Find Nearby Plumbers In Sacramento, California

PACE Supply receives deeply polarized feedback across a large review base spanning over a decade. Professionalism is the most-mentioned dimension and is severely dragged down by a high volume of explicit complaints about rude phone interactions, hang-ups, dismissive counter staff, and a consistent pattern of refusing or discouraging service to homeowners and non-contractors. Pricing is a notable weakness, with multiple reviewers citing prices far above online or big-box alternatives, a controversial 25% restocking fee, and at least one report of an unexplained $150 admin fee. Project completion scores moderately, with some positive experiences of next-day delivery and follow-through, but offset by credible accounts of wrong orders, machined pipe defects causing major delays, unfulfilled warranty promises, and a billing error after a cancelled order. Experience scores highest among the four dimensions, as many reviews — particularly from contractors and professionals — praise staff knowledge, ability to source obscure parts, and technical guidance, though this is tempered by accounts of staff with poor product knowledge at some locations.

• SUSPECTED FAKE REVIEW CLUSTER: Reviews dated 2023-05-09 through 2023-05-15 (approximately 7 reviews posted within 6 days) share nearly identical structure, vocabulary, and themes — including repeated references to 'well-stocked warehouse,' 'hydronic materials,' 'boilers,' 'solar thermal,' 'radiant,' 'pumps,' 'Takagi,' 'PEX,' 'fan coils,' 'reception,' and 'Carlos the manager.' These reviews read as templated marketing content rather than genuine customer experiences. Confidence in positive scores has been reduced accordingly.
• MULTI-LOCATION AMBIGUITY: This review set aggregates feedback from multiple PACE Supply branches across the Bay Area (Oakland, San Francisco, San Rafael, Santa Rosa, Santa Clara, San Jose, South Sacramento, etc.). Scores reflect the brand aggregate, not a single location. Individual branch quality varies significantly per reviewer testimony.
• RECENCY NOTE: Reviews span from 2009 to 2024. Approximately 40% of reviews are older than 3 years. The most recent reviews (2024) continue to show mixed professionalism signals, suggesting the pattern of inconsistent service has persisted over time.
• HOMEOWNER VS. CONTRACTOR BIAS: A statistically significant number of negative reviews explicitly cite differential treatment based on customer type (homeowner vs. licensed contractor). This is a structural service policy issue, not isolated incidents, and materially impacts professionalism and pricing scores.
• REVIEW dated 2024-07-23 ('Funny without stuling your oroder, food water, bathroom always clean. Thanks again Tracy BYRD 20') appears to be a misplaced review for a food establishment, not a plumbing supply store. It was excluded from scoring.
• REVIEW dated 2024-04-26 ('great tools and nice water containers, I really enjoy the color and the rebranding on the stanley originated containers') appears to reference Stanley-brand drinkware and is likely a misplaced review. It was excluded from scoring.

This WW Score is based on a large review volume (105 reviews) and carries HIGH statistical confidence in its directional accuracy, but should be interpreted cautiously due to a suspected cluster of fake positive reviews in May 2023, significant multi-location aggregation, and a well-documented structural policy of differential treatment toward homeowners versus contractors that skews negative sentiment disproportionately for non-trade customers.

This is a franchise brand with hundreds of locations, and the review pool reflects wildly inconsistent quality across different operators and technicians. Professionalism scores are dragged down significantly by a large volume of reviews describing rude, condescending, or outright hostile technicians and office staff, though many positive reviews praise specific named technicians as courteous and professional. Pricing is the most damaging dimension: an enormous number of reviews describe a bait-and-switch pattern where a low advertised rate (often $49) is used to gain entry, followed by aggressive upselling to hydro-jetting, camera inspections, and pipe replacement at prices reviewers consistently describe as two to ten times market rate. Project completion is mixed — many jobs are completed satisfactorily and quickly, but a significant minority of reviews describe incomplete work, warranty refusals, no-shows, and jobs that required a second company to actually fix the problem. Experience scores reflect genuine skill from certain technicians but are undermined by repeated accounts of misdiagnosis, fabricated damage, and work that failed within days or weeks.

• STRONG BAIT-AND-SWITCH PATTERN DETECTED: Dozens of independent reviews across multiple years and locations describe an identical pattern — low advertised price ($49 drain special) used to gain entry, followed by claims the snake cannot work and escalating upsells to hydro-jetting ($500-$1200), camera inspection, and full pipe replacement ($3,000-$15,000+). This is a systemic business practice, not isolated incidents.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — POSITIVE SIDE: A notable cluster of short, generic 5-star reviews with no detail (e.g., 'Good experience', 'Great service!', 'You guys great!', blank text with 5 stars) appear throughout the dataset, many dated in close proximity. These lack specificity and are consistent with review padding. Confidence in the positive score pool is reduced accordingly.
• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: Multiple reviews appear to be exact duplicates submitted on the same or adjacent dates (e.g., identical text for 'Many other contractors proposed to snake the sewer line', 'Very Pleased with results', 'Did a great job excellent work', 'Prompt, polite, professional', etc.). This inflates the apparent review count and may indicate manipulation.
• MULTI-LOCATION FRANCHISE ISSUE: Reviews clearly reference dozens of different geographic locations (Sacramento, Orange County, Reno, Framingham MA, Spartanburg SC, Baton Rouge, etc.) and different named technicians. This is not a single contractor — it is a franchise brand. Scores reflect the aggregate brand, not any single operator. Individual location quality varies enormously.
• SERIOUS FRAUD ALLEGATIONS: Multiple reviews allege criminal-level conduct including: charging for work not performed, fabricating damage on camera footage, partnering with restoration companies (Bolmer Restoration named repeatedly) to generate fraudulent insurance claims, opening credit cards in customers' names, placing mechanics liens on homes, and targeting elderly and vulnerable customers. One review references a revoked NV business license and cancelled contractor license.
• WARRANTY REFUSAL PATTERN: Multiple reviews describe the company refusing to honor stated warranties when problems recurred within the warranty period, often citing new reasons to charge again.
• NO-SHOW AND SCHEDULING FAILURE PATTERN: A significant number of reviews describe confirmed appointments where technicians never arrived and calls were not returned, sometimes leaving customers without water or sewage service for days.
• RECENCY NOTE: The review dataset spans from approximately 2010 to June 2025. Reviews from the past 12 months (mid-2024 to mid-2025) show a continued mix of strong positives for specific named technicians and serious negatives for pricing and scam-like upselling, suggesting the pattern has not materially changed. More recent reviews were weighted slightly higher in scoring.

This WW Score of 58.2 should be treated with MODERATE-TO-LOW trust as a hiring signal: while it accurately reflects the deeply polarized nature of this franchise brand, the score is based on a mixed pool that includes suspected fake positive reviews, duplicate submissions, and reviews from dozens of geographically distinct franchise locations — meaning the score does not reliably predict the quality of any single local operator, and the systemic pricing and upselling complaints documented across hundreds of independent reviews represent a material risk that any prospective customer should investigate carefully before engaging this company.

Repipe Specialists receives sharply polarized feedback, with enthusiastic praise from satisfied customers offset by detailed, credible complaints from dissatisfied ones. Professionalism scores are dragged down significantly by multiple reviews citing poor communication, misleading sales representations, and unresponsive follow-through after problems arose. Project completion is the weakest dimension: several reviewers explicitly describe jobs that ran well beyond the promised single-day timeline, unfinished or poorly patched drywall, and warranty claims that were denied without fair investigation. Pricing concerns are notable, with multiple reviewers reporting costs that escalated beyond the original quote and one reviewer characterizing the company as the most expensive option without commensurate value. On the positive side, a meaningful subset of customers report smooth, efficient experiences with skilled crews and attentive representatives, which prevents scores from falling further.

• Several positive reviews are highly specific and credible (naming representatives, describing multi-step processes), reducing fake review concern for those entries.
• The undated 5-star review ('This is their complete focus...') contains no specifics, no named individuals, and reads as generic promotional language — treat with caution and reduced weight.
• Two reviews (2021 and 2022) describe a pattern of misleading sales promises about single-day completion that were contradicted by the actual plumbers on arrival — this is a systemic concern, not an isolated incident.
• The warranty denial review (2022) describes a structured process that appeared designed to deny claims regardless of merit — this is a significant red flag for post-job accountability.
• Recency note: The most recent reviews (2023–2024) are mixed, with both strong positives and a notable 1-star. The cluster of detailed negative reviews from 2021–2022 remains relevant and should not be discounted.
• Subcontracting is explicitly flagged as a concern in multiple negative reviews, with reviewers noting that the company brokers work out rather than performing it directly, leading to coordination failures and quality inconsistencies.

This WW Score is based on 13 reviews with usable data across all four dimensions and carries MODERATE overall confidence — the score reflects genuine polarization in customer experience rather than data scarcity, and the pattern of detailed negative reviews describing systemic issues (misleading sales, timeline failures, warranty denials) meaningfully suppresses confidence in the higher scores given by satisfied customers.

This contractor's review pool is deeply polarized: a cluster of recent (2024) positive reviews praises responsiveness, professionalism, and quality workmanship, while a substantial body of older reviews (2012–2018) documents serious concerns including alleged scam pricing, bait-and-switch tactics, no-shows, incomplete work, and rude owner behavior. Pricing is the weakest dimension, with multiple reviewers explicitly calling out inflated quotes ($265 to clear a sink, $400 for a disposal install, $500 for a ball valve), hidden fees, and a $45 show-up charge that drew strong negative reactions. Project completion is mixed: several reviewers praised same-day or next-day resolution, but others reported abandoned jobs, return visits needed to fix errors, and technicians arriving without tools. Professionalism scores reflect a split between courteous, timely technicians praised by name in recent reviews and documented incidents of attitude problems, no-call no-shows, and an owner who reportedly hung up on a customer. The score is dragged down significantly by the volume and severity of negative reviews, many of which contain specific, credible detail.

• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The same 1-star review (dated 2014-03-27) appears three times with nearly identical timestamps (15:54, 15:55, 15:56). This is a strong indicator of review manipulation — either the reviewer submitted multiple times or the data source contains duplicates. Only one instance was counted for scoring.
• RECENCY BIAS CONCERN: The majority of positive reviews are concentrated in 2024, while the majority of negative reviews are from 2012–2018. This may reflect genuine improvement over time, but it could also reflect selective review solicitation. The 2024 reviews are given more weight per scoring rules, but the historical negatives are numerous and specific enough to materially affect all dimensions.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION (MILD): Several older 5-star reviews (2013) contain very similar phrasing patterns — 'within an hour,' 'friendly and knowledgeable,' 'will not need a plumber soon but will call again' — and were posted within days of each other with no reviewer names or specific job details. These may be seeded reviews and were treated with reduced confidence.
• SCAM ALLEGATIONS: Multiple independent reviewers across different years (2014, 2015, 2016, 2018) explicitly used the word 'scam' and described consistent patterns: refusal to quote over phone, $45 show-up fee, then dramatically inflated on-site quotes. This pattern is too consistent across unrelated reviewers to dismiss.
• INCOMPLETE WORK DOCUMENTED: At least two reviews describe jobs left unfinished — one where the technician had to return to fix electrical after a water heater install, and one where a hose bib was left unreplaced after a $500 job. One review also describes damage caused by a technician (boiler rod cap not replaced, causing months of water leakage and mold).
• OWNER CONDUCT COMPLAINT: One detailed review describes the owner (Todd) interrupting a customer, making dismissive statements ('I'm the owner, I can do whatever I want'), and hanging up mid-conversation. This is a significant professionalism flag at the leadership level.
• SERVICE AREA MISREPRESENTATION: Two reviews note that the company's listed location did not match its actual service area, suggesting misleading geographic listings.

This WW Score is based on 49 reviews spanning over a decade and carries HIGH statistical confidence in terms of volume, but the score should be interpreted cautiously given the strong temporal split between recent positive reviews and a well-documented history of serious complaints, duplicate review submissions, and credible scam allegations from multiple independent sources.

This contractor exhibits a stark and troubling pattern of inconsistency. Older reviews (2016–2018) consistently praise professionalism, punctuality, quality workmanship, and fair pricing. However, recent reviews (2021–2023) reveal severe failures in project completion, responsiveness, and follow-through. Multiple customers report incomplete work, non-arrival at scheduled appointments, unresponsiveness to callbacks, and work abandoned mid-project despite advance payment. The most recent reviews document a systematic breakdown in reliability and integrity. While technical skill appears present in completed jobs, the contractor's inability to finish projects and maintain communication has become the dominant pattern, making this business unreliable for customers.

• CRITICAL: Temporal pattern detected — all 5-star reviews are from 2016–2018 (5–7 years old); all 1-star reviews are from 2021–2023 (recent). This suggests a significant deterioration in business practices over time.
• SEVERE: Multiple reviews document identical failure patterns: incomplete work, non-arrival at scheduled times, lack of responsiveness to customer contact, and work abandoned despite full or partial payment received. This is not isolated — it is systemic.
• RED FLAG: Two reviews explicitly mention the owner 'Harvey' not returning calls/texts and being unavailable for callbacks after payment received. One customer held payment in reserve and still experienced abandonment.
• INTEGRITY CONCERN: One customer reports the contractor blamed the customer for being 'rude and disrespectful' and refused to return to complete work, suggesting potential conflict avoidance rather than professional problem-solving.
• FINANCIAL RISK: Multiple customers report paying in advance or in full before work completion, and the contractor failed to complete work. This is a pattern of non-delivery after payment.
• The two oldest 5-star reviews (2018, 2017) are generic in praise but lack specificity; however, they predate the documented failures and may reflect genuine past performance.

This WW Score should be treated with caution due to the extreme temporal divergence in review quality and the clear pattern of business deterioration. While the calculated score of 52.3 reflects the mixed data, the recent reviews (2021–2023) are far more predictive of current performance than the older positive reviews, and they paint a picture of an unreliable contractor with serious follow-through and communication failures. Customers should be aware that this business has a documented history of incomplete projects and non-responsiveness despite payment received.

Rooter Hero's review corpus reveals a deeply polarized customer base: a substantial cluster of positive reviews praising individual technicians by name for promptness, friendliness, and effective work, contrasted against an overwhelming volume of detailed, credible 1-star reviews documenting systematic upselling, price gouging, no-shows, and in some cases outright fraud. The pricing dimension is the most severely damaged, with dozens of reviewers independently describing the same pattern — a low advertised price ($77 drain cleaning) used as a bait, followed by a supervisor call and escalating quotes for hydro-jetting, pipe replacement, or epoxy lining costing thousands to tens of thousands of dollars, which competing plumbers subsequently resolved for a fraction of the cost. Project completion is critically undermined by a high frequency of no-show appointments, abandoned jobs, incomplete work, and failure to honor callbacks, with multiple reviewers describing waiting entire days without contact. Professionalism scores reflect the split: individual technicians are frequently praised as courteous and friendly, but the company-level behavior — pressure tactics, dispatcher failures, management unresponsiveness, and alleged targeting of elderly and vulnerable customers — severely drags the dimension down. Experience scores similarly reflect a split between genuinely skilled technicians highlighted in positive reviews and a pattern of misdiagnosis, use of undersized equipment, and failure to clear drains that competitors resolved in minutes.

• SUSPECTED FAKE REVIEW CLUSTER: Multiple reviews dated 2025-06-08 and nearby dates contain zero text with only a 5-star rating (at least 8 blank reviews). These provide no usable data and inflate the star average artificially.
• SUSPECTED FAKE REVIEW CLUSTER: Three reviews dated 2023-09-19 all praise a technician named 'Danny' with nearly identical structure, posted within hours of each other, with suspiciously generic phrasing. Confidence in these reviews is reduced.
• SYSTEMATIC UPSELLING PATTERN: Dozens of independent reviewers across multiple years and geographic locations describe an identical script — technician attempts minimal work, calls a 'supervisor' on speakerphone, quotes thousands for hydro-jetting or pipe replacement, then reduces price when customer hesitates. This is a documented and repeated business practice, not isolated incidents.
• PREDATORY TARGETING OF ELDERLY: Multiple reviews explicitly describe technicians targeting elderly, widowed, or cognitively vulnerable customers with high-pressure tactics and inflated quotes. One reviewer references a court finding of guilt for preying on seniors.
• NO-SHOW AND SCHEDULING FAILURES: A very high volume of reviews (30+) describe missed appointments, no callbacks, and wasted days waiting. This is a systemic operational failure, not isolated incidents.
• WORKMANSHIP FAILURES: Multiple reviews describe jobs that were not completed, damage caused by technicians (e.g., blocked toilet from vacuum pump valve, leaks created where none existed, wrong pipes installed), and work that failed immediately after completion.
• PERMIT AND LICENSING CONCERNS: At least one reviewer alleges the company lied on a building permit, and another references the company being on CSLB probation. These are serious legal and regulatory flags.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent reviews (2025) show a mix of positive and blank/no-text entries. The most detailed and credible negative reviews span 2022–2024, suggesting the problematic patterns are well-established and ongoing.
• RESPONSE PATTERN: The company appears to respond to negative reviews with boilerplate apology language and escalation promises, but multiple reviewers note that promised callbacks from management never materialized.
• CONFIDENCE REDUCTION APPLIED: Due to the volume of suspected fake blank reviews and the Danny review cluster, positive dimension scores have been conservatively weighted downward.

This WW Score of 38.2 is based on a very large review corpus with HIGH statistical confidence and should be treated as a reliable signal of serious, systemic problems with this contractor's pricing practices, scheduling reliability, and project completion — prospective customers are strongly advised to obtain multiple competing quotes before authorizing any work beyond the initial advertised service.