Find Nearby Plumbers In San Francisco, California

Arch Plumbing earns strong marks for professionalism and experience across a very large review base, with dozens of customers praising named technicians (Chris, Tony, Alex, Gerson, Ryan, Carlos, Jorge, Enrique, Oscar) for punctuality, friendliness, cleanliness, and technical competence. Pricing scores are tempered by a meaningful cluster of negative reviews citing a non-negotiable $118 dispatch fee, a $275 cartridge replacement, a $641 water line charge billed at triple the estimated hours, and a $525 gas nipple replacement that reviewers felt was exploitative — these are explicit, credible complaints that prevent a higher pricing score. Project completion is the most penalized dimension: multiple reviews describe no-shows, abandoned bids, months-long project delays, incomplete remodel work left unfinished, a permit plan that was lost, and a plumber who failed to diagnose a problem correctly and left without resolving it — these are serious, recurring patterns that meaningfully drag the score down. The majority of reviews are recent (2024–2025), which increases confidence in the current state of the business, though the negative patterns span the full review history suggesting they are not isolated incidents.

• 23 reviews contain no text at all — only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence.
• A cluster of reviews dated 2025-04-10 (approximately 20+ reviews on the same date) is suspicious. While the content varies somewhat, the volume of same-day 5-star reviews with no negative feedback warrants a fake review flag. Confidence in the April 2025 batch is reduced.
• Multiple credible 1-star reviews describe no-shows without notification (2022-02-18, 2022-11-25, 2019-12-19), a pattern of broken promises on bids (2021-01-28), and a major project left incomplete for months with lost permit plans (2024-02-26). These are not isolated incidents and represent a systemic project completion risk.
• Pricing complaints are specific and credible: $118 mandatory dispatch fee with no upfront disclosure, $275 for a shower cartridge swap, $641 for a basic water line, and $525 for a gas nipple replacement. These suggest inconsistent or opaque pricing practices.
• One review (2021-02-11) describes a plumber who failed to diagnose a problem correctly after multiple attempts, blamed the customer, and left the job unresolved — raising a workmanship concern not offset by the volume of positive experience reviews.
• One review (2010-10-14) describes property damage caused by the plumber's work. One review (2013-05-16) describes a roof pipe installation that caused mold damage worth $1,800 that went unresolved for over a year. These are older but serious quality and follow-through failures.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews are from 2024–2025, which is positive for recency weighting. However, negative patterns (no-shows, pricing opacity, incomplete work) appear across all time periods, suggesting they are not legacy issues that have been resolved.

This WW Score is based on a large review set (175 total, 152 with usable data) spanning over a decade, with strong recency weighting toward 2024–2025, and carries HIGH overall confidence — however, the score should be interpreted cautiously given credible and recurring negative patterns in pricing transparency and project completion that are not fully offset by the volume of positive reviews.

Bay Area Plumbing has a large and predominantly positive review base spanning many years, with consistent praise for responsiveness, punctuality, and technical competence — particularly from repeat customers who cite Boris and other named technicians by name. However, a meaningful minority of negative reviews (approximately 18 out of 163) document serious concerns including missed appointments with no follow-up, rude phone staff who hung up on callers, disputed pricing and billing practices, warranty refusals, and at least one case of a potentially unnecessary equipment replacement. Pricing is a mixed dimension: many reviewers praise fair and competitive rates, while several others describe estimates that escalated mid-job, opaque invoicing, or charges that felt excessive for the work performed. Project completion scores well overall given the volume of reviews describing jobs finished promptly and correctly, but is tempered by a handful of cases where work had to be redone shortly after or where the company failed to show up at all. Experience scores highest, with numerous reviewers specifically citing Boris's 25+ years of expertise and the ability of technicians to solve problems that others could not.

• 22 reviews contain no text — only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence.
• Two reviews dated 2024-04-11 are near-identical in wording ('Boris saved my apartment investment! Bay Area Plumbing took my call at 10:30 PM...'), suggesting a possible duplicate or fake review submission. Confidence slightly reduced for those specific data points.
• Several 5-star reviews are extremely generic ('Great service', 'Great plumbers!', 'Mike and his team are top notch') with no specifics — consistent with padding patterns. These were counted for rating sentiment only and not used for dimension scoring.
• One review (2017-01-05) alleges the owner recommended a full water heater replacement without inspection when the actual issue was a gas shutoff resolvable by a free utility call — a serious integrity concern.
• Multiple reviews cite rude or unhelpful phone staff hanging up on callers, contradicting the company's claimed 24/7 emergency service availability.
• Review date range spans 2008 to 2025. Reviews older than 2022 were given reduced weight in scoring. The majority of substantive reviews are from 2021 onward.
• One reviewer (2022-06-10) reports the water heater issue was not resolved after paying for service, and the company refused to honor the implied warranty — flagged as a project completion and professionalism concern.
• One reviewer (2021-07-21) reports being charged $250 for a single wrench turn after a quoted price of $275 for a full handle replacement that was never performed — flagged as a pricing integrity concern.

This WW Score is based on a large review set (163 total, 141 with usable data) spanning multiple years, giving it HIGH statistical confidence overall; however, the score should be interpreted with caution due to recurring negative patterns around pricing transparency, appointment reliability, and customer service conduct that are not fully captured by the predominantly positive majority.

Bell Plumbing earns strong marks for professionalism and experience, with dozens of reviewers explicitly praising technicians for punctuality, communication, courtesy, and technical skill across a wide range of jobs. Project completion scores are also solid, with the majority of reviewers confirming jobs were finished correctly and in a timely manner, though a small number of notable exceptions — including a no-call no-show, toilets not secured correctly requiring a callback, a wall left open after faucet work, and a disputed sewer job with billing irregularities — prevent a higher score. Pricing is the weakest dimension by a meaningful margin: while many reviewers describe pricing as fair or reasonable, multiple 1-star reviews cite significant sticker shock, a $321 charge for a 15-minute washer replacement, a sewer job priced over $11,000 more than a competitor, and a mid-job price escalation from $250 to $600 with no clear justification. The pricing score reflects this genuine split in customer experience rather than defaulting to the majority positive sentiment.

• 29 reviews contain no text at all — only a star rating (all 5 stars). These reviews provide zero usable data and were excluded from dimension scoring. Their presence inflates the apparent review count and average star rating.
• Several reviews from July 30, 2024 appear on the same date with very similar enthusiastic phrasing about the same technician (Freddy), which warrants mild suspicion of coordinated or solicited reviews, though they are not identical.
• One review (2023-03-28) describes a significantly different and negative experience involving unprofessional conduct, price escalation, and berating of the customer — this is a serious outlier that was fully weighted in pricing and professionalism scoring.
• One review (2024-04-02) describes a sewer replacement job priced over $11,000 more than a competitor, disputed charges for work not performed, and property damage not remedied — this was fully weighted in pricing and project completion scoring.
• One review (2024-05-21) describes toilets not secured correctly requiring a callback, a wall left open, and plastic faucets installed without consent — this was fully weighted in project completion and experience scoring.
• One review (2024-11-04) describes a technician who refused to inspect the water heater and immediately recommended full replacement — this was weighted in experience scoring as a negative signal.
• One review (2024-10-22) describes a no-call no-show on a scheduled appointment with no follow-up — this was fully weighted in professionalism and project completion scoring.
• A significant portion of reviews are older than 12 months (many from 2019–2022), and the business appears to have changed staffing and scale over time. Recent reviews (2024–2025) are more mixed on pricing than older reviews, suggesting possible pricing drift upward.
• The 1-star review from 2022-12-21 describes being ignored after an overpriced initial visit and only receiving a response after threatening a negative review — this was weighted in professionalism scoring.

This WW Score is based on a large review set with high mention counts across all four dimensions, making it statistically reliable; however, the score should be interpreted with caution on pricing specifically, as there is a genuine and documented pattern of pricing complaints that is partially masked by the high volume of positive reviews.

Advanced Plumbing & Drain earns strong marks across all four dimensions, driven by a large volume of detailed, specific reviews praising named technicians like Gabriel, Ron, Nick, Brian, Jeremy, Ryan, and Alex. Professionalism scores well due to consistent praise for punctuality, communication, courtesy, and responsiveness — including same-day and weekend availability — but is meaningfully dragged down by multiple credible complaints about no-shows, failure to follow up, and lateness. Project completion is similarly strong in the majority of cases, with reviewers frequently noting jobs finished thoroughly and on time, but is significantly penalized by one serious 1-star account of a $15,000 job left incomplete with a leaking, improperly vented water heater and unconnected second unit. Pricing scores moderately well — several reviewers explicitly confirmed competitive or fair quotes, and one reviewer confirmed Advanced beat multiple competitors on a large job — but is offset by credible complaints of overcharging, an alleged $1,450 quote for a job completed by the reviewer for free, and one reviewer noting prices were a bit high. Experience scores well overall, with multiple reviewers citing skilled diagnostics, quality workmanship, and city inspection approvals, though one reviewer flagged a misdiagnosis recommending full replacement when only a $0.50 set screw was needed.

• SERIOUS COMPLETION FAILURE: One detailed 1-star review (May 2024) describes a $15,000 job paid in full with one water heater never connected, the other leaking and improperly vented per city inspector, and damage to a door frame costing $400 to repair. This is a significant red flag for large or complex jobs.
• NO-SHOW / RELIABILITY ISSUE: One reviewer (May 2024) reports being stood up twice with no contact from the company, suggesting scheduling reliability may be inconsistent.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS: Two credible negative reviews allege overcharging — one claims a $1,450 quote for a job the reviewer completed themselves for free in 2 hours; another alleges unapproved charges were added to a bill after the fact.
• ALLEGED EXPLOITATION OF ELDERLY CLIENTS: Two separate reviews (Nov 2023 and May 2023) allege the company attempted to exploit elderly family members with excessive pricing or fraudulent invoicing. These are serious ethical allegations that could not be verified but are noted.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK — LOW: The majority of positive reviews are specific, name individual technicians, describe distinct plumbing scenarios, and vary in writing style. This reduces the likelihood of systematic fake reviews. However, the volume of 5-star reviews with no pricing or completion detail (e.g., 'Excellent service!') slightly inflates the positive signal.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most serious negative reviews (incomplete $15,000 job, no-show) are from 2024, suggesting potential decline in service quality or capacity management as the business has grown. Older reviews (2018–2021) are overwhelmingly positive with fewer complaints.
• MISDIAGNOSIS FLAG: One reviewer (Sep 2021) reports being told to replace an entire unit for ~$1,500 when the actual fix was a $0.50 set screw, suggesting diagnostic quality may vary by technician.

This WW Score is based on 80 reviews spanning 2018–2024 with HIGH confidence across all dimensions; however, the score should be interpreted with caution for large or complex jobs given credible, detailed accounts of project abandonment, overcharging, and alleged exploitation of vulnerable clients — patterns that are partially obscured by the high volume of positive reviews from smaller, routine jobs.

Ajax Plumbing & Heating (Adam) earns strong marks across all four dimensions, driven by a large volume of detailed, positive reviews spanning multiple years. Professionalism scores well due to consistent praise for punctuality, communication, and responsiveness — including emergency calls on Christmas Eve, Christmas Day, and Thanksgiving — though a handful of reviews cite rude phone interactions and one describes unprofessional cleanup practices, preventing a higher score. Project completion is a clear strength, with numerous reviewers confirming jobs were finished on time, often in a single day, with follow-through on callbacks and warranty visits honored. Experience is well-supported by detailed accounts of complex boiler replacements, oil-to-gas conversions, gas line work, and permit navigation with NYC agencies. Pricing is the weakest dimension: while many reviewers call his rates fair or reasonable, several negative reviews allege overcharging ($650 for a faucet replacement, $175 for a substandard boiler cleaning, $1,850 for disputed work, and one instance of allegedly recommending an unnecessary boiler replacement), which meaningfully pulls the pricing score down.

• CLUSTERING WARNING: A large number of reviews (approximately 25+) share the exact same date of 2023-06-10 and 2024-06-09, which is highly unusual and may indicate batch-imported or backdated reviews rather than organically submitted ones. This reduces confidence in the precise date-weighting of those reviews.
• NEGATIVE PATTERN — PRICING: Multiple independent negative reviews across different years allege overcharging or unnecessary work recommendations (2013: $650 faucet, 2019: $175 for inadequate boiler cleaning, 2019: charged $175 then told boiler unfixable when another plumber fixed it for $125, 2018: $1,850 disputed charges with alleged price gouging). This is a recurring concern that warrants caution.
• NEGATIVE PATTERN — PROFESSIONALISM: At least two reviews cite rude or dismissive phone behavior (1-star 2023 review about scheduling, 1-star 2024 review about cleanup and attitude). One review (2018) includes a screenshot of Adam texting a customer 'get someone else' after receiving $1,850 in payments.
• THEFT ALLEGATION: One review (2015) alleges tools were stolen from a basement during a job and describes a hostile response from the owner when reported. This is a serious flag, though it is a single isolated claim from 2015.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of detailed, positive reviews are from 2023 and earlier. Only two reviews are dated 2024, one of which is negative. The 2024 negative review is the most recent data point available.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — MODERATE: The clustering of 25+ reviews on identical dates (2023-06-10 and 2024-06-09) with uniformly 5-star ratings and similar praise language raises a moderate concern about review authenticity or bulk importing. However, many of these reviews contain specific job details, names, and scenarios that suggest genuine experiences, so a full fake-review flag is not warranted — but caution is advised.

This WW Score is based on a large review set (72 reviews) with HIGH mention counts across all four dimensions, making the score statistically robust; however, reliability is moderately reduced by suspicious date clustering across dozens of reviews, a recurring pattern of pricing complaints from multiple independent reviewers across several years, and at least one serious allegation of price gouging — prospective customers should weigh these flags carefully alongside the predominantly positive feedback.

Rudy earns consistently strong marks across all four dimensions, with the large majority of reviewers praising his punctuality, responsiveness, courteous attitude, and willingness to take on additional tasks without complaint. Pricing is generally viewed as fair to competitive, with multiple reviewers explicitly noting his rates beat out other estimates, though one reviewer called his labor overpriced, introducing a small negative signal. Project completion is a clear strength — reviewers repeatedly describe jobs finished thoroughly, on time, and with cleanup included, though one significant negative review describes a failed lock installation where the work was defective and Rudy was unavailable to remedy it within a reasonable timeframe and refused a refund. Workmanship quality is broadly praised across a wide variety of tasks including tiling, plumbing fixtures, flooring, caulking, and electrical work, suggesting solid general handyman skill, though the failed lock job raises a minor concern about quality control on certain task types. Overall the score is tempered slightly by two negative reviews and the involvement of an untrained helper (wife/partner) on some jobs.

• One serious negative review (2023-10-02, 1-star) describes defective lock installation performed partly by Rudy's wife, unavailability to fix the issue within 48 hours, and refusal to issue a refund — this is a project completion and professionalism failure that is weighted in scoring.
• One negative review (2022-03-02, 1-star) explicitly states Rudy's pricing is higher than professional companies — this conflicts with the majority of positive pricing mentions and introduces pricing uncertainty.
• Several reviews mention Rudy's wife or a helper performing work. In one negative review, the helper's work quality is directly cited as the cause of failure. This is a quality control risk worth noting.
• Review language is varied and specific enough across reviewers to suggest authenticity — no strong fake review pattern detected. However, the high concentration of 5-star reviews with no detail (e.g., 2023-02-09, 2023-05-31) are noted as low-information data points.
• Reviews span from 2022 to mid-2024. The majority of reviews are within the past 24 months, with a healthy cluster in 2023–2024, so recency is not a major concern. The two negative reviews are both from 2022–2023.

This WW Score is based on 27 reviews with strong mention counts across all four dimensions, making it a HIGH confidence assessment, though the presence of two substantive negative reviews — one involving a refund dispute and unresolved defective work — means consumers should weigh those incidents carefully before hiring for precision or security-related tasks.