Find Nearby Plumbers In San Diego, California

American Plumbing Group and its associated Charlie/Carlos operation in San Diego have an overwhelmingly positive review record across all four scored dimensions. Professionalism is the most frequently cited strength, with dozens of reviewers praising punctuality, communication, courteous demeanor, and responsiveness — including proactive text updates and same-day or within-the-hour arrival times. Pricing is consistently described as fair, reasonable, and competitive, with multiple reviewers explicitly noting that APG beat out other quotes by significant margins. Project completion is strong, with the vast majority of jobs described as finished correctly and promptly, though one 2019 review (rated 2 stars) noted a failure to return calls after an initial job, and one 2024 review (rated 1 star) raised a concern about the business operating from a residential property. Experience scores are high, with reviewers frequently citing decades of knowledge, correct diagnosis where other plumbers failed, and skilled execution across a wide variety of job types including slab leaks, water heaters, drain clearing, and pipe replacement.

• FAKE REVIEW RISK — MODERATE: A significant cluster of reviews from late 2024 and early 2025 attributed to 'Charlie' follow a highly repetitive pattern: short, generic praise combined with neighborhood/area name-dropping (e.g., 'Best plumber in Serra Mesa', 'Great plumber in Oak Park'). Several of these reviews contain near-identical sentence structures and lack specific job details, which is a common pattern in SEO-driven or incentivized reviews. These have been included in scoring but treated with reduced individual weight.
• DUAL PERSONA CONCERN: Reviews reference two distinct named plumbers — 'Ryan' (associated with American Plumbing Group / APG, primarily in downtown condos and older reviews) and 'Charlie/Carlos' (associated with a broader San Diego service area, primarily in newer reviews). It is unclear whether these represent the same business entity or two separate contractors operating under a shared brand. This may affect the reliability of aggregated scoring.
• NEGATIVE SIGNAL: One 2-star review (2019) explicitly describes a failure to return calls after an initial job, citing lack of follow-through as unprofessional. One 1-star review (2024) questions the legitimacy of the business operating from a residential property.
• RECENCY NOTE: A large portion of the most detailed and credible reviews (Ryan/APG) date from 2018–2022, which is more than 1–3 years old. The more recent 2024–2025 reviews (Charlie) are shorter, less detailed, and show the repetitive SEO-style pattern noted above. Consumers should weight the older, more detailed reviews carefully alongside the newer ones.
• THREE BLANK OR NEAR-BLANK REVIEWS: At least one review had no text content (only a 5-star rating, dated 2025-05-26), and two others contained only generic thank-you phrases with no actionable detail. These were excluded from dimension scoring.

This WW Score is based on a large volume of reviews (109 total) and carries HIGH overall confidence, but consumers should be aware of a moderate fake-review risk in the 2024–2025 Charlie-attributed cluster and the unresolved dual-persona concern between Ryan/APG and Charlie, which together introduce some uncertainty into the aggregate score.

Carroll Plumbing receives overwhelmingly positive feedback across all four dimensions, with professionalism being the most frequently cited strength — reviewers consistently praise punctuality, friendliness, clear communication, and respectful behavior in the home. Project completion scores are strong, with numerous accounts of same-day or next-day service, jobs finished as promised, and follow-through on callbacks and emergency situations. Pricing is generally viewed as fair and competitive, with multiple reviewers explicitly noting Carroll beat other quotes; however, two negative reviews raised concerns about pricing transparency and labor billing practices, which temper the score modestly. Experience and workmanship are well-documented, with specific technical praise for diagnosing complex issues, going above and beyond on repairs, and educating customers — though one 1-star review alleged overcharging for angle stop work and another from 2010 is a vague complaint with no detail. The overall picture is of a highly reliable, customer-focused plumbing company with a strong track record across many years.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: Two reviews dated 2022-09-15 with identical text (1-star, angle stop complaint) appear to be the same review submitted twice — only counted once for scoring purposes.
• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: Two reviews dated 2024-08-17 and 2024-09-11 contain nearly identical text praising Carroll Plumbing as a repeat customer — likely the same reviewer posting twice; counted once.
• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: Two reviews dated 2022-09-30 and 2023-06-09 contain nearly identical text about a toilet flange repair by 'Juvat' — likely the same review posted twice; counted once.
• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: Two reviews dated 2021-06-23 and 2022-06-09 contain nearly identical text praising Mike as 'honest, punctual, knowledgeable' — likely the same review posted twice; counted once.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Nine reviews contained no text (only a star rating). These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data.
• RECENCY NOTE: The vast majority of substantive reviews fall within 2020–2025, lending strong recency weight. One negative review dates to 2010 and carries minimal weight due to age and lack of detail.
• NEGATIVE SIGNALS: Three negative/mixed reviews exist — a vague 2010 1-star with no specifics, a 2022 1-star about disputed angle stop methodology and pricing, and a 4-star noting a billing discrepancy (2.75 hours charged vs. 2.5 hours worked). These are noted but do not dominate the overall pattern.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK — LOW: While the volume of 5-star reviews is high, most contain specific names, job details, and unique narratives. The pattern does not strongly suggest coordinated fake reviews, though the duplicate submissions noted above are a mild concern.

This WW Score is based on a large, well-distributed set of reviews spanning nearly a decade with strong recency, specific job details, and named technicians — making it one of the more reliable assessments possible; the score of 88.1 can be trusted with HIGH confidence, modestly tempered by a small number of negative pricing/billing complaints and several duplicate review submissions.

Monty's Plumbing (KC Montgomery) earns strong scores across all four dimensions, driven by an exceptionally large and detailed review base spanning over a decade. Professionalism is the most frequently praised attribute, with dozens of reviewers explicitly citing punctuality, responsiveness, communication, and friendly demeanor — including notable examples of KC answering calls on Thanksgiving night and before normal business hours. Pricing is consistently described as fair, reasonable, and often significantly lower than competing bids, with multiple reviewers noting KC's honesty in avoiding unnecessary upsells. Project completion scores are high but modestly tempered by three negative reviews: one describing a serious incident where a technician broke a cast-iron pipe after being explicitly warned not to touch it and then refused accountability, one citing a misdiagnosis that led to an unnecessary referral (later resolved by a competitor for a basic fix), and one citing complete non-responsiveness to multiple voicemails. Experience scores are high, with many reviewers praising KC's ability to solve problems other plumbers could not, though the pipe-breaking incident and the misdiagnosed drain clog introduce meaningful negative signals. The overwhelming majority of reviews are positive and detailed, lending strong credibility to the high scores, but the negative reviews are substantive and credible and prevent a top-tier score.

• THREE SUBSTANTIVE NEGATIVE REVIEWS IDENTIFIED: (1) A 1-star review (2016-03-02) describes a technician breaking a cast-iron pipe after being explicitly warned not to touch it, then refusing to accept responsibility — this is a serious workmanship and accountability failure that meaningfully impacts project_completion and experience scores. (2) A 2-star review (2015-02-09) describes a misdiagnosis where Monty's said a basic roof-vent drain clearing was impossible and referred to contractors; a second plumber fixed it trivially — this impacts experience and project_completion scores. (3) A 1-star review (2016-01-13) describes complete non-responsiveness across multiple calls and voicemails — this impacts professionalism score.
• RECENCY NOTE: Only 2 reviews are from the past 12 months (2024 and 2022). The large majority of reviews are from 2010–2020, with the most recent cluster from 2019–2022. The single most recent review (2024-03-21) is positive. Scores reflect the full historical record but consumers should note limited recent data.
• ONE AMBIGUOUS REVIEW: The 3-star review (2019-01-02) describes KC declining a condo job due to liability concerns. This is not a quality failure but reflects a business scope limitation. It was noted but did not significantly penalize any dimension.
• ONE REVIEW (2014-12-09, 3-star) appears to be about a DIFFERENT plumber entirely — the reviewer describes a plumber who took a day and a half and left a mess, but does not name Monty's. This review was excluded from scoring as it does not clearly reference Monty's Plumbing.
• NO FAKE REVIEW PATTERNS DETECTED: Despite the high volume of 5-star reviews, the majority contain specific job details, named individuals, unique scenarios, and varied language. The review set appears authentic. No artificial inflation flag is raised, though the sheer volume of 5-star reviews warrants normal consumer scrutiny.

This WW Score is based on 78 reviews with a high volume of detailed, specific, and credible feedback spanning over 12 years, yielding HIGH confidence across all four dimensions; however, consumers should weigh the three substantive negative reviews carefully — particularly the pipe-breaking incident with disputed accountability — and note that recent review data (past 12–24 months) is sparse, meaning current service quality cannot be fully verified.

Acculine Leak Detection and Chris personally receive overwhelmingly positive feedback across all four dimensions, with the vast majority of reviewers praising his responsiveness, honesty, and technical skill in locating leaks quickly and accurately. Professionalism scores are strong but modestly tempered by three negative reviews citing rude communication, poor follow-through on scheduling, and one serious incident where inadequate post-detection communication allegedly contributed to significant water damage. Pricing is consistently described as fair, competitive, and transparent, with multiple reviewers noting Chris adhered to quoted prices and even proactively found ways to reduce costs. Project completion scores are high, with numerous accounts of same-day or next-day service, jobs finished on time, and callbacks honored — though the 1-star review alleging incomplete service delivery (camera inspection not performed as paid for) prevents a top-tier score. Experience scores are the strongest dimension, with dozens of reviewers noting Chris found leaks that other companies missed, used professional equipment, and explained technical processes clearly.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: At least two review pairs appear to be near-identical duplicates submitted with and without dates — specifically the 'Chris and Jose' bathroom wall review and the 'urgent leak / city responsibility' review appear twice each. These duplicates were counted once per unique review for scoring purposes but inflate the total review count.
• UNDATED REVIEWS: Approximately 20 reviews have no date attached. These cannot be assessed for recency and were treated as lower-weight data points. It is unknown whether they are recent or several years old.
• NEGATIVE REVIEW PATTERN: Three 1-star reviews exist. One describes a scheduling/communication dispute, one alleges wasted time over three days with no notification, and one is a serious allegation involving a $20,000 water damage incident attributed to Chris's failure to communicate urgency and not completing the paid camera inspection. The owner responded to the scheduling complaint by accusing the reviewer of being a competitor, which is a flag for defensiveness. These reviews are credible and specific enough to be treated as genuine.
• REVIEW VOLUME SKEW: The overwhelming majority of reviews are 5-star with only 3 negative reviews out of 55 total. While this may reflect genuine quality, the ratio warrants mild caution. No clear fake review pattern (e.g. identical phrasing across multiple reviews) was detected beyond the confirmed duplicates.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent dated reviews are from late 2024, suggesting the business is active. However, a significant portion of reviews lack dates, making full recency analysis impossible.

This WW Score is based on a large volume of reviews with strong mention counts across all dimensions, giving it HIGH overall confidence, but the score should be interpreted with awareness of three credible negative reviews — including one serious incident alleging incomplete service and consequential water damage — which prevent a higher score and represent meaningful risk signals for prospective customers.

Carlos and Plumworx receive consistently strong praise across all four scored dimensions, with professionalism being the most frequently cited strength — reviewers repeatedly highlight punctuality, responsiveness (including holiday and same-day availability), and clear communication. Project completion is nearly universally affirmed, with multiple reviewers noting jobs were finished efficiently, thoroughly, and without cutting corners. Experience scores are also high, supported by specific mentions of technical problem-solving, attention to detail, and knowledge across diverse plumbing tasks including tankless water heaters, camera inspections, and line jetting. Pricing is mentioned in only three reviews but is described positively as competitive, fair, and cost-effective, earning a solid though moderately confident score. The overall picture is of a reliable, skilled, and customer-focused plumbing operation.

• All 10 reviews are 5-star ratings with no negative or mixed feedback — this is a potential indicator of review curation or selection bias, though most reviews do contain specific job details which reduces fake review suspicion.
• Two reviews reference 'Charlie' and 'Carlos' as the operator — this is likely the same person but introduces minor inconsistency worth noting.
• 6 of the 10 reviews are dated 2021 or earlier, meaning the majority of data is more than 3 years old. Only 2 reviews fall within the past 12 months (2024 and 2023-11), which limits confidence in reflecting current performance.
• No negative reviews or constructive criticism present across any dimension — while this may reflect genuine quality, it reduces the ability to identify any weaknesses or risk areas.

The WW Score of 88.1 carries HIGH overall confidence due to strong mention counts across most dimensions, but should be interpreted with moderate caution given that the majority of reviews are over two years old and no critical feedback exists in the dataset.

Burtech Plumbing demonstrates consistently strong performance across all four dimensions, with professionalism being the most frequently praised attribute — punctuality, communication, friendliness, and cleanliness are cited across the vast majority of reviews. Pricing scores well overall, with many reviewers explicitly noting fair, transparent, flat-rate pricing and no hidden charges, though a handful of reviews flag specific instances of high quotes (e.g., $1,000 for four faucets, steep leak detection fees), which tempers the score modestly. Project completion is strong, with same-day and next-day service being a recurring theme, though two notable negative reviews describe an abandoned or unresolved job and a flooded bathroom with no follow-up response, which meaningfully reduce this dimension's score. Experience is highly rated, with numerous reviewers praising specific technicians — particularly Dave, Jaime, Kyle, Nico, Eli, and Gino — for technical skill, problem-solving, and going above and beyond.

• One review (2025-05-25, 1-star) describes Burtech flooding a customer's bathroom with sewer water during a city-contracted project and failing to respond to any follow-up inquiries — a serious unresolved complaint that weighs on project completion scoring.
• One review (2025-05-27, 1-star) describes a toilet installed by Burtech that began leaking within 14 months, with the company declining to honor a warranty fix and only offering a $50 discount after the review was posted — raises concerns about post-job accountability.
• One review (2024-07-20, 1-star) describes a failed drain clearing attempt, a messy worksite, and two consecutive appointment cancellations — indicating inconsistent scheduling reliability.
• One review (2024-06-08, 1-star) states only 'Horrible company' with no detail — flagged as low-information and not heavily weighted.
• One review (2024-06-08, 1-star) is in Spanish and appears to reference a frustrating app or navigation experience rather than plumbing service quality — treated as non-scorable.
• One review (2024-07-13) begins with 'Certainly! Here's a 5-star review for Burtech Plumbing:' followed by a dash separator, strongly suggesting it was AI-generated or copy-pasted from a prompt. This review has been noted but its content is generic enough to be treated with reduced confidence.
• A significant cluster of reviews share the exact date of 2024-06-08 with no specific timestamps, suggesting possible batch import or backdating of older reviews. These reviews were still scored but treated with slightly reduced individual weight.
• One review (2024-03-26, 4-star) notes the technician failed to proactively inform the customer about a tankless water heater rebate option before installation — a minor transparency concern.
• The vast majority of reviews are positive and recent (within 12 months of mid-2025), which supports score reliability. Negative reviews are few but substantive and have been factored into scoring.

This WW Score is based on a large, predominantly recent review set with high mention counts across all four dimensions, making it statistically reliable — however, the presence of a few serious unresolved complaints, one likely AI-generated review, and a suspicious batch of same-date reviews introduce modest uncertainty, and prospective customers should read the flagged negative reviews carefully before hiring.