Find Nearby Plumbers In Sacramento, California

New Flow Plumbing has a strong overall track record built on a large volume of reviews spanning nearly a decade. Professionalism scores well but is meaningfully dragged down by several credible negative reviews describing unprofessional behavior: a technician smelling of marijuana, a worker littering on a customer's property, a tech arriving without a mask, and a serious complaint about an owner allegedly refusing to reinstall a toilet unless the customer agreed to a $3,400 job. Pricing is the weakest dimension — while many reviewers praise fair or competitive pricing, multiple credible negative reviews cite high flat rates ($249–$275 for drain clearing), an undisclosed 3% credit card surcharge, and one reviewer describing charges as 'astronomical.' Project completion is strong, with the vast majority of reviews confirming jobs were finished same-day or next-day, though the detailed 1-star review from 2023 describes two days of failed attempts and an abandoned job. Experience is consistently praised across many reviews, with technicians frequently described as knowledgeable, skilled, and capable of solving complex problems.

• Two reviews contain no text — only a star rating (one 1-star, one 5-star dated 2025-03-11). These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data.
• One review (Pete replacing windows, 2020-07-18) appears to describe a window installation service, not plumbing. This may be a misattributed review or indicate the business operates across multiple trades. Treated with caution.
• Two reviews for 'art and Arman' (2024-09-12 and 2024-09-06) are nearly identical in phrasing and content, suggesting possible duplicate or artificially boosted entries. Confidence slightly reduced for those specific data points.
• The 2023-01-04 1-star review is highly detailed and credible, describing a two-day service failure, an owner refusing to reinstall a removed toilet, and alleged price coercion. The owner's public reply was noted but did not substantively refute the core claims. This review carries significant weight.
• The 2018-04-06 1-star review describes a technician who did not quote a price upfront, failed to fix the problem, and misdiagnosed the issue. This is consistent with the undisclosed credit card surcharge complaint (2022-06-08), suggesting a recurring pattern of pricing transparency issues.
• A meaningful portion of reviews (roughly 40%) are older than 24 months. While recent reviews (2024–2025) are predominantly positive, the negative reviews are spread across multiple years, indicating these are not isolated incidents.
• The undisclosed 3% credit card surcharge is mentioned independently in two separate reviews (2021-03-24 and 2022-06-08), confirming it as a real and recurring practice rather than a one-off complaint. This is a notable transparency issue.

This WW Score is based on a large and diverse review set spanning approximately 9 years, with strong mention counts across all four dimensions, making it one of the more reliable assessments possible — however, the presence of multiple credible and detailed negative reviews (particularly around pricing transparency and one serious professionalism incident) means the score should be treated as a realistic mid-range reflection of the business rather than a near-perfect endorsement.

Erwyn's Plumbing demonstrates strong overall performance with a WW Score of 82.1, driven primarily by excellent project completion (84.0) and solid technical experience (85.5). The company excels at responsiveness, same-day service, and quality workmanship across diverse plumbing tasks. However, professionalism (81.0) and pricing (78.5) are tempered by recurring concerns: multiple customers report communication challenges, late arrivals, and several documented instances of questionable billing practices including undisclosed charges, inflated estimates, and alleged misrepresentation. While the majority of reviews are highly positive, the negative reviews reveal patterns of integrity issues that warrant caution.

• BILLING INTEGRITY CONCERNS: Multiple reviews (Feb 2024, June 2024, Feb 2023, Aug 2023) document alleged deceptive pricing practices including unauthorized additional work orders, inflated material costs, illegal deposit amounts, and misrepresentation of work performed. One customer reported a $1700 unauthorized charge on a $7400 contract.
• COMMUNICATION FAILURES: At least 5 reviews explicitly mention communication difficulties, miscommunications about scope of work, and challenges reaching the company. One customer noted 'communication wasn't the easiest' and another experienced a significant miscommunication about access point installation.
• QUALITY CONTROL INCONSISTENCY: Two reviews document incorrect parts being installed (non-Toto flapper in Toto toilet, wrong shower handle) requiring customer follow-up or callbacks. One review describes the owner providing false information about work completed.
• RELIABILITY ISSUES: One review from Oct 2020 reports the company failed to show for a scheduled appointment and did not call to reschedule.
• PROFESSIONALISM LAPSES: Multiple reviews cite late arrivals (15 minutes, 30 minutes), one customer charged $275 for unnecessary work, and one report of aggressive upselling tactics.
• RECENCY NOTE: Most negative reviews cluster in 2023-2024 (6 of 7 one-star reviews), suggesting potential deterioration in service quality or business practices over time. Positive reviews span the full date range but are more concentrated in 2021-2022.

This score should be interpreted with caution: while the numerical WW Score of 82.1 reflects genuinely strong technical performance and responsiveness, the HIGH confidence rating masks significant integrity and communication concerns documented in recent reviews. The company excels at completing work quickly and competently but exhibits troubling patterns around pricing transparency and honest dealing that are not fully captured in the aggregate score. Customers should obtain detailed written estimates, verify all charges before payment, and confirm scope of work in writing.

Yolo Plumbing demonstrates strong overall performance with particular strengths in professionalism and project completion. The company excels at responsiveness, punctuality, and technical competence, with extensive evidence of skilled problem-solving and thorough workmanship. However, pricing emerges as a notable weakness, with multiple customers citing high hourly rates ($330 first hour, $55 per 15 minutes), billing for administrative time, and concerns about value relative to competitors. While most reviews are highly positive, the pricing complaints are specific and substantive, preventing a higher overall score. The company's long operational history and consistent positive feedback on service quality are significant strengths.

• PRICING CONCERNS: Multiple reviews (at least 6) explicitly criticize pricing as excessive, including complaints about hourly billing for non-work time (sitting in vehicle, filling out invoices), upcharges on parts, and rates significantly higher than competitors. This is the most consistent negative pattern in the dataset.
• BILLING PRACTICES: Several customers report being charged for time spent on administrative tasks (invoice preparation, parts lookup) at full hourly rates, which creates customer friction despite acknowledging quality work.
• RECENCY BIAS: Most reviews are from 2013-2024, with strong concentration in 2020-2024 (approximately 50+ reviews). Older reviews (2012-2014) are uniformly 5-star with minimal detail. Recent negative reviews (2023-2020) provide more specific criticism, suggesting either declining service or more honest recent feedback.
• REVIEW AUTHENTICITY: The 2012-2014 reviews show suspiciously generic praise with minimal specifics (e.g., 'Joe was pleasant, courteous and professional'). However, recent reviews (2020+) contain highly specific details about problems, solutions, and pricing, suggesting improved authenticity in recent feedback. No evidence of coordinated fake reviews detected.
• INCONSISTENT CUSTOMER SERVICE: One 2015 review reports rude receptionist behavior; one 2016 review reports cancellation via recorded message with poor rescheduling process. These suggest occasional service inconsistency despite overall positive trend.
• SCHEDULING CHALLENGES: Multiple reviews mention long wait times (1-2 weeks) for appointments, though some customers view this as acceptable given quality. One 2016 review criticizes this as indicating the company is 'too full of customers & themselves.'

This WW Score of 82.1 is highly reliable, based on 80 reviews with strong data across all dimensions. The score accurately reflects a company with excellent technical execution and professionalism but meaningful pricing concerns that prevent a higher rating. The HIGH overall confidence is justified by the large sample size and consistency of feedback patterns, though customers should be aware that pricing is a legitimate area of concern despite quality work.

Caldwell Construction earns strong scores across all four dimensions, driven by a large volume of detailed, specific reviews spanning nearly a decade. Professionalism is consistently praised — punctuality, communication, responsiveness, and courteous crews are mentioned repeatedly across dozens of reviews — but is modestly penalized by four negative reviews citing poor owner communication, rude responses, no-shows for estimates, and pressure tactics around payments. Pricing scores well, with multiple reviewers explicitly noting fair, transparent, and competitive quotes, and one reviewer highlighting that Caldwell saved them significant money by recommending a less invasive solution; minor deductions reflect a small number of complaints about questionable material charges and a coupon dispute. Project completion is the most nuanced dimension: the majority of reviewers report on-time, on-budget delivery with issues addressed promptly, but three substantive negative reviews describe delayed timelines, unresolved deficiencies, abandoned callbacks, and one instance of a water heater installation done incorrectly with no follow-through — these drag the score meaningfully below the otherwise strong baseline. Experience scores well overall, with many reviewers praising skilled craftsmen, knowledgeable problem-solving, and high-quality finished work, though two negative reviews specifically cite poor tile work and sloppy workmanship on interior remodels, preventing a top-tier score.

• Four reviews rated 1-star (dated 2017-05-08, 2017-08-07, 2018-03-05, 2021-05-01, 2023-09-04) describe serious issues including: a no-show estimate with no notice, rude owner text responses, incorrect design execution with no apology, a poorly completed bathroom remodel with unresolved deficiencies and pressure tactics over payments, and a water heater installation done incorrectly with no response to multiple follow-up attempts. These are credible, detailed, and specific negative reviews and have been weighted accordingly.
• One 1-star review (2023-09-04) specifically alleges that Caldwell Construction did not respond to emails or calls after faulty water heater work — this is a potential project abandonment flag and a serious workmanship concern.
• The 2021-05-01 review is exceptionally detailed and credible, describing timeline delays, unskilled tile work, owner frustration when deficiencies were raised, and an incomplete final walkthrough. This review alone warrants a meaningful reduction in both project completion and professionalism scores.
• The review dated 2019-08-02 referencing 'Steven' as a general contractor and project manager appears to describe a different employee or possibly a different business entity. It is included but noted as potentially referencing a subcontractor or staff member rather than the owner directly.
• No strong fake review patterns detected. The majority of positive reviews are specific, name crew members, describe distinct project types, and vary in writing style. The volume and specificity of detail across reviews supports authenticity.
• Recency note: The majority of reviews are from 2016–2024, with a healthy cluster in 2020–2024. The most recent negative review is from September 2023. No significant recency bias adjustment was required, but the 2023 unresolved complaint is given elevated weight as a recent data point.

This WW Score is based on 72 reviews with strong mention counts across all four dimensions, making it a HIGH confidence assessment; however, prospective customers should carefully read the negative reviews, particularly the detailed 2021 bathroom remodel complaint and the 2023 unresolved water heater complaint, as these represent meaningful risks for complex interior remodel projects.

Kyle demonstrates strong performance across all four dimensions with consistently high marks for professionalism, pricing, project completion, and technical expertise. The vast majority of reviews (92 out of 100) are highly positive, praising his punctuality, friendliness, fair pricing, quality workmanship, and responsiveness. However, a significant minority of 8 reviews (dating primarily 2015-2017) report serious communication failures, specifically non-returned phone calls and missed appointments, which substantially impacts the professionalism score. When Kyle engages with customers, he delivers excellent service; the issue is inconsistent accessibility during certain periods. Recent reviews (2018 onward) show marked improvement in responsiveness, suggesting this may have been a past operational challenge that has been largely resolved.

• CRITICAL COMMUNICATION ISSUE: 8 reviews (2015-2017) report Kyle failing to return phone calls or showing up to scheduled appointments. This represents 8% of all reviews and directly contradicts the overwhelmingly positive feedback from other customers. Reviews cite: 'never to EVER OR MOST PROBABLY NOT ANSWER HIS PHONE' (2017-11-30), 'did not return either of my phone calls' (2017-06-24), 'no show AND I've called twice' (2017-03-30), 'sent him a text 4 days ago, still no response' (2017-01-13), 'never received any response' (2015-06-03), 'Kyle never returned my call' (2015-04-08), 'called him twice, maybe three times...Not one call' (2016-01-13). One positive review (2017-06-05) acknowledges this pattern but claims personal experience differs.
• TEMPORAL PATTERN: The communication failures cluster in 2015-2017, with no similar complaints in reviews from 2018 onward. This suggests either a past operational problem that was corrected, or selective reporting. The most recent negative review is from 2017-11-30; all subsequent reviews are positive.
• CONSISTENCY CONCERN: The stark contrast between 92 five-star reviews praising responsiveness and 8 one-star reviews citing non-responsiveness raises questions about what caused the communication breakdowns. Possible explanations: business growth outpaced capacity, personal circumstances, phone system issues, or selective customer targeting. One reviewer (2017-06-24) speculates Kyle 'has so many customers and jobs he can pick and choose which ones he accepts.'
• NO FAKE REVIEW INDICATORS: Reviews show genuine specificity (detailed descriptions of work, problem-solving, pricing comparisons, personal anecdotes). Language varies naturally across reviews. No suspicious clustering of identical phrasing or generic praise. The 92 positive reviews appear authentic.

This WW Score of 82.1 is reliable for customers who successfully engage Kyle's services, as evidenced by 92 consistently detailed positive reviews spanning 2013-2023. However, the score is significantly depressed by legitimate communication failures documented in 8 reviews from 2015-2017, which represent a real historical risk. Prospective customers should be aware that while Kyle's actual work quality and professionalism when present are exceptional (87.5 professionalism score driven by 78 mentions), there is documented evidence of inconsistent phone responsiveness during a specific period, though this appears to have improved in recent years. The HIGH overall confidence reflects the large sample size and consistency of feedback, but the communication risk warrants cautious optimism rather than unqualified endorsement.

EAMS Plumbing demonstrates strong overall performance driven by exceptional professionalism, reliable project completion, and solid technical expertise. Chris and his team consistently receive praise for punctuality, courteous communication, responsiveness, and quality workmanship across diverse plumbing projects. However, pricing emerges as a notable weakness, with multiple customers explicitly citing overcharges, job-based billing that inflates costs for simple tasks, and quotes significantly higher than competitors. While most customers accept the pricing given the quality of work, several negative reviews specifically target aggressive pricing practices, preventing a higher overall score.

• PRICING CONCERN: Multiple reviews (at least 5) explicitly criticize pricing as excessive or unfair. Examples include $643 for garbage disposal installation, $690 for two valve repairs, $500+ for wax ring replacement, and general complaints about 'job-based' rather than 'hourly' billing. This is the primary driver of negative reviews.
• CALLBACK ISSUE: One review (2024-03-28) reports two separate instances where promised callbacks never occurred, resulting in customer hiring competitors. This suggests potential communication/follow-up gaps despite otherwise strong responsiveness.
• QUALITY INCONSISTENCY: One review (2024-07-26) reports poor workmanship including improper faucet plate sealing requiring customer remediation, contradicting the otherwise consistent quality narrative.
• QUOTE REFUSAL: One review (2022-07-05) criticizes the company for refusing phone quotes and requiring in-person technician visits, calling it a 'scam.' This represents a business practice complaint rather than service quality issue.
• REVIEW AUTHENTICITY NOTE: The overwhelming majority of reviews (approximately 75 of 87) are 5-star with highly positive language. While many contain specific details and vary in writing style, the concentration of 5-star reviews is notably high. However, the presence of detailed negative reviews with specific dollar amounts and the consistency of praise across different reviewers and time periods suggests these are largely genuine rather than fabricated.

This WW Score of 82.1 is highly reliable, based on 87 reviews with strong data across all dimensions. The score accurately reflects a company with exceptional professionalism and technical competence significantly undermined by pricing practices that customers perceive as aggressive or unfair. The HIGH overall confidence is warranted given the large sample size and consistent patterns, though potential customers should specifically investigate current pricing structures before engaging services.