Find Nearby Plumbers In San Mateo, California

Caccia Plumbing and Hamzeh Plumbing (two separate entities in the dataset) demonstrate exceptional performance across all dimensions. Professionalism is consistently praised with 98 mentions covering punctuality, communication, courtesy, and responsiveness—scoring 89.5. Project completion is strong at 91.0 with 87 mentions, reflecting reliable follow-through and same-day/next-day service. Experience scores 88.0 across 92 mentions, with reviewers highlighting technical expertise, problem-solving ability, and quality workmanship. Pricing presents the only concern: while many reviews praise fair pricing, 28 mentions reveal a split—some customers report excellent value, while others cite overcharging or high costs relative to competitors. The WW Score of 87.2 reflects a highly reliable contractor with strong execution, though pricing transparency could be improved.

• Two distinct contractors appear in dataset: Caccia Plumbing (primarily recent reviews, June 2025 and May 2025) and Hamzeh Plumbing (older reviews, 2012-2019 with one 2023 review). Analysis treats them as separate entities but they are conflated in the data.
• Caccia Plumbing reviews show suspicious clustering: 40+ reviews all dated within May-June 2025, predominantly 5-star with minimal variation in praise language ('professional,' 'friendly,' 'knowledgeable'). This concentration and generic phrasing suggests possible review manipulation or incentivized reviews.
• Hamzeh Plumbing reviews span 2012-2023 with one outlier negative review (1-star, no-show) and two pricing complaints (1-star and 3-star with update). Most reviews are 5-star with detailed, specific narratives that appear authentic.
• Pricing dimension shows material inconsistency: Hamzeh reviews contain multiple mentions of overcharging ($750 for gas line cap, $300 faucet install vs. $100 elsewhere, 'very very very expensive'). Caccia reviews rarely mention pricing specifics, limiting confidence in pricing assessment.
• Recency bias: Caccia reviews are all from past 30 days (May-June 2025); Hamzeh reviews are 2-13 years old. Current score heavily weighted toward Caccia's recent performance.

This WW Score should be treated with MODERATE-to-HIGH confidence for Caccia Plumbing (recent data, HIGH professionalism/completion confidence) but with caution regarding pricing claims due to review clustering patterns. Hamzeh Plumbing data is older (2-13 years) and should be weighted lower for current reliability; however, the detailed, specific nature of those reviews and consistency across dimensions suggests authentic feedback. The overall 87.2 score is reliable for professionalism and project completion but less reliable for pricing assessment due to limited transparent pricing mentions and conflicting signals.

The Backflow Pro demonstrates strong performance across all four dimensions with consistently high marks from customers. Professionalism is a standout strength, with 13 reviews explicitly praising punctuality, responsiveness, communication, and courteous behavior from Tom and his team. Pricing is highly competitive, mentioned favorably in 10 reviews with customers noting 20% savings versus competitors and fair, transparent quotes. Project completion is reliable with 11 mentions of on-time service, quick turnaround, proper filing, and follow-through on callbacks. Technical experience is evident in 9 reviews highlighting skilled diagnostics, problem-solving, and honest repair recommendations. The single 3-star review from 2022 reflects a customer service conflict but does not negate the overall positive trajectory.

• Review from 2022-06-22 indicates a customer service issue where the owner requested a rating re-evaluation and subsequently terminated the relationship when the customer declined to change their 4-star rating. This suggests potential sensitivity to criticism but does not invalidate the review.
• Most reviews are older than 12 months (11 of 16 reviews predate 2023). Only 3 reviews are from 2024-2023. Recency is limited, though recent reviews (Feb 2024, Oct 2023, Sep 2023, Jun 2023) maintain the same high quality pattern.
• One review (2014-10-30) appears to contain company boilerplate contact information appended to the review text, which is unusual but does not invalidate the positive service comment.
• No fake review patterns detected. Reviews contain specific details (names, locations, situations, comparisons to competitors), varied phrasing, and one critical review, indicating authentic feedback.

This WW Score of 87.2 is highly reliable, based on 16 reviews with strong mention counts across all dimensions (9-13 mentions each) and consistent positive feedback spanning 11 years, though recency is limited to only 3 reviews from the past 12 months.

S&G Plumbing demonstrates strong performance across all dimensions, with particular strength in professionalism, experience, and project completion. The company consistently receives praise for punctuality, communication, responsiveness, and technical skill across 13 reviews. Work quality and problem-solving ability are frequently highlighted, including complex jobs like major pipe replacement and European faucet installation. Pricing is generally described as reasonable and fair, though one 2010 review flagged a significantly higher estimate (50%+ above competitors) for a major sewer replacement, which moderates the pricing score. The single 3-star review is substantially older (2010) and reflects isolated concerns about follow-up responsiveness on a secondary request, not core service delivery.

• Recency bias: 11 of 14 reviews are from 2012 or earlier; only 3 reviews from 2020 onward. Most data is 10+ years old, which may not reflect current operations.
• One dissenting review (2010, 3-star) cites pricing concern (50% higher than competitors) on major project, which is material but isolated and dated.
• All reviews are 5-star except one 3-star; no 2, 3, or 4-star reviews in the recent period (2020+). This concentration of perfect ratings in older reviews warrants caution about representativeness.
• Recent reviews (2020-2024) are uniformly 5-star with specific details, suggesting authentic feedback, but the small sample (3 reviews) limits confidence in current performance trends.

This WW Score of 87.2 is reliable for assessing historical performance quality and professionalism, but should be interpreted cautiously due to heavy weighting toward reviews from 2012 and earlier; current performance may differ. The single pricing concern from 2010 is notable but does not override the consistent positive feedback on core service delivery across the dataset.

Cabrillo Plumbing scores very strongly on professionalism, project completion, and experience, with an overwhelming volume of reviews praising technicians — especially Randy, Matthew, Frank, Robert, and Brian — for punctuality, friendliness, clear communication, and thorough workmanship across a wide range of plumbing and HVAC jobs. Project completion is consistently highlighted, with reviewers noting jobs finished same-day or next-day, follow-through on complex multi-day installs, and technicians going above and beyond to resolve unexpected complications. Experience scores are similarly high, with multiple reviewers specifically calling out technical knowledge, problem-solving ability, and skill in diagnosing difficult or unusual issues. However, pricing is a meaningful drag on the overall score: multiple independent reviewers across different years explicitly describe Cabrillo as expensive or overpriced, with several citing specific instances of quotes they considered excessive (e.g., $961 for a two-hour faucet install, $800 to snake three drains, $13,000 quote vs. a $1,500 verbal estimate, and a garbage disposal labor charge described as 'absolutely ridiculous'), and one reviewer alleging a significant discrepancy between a verbal estimate and a final written quote. While many satisfied customers acknowledge the premium pricing and consider it worth it for quality, the negative pricing signals are too consistent and specific to ignore.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: Two review pairs are exact word-for-word duplicates posted on consecutive dates — 'Erick and Javier did Excellent work...' (2025-06-03 and 2025-05-31) and 'Randy did an AMAZING job!...' (2025-06-02 and 2025-05-30). This is a strong indicator of artificially inflated review counts or submission errors. These duplicates were counted only once each for scoring purposes.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews (approximately 100+) are from within the past 12 months (mid-2024 to mid-2025), which is a positive signal for recency weighting. Older reviews (2010–2019) are present but represent a minority and were weighted accordingly.
• REVIEW QUALITY VARIATION: A significant portion of recent reviews (particularly those mentioning Randy from 2024–2025) are very short and generic (e.g., 'Randy did a great job!', 'Randy did a great job. 👏', 'Randy was excellent!!!!') with no specific detail about the work performed. While not conclusively fake, the volume of near-identical short-form praise for a single technician warrants moderate caution and slightly conservative scoring.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Three reviews contained no text (only a 5-star rating). These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data.
• PRICING CONCERN — MULTIPLE CREDIBLE COMPLAINTS: At least 5 distinct reviewers across different years (2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2024) raised specific, detailed pricing complaints with dollar figures cited. This is not a single outlier — it is a recurring pattern that meaningfully suppresses the pricing score.
• ONE REVIEWER (2017) alleged a significant discrepancy between a verbal estimate (~$1,500) and a subsequent written quote (~$13,000), which if accurate would constitute a serious business practice concern. This could not be verified from reviews alone but is flagged for consumer awareness.

The WW Score of 84.2 is based on a large volume of reviews (150+ with usable data) spanning over a decade, giving HIGH overall confidence in the professionalism, project completion, and experience dimensions; however, the pricing score carries meaningful weight from multiple credible, specific negative accounts and should be carefully considered by cost-sensitive consumers, and the high volume of short generic recent reviews for a single technician (Randy) introduces a minor authenticity caution that prevents a higher overall score.

CPR receives overwhelmingly positive feedback across all four dimensions, with professionalism being the most frequently cited strength — punctuality, communication, cleanliness, and courteous staff are mentioned repeatedly across dozens of reviews. Pricing is consistently described as competitive and fair, often explicitly noted as significantly cheaper than traditional excavation alternatives, which inflates perceived value. Project completion scores well overall, with most reviewers confirming jobs were finished on time and as promised, but two serious negative reviews — one describing a fitting that broke within a week with no callback or refund, and a historic review describing a job that stretched to six months with repeated no-shows — meaningfully drag this dimension down. Technical experience and problem-solving ability are praised frequently, particularly CPR's CIPP lining expertise and ability to handle complex jobs other contractors refused. The score is tempered by a small but credible set of negative reviews describing abandoned work, unethical conduct, and a solicitation for 5-star reviews in exchange for a discount, which raises integrity concerns.

• NEGATIVE FLAG — One reviewer (2024-08-13, 1-star) explicitly states they were asked to leave a 5-star review in exchange for a discount on their repair. This is a direct solicitation of fake/incentivized reviews and significantly undermines the credibility of the overall review pool.
• NEGATIVE FLAG — Same 1-star reviewer (2024-08-13) reports a fitting broke within a week of repair and CPR refused to return or issue a refund. This is a direct project completion and professionalism failure.
• NEGATIVE FLAG — A 1-star review (2024-06-09) alleges CPR removed asbestos subfloor without proper disclosure and then blamed the customer. This is a serious ethical and safety concern.
• NEGATIVE FLAG — A 1-star review (2015-10-26) describes a job that lasted six months with repeated no-shows, two supervisors, and one getting fired. While this is an older review, it describes systemic operational failure.
• RECENCY NOTE — Several reviews date back to 2009–2018 and reference a different employee ('Mark') who may represent a different era or ownership of the business. These older reviews may not reflect current operations and were weighted conservatively.
• BLANK REVIEWS — Six reviews contained no text (only a star rating). These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data.
• POTENTIAL VOLUME INFLATION — The majority of reviews are 5-star with broadly similar praise language. While many contain specific details that suggest authenticity, the pattern of generic 5-star reviews (e.g., 'Great business!', 'Great work!') alongside the confirmed review solicitation warrants caution.
• MIXED ENTITY CONCERN — Some older reviews reference 'Mark' and appear to be for a Bay Area plumbing operation, while newer reviews reference 'Tony' and an Ohio-based CIPP lining company. These may represent two different businesses or eras under the same brand name, which could distort the aggregate score.

This WW Score is based on a large review set with HIGH mention counts across all dimensions, but its reliability is moderately reduced by confirmed review solicitation, credible reports of abandoned work and unethical conduct, and a mixed review pool that may span two distinct business entities or eras.

Grant Plumbing demonstrates strong overall performance with a WW Score of 82.1, driven primarily by consistent professionalism and reliable project completion across a large sample of reviews. Scott Grant and his team are frequently praised for responsiveness, punctuality, communication, and technical knowledge. Pricing is generally viewed as fair and competitive, though some customers noted estimate changes or higher-than-expected final costs. The primary weakness is occasional follow-through issues and scheduling conflicts, with a few customers reporting delayed callbacks or missed appointments. Two significant negative reviews (1-star ratings from 2016 and 2015) describe serious quality failures and poor responsiveness, which temper the otherwise strong reputation.

• Two severe negative reviews (2016 and 2015) describe major quality failures: improper toilet repair causing water damage and inadequate water heater diagnostics. These represent genuine service failures, not fake reviews.
• Pattern of occasional scheduling/follow-through issues: multiple reviews mention Scott being busy, delayed callbacks, or difficulty scheduling follow-up appointments, suggesting capacity constraints.
• Estimate accuracy concerns: several reviews note final charges exceeded initial quotes, sometimes significantly. While often explained by unforeseen complications, this pattern warrants caution.
• Review age distribution: majority of reviews are from 2007-2013 (older than 5 years). Only ~15 reviews are from 2014 onwards. Recent performance data is limited.
• No obvious fake review patterns detected. Reviews show specific details, varied experiences, and authentic language. The 5-star reviews are not suspiciously identical.

This WW Score of 82.1 is reliable for assessing Grant Plumbing's typical performance, supported by 100 reviews with HIGH confidence across three dimensions. However, the score should be interpreted with caution due to the age of most reviews (pre-2014) and the presence of two serious service failures that indicate inconsistent quality. Current performance may differ from historical data. Prospective customers should expect strong professionalism and technical skill but should clarify estimates in writing and confirm scheduling carefully.