Find Nearby Plumbers In San Francisco, California

Ted (Mr. Fixit) earns strong scores across all four dimensions, driven by an overwhelming volume of reviews praising his responsiveness, communication, and technical versatility across electrical, plumbing, carpentry, and general handyman work. Professionalism scores are high but tempered by one notable 2-star review describing a no-show, debris left in a toilet, multiple change orders without early disclosure, and a last-minute cancellation — a meaningful data point that prevents a top-tier score. Project completion is similarly strong but carries the same negative review's weight, which described an unfinished job and a missed follow-up appointment, plus a 3-star review where Ted never showed up at all. Pricing is consistently praised as fair, transparent, and competitive, with multiple reviewers specifically calling out reasonable rates and honest upfront quotes. Experience scores highest in confidence, with reviewers repeatedly citing Ted's ability to diagnose complex issues, work across multiple trades, and problem-solve on the fly — including restoring Victorian millwork and resolving electrical faults that stumped others.

• One 2-star review (2023-09-10) describes serious project completion failures: job not finished in time allotted, multiple change orders added without early disclosure, debris left in toilet, and a last-minute cancellation of a follow-up appointment. This is the most substantive negative signal in the dataset and meaningfully impacts project completion and professionalism scores.
• One 3-star review (2022-09-24) describes a no-show with no communication until after the fact. The reviewer ultimately found another contractor. This further supports a pattern of occasional reliability issues.
• A small number of reviews reference individuals other than Ted by name (Raman, Sook), suggesting this business may have multiple workers. Scores may not reflect a single consistent operator, which introduces variability risk.
• The vast majority of reviews are 5-star with enthusiastic language. While most contain specific details that suggest authenticity, the uniformity warrants mild caution. No coordinated fake review pattern was detected, but the near-perfect rating distribution slightly inflates perceived reliability.
• Several reviews span 2021–2022 and are now 2–3+ years old. The most recent reviews (2024) remain consistently positive, suggesting no meaningful quality decline, but older reviews carry reduced recency weight per scoring rules.

With 55 reviews analyzed, strong mention counts across all four dimensions, and a clear majority from the past 12–24 months, this WW Score carries HIGH overall confidence — though the two negative reviews (2-star and 3-star) are credible, specific, and should be weighed seriously by prospective customers evaluating reliability and project completion risk.

Professionalism is the most consistently praised dimension across this review set, with numerous reviewers explicitly calling out punctuality, friendliness, communication, and responsiveness — including a standout account of John troubleshooting a problem over the phone at no charge. Project completion scores well based on multiple reviews describing jobs finished promptly, same-day service, and follow-through on complex multi-day work. Experience is strongly supported by reviews citing knowledgeable problem-solving, innovative workarounds, and skilled workmanship across a range of plumbing tasks. Pricing data is limited to three reviews but all three are clearly positive, describing fair and competitive rates with no hidden charges, warranting a solid but conservatively held score. Overall, the substantive reviews paint a consistently strong picture of this contractor.

• 17 out of 47 reviews contain no text whatsoever — only a 5-star rating. These blank reviews provide zero usable data and inflate the apparent review count without contributing evidence.
• The phrase 'Great service, easy to schedule, nice people' appears verbatim in two separate reviews (2025-06-06 and 2025-05-10), which is a potential indicator of a duplicated or fake review entry.
• A large cluster of reviews share the exact same date (2025-05-10), including 8 blank reviews and several text reviews. This date-clustering pattern warrants caution.
• The majority of substantive reviews are all 5-star with uniformly positive sentiment and no critical feedback of any kind. While this may reflect genuine satisfaction, it reduces score differentiation and warrants conservative confidence treatment.
• Several older reviews (2018–2020) are included. These are more than 4 years old and have been given reduced weight in scoring relative to the 2024–2025 reviews.

The WW Score carries moderate-to-high reliability for professionalism and experience given strong mention counts, but the large number of blank reviews, one confirmed duplicate review, and suspicious date clustering introduce enough uncertainty that this score should be treated as a strong indicator rather than a definitive assessment.

3A Plumbing receives consistently strong feedback across all four scored dimensions, with professionalism being the most frequently and positively cited quality — reviewers repeatedly highlight punctuality, responsiveness, respectfulness, and clear communication. Pricing is a notable strength, with multiple reviewers explicitly calling out fair, reasonable, or below-market rates, including one reviewer who quantified savings at 30% under a competing quote. Project completion scores well, with reviewers describing jobs finished efficiently, callbacks honored, and difficult tasks seen through to completion — such as a hard-to-remove old tap assembly and a mystery leak successfully diagnosed and repaired. Experience is supported by specific mentions of technical problem-solving, handling higher-difficulty jobs, and offering practical solutions rather than unnecessary complexity. The only moderate caveat is that a large portion of reviews lack dates, which limits recency weighting.

• 15 of 23 reviews have no date provided, making it impossible to apply recency weighting to those reviews. The scored confidence remains HIGH based on mention volume, but temporal reliability is reduced.
• All 23 reviews are 5-star ratings with no negative or mixed feedback whatsoever. While the reviews do contain specific details and varied language that reduce suspicion of fabrication, the complete absence of any critical feedback across 23 reviews is statistically unusual and warrants mild caution.
• Several reviews are very brief and generic (e.g., 'Alex was great and flexible. Highly recommend!', 'Very pleased with work. Will not hesitate to use him in the future.', 'Showed up quickly and fixed the provoem') and contribute limited scoreable evidence. These were counted toward mention totals only where a dimension was at least implicitly referenced.
• One review mentions a plumber named Roger rather than Alex, suggesting multiple technicians operate under the 3A Plumbing brand. This is not a red flag but is noted for context.

The WW Score of 87.4 carries HIGH overall confidence based on strong mention volume across all four dimensions, though users should note that all reviews are 5-star with no critical feedback and a majority lack verifiable dates, which introduces a modest degree of uncertainty around the score's precision.

Szeto Plumbing and Handyman demonstrates strong overall performance across all dimensions. Professionalism is a standout strength, with 98 mentions highlighting exceptional responsiveness, punctuality, courteous behavior, and clear communication. Project completion is consistently reliable with 105 mentions showing jobs finished on time, callbacks honored, and thorough follow-through. Pricing receives strong marks (84.0) with 62 mentions emphasizing fair quotes, competitive rates, and transparent pricing. Experience is well-documented with 78 mentions confirming skilled workmanship, problem-solving ability, and technical knowledge. However, three negative reviews (ratings 1.0, 2.0, and 1.0) reveal serious concerns: one incident of no-show with poor communication, one case of unlicensed work causing significant property damage ($3000+), and one instance of incomplete work and refusal to take responsibility. These outliers prevent a higher score despite overwhelming positive feedback.

• Three significantly negative reviews (1.0, 2.0, 1.0 ratings) indicate serious issues: (1) No-show on scheduled job with failure to communicate service area limitation until day-of; (2) Unlicensed plumber caused pipe damage during drain snaking, refused responsibility, and quoted inflated repair costs; (3) Incomplete shower fixture work with refusal to explain or complete job. These are not minor complaints but represent potential liability and trust issues.
• The 2.0-star review from 2023-02-18 is particularly detailed and credible, describing unlicensed status, damage caused by improper technique, and refusal to stand behind work—contrasting sharply with licensed competitors who offered better pricing and warranties.
• The 1.0-star review from 2022-09-09 describes destroyed shower fixtures and abandonment of work with no explanation, suggesting possible pattern of incomplete projects.
• Recency note: Most reviews are from 2023-2024 (recent), but the most serious negative reviews are from 2023 and 2022, indicating these are not isolated old incidents.
• No evidence of fake reviews detected. Reviews show specific details, varied language, and authentic problem descriptions. Positive reviews cite specific names (Rick, Han, Chen, Merick, George, etc.) and detailed work descriptions.

This WW Score of 87.2 should be interpreted with caution: while the overwhelming majority of reviews (124 of 127) are highly positive and consistently praise responsiveness, fair pricing, and quality work, the three serious negative reviews reveal critical vulnerabilities in service reliability, licensing/credentials, and accountability that could result in significant financial or property damage. Customers should verify licensing status and obtain written guarantees before engaging for complex plumbing work, particularly those involving potential structural risk.

F&A Plumbing demonstrates strong performance across all four dimensions with consistently high marks for professionalism, responsiveness, and work quality. The company excels in punctuality, communication, and customer service, with extensive evidence of same-day or next-day service availability. Pricing is generally perceived as fair and competitive, though a few customers noted higher costs relative to initial quotes. Project completion is reliable with strong follow-through on callbacks and warranty commitments. Technical expertise is evident across diverse plumbing challenges, from simple repairs to complex installations. The single significant concern is three negative reviews (1-star ratings) alleging overcharging, unnecessary upselling, and quality issues, which moderately temper the otherwise exceptional rating profile.

• Three 1-star reviews (2022-12-05, 2019-02-25, 2018-06-26) allege overcharging, unnecessary upselling of services, and quality defects (gas leak, crooked water heater installation). These represent legitimate service failures that contradict the overwhelmingly positive narrative.
• Multiple empty review text fields (6 reviews with 5.0 ratings but no text) reduce data quality and prevent full assessment of those reviews.
• Concentration of 5-star ratings (119 of 125 reviews) is unusually high and suggests potential review curation or selection bias, though the three negative reviews do provide some balance.
• Two reviews (2022-01-08 rating 4.0, 2018-12-30 rating 4.0) mention pricing concerns ('a little pricey' and high roof drain snake charge of $350), indicating occasional customer friction on cost.
• Recency analysis: Approximately 60% of reviews are from 2022 onwards, with strong recent activity (May 2025). Older reviews (2016-2019) show consistent quality, suggesting sustained performance over time.

This WW Score of 87.2 is highly reliable due to large sample size (122 usable reviews), consistent data across all dimensions, and HIGH confidence across all metrics. However, the score should be interpreted with awareness that three documented service failures (overcharging, quality defects, upselling) represent real risks that the overall average may obscure; prospective customers should review the negative feedback carefully and request detailed written estimates before engaging services.

Dimond Plumbing demonstrates strong performance across all four dimensions, with particularly consistent praise for professionalism, technical expertise, and project completion. The contractor (primarily Mike/Michael) is repeatedly commended for punctuality, responsiveness, clear communication, honest pricing, and high-quality workmanship. Customers frequently highlight fair quotes, willingness to explain problems in layman's terms, and follow-through on commitments. The primary weakness is a cluster of older negative reviews (2015, 2018, 2022) citing communication failures and no-shows, though these appear to be isolated incidents rather than systemic issues. The overwhelming majority of reviews (80+) are highly positive and specific, demonstrating genuine customer satisfaction.

• Three negative reviews (ratings 1.0-2.0) from 2015, 2018, and 2022 cite serious communication failures: no-shows, unreturned calls, and voicemail issues. These are credible complaints that contradict the otherwise stellar reputation.
• One 2022 review (rating 2.0) explicitly states the contractor was courteous until appointment was scheduled, then 'ghosted completely without any further communication.' This suggests potential operational inconsistency.
• One 2018 review states 'No longer in business' with no answer or returned calls for a week. However, subsequent reviews from 2020-2024 indicate the business was operational, suggesting either temporary closure or the reviewer's timing issue.
• Review dates span from 2009 to 2024. Most recent reviews (2023-2024) are uniformly positive, while negative reviews cluster in 2015, 2018, and 2022. This pattern suggests possible past operational issues that may have been resolved.
• No evidence of fake reviews detected. Reviews are specific, detailed, and varied in language. Positive reviews cite concrete examples (specific repairs, pricing comparisons, follow-up actions). Negative reviews are equally specific about failures.

This WW Score of 87.2 is highly reliable based on 87 reviews with substantial mention counts across all dimensions (38-72 mentions per dimension). However, the score should be interpreted with awareness that three credible negative reviews document serious communication and no-show failures, suggesting the contractor's reliability may be inconsistent despite the strong overall average. Recent reviews (2023-2024) show no recurrence of these issues, indicating possible improvement. Customers should expect high-quality work and fair pricing but should confirm appointment details and follow up if communication lapses occur.