Find Nearby Plumbers In San Bernardino, California

Easy Rooter Plumbing demonstrates strong overall performance driven by exceptional professionalism and reliable project completion. Technicians consistently receive praise for punctuality, communication, politeness, and technical competence across 89 and 78 mentions respectively. Experience scores are solid at 85.0 based on 68 mentions highlighting skilled workmanship and problem-solving. However, pricing emerges as a notable weakness with a score of 72.0 from 12 mentions, with multiple customers citing overcharging, upselling tactics, and prices significantly higher than competitors. The company excels in responsiveness and customer service but struggles with value perception.

• PRICING CONCERN: Multiple reviews (at least 5) explicitly mention overpricing, upselling, and charges exceeding estimates or competitor quotes. One customer noted $350 for work worth $180, another cited $8,500 vs $5,000 for tankless water heater, and another complained about $285 for a bib repair. This pattern suggests systematic pricing issues despite strong service quality.
• NEGATIVE OUTLIER REVIEWS: Three 1-star reviews (2024-08-12, 2022-06-14, 2022-04-28, 2021-12-14) describe serious issues including incomplete work, screaming/disrespect, rude office staff, and conflicting explanations. While minority, these suggest occasional service failures and communication breakdowns.
• SPAM COMPLAINT: One 1-star review (2023-10-26) complains about unsolicited marketing emails despite prior unsubscribe requests, indicating potential CRM/marketing process issues.
• RECENCY BIAS NOTED: Majority of reviews are from 2022-2025 (approximately 110+ reviews), with strong consistency in positive feedback. Older reviews (2017-2020) also positive. No significant quality decline detected over time.
• GENERIC PRAISE PATTERN: Approximately 8-10 reviews contain minimal detail (e.g., 'Always great', 'All went very well', 'Great and clean job', empty review text with 5-star rating). While not necessarily fake, these lack substantive evidence and reduce confidence slightly in overall scoring.

This WW Score of 84.2 is highly reliable for assessing professionalism and project completion (both HIGH confidence with 78+ mentions), but should be interpreted with caution regarding pricing value—the 72.0 pricing score reflects genuine customer concerns about overcharging despite strong service delivery, and represents a material weakness in the company's value proposition that contradicts the high overall score.

S&J Plumbing demonstrates strong overall performance across all four dimensions, with particular strength in professionalism (87.5) driven by consistent praise for responsiveness, punctuality, and courteous behavior across 42 reviews. Pricing scores well at 82.0 based on 28 mentions highlighting fair quotes and competitive rates. Project completion (81.0, 35 mentions) shows solid follow-through, though three significant negative reviews document serious failures including no-shows, missed appointments, and incomplete work. Experience scores 85.0 across 26 mentions reflecting skilled workmanship and technical knowledge. The WW Score of 84.2 reflects a reliable contractor with strong customer service, though the presence of critical failures on major projects (tankless water heater installation, emergency no-show) prevents a higher rating.

• Three 1-star reviews (2019-11-15, 2019-02-24, 2017-12-22) document serious failures: no-shows on multiple occasions, hours-late arrivals, incomplete work requiring third-party completion, and customer service breakdowns. These are not isolated complaints but represent genuine project failures.
• Review from 2019-11-15 describes a 9-day tankless water heater installation requiring rework twice, with crew no-shows on 3 separate occasions and arrival 5+ hours late. Job was never completed by S&J.
• Review from 2019-02-24 documents a complete no-show with no communication despite owner's assurance of service, leaving customer without water for an entire day.
• Review from 2017-12-22 alleges disrespect toward customer, disregarded requests, missing service invoice, and excessive pricing—suggesting potential interpersonal or professionalism issues.
• Most reviews are from 2017-2019 (older than 5 years). Only 2 reviews from 2024 and 1 from 2020. Recent data is extremely limited, making current reliability assessment difficult.
• The overwhelming majority of reviews (47 of 51) are 5-star ratings with highly positive language. While many include specific details (job type, timeline, pricing comparison), the concentration of perfect ratings combined with sparse recent reviews warrants caution about recency bias.

This WW Score of 84.2 should be treated with MODERATE-to-HIGH confidence for historical performance, but CAUTION is advised regarding current reliability due to: (1) critical project failures documented in 2019 suggesting systemic issues with complex jobs and communication, (2) extreme recency gap with only 2 reviews from 2024 and none from 2023, and (3) inability to determine if past failures have been corrected. The score reflects strong average performance but masks significant outlier failures that could recur. Recommend requesting recent references and clarifying communication protocols before engaging for major projects.

Peterson Plumbing has an overwhelmingly positive review base with strong, consistent praise across all four dimensions. Professionalism is the most frequently cited strength, with dozens of reviewers explicitly noting punctuality, communication, courtesy, and responsiveness. Pricing is frequently described as fair, reasonable, and competitive, with multiple reviewers noting Thomas honored quotes and even reduced fees in some cases. Project completion scores are high but are modestly tempered by a handful of negative reviews describing abandoned work, unresponsiveness after scheduling, and at least one instance of work allegedly not performed as billed. Experience scores are strong, with many reviewers praising technical knowledge and problem-solving across a wide variety of plumbing tasks, though a small number of reviews describe subpar workmanship or misdiagnosis requiring return visits.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: Two pairs of reviews share identical text posted on different dates (May 19 and May 16, 2025). 'Thomas is awesome and gets the job done! Professional, personable, and knowledgeable.' and 'Excellent, excellent service. I had an unusual problem...' appear twice each. These are likely duplicate submissions and were counted only once per unique text.
• REVIEW AGGREGATION CONCERN: This review set appears to span multiple distinct contractors and possibly multiple businesses operating under the 'Peterson Plumbing' name. Reviewers reference different technicians by name including Thomas, Jake, Jim, Gary, Brian, Ray, and Mike. Reviews span from 2006 to 2025, suggesting this may be a merged or aggregated profile across different operators or franchise locations.
• TEMPORAL CONCERN: A significant portion of reviews (roughly 40%) are dated 2016 or earlier, with many from 2013-2015 referencing 'Jake' as the primary technician. Reviews from 2021 onward predominantly reference 'Thomas.' Scores are weighted toward the more recent Thomas-era reviews, but older reviews referencing different technicians introduce noise into the dataset.
• NEGATIVE REVIEW PATTERN: Multiple 1-star reviews describe unresponsiveness after scheduling, work not completed as promised, price inflation mid-job, and in one case alleged fraud (charging for work not performed). These are serious flags that modestly reduce project completion and professionalism scores.
• BLANK AND CONTENT-FREE REVIEWS: Approximately 20 reviews contain no text (blank, 'unknown', or single punctuation). These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data.
• POSSIBLE MISATTRIBUTED REVIEWS: At least two reviews (Ray sprinkler design, Jim and Robin) appear to reference entirely different businesses or contractors unrelated to Thomas Peterson or Jake Peterson. These were excluded from scoring.
• ALL 5-STAR PATTERN: The vast majority of reviews are 5-star with only a small number of 1-2 star reviews. While the positive reviews contain specific details suggesting authenticity, the near-universal 5-star rating warrants mild caution.

This WW Score carries HIGH confidence for the Thomas Peterson era (2021-2025) but should be interpreted cautiously as an aggregate score given the multi-technician, multi-era nature of the review pool, the presence of duplicate reviews, and a small but notable cluster of serious negative reviews describing unresponsiveness and billing disputes.

Allison Plumbing has an overwhelmingly positive review base spanning over a decade, with consistent praise for professionalism, punctuality, communication, and honest pricing across hundreds of reviews. The pricing dimension scores well due to numerous explicit comparisons showing Allison underbidding competitors and honoring quoted prices, though a handful of reviewers noted prices felt high for smaller jobs. Project completion scores are strong, with many large-scale repipes and complex jobs described as finished on time and to a high standard, but are modestly penalized by several negative reviews citing abandoned work, warranty refusals, no-shows, and one serious safety incident involving improper water heater venting. The experience dimension is well-supported by detailed accounts of skilled diagnostics, quality workmanship, and problem-solving, though the 1-star venting incident and a few cases of misdiagnosis prevent a higher score. The overall score is tempered by 9 negative reviews (ratings of 1-3 stars) that describe no-shows, unresolved warranty claims, overcharging, incomplete work, and at least one potentially dangerous installation outcome.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: At least 6 reviews appear to be near-identical or exact duplicates posted on different dates (e.g., the 'This was the best experience I've ever had' water heater review appears on 2025-05-07 and 2024-06-18; the 'Darrell quoted us the best price' repipe review appears on 2023-06-07, 2023-04-26, and 2023-04-25; the 'Allison plumbing was a total life saver' repipe review appears on 2017-06-08, 2016-07-26, and 2016-07-25; the 'Ken Allison epitomizes old time customer care' review appears on 2019-06-08, 2018-12-01, and 2018-07-30; the 'We found Allison Plumbing based off their great ratings' review appears on 2017-01-13 and 2017-01-10; the 'I just wanted to give a sincere thank you' review appears on 2019-06-08 and 2019-04-05). This pattern is a significant red flag for review manipulation and reduces confidence in the raw review count.
• SAFETY INCIDENT: One 1-star review (2024-03-12) describes a potentially dangerous situation where Allison Plumbing installed a water heater that was not venting properly, the gas company red-flagged it three separate times, and Allison staff repeatedly told the customer the toxic fumes were 'normal' and turned the unit back on without repair. This is a serious workmanship and safety concern.
• WARRANTY REFUSAL: One 1-star review (2016-07-09) explicitly states Allison Plumbing refused to honor a 1-year warranty on drain clearing work when the problem recurred weeks later, and quoted $1,000-$2,000 for a repair that a competitor fixed for $105.
• NO-SHOW / RESPONSIVENESS FAILURES: Multiple negative reviews (2022-09-01, 2018-06-03, 2017-06-08, 2015-06-09, 2013-04-20) describe the company failing to respond to inquiries, missing scheduled appointments without notice, or never following up on quote requests. This is a recurring pattern.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews with substantive detail are from 2016-2024. Reviews from 2025 are few and include one confirmed duplicate. Reviews from 2012-2014 reference a plumber named 'Al' who may be a different operator or earlier owner, suggesting possible business continuity changes.
• GENERIC / NO-TEXT REVIEWS: Approximately 15-20 reviews consist of only a star rating with no text, or single words like 'unknown', 'it went well', or 'very well.' These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data.
• SCORE INFLATION RISK: The high volume of 5-star reviews with duplicate content and the pattern of reviews clustered on identical dates (e.g., multiple reviews dated 2019-06-08, 2021-06-07, 2023-06-07, 2024-06-06) suggests possible solicited or artificially posted reviews. Confidence is maintained at HIGH due to volume but the WW Score has been conservatively set to reflect this risk.

This WW Score is based on a large review dataset and carries HIGH overall confidence in directional accuracy, but should be interpreted with caution due to confirmed duplicate reviews, a recurring pattern of no-show complaints, at least one serious safety incident, a documented warranty refusal, and clustering of reviews on identical dates that suggests possible review solicitation or manipulation.

RB Plumbing has a strong overall reputation built across a large volume of reviews spanning more than a decade, with consistent praise for professionalism, responsiveness, fair pricing, and quality workmanship. The majority of reviewers highlight prompt callbacks, punctuality, and friendly demeanor as standout traits. However, there are three credible 1-star reviews describing no-shows, unreturned calls, and abrasive phone behavior, which meaningfully temper the professionalism and project completion scores. Pricing is consistently described as reasonable or fair, with no complaints about hidden charges. Experience scores well due to repeated mentions of technical skill, problem-solving on complex or old-home plumbing, and quality of finished work. The no-show and non-response complaints prevent top-tier scores despite the otherwise strong record.

• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The review praising 'Rene' as 'very skilled and very nice' with the '100 year old house' reference appears twice with identical text on the same date (2023-09-19), suggesting a duplicate submission or potential manipulation.
• MULTIPLE TECHNICIAN NAMES: Reviews reference at least four different individuals — Rene, Rick, Ryan, and Pete — suggesting this may be a multi-technician operation or possibly aggregated reviews from related but distinct service providers. Scores may reflect inconsistent service quality across personnel.
• 7 REVIEWS CONTAIN NO USABLE TEXT: Reviews labeled 'unknown' or containing only a rating with no narrative (e.g., 'unknown', 'See above', 'Great experience!', 'Pete is nothing but awesome!') were counted but provided minimal scoring data.
• RECENCY NOTE: Three of the four negative reviews (no-shows, unreturned calls) occurred between 2018 and 2022. The most recent reviews (2023–2024) are predominantly positive, suggesting possible improvement, but the pattern of non-response complaints is notable enough to flag.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK — LOW-MODERATE: The pie/donut gifting tradition is mentioned in many reviews across many years, which actually serves as a consistent and specific detail that increases authenticity. However, the volume of near-identical 5-star praise with generic language across older reviews (2012–2015) warrants mild caution. Overall, the reviews appear largely genuine.

This WW Score is based on a large and diverse review set spanning over a decade and carries HIGH overall confidence, but users should note that three credible negative reviews describe serious reliability failures (no-shows, unreturned calls), and the presence of multiple named technicians introduces variability that the aggregate score cannot fully capture.

The overwhelming majority of reviewers praised the professionalism, punctuality, and friendliness of technicians — particularly Ramon, Jeff, Justin, and Curtis — across both Tri-City Plumbing and Plumbtastic. Pricing was frequently described as reasonable, fair, and significantly better than competitors, though three reviews explicitly flagged price gouging, an inflated estimate without proper inspection, and aggressive upselling of service plans, which tempered the pricing score. Project completion was generally strong, with many reviewers noting same-day service, timely arrivals, and problems resolved on the first visit; however, one review described faulty workmanship that required a redo, and another noted a technician left without completing the job. Experience scores were supported by numerous mentions of knowledgeable, skilled technicians who diagnosed complex issues correctly and used quality materials, though the handful of negative workmanship and estimation incidents prevent a higher score.

• 6 reviews contain no text — only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable qualitative data.
• Multiple reviews reference two distinct business names: 'Tri-City Plumbing' and 'Plumbtastic.' These appear to be separate companies whose reviews have been aggregated together. This significantly undermines score reliability as the WW Score may not represent a single contractor.
• A moderate concentration of reviews reference the same technician names (Ramon, Jeff, Justin, Curtis), which is consistent with a real small business but warrants note. No strong evidence of fake reviews detected — most reviews contain specific details, named technicians, and described scenarios.
• Recency concern: A significant portion of reviews (roughly 35 of 63) are dated before 2021, making them more than 3 years old. Only about 10 reviews are from the past 12 months (2024–2025). The score is therefore weighted toward older experiences and may not reflect current service quality.
• Three negative reviews (1-star) explicitly cite: price gouging (2022), an estimate given without inspecting the actual problem (2014), and faulty workmanship requiring a redo plus aggressive upselling (2017). These are substantive complaints that were factored into dimension scores.
• One 1-star review (2018) describes a technician from Plumbtastic leaving without completing the job, which directly impacted the project completion score.

This WW Score carries moderate-to-high reliability for historical performance given the large review volume and specific detail in most reviews, but should be treated with caution due to the mixing of two potentially distinct business entities and the fact that the majority of reviews are over three years old.