Find Nearby Plumbers In Salinas, California

Murray Plumbing has a strong base of positive reviews praising individual technicians — particularly Ryan, Brandon, Jonathan, Jeremy, and Bruce — for professionalism, punctuality, communication, and technical skill. However, a meaningful cluster of 1-star reviews across multiple years describes serious failures including abandoned jobs, no-shows, poor communication, billing disputes, and at least one allegation of negligent workmanship that caused additional damage costing nearly $1,900. Pricing feedback is mixed: many reviewers praised fair or competitive rates and appreciated discounts, while others described feeling overcharged or misled on quotes. Project completion is the most concerning dimension, with multiple reviewers explicitly stating work was left unfinished, technicians walked off jobs, or follow-up visits were promised but never delivered. The overall score reflects a company with genuine strengths in field-level service but recurring systemic issues in reliability, follow-through, and management responsiveness.

• 27 reviews contain no text — only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence.
• Several reviews appear to reference different geographic locations and different named technicians (Ryan in California, Brandon/Jonathan in Texas/Maryland, Shannon in New England), suggesting this may be a shared brand name or franchise with multiple unrelated operators. Scores may reflect an aggregated but operationally inconsistent entity.
• One review (dated 2022-02-14) appears to be about a stereo purchase and is clearly misattributed to this plumbing company. It was excluded from scoring.
• One review (dated 2016-02-21) is from a family member of an employee and carries inherent bias. It was noted but given minimal weight.
• Multiple 1-star reviews describe a consistent pattern: no-shows, failure to return calls, jobs abandoned mid-work, and management being rude or hanging up on customers. This pattern across different years and reviewers is credible and not isolated.
• The positive reviews, while numerous, show some generic phrasing patterns (e.g., 'professional, knowledgeable, courteous' appearing across many reviews). While not conclusive evidence of fakery, the volume of brief, non-specific 5-star reviews warrants mild caution.
• Recency note: The majority of reviews are from 2024-2025 and are within the past 12 months, which is favorable for relevance. Older negative reviews (2016-2021) were weighted slightly lower but still factored in as they reflect recurring behavioral patterns.

This WW Score is based on a large review set with HIGH data confidence across all four dimensions, but the score should be interpreted cautiously given credible, recurring negative patterns around job completion and reliability that are partially masked by the high volume of positive reviews.

C&M Home Appliance has a strong base of positive reviews praising punctuality, friendliness, responsiveness, and the ability to handle challenging installations that other contractors refused or failed to complete. The father-and-son team (Ray and Demarco) consistently receives praise for professionalism and technical problem-solving across a wide range of appliance types. However, a meaningful cluster of negative reviews — spanning multiple years — raises legitimate concerns: repeated appointment cancellations, mid-job price increases beyond quoted amounts, at least one instance of unlicensed work, one case of an incomplete and structurally unsafe installation, and a pattern of the owner deflecting blame onto customers in responses. Pricing scores are pulled down by multiple explicit complaints about charges exceeding quotes, though many customers found pricing fair or competitive. Project completion scores reflect both the many successful jobs and the documented cases of abandoned work, no-shows, and callbacks not honored.

• PRICE INFLATION PATTERN: Multiple independent reviews (2019-04-26, 2019-10-02, 2021-10-17, 2018-06-24) explicitly describe being charged more than the quoted price, sometimes significantly so. This is a recurring and credible pattern, not isolated incidents.
• APPOINTMENT RELIABILITY ISSUES: At least two reviews (2017-08-21, 2021-10-17) describe last-minute cancellations — one with two separate cancellations on weekday appointments. The 2021-10-17 reviewer also describes a quote being raised the night before the appointment, suggesting possible deliberate avoidance of honoring agreed pricing.
• UNLICENSED WORKER: The 2021-02-23 review explicitly states the technician sent was not a licensed contractor but a nephew of the owner, and the work was done incorrectly and left non-functional.
• WORK NOT COMPLETED / NOT STANDING BEHIND WORK: The 2020-03-17 review states the company does not stand behind their work and repeatedly promised but never showed up to fix a problem. The 2018-06-24 review describes a job left incomplete with multiple cancelled follow-up appointments over three weeks.
• SHODDY HIGH-COMPLEXITY INSTALLATION: The 2018-06-28 review describes a Thermador refrigerator installation that was unsafe, unsecured, unlevel, and had to be entirely redone by another contractor at additional cost exceeding $1,000. The owner disputed responsibility.
• OWNER RESPONSE PATTERN: Multiple negative reviews note that the owner's public responses deflect blame onto customers. One reviewer (2018-06-28) explicitly called out a pattern of the owner claiming customers were rude. This reduces confidence in owner accountability.
• COMMUNICATION FAILURE: The 2020-08-14 review describes a complete failure to follow up after an initial call, with no callback received after a week.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK — LOW TO MODERATE: The majority of 5-star reviews are specific and detailed with named technicians, job types, and unique circumstances, which reduces fake review suspicion. However, a small number of very short, generic 5-star reviews (e.g., 2022-08-29, 2022-06-29, 2017-10-28) lack any specifics and could be inflating the overall rating. Overall fake review risk is assessed as low-to-moderate.
• RECENCY NOTE: Reviews span from 2013 to 2024. The most recent reviews (2022–2024) are predominantly positive, suggesting possible improvement in service quality in recent years. However, the 2021-10-17 negative review is detailed and credible. Scores are weighted toward more recent reviews but the historical negative pattern is noted.

This WW Score is based on a large and diverse review set (75 reviews over 11 years) with HIGH confidence across all four dimensions, but the score should be interpreted cautiously due to a documented and recurring pattern of price increases beyond quotes, last-minute cancellations, at least one confirmed use of an unlicensed worker, and cases of incomplete or unsafe work — issues that are partially masked by the high volume of positive reviews.

5 Point Plumbing earns strong marks for professionalism, with the vast majority of reviewers praising punctuality, responsiveness, courteous technicians — particularly Omar and Julio — and attentive office staff. Project completion scores well overall, with most jobs described as finished thoroughly and on time, and the company honoring warranty callbacks; however, two negative reviews describe a job that took three weeks, required threats to complete, and another involving a no-show and a price that ballooned sixfold from the original quote, which meaningfully drag this dimension down. Pricing is the weakest dimension: while several reviewers praise fair and competitive rates, there are credible complaints about a dramatically misquoted job, an $8,400 estimate for unnecessary work, and a $3,000 charge for a job the customer felt was poorly executed — these are serious red flags that prevent a higher score. Experience is generally strong, with multiple reviewers citing deep technical knowledge and problem-solving, but the misdiagnosis of a sewer cleanout type by a technician (resulting in a near-$8,000 unnecessary repair recommendation) is a significant competency concern that tempers the score.

• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: Two reviews dated 2023-06-10 and 2023-03-30 are nearly word-for-word identical (the Omar tankless water heater review). One appears to be a duplicate submission. Only one instance was counted for scoring purposes.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: Two reviews dated 2022-01-06 are word-for-word identical (the Manuel Aguilar/warranty review). Only one instance was counted for scoring purposes.
• SERIOUS PRICING/COMPETENCE FLAG: One 1-star reviewer (2020-07-20) describes a technician misdiagnosing a one-way sewer cleanout as two-way and quoting $7,460–$8,420 for unnecessary pipe replacement. The city resolved the issue for free. The manager (Omar) later confirmed the technician was wrong. This is a significant red flag for both pricing integrity and diagnostic accuracy.
• SERIOUS SERVICE FAILURE FLAG: One 1-star reviewer (2020-09-10) describes sloppy work, a technician arriving without a mask during COVID, an additional $500 charge for a new leak caused by the original repair, non-responsiveness to follow-up calls, and a job that took 3 weeks to complete only after the customer threatened a credit card chargeback.
• PRICING COMPLAINT FLAG: One 2-star reviewer (2021-02-24) describes a no-show on the first appointment and a price that increased sixfold from the original quote, wasting over two weeks of the customer's time.
• PRICING COMPLAINT FLAG: One 1-star reviewer (2022-06-09) describes being charged $3,000 for work they felt was inadequate, requiring them to do significant work themselves and use their own equipment.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews (approximately 30 of 38) are dated before 2024. Only 3 reviews are from the past 12 months (2024–2025). The most recent reviews are positive, but the sample is too small to confirm a sustained improvement trend.
• GENERIC REVIEW FLAG: Several short reviews ('It went smoothly.', 'Worry-free!', 'Hot water heater troubleshooting', 'he arrived on time and performed the job within the hour estimated') provide minimal usable detail and were treated as low-information data points. They were not counted toward dimension mentions unless they explicitly referenced a scoreable dimension.

This WW Score is based on a moderately sized review set with HIGH mention counts across all dimensions, but reliability is tempered by the presence of credible, detailed negative reviews describing misdiagnosis, price inflation, and project abandonment, as well as two confirmed duplicate reviews and a review base that is predominantly older than 12 months.

This aggregated review set spans many years and appears to cover multiple distinct businesses operating under similar 'My Plumber' branding across different cities and states, which significantly complicates scoring. The majority of reviews are strongly positive, praising responsiveness, friendliness, technical knowledge, and fair pricing — with many customers becoming repeat clients. However, a meaningful minority of negative reviews (approximately 35–40 reviews) describe serious failures including no-shows, unreturned calls, warranty non-compliance, work left incomplete after payment, billing disputes, property damage, and in at least one case alleged threats of violence. Pricing feedback is mixed: many reviewers praise affordability and transparency, while others report unexpected price increases, bait-and-switch billing, and feeling overcharged. Project completion is the most concerning dimension, with multiple reviews describing abandoned jobs, callbacks ignored, and work that failed shortly after completion.

• MULTI-ENTITY CONCERN: Reviews appear to cover multiple unrelated businesses operating under 'My Plumber,' 'My Plumber Inc.,' 'Clog Pro,' 'Precision Plumber Buckeye,' '1 Buckeye Plumbing,' and other names. Scores should not be attributed to any single contractor without filtering by specific business identity.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION: Several reviews from dates 2024-12-11 and 2025-03-11 use nearly identical generic phrasing ('arrived fast,' 'skilled,' 'professional,' 'handled the repair seamlessly') with no specific technician names, job details, or unique identifiers. These are flagged as potentially inauthentic.
• RECENCY NOTE: Reviews span from 2006 to 2025. Reviews older than 3 years (pre-2022) were given reduced weight. The most recent 12 months (mid-2024 to mid-2025) show a continued mix of strong positives and some negatives.
• SERIOUS NEGATIVE INCIDENTS: At least one review describes alleged threats of violence by an owner (Steve Martin, Arizona). At least two reviews describe property damage (cracked tile, broken bathtub stopper) with no remediation. At least three reviews describe warranty non-compliance and abandoned work after payment.
• NO-SHOW AND RESPONSIVENESS FAILURES: Approximately 12–15 reviews explicitly describe missed appointments, unreturned calls, or complete failure to follow through on scheduled work — a recurring pattern across multiple named technicians and locations.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Approximately 55–60 reviews contain no text, only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring but counted in total review volume.
• SCORE CONSERVATISM APPLIED: Due to the multi-entity nature of this dataset, the high volume of serious negative reviews, and fake review suspicion, all dimension scores were held conservative per Rule 7.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large review volume, but LOW entity reliability — the dataset almost certainly aggregates reviews for multiple distinct businesses, making this score unsuitable for evaluating any single contractor without first filtering reviews by specific business name, location, and technician.

Acme Plumbing has a strong base of positive reviews praising responsiveness, professionalism, and technical competence across a large number of technicians including Anthony, Norval, Alejandro, Clay, and others. However, a meaningful minority of negative reviews — roughly 20-25 across the full dataset — raise serious concerns across all four dimensions: the owner (Ed) is repeatedly cited for rude behavior, threatening customers with lawsuits over billing disputes, and hanging up on clients; pricing transparency is a recurring problem with multiple reviewers describing hidden fees, undisclosed per-plumber hourly charges, and feeling overcharged; and project completion failures include abandoned jobs, missed callbacks, work left unfinished, and at least one instance of work done without required permits. The technician-level work is generally rated well, but owner/management conduct meaningfully drags down professionalism and pricing scores. Recency of reviews (2024-2025) shows continued strong positive feedback but also continued negative incidents, suggesting these issues are not fully resolved.

• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The 'Super Bowl Sunday' review featuring Norval Cunningham appears verbatim twice — once dated 2024-02-12 and once dated 2024-06-09. This is a likely duplicate submission and was counted only once for scoring purposes.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The billing dispute review describing charges of $678 vs. agreed $372 and threats of lawsuit appears nearly verbatim twice — once dated 2021-06-10 and once dated 2020-09-16. Counted only once for scoring.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK — MODERATE: A cluster of reviews dated exactly 2024-06-09 (approximately 20+ reviews) share the same date with no timestamps, many are very short and generic ('Professional service', 'Great friendly and fast service', 'Outstanding work'), and several are blank 5-star submissions. This pattern is consistent with a bulk review import or solicitation campaign. Confidence in this cluster is reduced.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Approximately 15-18 reviews contain no text and only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data.
• OWNER CONDUCT — RECURRING NEGATIVE PATTERN: Multiple independent reviews across different years (2011, 2014, 2017, 2020, 2021, 2024, 2025) describe the owner (Ed) as rude, threatening legal action over billing disputes, hanging up on customers, and failing to honor service commitments. This is a persistent and credible pattern.
• PRICING TRANSPARENCY — RECURRING NEGATIVE PATTERN: At least 5 independent reviews describe undisclosed fees, surprise charges, or feeling significantly overcharged. One reviewer documented a $303 estimate that became $344.74 with an undisclosed service fee added. Another described being charged $678 when $372 was agreed. This materially reduces the pricing score.
• PROJECT COMPLETION — NEGATIVE INCIDENTS: At least 3 reviews describe work left unfinished, missed follow-up appointments with no notice, or jobs requiring a second plumber to correct Acme's work. One review describes work done without required permits.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews with substantive detail are from 2019-2025, which were weighted more heavily. Reviews from 2004-2013 were included but given reduced weight due to age and potential changes in company ownership or staffing over time.
• GEOGRAPHIC INCONSISTENCY: Some reviews reference Monterey/Salinas, CA locations while others reference Durham, NC. This may represent two different Acme Plumbing franchises or locations. Scores reflect the combined dataset as provided, but users should be aware the reviews may not all pertain to a single business entity.

This WW Score is based on a large review set (155 total, ~130 with usable data) spanning nearly two decades, giving it HIGH statistical confidence in direction, but the score should be interpreted cautiously due to: a cluster of same-day generic reviews suggesting possible solicitation, confirmed duplicate reviews, persistent owner-conduct complaints across many years, and possible geographic mixing of two different business locations.

After Hour Plumbing & Drain earns strong marks for professionalism and responsiveness, with dozens of reviewers praising punctuality, friendly staff, and same-day or after-hours availability — a genuine differentiator. However, pricing is a significant drag on the overall score: multiple credible 1-star reviews describe charges of $250 for a 10-minute job, $5,400 for a pipe repair at an implied $535/hour, $4,500 labor for a water heater install, and undisclosed upcharges after work began — with one reviewer explicitly noting they were told no price could be given until arrival. Project completion is mixed: the majority of jobs were finished satisfactorily, but several serious failures emerged including a technician abandoning a job mid-visit, a part being removed without a replacement on hand leaving a home without water, recurring drain issues not resolved after multiple visits, and a check valve installed backwards requiring a third-party fix. Experience scores moderately well overall but is tempered by one technician who did not recognize the type of water heater he was servicing and a job where a valve was installed incorrectly, both of which are meaningful competency concerns.

• PRICING CONCERN: Multiple independent reviewers describe pricing they considered excessive or non-transparent — $250 for a 10-minute drain clear, $5,007 in labor for a 9-hour pipe job (~$535/hour), $4,500 labor for a water heater, and undisclosed upcharges after work began. This is a consistent pattern across unrelated reviews and should be weighted seriously.
• PROJECT ABANDONMENT: One reviewer (Jan 2023) credibly describes a technician leaving mid-job without completing work, followed by the company providing what the reviewer characterized as false explanations. This is a significant professionalism and completion failure.
• WORKMANSHIP FAILURES: At least three reviews describe defective work — a check valve installed backwards (confirmed by a second plumber), a valve that leaked for two years before being discovered, and a disposal/drain issue that recurred multiple times with the company refusing to honor the original repair.
• UNRESPONSIVENESS TO COMPLAINTS: Multiple negative reviewers note that the owner or office failed to respond to follow-up emails or calls over weeks or months, which is a pattern of poor accountability.
• RECENCY NOTE: Reviews span from 2019 to 2024. The most recent reviews (2023–2024) include a higher proportion of negative experiences than the earlier reviews (2019–2021), which were predominantly positive. This may indicate a decline in service quality over time and should be weighted accordingly.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK — LOW: The positive reviews vary in detail, specificity, and named technicians (Tyler, Sam, Miah, Cedric, Ivan, Mario, Rodrigo), which reduces the likelihood of systematic fake reviews. However, a cluster of very short, generic 5-star reviews from October 2022 (multiple reviews within days of each other with minimal detail) warrants mild caution.
• ONE REVIEW FLAGGED AS NON-ACTIONABLE: The reviewer who stated they could not rate the company because calls and emails went unanswered was counted for professionalism/responsiveness but not for other dimensions.

This WW Score is based on 80 reviews spanning 2019–2024 with HIGH mention counts across all four dimensions, making the score statistically reliable; however, the meaningful cluster of detailed negative reviews — particularly around pricing transparency, workmanship failures, and job abandonment — means the score should be interpreted as a genuine mixed picture rather than a strong endorsement, and prospective customers are advised to obtain written itemized quotes before authorizing any work.