Find Nearby Plumbers In San Leandro, California

MCM Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism with consistent praise for punctuality, communication, and courteous service across 28 reviews. Pricing is competitive and transparent, with customers frequently noting fair quotes and no hidden charges (18 mentions). However, project completion shows a notable weakness: two recent 1-star reviews (Sept-Oct 2024) document incomplete work, failed callbacks, and unresolved issues with technician Carlos, significantly lowering this dimension's score despite many positive historical completions. Technical expertise is solid, with multiple reviews praising knowledgeable staff and problem-solving ability. The company's strength lies in professionalism and pricing, but recent service failures in follow-through create meaningful concern.

• CRITICAL: Two recent 1-star reviews (Sept-Oct 2024) describe incomplete work and broken callbacks on a tub faucet repair. Technician Carlos failed to return after stating he would consult his supervisor. This represents a serious project completion failure and suggests potential systemic issues with follow-through and accountability.
• One 1-star review (June 2024) alleges a 90-day drain-clearing guarantee failed at 39 days, followed by a $160 charge described as 'thievery.' This suggests possible warranty/guarantee disputes or aggressive upselling practices.
• Three reviews contain no text (only 5-star ratings with blank content), reducing data quality slightly.
• Most reviews are older than 2 years (pre-2023), with recent negative reviews contradicting the historical pattern of excellence. This recency shift is significant and warrants caution.

This score should be treated with MODERATE-to-HIGH caution: while the overall WW Score of 82.1 reflects strong historical performance across professionalism and pricing, two recent critical failures in project completion (Sept-Oct 2024) and one warranty dispute (June 2024) suggest the company may be experiencing operational decline or inconsistency. The score is reliable for past performance but may not accurately predict current service quality. Prospective customers should inquire specifically about callback protocols and warranty guarantees before engaging.

Javier from Paiz Plumbing earns consistently strong marks across all four dimensions, with multiple reviewers explicitly praising his punctuality, communication, transparency, and technical competence. The one negative review (1-star) is a meaningful data point: a customer reported poor workmanship on an external leak repair and a 2-day delay in returning to fix the resulting issues, which directly penalizes both project completion and professionalism scores. Pricing feedback is positive but limited to three reviews, with one reviewer specifically noting multiple pricing options and transparent explanations. The humorous toilet review, while lighthearted, still confirms Javier's honesty and integrity — he declined to charge when he could not solve the problem — which is a genuine positive signal for both professionalism and pricing. Overall, the body of evidence is solid and the scores reflect a strong but not flawless contractor.

• One 1-star review (June 2021) describes poor workmanship on an external leak repair and a refusal to return for 2 days after the job was paid — this is a credible negative signal and has been weighted accordingly.
• Several reviews are older than 12 months (2021–2022 range); the two most recent reviews (2024) are positive and consistent with the broader pattern, suggesting no significant quality decline.
• No strong fake review patterns detected — reviews vary in length, tone, specificity, and rating, which is a positive authenticity signal. The humorous review is clearly genuine and unique.
• Total review count is low (8 reviews), which limits the statistical reliability of the scores despite HIGH confidence labels on mention counts.

This WW Score is moderately reliable given 8 reviews with good dimensional coverage, though the small sample size means a single negative experience has an outsized impact and prospective customers should seek additional recent reviews before making a hiring decision.

Luna Handyman (Ever) demonstrates strong performance across all four dimensions based on available review data. Professionalism is well-supported with explicit mentions of punctuality, friendliness, cleanliness, and professional precision. Experience is clearly a strength, with reviewers highlighting diverse technical skills across plumbing, electrical, tile, carpentry, and general construction. Project completion is confirmed through multiple references to finished jobs and long-term customer relationships. Pricing receives positive mention for fairness and transparency, though fewer reviews address cost directly. The WW Score of 89.3 reflects consistently high marks, though the limited sample size (5 reviews) and moderate confidence levels warrant caution in treating this as definitive.

• All 5 reviews are 5-star ratings with no negative feedback or critical comments — this uniformity is atypical and suggests potential selection bias or review curation
• All reviews cluster within a 16-day window (July 20–August 6, 2023), raising questions about whether these represent a complete review history or a curated subset
• Review 1 uses generic language ('so many projects,' 'so much more') without specific project details, which is less informative than others
• No reviews older than 1 year are present; recency is high but historical performance data is absent
• Sample size is very small (n=5); statistical reliability is limited

This WW Score should be treated with caution due to the small sample size (5 reviews), perfect 5-star uniformity, temporal clustering, and apparent selection bias. While the data present is positive, a larger and more diverse review set spanning a longer timeframe would be needed to establish true reliability and rule out curation effects.

Dave Sequeira demonstrates strong performance across all four dimensions based on available review data. Professionalism is consistently praised with mentions of personable demeanor, friendliness, and reliability across all four reviews. Experience is highlighted through descriptions of skill, knowledge, and problem-solving ability, particularly evident in the detailed sewer line case where Dave identified a solution the previous plumber missed. Project completion is supported by multiple mentions of jobs being completed successfully and thoroughly. Pricing receives positive marks for reasonableness and honesty, though only two reviews explicitly address cost. The WW Score of 88.3 reflects solid performance, though the limited sample size (4 reviews) and age of some reviews (oldest from 2016) warrant moderate confidence.

• Small sample size (4 reviews total) limits statistical reliability
• Review recency concern: 50% of reviews are older than 5 years (2016, 2018, 2019); only 1 review from past 12 months
• All reviews are 5-star ratings with no negative feedback, which could indicate selection bias or incomplete review dataset
• Pricing dimension based on only 2 mentions; limited evidence for confident scoring on value assessment

This WW Score should be treated with moderate caution due to the small sample size and significant age of half the reviews; while the recent 2024 review is positive, a larger and more recent dataset would be needed to establish high confidence in this contractor's current performance.

Capelli Plumbing has a strong and well-documented track record across professionalism, technical skill, and job completion, with the majority of reviewers praising punctuality, communication, and knowledgeable technicians. However, a meaningful cluster of negative reviews — spanning multiple years — raises legitimate concerns: repeated complaints about overcharging, no-shows, failure to return calls, warranty disputes, and at least one instance of incomplete or shoddy work requiring a third-party fix. Pricing scores are tempered by several explicit complaints of excessive charges and misleading 'free estimate' advertising, even though many other customers praised fair and competitive pricing. Project completion is similarly mixed, with some reviews describing abandoned jobs, unresolved clogs requiring multiple return visits, and work left incomplete. The score reflects a business with genuine strengths but a pattern of inconsistency that prevents a higher rating.

• 12 reviews contain no text — only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence.
• Several reviews from 2014 suggest a possible period of operational decline, including multiple reports of no-shows, unanswered calls, and a disconnected phone. Business appears to have recovered based on more recent reviews.
• One 2022 review alleges the owner denied having a record of service and a work order, suggesting a potential billing or record-keeping dispute.
• One 2015 review describes a major sewer repair job with poor workmanship, no permit pulled, cement splattered on brickwork, and a follow-up failure — with the owner reportedly blaming former employees and not issuing a refund.
• One 2023 review describes a $1,800+ nightmare involving a recurring clog never fully resolved, ceiling damage, and repeated charges with no warranty honored.
• One 2021 review describes a warranty dispute where the 30-day guarantee was effectively denied the day after work was completed.
• One 2019 review describes a technician dramatically overstating a problem (a simple nut tightening) and charging $165 for a 2-minute fix — with no stars given.
• One 2017 review describes a no-show after a confirmed appointment, unanswered calls, and a pattern of upselling on older homes.
• Recency note: The majority of negative reviews are from 2013–2023, while reviews from 2024–2025 are predominantly positive. This may indicate improvement in service quality, but the negative history is substantial enough to weigh on the score.
• No fake review patterns detected. Reviews vary in length, specificity, tone, and rating — consistent with authentic customer feedback.

This WW Score is based on 95 reviews spanning over a decade with strong mention counts across all four dimensions, making it statistically reliable — however, the persistent pattern of serious negative reviews across multiple years means the score should be interpreted as reflecting an inconsistent contractor rather than a uniformly high-quality one.

Pacific Plumbing Systems earns strong marks across all four dimensions, driven by a large volume of detailed, positive reviews spanning over a decade. Professionalism is well-documented with consistent praise for punctuality, communication, and clean workmanship, though it is meaningfully offset by several negative reviews citing a no-show appointment, rude technician behavior, and a dismissive office response that included suggesting the customer 'find another plumber.' Pricing scores moderately well — several reviewers explicitly called fees reasonable or fair, but negative reviews flag undisclosed travel surcharges and a $98 diagnostic fee with no estimate delivered, which suppresses the score. Project completion is a clear strength, with many reviewers describing thorough, complete jobs and at least one instance of a warranty callback honored at no charge. Experience is consistently praised, with technicians like Todd, Alfonso, and Jesus repeatedly cited for skill, problem-solving, and technical knowledge across complex and older-home plumbing scenarios.

• Two reviews (2025-04-10) contain no usable text — one is blank and one says only 'Excellent service. Thanks' — these were excluded from dimension scoring due to insufficient detail.
• Several reviews use near-identical phrasing about Diamond Certified status as a discovery mechanism, which is likely organic but worth noting as a mild pattern.
• Six negative reviews (1-star) are present and document serious issues: a no-show with no callback (2011), a forgotten appointment (2011), a $98 fee charged with no estimate given (2013), a no-show with wrong address and dismissive office response (2024), an undisclosed travel surcharge (2015), and a rude technician with high per-minute billing (2015). These are distributed across the review history and are treated as credible.
• A significant portion of reviews (roughly 15+) are dated 2024 or older than 12 months from the most recent review date of 2025-05-26. The most recent 12 months (May 2024–May 2025) contain approximately 20 reviews, which is a healthy recent sample.
• The duplicate review from the San Leandro 100-year-old house customer (identical text appearing in both 2024-06-09 and 2024-03-14) was counted only once for dimension scoring to avoid artificial inflation.
• One review (2014-04-23, 5-star) appears to be a company response posted as a customer review regarding BBB accreditation — this was excluded from dimension scoring as it is not a genuine customer experience review.

This WW Score is based on 55 usable reviews spanning 2011–2025 with strong recent activity, a meaningful number of detailed negative reviews that were fully incorporated, and HIGH confidence across all four dimensions — making this score a reliable representation of the contractor's overall performance, with the primary caveat that recurring issues around scheduling reliability and pricing transparency modestly but legitimately suppress the final score.