Find Nearby Plumbers In San Diego, California

All three reviews speak positively to Marco's professionalism and communication, with two explicitly using the word 'professional' and one noting thorough examination and clear explanation of the problem. Project completion is consistently praised across all reviews, with mentions of timely work, clean-up, and follow-through. The standout pricing review describes a dramatic cost savings versus a competitor — a new heating element replacing a falsely quoted $2,900 water heater job — which strongly supports a high price-friendliness score, though it is only one data point. Experience is touched on in two reviews through references to diagnostic skill and problem-solving, but the sample size is too small to draw firm conclusions. Overall, the scores are encouraging but must be treated with caution given the very limited review volume.

• Only 3 reviews total — WW Score is at the minimum threshold for calculation and should be treated as preliminary only.
• All reviews are dated between May 2020 and December 2020, meaning all data is over 3 years old. No recent reviews are available to confirm current service quality.
• Two of the three reviews use near-identical language praising professionalism with minimal specifics, which warrants mild scrutiny, though the third review is highly detailed and credible.
• Pricing score is based on a single review — confidence is LIMITED and the score should not be weighted heavily.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews, all more than 3 years old, and should be considered a low-confidence preliminary indicator rather than a reliable measure of current contractor performance.

All three reviews speak positively to Kerry's professionalism, highlighting friendliness, punctuality, clear communication, and a no-pressure approach — giving that dimension the strongest footing. Pricing is mentioned in two reviews as fair or moderate, supporting a reasonable but conservatively scored pricing dimension. Project completion is implied in two reviews through specific jobs described as successfully finished, though no reviewer explicitly addresses follow-through on callbacks or complex multi-phase work. Experience is noted in two reviews through references to quality workmanship and handling older plumbing systems, but the evidence base is thin. The overall score is tempered significantly by the very small review pool and the age of the reviews, all of which are between 6 and 13 years old.

• All 3 reviews are significantly outdated — the most recent is from June 2018, over 6 years ago. Current performance cannot be reliably inferred from this data.
• With only 3 reviews total, the dataset is at the minimum threshold for score calculation. Results should be treated as preliminary and low-reliability.
• No negative feedback exists across any review, which may reflect genuine quality but could also reflect a small and self-selected sample rather than a comprehensive picture.
• Review language is varied and specific enough that fake review patterns are not suspected, but the sample size is too small to draw firm conclusions.

This WW Score carries LOW overall reliability due to only 3 reviews available, all of which are more than 6 years old, making it unsuitable as a confident indicator of current contractor performance.

All three reviews are positive and reflect a generally well-regarded family-owned plumbing business. Professionalism is the best-supported dimension, with all three reviews touching on reliability, promptness, and honest service. Pricing is mentioned in only one review with a brief 'fair prices' note, limiting confidence there. Project completion is supported by two reviews referencing successful job outcomes, including a specific hot water pump installation. Experience is similarly supported by two reviews, one of which provides a concrete technical example. However, two of the three reviews are over 8 years old, significantly reducing the reliability of this score for current service quality.

• Only 3 reviews total — this is the minimum threshold for a WW Score calculation; treat results with caution.
• Two of three reviews are significantly outdated: one from 2016 and one from 2013. These reviews are over 8 years old and may not reflect current service quality.
• All reviews are 5-star with brief, generic praise and limited specifics. While not conclusive, this pattern warrants mild fake review awareness caution.
• Only one review (2024) falls within the past 12 months, meaning recency-weighted confidence is very low.

This WW Score should be treated as low reliability due to the very small number of reviews, the age of two out of three reviews, and the limited detail provided across all dimensions.

ASAP Drain Guys & Plumbing shows a strong pattern of professional, courteous, and responsive technicians — with dozens of reviews praising individual plumbers by name for punctuality, communication, and attitude. However, this positive professionalism picture is significantly offset by a recurring and serious pattern of no-shows, missed appointments, poor internal communication, and failure to follow through on callbacks and estimates. Pricing is the weakest dimension: multiple detailed, credible reviews describe charges that are 2–3x market rate, surprise charges after job completion, and a lack of transparent quoting — with several reviewers explicitly comparing ASAP's prices unfavorably to competitors. Project completion is mixed: many jobs are completed quickly and well, but there are multiple documented cases of incomplete work, failed repairs requiring return visits, misdiagnosis leading to unnecessary work, and at least one case of a technician leaving tools and open cleanouts behind. Technical experience is generally solid based on reviewer feedback, but is undermined by several serious misdiagnosis incidents and at least one faulty installation (water regulator installed backwards, water heater failing three times post-install).

• PRICING CONCERN: Multiple independent, detailed reviews across different years describe charges of 2–3x market rate, surprise post-job charges, and lack of upfront written quotes. This is a consistent and credible pattern, not isolated complaints.
• PROJECT COMPLETION FAILURES: At least 4 reviews describe work that was paid for but not completed, including a no-call/no-show the following day after an incomplete repair, and a technician who left the job site with open cleanouts and tools left behind.
• MISDIAGNOSIS PATTERN: At least 2 detailed reviews describe significant misdiagnosis — one involving unnecessary drywall cuts and a missed slab leak, another involving a recommendation to re-plumb an entire house for a $225 toilet fix. These are serious competency red flags.
• OFFICE/ADMIN FAILURES: Multiple reviews cite failure to send invoices or receipts, failure to follow up on promised estimates (sometimes for weeks), and poor internal communication between field technicians and office staff.
• NO-SHOW / SCHEDULING FAILURES: At least 3 reviews describe technicians who did not show up for scheduled appointments, with customers waiting hours and receiving no proactive communication.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews are from 2023–2025 and carry full weight. Reviews from 2009–2016 are present but given reduced weight due to age. The negative patterns (pricing, no-shows, incomplete work) appear consistently across both older and recent reviews, suggesting systemic rather than isolated issues.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK — LOW: While there are many 5-star reviews, most reference specific technician names, specific job types, and situational details. Generic praise is present but not dominant. No strong fake review pattern detected, though the volume of name-specific praise warrants mild caution.
• 6 reviews contained no text (rating only) and were excluded from dimension scoring but counted in total reviews analyzed.

This WW Score is based on a large and diverse review set spanning over a decade, with strong data across all four dimensions, and should be considered a reliable representation of this contractor's performance — though prospective customers should weigh the serious and recurring concerns around pricing transparency, appointment reliability, and project completion before hiring.

Rooter Solutions presents a deeply mixed picture across all four dimensions. Professionalism scores moderately well due to numerous reviews praising individual technicians — particularly Morgan, Ryan, Carlos, Dylan, Joseph, and Pedro — for being courteous, punctual, and communicative; however, this is significantly dragged down by multiple serious complaints of no-shows, hostile managers, ignored callbacks, and outright unprofessional conduct. Pricing is the weakest dimension: while some customers praised fair or affordable service, a substantial number of reviews describe a consistent bait-and-switch pattern — advertising a low coupon price ($54–$68) and then escalating to hundreds or thousands of dollars in upsells, sometimes for work that was unnecessary or never completed. Project completion is also heavily penalized: multiple reviews describe unfinished jobs, a $50,000 project still incomplete after nearly two months, drains not cleared after payment, pipes installed but not connected, and documents never delivered after a $16,000 job. Experience scores moderately, as many individual technicians demonstrated genuine skill and problem-solving ability, but this is offset by reviews describing unskilled snaking (no tip on the snake), botched hydro-jetting that flooded a home, and a licensing concern raised by one reviewer citing the California State Licensing Board.

• BAIT-AND-SWITCH PATTERN DETECTED: A recurring and consistent pattern across many reviews describes a low advertised coupon price used to gain entry, followed by escalating upsell pressure for hydro-jetting, camera scoping, and large-scale pipe replacement — sometimes for work that independent plumbers later confirmed was unnecessary.
• FRAUDULENT BILLING ALLEGATION: One reviewer (2023-10-20) explicitly states they were charged more than the agreed price and received an invoice for work never performed. Another reviewer (2023-02-08) alleges a $15,350 repair was proposed for a sewer line that a subsequent inspection found to be in good shape for 86 feet.
• LICENSING CONCERN: A reviewer dated 2023-07-19 claims to have spoken with a supervisor at the California State Licensing Board and states Rooter Solutions did not hold a valid and current plumbing license at that time. This is a serious flag and should be independently verified.
• INCOMPLETE WORK / ABANDONMENT: A reviewer (2024-05-13) paid $50,000 for a project started in March 2024 that remained unfinished nearly two months later. Another reviewer (2023-04-19) describes drains installed but not connected to anything, with yard damage and no apology from management.
• MANAGER CONDUCT: Multiple reviews describe field supervisors or managers behaving as aggressive salespeople rather than problem-solvers, using fear tactics, being hostile on callbacks, and failing to return calls after complaints.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews span 2018–2024, with the most recent being October 2024. Negative reviews are distributed throughout the entire period, including 2024, suggesting the problematic patterns are not isolated to an earlier era of the business.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — MINOR: Several 5-star reviews are brief and generic (e.g., 'Had the best customer service from Joseph Eickhoff'), but most positive reviews contain specific technician names and situational detail, reducing the likelihood of widespread fabrication. No strong fake review pattern confirmed, but a few short generic entries warrant mild caution.
• NAMED INDIVIDUAL 'ISAI SAAIB' FLAGGED: The top-rated negative review (2024-10-23) explicitly names this individual as orchestrating a staged upsell scheme. The same name 'Isai' appears in other reviews in both positive and negative contexts.

This WW Score of 68.2 is based on a large and diverse review set (70 reviews) spanning six years and carries HIGH overall confidence in its accuracy, but the score should be interpreted cautiously — the contractor demonstrates a split identity between genuinely skilled and courteous individual technicians and a systemic business model that multiple independent reviewers describe as deceptive, with serious unresolved complaints about fraud, incomplete work, and potential licensing violations.

This contractor has a deeply split review profile: a strong cohort of satisfied customers praising prompt response times, polite technicians (especially Jerry, Guillermo, and Ali), and quality workmanship on complex jobs, but a significant and recurring cluster of serious complaints about deceptive pricing practices. The advertised $35 drain cleaning price is repeatedly cited as bait-and-switch, with customers reporting costs ballooning to $275–$750 upon arrival, and multiple reviewers explicitly accusing the company of scamming. Warranty honoring is a major fault line — at least four reviews describe the company refusing to honor stated warranties or abandoning customers after upselling attempts failed. Professionalism scores are dragged down by documented incidents of rude dispatchers, a technician texting instructions to overcharge a customer, and an owner responding to complaints with 'Case Closed' dismissiveness. Experience scores are moderately positive when work is actually completed, with several reviewers praising skilled diagnosis and thorough execution on complex pipe replacement jobs, but offset by at least one case of a misdiagnosis that cost a customer $185 for a problem another company fixed in 10 minutes for $40.

• PRICING DECEPTION PATTERN: At least 7 reviews explicitly describe the $35 advertised price as misleading or bait-and-switch, with actual charges ranging from $125 to $750. This is a systemic pattern, not isolated incidents.
• WARRANTY FRAUD PATTERN: At least 4 reviews (Feb 2021 cluster) describe the company refusing to honor paid warranties, with one reviewer stating the company stopped returning calls entirely after declining an upsell. Three of these reviews were posted on the same date (2021-02-16), which may indicate coordinated reporting of a shared experience rather than fake reviews — the specificity and consistency of the warranty complaint lends credibility.
• CONFIRMED TECHNICIAN MISCONDUCT: One reviewer (Nov 2016, 1-star) documented seeing a text message from Ali to Jose instructing him to 'try getting 700 from her,' constituting direct evidence of deliberate overcharging strategy.
• RECENCY CONCERN: The majority of positive reviews are concentrated between 2020 and early 2021. Negative reviews span 2016–2022. The most recent reviews (2021–2022) skew negative, suggesting possible service quality decline over time.
• POSSIBLE MULTI-BRAND CONFUSION: Reviews reference multiple business names — Best Plumbing, DrainHelp.com, Baird Drain Service, and $35 Drain Cleaning — suggesting this may be one operator running several branded entities. Scores reflect the aggregate of all reviews as submitted.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — LOW: A subset of 5-star reviews (particularly 2020) use generic praise with minimal specifics ('Great service!', 'Definitely recommend'). However, the majority of positive reviews include named technicians, specific job details, and plausible scenarios, reducing the likelihood of widespread fabrication. Confidence is not significantly reduced on this basis alone.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large review volume (75 reviews), but the score itself should be interpreted cautiously — the contractor's actual customer experience is highly variable and appears to depend heavily on which technician is dispatched, whether the advertised price applies to the specific job, and whether a warranty claim is ever needed.