Find Nearby Plumbers In Santa Rosa, California

Roberts Mechanical & Electrical receives consistently strong praise across all four scored dimensions. Professionalism is the most frequently cited strength, with every review mentioning courteous staff, prompt responsiveness, and honest communication — including specific callouts of named employees like Robert Beckman, Chris, Cathy, and Stan Roberts. Pricing is highlighted favorably in multiple reviews, with customers explicitly noting fair costs, better prices than larger competitors, and being saved from unnecessary expensive repairs quoted by rival companies. Project completion is well-supported, with reviewers describing same-day or next-day service, follow-through on parts procurement, and jobs resolved fully and efficiently. Experience scores highly due to multiple accounts of skilled diagnostics that corrected misdiagnoses made by other companies, demonstrating strong technical competence. The overall picture is of a trustworthy, skilled, and fairly priced local operation.

• Two reviews (2013 and 2014) are over 10 years old and carry significantly reduced weight under recency rules. The WW Score is more reliably reflective of the 5 reviews from 2022 onward.
• All 7 reviews are 5-star ratings with no negative or mixed feedback. While the reviews contain specific details, named employees, and concrete scenarios that reduce fake review suspicion, the absence of any critical feedback warrants mild caution.
• Review volume is low (7 total). While scores are directionally reliable, a larger sample would substantially increase confidence in the WW Score.

This WW Score is moderately reliable given the small but detail-rich review set; the consistent specificity across reviews reduces fake review risk, but the low total volume and two very dated reviews mean the score should be treated as a strong directional indicator rather than a statistically robust rating.

Perry's Pumps demonstrates consistently strong performance across all four scored dimensions. Professionalism is a standout theme — every single review highlights responsiveness, punctuality, and a courteous, communicative approach, including after-hours and weekend availability. Project completion is equally strong, with all jobs described as finished promptly, often same-day or next-day, with no abandoned work or callbacks needed. Experience is well-supported by multiple reviewers noting quick diagnosis, arriving with the right parts, and handling complex systems such as Ozone well setups. Pricing is positively mentioned in three reviews, including one case where the contractor came in under budget, though this dimension has fewer data points than the others.

• Four of the six reviews are dated 2019 or earlier, making them 5+ years old. Only one review is from the past 12 months (September 2023). The score should be interpreted with caution given the age of most data.
• All six reviews are 5-star ratings with no negative or mixed feedback. While the reviews do contain specific details and varied language, the uniformly perfect ratings warrant mild caution.
• Small sample size of only 6 reviews limits the statistical reliability of all dimension scores, even those marked HIGH confidence based on mention count.

This WW Score is based on a small but consistently detailed set of reviews; the score is directionally trustworthy, but the limited volume and age of most reviews (4 of 6 are from 2018–2020) mean it should be treated as a promising indicator rather than a fully validated assessment.

SHP demonstrates strong performance across all four dimensions based on consistent positive feedback. Professionalism is evidenced by punctuality, friendliness, communication, and cleanup across multiple reviews. Project completion is solid with jobs finished promptly and correctly, including emergency work. Pricing feedback is favorable with customers noting fair and reasonable rates. Experience is reflected in quality workmanship and problem-solving ability. However, the small sample size (4 reviews) and age of 2 reviews (2012–2013) limit confidence in the overall score.

• Small sample size: only 4 reviews analyzed. Recommend collecting more recent reviews for higher confidence.
• Recency concern: 2 of 4 reviews are from 2012–2013 (11–12 years old). Only 2 reviews are from 2024. Recent performance data is limited.
• One review mentions difficulty finding the business and uncertainty about contacting a home phone rather than a business line, suggesting possible operational/marketing issues not directly related to service quality.

This WW Score should be treated with caution due to the small sample size and significant age of half the reviews. The score reflects strong quality where data exists, but additional recent reviews are needed to establish reliable confidence in current performance.

CM Plumbing has a strong overall reputation built on consistent responsiveness, same-day service, and friendly customer interactions across a large volume of reviews spanning over a decade. Professionalism scores well in the majority of reviews but is meaningfully dragged down by several serious negative incidents: a worker accused of peering into a bedroom window, a no-show appointment with a full voicemail box, repeated lateness, a gas leak left after a repair, a disputed and potentially dishonest diagnosis of a toilet flange, and one reviewer citing unprofessional work at an overpriced rate. Pricing is generally praised as fair and reasonable, but two reviews cite overcharging and one describes a grossly inflated estimate for unnecessary work, preventing a higher score. Project completion is solid — most jobs are described as finished same-day and efficiently — but the gas leak callback failure, the no-show, and the disputed home warranty contractor incident introduce meaningful risk. Experience scores moderately well given praise for technical competence and problem-solving, but the gas leak left after a fitting replacement and the misdiagnosed toilet flange are serious quality red flags that temper confidence.

• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: Two reviews dated 2024-07-15 (23:09 and 23:11) are word-for-word identical, praising Franklin and Samuel. This is a strong indicator of a fake or artificially boosted review. One instance was excluded from scoring.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: Two reviews attributed to Josh and his spouse about a broken attic water line (one dated 2019-12-31, one dated 2020-06-10) are nearly word-for-word identical. Likely the same reviewer posting twice or a planted review.
• SERIOUS SAFETY CONCERN: One reviewer (2020-10-05) alleges a CM Plumbing worker was caught peeping into her bedroom window. This is an unverified but serious allegation that prospective customers should be aware of.
• SAFETY CONCERN: One reviewer (2018-06-11) reports a gas leak was left after a fitting replacement, discovered 5 days later. The company's response was reportedly only 'I'm sorry.' This represents a significant workmanship and safety failure.
• DISHONEST DIAGNOSIS ALLEGATION: One reviewer (2020-06-10) reports being quoted $680 for a toilet flange replacement that turned out to be a $4 wax ring fix, suggesting a potentially fraudulent or grossly incompetent diagnosis.
• NO-SHOW / RELIABILITY FAILURE: One reviewer (2015-12-22) reports a scheduled 7am appointment where no one showed and the voicemail was full. Another reviewer (2017-03-07) reports significant lateness and a $300/hour effective labor rate.
• REVIEW SPAN WARNING: Many reviews date back to 2011–2020. While volume is high, a significant portion of reviews are older than 3 years. Recent reviews (2023–2024) are more positive and suggest possible improvement, but older negative patterns should not be dismissed.
• OVERPRICING COMPLAINT: One reviewer (2020-08-10) describes $350 for one hour of work as steep and unprofessional. Another (2017-03-07) calculated an effective rate of ~$300/hour. These are outliers but notable.
• UNVERIFIED THIRD-PARTY COMPLAINT: The lengthy 1-star review (2020-03-05) appears to be primarily a complaint about First American Home Warranty, not directly about CM Plumbing's workmanship. It was given reduced weight but noted for the allegation that a CM Plumbing technician misrepresented the cause of damage.

This WW Score is based on a high volume of reviews (62 total) spanning 13 years and carries HIGH statistical confidence in its dimensions, but prospective customers should weigh the serious qualitative flags — including a safety allegation, a confirmed gas leak callback failure, a suspected fraudulent diagnosis, and duplicate reviews — which meaningfully limit how much the numerical score alone should be trusted.

West Coast Plumbing and JT Plumbing (which appear to be the same or closely related entities based on review patterns) demonstrate strong professionalism with consistent punctuality, good communication, and courteous staff across 58 mentions. Technical expertise is solid with 35 mentions of skilled diagnostics and problem-solving. However, project completion shows concerning gaps with 28 mentions revealing multiple instances of no-shows, abandoned work, and follow-up failures. Pricing is a significant weakness with only 12 mentions but multiple complaints about overcharging, lack of transparency, and estimates that are substantially higher than competitors. The company shows inconsistent execution despite strong individual technician performance.

• CRITICAL: Multiple duplicate reviews detected (e.g., identical reviews from 2022-06-10, 2022-03-02, 2021-12-13 about outdoor plumbing leak and water supply cutoff; duplicate HOA condo leak reviews from 2022-06-10 and 2022-03-02). This suggests either review manipulation or data entry errors.
• SERIOUS PATTERN: At least 5 reviews explicitly mention no-shows, ghosting, or failure to follow up (2024-06-09 'no show', 2022-06-10 'didn't show up AGAIN', 2022-06-10 HOA report delays, 2016-01-19 '4 months and 3 visits'). This is a major project completion red flag.
• PRICING CONCERNS: Multiple reviews cite overcharging ($20,000 estimate vs $5,000 competitor quote; $400 pump markup; $612 labor for 1 hour; complaints about 'way way too much'). Only 12 mentions of pricing but tone is consistently negative.
• QUALITY INCONSISTENCY: Stark contrast between highly positive reviews (mostly 2019-2025) and negative reviews (2012-2022). Recent reviews (2025) are predominantly 5-star with minimal detail, while older reviews show more substantive criticism. This temporal pattern warrants caution.
• GENERIC PRAISE DETECTED: Several recent reviews are extremely brief ('it's all good', 'Great service!', 'Excellent service') with no specifics, which may indicate low-effort or potentially inauthentic reviews.
• SAFETY/CONDUCT ISSUES: Two reviews mention unprofessional driving behavior (2021-08-27 wheelchair incident, 2012-06-08 dangerous lane change). One review mentions worker refusing to move truck for customer parking.
• COMMUNICATION FAILURES: Multiple mentions of poor office communication, unresponsive staff, and broken promises regarding callbacks and follow-ups.

This WW Score of 78.2 should be treated with MODERATE-TO-HIGH caution. While the score is supported by substantial data (104 reviews), the presence of duplicate reviews, a clear temporal shift toward generic 5-star ratings in recent months, and multiple documented project completion failures (no-shows, ghosting) suggest the overall rating may be artificially inflated by recent reviews. The pricing dimension is particularly weak and under-represented. Customers should prioritize the documented project completion and pricing concerns over the high professionalism scores, and should request written contracts with clear follow-up commitments before engaging this company.

Disalvo Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism and fair pricing across most reviews, with crews consistently described as friendly, punctual, and efficient. However, the score is significantly impacted by recurring responsiveness failures: multiple customers report being ignored after initial contact or promises to follow up, with no callbacks despite explicit commitments. Project completion is solid for jobs that proceed, but the pattern of abandoned leads and poor communication follow-through creates reliability concerns. Technical skill is generally strong, though one review noted struggles with high-end fixtures requiring specialized knowledge.

• RESPONSIVENESS PATTERN: Three separate reviews (2015-07-07, 2015-02-26, 2012-08-15) explicitly describe Joe or his team failing to return calls or follow up on estimates after promising to do so. This is a systemic issue, not isolated incidents.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most reviews are from 2009-2015 (15 years old). Only 4 reviews are from 2016 or later. Historical data may not reflect current operations.
• INCONSISTENT SERVICE QUALITY: One 2013 review (rating 3.0) indicates the crew lacks familiarity with high-end fixtures and blames manufacturers rather than acknowledging knowledge gaps.
• DIAGNOSTIC CREDIBILITY: One 2009 review describes aggressive upselling of unnecessary plumbing replacement ($90 diagnostic fee, no work completed, second opinion contradicted findings). Suggests possible pressure-sales tactics.
• POSITIVE REVIEW CLUSTERING: 16 of 24 reviews are 5-star with enthusiastic language. While many include specific details, the high concentration warrants noting potential selection bias.

This score should be trusted with caution: while professionalism and pricing dimensions are well-supported by multiple recent mentions, the critical weakness in project completion and responsiveness is evidenced by a clear pattern across multiple years. The age of most reviews (pre-2016) limits confidence in current operational standards. Prospective customers should prioritize getting commitments in writing and following up proactively rather than relying on callbacks.