Find Nearby Plumbers In Vallejo, California

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.

Up2Code demonstrates strong professionalism and technical expertise, with consistently positive feedback on punctuality, courteous staff, and skilled technicians. However, the company shows significant vulnerabilities in project completion reliability and pricing transparency. Multiple reviews document no-shows, rescheduling failures, and scheduling delays that contradict their professional reputation. Pricing concerns emerge across multiple reviews citing unexpectedly high bills, lack of itemization, and charges perceived as excessive relative to work performed. The company excels in warranty work handling and same-day emergency response but struggles with follow-through on standard appointments and callback commitments.

• CRITICAL: Multiple no-show and rescheduling incidents documented across different time periods (2015, 2016, 2020, 2022) suggest systemic scheduling/accountability issues despite strong professionalism scores
• PRICING INCONSISTENCY: Significant variance in customer perception of fairness—some reviews praise 'fair pricing' while others cite bills 2-3x higher than quoted estimates with poor itemization
• OWNER CONDUCT CONCERNS: Two separate reviews (2016, 2019) document aggressive, verbally abusive, and threatening behavior by owner Mike Pita toward customers, including one police report for physical threats
• QUALITY CONTROL GAPS: Multiple reviews cite incomplete work, failed inspections on new installations (negative drainage slope, improper vent installation), and warranty work left unfinished
• RECENCY PATTERN: Negative reviews cluster in 2013-2022 period; most recent reviews (2024, 2023) are uniformly positive, suggesting either improved operations or potential review filtering
• ESTIMATE ACCURACY: Several reviews document significant discrepancies between quoted labor hours and actual charges, with final bills substantially exceeding initial estimates

This WW Score of 78.2 should be treated with MODERATE-TO-HIGH caution: while the score reflects genuine strengths in technical expertise and professionalism, the documented pattern of no-shows, scheduling failures, aggressive owner behavior, and pricing inconsistencies represents material risks that are not fully captured in the weighted score. Customers should prioritize written estimates with itemization and confirm appointments 24 hours prior. The company's reliability appears project-dependent rather than consistent.

Devin Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism, fair pricing, and solid technical expertise across most reviews. However, a significant pattern of project completion failures—including abandoned work, ghosting customers, and failure to honor callbacks—substantially lowers the overall score. While 45 reviews are highly positive (5-star ratings with specific praise for responsiveness, quality, and fair pricing), 6 reviews document serious follow-up failures and communication breakdowns. The contractor excels at initial response and technical skill but shows critical weaknesses in accountability and job follow-through, particularly on complex or multi-phase projects.

• CRITICAL: Pattern of project abandonment and ghosting documented in 6 reviews (2023-04-24, 2023-02-27, 2022-11-09, 2022-03-01, 2021-12-13, 2020-06-07). Multiple customers report unfinished work, ignored callbacks, and communication breakdown after initial service.
• Potential name inconsistency: Reviews mention both 'Devin' and 'Eugene' as plumbers. One review (2020-02-27) explicitly names 'Eugene' replacing faucets; others reference 'Eugene' as crew member. Unclear if this is same person, crew member, or data error.
• One review (2022-11-12) explicitly warns to 'ignore the negative yelp reviews from years ago' and dismisses one reviewer as having 'only one yelp review'—this defensive language is a minor red flag but not conclusive of fake reviews.
• Recency concern: Most negative reviews cluster in 2020-2023; most positive reviews are from 2018-2019. Recent reviews show deterioration in reliability and follow-through.
• No evidence of fake review pattern detected. Positive reviews contain specific details (job types, timelines, pricing comparisons, crew names). Negative reviews are detailed and credible with documented evidence (phone numbers, text records, multiple callback attempts).

This WW Score of 78.2 should be treated with caution: while the contractor demonstrates genuine technical skill and professionalism on initial contact, the documented pattern of project abandonment and customer ghosting on follow-up work represents a material and recurring failure in project completion. Customers should expect excellent initial service but should be aware of significant risk of unfinished work and communication breakdown if complications arise or callbacks are needed.

EM Pro Construction demonstrates strong professionalism with consistent communication, punctuality, and friendly demeanor across 18 reviews. Project completion is solid with most jobs finished on time and to satisfaction, though some scheduling and follow-up issues emerged in 3 negative reviews. Pricing is generally perceived as fair and affordable (9 mentions), though one review flagged excessive charges for simple electrical work. Technical experience is well-regarded with skilled workmanship evident across diverse projects. However, the company shows vulnerability in operational execution—permit tracking failures, no-show appointments, and occasional quality issues—which tempers the otherwise positive assessment.

• One review (2023-11-24) contains incoherent language and appears emotionally charged regarding office staff behavior; credibility is questionable but complaint about rudeness is noted.
• Aggressive follow-up messaging flagged in one review (2023-10-03) suggesting potential CRM/marketing process issue.
• Three substantive negative reviews (2023-06-15, 2022-02-18, 2020-03-07) document operational failures: poor quality requiring rework, permit/scheduling negligence, and no-show appointment. These are not fake but indicate systemic gaps.
• One review (2021-08-30) disputes pricing fairness for simple electrical work ($216-$252 for light fixture/switch replacement), suggesting potential pricing inconsistency or lack of transparency on job-based vs. hourly rates.
• Most reviews are 1-2+ years old; only 5 reviews from past 12 months (2024). Recency bias suggests current performance may differ from historical data.

This WW Score of 78.2 is reliable with HIGH overall confidence due to substantial mention counts across all dimensions (9-18 per category) and a large review sample (24 total). However, the score is tempered by documented operational failures in scheduling/permitting and pricing transparency issues that suggest the company excels in customer-facing professionalism but struggles with backend execution. The score should be interpreted as reflecting a company with strong interpersonal skills and technical ability but inconsistent operational discipline.

General Plumbing Supply demonstrates strong technical expertise and product knowledge, with consistently high marks for staff experience and knowledgeable assistance. However, professionalism is significantly undermined by numerous reports of rude, dismissive, and unhelpful customer service, particularly toward DIY customers and those unfamiliar with plumbing. Pricing is generally viewed as fair to competitive, though some perceive it as premium. Project completion shows mixed results with delivery delays and order fulfillment issues reported in several cases. The company excels when individual staff members (Luis, Carlos, Jon, Ellen, etc.) provide exceptional service, but inconsistency across locations and personnel is a major concern.

• SIGNIFICANT PROFESSIONALISM VARIANCE: Multiple reviews (at least 15+) describe rude, dismissive, or unwelcoming staff behavior, particularly toward non-professional/DIY customers. This is a systemic issue affecting multiple locations and time periods.
• LOCATION-BASED INCONSISTENCY: American Canyon location receives disproportionately negative reviews for customer service, while Brentwood and Walnut Creek locations receive more positive feedback. Service quality appears highly dependent on which staff member assists the customer.
• DELIVERY AND ORDER FULFILLMENT ISSUES: Several reviews (2018-2021) report significant delays, wrong items shipped, incomplete orders, and poor communication regarding delivery timelines. One review describes a 3.5-week estimate that became 3.5 months.
• STAFF ATTITUDE TOWARD DIY CUSTOMERS: Recurring pattern of staff deflecting DIY customers to Home Depot or expressing disdain for non-professional customers, suggesting possible business model bias against retail customers.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: Cluster of 5-star reviews on 2022-06-10 and 2023-06-10 with minimal detail (e.g., 'Great service', 'Awesome staff!', 'Knowledge helps') alongside detailed negative reviews suggests possible review manipulation. However, many detailed positive reviews exist, so confidence in fake review detection is LIMITED.
• RECENCY NOTE: Most recent reviews (2024-2025) show improved sentiment with fewer extreme negatives, suggesting possible recent management changes or staff training improvements.

This WW Score of 76.8 is reliable at HIGH confidence due to 227 reviews with substantial data across all dimensions, but the score masks significant operational inconsistency: the company excels in product expertise and selection but struggles with customer service delivery and professionalism, particularly toward non-professional customers. Prospective customers should expect variable experiences depending on location and staff member encountered.

Ken Mays Plumbing demonstrates solid technical competence and generally reliable service delivery, with strong marks for experience and workmanship. However, the company is significantly hampered by inconsistent professionalism—particularly poor follow-up communication, unresponsive callbacks, and documented instances of rude customer service from office staff and ownership. Pricing concerns are substantial, with multiple complaints about unexpected charges, inflated quotes, and aggressive collection tactics. While many customers report excellent individual technician performance (especially Dario, Van, Ryan, and George), systemic issues with accountability, transparency, and customer respect create a pattern of disappointment that undermines overall trustworthiness.

• PRICING RED FLAG: Multiple reviews (at least 12) document significant pricing issues including: unexpected quote increases on-site, charges for diagnostic visits with no work performed, inflated material costs, and aggressive lien threats for disputed service charges. This suggests a problematic business practice.
• FOLLOW-UP COMMUNICATION FAILURE: At least 15 reviews explicitly mention failure to return phone calls, ignored voicemails, and broken promises to schedule callbacks. This is a systemic operational issue.
• OWNERSHIP/MANAGEMENT CONDUCT: Multiple reviews describe owner 'Joe' as rude, dismissive, patronizing, and hostile when customers dispute charges. One review documents threat of lien placement for $114 diagnostic fee.
• INCONSISTENT QUALITY: While individual technicians (Dario, Van, Ryan, George) receive consistent praise, other technicians are documented as performing incomplete or substandard work (Scott, unnamed technician in shower faucet installation).
• ACCOUNTABILITY GAPS: Several reviews document company refusal to return to fix problems created during initial service, with deflection of responsibility to customers.
• SUSPICIOUS REVIEW PATTERN: 15+ reviews from 2018-06-11 and 2017-06-11 contain only 5-star ratings with minimal or no text content. While not definitively fake, this clustering warrants caution in weighting these reviews.
• RECENCY NOTE: Most negative reviews cluster in 2013-2018 period; more recent reviews (2024-2025) are predominantly positive, suggesting possible company improvement or change in management practices. However, negative patterns persist through 2023.

This WW Score of 76.8 should be treated with moderate-to-high confidence for technical capability but LOW confidence for overall customer experience reliability. The company excels at technical execution but fails significantly in business practices, communication, and customer respect. Customers should expect good workmanship but prepare for potential pricing disputes, communication delays, and difficult interactions with management. Recent reviews suggest possible improvement, but historical pattern is concerning.