Find Nearby Plumbers In San Francisco, California

Mike receives strong praise across most dimensions, with many reviewers highlighting prompt arrival, friendly demeanor, fair pricing, and solid technical work including hydro-jetting, drain clearing, and fixture installation. However, two significant negative reviews meaningfully drag down the scores: one describes a complete no-show with a rude hang-up (a serious professionalism failure), and another accuses Mike of deliberately damaging pipes and grossly overcharging — a serious integrity and pricing concern. These are not minor complaints and cannot be dismissed, especially since the pricing accusation is supported by a second-opinion plumber's estimate. The review base also spans over a decade (2009–2023), meaning many positive reviews are quite old and may not reflect current service quality. Scores have been conservatively adjusted to account for these red flags rather than being dominated by the majority of positive reviews.

• SERIOUS INTEGRITY FLAG: One reviewer (2010) alleges Mike deliberately damaged pipes and then charged $1,400 for a job a second plumber quoted at $600. This is a significant accusation that, if accurate, represents fraudulent behavior. Score conservatively reduced for pricing and professionalism.
• NO-SHOW FLAG: One reviewer (2019) reports Mike was assigned via Amazon, never showed up, and hung up when called. This is a direct professionalism failure and has been weighted accordingly.
• RECENCY CONCERN: 9 of 13 reviews are from 2013 or earlier — over 10 years ago. Only 2 reviews are from the past 3 years (2021, 2023). The score is heavily influenced by older data that may not reflect current performance.
• RATING POLARIZATION: Reviews are almost entirely 5-star or 1-star with very little middle ground, which can indicate either genuine service inconsistency or selective review patterns.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK — LOW: Most positive reviews contain specific details (job types, pricing figures, timelines) which reduces the likelihood of fabrication, though the volume of older generic praise warrants mild caution.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability — the mention counts are sufficient for statistical confidence, but the wide date range (2009–2023), two serious negative allegations, and heavy skew toward decade-old reviews mean this score should be treated as a rough indicator rather than a definitive assessment of current service quality.

All four reviews are positive and provide meaningful detail across multiple dimensions. Professionalism is the best-supported dimension, with all four reviews referencing responsiveness, punctuality, communication, or attitude — including specific praise for Roman's communication during a remote job and Hector's punctuality and detailed explanations. Pricing is mentioned explicitly in two reviews, both noting competitive and fair rates, including one reviewer who compared R&D against three other contractors. Project completion is supported by three reviews, with one notably highlighting that a tile shortage was handled mid-project without delaying the final delivery. Experience is well-evidenced in three reviews, with one highly detailed account from a self-described demanding DIYer who verified workmanship with levels and praised the team's proactive problem-solving. The overall score is strong but must be treated cautiously given only four total reviews.

• Only 4 reviews total — WW Score is directionally useful but statistically unreliable. A minimum of 10+ reviews is recommended for meaningful confidence.
• Two of the four reviews are dated 2022, making them over 2 years old at time of analysis. Only one review (August 2023) falls within the past 12 months. Recency weighting is limited.
• Review 4 (Dario/chimney/floor) is very brief and generic with no specific detail beyond naming the crew lead. It contributes minimal usable data and could not be scored across most dimensions.
• No negative reviews or critical feedback present in the dataset. While this may reflect genuine quality, a dataset of only 4 all-5-star reviews with no criticism warrants caution — it is not possible to assess how the contractor handles problems, disputes, or callbacks from this sample alone.
• No fake review patterns detected — reviews vary in length, writing style, specificity, and reference different crew members (Roman, Hector, Dario), which is a positive authenticity signal.

This WW Score of 88.1 is directionally positive and supported by detailed, credible reviews, but should be treated as LIMITED in reliability due to the very small sample size of only 4 reviews, limited recency, and the complete absence of any critical or mixed feedback.

All three reviews speak positively about Piccolo Plumbing's professionalism, with explicit mentions of patience, courtesy, kindness, and responsiveness including same-day scheduling. Project completion is a standout theme — one reviewer specifically highlighted that Pete and Lauren were the only contractors who saw a multi-year, highly complicated project through to the end after others abandoned it. Experience and workmanship are described as 'top notch' and 'superior quality' across reviews, with contractors noted as knowledgeable and effective. Pricing data is thin, with only one review mentioning cost-saving advice and DIY recommendations, which is a positive but limited signal. The overall picture is strong, but the score is tempered significantly by the very small review pool and the age of the reviews, all of which are from 2011–2016.

• All 3 reviews are significantly outdated — the most recent is from May 2016, nearly a decade ago. Current performance cannot be reliably inferred from this data.
• Review pool is extremely small (3 reviews). The WW Score should be treated as preliminary and low-reliability.
• All reviews are 5-star with uniformly positive language. While the reviews do contain specific details that reduce fake review suspicion, the absence of any critical feedback across all reviews warrants mild caution.
• Pricing dimension is based on only 1 mention — score carries very low evidentiary weight and should not be relied upon.

This WW Score carries LOW overall reliability due to a critically small review sample of only 3 reviews, all of which are between 8 and 13 years old, making it impossible to assess current contractor performance with any meaningful confidence.

All three reviews are recent (within the past 12 months) and consistently praise Mike's punctuality, communication, and professional demeanor, driving a strong professionalism score. Project completion is well-supported, with reviewers noting jobs were finished thoroughly, including extra steps like sourcing parts and painting with matching colors. Experience scores are bolstered by specific mentions of creative problem-solving and meticulous workmanship on varied tasks. Pricing is mentioned in only one review, so that dimension carries very limited confidence despite the positive sentiment. Overall, the picture is positive but the small sample size of just three reviews means all scores should be treated cautiously.

• Only 3 reviews total — sample size is too small to draw reliable conclusions about consistent performance.
• All reviews are 5-star with uniformly positive language; while each contains specific details that reduce fake review suspicion, the absence of any critical feedback warrants caution.
• Pricing dimension is based on a single mention and should not be weighted heavily in decision-making.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews and should be considered preliminary — more reviews are needed before this score can be trusted as a reliable indicator of consistent contractor quality.

Mark and his team receive consistently positive feedback across professionalism, pricing, project completion, and experience, with multiple reviewers highlighting responsiveness, punctuality, and transparent pricing. The shower repair review is the most detailed and specific, describing on-time arrival, early completion, and reasonable pricing. The 2009 review references a different named owner (Gary), which raises a question about whether all reviews are for the same contractor. One review contains only the word 'unknown' with a 2-star rating and provides no usable data. The overall picture is positive but the small number of reviews and their age significantly limit confidence in the scores.

• RECENCY WARNING: All 5 usable reviews are older than 1 year — the most recent is from June 2020, and four of the five are from 2009–2017. These scores may not reflect current performance.
• IDENTITY INCONSISTENCY: One review (2009) references 'Gary (owner)' while the other reviews reference 'Mark.' It is unclear whether these reviews are for the same individual or business, which may indicate mixed or misattributed reviews.
• LOW REVIEW VOLUME: Only 6 total reviews were provided, with 1 containing no usable data. Scores are based on a very small sample and should be treated with caution.
• GENERIC PRAISE FLAG: The 2011 review uses broad, non-specific language ('absolutely amazing,' 'top notch all the way') with no project details, which is a mild indicator of a potentially unverified or low-quality review.
• UNSCORED REVIEW: The 2-star review dated 2014-07-28 contains only the word 'unknown' and was excluded from scoring due to no usable content.

This WW Score should be treated as LOW RELIABILITY due to the very small number of reviews, the age of all available data (none within the past 12 months), a potential identity inconsistency between reviewers, and the presence of at least one generic and one completely uninformative review.

Brosnan Plumbing receives consistently positive feedback across all four dimensions, though the small review pool limits confidence. Professionalism is well-supported by mentions of strong communication, responsiveness, and honesty across multiple reviews. Pricing is noted favorably in three reviews, including one instance of charging weekday rates on a Saturday and another where Patrick voluntarily reduced the scope and cost of a job when a simpler solution was found — both strong positive signals. Project completion is the most consistently mentioned dimension, with all five reviews confirming jobs were finished successfully, including a tricky exhaust setup and an urgent pre-vacation repair. Experience is supported by references to technical knowledge, quick problem diagnosis, and years of experience, though most of these are general rather than highly specific.

• Only 5 reviews total — WW Score should be treated as preliminary and not fully reliable.
• Three of the five reviews are more than 4 years old (2011, 2015, 2020), with only two reviews from the past 12 months (2024). Recent performance data is limited.
• The older reviews (2011, 2015, 2020) carry reduced weight due to recency rules; business practices and quality may have changed significantly since then.
• No negative reviews or constructive criticism present across any review — while this may reflect genuine quality, it also limits the ability to identify any weaknesses.
• Review volume is very low for a reliable assessment. More reviews are needed before high confidence can be assigned to any dimension.

This WW Score is based on only 5 reviews spanning 13 years, with the majority being older than 12 months, making it a low-volume, recency-limited assessment that should be treated as indicative rather than definitive.