Find Nearby Plumbers In San Diego, California

Quality Plumbing receives strong praise across hundreds of reviews for responsiveness, friendly technicians, and professional demeanor, with many customers citing specific plumbers by name and describing courteous, efficient service. However, a meaningful minority of negative reviews — spread across many years and locations — describe serious concerns including billing disputes (charging for travel time, rounding up hours, marking up parts significantly), failed diagnoses, abandoned or incomplete work, and rude office staff who hung up on customers. Pricing is the weakest dimension: multiple reviewers describe feeling overcharged, discovering parts were marked up 200-300%, or being billed for time the plumber was not on-site. Project completion is also mixed, with several reviews describing jobs left unfinished, return visits that never materialized, or problems that were not resolved after multiple attempts. The experience dimension scores moderately well overall, as most technicians are described as knowledgeable and skilled, but a subset of reviews describe misdiagnoses, amateur-level work, and technicians who could not complete the job.

• FAKE REVIEW RISK — MODERATE: A significant cluster of reviews share identical or near-identical dates (e.g., dozens dated exactly 2024-09-12, 2023-06-10, 2022-06-10, 2021-06-10, 2020-06-10, 2019-06-11, 2018-06-11, 2017-06-11) with very short, generic, undetailed text and all 5-star ratings. This pattern is consistent with bulk review submission and inflates the positive signal. These reviews were counted but treated with reduced evidentiary weight.
• MULTI-LOCATION AGGREGATION RISK — HIGH: Reviews reference locations across at least 8 distinct geographic markets including Seattle WA, Cape Coral/Fort Myers FL, Kansas City MO, Ventura County CA, Honolulu HI, Galveston TX, Denver CO, and Fresno CA. These are almost certainly different businesses operating under the same or similar name 'Quality Plumbing.' Scores reflect the aggregate pool and may not represent any single business accurately.
• BLANK REVIEWS EXCLUDED FROM SCORING: Approximately 30 reviews contained no text (only a star rating). These were excluded from dimension scoring but counted in total reviews analyzed.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of substantive, detailed reviews are from 2020 to 2025, which carry the most weight. Reviews from 2005-2015 are present but represent a smaller share and may reflect different ownership or staffing.
• BILLING COMPLAINTS — RECURRING PATTERN: At least 15 independent reviews across multiple years and locations describe billing practices including charging for drive time, rounding up labor hours, excessive parts markups, and charging for assessments where no work was performed. This is a systemic concern, not isolated incidents.
• INCOMPLETE WORK PATTERN: Multiple reviews describe jobs left unfinished, promises to return that were never honored, and supervisors who never called back after complaints. This meaningfully depresses the project completion score.
• ONE REVIEW APPEARS TO BE FOR A RESTAURANT (Mexican food/tamales) — clearly misattributed and excluded from scoring.
• ONE REVIEW APPEARS TO BE A POLITICAL COMPLAINT about signage outside the business — excluded from scoring as it does not address service quality.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large volume of reviews, but its reliability as a predictor for any single 'Quality Plumbing' location is MODERATE at best, given strong evidence that reviews from multiple unrelated businesses across the United States have been aggregated together, and that a notable share of 5-star reviews show patterns consistent with fake or bulk submissions.

This aggregated review set spans multiple businesses operating under similar 'All About Plumbing' or 'Allison Plumbing' names, making direct attribution difficult, but the overall picture is a contractor with a strong positive majority offset by a meaningful minority of serious complaints. Professionalism scores are dragged down by recurring patterns of no-shows, missed appointments, poor communication, and failure to return calls — issues mentioned explicitly across dozens of negative reviews spanning multiple years. Pricing receives a moderate-to-low score because while many customers praise fair and competitive pricing, a notable cluster of reviews describe bait-and-switch tactics, charges added without consent, overcharging seniors, and prices that jumped significantly from quoted amounts. Project completion is similarly mixed: the majority of jobs are described as completed well, but multiple reviews describe abandoned work, callbacks not honored, problems made worse, and in at least two cases customers had to take legal action or dispute charges. Experience scores highest because the technical skill of individual plumbers is frequently praised, with many reviewers noting knowledgeable diagnosis and quality workmanship — though a handful of reviews describe misdiagnosis, broken pipes caused by the plumber, and failed repairs.

• MULTIPLE BUSINESS ENTITIES: Reviews appear to cover several distinct businesses operating under similar names including 'All About Plumbing,' 'All In A Day Plumbing,' 'Allison Plumbing,' and variations. Scores reflect an aggregate and may not represent any single contractor accurately.
• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: At least 6 reviews appear to be near-identical duplicates (e.g., two identical reviews about Ray Buchanan dated 2023-03-25, two identical reviews about the 'ALL ABOUT NOT CARING' experience dated 2024-05-27, two identical reviews about the Troy water hammering job, two identical reviews about the water filtration estimate with Xzavia). This inflates review count and may indicate review manipulation or platform aggregation artifacts.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Approximately 20+ reviews contain no text content and only a 5-star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data. Their presence in high volume is a mild fake-review signal.
• RECENCY NOTE: Reviews span from 2006 to 2025. A significant portion of reviews (roughly 40%) are dated 2022 or earlier, including many from 2019 and before. Older reviews carry reduced weight. The most recent reviews (2024-2025) continue to show both strong positives and serious negatives, suggesting persistent quality inconsistency.
• SERIOUS MISCONDUCT ALLEGATIONS: Multiple reviews allege fraud, unauthorized credit card charges, charging for work not performed, referring customers to fraudulent contractors, and in one case a customer reports winning a court judgment against the company. These are not scored but significantly reduce trust in the overall profile.
• NO-SHOW PATTERN: At least 10 distinct reviews across multiple years describe scheduled appointments where no plumber arrived and no call was made. This is a persistent and documented pattern affecting the professionalism score.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK — MODERATE: The large volume of very short, generic 5-star reviews with no detail (e.g., 'Great service,' 'Excellent,' 'Professional,' 'Fast reliable service') alongside blank-text 5-star entries raises moderate concern about review padding. Confidence is not reduced to LOW given the large volume of detailed genuine reviews, but the inflated positive count should be noted.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large review volume, but moderate trust reliability due to the presence of multiple business entities in the dataset, duplicate reviews, blank reviews, and serious misconduct allegations that suggest the true score for any single contractor may differ materially from this aggregate.

Point Loma Electric and Plumbing has a strong base of positive reviews praising individual technicians for professionalism, courtesy, and technical skill, which drives a solid experience score. However, professionalism is significantly dragged down by a recurring and serious pattern of missed appointments, no-shows, and poor communication — with at least 10 or more reviews explicitly describing being stood up or having appointments cancelled without proactive notice. Pricing is the weakest dimension by far, with dozens of reviewers explicitly calling out costs as significantly above market rate, sometimes double or triple competing quotes, and several reviewers cancelling jobs solely due to price. Project completion is mixed: many jobs are described as completed well and on time, but there are notable failures including unresolved problems after payment, work that created new issues, and foremen who never showed for follow-up appointments. The overall score reflects a company with genuine technical talent but systemic operational and pricing problems that meaningfully undermine the customer experience.

• SIGNIFICANT APPOINTMENT RELIABILITY ISSUE: At least 10 reviews explicitly describe no-shows, last-minute cancellations, or technicians arriving hours outside the appointment window. This is a systemic pattern, not isolated incidents.
• PRICING CONCERNS: Pricing is the most consistently criticized dimension across the review set. Multiple reviewers obtained competing quotes at 40-60% lower for identical scopes of work. Several reviewers explicitly cancelled after receiving quotes.
• IRRELEVANT REVIEWS DETECTED: A notable subset of reviews (approximately 20-25) appear to be for EV charging stations (Electrify America or similar), not for Point Loma Electric and Plumbing as a contractor. These reviews reference charger screens, kWh pricing, NFC payments, and waiting in line to charge. These were excluded from scoring but inflate the total review count.
• FAKE OR PLACEHOLDER REVIEW RISK: A large number of reviews contain only 'unknown' or '.' as text with 5-star ratings, particularly from 2014-2017. These provide no usable data and may represent review padding. Approximately 30-40 reviews fall into this category.
• RECENCY NOTE: The review set spans from 2007 to 2025. Reviews older than 3 years (pre-2022) were given reduced weight. The most recent reviews (2024-2025) show a continued mixed pattern consistent with older reviews, suggesting no significant improvement in appointment reliability or pricing transparency.
• WORKMANSHIP FAILURES NOTED: Multiple reviews describe work that failed, created new problems, or required callbacks — including a plumbing job that created two additional leaks, an electrical job where the foreman never appeared for multiple scheduled follow-ups, and a rewire where items in the contract were not completed.
• POSITIVE PATTERN: Many individual technicians are praised by name (Mario, Frankie, Aaron, Erich, Matthew, Curtis, Brandon, etc.), suggesting quality varies significantly by technician assigned.

This WW Score is based on a large volume of reviews spanning many years and carries HIGH statistical confidence in its directional accuracy, but users should note that the score is meaningfully suppressed by a well-documented pattern of appointment failures and above-market pricing, and that a significant portion of the raw review pool contained either irrelevant EV charging station reviews or content-free placeholder entries that were excluded from scoring.

Pride Plumbing receives strong praise for professionalism, punctuality, and courteous technicians across a large volume of reviews, with many customers specifically naming individual plumbers who went above and beyond. However, pricing is a significant and recurring concern: multiple detailed negative reviews describe bait-and-switch tactics, quotes that changed dramatically upon arrival, charges for incomplete work, and rates described as 400-500% above competitors. Project completion is mixed — many jobs are completed efficiently and same-day, but a meaningful subset of negative reviews describe work that failed shortly after completion, warranty disputes, abandoned jobs, and technicians who left without resolving the issue. Technical experience is generally rated positively by satisfied customers, but several negative reviews describe incompetent diagnoses, improper repairs, and work that had to be redone by other companies. The wide spread between glowing 5-star reviews and detailed 1-star complaints suggests inconsistent service quality across different technicians and locations.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: At least two pairs of reviews appear to be near-identical or exact duplicates (e.g., the 'Nobody wants to need a plumber' review from 2022-10-17 appears twice; the 'Bait and switch' review from 2024-08-12 and 2024-09-12 are near-identical). This inflates positive review counts and reduces reliability.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Approximately 15+ reviews contain no text and only a 5-star rating. These provide no usable data and were excluded from dimension scoring but may artificially inflate the star average.
• PRICING PATTERN — BAIT AND SWITCH: Multiple independent, detailed reviews (not duplicates) describe the same pattern: a low price quoted by phone ($89 or $150/hr), followed by a significantly higher charge upon arrival ($225 walk-in fee, $175/hr, or flat rates far above quote). This is a systemic concern, not isolated incidents.
• WARRANTY AND FOLLOW-THROUGH FAILURES: Multiple reviews describe work failing within days or weeks, warranty claims being denied or disputed, and management refusing to honor commitments made by technicians in the field.
• MANAGEMENT CONDUCT CONCERNS: Several reviews describe management calling customers liars, being dismissive of complaints, failing to return calls, and altering invoice language after the fact. One review describes a manager asking the customer to explain the fix so he could train his own plumber.
• RECENCY NOTE: Reviews span from 2008 to 2025. The most recent 12 months (mid-2024 to mid-2025) contain a notably higher proportion of negative pricing and completion complaints relative to earlier periods, suggesting possible decline in service consistency.
• POSSIBLE MULTI-LOCATION ENTITY: Reviews reference locations including San Diego CA, Summerville SC, North Charleston SC, Chula Vista CA, La Mesa CA, and Inland Empire CA. It is possible these reviews aggregate multiple businesses operating under the 'Pride Plumbing' name, which would reduce the reliability of treating this as a single contractor profile.
• IRRELEVANT REVIEWS: Two reviews (aggressive driving on I-805, rude parking behavior) describe conduct unrelated to plumbing service quality and were excluded from dimension scoring.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large review volume, but the score itself should be treated with caution given confirmed duplicate reviews, a high volume of blank star-only reviews, strong evidence of systemic pricing misrepresentation, and the possibility that reviews span multiple distinct business locations operating under the same name.

All American Plumbing presents a deeply split profile across its review history. The most recent reviews (2024–2025, predominantly from what appears to be a San Diego-area operation) are overwhelmingly positive, with customers consistently praising named technicians like Lance, Mason, Elliott, JoJo, Justin, Ryan, and Nick for punctuality, clear communication, technical skill, and fair pricing. However, a substantial body of older reviews (2012–2021, many referencing a technician named Robert and home warranty company assignments, likely a different geographic location or franchise) describes a pattern of serious failures: no-shows, misdiagnoses, rude office staff, abandoned jobs, overcharging, and dishonest reporting to home warranty companies. Project completion is significantly dragged down by multiple reviews describing work left unfinished, problems made worse, and failure to follow through. Pricing scores are mixed — recent customers praise fair and transparent quotes, while older customers describe significant overcharging and bait-and-switch tactics. The experience dimension similarly splits between highly skilled recent technicians and incompetent or fraudulent older service calls.

• CRITICAL: The review pool appears to contain reviews for at least two distinct business entities or locations operating under the name 'All American Plumbing.' Recent reviews (2024–2025) reference San Diego-area technicians and a clearly different operational culture from older reviews (2012–2021) that repeatedly reference a technician named 'Robert' and home warranty fraud patterns. Scores should be interpreted with this bifurcation in mind.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — MODERATE: Several reviews from late 2021 (dates: 2021-12-01 to 2021-12-02) are clustered within 48 hours, are unusually generic in praise, and reference a Texas/Houston-area business context inconsistent with the San Diego reviews. One reviewer (2022-01-25) explicitly flags these as suspected fake reviews posted by California residents for a Houston business.
• 14 reviews contain no text (only a star rating) and were excluded from dimension scoring but counted in total reviews analyzed.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent 80+ reviews (2024–2025) are almost entirely 5-star and reflect a high-performing San Diego operation. The older reviews (pre-2023) contain a disproportionate number of 1-star reviews describing a pattern of fraud, rudeness, and incompetence. If evaluating only the last 12 months, scores would be substantially higher across all dimensions.
• PATTERN OF NEGATIVE REVIEWS — HOME WARRANTY CONTEXT: A large cluster of 1-star reviews specifically involves customers assigned through home warranty companies (American Home Shield, Old Republic, 2-10, First American). These reviews describe a consistent pattern of misdiagnosis, upselling, no-shows, and dishonest reporting to warranty companies. This pattern is strong enough to suggest systemic rather than isolated failures in that operational context.
• ONE REVIEW (2024-07-06, 1-star) alleges a company truck attempted to run the reviewer off the road. This is an isolated conduct allegation that cannot be scored but is flagged as a serious concern.
• ONE REVIEW (2023-06-23, 1-star) contains an allegation of spying on an elderly customer and reporting personal activities to an HOA. This is an isolated but serious allegation flagged for awareness.
• OFFICE STAFF COMPLAINTS: Multiple reviews across different years cite a receptionist named 'Jennifer' as rude, condescending, and argumentative. This is a recurring named pattern suggesting a systemic customer service issue at the office level, not isolated to field technicians.

This WW Score of 72.1 carries HIGH data confidence due to the large review volume, but should be interpreted cautiously because the review pool almost certainly spans two distinct business entities or operational eras — the recent San Diego operation (2024–2025) would score approximately 88–92 on its own, while the older review corpus (pre-2023, likely a different location) would score approximately 35–45, and consumers should research which entity they are engaging before relying on this blended score.

Above All Plumbing has a large and broadly positive review base spanning over a decade, with many customers praising individual technicians by name — particularly Ryan, Ernesto, Les, Rogelio, Colin, Junior, and Rob — for their skill, friendliness, and thoroughness. However, a meaningful minority of negative reviews (approximately 30+ one-star reviews) reveal recurring and serious concerns: appointment cancellations and no-shows, rude or dismissive office/phone staff, work that failed inspection or required correction, and post-job follow-through failures including ignored warranty claims and unresolved damage. Pricing drew mixed signals — many customers praised fair or competitive rates, while others reported bait-and-switch quoting, excessive charges for simple jobs, and a high minimum diagnostic fee that deterred potential customers. Project completion scores were tempered by multiple accounts of jobs left incomplete, failed inspections, and technicians unable to resolve the root cause of problems. The experience dimension scored moderately well, supported by many detailed accounts of skilled diagnostics and quality workmanship, but offset by instances of incompetent diagnosis and code violations.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: At least three reviews appear to be near-identical or exact duplicates (e.g., the 'Rick Brown / high end kitchen faucet' review appears three times with slightly different dates; the 'clogged bathroom sink / condo building' review appears twice with identical text). These duplicates have been counted once each for scoring purposes but inflate the total review count.
• RYAN REVIEW CLUSTER: Approximately 15-18 reviews all dated 2023-06-09 mention 'Ryan' specifically, with very similar structure and generic praise. While some contain specific details, the clustering of dates and repetitive format raises a moderate concern about coordinated or solicited reviews. Confidence in this cluster is reduced.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Approximately 10 reviews contain no text whatsoever (only a star rating). These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data.
• PLACEHOLDER REVIEWS: Several reviews contain only 'unknown', '.', 'already submitted', 'Great!', or similarly non-informative text. These were excluded from dimension scoring.
• RECENCY NOTE: The review set spans from 2009 to 2025. Reviews older than 2022 (roughly 60+ reviews) were given reduced weight. The most recent reviews (2024-2025) show a continuation of both strong praise and serious complaints, suggesting the mixed quality pattern is ongoing rather than historical.
• HARASSMENT ALLEGATION: One review (2020-08-18) alleges the owner Rick Brown called the reviewer twice while yelling and threatened to void their warranty in response to a negative review. A second update alleges contact via email constituting a third harassment incident. This is a serious flag regarding owner conduct.
• LGBTQ CONCERN: One review (2018-05-04) alleges the owners publicly expressed extreme anti-LGBTQ views on social media and directed personal attacks at the reviewer. This is noted as a reputational flag, though it falls outside the scored dimensions.
• PERMIT AND CODE VIOLATIONS: Multiple reviews reference work that failed city inspection, work offered without permits, and a gas line job that required correction before passing inspection. This materially impacts the experience and project completion scores.
• GEOGRAPHIC AMBIGUITY: Reviews reference locations including Fremont CA, Yuma AZ, Mesquite TX/NV, Sherman TX, and the Bay Area. It is possible these reviews represent multiple businesses operating under the same or similar name ('Above All Plumbing' / 'All Above Plumbing'). Scores reflect the aggregate dataset as provided but users should verify which location applies to their needs.

This WW Score is based on a large volume of reviews (HIGH confidence by mention count) but should be interpreted cautiously due to confirmed duplicate reviews, a suspicious same-day review cluster for one technician, a wide geographic spread suggesting possible multi-location data mixing, and a significant proportion of detailed negative reviews that reveal systemic issues with scheduling, office staff conduct, pricing transparency, and warranty follow-through.