Find Nearby Plumbers In San Francisco, California

Handyman Heroes demonstrates strong performance across professionalism, project completion, and technical experience, with consistently positive feedback from customers over multiple years. The company excels in communication, punctuality, attention to detail, and skilled workmanship across diverse project types (plumbing, electrical, carpentry, remodeling). However, a significant pricing concern emerges from one detailed 1-star review documenting a 65% upcharge dispute regarding trim and doors, which substantially impacts the pricing dimension despite otherwise positive value-for-money mentions. The overwhelming majority of reviews (65 of 67) are 5-star ratings, though this concentration warrants cautious interpretation.

• CRITICAL PRICING ISSUE: One substantive 1-star review (2025-05-10) documents a 65% upcharge dispute where the foreman allegedly ignored text confirmation that trim/doors were included in the original estimate. This is the only negative review and directly contradicts the company's stated transparent billing practices. This single incident significantly depresses the pricing score despite limited overall pricing mentions.
• SUSPICIOUS REVIEW PATTERN: Review dated 2025-04-10 about observing the company van in traffic for '18 hours' with praise for driving/merging appears fabricated or satirical and provides no substantive service information. Recommend treating as unreliable data.
• EMPTY REVIEWS: Two reviews (2025-05-10 and 2025-04-10) contain only 5-star ratings with no text content, limiting ability to verify quality claims.
• RECENCY CONCENTRATION: 48 of 67 reviews (72%) are from 2024-2025, with only 19 reviews from 2023 or earlier. This creates a recency bias, though it does reflect current service quality.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW INDICATORS: Multiple reviews use identical phrasing ('true hero/heroes,' 'went above and beyond,' 'fantastic') and several mention the company name 'Handyman Heroes' explicitly in highly positive contexts, which is atypical for organic reviews. However, the specificity of project details and individual technician names across reviews suggests genuine customer experiences rather than coordinated fake reviews.
• KESHAB REVIEWS: 18 reviews (27% of total) focus on a single technician (Keshab), spanning 2021-2023. While uniformly positive, this concentration may not reflect current company-wide performance.

This WW Score of 82.1 is reliable with HIGH overall confidence due to substantial mention counts across three dimensions (28-35 mentions each) and consistent positive feedback spanning multiple years. However, the score is materially depressed by one credible pricing dispute that contradicts stated transparency practices, and the extreme concentration of 5-star ratings (97% of reviews) suggests either genuinely exceptional service or potential review curation bias. The pricing dimension carries LIMITED confidence due to only 6 mentions, with one negative incident dominating the assessment. Prospective customers should specifically inquire about estimate scope clarity regarding trim, doors, and additional work to mitigate recurrence of the documented upcharge issue.

This contractor demonstrates consistently strong performance across all four dimensions, with professionalism and project completion being the most frequently cited strengths — including punctuality, responsiveness, same-day service, and clean workspaces. Pricing is generally described as fair and transparent, with multiple reviewers noting competitive quotes and no hidden charges, though one negative review cited an estimate perceived as dishonestly high. Project completion scores are supported by numerous accounts of jobs finished same-day and follow-through on difficult problems, including a complex 20-day sewer leak resolution. Experience scores are bolstered by specific technical praise — camera diagnostics, gas line installation, and passing inspections on first round — though scores are modestly tempered by two 1-star reviews, one alleging the company is unlicensed and one citing rudeness and dishonesty. Duplicate and near-duplicate reviews across multiple dimensions reduce overall confidence slightly and suggest possible review manipulation.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: At least 6 reviews appear to be near-identical or exact duplicates posted on different dates (e.g., 'Jose came in with a one hour notice...' appears 3 times; 'We've used Antonio and his crew a couple of times...' appears 3 times; 'I called Plumbing and Rooter Service for a smelly sewer leak...' appears twice; 'Antonio and Jose and team are amazing...' appears twice; 'Amazing service! Antonio was great...' appears twice; 'Very professional service, they were in charge of fixing a leak problem...' appears twice). This pattern is a strong indicator of fake or artificially boosted reviews.
• NEGATIVE REVIEW — UNLICENSED CLAIM: One 1-star review (2024-08-13) explicitly states the company is not licensed. This is a serious allegation that could not be verified from reviews alone but warrants caution.
• NEGATIVE REVIEW — RUDENESS AND DISHONESTY: One 1-star review (2024-06-09) alleges Antonio was rude and the estimate was dishonestly high. The reviewer also claims the company denies working with 1-star reviewers, suggesting a pattern of reputation management.
• BLANK REVIEWS: 6 reviews contained no text content (only a rating of 5.0). These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of substantive reviews are from 2024–2025, which is positive. Several reviews from 2022 and earlier share identical dates (2022-06-10), suggesting batch-posting or data anomalies.
• CONFIDENCE REDUCTION APPLIED: Due to the volume of duplicate reviews, scores have been kept conservative rather than inflated, as duplicates artificially inflate mention counts and perceived consensus.

This WW Score should be treated with moderate-to-high caution: while the volume of reviews is substantial and recent, the presence of multiple duplicate reviews, two credible negative reviews including an unlicensed contractor allegation, and batch-dated older reviews meaningfully reduce the reliability of the overall score.

Dwayne Pettway of I Rooter & Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism with consistent punctuality, responsiveness, and courteous communication across 42 reviews. Technical expertise is evident in 31 reviews, particularly with complex tankless water heater diagnostics and problem-solving. Project completion is solid across 28 reviews, though three significant failures (no-shows, warranty callbacks not honored, and misdiagnosis leading to unnecessary replacement recommendations) create material concerns. Pricing is generally fair and transparent (18 mentions), though one dispute over consultation fees and one allegation of upselling without inspection damage trust. The WW Score of 82.1 reflects strong fundamentals undermined by reliability gaps in follow-through and occasional diagnostic lapses.

• CRITICAL: Three severe project completion failures detected: (1) 2022-07-22 review documents misdiagnosis of gas pressure issue as water heater failure, recommending $2,250–$4,800 replacement when actual fix cost $0; (2) 2022-04-13 review reports four no-show callbacks on warranty work with poor responsiveness; (3) 2021-03-07 (no date provided) review reports complete no-show after confirmed appointment, wasting 3 hours of customer time. These are not minor issues and significantly undermine overall reliability.
• MODERATE: Pricing transparency concern—2024-05-19 review alleges refusal to provide quotes without reason; separate undated review disputes $85 'trip charge' vs. advertised $1 consultation, calling it a 'scam.' This suggests inconsistent pricing communication.
• MODERATE: Multiple reviews from 2022-06-10 and other dates lack specific detail or contain generic praise (e.g., 'Excelente Servicio,' empty review body, 'Dwayne is great'). While not conclusive evidence of fake reviews, the pattern of vague 5-star ratings warrants caution. However, detailed positive reviews from same period provide counterbalance.
• RECENCY NOTE: 42% of reviews (24/56) lack dates or have dates before 2023. Most recent reviews (2024–2025) show mixed signals: strong professionalism but one refusal-to-quote complaint (2025-05-19). Recommend weighting recent reviews more heavily; older reviews may not reflect current operations.

This WW Score of 82.1 should be treated with MODERATE-TO-HIGH caution: while professionalism and experience scores are robust and well-supported, the three documented project completion failures (misdiagnosis, warranty callback abandonment, no-show) represent material breaches of trust that are not offset by positive reviews. The score reflects a contractor with strong technical skills and communication but inconsistent follow-through and occasional lapses in diagnostic rigor. Prospective customers should explicitly discuss warranty callbacks, obtain in-person inspections before major recommendations, and confirm appointment commitments in writing.

Shedrick demonstrates strong professionalism with consistently praised responsiveness, punctuality, and friendly demeanor across 38 reviews. Pricing is competitive and transparent, with 24 reviews explicitly noting fair or reasonable rates. Project completion shows solid execution but is tempered by three significant negative reviews (2011, 2018, 2018) describing incomplete work, abandoned projects, and follow-up failures, reducing confidence in this dimension. Technical expertise is well-documented across 20 reviews highlighting skilled workmanship and problem-solving ability. The WW Score of 82.1 reflects a generally trustworthy contractor with notable execution risks.

• Three severe negative reviews (1-star ratings from 2011, 2018, 2018) describe serious project failures including incomplete work, abandoned jobs, poor quality installations, and unprofessional conduct. These are detailed and specific, not generic complaints, suggesting legitimate service failures.
• 2018 review describes verbal abuse and obscenely high invoicing with single-line itemization—significant professionalism red flag.
• 2011 review documents multiple technical failures: leaking pipes, incorrect hot/cold installation, undersized gas line, non-compliant fire-rated boxes, and abandonment after owner changes.
• 2018 review documents no-show appointment via Yelp with no communication or callback.
• Recency concern: Most reviews are 5+ years old (2012-2017). Only 6 reviews from past 12 months (2024, 2023). Recent reviews are uniformly positive, but sample size is small.
• No pattern of fake reviews detected. Negative reviews are detailed and specific; positive reviews vary in language and detail level.

This score should be treated with MODERATE-to-HIGH caution. While recent reviews (2023-2024) are uniformly positive and professionalism/pricing are well-supported, three detailed negative reviews from 2011-2018 document serious project failures and unprofessional conduct that cannot be ignored. The contractor appears capable of excellent work but has demonstrated inconsistent execution and poor follow-through on complex projects. Recommend requesting references for similar project scope and confirming detailed written contracts with clear completion terms before engagement.

Derek (Drummer Plumber) demonstrates strong professionalism with consistently praised responsiveness, punctuality, and courteous demeanor across 42 reviews. Project completion is solid at 85.0, with most jobs finished on time and to satisfaction, though one significant no-show incident (2020-12-31) and one licensing/follow-up failure (2024-03-26) create notable concerns. Experience scores well at 86.0 based on 25 mentions of technical skill and problem-solving. Pricing is fair at 81.0, though one customer experienced a quote misunderstanding (2023-05-07) and another noted higher costs than licensed competitors (2023-09-10). The licensing issue appears in 2 reviews and represents a material compliance risk that tempers overall confidence.

• CRITICAL: Licensing concern flagged in 2 reviews (2024-03-26, 2023-09-10). Derek is described as 'NOT A LICENSED PLUMBER' which creates legal/insurance liability for customers. One customer's home insurance rejected his work and required re-verification by a licensed plumber. This is a material compliance issue that should disqualify use for permitted/insured work.
• One significant no-show incident (2020-12-31): Customer scheduled appointment, Derek did not arrive, did not respond to three voicemail messages over 24 hours. This is an isolated incident but represents a serious professionalism lapse.
• One quote misunderstanding (2023-05-07): Customer thought secondary job was included in quoted price; ended up paying $450 more than expected. Derek did offer to return at no cost after customer complaint, but this indicates potential communication gaps on scope.
• One customer reported higher pricing than licensed competitors (2023-09-10) and poor cleanup.
• Review volume skews heavily toward 5-star ratings (47 of 51 reviews are 5-star). While this could reflect genuine quality, the concentration is notable. However, the 4 negative reviews contain specific, credible complaints rather than generic criticism, suggesting they are authentic.
• Most reviews are 2+ years old (majority from 2020-2022). Only 6 reviews are from 2024. Recent data is limited.

This WW Score of 82.1 is reliable for general plumbing work but should NOT be used for permitted, insured, or licensed-required work due to Derek's lack of plumber licensure—a material compliance issue that overrides positive service ratings. For small repairs and maintenance, the score reflects genuine customer satisfaction, but customers must verify licensing requirements for their specific project before engaging.

Garcia Plumbing demonstrates strong overall performance with particular strengths in technical expertise and professionalism. The company excels at punctuality, communication (when reachable), and quality workmanship, with many customers praising their diagnostic abilities and honest recommendations. Pricing is generally fair and competitive, though some customers report high costs for certain jobs. Project completion is solid but marred by occasional follow-through issues on secondary tasks and communication delays. The business shows a clear pattern of excellent work quality but inconsistent responsiveness, which impacts the overall score.

• CRITICAL: Three 1-star reviews (2023-03-11, 2021-02-18, 2016-03-21, 2013-02-02, 2011-04-25) reveal serious issues with communication, ghosting, incomplete work, and unmet commitments. The 2023 review alleges fraud and property damage with no invoice provided.
• COMMUNICATION PATTERN: Multiple reviews (2021-02-18, 2019-07-02, 2012-10-28, 2013-02-02, 2011-04-25) explicitly mention difficulty reaching the company by phone, delayed responses, and need to 'babysit' coordination. This is a recurring weakness.
• INCOMPLETE WORK: 2021-02-18 review documents unfinished tasks (permit finalization, drain line installation) after water heater job with no follow-up despite multiple contact attempts.
• PRICING OUTLIER: 2016-03-21 review reports $800 charge for toilet unclogging that reviewer believed should cost $50-100, suggesting potential overpricing on certain service calls.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most positive reviews are from 2007-2020. Recent reviews (2023, 2021) include serious complaints. Most data is 3+ years old.
• GHOSTING ALLEGATIONS: 2023-03-11 and 2021-02-18 reviews both use term 'ghosted' regarding lack of follow-up communication.

This score should be treated with CAUTION. While the company demonstrates genuine technical expertise and professionalism in execution, the pattern of communication failures, incomplete follow-through on secondary tasks, and serious allegations in recent reviews (2023, 2021) significantly undermine confidence. The high volume of older positive reviews (2007-2020) contrasts sharply with recent negative experiences, suggesting possible operational decline or inconsistency. Customers should expect excellent work quality but should be prepared for communication challenges and verify all commitments in writing.