Find Nearby Plumbers In South San Francisco, California

EZ Plumbing demonstrates strong technical expertise and generally professional service delivery, with particularly high marks for workmanship quality and knowledgeable staff. Pricing is perceived as fair and competitive by most customers. However, the company's overall score is significantly impacted by recurring and serious project completion failures, including multiple no-shows, missed appointments, poor communication during projects, and in several cases, incomplete or defective work requiring customer remediation. While many reviews praise responsiveness and professionalism, a substantial minority report communication breakdowns, scheduling failures, and abandoned projects that undermine reliability.

• CRITICAL: Multiple reviews (at least 8) report no-shows, missed appointments, or failure to appear despite confirmed scheduling. This is a systemic issue affecting project completion reliability.
• CRITICAL: At least 4 reviews report incomplete work, defective repairs, or work that had to be redone by other plumbers. This directly contradicts claims of quality workmanship.
• CRITICAL: Communication failures are documented across multiple time periods (2018-2023), including unresponsive staff, failure to return calls/texts, and lack of appointment confirmations.
• MODERATE: One review (2021-05-07) describes project abandonment with open trench and waste in yard for 2+ weeks, plus failure to file required permits on time.
• MODERATE: Pricing concerns noted in at least 3 reviews regarding overcharging or incremental costs not disclosed upfront, despite general perception of fair pricing.
• MODERATE: Inconsistent service quality appears correlated with different team members/locations; some technicians (Richard, Eric, Daniel, Isidoro) receive consistent praise while others receive complaints.
• NOTE: Three reviews contain no text (only 5-star ratings), and one review is marked 5-star but states 'Did not service my area' — these are anomalies but do not appear to be fake review patterns overall.
• NOTE: Most negative reviews are older (2018-2021), but recent negative reviews exist (2023-08-21, 2023-05-22), indicating ongoing issues despite potential improvements.

This WW Score of 76.8 should be treated with caution: while the HIGH confidence reflects substantial review volume, the score masks a critical reliability problem. The company excels in technical expertise and initial professionalism but has a documented pattern of scheduling failures and communication breakdowns that directly impact project completion. Customers should be aware that positive reviews often come from completed jobs, while negative reviews frequently cite no-shows and abandoned projects. The score is reliable as a measure of average experience but understates execution risk.

Minucciani Plumbing receives consistently positive feedback across all four scored dimensions, with professionalism being the most frequently cited strength — reviewers repeatedly highlight promptness, reliability, responsiveness to emergencies, and a friendly, trustworthy demeanor. Pricing is noted favorably by multiple reviewers, with specific mentions of flat-rate billing, reasonable pricing, and honesty around charges, though the sample is moderate in size. Project completion is well-supported, with reviewers describing jobs finished quickly, same-day emergency service, and thorough follow-through including checking on additional issues unprompted. Experience and workmanship are affirmed through references to neat, efficient, and knowledgeable work over long-term relationships spanning up to 20 years. However, the majority of reviews are significantly older than 12 months, which meaningfully limits confidence in how current these assessments are.

• RECENCY WARNING: Only 1 review (2024-09-24) falls within the past 12 months. The remaining 7 usable reviews range from 2009 to 2018, with most being 6–15 years old. The WW Score may not reflect current service quality.
• 2 reviews contain only the text 'unknown' and were excluded from scoring as they provide no usable data.
• GENERIC PRAISE FLAG: The most recent review (2024) uses enthusiastic but vague language ('fabulous,' 'integrity,' 'excellent work') with no specific details about the job performed. This limits its evidentiary value and was weighted conservatively.
• SMALL SAMPLE WARNING: Only 10 total reviews were provided, with 8 containing usable data. Scores should be interpreted cautiously given the limited volume of evidence.

This WW Score carries moderate overall reliability — the positive signals are consistent and span multiple dimensions, but the overwhelming age of the review base (most reviews are 6–15 years old) and the small total sample size mean this score should not be treated as a confident indicator of current service quality without more recent evidence.

Jim demonstrates strong professionalism across all three reviews, with consistent praise for responsiveness, punctuality, politeness, and professional demeanor (3 mentions). His pricing is noted as fair in one review. Project completion shows mixed signals: one review explicitly states he abandoned work due to being too busy and required another plumber to finish, while another emphasizes timely completion. His technical skill and work quality are praised in two reviews. The WW Score of 82.1 reflects solid professionalism and experience, tempered by concerns about project follow-through and limited data volume.

• CRITICAL: Review 1 explicitly states Jim abandoned the job mid-project ('Jim got too busy') and required another contractor to complete work. This is a significant project completion failure.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Two of three reviews are from 2013 and 2015 (9-11 years old). Only one review is recent (2022). Current performance may differ substantially from historical data.
• LIMITED DATA: Only 3 reviews total. Confidence in all dimensions is constrained by small sample size.
• PRICING DATA SPARSE: Only 1 mention of pricing across all reviews. Score reflects minimal evidence.

This WW Score should be treated with caution due to very limited review volume (n=3), significant recency bias (2 reviews are 9+ years old), and a critical project abandonment issue documented in the most recent review that directly contradicts the overall positive trend.

Southwood Plumbing shows strong technical competence and workmanship (82/100), with many reviews praising skilled technicians like Scott, Carlos, and Steven for efficient, quality work. However, professionalism is significantly dragged down by persistent complaints about office staff rudeness, poor communication, and non-responsiveness to callbacks—issues mentioned across multiple reviews spanning 2013–2022. Project completion is solid (75/100) with most jobs finished properly, though some warranty follow-up failures are noted. Pricing feedback is limited (6 mentions) but includes concerns about double-billing and lack of transparency. The company excels at field-level service but struggles with administrative professionalism and customer communication.

• CRITICAL: Multiple independent reviews (2013–2022) report rude, dismissive office staff and failure to return phone calls. This is a systemic pattern, not isolated incidents. Kathy Stupi is specifically named in negative reviews for rudeness and unprofessionalism.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most negative reviews are from 2013–2022 (older), but two recent negative reviews (2020, 2022) show the communication/callback problem persists. Most recent reviews (2024–2025) are positive, suggesting possible recent improvement or selection bias.
• BILLING ISSUES: Multiple reviews report billing errors (double-charging labor, forgotten discounts, incorrect charges). This suggests weak invoice controls or intentional overcharging.
• WARRANTY HONORING: One detailed 2022 review explicitly states the company does not honor warranties properly, using delays and non-communication as avoidance tactics.
• INCONSISTENT SERVICE: Field technicians (Scott, Carlos, Steven, Bryan, Luis) receive consistent praise; office/management receives consistent criticism. This suggests a two-tier service quality problem.
• NO FAKE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: Reviews vary in detail, tone, and specificity. Negative reviews are detailed and credible. Positive reviews span decades with varied language. No evidence of coordinated fake reviews.

This WW Score of 72.8 should be treated with MODERATE confidence. While technical competence is well-documented (HIGH confidence), the score is significantly depressed by a well-established pattern of office professionalism failures and communication breakdowns spanning a decade. Recent positive reviews suggest possible improvement, but the historical pattern is substantial enough to warrant caution. Customers should expect excellent field work but prepare for potential administrative friction and communication delays.

All three reviews are positive and speak to Doug and his team's professionalism, including punctuality, communication, and attentiveness to customer questions. Project completion is mentioned in two reviews, both indicating timely and thorough work. Experience is referenced in two reviews through descriptions of efficient and smooth installations. Pricing is only mentioned in one review (in Spanish), which notes prices are quite accessible, but this single data point carries very limited weight. The overall picture is favorable but the extremely small review pool prevents high confidence in any dimension.

• Only 3 reviews total — WW Score is at the minimum threshold for calculation and should be treated with significant caution.
• Two of the three reviews are more than 12 months old (2020 and 2022); only one review falls within the past 12 months (2023). Recency weighting is limited.
• All three reviews are 5-star ratings with no critical feedback. While the reviews do contain specific details (sump pump, water heater, masking, punctuality), the uniformly perfect ratings with a very small sample size warrants caution.
• Pricing dimension is based on a single non-English review with minimal detail — score should be treated as highly uncertain.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews, two of which are over a year old, making it a low-reliability snapshot that should not be used as a definitive assessment of current contractor quality.

Progressive Plumbing and its associated entities receive broadly positive marks for professionalism and technical experience, with many reviewers praising named technicians such as Daniel, Victor, Marcus, Justin, and Roberto for being courteous, knowledgeable, and responsive. However, pricing is the single most damaging dimension in this dataset: a very large number of reviewers across multiple years explicitly describe charges as excessive, arbitrary, or deceptive — including instances of verbal quotes being exceeded, refusal to itemize bills, and charges perceived as exploitative during emergencies. Project completion is mixed: while many jobs are described as completed promptly and well, there are notable failures including no-shows, abandoned work, callbacks that were never honored, and at least one case of a job left incomplete with damage caused. The volume and consistency of pricing complaints across a wide date range significantly suppresses the overall score.

• SUSPECTED MIXED ENTITY PROBLEM: Multiple reviews reference 'San Bruno Plumbing' as the company name, while the majority reference 'Progressive Plumbing' or 'Progressive Service Company.' These may be distinct businesses whose reviews have been aggregated together, which would make the composite score unreliable.
• FAKE OR PADDING REVIEW CONCERN: At least 30+ reviews consist of blank text with only a star rating (all 5-star). These provide zero usable data and inflate the apparent rating volume. They were excluded from dimension scoring.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The review for Marcus ('came on time in fact earlier than expected... cost was fair, lower than expected') appears verbatim on both 2025-05-19 and 2025-05-16. This is a likely duplicate submission and was counted only once.
• RECENCY NOTE: Reviews span from 2005 to 2025. A significant portion of negative pricing and project completion reviews date from 2017–2023, indicating these are not isolated historical incidents. Positive reviews are more concentrated in 2024–2025, which may reflect genuine improvement or selection bias.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS ARE SYSTEMIC: Overcharging complaints are not isolated — they appear across many years, many technicians, and many job types (water heaters, toilet repairs, faucet installs, drain clearing). This pattern is too consistent to dismiss as outliers.
• UNPROFESSIONAL CONDUCT COMPLAINTS: Multiple reviews describe technicians performing unauthorized work, billing tenants without owner approval, leaving job sites in disarray, being rude or dismissive, and in one case potentially misusing a credit card. These are serious conduct flags.
• NO-SHOW AND ABANDONMENT PATTERN: At least 5 reviews describe scheduled appointments where no technician arrived and no follow-up communication was made. This is a recurring project completion failure.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large number of substantive reviews, but the score itself should be interpreted cautiously given the systemic pricing complaints, suspected entity mixing between 'Progressive Plumbing' and 'San Bruno Plumbing,' a high volume of blank filler reviews, and recurring patterns of no-shows and incomplete work that suggest operational inconsistency rather than isolated incidents.