Find Nearby Plumbers In Vallejo, California

This contractor has a large and deeply mixed review record spanning many years and what appears to be multiple operating entities or franchise locations (Plumbing Express, Total Tech, GMR Plumbing) reviewed together. The majority of positive reviews praise specific technicians — Rod, Dave, Daniel, Antonio, Austin, and others — for punctuality, communication, and quality workmanship on jobs ranging from repiping to water heater installation. However, a significant and consistent pattern of serious negative reviews exists, particularly from customers dispatched via home warranty companies, who report technicians refusing to do work, misrepresenting findings to warranty companies, rude office staff, property damage left unaddressed, and warranty non-compliance. Pricing complaints are notable and recurring, with multiple reviewers citing charges far above competitors and a $39–$69 service call fee that is not credited toward work. Project completion failures — including no-shows, abandoned jobs, and unresolved callbacks — appear in enough reviews to meaningfully suppress the completion score. The overall picture is a company with genuinely skilled and professional individual technicians whose performance is undermined by inconsistent office management, pricing transparency issues, and a troubling pattern of behavior specifically in home warranty contexts.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: Several reviews appear verbatim or near-verbatim across multiple dates (e.g., 'Excellent work and expertise' on 2025-06-08 and 2025-06-06; 'My experience was excellent. No complaints.' on 2025-06-08 and 2025-06-06; the full sewer line review on both 2025-06-08 and 2025-06-06; the Richard Dalton/Matthew review duplicated across platforms). These duplicates inflate the positive review count and reduce confidence in the authenticity of the review pool.
• MULTIPLE BUSINESS ENTITIES: Reviews reference at least three distinct business names — Plumbing Express, Total Tech (Arizona), and GMR Plumbing — suggesting this profile aggregates reviews for related but potentially distinct operations. Scores may not reflect a single consistent business.
• HOME WARRANTY PATTERN: A statistically significant cluster of 1-star reviews specifically involves customers dispatched via home warranty companies (Fidelity National, Old Republic, First American). Complaints include technicians misrepresenting findings to deny claims, refusing to perform work, and collecting service fees without completing jobs. This pattern is too consistent to be coincidental and represents a systemic risk.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Approximately 25–30 reviews contain no text, only a star rating (mostly 5-star). These provide no usable data and were excluded from dimension scoring but may artificially inflate the average star rating.
• WARRANTY NON-COMPLIANCE: One review (Oct 2024) describes a $9,000+ job where the company allegedly left an 80-year-old part in the wall, causing flooding, and then refused to honor a purchased 3-year warranty. Another review describes a failed permit inspection that was never scheduled. These are serious flags for project completion integrity.
• PROPERTY DAMAGE COMPLAINTS: Multiple reviews describe property damage caused by technicians (chipped porcelain, drywall dust throughout home, damaged floors) with the company denying responsibility. One reviewer pursued small claims court.
• RECENCY NOTE: The review set spans from 2004 to 2025. Reviews from 2013 and earlier are given minimal weight. The most recent 12 months (mid-2024 to mid-2025) show predominantly positive reviews, but the home warranty and pricing complaints persist into 2024–2025.
• PRICING CONCERNS: Multiple independent reviewers across different years and locations describe pricing as significantly above market rate, with one reviewer documenting a $700 quote for a job completed by a competitor for $98. The service call fee policy ($39–$69, non-refundable) is a recurring complaint.

This WW Score of 72.1 should be treated with moderate-to-low trust: while the HIGH confidence label reflects the large volume of reviews, the score is significantly complicated by duplicate reviews, multi-entity aggregation, a persistent and credible pattern of home warranty misconduct, and pricing transparency issues that collectively suggest the true customer experience is more variable than the score alone conveys — customers hiring directly for straightforward jobs are likely to have good experiences, while those using home warranty dispatch or undertaking large projects face meaningfully higher risk.

ABC Plumbing has a large and predominantly positive review base, with the majority of recent reviews (2024–2025) describing prompt, professional, and courteous technicians by name, suggesting a strong core team. Pricing is frequently praised as fair and competitive, with multiple reviewers noting ABC came in significantly lower than competitors. However, a meaningful minority of negative reviews — spanning the full date range — describe serious failures including abandoned jobs, no-shows, poor communication between office and field staff, billing disputes, work that failed shortly after completion, and in a few cases allegations of dishonest or predatory behavior. Project completion is the most consistently flagged concern in negative reviews, with multiple customers reporting work left unfinished or callbacks ignored. The score is moderated downward from what the volume of 5-star reviews might suggest, because the negative reviews contain specific, credible, and recurring patterns of failure that cannot be dismissed.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: At least 3 pairs of near-identical or word-for-word duplicate reviews were found (e.g., the Jovi/quick/reasonable review appearing on 2025-06-07 and 2025-06-04; the Tammy/Jason/external repairs review appearing on 2025-06-07 and 2025-06-04; the Dana/Matthew/bathroom sink review appearing twice on 2025-02-06). This pattern is consistent with review manipulation or accidental double-posting and reduces confidence in the authenticity of some 5-star reviews.
• IRRELEVANT REVIEWS DETECTED: At least 2 reviews appear to be for unrelated businesses or contain no plumbing-related content (e.g., 'LIFT MARKETING Website Design Agency' rated 2 stars on 2025-06-05 and 2025-06-02; a review about a fast food experience on 2018-12-15; a review referencing 'Pipe Wrench Plumbing' on 2006-08-15). These were excluded from scoring.
• REVIEWS WITH NO TEXT: Multiple reviews contained only a star rating and no written content. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence per Rule 1.
• SERIOUS NEGATIVE PATTERNS: Multiple 1-star reviews across different time periods describe abandoned work, no-shows, billing for incomplete service, poor office-to-field communication, and in one case an allegation of work that caused $15,000–$20,000 in foundation damage. These are specific and credible and were weighted accordingly.
• RECENCY NOTE: The bulk of highly positive reviews are concentrated in 2024–2025, which may reflect genuine improvement in service quality, a more active review solicitation strategy, or both. Older reviews (2013–2021) show a more mixed picture. Recent reviews were weighted more heavily per Rule 6.
• MULTI-ENTITY RISK: The review corpus appears to aggregate reviews from multiple ABC Plumbing locations or franchises across different states (Texas, California, New York, Kentucky, etc.). Scores may reflect the performance of more than one distinct business operating under the same name, which limits the reliability of the composite WW Score for any single location.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large review volume, but should be interpreted cautiously given confirmed duplicate reviews, irrelevant reviews mixed into the dataset, multi-location aggregation risk, and a recurring pattern of credible negative experiences that suggest the 5-star majority does not fully represent all customer outcomes.

Plumbing Doctor has a large and broadly positive review base, with the majority of customers praising individual technicians by name for punctuality, communication, courtesy, and professionalism — driving a solid but not exceptional professionalism score. However, pricing is the single most damaging dimension: a substantial and recurring pattern of complaints across many years and many reviewers describes charges perceived as grossly inflated, lack of itemized invoices, pressure tactics, and quotes that were significantly higher than competitors, pulling the pricing score well below average. Project completion is generally strong — most jobs are reported as finished same-day or next-day — but a meaningful minority of reviews describe incomplete work, return visits for the same problem, abandoned jobs, or work that created new problems, preventing a high score. Experience scores are similarly mixed: many technicians are praised as skilled and knowledgeable, but a notable cluster of reviews describes misdiagnosis, incorrect repairs, and technicians who were out of their depth, which tempers the score. The overall WW Score of 72.1 reflects a company with genuine service strengths undermined by persistent and credible pricing and quality-control concerns.

• PRICING CONCERN — HIGH SEVERITY: Pricing complaints are among the most consistent and specific in the entire review set, spanning from 2006 through 2025. Multiple reviewers independently report being charged 2x–5x competitor rates for identical work, with specific dollar amounts cited (e.g., $306 for a toilet flapper, $280 for a wax seal, $972 to tighten a gas valve, $1,006 for a toilet, $650 for a valve cartridge). This is not a pattern of isolated dissatisfaction — it is a systemic and recurring issue.
• PROJECT QUALITY CONCERN: Multiple reviews describe technicians misdiagnosing problems, performing unnecessary work, creating new leaks or damage during repairs, or failing to resolve the original issue. Examples include flooding a bathroom during a water heater install, failing to clear a drain clog and charging anyway, replacing a water heater unnecessarily, and leaving a sump pump without a check valve.
• PROFESSIONALISM CONCERN — NEGATIVE OUTLIERS: Several reviews describe specific technicians as rude, dismissive, or aggressive toward customers, including one detailed account of a crew mocking and verbally abusing a homeowner, and another describing a technician yelling at a customer. These are serious outliers against an otherwise largely positive professionalism picture.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK — LOW-MODERATE: A significant number of reviews are blank (rating only, no text) or contain only 1–2 generic sentences with no specifics. While not conclusive, the volume of no-text 5-star reviews slightly inflates the apparent rating. These reviews were excluded from dimension scoring but counted in total reviews analyzed.
• RECENCY NOTE: The review set spans from 2006 to June 2025. Reviews from 2025 and 2024 are predominantly positive, suggesting possible improvement in recent years. However, pricing complaints persist into 2024–2025, so this concern has not been resolved. Older negative reviews (2006–2018) were weighted less heavily but were included as they reveal long-standing patterns.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: Two reviews from 2023-11-29 appear to be near-identical copies of the same complaint (same date, same content, same rating). One was treated as a single data point to avoid double-counting.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: Two reviews from 2024-09-12 and 2024-08-19 appear to be near-identical in content from the same reviewer about the same experience. Treated as a single data point.
• WARRANTY/FOLLOW-THROUGH CONCERN: Multiple reviews describe verbal warranties not honored, return visits charged again for the same problem, and a specific complaint about a 6-month verbal warranty being denied and replaced with a 30-day policy. Customers are advised to obtain all warranties in writing.

This WW Score of 72.1 is based on a very large review set (277 reviews) spanning nearly two decades, with HIGH confidence across all four dimensions, making it one of the more statistically reliable scores possible — however, consumers should weight the pricing dimension heavily in their decision-making, as it represents the most consistent and specific area of documented customer harm.

All American Plumbing presents a deeply split profile across its review history. The most recent reviews (2024–2025, predominantly from what appears to be a San Diego-area operation) are overwhelmingly positive, with customers consistently praising named technicians like Lance, Mason, Elliott, JoJo, Justin, Ryan, and Nick for punctuality, clear communication, technical skill, and fair pricing. However, a substantial body of older reviews (2012–2021, many referencing a technician named Robert and home warranty company assignments, likely a different geographic location or franchise) describes a pattern of serious failures: no-shows, misdiagnoses, rude office staff, abandoned jobs, overcharging, and dishonest reporting to home warranty companies. Project completion is significantly dragged down by multiple reviews describing work left unfinished, problems made worse, and failure to follow through. Pricing scores are mixed — recent customers praise fair and transparent quotes, while older customers describe significant overcharging and bait-and-switch tactics. The experience dimension similarly splits between highly skilled recent technicians and incompetent or fraudulent older service calls.

• CRITICAL: The review pool appears to contain reviews for at least two distinct business entities or locations operating under the name 'All American Plumbing.' Recent reviews (2024–2025) reference San Diego-area technicians and a clearly different operational culture from older reviews (2012–2021) that repeatedly reference a technician named 'Robert' and home warranty fraud patterns. Scores should be interpreted with this bifurcation in mind.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — MODERATE: Several reviews from late 2021 (dates: 2021-12-01 to 2021-12-02) are clustered within 48 hours, are unusually generic in praise, and reference a Texas/Houston-area business context inconsistent with the San Diego reviews. One reviewer (2022-01-25) explicitly flags these as suspected fake reviews posted by California residents for a Houston business.
• 14 reviews contain no text (only a star rating) and were excluded from dimension scoring but counted in total reviews analyzed.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent 80+ reviews (2024–2025) are almost entirely 5-star and reflect a high-performing San Diego operation. The older reviews (pre-2023) contain a disproportionate number of 1-star reviews describing a pattern of fraud, rudeness, and incompetence. If evaluating only the last 12 months, scores would be substantially higher across all dimensions.
• PATTERN OF NEGATIVE REVIEWS — HOME WARRANTY CONTEXT: A large cluster of 1-star reviews specifically involves customers assigned through home warranty companies (American Home Shield, Old Republic, 2-10, First American). These reviews describe a consistent pattern of misdiagnosis, upselling, no-shows, and dishonest reporting to warranty companies. This pattern is strong enough to suggest systemic rather than isolated failures in that operational context.
• ONE REVIEW (2024-07-06, 1-star) alleges a company truck attempted to run the reviewer off the road. This is an isolated conduct allegation that cannot be scored but is flagged as a serious concern.
• ONE REVIEW (2023-06-23, 1-star) contains an allegation of spying on an elderly customer and reporting personal activities to an HOA. This is an isolated but serious allegation flagged for awareness.
• OFFICE STAFF COMPLAINTS: Multiple reviews across different years cite a receptionist named 'Jennifer' as rude, condescending, and argumentative. This is a recurring named pattern suggesting a systemic customer service issue at the office level, not isolated to field technicians.

This WW Score of 72.1 carries HIGH data confidence due to the large review volume, but should be interpreted cautiously because the review pool almost certainly spans two distinct business entities or operational eras — the recent San Diego operation (2024–2025) would score approximately 88–92 on its own, while the older review corpus (pre-2023, likely a different location) would score approximately 35–45, and consumers should research which entity they are engaging before relying on this blended score.

This contractor has a large and long review history spanning over a decade, with a strong majority of positive reviews praising professionalism, responsiveness, and technical knowledge. However, a meaningful cluster of negative reviews — spanning multiple years and multiple reviewers — raises serious concerns across all four dimensions. Pricing complaints are among the most consistent negative themes, with multiple reviewers citing unexplained charges, hidden hourly rates, excessive fees for simple jobs, and charges for drive time without prior disclosure. Project completion failures appear in several reviews, including abandoned jobs, work left incomplete after full payment, and a return visit that failed to resolve the original issue. Professionalism is undermined by multiple credible accounts of technicians or the owner becoming defensive, threatening legal action in response to negative reviews, and in one case calling a customer's elderly father to pressure review removal. Despite these negatives, the volume of genuinely positive and specific reviews keeps scores above failing thresholds, but the pattern of recurring complaints prevents high scores in any dimension.

• SUSPECTED FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: A large cluster of reviews — particularly those referencing 'Mackenzie' and 'Vallejo Plumbers' — appear to be for a different business entity or individual plumber operating under a separate brand. These reviews reference Vallejo, CA locations and a sole operator named Mackenzie, while the majority of other reviews reference a Dallas/DFW-area company called 'My Local Plumber' with owner Denise and technicians like Felipe, Zac, Omar, Trevor, and Mike. This mixing of two distinct businesses in one review pool is a significant data integrity concern.
• REVIEW MANIPULATION FLAGGED: At least two independent reviewers explicitly state they were offered a price discount in exchange for leaving a positive review (one from 2025, one implied in older reviews). One reviewer also reports being threatened with a lawsuit if they did not remove their negative review. These are serious ethical violations that artificially inflate positive review counts.
• RECENCY NOTE: Reviews span from 2011 to 2025. Older reviews (2011–2016) frequently reference a sole operator named 'Michael' and appear to be for a Vallejo, CA plumber. Reviews from 2017 onward increasingly reference the Dallas-area 'My Local Plumber' with owner Denise. Scores are weighted toward more recent reviews but the mixed entity pool reduces overall reliability.
• NEGATIVE REVIEW PATTERN: Multiple 1-star reviews across different years cite: (1) no-shows without notification, (2) jobs left incomplete after full payment, (3) price increases after work completion without prior disclosure, (4) aggressive or rude responses from owner or technicians when complaints were raised, and (5) alleged unlicensed work. These are not isolated incidents.
• LICENSING CONCERN: At least two reviewers — in separate reviews years apart — raised concerns about whether the plumber (specifically 'Mackenzie' in Vallejo) holds a valid contractor's license. One reviewer states the listed license number is not a contractor's license and that the city could not find a business permit. This has not been verified but warrants caution.
• SCORE CONFIDENCE CAVEAT: Because this review pool appears to contain reviews for at least two distinct business entities (My Local Plumber DFW and Vallejo Plumbers/Mackenzie), the WW Score reflects a blended dataset. Scores should be interpreted with caution until the review pool can be separated by business entity.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large review volume, but its accuracy is materially compromised by the likely commingling of reviews for two separate businesses, credible evidence of review manipulation, and a consistent pattern of serious complaints that suggests the true quality floor is lower than the positive review majority implies — consumers should read negative reviews carefully before hiring.

Mr. Rooter Napa scores well on professionalism and experience in the majority of detailed reviews, with many customers praising named technicians like Andrew, Cary, Jason, Akeem, and Jeff for being courteous, knowledgeable, and prompt. However, pricing is a significant and recurring concern — multiple independent reviewers across different years explicitly describe charges as outrageously high, not disclosed upfront, or far above competitor quotes, pulling the pricing dimension down substantially. Project completion is generally positive but is meaningfully dragged down by several serious complaints: a botched tankless water heater install requiring four repeat visits, a grease trap job that caused a new leak and demanded additional payment, a sewer line job that improperly terminated a neighbor's line, and multiple instances of missed or cancelled appointments without notice. The large volume of blank 5-star reviews (56 reviews with no text) inflates the raw star average but contributes no scoreable evidence and raises authenticity concerns.

• FAKE REVIEW CONCERN: 56 out of 163 reviews (34%) contain zero review text with only a 5-star rating. This is an unusually high proportion of content-free reviews and may indicate review padding or solicited ratings without genuine feedback. These reviews were excluded from all dimension scoring.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: Two reviews dated 2025-06-06 and 2025-06-03 contain identical text ('The person came on time cleaned the drain quickly and left the kitchen clean.'). This is a strong indicator of a duplicated or fake review entry.
• PRICING PATTERN — NEGATIVE SIGNAL: At least 7 independent reviews across multiple years (2010, 2011, 2013, 2014, 2019, 2022, 2024) explicitly cite pricing as excessive, non-transparent, or significantly above market rate. This is a consistent and credible pattern, not isolated incidents.
• PROJECT COMPLETION — SERIOUS FAILURES NOTED: Multiple reviews describe incomplete or failed work including: a tankless water heater install requiring 4+ visits and never fully completed by the contractor; a grease trap replacement that caused a new leak and demanded additional payment to fix; a sewer line job that improperly terminated a neighbor's lateral; and a faucet repair that left the fixture in worse condition than before.
• RESPONSIVENESS FAILURES: Multiple reviews cite missed appointments without notification, unreturned phone calls, and scheduling confusion between corporate and local branch. One reviewer waited through two separate no-show appointments.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of highly detailed positive reviews are from 2014–2022. Reviews from 2023–2025 are predominantly text-free 5-star entries or very brief, reducing the reliability of recent performance assessment.
• INTEGRITY CONCERN: One review alleges that after job completion, the company (and a named former employee) became uncooperative with a home warranty claim for over 6 months, denied knowledge of the job, and refused to answer calls. A separate review alleges the owner was unresponsive to a billing dispute involving an $8,000 charge.

This WW Score is based on a high volume of reviews but is moderately tempered by a large proportion of content-free 5-star entries, a duplicate review, and a consistent multi-year pattern of pricing complaints and project completion failures that prevent a higher score despite strong individual technician praise.