Find Nearby Plumbers In San Diego, California

Mr. Rooter of San Diego County demonstrates strong professionalism in many interactions — technicians like Omar, Luis, Jose, and Jesus are repeatedly praised for punctuality, communication, and courtesy — but this is significantly offset by a meaningful cluster of negative reviews citing rude managers, missed appointments, and condescending behavior. Pricing is the weakest dimension: while some customers found value and appreciated discounts, a substantial number of reviewers explicitly described quotes as excessive, sometimes 3–10x what a competitor charged for the same job, and several allege upselling or unnecessary work recommendations. Project completion is mixed — many jobs were finished well and on time, including complex multi-day pipe replacements, but there are credible accounts of work left incomplete, problems recurring the next day, and one serious incident involving uncovered holes and a struck gas main. Technical experience scores moderately; skilled technicians are frequently praised, but recurring complaints about misdiagnosis, inability to clear drains that competitors cleared easily, and at least one incident of a wrong pipe being cut drag the score down meaningfully.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: Two pairs of nearly identical reviews appear within days of each other (June 4-6 2025 and June 3-5 2025), suggesting possible fake or re-submitted reviews. Confidence in the most recent review cluster is reduced.
• FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: A high concentration of blank-text 5-star reviews (35+ reviews with no text) inflates the star average without providing usable data. These were excluded from dimension scoring.
• UPSELLING PATTERN: Multiple independent reviewers across different years (2021, 2022, 2023, 2024) describe being quoted prices 3–10x higher than a second-opinion plumber charged for identical work. This is a recurring and credible pattern, not isolated incidents.
• MISDIAGNOSIS PATTERN: At least 4 reviews describe a technician recommending expensive pipe replacement or major repairs that a second plumber resolved with a simple snake or minor fix. This materially impacts both Experience and Project Completion scores.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of substantive reviews (both positive and negative) are from 2022–2025 and were weighted accordingly. Reviews from 2004–2017 were given reduced weight due to age and potential ownership/staff changes.
• SERIOUS HISTORICAL INCIDENT: A 2010 review describes an extremely serious service failure including hitting a gas main without calling Dig Alert, leaving hazardous open holes, and alleged use of illegal parts. While old, this review is detailed and credible.
• MANAGEMENT CONDUCT CONCERN: A 2025 review describes an Operations Manager threatening to abandon a job mid-service and charging $850 to retrieve their own stuck equipment. A 2022 review describes a manager mocking a customer. These suggest a management-level professionalism issue beyond individual technicians.

This WW Score of 72.1 is based on a large review set with HIGH data confidence across all four dimensions, but should be interpreted cautiously due to a significant and consistent pattern of pricing complaints, upselling allegations, and misdiagnosis reports that span multiple years and multiple reviewers — these are not outliers and meaningfully represent a real risk for prospective customers.

Plumbing Tree scores strongly on professionalism and experience, with the vast majority of reviewers praising technicians like Mickey, Gilbert, Angel, Alan, and Steven for being knowledgeable, communicative, thorough, and courteous. Project completion is generally solid, with most jobs described as fully resolved, though a small number of notable failures exist including one instance where a technician left without completing the job and left a customer without water. The most significant drag on the overall WW Score is pricing, which is the single most-complained-about dimension across the review set — a large volume of reviewers across multiple years describe quotes as dramatically above market rate, with specific examples including $950+ for faucet/valve work, $4,112 for a water heater, $760 to replace a toilet gasket, and $1,500 for a basic faucet installation. The pricing complaints are not isolated incidents but form a consistent, high-volume pattern that materially undermines the company's otherwise strong service reputation.

• PRICING PATTERN WARNING: An unusually high volume of reviews (20+) explicitly describe quotes as 2x to 10x market rate across a wide range of standard jobs. This is not a matter of occasional dissatisfaction — it is a systemic and recurring complaint spanning 2022 through 2025.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: At least 6 reviews appear to be near-identical or exact duplicates submitted on different dates (e.g., the 'FAN. TAS. TIC.' review appears twice with slightly different dates; the Alan emergency review appears twice; the Gilbert sewer root review appears twice; the Fernando/Mickey multi-update review appears twice; the 'It went great. It runs on time.' review appears twice). These duplicates were counted only once per unique review for scoring purposes but inflate the raw review count.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — MODERATE: A cluster of 5-star reviews dated 2024-06-08 (approximately 15+ reviews on the same date) with varying levels of specificity raises concern about a possible review solicitation campaign or bulk submission event. While many contain specific technician names and job details, the concentration on a single date is anomalous and warrants caution.
• RECENCY NOTE: Pricing complaints are heavily concentrated in the most recent 24 months (2023–2025), suggesting a possible shift in pricing strategy or ownership/management changes. Several long-term customers explicitly note that pricing has increased significantly compared to earlier years.
• INCOMPLETE JOB FLAG: At least one review (October 2024, faucet/valve job) explicitly states the technician left without completing the work, leaving the customer without water. One additional review (2023, drain clog) describes a technician who failed to clear the line over two visits and proposed an unnecessary $4,000 repair. These represent meaningful project completion failures.
• UPSELLING CONCERN: Multiple reviews across different years describe technicians aggressively pushing additional services, whole-house inspections, and upgrades beyond the scope of the original call. While some customers found this helpful, others found it predatory and a source of distrust.
• SERVICE FEE CONTROVERSY: The $79 service/diagnostic fee is mentioned negatively in numerous reviews, particularly when customers declined work due to high quotes and were still charged. This is a recurring friction point that contributes to low-rating reviews.

This WW Score is based on a large and diverse review set spanning 2013–2025 and carries HIGH overall confidence; however, the pricing score in particular should be weighted heavily by prospective customers, as the volume and specificity of overpricing complaints is among the strongest negative signals present in this dataset.

This score aggregates reviews spanning multiple contractors and business entities — most prominently Circle City Plumbing, RC Plumbing (Randy/Rey), and Plymwr Plumbing (Robert/Bobby/David) — which significantly complicates reliability. Circle City Plumbing reviews (predominantly 2024–2025) are overwhelmingly positive, with strong praise for professionalism, communication, timely completion, and technical skill. RC Plumbing (Rey/Randy) also earns consistent praise for punctuality, fair pricing, and quality workmanship across many reviews. However, Plymwr Plumbing (Robert) carries a substantial cluster of serious negative reviews documenting no-shows, abandoned jobs, dishonesty, property damage, and failure to return calls — dragging down project completion and professionalism scores materially. Pricing scores are moderate-to-good where mentioned, but the Plymwr fraud/overcharge allegation (billing for equipment not used, inflating scope) introduces meaningful concern. The blended score of 72.1 reflects genuine quality from some entities offset by documented failures from others.

• MULTI-ENTITY CONCERN: Reviews appear to cover at least three distinct business entities (Circle City Plumbing, RC Plumbing, Plymwr Plumbing). Scores are blended across these entities, which may not represent any single contractor accurately. Consumers should verify which entity they are hiring.
• PLYMWR PLUMBING — SERIOUS NEGATIVE PATTERN: Multiple independent reviews (2016–2018) document repeated no-shows, abandoned jobs mid-project, property damage left unrepaired, blocked customer phone numbers, dishonesty to home warranty companies, and fabricated excuses. This is a strong pattern of misconduct, not isolated incidents.
• PLYMWR PLUMBING — FRAUD ALLEGATION: One reviewer credibly alleges the company billed a home warranty for leak detection equipment the technician admitted they did not own, and attempted to inflate scope of work beyond what was approved. This is a serious integrity flag.
• ABANDONED WORK — RC PLUMBING: One review (2018) documents a job left incomplete for 5+ months with no follow-through after the technician claimed he needed parts.
• NO-SHOW PATTERN — PLYMWR/RC: At least 6 reviews across entities document scheduled appointments where the plumber failed to appear and failed to communicate, including instances where customers took time off work.
• RUDE DRIVER INCIDENT — RC PLUMBING: One review documents a road rage incident involving an RC Plumbing company van, followed by the owner cursing out the caller when they complained.
• REY NO-SHOW (2024): One 1-star review documents Rey (RC Plumbing) failing to appear for a 7AM Saturday appointment with no call or text, then responding dismissively rather than offering to reschedule.
• RECENCY NOTE: Circle City Plumbing reviews (2024–2025) are recent and consistently positive. RC Plumbing positive reviews span 2018–2024. Plymwr Plumbing negative reviews are concentrated in 2016–2018 and may reflect historical rather than current performance, but the volume and severity warrant flagging.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Three reviews contained no text (rating only). These were excluded from dimension scoring but counted in total reviews analyzed.
• POSSIBLE FAKE REVIEW — 'My apologies' (2022): One 5-star review contains only the text 'My apologies' with no substantive content. This is anomalous and was excluded from scoring.
• GENERIC PRAISE PATTERN: A small number of reviews (e.g., 'Honest, clean work. Definitely recommend!', 'Great, affordable, and efficient Service.') are very brief and generic with no specifics, which slightly reduces confidence in those individual data points, though they are insufficient in volume to suggest a coordinated fake review campaign.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large review volume, but its practical reliability as a guide to any single contractor is MODERATE at best, because the reviews span multiple distinct business entities with dramatically different performance records — consumers must identify which specific company and technician they are engaging before relying on this blended score.

Anderson Plumbing, Heating & Air scores strongly on professionalism, with hundreds of reviews praising friendly, courteous, punctual, and well-presented technicians who wear shoe covers, communicate ETAs, and explain their work clearly. Technical experience and workmanship are also rated positively by the majority of reviewers, with many technicians described as knowledgeable and skilled problem-solvers. Project completion is generally solid, with most jobs finished as described, though a meaningful minority of reviews cite incomplete work, failed inspections, repeat callbacks for the same issue, and abandoned drywall repairs. The most significant drag on the overall score is pricing, which is the single most-complained-about dimension across the entire review set — dozens of reviewers describe quotes that are 2x to 10x competitor prices, with specific examples including $870 to install a faucet, $700 for a flapper replacement, $26,000 for an HVAC system quoted at $370 elsewhere, and $2,200 for a simple water line. A recurring pattern of technicians recommending full system replacements over repairs — sometimes involving disputed carbon monoxide readings — further undermines trust in pricing transparency.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: Multiple reviews appear verbatim or near-verbatim across different dates (e.g., the 'Andersen VIP maintenance' review and the 'Scott tankless water heater' review each appear twice with different dates of June 6 and June 8, 2025). Several other reviews from June 5-8, 2025 appear to be duplicated across consecutive days. This pattern strongly suggests review padding or a platform ingestion error. Confidence in the June 2025 review cluster is reduced.
• FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: A large cluster of reviews dated May 7, 2025 contains dozens of entries with no review text and only a 5-star rating. These blank reviews provide no usable data and inflate the apparent review count. They were excluded from scoring but flagged as suspicious.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS ARE SYSTEMIC AND SEVERE: Pricing complaints are not isolated — they span years (2017 through 2025) and describe a consistent pattern of quotes 2x-10x above market rate, pressure to replace rather than repair, and lack of itemized invoices. Multiple reviewers explicitly allege elder financial abuse or predatory pricing targeting vulnerable customers.
• CARBON MONOXIDE SCARE TACTIC PATTERN: At least four independent reviews (Jan 2024) describe technicians claiming dangerous carbon monoxide levels requiring full furnace replacement, only for SDG&E or independent inspectors to find zero CO present. This is a serious and recurring pattern that warrants consumer caution.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews with substantive text are from 2023-2025 and are therefore weighted appropriately. Older reviews (2016-2019) are present but given lower weight. The overall pattern of both praise and pricing complaints is consistent across all time periods.
• INCOMPLETE WORK PATTERN: Multiple reviews cite jobs left unfinished — including unpatched drywall holes left for months, disconnected drain pipes causing flooding, and toilets left unattached. This recurs across multiple years and technicians, suggesting a systemic follow-through issue on larger jobs.

This WW Score is based on a very large review set with HIGH statistical confidence across all four dimensions; however, the score should be interpreted with caution due to confirmed duplicate reviews inflating volume, a systemic and well-documented pricing controversy that is the most consistent theme in negative reviews, and serious recurring allegations of scare tactics and incomplete work that meaningfully offset the otherwise strong professionalism and experience ratings.

Nick Taylor Plumbing receives consistently strong feedback across all four scored dimensions. Professionalism is the most frequently praised attribute, with nearly every reviewer highlighting same-day responsiveness, punctuality, courteous communication, and helpful attitude. Pricing is noted positively in several reviews, with mentions of affordability, reasonable rates, and in one case a final price lower than the original quote, though the sample is small. Project completion is well-supported, with reviewers describing jobs finished quickly, thoroughly, and with follow-through steps taken to confirm the work held. Experience is also clearly evidenced, with multiple reviewers noting Nick's technical knowledge, problem-solving ability, and ability to succeed where other plumbers had failed.

• All 9 reviews are 5-star ratings with no negative or mixed feedback — this warrants mild caution, though most reviews contain specific job details and unique phrasing that reduce the likelihood of fabrication.
• 6 of the 9 reviews are dated 2019 or earlier, meaning the majority of data is more than 5 years old. Only 2 reviews fall within the past 12 months (2024 and 2022). Recency is limited and the score may not reflect current service quality.
• The 2022 and 2024 reviews are brief and lack specific detail, which slightly reduces confidence in the most recent data points.
• No negative experiences, pricing complaints, or incomplete jobs are mentioned across any review — while this may reflect genuine quality, it also means the score has no downward pressure and should be interpreted conservatively.

This WW Score carries moderate overall reliability: the dimension scores are well-supported by specific reviewer details and consistent patterns, but the heavy skew toward older reviews (pre-2020) and the absence of any critical feedback limit confidence in how accurately this score reflects Nick Taylor Plumbing's current performance.

MJB Plumbing receives consistently positive feedback across all four dimensions, with pricing being a standout strength — multiple reviewers explicitly note he undercuts competitors by a significant margin and offers fair, honest quotes. Professionalism is well-supported, with mentions of same-day responsiveness, quick scheduling adjustments, and clear communication including remote diagnosis via photos. Project completion is generally affirmed, with one notable example of stepping in after another plumber abandoned a job, though limited detail is provided on complex or long-term project follow-through. Experience is positively noted in a few reviews, with specific references to technical knowledge such as cartridge identification, though the evidence base is modest. Overall confidence is tempered by the small total review count and the age of several reviews, with four of six being more than two years old.

• Only 6 total reviews — small sample size limits statistical reliability of all dimension scores.
• 4 of 6 reviews are older than 2 years (2014, 2018, 2018, 2022), with only 2 reviews from the past 12–18 months. Recent performance cannot be confidently assessed.
• First review (2024-06-06) contains no specific detail — generic praise with no mention of job type, dimension, or outcome. This review was excluded from dimension scoring but counted in total reviews.
• No negative reviews present across any time period — while this may reflect genuine quality, it also warrants caution given the small sample and lack of critical feedback.
• Reviewer in the 2022 review refers to the contractor as 'Michael' while others use 'Mike' or 'Mario' — the 2023 review uses 'Mario' specifically. This may indicate a naming inconsistency or data aggregation issue across profiles; verify that all reviews belong to the same contractor.

This WW Score carries MODERATE reliability overall — pricing and professionalism scores are reasonably well-supported, but the small review pool, predominance of older reviews, and complete absence of any critical feedback limit confidence in the score as a current performance indicator.