Find Nearby Plumbers In Sacramento, California

The overwhelming majority of reviews across multiple businesses in this dataset praise professionalism, responsiveness, punctuality, and friendly demeanor, driving a strong professionalism score. Pricing is consistently described as fair, reasonable, and competitive, with multiple reviewers explicitly noting lower costs than competitors, though a handful of negative reviews cite overcharging or lack of itemized invoices, moderating the pricing score. Project completion is generally strong, with many reviews confirming jobs were finished same-day or quickly, but several serious negative reviews describe incomplete work, multiple return visits, abandoned jobs, and unresolved issues — most notably a water heater installation requiring 6 visits, a major sewer excavation with no leak found and the home left in disarray, and a water softener installation dispute — which meaningfully suppress this dimension. Experience scores well overall given frequent praise for diagnostic skill and problem-solving, but is tempered by a few reviews describing incorrect diagnoses, improper reinstallation (wax ring not replaced), and a disputed product recommendation.

• CRITICAL: This dataset appears to contain reviews for MULTIPLE DISTINCT BUSINESSES — including Platero Parada Plumbing (Sacramento area), Apache Plumbing (San Marcos, TX area), and AK Plumbing (Sacramento area). These are not the same contractor. Scores are therefore aggregated across different companies and should not be attributed to any single business.
• Several reviews reference different named technicians across different geographic markets (Tony/Andy for AK Plumbing in Sacramento; Abdul/Bronc/Ethan for Apache Plumbing in San Marcos TX; Sam/Omar for Platero Parada in Sacramento). This strongly confirms multiple businesses are mixed in this dataset.
• 12 reviews contain no text (blank or near-blank with only a rating). These were excluded from dimension scoring but counted in total reviews.
• Two reviews appear to be near-identical duplicates: the 'Run away from this business' 1-star review about a water softener installation appears twice with slightly different dates (2020-06-10 and 2019-12-23). Similarly, the Apache Plumbing 5-star review about clearing water lines and taking photos for the city appears twice (2019-06-11 and 2019-05-03). This raises a flag for potential review manipulation in both directions.
• The dataset spans from 2011 to 2025 — over 14 years. Reviews older than 3 years (pre-2022) should be weighted significantly less as they may not reflect current service quality for any of these businesses.
• Despite the presence of serious 1-star reviews describing abandoned work, billing disputes, and unresolved problems, the overall rating distribution is heavily skewed toward 5 stars, which may reflect platform-level selection bias or review solicitation practices.
• The negative reviews are specific, detailed, and credible — including a BBB complaint, a 6-visit water heater installation failure, a major excavation with no leak found, and a disputed $1,800 product installation. These are not generic complaints and carry significant evidentiary weight.
• RELIABILITY WARNING: Because this dataset mixes reviews from at least three separate businesses, the WW Score cannot be reliably attributed to any single contractor. Any use of this score to evaluate one specific business would be misleading.

This WW Score has LOW practical reliability for evaluating any single contractor because the review dataset demonstrably contains reviews for at least three distinct plumbing businesses operating in different geographic markets; the score should not be used to make a hiring decision about any one of these companies without first separating the reviews by business.

Plumbing Care Inc. earns strong marks across professionalism, project completion, and experience, with the vast majority of reviewers praising prompt response times, courteous technicians, and jobs completed same-day or next-day even on weekends and holidays. Named technicians such as Alvictor, Hristo, Carlos, Dimitry, Keith, and Lupe are repeatedly cited for skill, transparency, and going above and beyond. However, the pricing dimension is the most contested: while many reviewers describe costs as fair or reasonable, a meaningful cluster of reviewers — including 1-star and 3-star reviews — explicitly describe feeling overcharged, encountering undisclosed diagnostic fees ($250), or receiving estimates that ballooned unexpectedly. There are also several serious negative reviews alleging botched work, flooding caused by technician error, and a failure to take accountability, which meaningfully tempers the otherwise high scores in project completion and experience.

• PRICING TRANSPARENCY CONCERN: Multiple reviewers (at least 6) explicitly complained about undisclosed $250 diagnostic/service call fees that were not mentioned when scheduling. This is a recurring and specific pattern, not isolated.
• SERIOUS WORKMANSHIP COMPLAINTS: At least 3 reviews allege that technician errors caused significant property damage (flooding, water damage to floors/walls), and the company reportedly denied responsibility in at least 2 of those cases.
• OVERCHARGING PATTERN: Several reviewers across different years describe prices as excessive — $448 for a 30-minute rooter job, $1800 for a shower valve, $750 labor for 1 hour, $1518 for a French drain diagnostic. These are specific and credible complaints.
• ABANDONED/INCOMPLETE WORK: One review describes a warranty repair that was never completed after months of follow-up, with the company ultimately refusing the job. Another describes a 5-week sewer lateral project with poor communication and threatening behavior from the owner.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — MODERATE: A cluster of reviews dated 2024-06-08 with no specific dates (likely batch-imported) includes several very short, generic 5-star reviews with no detail (e.g., 'Great work and speedy response', 'Greatly satisfied with the support'). These may be authentic but lack specificity. Confidence is not reduced significantly given the large volume of detailed reviews, but this cluster warrants caution.
• RECENCY NOTE: Reviews span from 2021 to June 2025. The majority are from 2023–2025 and are therefore recent and given full weight. The single 2021 review is treated as lower weight.
• OWNER CONDUCT: Two separate reviews describe aggressive or unprofessional behavior from the owner/management — one involving threatening messages over payment, another involving a dismissive response to a customer complaint about flooding. This is a notable flag for business conduct.

This WW Score of 79.4 is based on a large and diverse review set (163 reviews) with HIGH confidence across all four dimensions, but should be interpreted with caution given credible and specific complaints about hidden fees, overcharging, and at least two serious allegations of technician-caused property damage that the company reportedly did not address responsibly.

Absolute Rooter and Plumbing demonstrates consistently strong professionalism, with the vast majority of reviewers praising responsiveness, same-day or emergency availability, friendly demeanor, and clear communication — these traits are the clearest strength across the review set. Project completion scores well overall, with most jobs described as finished promptly and thoroughly, though a meaningful cluster of negative reviews raises legitimate concerns: one reviewer had a drain re-clog within a week with no warranty honored, another alleged a hydro-jet job was only partially completed, and a third described abandoned diagnostic work with no follow-through on a quote. Experience scores moderately high, supported by numerous reviewers citing Kareem's diagnostic skill and technical knowledge, but offset by several credible accounts of misdiagnosis, unnecessary upselling, and incorrect assessments that were later corrected by competing plumbers. Pricing is the weakest dimension: while many reviewers describe fair or competitive rates, at least five detailed reviews describe significant price inflation, bait-and-switch tactics, quotes that dropped dramatically when challenged, and charges that were grossly disproportionate to the work performed — including a $1,400 charge for a 45-minute fitting job and an initial $12,000 quote that was later halved.

• PRICING CONCERNS: At least 5 reviews describe significant overcharging, inflated initial quotes that dropped sharply when questioned, or charges inconsistent with the scope of work. This is a meaningful pattern, not isolated incidents.
• INCOMPLETE WORK / WARRANTY REFUSAL: One reviewer reported a drain re-clogged within one week and was told there was no warranty and they would need to pay again. Another alleged a hydro-jet was only partially completed. A third described a job where the technician could not finish and left without resolution.
• MISDIAGNOSIS PATTERN: Multiple independent reviewers (2017, 2022) describe diagnoses that were later contradicted by other plumbers, resulting in significantly lower repair costs. This suggests a possible pattern of upselling or diagnostic shortcuts.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: Two reviews (dated 2024-06-09 and 2023-09-22) contain nearly identical text about a backed-up business sink. This is likely a duplicate submission and was counted only once for scoring purposes.
• TWO BLANK REVIEWS: Two reviews contained no text (only a star rating of 5.0 and 4.0). These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data.
• RECENCY NOTE: The review set spans from 2015 to 2025. Approximately 35-40 reviews predate 2022 and were given reduced weight. The most recent reviews (2024-2025) remain largely positive, but pricing and completion concerns persist into the recent period.
• REVIEW VOLUME INFLATION RISK: A large cluster of reviews share the same date of 2024-06-09 with no specific detail, which may indicate bulk submission or platform migration artifacts. Scores were not inflated on the basis of these low-detail entries.

This WW Score is based on a large review set with HIGH confidence across all four dimensions, but should be interpreted with caution due to a credible and recurring pattern of pricing complaints, alleged misdiagnoses, and at least two warranty or follow-through failures that meaningfully temper what is otherwise a strong professionalism and responsiveness record.

Armoured Plumbing earns strong marks across all four dimensions based on a large and diverse review set spanning over a decade. Professionalism scores well overall — the majority of reviewers praise friendly, courteous, and communicative technicians — but is meaningfully dragged down by several credible complaints about no-shows, scope changes without notice, no estimates provided before work began, and poor post-payment follow-through on incomplete jobs. Pricing is a genuine strength, with many reviewers explicitly calling out fair, reasonable, or even shockingly low prices, and one reviewer documenting a $32,000 savings versus a competitor; however, two reviews cite unexpected charges added after initial quotes, preventing a higher score. Project completion is the most consequential dimension and carries the most mixed signal: the large majority of jobs were completed promptly and correctly, but there are multiple credible accounts of abandoned or incomplete work after payment, no-call no-shows, and one detailed account of a botched commercial water heater installation that required thousands of dollars in remediation by a third party. Experience scores solidly — technicians are frequently described as knowledgeable, skilled, and effective — but the commercial installation failure and a reused-parts complaint prevent a top-tier score.

• NO-SHOW PATTERN: At least three separate reviews (2015-10-15, 2015-10-16, 2017-11-12) describe no-call no-shows or failure to appear as scheduled. This is a recurring operational failure, not an isolated incident.
• SCOPE CREEP / UNDISCLOSED CHARGES: Multiple reviews (2015-10-16, 2024-11-01, 2023-05-22) describe charges or scope changes that were not communicated upfront, including a $400 add-on not in the original quote and reused parts in a replacement job.
• SERIOUS PROJECT COMPLETION FAILURE: The 2020-04-08 review (1-star, motel water heater) is a detailed, specific, and credible account of an incomplete installation, repeated no-shows after payment, owner inaccessibility, and a job that ultimately required a third-party plumber to fully remediate at additional cost of $1,800+. This is a significant red flag for large or commercial jobs.
• OWNER ATTITUDE COMPLAINT: The 2020-04-28 review describes the owner (Steve) as condescending and dismissive toward a long-term customer requesting a modest discount, resulting in loss of that customer.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews (approximately 50+) are from 2021 or earlier. Reviews from the past 12 months (2024) number approximately 8, and include both strong positives and the most recent negative (2024-11-01 scope change/reused parts). The recent negative reviews suggest some operational issues persist.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK — LOW: No strong patterns of fake reviews detected. Reviews vary in length, specificity, named technicians, job types, and ratings. Several negative reviews with specific details add authenticity. Generic praise exists but is not dominant. No artificial inflation flagged.
• TECHNICIAN VARIANCE: Quality appears highly dependent on which technician is dispatched. Rudy, Scott, and Barry receive overwhelmingly positive mentions. The commercial job failure involved Barry, suggesting even well-reviewed technicians may struggle on complex or large-scale projects.

This WW Score is based on 75 reviews with HIGH mention counts across all four dimensions, making it statistically reliable as a general indicator of performance; however, prospective customers with large or commercial jobs should weight the serious project completion failures heavily, as the score reflects a broad average that includes many small, routine jobs where the company consistently performs well.

Brothers the Plumbing Store earns strong marks for staff expertise and technical knowledge, with the overwhelming majority of reviewers praising the depth of product knowledge and ability to identify hard-to-find parts that big-box stores could not supply. Professionalism scores well overall but is meaningfully dragged down by a recurring pattern of complaints about being ignored or receiving no floor assistance on certain visits, with at least 5 reviews explicitly describing staff failing to acknowledge customers. Pricing is a genuine mixed signal — several reviewers found prices competitive or even lower than big-box alternatives, while others found them 30–50% higher; the net score reflects this real tension. Project completion is assessed primarily through the lens of order fulfillment, special orders, and follow-through on customer issues, where the store performs well but has notable failures including a restocking fee dispute, wrong-color toilet delivery, and at least one warranty deflection that left a customer dissatisfied.

• No fake review patterns detected — reviews span from 2009 to 2024, include varied writing styles, specific staff names (Troy, TJ, Tim C., Mark, Max, TC), specific product details, and include a healthy mix of negative and positive experiences.
• Recency note: A significant portion of reviews (roughly 40%) predate 2021 and are more than 3 years old. The most recent cluster (2022–2024) remains largely positive, suggesting no major quality decline, but older reviews carry reduced weight.
• Customer service inconsistency flagged: At least 5 reviews explicitly describe being ignored or receiving no assistance on the floor, which is a meaningful pattern for a store whose primary value proposition is expert service. This suppresses the professionalism score.
• Pricing complaints flagged: Multiple reviewers (at least 4) noted prices running 30–50% above big-box or online alternatives. One reviewer cited a surprise restocking fee. These are substantive concerns, not isolated incidents.
• Warranty and product quality complaints flagged: At least 2 reviews cite product issues (wrong toilet color, defective faucet) where the store did not take ownership and instead redirected the customer to the manufacturer. This negatively impacts project completion score.
• One review (2017) cited staff providing factually incorrect product information on two separate visits, leading the customer to nearly purchase incompatible special-order parts. This is a notable experience quality failure.

This WW Score is based on 80 reviews spanning 15 years with HIGH confidence across all four dimensions; the score of 79.4 is considered a reliable representation of a store with genuinely strong technical expertise but real and recurring weaknesses in floor-level customer service consistency, pricing transparency, and post-sale issue resolution.

A&R Plumbing has a strong overall track record across all four dimensions, with the majority of recent reviews praising punctuality, communication, and thorough workmanship. Pricing is consistently described as fair, transparent, and competitive — several reviewers explicitly noted they chose A&R over higher-priced competitors. Project completion is generally solid, with multiple reviewers highlighting that technicians stayed late, sourced parts same-day, and returned to finish jobs — however, two older reviews (2018) describe a no-show and a failure to deliver a promised estimate, which meaningfully drag down the professionalism and project completion scores. Experience scores well, with reviewers frequently noting that A&R technicians diagnosed problems more thoroughly than prior plumbers and demonstrated strong technical knowledge. One 2023 review also flagged an issue with excessive follow-up contact from office staff, which is a minor but notable operational concern.

• Two reviews from 2018 describe serious professionalism failures: one no-show with no communication and a rude callback, and one failure to deliver a promised estimate after multiple follow-ups. These are older but substantive negative data points that have been weighted accordingly.
• One 2023 review (3-star) flagged the office/secretary as excessively contacting the customer over 30 times, which is an operational concern separate from technician quality.
• One 2024 review (4-star) noted a scheduling error where the appointment was booked on the wrong date — a minor but recurring theme of administrative inconsistency.
• Reviews span from 2014 to 2024. The 2014 review is over 10 years old and has been given minimal weight. The two 2018 negative reviews are also deprioritized relative to the strong cluster of 2024 reviews, but are not ignored as they represent explicit failures.
• No fake review patterns detected. Reviews vary in length, detail, specificity, and rating — language is sufficiently diverse and mentions specific technician names and job types, indicating authenticity.

This WW Score is based on 24 reviews spanning 10 years, with a strong concentration of detailed, specific reviews from 2023–2024, giving the score HIGH overall confidence — though the presence of credible negative reviews from 2018 and minor administrative complaints in 2023 introduce meaningful downward pressure that prevents a top-tier score.