Find Nearby Plumbers In Pomona, California

Courtesy Plumbing earns strong marks across professionalism, project completion, and technical experience, with an enormous volume of reviews consistently praising punctuality, communication, friendliness, and thorough workmanship from named technicians like Lou, Jack, Jason, Sami, Aaron, Richard, and others. Project completion scores are high, with the vast majority of reviewers confirming jobs were finished correctly, on time, and with proper cleanup, though a small number of reviews describe abandoned follow-through, missed appointments, or work that required callbacks. The pricing dimension is the most contested dimension in the entire review set, with a meaningful cluster of negative reviews explicitly citing overcharging, hidden fees, price inflation, and quotes far above competitors — this materially drags the pricing score down from what would otherwise be a higher overall result. Negative reviews (1-star) account for roughly 8-10% of the total corpus and are specific enough in their complaints (late arrivals, excessive billing, incomplete diagnosis, poor communication on follow-up) to be treated as credible rather than outliers. The WW Score of 79.4 reflects a genuinely strong but imperfect contractor with a well-documented pricing inconsistency problem.

• PRICING CONCERN — HIGH FREQUENCY: A statistically significant number of reviews (approximately 12-15 distinct reviews) explicitly describe pricing as excessive, inconsistent, or containing hidden fees. Complaints include quotes of $850-$900 for jobs completed by others for $300-$450, a $6,800 tankless water heater quote vs. a $2,000 competitor price, $575 for a faucet replacement vs. $260 elsewhere, and $400/hr effective labor rates. This is not a fringe complaint and materially affects the pricing score.
• BLANK REVIEWS — DATA QUALITY: Approximately 20-25 reviews consist of a star rating only with no review text. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence per scoring rules. All were 5-star ratings, which slightly inflates the raw star average but cannot be used to support any dimension score.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews with substantive text span 2013 to June 2025. Reviews from 2020 onward dominate the corpus and were weighted more heavily. Older reviews (pre-2018) were noted but given reduced weight. The most recent reviews (2025) continue to reflect the same patterns as the broader corpus.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW FLAG — LOW CONFIDENCE: One review dated 2024-07-29 (1-star) uses highly generic complaint language covering every possible failure mode simultaneously (late, unskilled, overcharged, unresponsive) with no specific technician name, job type, or verifiable detail. This review pattern is consistent with a fabricated negative review. It was included in scoring but flagged for reduced weight.
• ABANDONED WORK / FOLLOW-THROUGH FAILURES: Multiple 1-star reviews describe specific failures of follow-through — a technician who agreed to a job then never called back over 3 weeks (Dec 2023), a missed appointment with no notice (Oct 2015), a job accepted that the company lacked equipment to complete (Dec 2023 Scottsdale review), and a billing dispute where the owner was unresponsive. These are credible and specific and were factored into the project completion score.
• GEOGRAPHIC SCOPE NOTE: A small number of reviews appear to reference locations outside San Diego (Aurora IL, Scottsdale AZ, Naperville IL, Covina CA, Rancho Cucamonga CA, Phoenix AZ). It is unclear if this is one company with multiple locations or review aggregation across similarly named businesses. Scores were calculated across all reviews as provided but this geographic ambiguity is flagged as a potential data integrity issue.

This WW Score is based on a very large review corpus (295 reviews) with HIGH confidence across all four dimensions, making it one of the more statistically reliable assessments possible — however, the persistent and specific pricing complaints from credible reviewers introduce meaningful uncertainty around the pricing dimension specifically, and prospective customers should request itemized written quotes before authorizing any work.

Muzila Plumbing has an extensive and largely positive review history spanning from 2012 to 2023, with Steve consistently praised for honesty, technical knowledge, fair pricing, and quality workmanship across a wide variety of jobs including repiping, water softener installation, tankless water heaters, slab leaks, and gas line work. Professionalism scores are strong but tempered by a recurring and notable pattern of communication failures — multiple reviewers (1-star reviews in 2014, 2015, 2020, and 2023) explicitly report unanswered calls, unreturned voicemails, and a complete inability to reach the business, which is a significant and consistent negative signal. Project completion scores are high when work is actually performed, with many reviewers noting jobs finished on time, callbacks honored, and follow-up visits made; however, the 2020 review describing ongoing gas and water leaks from a prior install with no resolution, combined with the 2023 review suggesting the business may no longer be operating, introduces meaningful concern about current reliability. Pricing is one of the strongest dimensions, with dozens of reviewers explicitly noting Steve beat competitor quotes, charged less than expected, and never upsold unnecessary work. Experience and workmanship are consistently praised across complex jobs, but the score is modestly capped due to the 2020 callback issue involving a faulty prior installation.

• COMMUNICATION FAILURE PATTERN: At least 5 separate reviews (2014, 2015, 2020, 2023, and one 5-star review in 2017 noting slow response) explicitly report unanswered calls, unreturned voicemails, or inability to schedule — this is a consistent and serious operational weakness that directly impacts professionalism and project completion scores.
• POSSIBLE BUSINESS CLOSURE OR INACTIVITY: The most recent review (December 2023) states the business does not accept calls or texts and suggests it may no longer be operating. This is a critical flag — the WW Score may not reflect current service availability.
• RECENCY CONCERN: The overwhelming majority of positive reviews are from 2012–2019. Only 3 reviews exist from 2020 onward, two of which are 1-star. The positive review base is largely 4–11 years old and may not reflect current business performance.
• WORKMANSHIP CALLBACK CONCERN: A 2020 reviewer reported that a tankless water heater installed by Steve developed both water and gas leaks, and that Steve was unresponsive about scheduling a repair. This raises a quality assurance concern for long-term installations.
• NO FAKE REVIEW PATTERNS DETECTED: Reviews vary significantly in length, detail, specificity, and tone. Multiple reviewers describe unique job types, named crew members (Jaime, Alex, Rob, Javier), and specific dollar amounts. No coordinated fake review activity suspected.
• SCORE RELIABILITY WARNING: Given the strong evidence of business inactivity or closure as of late 2023, this WW Score should be treated as a historical performance record only. Prospective customers should independently verify whether Muzila Plumbing is currently operational before relying on this score.

This WW Score is based on a large and detailed review dataset spanning over a decade and carries HIGH statistical confidence for the historical period covered; however, the score's practical reliability for current hiring decisions is significantly undermined by strong evidence that the business may no longer be actively operating as of late 2023, and prospective customers should verify current business status before engagement.

Mr. Rooter of Pomona performs strongly on professionalism, with numerous reviewers explicitly praising individual technicians as friendly, courteous, respectful, and communicative. Project completion scores well overall, with most reviewers confirming their issues were resolved, same-day or next-day service was honored, and crews followed through on commitments — however, two serious negative reviews describe abandoned or mishandled work, including a situation where the main water line was allegedly left non-functional and a job described as incompetent, which meaningfully pulls the completion score down. Pricing is the weakest dimension: multiple reviewers independently flagged costs as high or pricey, and one reviewer explicitly described a bait-and-switch tactic involving an advertised $89 price that became $300 on arrival, which is a significant red flag. Experience scores moderately well, with several reviewers noting knowledgeable, skilled technicians who diagnosed and solved complex problems, though the negative reviews introduce doubt about consistency.

• PRICING CONCERN: One reviewer explicitly described a bait-and-switch tactic — advertised $89 service became a $300 charge on arrival. This is a serious consumer protection concern and significantly lowers the pricing score.
• ABANDONED WORK FLAG: One reviewer reported that technicians shut off the main water line, claimed they could not fix the issue, quoted $23,000 for repiping, and then allegedly broke the shutoff valve — leaving the home without water. This is a major project completion red flag.
• CREDIBILITY CONCERN: One reviewer alleged the company deleted their original negative review and threatened to repost daily. If accurate, this suggests possible review manipulation, which may mean the overall review pool skews more positive than reality.
• BLANK REVIEWS: 11 of 46 reviews contained no text — only a star rating (all 5 stars). These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data. A high proportion of blank 5-star reviews is a mild fake review signal.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews with substantive content are from 2024–2025 and are within the past 12 months, which is positive for reliability. A small number of reviews date to 2022–2023 and were given reduced weight.
• GENERIC PRAISE PATTERN: Several short reviews ('Great service', 'Good services', 'The guys were terrific') lack specifics. While not conclusive, combined with the blank 5-star reviews, this mildly suggests some reviews may be low-effort or inauthentic.

This WW Score is based on a reasonably large review set with good recency, but reliability is moderately reduced due to 11 blank reviews, one credible allegation of review deletion, one bait-and-switch pricing complaint, and one serious abandoned-work incident — consumers should weigh these flags carefully before hiring.

Miguel receives strong praise across all four dimensions, with pricing being a particular standout — multiple reviewers explicitly noted his fairness and transparency compared to competitors, and no hidden charges were reported. Professionalism scores are pulled down meaningfully by three credible negative reviews: two citing failure to return calls and one citing a no-show followed by hanging up on the customer, which are serious responsiveness failures. Project completion is generally solid, with reviewers noting jobs finished on time and a guarantee offered, but one reviewer reported a leaking drain installation that Miguel subsequently failed to respond to, which is a significant follow-through failure. Experience and workmanship are consistently praised across a wide range of jobs including complex repairs, and no reviewer questioned his technical ability.

• Three negative reviews (1-star and 1 two-star) cite non-responsiveness or no-show behavior — these are credible and specific complaints that meaningfully reduce professionalism and project completion scores.
• One reviewer reported a post-job defect (leaking drain) that Miguel did not respond to despite multiple contact attempts — this is a serious project completion concern.
• Several undated reviews cannot be assessed for recency. A significant portion of reviews lack dates, which limits the ability to assess whether service quality has improved or declined over time.
• The two 1-star reviews from 2016-11-08 share the same date and describe the same issue (no callback), which may represent the same customer submitting twice or two separate incidents on the same day. This does not appear to be fake but warrants note.
• Most dated reviews are from 2016–2023, with only two reviews from 2022–2023. The most recent dated reviews are from early 2023, meaning current service quality cannot be fully confirmed.
• No strong fake review patterns detected. Reviews vary in length, specificity, and tone. Negative reviews are present, which increases overall credibility.

This WW Score is based on a reasonably large review set with good dimensional coverage and credible negative reviews present, making it a moderately reliable representation of Miguel's service quality, though the high volume of undated reviews and recurring responsiveness complaints introduce meaningful uncertainty.

Andersen Commercial Plumbing receives consistently strong marks for professionalism and technical experience across the majority of reviews, with multiple reviewers praising named technicians for their thoroughness, communication, and skill on complex commercial jobs. Project completion scores well overall, with most reviewers confirming work was finished promptly and correctly, including emergency and after-hours calls. However, pricing is a significant drag on the overall score: one detailed 1-star review describes feeling severely overcharged ($553 for a basic auger job) with itemized billing that included driving time, and the company's service manager reportedly stood by the pricing without concession. The 1-star review alleging property damage worth hundreds of thousands of dollars and inappropriate behavior by workers is a serious flag that meaningfully pulls down professionalism and project completion scores, even though it is older and unverified. One generic 5-star review from 2015 with no specifics contributes little usable signal.

• One 1-star review (2021) alleges significant property damage caused by workers and describes inappropriate behavior toward women on-site. This is a serious allegation. It is unverified and unresponded to in the review data, but it cannot be dismissed and has been factored into professionalism and project completion scores.
• One 1-star review (2018) provides detailed, credible evidence of exorbitant pricing including a $553 charge for a basic toilet snake, a $173.25/hr rate including drive time, and a $60 truck charge on top of an emergency fee. The company's service manager reportedly refused to adjust. This significantly lowers the pricing score.
• One review (2015, 5-star) is entirely generic — 'Best commercial plumbing company!!!! With great workers and great attitude!!' — with no specifics, no named technician, and no described work. This review was treated as low-signal and largely excluded from scoring.
• Several reviews are older than 3 years (2015, 2016, 2018, 2019, 2020), with only 3 reviews from the past 24 months (2023–2024). Recency weighting was applied; older reviews carry reduced influence on current score reliability.
• No clear fake review pattern detected beyond the one generic 2015 review. The majority of positive reviews name specific technicians and describe specific jobs, which is a positive authenticity signal.

This WW Score is based on 15 reviews spanning nearly a decade, with reasonable mention counts across all four dimensions and strong authenticity signals in most reviews; however, the presence of two serious negative reviews — one alleging property damage and misconduct, one documenting pricing abuse — and the limited recency of the dataset mean this score should be treated as a moderate-confidence estimate of current service quality.

American Leak Detection receives consistently strong praise for individual technician professionalism, punctuality, communication, and attitude — the majority of positive reviews highlight friendly, courteous, and knowledgeable technicians by name. However, a substantial and recurring pattern of negative reviews significantly drags down the pricing and project completion dimensions: numerous customers report being charged hundreds to over a thousand dollars for failed or inaccurate leak detection, incorrect leak location markings that led to costly unnecessary excavation, and refusal to honor warranties or return without additional charges. The experience dimension is mixed — while many technicians demonstrate impressive diagnostic skill, a meaningful minority of reviews describe technicians who failed to find leaks that competitors located quickly, used outdated methods, or caused property damage. Pricing complaints are pervasive, with customers frequently describing the service as overpriced relative to results delivered, and several noting hidden or unexpected charges. The overall score reflects a company with genuinely skilled and professional staff in many locations, undermined by serious and repeated failures in leak detection accuracy, warranty follow-through, and pricing transparency.

• DUPLICATE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: Multiple reviews from June 2025 (dates 2025-06-04 through 2025-06-09) contain identical or near-identical text repeated across different dates — e.g., 'On time got the job done' appears twice, 'Chris got right to work and diagnosed the points of the leak quickly' appears twice, 'Very professional and thorough' appears twice, 'Pool kept going down way too fast...' appears twice, 'Etienne Hogue from American Leak Detection is a master of his trade...' appears twice, 'Matt was very thorough and friendly...' appears twice, 'I'm so impressed with the work performed by Casey...' appears twice, 'Appreciate the detectives who found the source of my ceiling leak...' appears twice, 'Matt was great. Arrived on time...' appears twice, 'Christian Lopez did a fantastic job...' appears twice. These are highly suspicious and likely fake or artificially inflated reviews. Confidence in the most recent review cluster is reduced accordingly.
• FRANCHISE INCONSISTENCY: This appears to be a national franchise with many independently operated regional offices. Review quality, technician skill, and customer service vary dramatically by location. Scores reflect the aggregate across all branches and may not represent any single local office accurately.
• RECURRING COMPLAINT PATTERN — FAILED DETECTION: A statistically significant number of negative reviews (estimated 60+ reviews) describe the same failure mode: ALD charges full price for leak detection but fails to locate the leak, marks the wrong location leading to costly unnecessary excavation by plumbers, and then refuses to refund or return without additional charges. This is not isolated to one branch.
• RECURRING COMPLAINT PATTERN — WARRANTY REFUSAL: Multiple reviews across different locations and years describe ALD refusing to honor stated warranties, citing expired 30-day windows, claiming a 'different leak' was found, or demanding additional payment to return after failed repairs.
• RECURRING COMPLAINT PATTERN — PRICING OPACITY: Multiple reviews describe being charged full rates ($300–$795+) for very short visits (10–30 minutes), being charged when no leak was found, and not being informed of pricing structure upfront. One review notes a contractor's license listed as 'inactive' with no liability insurance as of late 2022.
• PROPERTY DAMAGE COMPLAINTS: Several reviews describe technicians causing property damage (holes in walls, broken pipes, damaged flooring, dirty linens used as mops) with the company refusing to take responsibility.
• BLANK REVIEWS EXCLUDED FROM SCORING: Approximately 88 reviews contained no text and only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring but counted in total reviews analyzed.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent reviews (May–June 2025) are heavily dominated by 5-star ratings, many of which are duplicates or very brief. The longer, more detailed negative reviews span 2012–2025 and represent a consistent longitudinal pattern of service failures.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large volume of reviews, but the score itself should be interpreted cautiously — the aggregate masks extreme variance between regional franchise offices, a documented pattern of fake or duplicated recent reviews inflates the positive signal, and the recurring nature of serious complaints about failed detection, warranty refusal, and pricing practices suggests systemic issues that a blended score cannot fully capture.