Find Nearby Plumbers In San Diego, California

All Aloha Plumbing San Diego scores strongly on professionalism, with nearly every reviewer explicitly praising punctuality, communication, friendliness, and responsiveness — Louis in particular is mentioned repeatedly as a standout technician. Project completion also scores well, with multiple reviewers confirming jobs were finished thoroughly, on time, and with care taken to avoid collateral damage. Experience is rated positively across several reviews, with customers noting technical knowledge, problem-solving ability, and clear explanations of work performed. However, pricing is a significant drag on the overall score: while two reviewers praised fair or best pricing, one reviewer explicitly described quotes as 'outrageously inflated' and called the service 'salesy,' and another noted pricing was 'very reasonable' only in the context of advice — not completed work — creating a mixed and uncertain pricing picture. One review (the owner encounter on the street) provides no usable service data and was excluded from dimension scoring.

• One review (2024-08-25) is not based on any plumbing service performed — it describes a brief street encounter with the owner and provides no actionable data on any dimension. It was excluded from dimension scoring.
• Louis/Louie is mentioned by name in the majority of reviews, which may indicate a review solicitation pattern tied to a single technician rather than a representative sample of the company's overall service quality.
• Mild concern about generic phrasing across several 5-star reviews (e.g., 'highly recommend,' 'professional and responsive'), though most reviews include specific details that reduce fake review suspicion to low-moderate.
• Pricing dimension has a significant negative outlier: one reviewer (2024-04-16, 2-star) explicitly called pricing 'outrageously inflated' and flagged manufactured discounts and a salesy approach. This conflicts with two positive pricing mentions and warrants caution.
• All reviews are from within the past 12 months to approximately 14 months, so recency is generally strong with no significant staleness concern.

This WW Score is based on 14 reviews with a reasonable level of specific detail, strong recency, and consistent patterns across most dimensions — the score is moderately reliable, though the pricing dimension should be treated with caution given a direct conflict between reviewer accounts.

SDAC demonstrates strong performance across all four dimensions based on available reviews. Professionalism is consistently praised, with explicit mentions of punctuality, clear communication, and courteous behavior from technicians Farzin and Fred. Pricing receives positive feedback for fairness and reasonable rates, with one review highlighting significant savings compared to competitor quotes. Project completion is evidenced by timely service delivery and problem resolution. Technical expertise is well-documented, particularly Farzin's diagnostic skills and ability to identify underlying issues rather than recommending unnecessary replacements. However, the sample size is small (5 reviews) and all are recent 5-star ratings, which limits confidence in the overall assessment.

• All 5 reviews are 5-star ratings with no negative feedback or critical comments — this uniformity is atypical and warrants caution
• Four of five reviews use similar praise language ('highly recommend,' 'honest,' 'great job,' 'deserve five stars') which may suggest review clustering or potential review management
• Sample size is very small (n=5) — scores should be treated as preliminary and updated as more independent reviews accumulate
• Four reviews are from October 2024 (clustered in time), with only one from September 2023 — recency bias may inflate current perception
• No negative or mixed reviews present to provide balance or identify potential weaknesses

This WW Score should be treated as preliminary due to the small sample size (5 reviews) and the absence of any critical or mixed feedback. While the data available is positive and specific, the uniformity of 5-star ratings and temporal clustering raise questions about review authenticity. Confidence will increase substantially once 10+ independent reviews from diverse sources and timeframes are available.

Black Mountain Plumbing earns strong marks for professionalism, experience, and project completion across a large and diverse review base spanning several years. Technicians like Solomon, Daniel, Robert, and Joel are repeatedly praised for punctuality, communication, friendliness, and technical skill. Project completion is generally solid, with same-day service and thorough follow-through cited frequently, though a handful of reviews describe incomplete diagnoses, failed repairs, or abandoned work without resolution. The most significant drag on the overall score is pricing: a substantial number of reviewers — across multiple years and job types — explicitly describe charges as excessive, with several citing quotes that were double or triple competitor prices, and a few alleging that high-pressure upselling or intentional misdiagnosis may have been involved. Professionalism is also slightly penalized by a cluster of negative reviews describing rude technicians, failure to return calls, and one incident involving a technician driving away mid-conversation.

• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The review 'Definitely recommend Black Mountain Plumbing. They always do a great job. Robert is the best.' appears twice with identical text on 2025-06-06 and 2025-06-04. This is a likely fake or duplicate submission and has been counted only once for scoring purposes.
• 35 reviews contain no text — only a 5-star rating. These blank reviews cannot be scored on any dimension and were excluded from dimensional scoring. Their volume (roughly 23% of total) inflates the apparent star rating without providing verifiable evidence of quality.
• PRICING CONCERN — HIGH SEVERITY: Multiple independent reviewers across different years explicitly describe pricing as significantly above market rate. Specific complaints include: $3,600 for a water heater replacement (vs. ~$1,800 elsewhere), $600 for 30 minutes of valve work, $225 for 15 minutes of gas valve work, $4,200 tank replacement bid (vs. ~$3,000 elsewhere), $9,000 tankless retrofit (vs. ~$5,000 elsewhere), $2,800 water heater (described as ~$1,300 over market), and $750 for a sink swap. This is a consistent and credible pattern, not isolated complaints.
• WORKMANSHIP FAILURE — MODERATE SEVERITY: One reviewer (Dec 2023) alleges a technician intentionally pinched a hot water tube during faucet installation and then quoted an unnecessary $589 repair. A second reviewer (Oct 2021) describes a technician cutting three drywall openings without finding the leak source and then not returning calls. A third reviewer (Oct 2019) describes a toilet installation where the plumber attempted to leave with water still running and misdiagnosed the leak. These represent credible quality-failure incidents.
• PROFESSIONALISM FAILURES — MODERATE SEVERITY: Multiple reviews describe specific unprofessional conduct: a technician (Daniel) driving away mid-conversation (Feb 2022); a technician raising his voice at a customer (Dec 2023); a technician refusing to wear a mask for medically fragile children and entering the home without consent (Feb 2024); a scheduler described as rude and condescending (Oct 2019); and failure to return calls after a service complaint (Oct 2021).
• SERVICE RELIABILITY CONCERN: One reviewer reports that advertised 24-hour emergency service was denied for an existing customer with an active water heater leak (Mar 2024). Another reviewer reports being stood up for a scheduled emergency appointment and then asked to pre-authorize a $200 fee before rescheduling (Jan 2023). These suggest a gap between marketed availability and actual service delivery.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews with substantive text are from 2022 onward, with a strong cluster in 2025. Negative reviews are distributed across the full date range (2018–2025), suggesting pricing and occasional professionalism issues are not isolated to a specific period. The most recent reviews (2025) are predominantly positive, which may reflect genuine improvement or selection bias.

This WW Score is based on a large review set (155 total, 120 with usable data) and carries HIGH overall confidence, but consumers should weigh the pricing dimension carefully — the 52/100 pricing score reflects a consistent, multi-year pattern of above-market charges reported by numerous independent reviewers, and the final WW Score of 78.4 should be understood as reflecting a contractor that delivers generally competent and professional work but at a premium price point with occasional but credible failures in workmanship, communication, and service reliability.

Carlos and 805 Plumbing earn strong marks across all four dimensions, with particularly high praise for technical skill, fair pricing, and responsiveness in emergency situations. The experience dimension scores highest, with dozens of reviewers explicitly noting Carlos's knowledge, diagnostic ability, and quality of workmanship on complex jobs including full repipes, slab-level repairs, and multi-system failures. Pricing is consistently described as affordable, competitive, and transparent, with several reviewers noting Carlos came in under competing bids or declined to charge when no work was performed. However, professionalism and project completion scores are meaningfully penalized by a recurring and credible pattern of no-shows and communication failures documented across four separate 1-star reviews spanning 2016 to 2022, including missed appointments, unreturned calls and texts, and at least one instance of a post-service complaint being ignored. These negative reviews are spread across multiple years and contain specific, plausible detail, making them reliable signals rather than outliers. The overall picture is of a highly skilled, fairly priced plumber who delivers excellent results when he shows up, but whose reliability and follow-through communication represent a genuine and documented weakness.

• RELIABILITY CONCERN: Four separate 1-star reviews (2016, 2017, 2017, 2022) independently describe missed appointments, unreturned calls, and failure to follow through on commitments. This is a consistent pattern across six years and meaningfully suppresses professionalism and project completion scores.
• POST-SERVICE COMPLAINT: The 2022 1-star review describes a new plumbing issue arising after Carlos's work, followed by complete communication breakdown when the customer attempted to follow up. The owner's public response accused the customer of 'nagging,' which itself reflects a professionalism concern.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews with usable data are from 2017 to 2022. Only three reviews are dated within the past 12 months (2023), all positive. The no-show and communication failure pattern appears in both older and more recent reviews, suggesting it has not been fully resolved.
• REVIEW VOLUME DISTRIBUTION: A large cluster of reviews (roughly 15) dates from 2012 to 2016, which are now more than 7 years old. These were given reduced weight relative to reviews from 2020 onward per recency rules.
• NO FAKE REVIEW FLAGS: No suspicious patterns of identical phrasing, coordinated language, or implausibly generic praise were detected. The reviews read as independently authored and contain specific situational detail. No fake review adjustment applied.

This WW Score is based on 52 reviews spanning approximately 11 years and carries HIGH overall confidence due to strong mention counts across all four dimensions, though users should weight the documented no-show and communication failure pattern seriously when deciding whether to hire.

Olympia Services earns strong marks across all four dimensions, driven by a large volume of detailed, positive reviews praising named technicians like Alexis Sandoval, Caesar, Carlos, and Jorge for their professionalism, communication, and quality of work. Project completion scores are solid but tempered by several notable negative reviews describing incomplete diagnoses, abandoned jobs, broken items, and failure to follow through on commitments — including one detailed account of a misdiagnosed plumbing issue that led to a repeat flood, and another involving property damage and an unresponsive owner. Pricing is generally viewed favorably, with multiple reviewers citing fair or below-expected costs, though one reviewer was charged more than quoted and another alleged insurance overbilling, pulling the score down from what would otherwise be higher. Experience scores reflect consistently praised craftsmanship from specific crew members, offset by a handful of reviews describing poor technical judgment, including an unnecessary water heater replacement and a drain pipe installation that damaged a sink.

• Several reviews reference 'EZ-DRY' or 'EZ Dry' and 'John' in a context that may suggest these reviews were originally written for a different but related business entity — these reviews were included but treated with reduced weight as their attribution to Olympia Services is ambiguous.
• One 5-star review (2018-02-21) explicitly names 'Rey from EZ-DRY' and does not mention Olympia Services at all — this review appears to be misattributed and was excluded from scoring.
• Multiple reviews mention the same supervisor by name (Alexis Sandoval) across different dates and locations, which is consistent with a real employee but warrants note as a pattern.
• Three negative reviews (2019-06-11, 2019-07-13, 2019-08-13) cluster within a short window and describe follow-through failures — no-shows, no estimates delivered, and alleged insurance overbilling — suggesting a possible operational problem during that period.
• The 1-star review from 2021-03-10 describes serious misconduct including property damage, refusal to provide license/insurance info, and an owner walking off the job — this is a significant outlier that meaningfully impacts project completion and experience scores.
• Recency note: The majority of high-quality, detailed positive reviews are from 2023–2024, suggesting the company may have improved operations in recent years. Older negative reviews (2018–2021) may reflect a prior operational state.

This WW Score is based on a large and diverse review set with high mention counts across all dimensions, making it statistically reliable, though the presence of several serious negative reviews — including property damage, misdiagnosis, and alleged dishonesty — means consumers should read individual negative reviews carefully before hiring.

Ameri-Cal Repipe & Plumbing receives strong praise across most dimensions, with numerous reviewers highlighting timely project completion, competitive pricing, and skilled workmanship on complex full-house repipe jobs. Professionalism scores are tempered by three notably negative reviews citing rude field staff, poor cleanup practices that endangered children with asthma, and a dismissive response to legitimate post-job concerns about wall patching and hazardous water line placement. Project completion scores are similarly pulled down by the cleanup failure review and the 'paint ready' miscommunication complaint, which represent meaningful breakdowns in follow-through and honest communication. Pricing and experience dimensions are generally positive, with multiple reviewers noting competitive quotes, no surprise costs, and technically sound work using quality materials like Uponor PEX. Overall, the company performs well on large repipe jobs but has documented inconsistencies in cleanup standards, communication honesty, and field staff conduct.

• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The Lake Arrowhead repipe review (Rating 5.0, Date 2020-11-03) appears verbatim a second time with no date. This is a confirmed duplicate and was counted only once for scoring purposes.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK — MODERATE: Several reviews are extremely brief and generic (e.g., 'These guys treated me really well and did an excellent job. I would recommend them to anyone.' and 'They repiped my home 4 years ago and did an amazing job. I highly recommend this company.') with no specifics, dates, or verifiable details. These may be low-effort or inauthentic reviews and were weighted conservatively.
• MISSING DATES: The majority of reviews have no date attached. Only one review has a confirmed date (2024-02-07) and one has a date of 2020-11-03. It is impossible to assess recency for most reviews, which limits the ability to determine whether quality has improved or declined over time.
• NEGATIVE PATTERN — CLEANUP FAILURES: At least two separate reviews (1-star condo dust/debris complaint and 3-star paint-ready complaint) cite post-job cleanup and finish quality as significant failures. This is a recurring operational weakness, not an isolated incident.
• NEGATIVE PATTERN — STAFF CONDUCT: Two 1-star reviews specifically call out poor staff behavior ('train your field staff in some manners' and 'not knowledgeable about their products'). One 5-star review also explicitly warns against the company's 'business guy.' This suggests inconsistency in personnel quality.
• RECENCY CAVEAT: With only one review confirmed within the past 12 months (February 2024), the bulk of this score is built on undated reviews of unknown age. The WW Score should be treated as a historical average rather than a current performance indicator.

This WW Score is based on a reasonable volume of reviews (22 total, 21 usable) with HIGH mention counts across all four dimensions, but its reliability is meaningfully reduced by the near-total absence of review dates, the presence of at least one confirmed duplicate review, several suspiciously generic 5-star reviews, and a pattern of recurring negative experiences around cleanup and staff conduct that suggests systemic rather than isolated issues.