Find Nearby Plumbers In South San Francisco, California

Coastline Plumbing demonstrates strong overall performance across all four dimensions. Professionalism is a clear strength with 89 mentions highlighting punctuality, communication, courtesy, and responsiveness from named technicians (Dan, Andrew, Daniel, Jordan, and others). Project completion is solid with 68 mentions confirming jobs finished on time and follow-through on callbacks, though some negative reviews cite incomplete work or delayed responses. Experience scores well at 84 with 71 mentions of skilled workmanship and problem-solving, though a few reviews mention quality issues or overselling. Pricing receives 78.5 with 42 mentions—most customers report fair and competitive rates, but several reviews flag overpricing, hidden hourly charges, or quotes significantly higher than competitors. The company shows consistency in service quality but has notable gaps in responsiveness and occasional pricing transparency issues.

• FAKE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: Multiple reviews dated 2023-06-09 with identical 5-star ratings and minimal/generic text ('Excellent experience', 'They are great!!', 'Great work! Professional. Would recommend', 'Super friendly', 'Great service, on time and very professional', 'Coastline Plumbing is very professional and effective', 'Sometimes it's hard to find a great plumber'). These appear to be bulk-posted or template reviews with no specific details. Confidence in professionalism score reduced slightly due to this pattern.
• RECENCY BIAS: Majority of reviews are from 2019-2025 (past 6 years), with a concentration in 2023-2024. Only 8 reviews predate 2019. Recent reviews (2024-2025) show mixed sentiment with both 5-star and 1-star ratings, suggesting current service quality is variable.
• NEGATIVE REVIEWS CLUSTER: Multiple 1-star reviews cite serious issues: water damage from improper installation (2023-02-17, 2023-02-20), incomplete work with no callback (2023-02-17), poor workmanship (2024-06-10, 2024-06-08), and unresponsiveness (2023-10-16). These are not isolated complaints and suggest systemic issues with quality control or follow-up.
• PRICING TRANSPARENCY CONCERNS: Several reviews (2023-09-06, 2022-03-23, 2019-07-25, 2017-09-09) explicitly mention surprise charges, hourly rates not disclosed upfront, overquoting, or incomplete explanations of pricing structure. This contradicts the 'fair pricing' narrative in positive reviews.
• RESPONSIVENESS INCONSISTENCY: Reviews show conflicting experiences—some praise quick response (same-day service), while others report no callbacks, delayed responses, or being turned down for work (2019-11-04). This suggests capacity or prioritization issues.
• EMPTY/MINIMAL REVIEWS: Several reviews contain no text or only ratings (2023-06-09, 2021-06-09, 2018-06-10, 2012-10-16), reducing data quality for analysis.

This WW Score of 82.3 is moderately reliable but should be interpreted with caution. While the score is based on 127 reviews with HIGH confidence across all dimensions, the presence of a suspicious cluster of generic 5-star reviews, multiple serious negative incidents (water damage, incomplete work, unresponsiveness), and conflicting reports on pricing and responsiveness suggest the company's actual performance is more variable than the overall score indicates. The company excels in professionalism and experience when technicians are engaged, but has documented gaps in project completion follow-through, pricing transparency, and consistent responsiveness. Prospective customers should request detailed written estimates, clarify warranty terms upfront, and verify availability before committing to work.

DeJager & Reilly Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism (85/100) with consistent praise for punctuality, courteous staff, and responsive communication, particularly highlighting office manager Candy. Experience scores well (88/100) with multiple reviews citing skilled diagnostics and quality workmanship across complex plumbing issues. However, project completion (76/100) is notably lower due to three significant failures: incomplete thermostat installation with 10-day non-response, unresponsiveness to radiator pickup requests, and failure to return calls for estimate requests over 2-week periods. Pricing is fair (82/100) with transparent, reasonable rates mentioned frequently, though one billing dispute occurred. The company excels with established clients but shows critical gaps in follow-through and responsiveness to new or smaller jobs.

• CRITICAL: Three reviews (2024-09-25, 2018-09-17, 2015-05-01) document serious project completion failures including abandoned work, non-response to callbacks, and failure to return calls over extended periods. These are not isolated incidents.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most reviews are from 2010-2018 (older than 6 years). Only 3 reviews from 2024, 2022, and 2020. The most recent negative review (2024-09-25) suggests ongoing responsiveness issues despite company's long history.
• PATTERN DETECTED: Multiple reviews mention the same office manager (Candy) positively, suggesting strong front-desk service masks backend execution problems.
• INCONSISTENT SERVICE QUALITY: Stark contrast between glowing reviews from long-term clients and critical failures with new/smaller customers, suggesting potential capacity or prioritization issues.

This score should be trusted with caution. While the company demonstrates genuine expertise and professionalism with established clients, recent and historical evidence of incomplete work, non-responsiveness, and abandoned projects represents a material risk. The HIGH overall confidence reflects substantial review volume, but the underlying data reveals a company that performs excellently for preferred customers while failing smaller or new clients—a critical distinction not fully captured in the aggregate score.

Ed's Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism with consistently punctual arrivals, excellent communication, and courteous demeanor across 78 reviews. Technical expertise and workmanship quality are highly regarded (88.0 score, 52 mentions), with customers praising problem-solving ability and knowledge. However, project completion reliability is the primary concern (76.5 score, 68 mentions), with multiple documented instances of no-shows, rescheduling failures, and incomplete work—most notably a 2017 case where a sewer line was left partially cleared and a 2023 case involving multiple missed appointments. Pricing is perceived as fair to reasonable (81.0 score, 32 mentions), though some customers note higher costs. The business appears to struggle with capacity management and follow-through on commitments despite strong technical capabilities.

• CRITICAL: Multiple no-show and rescheduling failures documented across different time periods (2023, 2019, 2016, 2012). Pattern suggests systemic scheduling/reliability issues independent of individual incidents.
• CRITICAL: 2017 review documents incomplete work with deceptive billing—customer charged for full job despite sewer line only partially cleared, leading to immediate backup and flooding. Customer reported Ed refused callback without additional payment.
• CRITICAL: 2023 review details four separate missed appointments over 4 weeks with inconsistent excuses (damaged phone, schedule conflicts, no communication). Suggests accountability issues.
• MODERATE: Three reviews with minimal/generic text ('.' or 'unknown') rated 5.0 (2016-07-17, 2016-07-15, 2016-06-03, 2016-04-20, 2015-07-01) may indicate fake or placeholder reviews, though not conclusive.
• MODERATE: Capacity constraints acknowledged in multiple reviews (2012, 2017) where Ed is 'very busy' causing delays. This is a structural business limitation affecting reliability.
• LIMITED: One 2015 review documents inadequate diagnosis—Ed tightened toilet tank fitting but missed overflow valve issue, resulting in $1,000+ insurance claim and rate increase two weeks later.
• LIMITED: 2017 review documents electrical safety hazard (sump pump cord rigged without proper length) that Ed did not disclose to customer, creating code violation and safety risk.
• RECENCY NOTE: Most reviews are 5+ years old (2011-2017). Recent reviews (2023-2024) show both exceptional service (same-day emergency response) and severe reliability failures (multiple no-shows). Current performance trajectory unclear.

This WW Score of 82.1 should be treated with caution: while Ed's technical expertise and professionalism are genuinely strong (HIGH confidence), the project completion dimension is significantly undermined by documented no-shows, incomplete work, and deceptive billing practices that recur across multiple years, suggesting systemic rather than isolated issues. The score reflects a contractor with excellent skills but serious reliability and accountability problems that directly contradict stated commitments.

A Miracle Plumbing scores strongly on professionalism and project completion, with the vast majority of reviewers praising punctuality, shoe covers, cleanliness, responsiveness, and after-hours availability across many years of reviews. Project completion is generally solid, with multiple reviewers noting jobs were finished promptly and warranties were honored — however, a small but meaningful cluster of negative reviews describes repeat failures to permanently fix the same problem, sloppy subfloor work, and at least one job that required a competitor to properly diagnose and resolve the issue. Pricing is the most contested dimension: while many reviewers describe rates as fair or lower than competitors, several reviews explicitly call out overpricing, surprise charges above quoted amounts, and a $110 charge for a one-minute job — pulling this score down considerably. Professionalism is also slightly penalized by two reviews citing rude behavior from Lonnie directly, including the use of profanity on a call, which is a notable outlier against an otherwise courteous reputation.

• RECENCY WARNING: The majority of reviews are older than 3 years, with most clustering between 2011 and 2018. Only 3 reviews are from 2020 or later. The WW Score reflects a historical picture and may not represent current service quality.
• PRICING INCONSISTENCY: Multiple reviews explicitly flag overcharging, surprise fees above quoted prices, and a $110 minimum charge for a 1-minute job. One reviewer was quoted $800 and billed $895 with no prior notice. This pattern is consistent enough to be a genuine concern, not an outlier.
• WORKMANSHIP FAILURES: At least 3 reviews describe the same underlying problem recurring after the fix — including one case where the drain re-clogged within two months, one case where a toilet leak required two paid visits plus a competitor to finally resolve, and one case of unnecessarily large subfloor damage. These are material quality concerns.
• RUDENESS PATTERN: Two separate reviews (2017 and 2013) describe Lonnie as rude or unprofessional in direct interactions — one citing explicit use of profanity on a phone call. This is inconsistent with the majority of reviews but cannot be dismissed.
• GENERIC PRAISE REVIEWS: A small number of reviews (e.g. 'Awesome service. 5 star service. The plumber was amazing and professional. I highly recommend them!') contain no specific details and read as low-information. These were included in mention counts only where a dimension could be reasonably inferred, but they carry low evidentiary weight.
• NO FAKE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: Despite the volume of positive reviews, most contain specific names, job types, dates, prices, and situational details. The review corpus does not show strong signs of coordinated fake reviews, though the generic entries noted above are flagged.

This WW Score is based on 75 reviews spanning approximately 12 years and carries HIGH statistical confidence due to volume, but should be interpreted with caution given the recency gap — most reviews predate 2019 and the two most recent reviews (2020–2021) are both negative, which may signal a decline in service quality that the overall score does not fully capture.

Moreno Construction has a strong and well-documented track record across dozens of reviews spanning over a decade, with consistent praise for professionalism, fair pricing, quality workmanship, and on-time project delivery. The crew is repeatedly described as polite, punctual, clean, and trustworthy, and Eloy personally is noted for technical knowledge, permit handling, and hands-on involvement. However, a meaningful cluster of 1-star reviews — spanning multiple years — describes a recurring pattern of no-call/no-show after initial consultations, which is a significant professionalism failure that materially drags down the score. One 2-star review also raises a serious project quality concern involving inadequate waterproofing on a stair/porch job that led to mold damage years later, which tempers the otherwise strong project completion and experience scores.

• RESPONSIVENESS FAILURE PATTERN: At least 5 separate reviews (2014, 2015 x2, 2018, 2021) describe Eloy or the team promising a quote or callback and then going completely silent. This is a consistent and recurring pattern across multiple years, not isolated incidents.
• SELECTIVE JOB ACCEPTANCE: Multiple reviewers explicitly suggest or imply that Moreno Construction ignores smaller or lower-budget jobs. One reviewer states 'I guess the job just got too small for them?' and another says 'Don't call this man unless you have a job worth his time i.e. you are going to spend more than $10,000.' This is a material service reliability concern.
• QUALITY CONCERN (2017 review, 2-star): A reviewer reports that a stair/porch job done approximately 6 years prior resulted in inadequate waterproofing, cracked stairs, mold in the garage, and unreturned messages. This is a serious workmanship and follow-through failure that contrasts with the majority of positive reviews.
• RECENCY WARNING: The majority of detailed, positive reviews are from 2012–2017. Only a small number of reviews exist from 2018 onward, and two of those are 1-star no-callback complaints. The most recent review (2023) is positive but very brief and generic. The overall trend of recent engagement is thin.
• GENERIC/BRIEF REVIEWS: Several reviews (e.g. 'Eloy's team are amazing and caring, they did a great job at my place. Highly recommend!!') are very short and lack specifics. While not conclusive evidence of fake reviews, they contribute limited scoring value and were weighted accordingly.
• COMMUNICATION INCONSISTENCY: Even among satisfied clients, multiple reviewers note that communication deteriorated mid-project, that Eloy's independent personality led to decisions being made without client input, and that clients had to act as backup project managers. This is a moderate but recurring concern.

This WW Score is based on a large and diverse review set spanning over a decade and carries HIGH overall confidence in its directional accuracy, but prospective clients should weigh the recurring no-callback pattern and the post-project waterproofing failure seriously, as these represent real and documented risks rather than outliers.

Larry's Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism with consistent punctuality, courteous communication, and responsive customer service across 89 mentions. Technical expertise and problem-solving ability are well-documented with 41 mentions of skilled workmanship. However, project completion shows concerning patterns with 58 mentions revealing multiple instances of no-shows, incomplete work, callbacks not honored, and follow-through failures. Pricing presents a mixed picture across 32 mentions: while many customers praise fair and reasonable rates, a notable subset reports overcharging, hidden fees, and inflated estimates. The company's overall reliability is undermined by documented communication breakdowns and inconsistent service delivery.

• PATTERN DETECTED: Multiple reviews (2022-2023) document serious project completion failures including no-shows on scheduled appointments, failure to return calls, incomplete diagnostics, and lack of follow-through on promised callbacks. This represents a systemic issue beyond isolated incidents.
• PRICING INCONSISTENCY: Significant variance in customer perception of pricing fairness. While majority praise reasonable rates, multiple detailed complaints document overcharging (e.g., $1,100 for 2 hours of work, $1,030 for water heater installation labor only, $65 undisclosed estimate fees). This suggests either inconsistent pricing practices or poor communication of costs.
• COMMUNICATION FAILURES: At least 6 reviews explicitly mention failure to return calls, missed appointments without notification, and poor coordination between office and field staff. One 2022 review documents 2+ weeks without hot water due to repeated no-shows and lack of communication.
• QUALITY CONTROL CONCERNS: Several reviews report incomplete work requiring callbacks (shower handle spinning after repair, dishwasher hose still leaking, water heater issues persisting). One review mentions unnecessary repairs and sloppy work.
• RECENCY PATTERN: Most negative reviews cluster in 2022-2023 period, suggesting potential operational decline or staffing issues in recent years. Recent 2025 reviews are predominantly positive, indicating possible recent improvements.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK - MODERATE: Approximately 15 reviews contain only generic praise with no specific details (e.g., 'Excellent', 'Great job', 'unknown', single-sentence comments). However, majority of reviews contain sufficient specific detail to appear authentic. No evidence of identical phrasing across multiple reviews.
• INCONSISTENT TECHNICIAN QUALITY: Named technicians (Robert, Chandler, Tim, Jose) receive consistent praise, while unnamed or different technicians appear in negative reviews, suggesting quality varies significantly by individual technician.

This WW Score of 78.2 should be treated with CAUTION despite HIGH overall confidence. While professionalism and experience scores are well-supported by extensive mentions, the project completion dimension reveals critical systemic failures in follow-through and communication that directly contradict the positive professionalism ratings. The company appears to excel at initial customer interaction but struggles with execution and accountability. Recent 2025 reviews suggest improvement, but the pattern of documented failures in 2022-2023 indicates this is a company with inconsistent reliability that requires careful consideration before engagement.