Find Nearby Plumbers In West Covina, California

Ray Ray Rooter receives consistently positive feedback across all four dimensions, with professionalism being the most frequently mentioned and best-supported area — reviewers cite punctuality, friendliness, and good communication across all five reviews. Project completion is supported by four reviews describing jobs that were finished promptly and satisfactorily. Pricing is mentioned in only two reviews, both positively describing fair or reasonable charges, but this limited data warrants conservative scoring. Experience is noted in three reviews through specific references to technical work such as valve replacement, pipe work, and drain clearing, suggesting competent workmanship. However, all reviews are from 2017–2018, making them over six years old, which significantly limits the reliability of this score for current service quality.

• ALL 5 reviews are dated between August 2017 and October 2018 — all data is over 6 years old and may not reflect current service quality.
• Only 5 total reviews analyzed — this is a very small sample size and the WW Score should be treated with caution.
• Some reviews are brief and generic (e.g., 'My parents were very happy with the services they received today') with no specific detail, which reduces their evidentiary value.
• All reviews are 5-star ratings with no negative or mixed feedback — while not conclusive, this pattern warrants mild caution regarding review authenticity or selection bias.

This WW Score carries LOW overall reliability due to the very small review sample (5 reviews), the complete absence of any reviews from the past 6 years, and the uniformly generic nature of some reviews — prospective customers should seek more recent references before hiring.

Clark's Plumbing shows significant inconsistency across reviews, with strong technical expertise and reasonable pricing offset by serious professionalism and project completion concerns. While many customers praise the owner's knowledge and fair rates, a substantial number of detailed negative reviews document unprofessional behavior, no-shows, incomplete work, and aggressive follow-up tactics. The company demonstrates capability to solve complex problems quickly, but reliability and follow-through appear inconsistent. The presence of multiple detailed fraud allegations and unfinished work complaints suggests systemic issues beyond isolated incidents.

• CRITICAL: Multiple detailed allegations of fraud, incomplete work, and no-shows across different time periods (2013-2023). At least 8 reviews document abandoned jobs, failure to return for callbacks, or work left incomplete.
• CRITICAL: Pattern of unprofessional behavior documented in multiple reviews including inappropriate jokes, harassment via repeated calls/texts, threatening voicemails, and incoherent phone behavior.
• CRITICAL: Significant pricing inconsistency—some reviews praise fair pricing while others document overcharges of $1,600-$3,000+ for work that other plumbers completed for 50-60% less or identified as incomplete/incorrect.
• RED FLAG: Multiple reviews mention the owner (Brandon/Enosh Clark) making excuses about previous jobs running long, double-booking, and repeatedly no-showing appointments despite explicit requests not to double-book.
• RED FLAG: Several reviews describe work quality issues discovered later (leaking valves, incorrect installations, water damage, incomplete repairs) that required hiring another plumber to fix.
• RED FLAG: One detailed review (2021-06-22) explicitly alleges fake positive reviews and provides specific evidence of the owner's deceptive practices. This review is highly detailed and credible.
• CONCERN: Approximately 10 reviews from 2021-06-10 appear to be low-effort or empty submissions (blank text, single words like 'Return my call', 'Communication concerns') which may indicate review manipulation or platform issues.
• CONCERN: Stark contrast between glowing 5-star reviews and detailed 1-star reviews suggests potential review authenticity issues. Some positive reviews lack specificity while negative reviews are extensively documented.
• RECENCY NOTE: Most reviews are from 2021-2023, with concerning patterns continuing into 2023. Recent reviews (2023) still document overcharging and unprofessional behavior.
• LICENSING CONCERN: One review (2022-08-26) explicitly states 'You aren't even a licensed plumber!' suggesting potential licensing/certification issues.

This WW Score should be treated with CAUTION. While based on 75 reviews, the data shows extreme polarization with credible, detailed negative reviews documenting fraud, incomplete work, and unprofessional conduct that contradict many positive reviews. The score of 68.2 reflects this conflict but may understate risk—customers considering this contractor should carefully review the detailed negative accounts and verify licensing/credentials independently before engaging services.

Super Star Plumbing shows a deeply polarized performance pattern. Positive reviews (approximately 70% of total) consistently praise professionalism, fair pricing, and technical skill, with many customers highlighting specific technicians like Rafael, Miguel, Lazaro, and Juan. However, a significant minority of reviews (approximately 30%) document serious failures in project completion and professionalism, including no-shows, missed appointments without communication, unresolved warranty claims, and incomplete work. The company demonstrates strong technical capability and pricing competitiveness when they show up and complete work, but reliability and follow-through on commitments represent critical weaknesses that substantially depress the overall score.

• POLARIZED REVIEW PATTERN: Stark divide between 5-star and 1-star reviews with few middle ratings suggests inconsistent service quality or possible different service tiers/technicians
• NO-SHOW PATTERN: Multiple reviews (at least 8) document failure to arrive at scheduled appointments, often without communication or callback—this is a recurring systemic issue
• WARRANTY/CALLBACK FAILURES: Several reviews report company refusing to honor stated warranties or failing to respond to callback requests after service completion
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most negative reviews cluster in 2012-2018 period; more recent reviews (2019-2024) skew heavily positive, suggesting possible business model change or improved management, but older pattern of failures is documented
• POTENTIAL UPSELLING CONCERN: One review (2017-04-05) alleges pressure to upgrade from $39.99 service to $350 service; another (2015-12-13) reports mid-job price increase without consent
• COMMUNICATION FAILURES: Multiple reviews document hung-up calls, ignored voicemails, and unresponsive phone lines—suggests operational/staffing issues

This score should be treated with CAUTION. While recent reviews (2019-2024) are predominantly positive and suggest improved reliability, the company's documented history of no-shows, warranty failures, and communication breakdowns (2012-2018) indicates systemic operational weaknesses that may resurface. The WW Score of 68.2 reflects this mixed reality: strong technical capability and pricing when service is delivered, but significant risk of non-delivery or incomplete follow-through. Customers should verify current operational standards and request specific technicians with positive track records before committing.

CA Rooter & Plumbing presents a deeply mixed picture across all four dimensions. Positive reviews consistently praise Carlos for professionalism, responsiveness, affordability, and technical knowledge, but three significant negative reviews — including a $3,000 complaint, a recurring sewer clog after a $575 hydro-jet service, and a technician (Jimmy) who failed to fix a problem and then ghosted the customer — substantially drag down every dimension. The pattern of unresolved issues, unreturned calls after payment, and a suspected upsell on a hydro-jet service that did not solve the root cause raises serious concerns about project completion and pricing integrity. The positive reviews are genuine and specific enough to suggest real quality work does occur, but the negative reviews are equally specific and credible, preventing any dimension from scoring above 70.

• Three out of nine reviews (33%) are 1-star with serious, specific complaints — failed callbacks, unresolved work after payment, and a suspected unnecessary upsell — this is a significant red flag.
• One review explicitly alleges fraud and a $3,000 loss with no resolution, which is a severe credibility and reliability concern.
• A technician named Jimmy is cited by name for unprofessional behavior and abandoning a job after payment — suggests quality may vary significantly depending on which technician is dispatched.
• The hydro-jet upsell complaint (Review dated 2021-02-20) describes a situation where the problem recurred within one week, suggesting either misdiagnosis or deliberate upselling — this negatively impacts both pricing and project completion scores.
• Most reviews are dated between 2021 and 2022; no reviews from the past 12 months relative to a 2024/2025 analysis date are present, meaning recency data is limited and current service quality is unknown.
• The positive reviews, while specific enough to appear genuine, are all 5-star with no minor criticisms, which slightly elevates the possibility of selection bias or solicited reviews — though not conclusive.

This WW Score is based on 9 reviews with usable data across all dimensions, but the score should be treated with caution given that one-third of reviews are serious 1-star complaints with specific, credible allegations, and all reviews are more than 12 months old, leaving current service quality unverified.

D&M Plumbing presents a deeply polarized review profile spanning over a decade. Professionalism is the most frequently mentioned dimension and is heavily dragged down by numerous explicit complaints about rude staff, technicians hanging up on customers, condescending attitudes, missed appointments, and poor office communication — though a meaningful minority of reviews praise specific technicians like Jay, Steve, Donald, Felipe, and Manuel as courteous and prompt. Project completion is similarly split: several reviews describe abandoned work, unresolved leaks, flooding caused by technician error, and installation of lower-quality replacement parts, while positive reviews describe thorough, efficient repairs. Experience scores moderately, with some reviewers praising skilled problem-solving and others citing poor workmanship such as a faulty wax seal, missing bypass valves, and incorrect water heater replacements. Pricing is the strongest dimension, with multiple reviewers explicitly calling rates fair, reasonable, or better than competitors, though one review noted a significantly downgraded replacement product was installed without consent.

• 11 reviews contain no text whatsoever — only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence.
• Several 5-star reviews consist of only a single generic sentence or emoji (e.g., 'Quality work!', '👍👍👍👍', '100% service...and 100% staff!!!') with no specific details. These are low-information and were treated with reduced evidentiary weight.
• Two reviews appear to be near-identical duplicates: the Jay shower control review dated 2015-06-12 and 2015-01-16 share identical text word-for-word, suggesting a possible duplicate submission or fake review padding.
• A cluster of 1-star reviews dated 2024-06-09 (three reviews on the same date) and 2023-06-10 (three reviews on the same date) may indicate coordinated negative review activity, though the content of each is distinct enough to treat as separate incidents.
• Many positive reviews are from 2012–2015 and may reflect a different era of company management or staffing. The more recent reviews (2020–2025) skew significantly more negative, suggesting possible decline in service quality over time.
• Recency weighting applied: reviews from 2020 onward were given higher weight. The 2020–2025 window contains a disproportionate number of 1-star reviews with substantive complaints, which meaningfully suppressed scores.

This WW Score is based on a large and diverse review set spanning many years, giving it reasonable statistical reliability, but the strong recency trend toward negative reviews and the presence of low-information 5-star reviews mean the score likely overstates historical performance — prospective customers should weight the 2020–2025 reviews most heavily.

Both reviews explicitly praise professionalism (Jacob described as 'very professional,' team noted as 'very responsive' with same-day service) and project completion (drain issues fully resolved, pipe left 'brand new'). Technical skill is evident from use of drain camera and jetting equipment with effective results. However, the sample size is critically small (only 2 reviews), pricing is never mentioned, and no negative feedback or challenges are documented. A WW Score cannot be reliably calculated with fewer than 3 reviews.

• Insufficient review volume (n=2) — WW Score calculation requires minimum 3 reviews for reliability
• No pricing data mentioned in any review — cannot assess Price Friendly dimension
• Both reviews are 5-star with positive language; no critical feedback or challenges documented
• Recent reviews only (May and October 2024); no historical data to assess consistency over time

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. With only 2 reviews and no pricing information, this assessment is too limited to produce a trustworthy overall score. Recommend collecting at least 5-10 additional reviews before generating a formal WW Score.