Find Nearby Plumbers In San Francisco, California

Rooter Monkey receives consistently positive feedback across all four dimensions, with professionalism being the most frequently and clearly cited strength — reviewers repeatedly mention politeness, responsiveness, and friendly communication. Pricing is noted as competitive and affordable in multiple reviews, though the sample size is small. Project completion is supported by mentions of timely, efficient work and a notable post-job follow-up practice, though no reviews describe complex or long-duration projects that would stress-test this dimension. Experience is affirmed through references to knowledgeability and quality workmanship, though most jobs described appear to be relatively straightforward plumbing tasks. The overall score is tempered by the small review pool and the fact that four of six reviews are over two years old.

• Three reviews share the same date (2021-09-14) with similar generic praise and no specific job details — this pattern warrants caution and may suggest coordinated or solicited reviews.
• Five of six reviews are from 2021, making them over two years old as of 2024. Only one review (August 2024) is recent. Recency weighting significantly limits confidence in current service quality.
• All reviews are 5-star with uniformly positive language and no constructive criticism, which is statistically unusual for an organic review set and may indicate selective review solicitation.
• Sample size of 6 reviews is very small; scores should be treated as directional rather than definitive.

This WW Score carries MODERATE reliability overall — the positive signals are consistent but the small sample size, clustering of three same-day reviews, and predominance of older reviews (2021) meaningfully limit confidence in how accurately this score reflects current contractor performance.

JE Brown demonstrates strong technical expertise and experience with specialized boiler and heating systems, consistently praised across multiple reviews for knowledgeable technicians and problem-solving ability. Professionalism is generally solid with courteous staff and timely service, though two significant negative incidents (a 2023 misdiagnosis resulting in no refund, and a 2020 road rage incident involving a company vehicle) substantially lower this dimension. Pricing is perceived as fair and transparent by customers who mention it, with good value relative to competitors. Project completion is reliable with efficient service delivery, though the 2023 diagnostic failure represents a notable gap. Most reviews are older than 2 years, limiting recency assessment.

• CRITICAL: 2023 review documents complete service failure—technician spent 5 minutes, missed gas valve issue that another plumber identified immediately, charged $150 for no work, and company did not respond to complaint. This is a serious quality control and customer service failure.
• CRITICAL: 2020 review describes aggressive road rage incident involving company vehicle driver who yelled at customer and nearly caused accident. Raises serious concerns about employee conduct and company culture despite being unrelated to actual service work.
• RECENCY ISSUE: 13 of 15 reviews are from 2020 or earlier (oldest from 2008). Only 2 reviews from 2023 and 2022. Recent performance data is extremely limited.
• One review (2021-03-25) is about website security issue unrelated to actual service—excluded from scoring but noted.
• Positive reviews show some repetitive praise language but with sufficient specific details (names of technicians, system types, specific problems solved) to appear genuine rather than fabricated.

This score should be treated with caution due to severe recency limitations (87% of reviews older than 2 years) and two serious recent incidents (2023 misdiagnosis/non-response and 2020 employee conduct issue) that contradict the predominantly positive historical record. The WW Score reflects historical performance but may not represent current service quality.

Wilson's Plumbing demonstrates strong technical expertise and generally professional service delivery, with most positive reviews praising punctuality, knowledge, and friendliness. However, the score is significantly impacted by serious concerns: multiple reviews document reckless driving behavior by company personnel (aggressive freeway driving, unsafe traffic conduct), and critically, one detailed 2016 review reveals incomplete problem diagnosis, poor follow-up on failed work, and dismissive owner behavior when confronted. The company's claim of 24/7 availability was contradicted by lack of callback during an emergency. While many customers report satisfaction with completed work, the pattern of incomplete solutions (temporary fixes, missed root causes) and unprofessional owner communication during disputes undermines overall reliability.

• CRITICAL: Multiple independent reviews (2022, 2017) document dangerous driving behavior by company personnel in company vehicle—suggests systemic safety/judgment issue
• CRITICAL: 2016 review documents incomplete diagnosis (missed hard debris clog), failed emergency callback despite 24/7 claim, and dismissive/rude owner response to legitimate complaint
• PATTERN: Several positive reviews use nearly identical phrasing ('fantastic,' 'highly recommend,' 'Jakob/Jacob') and lack specific technical detail—possible review inflation, though some specificity exists in older reviews
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most reviews are 6+ years old (2013-2016); only 3 reviews from 2017-2022, limiting current reliability assessment
• INCONSISTENCY: Owner behavior varies dramatically—helpful on phone in some reviews, hostile and dismissive in 2016 complaint response
• PROJECT COMPLETION RISK: One detailed review shows work that failed within 2 weeks; owner claimed snaking is only 'temporary' (months or days), suggesting inadequate scope definition

This score should be treated with MODERATE caution. While technical competence and professionalism are evident in most reviews, serious red flags regarding driver safety, incomplete problem diagnosis, emergency responsiveness failures, and unprofessional owner conduct during disputes significantly undermine confidence. The age of most reviews (6+ years) and potential review inflation further limit reliability. Prospective customers should prioritize clarifying scope guarantees and emergency protocols before engagement.

Prime Time Plumbing receives broadly positive feedback across all four dimensions, with reviewers consistently praising professionalism, fair pricing, and technical knowledge. The large-scope ADU project review and the espresso machine water line installation both highlight strong workmanship and follow-through. However, one 1-star review from 2017 describes an incorrectly installed water heater and months of ignored callbacks — a serious project completion and professionalism failure that cannot be dismissed. The presence of at least four likely duplicate reviews (two identical tankless water heater reviews and two identical 'kind and knowledgeable' reviews) raises authenticity concerns and reduces overall confidence. Scores have been conservatively adjusted to reflect these flags.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: Two reviews dated 2023-10-14 are word-for-word identical ('I had a great experience with them. They did a tankless water heater for a fair price...'). Two reviews dated 2023-10-13 are word-for-word identical ('had them replace my water heater with a tankless...'). Two reviews dated 2023-09-20 are word-for-word identical ('Very kind and knowledgeable. Exceeded my expectations...'). These 6 reviews appear to be 3 duplicated entries, likely submitted twice. They have been counted as 3 unique reviews, not 6.
• NEGATIVE REVIEW — PROJECT COMPLETION & PROFESSIONALISM FAILURE: One 1-star review (2017-01-08) describes an incorrectly installed water heater that caused a leak, followed by months of unanswered calls. This is a direct and serious failure in both project completion and professionalism and has been factored into those dimension scores.
• RECENCY NOTE: The negative review is from 2017, and the oldest positive reviews are from 2012 and 2016. The majority of positive reviews are from 2022–2024, suggesting possible improvement over time, but the 2017 incident cannot be ignored.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK — MODERATE: The duplicate submissions and several generic short reviews with no specific details (e.g., 'Very kind and knowledgeable. Exceeded my expectations.') suggest some reviews may have been submitted artificially or in error. Confidence has been moderated accordingly.

This WW Score carries moderate reliability: the volume of recent positive reviews is encouraging, but confirmed duplicate submissions, at least one serious unresolved complaint, and some generic low-detail reviews reduce the trustworthiness of the overall picture.

Everett Plumbing demonstrates strong technical expertise and knowledge (88/100), with multiple reviews praising their skill and problem-solving ability. However, professionalism is significantly undermined by serious communication failures: two reviews explicitly document unresponsiveness to calls and emails, and one describes abandonment of a major sewer lateral project mid-completion. Pricing is fair and transparent when work is completed (82.5/100), but project completion is compromised by the documented abandonment and warranty service refusal (65/100). The business shows inconsistent follow-through despite strong individual interactions.

• CRITICAL: Two reviews (2018-11-08 and 2016-07-20) document severe communication failures and project abandonment. The 2018 sewer lateral job was left incomplete with zero follow-up communication despite promised return date.
• RECENCY CONCERN: 7 of 11 reviews are older than 5 years (pre-2017). Only 2 reviews from past 5 years, with the most recent negative review from 2018. Limited recent data to assess current operations.
• INCONSISTENCY PATTERN: Stark contrast between glowing 5-star reviews praising professionalism and communication versus 1-2 star reviews documenting complete communication breakdown. Suggests inconsistent service delivery or possible operational changes over time.
• WARRANTY SERVICE ISSUE: One review (2015-10-13) indicates the company does not honor warranty callbacks, which is a professionalism and follow-through failure.

This score should be treated with caution due to limited recent data (only 2 reviews in past 5 years) and a stark polarization between excellent and severely deficient service experiences. The documented project abandonment and communication failures are serious red flags that outweigh positive technical reviews, but the age of most data limits confidence in current reliability.

This dataset contains reviews for multiple plumbing companies (Harry Clark, Collins Plumbing, and others), making it difficult to produce a single unified score. The data shows strong technical competence and professionalism in many cases, but is significantly undermined by serious issues: multiple instances of non-responsiveness and missed callbacks, pricing complaints (overcharging, lack of transparency), incomplete work requiring callbacks, and several allegations of dishonesty or deception. Positive reviews emphasize quick response times, skilled technicians, and fair pricing, but negative reviews reveal patterns of poor communication, inflated costs, and work quality issues. The presence of duplicate reviews and empty reviews suggests data quality concerns.

• CRITICAL: Dataset contains reviews for multiple different companies (Harry Clark Plumbing, Collins Plumbing, and possibly others), making aggregation problematic and scores unreliable for any single contractor.
• FAKE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: Significant duplication of identical reviews across multiple dates (e.g., 'Joe and Marshall came out and unclogged my bathtub' appears 2x; 'Andre is the best!' appears 3x; multiple reviews dated 2021-06-10 and 2023-06-10 are duplicated). This suggests either data corruption or review manipulation.
• EMPTY REVIEWS: 15+ reviews contain no text or only ratings, reducing data quality.
• SERIOUS ALLEGATIONS: Multiple reviews allege dishonesty (false claims of being on-site, deceptive diagnosis), non-responsiveness (ignored callbacks, no follow-up), and court judgment non-compliance. These are not minor complaints.
• PRICING CONCERNS: Consistent pattern of overcharging complaints ($400 for simple work, $700+ for incomplete repairs, $325 minimum fee for standard $250 service). Multiple reviews cite 2-3x markup vs. fair market value.
• RESPONSIVENESS FAILURES: At least 8 reviews explicitly mention ignored calls, missed appointments, or failure to return contact despite promises.
• WORK QUALITY ISSUES: Several reviews document incomplete repairs, work that had to be redone, and misdiagnosis (e.g., septic tank blamed when pipe needed clearing; sewer pump damage alleged).
• RECENCY BIAS: Most negative reviews are from 2020-2024; many positive reviews are older (2011-2019), suggesting possible service decline or data quality issues.
• CONFIDENCE SEVERELY LIMITED: Due to multi-company aggregation and duplicate reviews, this WW Score should NOT be used to evaluate any single contractor. Separate analysis by company is essential.

This WW Score is UNRELIABLE and should NOT be used for decision-making. The dataset conflates multiple companies, contains significant duplication, includes empty reviews, and lacks clear company attribution. The score of 72.8 masks serious underlying issues including non-responsiveness, overcharging, and work quality failures. A proper analysis requires: (1) separation by individual company, (2) removal of duplicates and empty reviews, and (3) clear company identification for each review. Recommend requesting clean, company-specific review data before relying on any scoring.