Find Nearby Plumbers In San Bernardino, California

Curtis Plumbing has a strong base of loyal, long-term customers who consistently praise individual technicians — particularly Anthony, Matt, Joe, Jaime, and Chris — for punctuality, professionalism, and technical competence. Professionalism scores well overall but is meaningfully dragged down by a recurring pattern of negative reviews citing missed appointments, no-shows, lack of follow-up communication, and dismissive responses from management when complaints were raised. Pricing is the weakest dimension: while many customers report fair or even below-expectation costs, a notable cluster of negative reviews describes significant markups on parts (3-4x retail), undisclosed travel fees, billing for time not worked, and estimates that were promised but never delivered. Project completion is generally solid — most jobs described are finished and customers return repeatedly — but there are credible accounts of unresolved issues (septic problem recurring after payment, dishwasher left non-functional, pipe installed below code) that prevent a higher score. Experience scores highest among the dimensions, with many reviewers specifically noting technical skill, problem-solving ability, and quality workmanship across complex jobs.

• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW CLUSTER: A high concentration of reviews from June 2025 (approximately 14 reviews within a 9-day window) feature near-identical structure — short praise, named technician (predominantly 'Jaime'/'Jamie' and 'Conner/Connor'), and no specific job details. Several are suspiciously brief (e.g., 'Jaime and Connor were fantastic!', 'great work Devon and Scott', 'Jaime and Conner did a great job keep it up'). One review (June 3, 2025) describes meeting a technician at a gas station handing out brochures — this is atypical and may represent a solicited or incentivized review rather than a genuine service experience.
• RECENCY BIAS RISK: The majority of highly positive reviews are concentrated in 2024-2025, while a disproportionate share of negative reviews span 2011-2021. This may reflect genuine improvement over time, but it may also reflect review solicitation practices skewing recent scores upward.
• BILLING AND TRANSPARENCY CONCERNS: Multiple independent negative reviews across different years (2011, 2016, 2018, 2020, 2021, 2023) describe undisclosed fees, parts marked up 3-4x retail, billing for hours not worked, and estimates charged but never delivered. This is a consistent pattern across unrelated reviewers and time periods, indicating a systemic issue rather than isolated incidents.
• COMMUNICATION AND FOLLOW-UP FAILURES: At least 5 separate reviews describe the company failing to send promised estimates, failing to return calls or emails, or failing to show up for scheduled appointments without notice. One reviewer documented 4-5 unanswered follow-up contacts. This pattern meaningfully impacts the professionalism score.
• MANAGEMENT RESPONSE CONCERNS: Two reviews describe the owner or office manager responding to complaints in a dismissive or retaliatory manner, including one instance where a refund was reportedly rescinded after a negative review was posted. This is a significant integrity flag.
• 9 reviews contained no text (blank body with only a star rating) and were excluded from dimension scoring but counted in total reviews analyzed.
• GEOGRAPHIC INCONSISTENCY: One negative review references Tucson, AZ and another references Oracle/Rancho Vistoso (also Arizona), while the majority of reviews reference Tampa Bay/Riverview, FL. This may indicate the business has operated in multiple locations or that some reviews are misattributed, which could affect score reliability.

This WW Score is based on a large review set (109 reviews) spanning over a decade, giving it HIGH statistical confidence in volume terms, but the score should be interpreted cautiously due to a credible fake review cluster in June 2025, a consistent multi-year pattern of billing and communication complaints from independent reviewers, and evidence of management responses that raise integrity concerns — the true score for a new customer's experience may be lower than the calculated 74.2.

Motherflushers Plumbing earns strong marks for professionalism and responsiveness, with the overwhelming majority of reviewers praising punctuality, courteous technicians, and fast response times — often within an hour. Project completion is generally solid, with most jobs described as fully resolved, though two notable negative reviews cite incomplete or incorrect work requiring a second plumber, and one review describes a complete failure to respond via their after-hours AI system. Pricing is the most contested dimension: while several reviewers praise affordability and fair pricing, at least four reviews explicitly call out overcharging, hidden fees, or bait-and-switch estimates — including a $325 snake job quoted at $100, and a $648 toilet wax seal job that allegedly was never completed. Experience scores well overall, with multiple reviewers citing knowledgeable, skilled technicians who solved complex problems, but is tempered by at least one instance of incorrect workmanship. The WW Score reflects a genuinely capable company with a meaningful and recurring pricing transparency problem.

• PRICING CONCERN: At least 4 reviews explicitly describe pricing as deceptive or significantly above quote — including a $100-to-$325 snake job bait-and-switch, a $325 charge for a service most plumbers charge $85–$150 for, and a $648 charge for work allegedly not completed. This is a statistically significant pattern across the review set.
• WORKMANSHIP FAILURE: One review (2020-10-13) states the plumber did not fix the job correctly and a second plumber had to be called. Another review (2022-05-27) describes paying $648 for toilet wax seals that were never actually replaced, confirmed by a subsequent plumber.
• AFTER-HOURS SYSTEM FAILURE: One review (2024-10-13) describes the 24-hour AI phone system hanging up on the customer mid-conversation with no callback, resulting in lost business and a 1-star rating.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK — LOW TO MODERATE: Several 5-star reviews are brief and generic (e.g., 'Great service and speedy service better than any other plumbing company. Very helpful and kind') with no specific details. However, the majority of positive reviews do include named technicians, specific job types, and situational detail, which reduces the likelihood of widespread fabrication. Confidence is not significantly reduced but noted.
• RECENCY NOTE: Reviews span from 2020 to 2024. The most recent reviews (2023–2024) are generally positive, but the pricing complaints are distributed across multiple years including 2020, 2022, 2023, and 2024, suggesting the pricing issue is not isolated to an older period and may be ongoing.

This WW Score is based on 43 reviews with strong mention counts across all four dimensions and is considered moderately reliable, though the recurring pricing transparency complaints and at least two documented workmanship failures introduce meaningful downward risk that prospective customers should weigh carefully.

Discount Plumbing demonstrates solid professionalism with courteous, responsive technicians and strong communication across 287 mentions. However, pricing emerges as a significant weakness, with 89 explicit complaints about overcharging, inflated estimates, and costs substantially above market rates. Project completion is reliable but inconsistent—most jobs finish on time and properly, yet multiple reviews cite incomplete work, warranty disputes, and callbacks required to fix initial repairs. Technical experience is generally strong with knowledgeable staff, though some technicians lack proper diagnostic tools or training. The company's reputation is polarized: loyal long-term customers praise consistency and fairness, while newer or one-time customers frequently report feeling overcharged or misled.

• PRICING CONCERNS: 89 mentions of overpricing, with customers reporting 2-5x markups compared to competitors. Multiple reviews cite $300+ charges for simple $20-50 fixes, and estimates that drop significantly when questioned.
• INCONSISTENT QUALITY: Wide variance in technician competence and ethics. Some reviews praise specific technicians (Lonnie, Carlos, Kenneth, Felix) while others report unprofessional behavior, rudeness, and incomplete work from different staff members.
• WARRANTY & FOLLOW-UP ISSUES: Multiple complaints about refusal to warranty work, unwillingness to return for free callbacks, and charging additional fees for problems caused by initial repairs.
• COMMUNICATION FAILURES: Several reviews report missed appointments, no-shows, technicians not arriving within promised windows, and poor follow-up on estimates.
• POTENTIAL UPSELLING PATTERN: Recurring theme of technicians recommending expensive replacements (water heaters, full replumbing) when simpler fixes would suffice. Some customers obtained second opinions and found original diagnoses inflated.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK - MODERATE: Approximately 15-20 reviews contain suspiciously generic 5-star praise with minimal detail ('Great service,' 'Awesome job,' 'Terrific') and no substantive information. However, majority of reviews are detailed and credible.
• RECENCY NOTE: Reviews span 2007-2025. Most detailed complaints are from 2015-2024, suggesting systemic issues persist. Older reviews (pre-2015) tend more positive, possibly reflecting different ownership/management.

This WW Score of 72.8 is reliable and should be trusted as a cautious assessment. The company excels in professionalism and technical skill but is significantly undermined by persistent pricing complaints and inconsistent project follow-through. Customers should expect competent work but should obtain multiple quotes and carefully review estimates before committing, as overcharging appears to be a structural business practice rather than isolated incidents.

Aloha Plumbing receives strong praise across a large volume of reviews for friendly, courteous, and punctual technicians — particularly Frank, Eric, Jesse, Russell, Bryan, and Andrew — which drives a solid but not exceptional professionalism score. However, a meaningful cluster of negative reviews (roughly 12–14 one-star reviews) describes serious issues including incomplete or failed work requiring re-dos by other companies, a supervisor hanging up on a customer, no-shows, billing disputes, and a pattern of work not being finished correctly the first time, which significantly tempers the project completion and experience scores. Pricing receives mixed signals: many reviewers praise fair and reasonable rates, but several explicitly call out overcharging, surprise cost escalations, and quotes that felt exploitative — particularly for seniors and emergency situations. The experience dimension is similarly split, with many reviews praising knowledgeable technicians while others describe shoddy workmanship, leaks recurring after repairs, and jobs left unfinished or done incorrectly. The WW Score of 72.4 reflects a company with genuine strengths in customer-facing service but notable and recurring weaknesses in quality control and job completion reliability.

• 7 reviews contain no text at all — only a 5-star rating. These have been excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data.
• One review (dated 2023-02-16) appears to be a restaurant review for 'Country Kitchen' and is entirely unrelated to plumbing services. This was excluded from all scoring.
• One review (dated 2025-05-26) states 'Install tomorrow, I'll report back' with no follow-up — this is an incomplete review and was excluded from dimension scoring.
• Approximately 12–14 reviews are 1-star and describe serious recurring issues: failed repairs requiring third-party correction, no-shows, billing disputes without receipts, a supervisor yelling at and hanging up on a customer, and a $3,000+ sprinkler installation left in unusable condition for months.
• Several negative reviews describe a pattern of work appearing fixed but recurring shortly after — suggesting systemic quality control issues rather than isolated incidents.
• The volume of 5-star reviews with very short, generic praise (e.g., 'Great Company. Great Price.', 'Quick easy to the point repair', 'Always pleasant, very detailed service and prompt.') raises mild concern about review authenticity, though named technicians and specific job details in many reviews lend credibility to the majority.
• A significant portion of reviews (roughly 35+) are dated prior to 2023, meaning they are more than 2 years old. Recent reviews (2024–2025) are more heavily weighted but still show the same mixed pattern.
• One reviewer explicitly questions whether the business operates without a contractor license, which is a serious flag that could not be verified from reviews alone.

This WW Score is based on a large review set (125 total, 118 with usable data) spanning multiple years, giving it HIGH statistical confidence, but the score should be interpreted cautiously given the consistent pattern of serious negative experiences — particularly around project completion and pricing transparency — that appear across multiple years and multiple reviewers.

B&D Plumbing has a large and long-running review history with a strong majority of positive experiences, particularly around professionalism, responsiveness, and technical competence. However, a meaningful cluster of negative reviews — spanning multiple years and covering no-shows, missed appointments without callbacks, poor workmanship (back-stabbing outlets, failed pipe repairs), and pricing disputes — prevents a high score across all dimensions. Pricing is a recurring concern in both directions: many reviewers praise fair or below-market rates, while others describe feeling overcharged for short visits or minimal work. Project completion is dragged down by multiple credible accounts of no-shows, abandoned jobs, and at least one instance of a repair failing repeatedly. The experience dimension scores highest due to numerous detailed accounts of skilled diagnostics and creative problem-solving, but is tempered by documented cases of substandard workmanship.

• 17 reviews contain no text — only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence.
• Several reviews use the name 'Tom' or 'Dale' specifically and appear to reference different geographic markets (Cincinnati/Ohio area vs. Baton Rouge/Louisiana vs. Riverside/California), suggesting this may be a shared brand name used by multiple independent operators. Scores may reflect mixed contractor quality rather than a single business.
• Multiple no-show and missed appointment complaints span from 2013 through 2024, indicating a persistent and systemic reliability issue rather than isolated incidents.
• One review (2021) explicitly states B&D is a middleman/sales company that subcontracts work to other plumbing companies, which may explain inconsistency in quality and pricing across reviews.
• One review (2025) alleges the company stole a commercial job from the reviewer — a serious ethics complaint that could not be verified but is noted.
• One review (2025) documents use of a fire-hazardous back-stabbing wiring method by what appears to be an electrical service call, suggesting possible scope confusion or a different trade operating under the same brand.
• The review base spans from 2004 to 2025. Reviews older than 3 years (pre-2022) were given reduced weight. The majority of detailed negative reviews are concentrated in 2019–2025, suggesting possible quality decline over time.
• No clear fake review pattern detected, though a number of very short generic positive reviews ('Fantastic company.', 'A good company to work with.', 'Great customer service') with no specifics slightly reduce confidence in the positive signal.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large review volume, but the score itself should be interpreted cautiously given strong evidence of inconsistent service quality across what may be multiple operators sharing the B&D Plumbing brand name in different regions.

Brothers Plumbing earns strong marks for technical skill and workmanship, with numerous reviewers citing knowledgeable technicians who correctly diagnosed complex problems, completed multi-part jobs thoroughly, and went above and beyond expectations. Professionalism scores are solid but meaningfully dragged down by a recurring pattern of no-shows, unanswered calls, and at least one incident of intimidating behavior and a bait-and-switch on pricing. Project completion is similarly mixed: many jobs were finished quickly and well, but at least 6 distinct reviews describe appointments where the company simply never showed up or never called back, which is a serious reliability concern. Pricing is generally viewed as fair and reasonable by most reviewers, but two reviews cite unexpected charges or prices higher than quoted, preventing a higher score. Overall, the business demonstrates genuine capability when it shows up, but the no-show and communication failure pattern is consistent enough across multiple years to represent a real and documented risk.

• RECURRING NO-SHOW PATTERN: At least 6 reviews across multiple years (2020, 2021, 2022, 2023, 2025) explicitly describe the company failing to show up for scheduled appointments or never returning calls. This is not isolated and represents a systemic reliability issue.
• PRICING INCONSISTENCY: One review (2021-04-30) describes being quoted $50 for a part but charged $130, and another (2019-09-05) describes not being given a price before work started and being charged more than expected. These are credible specific complaints.
• INTIMIDATION COMPLAINT: One review (2021-04-30) describes a technician named Chris becoming threatening and refusing to leave the home during a billing dispute. This is a serious professionalism flag.
• INCOMPLETE/BLANK REVIEWS: Approximately 18 reviews contain no text whatsoever — only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence per scoring rules.
• INVALID REVIEW INCLUDED IN DATASET: One review (2017-12-07) explicitly states the reviewer never used Brothers Plumbing and used a different company. This review was excluded from all scoring.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent reviews (2024-2025) are generally positive, but the no-show complaint recurs as recently as May 2025, indicating the reliability issue has not been fully resolved.
• POSSIBLE DUPLICATE REVIEW: Two reviews dated 2024-07-29 and 2024-08-13 contain nearly identical text praising 'Nate' for a water main replacement. These appear to be the same reviewer posting twice. Only one instance was counted per dimension.
• GENERIC REVIEWS: Several short reviews ('Great service', 'Good person on time good price', 'Best Plumbers Ever!!!') lack specific detail and were given reduced weight in scoring, though not flagged as fake individually given the overall review diversity.

This WW Score is based on a large and diverse review set spanning multiple years and carries HIGH overall confidence, but the score should be interpreted cautiously given a well-documented and recurring pattern of no-shows and communication failures that meaningfully undermines the otherwise strong workmanship reputation.