Find Nearby Plumbers In San Mateo, California

Service Plumbing and Heating shows strong technical competency and experience (88/100), with multiple long-term clients praising workmanship and problem-solving. Professionalism is solid (75/100) with consistent mentions of communication and courtesy, though two significant failures—a no-show without notification and a warranty billing dispute—create material concerns. Pricing appears fair in most cases (60/100), but the warranty work billing practice raises red flags about transparency. Project completion reliability is undermined by the documented no-show incident (70/100). The company's 16-year relationship with a contractor and multiple repeat customers suggest genuine capability, but recent service failures and billing practices warrant caution.

• One review (2018-05-16) is unrelated to plumbing services—it concerns reckless driving by a company truck driver. This is excluded from scoring as it does not evaluate plumbing work quality, but it reflects negatively on company culture and employee management.
• Warranty work billing dispute (2014-01-15) suggests potential lack of transparency in pricing practices and customer communication regarding payment terms.
• No-show incident (2015-04-08) with failure to notify customer represents a significant professionalism and communication failure.
• Most positive reviews are from 2012-2016 (6-12 years old). Only one recent positive review (2016-08-30). Recency bias suggests current performance may differ from historical reputation.
• Limited recent data (only 2 reviews from 2015 onward) makes current reliability assessment difficult.

This score should be treated with moderate caution. While the company demonstrates genuine technical expertise and has maintained long-term client relationships, the small sample size, age of most reviews, and documented service failures (no-show, billing disputes) create uncertainty about current operational standards. The score reflects historical strength tempered by recent documented problems.

Steve and AAA Fix it Now receive consistently strong praise across all four scored dimensions, with particular standouts in professionalism and project completion. Multiple reviewers highlight his responsiveness — calling back within 10 minutes, arriving same-day, and even returning to a job site after leaving to help a customer with an unrelated issue — painting a picture of a highly reliable and customer-focused operator. His experience and problem-solving ability are explicitly praised across several reviews, most notably in a case where he identified and resolved a drainage issue that other plumbers had misdiagnosed as a $4,000+ re-routing job, charging under $300. Pricing is noted positively in four reviews, with language like 'fair,' 'affordable,' and 'not out to gouge,' supporting a strong but not perfect price score. The primary caveat is that all reviews are between 6 and 12 years old, which significantly limits confidence in how well these scores reflect current performance.

• ALL 7 REVIEWS ARE OLDER THAN 6 YEARS: The most recent review is from November 2017, and five of the seven reviews are from 2011–2013. These scores may not reflect the contractor's current quality, staffing, pricing, or availability. Treat all dimension scores with caution.
• RECENCY CONCERN: No reviews from the past 5+ years are present. Business circumstances, ownership, or quality may have changed substantially since these reviews were written.
• FAKE REVIEW CHECK: No strong indicators of fake reviews detected. Reviews vary in length, detail, and writing style. Specific job types, dollar amounts, and situational details are cited across multiple reviews, which is consistent with authentic customer experiences. All ratings are 5-star, but the specificity of content reduces suspicion.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability due to strong dimensional coverage and specific, credible review content, but is significantly undermined by the fact that every single review is at least 6 years old, making it a poor predictor of current contractor performance.

All six reviews are recent (March–April 2024) and consistently praise NAVTA's responsiveness, professionalism, and friendly communication, driving a strong professionalism score. Pricing is explicitly called out as reasonable, fair, or the cheapest in town across four reviews, supporting a solid but not exceptional pricing score. Project completion is well-supported, with multiple reviewers noting same-day service, quick turnaround, and jobs finished correctly across varied work types including water heater replacement, pipe repiping, garbage disposal, and toilet replacement. Technical experience is referenced in a moderate number of reviews through terms like 'knowledgeable' and 'understand the issues,' but lacks deep specifics about problem-solving complexity, keeping that score conservative.

• Four of the six reviews share the exact same date (2024-03-21), which is unusual and may suggest a coordinated review submission rather than organic feedback over time.
• All reviews are 5-star with no negative feedback whatsoever. While this could reflect genuine quality, combined with the same-date clustering it warrants caution.
• Several reviews use similarly generic praise language ('definitely recommend,' 'very professional,' 'very knowledgeable') with limited job-specific detail, which is a mild indicator of potentially coached or solicited reviews.
• Sample size is only 6 reviews, which limits statistical reliability of all dimension scores regardless of confidence labels.

This WW Score carries moderate reliability due to a small review sample, same-day clustering of four reviews, and all-5-star ratings with no critical feedback — consumers should seek additional independent verification before making a hiring decision.

Aaron's Plumbing (Erik) receives consistently positive feedback across all four scored dimensions from a small but substantive set of reviews. Professionalism is well-supported, with multiple reviewers noting punctuality, responsiveness on weekends and evenings, kind demeanor, and clean job sites. Pricing is a clear strength — several reviewers explicitly compared Erik's quotes favorably against competitors and noted reasonable costs. Project completion is solid, with reviewers describing jobs finished promptly, follow-through on next-day work, and callbacks honored. Experience is supported by references to technical knowledge, proactive problem identification (e.g., discovering hidden sewer issues), and appropriate product recommendations. The primary caveat is that all five reviews are between 9 and 15 years old, which significantly limits confidence in how well these scores reflect current performance.

• ALL REVIEWS ARE SIGNIFICANTLY OUTDATED: The most recent review is from June 2015 — over 9 years ago. The oldest is from 2009. None fall within the past 12 months or even the past several years. These scores should be treated as historical only and may not reflect current quality or business status.
• SMALL SAMPLE SIZE: Only 5 reviews are available. While each contains usable detail, the limited volume means individual outlier experiences could skew results significantly.
• No fake review patterns detected — reviews vary in length, detail, writing style, and rating (one 4-star), and include specific job descriptions and personal context, which adds authenticity.

This WW Score carries LOW practical reliability for current hiring decisions due to the extreme age of all reviews (2009–2015); the scores reflect a historical snapshot of performance and should not be used as a proxy for the contractor's present-day quality or availability.

This plumbing company shows strong technical skill and fair pricing, but professionalism and project completion are inconsistent. Positive reviews (5 of 9) praise punctuality, quality work, and reasonable rates. However, two recent negative reviews (2020-2021) describe poor communication, unexplained job abandonment, and rude office staff. The company appears to perform well on straightforward jobs but struggles with more complex work or customer service consistency. The wide gap between glowing older reviews and critical recent ones suggests either service degradation or inconsistent execution.

• Recency concern: Most positive reviews are from 2017-2019 and earlier; the two most recent reviews (2020-2021) are strongly negative, suggesting possible service decline or inconsistency.
• Inconsistent service quality: One customer was abandoned mid-job with no explanation; another praised punctuality and follow-through. This pattern suggests reliability varies significantly.
• Communication issues flagged in recent reviews: rude office staff, lack of explanation for job abandonment, poor responsiveness to customer inquiries.
• Small sample size (9 reviews) limits confidence; negative reviews are recent while positive reviews are older, which may skew perception.

This score should be treated with caution due to conflicting signals: strong technical ratings are undermined by recent professionalism failures and inconsistent project completion. The company's reliability appears to have declined or become inconsistent in the past 2-3 years.

Mike Tyo receives consistently strong praise across professionalism, experience, and project completion from the majority of reviewers, with multiple customers highlighting his technical skill, responsiveness, and friendly demeanor. Pricing is mentioned favorably in several reviews, including one notable instance where he saved a customer $9,600 compared to a competitor's quote. However, one serious negative review from 2010 describes a failure to return a warranted faucet, repeated broken promises, and complete non-responsiveness — directly impacting professionalism and project completion scores. This complaint introduces a meaningful flag around follow-through and post-job accountability that cannot be ignored. The disorganization note from a long-term customer also adds a minor corroborating signal that reliability may be inconsistent.

• SERIOUS COMPLAINT: One reviewer (1-star, 2010) alleges Mike Tyo took a warranty-eligible faucet, promised to return it, never did, and stopped returning calls entirely. This is a direct integrity and follow-through concern.
• RECENCY WARNING: The majority of reviews are older than 5 years, with most dating from 2012–2015 and only one review from 2020. The score should be treated with caution as it may not reflect current service quality.
• MILD RELIABILITY FLAG: One long-term customer (20+ years) noted Mike can be 'a little disorganized at times,' which corroborates the non-responsiveness complaint to a minor degree.
• REVIEW VOLUME: Only 11 reviews total. While usable, this is a limited sample size and the single negative review carries proportionally higher weight than it would in a larger dataset.
• NO FAKE REVIEW PATTERNS DETECTED: Reviews vary in specificity, tone, and detail. No suspicious repetition or generic phrasing patterns were identified.

This WW Score carries moderate reliability due to a small and predominantly dated review set; the single serious misconduct complaint meaningfully tempers what would otherwise be a high-confidence positive profile, and prospective customers should seek more recent references before hiring.