-day service and transparent quotes. Project completion scores (81.5) reflect generally reliable work, though a small number of negative reviews indicate occasional scheduling issues and follow-up problems. Experience and workmanship are consistently praised (83.8), with customers noting skilled technicians and quality installations. The WW Score of 82.1 reflects a trustworthy, competent contractor with minor reliability concerns that prevent a higher rating.

• NEGATIVE REVIEW PATTERN: 11 one-star reviews (8.5% of total) reveal recurring issues with reliability, scheduling, and customer service recovery. Specific concerns include: multiple instances of last-minute cancellations or no-shows (2017-09-11, 2020-05-02), failure to respond to callbacks (2021-04-22, 2018-10-16), and poor handling of service failures (2020-12-08 flood incident with aggressive response, 2019-04-29 water heater installation defect with dismissive warranty claim, 2019-03-27 alleged price gouging mid-job).
• CONSISTENCY ISSUE: While 119 reviews (91.5%) are 5-star with strong praise, the 11 negative reviews suggest service quality and customer service are inconsistent. Negative reviews span from 2011 to 2020, indicating this is not a recent problem but a persistent pattern.
• RECENCY CONSIDERATION: Most reviews (approximately 75%) are from 2020 onwards, with heavy concentration in 2021-2024. Older negative reviews (2015-2019) may reflect past business practices, but recent negative reviews (2020-12-08, 2020-05-02) suggest ongoing issues.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW RISK - MODERATE: The overwhelming majority of 5-star reviews with highly positive language and similar phrasing patterns (e.g., 'highly recommend,' 'honest,' 'fair pricing,' 'professional') could suggest some reviews are solicited or curated. However, the presence of detailed, specific negative reviews with concrete complaints (flood damage, installation defects, scheduling failures) indicates the review set is not entirely fabricated. The negative reviews appear authentic and provide counterbalance.
• CUSTOMER SERVICE RECOVERY FAILURE: Multiple reviews indicate Ted's Plumbing does not handle complaints well. When issues arise (flood damage, defective work, scheduling failures), the response has been dismissive, aggressive, or non-responsive rather than remedial. This is a significant red flag for reliability.

This WW Score of 82.1 should be trusted with MODERATE-TO-HIGH confidence for routine plumbing work, but customers should be aware that approximately 8.5% of reviews report serious reliability and customer service issues, particularly around scheduling consistency and handling of service failures; the company excels at technical competence and pricing but shows vulnerability in accountability and follow-through on problem resolution.

Hopper's Plumbing demonstrates strong overall performance with particular strengths in professionalism (88.5) and technical expertise (87.0), supported by extensive evidence across 67 and 52 reviews respectively. Project completion scores solidly at 85.5 with 58 mentions, indicating reliable follow-through on jobs. However, pricing emerges as a notable weakness at 72.0, with multiple recent complaints (2024, 2016) about unexpectedly high invoices, lack of upfront quotes, and billing transparency issues. The company excels at punctuality, responsiveness, and quality workmanship but struggles with cost communication and invoice justification.

• PRICING CONCERN: Two detailed 1-star reviews from 2024 and 2016 cite significant billing disputes—one involving a $1000 invoice with no itemized labor/parts breakdown and another a $840 charge for a $100 part with 2 hours of hold time. These suggest systemic issues with quote transparency and cost justification.
• FOLLOW-UP FAILURE: One 2-star review (2014-01-03) documents a promised callback for a leaking valve that never materialized after nearly a year, and subsequent contact attempts went unanswered for three weeks. This contradicts the otherwise strong project completion record.
• GENERIC/MINIMAL REVIEWS: Approximately 15 reviews contain only single words ('unknown', 'professional', 'perfect', '.') or minimal text, reducing data quality. These are included in mention counts but provide limited substantive evidence.
• RECENCY BIAS: Most detailed positive reviews are from 2012–2020. Recent reviews (2024) show emerging customer dissatisfaction with billing practices, suggesting potential service degradation or changing business practices.
• NO FAKE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: While many reviews are positive, they contain specific details (names, job types, timelines, technical issues) and vary in language, indicating authentic customer experiences rather than fabricated reviews.

This WW Score of 82.1 is reliable for assessing technical competence and professionalism but should be interpreted with caution regarding pricing fairness; the company's cost communication and billing transparency appear to be genuine weaknesses that may not be fully captured by the overall score, and prospective customers should request detailed written estimates before work begins.

Sam's Plumbing Services demonstrates strong overall performance with a WW Score of 82.1. Professionalism is a clear strength, with 62 mentions highlighting responsiveness, punctuality, courteous demeanor, and clear communication. Project completion is equally robust with 71 mentions confirming reliable job finishing, same-day or next-day service, and follow-through on callbacks. Experience scores well at 85.1 based on 48 mentions of technical skill, problem-solving ability, and quality workmanship. Pricing is the weakest dimension at 76.5, with 28 mentions revealing mixed sentiment—while many customers praise fair and reasonable rates, several negative reviews cite significant overcharging (e.g., $2,900 vs. $400 quote, $275 for a 20-minute job), creating pricing inconsistency concerns.

• PRICING INCONSISTENCY: Multiple reviews allege significant overcharging. One customer reported a $2,900 quote for work another plumber completed for $400. Another criticized a $275 quote for a simple 20-minute showerhead/faucet install. These outliers suggest either variable pricing practices or selective targeting of certain customers.
• QUALITY CONTROL ISSUES: Three 1-star reviews (June 21, June 21, March 2, 2023) describe technical incompetence—failure to properly diagnose drain connections, lack of follow-up after customer feedback, and fundamental misunderstanding of pipe types. One customer stated 'he doesn't know the difference of any type of pipes' and 'makes mistakes and runs.'
• SUBCONTRACTING CONCERN: One review (Dec 18, 2022) reports Sam subcontracted work to an unnamed plumbing company without clear disclosure. The subcontractors did not identify as affiliated with Sam's Plumbing, did not perform the requested service (power snaking), and the customer felt misled.
• CALLBACK FAILURE: One review (June 21, 2024) describes a failed callback—customer called and texted after Sam left, but he did not return the call or reach out to explain a better solution.
• FIRST REVIEW APPEARS SUSPICIOUS: The earliest review (Nov 8, 2024) contains poor grammar ('flufdded,' 'sok,' 'belongens,' 'pond of mud') and vague language ('i smiled') with no substantive detail. This may be a fake or low-quality review, though it is 5-star and does not contradict the overall pattern.
• RECENCY BIAS: Most reviews are from 2020–2024, with strong concentration in 2022–2024. Only 3 reviews predate 2020. Recent reviews (past 12 months) are predominantly 5-star with few critical mentions, which may reflect selection bias or improved service over time.
• WATER HEATER INCIDENT (June 21, 2023): One 4-star review describes an expansion tank explosion that sprayed sediment and yellow water on the customer's face. While the company responded professionally and fixed subsequent leaks, this incident suggests potential safety or technical execution issues.

This WW Score of 82.1 is reliable at the HIGH confidence level for professionalism, project completion, and experience dimensions, supported by 48–71 mentions each. However, the overall score is tempered by legitimate concerns about pricing consistency and quality control. The pricing dimension (76.5, MODERATE confidence) is particularly unreliable due to only 28 mentions and conflicting evidence of both fair rates and significant overcharges. Customers should request detailed written quotes and compare with other providers before committing, especially for larger jobs. The three 1-star technical competence reviews and one subcontracting complaint warrant caution; while they represent a small minority, they suggest inconsistent quality or selective service delivery. For emergency response and professionalism, Sam's Plumbing is highly trustworthy; for pricing transparency and guaranteed technical expertise, additional due diligence is recommended.

Eagle Plumbing demonstrates strong overall performance with a WW Score of 82.1. Professionalism is a clear strength, with 62 mentions highlighting punctuality, friendly demeanor, communication, and courteous behavior across numerous reviews. Project completion is solid with 58 mentions showing jobs finished on time and follow-through honored. Technical experience is well-documented with 45 mentions of skilled workmanship and problem-solving. However, pricing emerges as a notable weakness with 18 mentions revealing significant customer concerns about overcharging, markup on parts, and rates that some customers felt were excessive relative to work performed. Several customers explicitly noted being charged substantially more than expected or more than competitors.

• PRICING CONCERN: Multiple reviews (at least 5) explicitly cite overcharging or unfair pricing practices. Examples include: $495 for <1 hour work with $65 part marked up 7.6x; $350 for 20-minute job (~$900/hour); $185 for 1 hour water heater strap installation vs. $95 quote; customer noting prices have 'gone way up' after years of service. This pattern suggests inconsistent or aggressive pricing practices.
• NEGATIVE OUTLIER REVIEWS: Four 1-star reviews present serious concerns: (1) Technician showed annoyance, threw 'tantrum,' left job incomplete, manager never followed up; (2) Customer unable to reach company on Sunday, no callback; (3) Customer claims incomplete repair and overcharging for parts; (4) Customer claims scam-like practices and incomplete work. These suggest occasional service failures and communication breakdowns.
• RECENCY BIAS: Majority of reviews are from 2017-2024, with strongest positive reviews concentrated in 2019-2024. Older reviews (2013-2016) are uniformly positive, suggesting either improved service recently or selection bias in recent reviews.
• CONSISTENCY VARIANCE: While most reviews praise the same company, the 1-star reviews describe experiences dramatically inconsistent with 5-star reviews (unprofessional behavior, incomplete work, poor follow-up). This suggests either highly variable service quality depending on technician assigned, or occasional serious lapses in management/quality control.

This WW Score of 82.1 is reliable with HIGH overall confidence due to large sample size (80 reviews) and consistent mention patterns across dimensions. However, the pricing dimension (MODERATE confidence, 18 mentions) significantly drags the overall score and should be weighted heavily in decision-making—multiple customers report feeling overcharged, and this is a legitimate concern despite strong professionalism ratings. The four 1-star reviews describing service failures and poor follow-up suggest occasional but serious lapses; customers should verify specific technician assignments and obtain detailed written quotes before committing.