Find Nearby Plumbers In San Jose, California

Prestige Plumbing has a large and predominantly positive review base spanning many years, with recurring praise for responsiveness, punctuality, technical skill, and fair pricing across dozens of detailed reviews. However, a meaningful cluster of negative reviews — including serious allegations of price gouging, bait-and-switch pricing, no-shows, abandoned jobs, rude behavior, and poor workmanship — significantly tempers the overall score. Pricing in particular is a split dimension: many customers praised affordability and transparency, while several others explicitly described being charged double quoted amounts, overcharged for unrendered services, or pressured into expensive unnecessary work. Project completion is similarly mixed, with multiple reviews describing technicians who failed to return to finish jobs, ghosted customers after quoting, or left work incomplete. The experience dimension scores highest, as the majority of detailed reviews affirm genuine technical competence, but a handful of reviews describe incorrect diagnoses, faulty repairs, and property damage during work.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: Multiple reviews appear to be exact or near-exact duplicates posted on the same or adjacent dates (e.g., two identical 'Poor quality of work' reviews on 2024-08-22, two identical 'Chico and crew did amazing work' reviews on 2023-01-16 and 2023-01-17, two identical 'Nick was great to deal with' reviews on 2024-05-29, two identical 'Very good job with good workmanshif' reviews on 2024-05-31, two identical 'Did excellent job' reviews on 2024-05-30, two identical 'Everything was fine' reviews on 2024-06-05, two identical 'So professional' reviews on 2024-06-03, two identical 'The plumber did a good job' reviews on 2024-07-22, two identical 'I spoke with Nick' reviews on 2024-08-04, two identical 'I had a great experience with Prestige Plumbing, thanks to Chico' reviews on 2024-09-03 and 2024-09-12, and two identical 'Shout out to Scott' reviews on 2023-12-01). These duplicates inflate the positive review count and reduce reliability.
• FAKE REVIEW PATTERN SUSPECTED: A large cluster of reviews dated exactly 2025-05-10 and 2025-06-02 through 2025-06-08 contain very short, generic, low-detail praise (e.g., 'LUIS IS THE BEST', 'Amazing Work by Luis great service', 'A good job y professional', 'Thank you Christian Correa!'). Several of these contain no substantive detail about the job performed, which is consistent with solicited or incentivized review patterns. Confidence in this recent cluster is reduced.
• BLANK REVIEWS: At least 5 reviews contain no text at all (only a 5-star rating). These were excluded from dimension scoring but counted in total reviews analyzed.
• SERIOUS NEGATIVE ALLEGATIONS: Multiple 1-star reviews allege bait-and-switch pricing (quoted $450, charged $3,550+), double-charging after seeing a veteran's license plate, charging for services not rendered, no-shows on multiple scheduled appointments, ghosting customers after quoting, a technician who refused to complete work and left a mess, and a plumber who called a customer's husband a liar and treated a woman disrespectfully. These are not isolated incidents and span multiple years.
• ROAD CONDUCT COMPLAINTS: At least 3 separate reviews (2020, 2024, 2024) describe reckless or aggressive driving behavior by company vehicle operators, including speeding at 90mph with unsecured loads, cutting lanes, and road rage incidents. While not directly related to plumbing quality, these reflect on company culture and employee conduct.
• MULTI-ENTITY CONCERN: Reviews reference many different named technicians and locations (Hawaii, Florida, California, North Carolina), suggesting this may be a franchise, aggregated listing, or name-shared business rather than a single contractor. Scores should be interpreted with caution as they may reflect multiple distinct operations under one brand name.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent reviews (May-June 2025) are disproportionately short and generic, while the most detailed and credible reviews — both positive and negative — span 2019 through 2024. The 2025 cluster shows hallmarks of a review solicitation campaign and should be weighted lower.

This WW Score carries moderate-to-high data confidence due to the large review volume, but the score itself should be treated with caution given confirmed duplicate reviews, a suspected solicited-review campaign in the most recent period, serious and recurring negative allegations across multiple years, and strong evidence that this listing may aggregate reviews from multiple distinct business entities operating under the same name.

A&A Plumbing has a strong base of loyal, long-term customers who consistently praise individual technicians — particularly Rosendo, Dave, Larry, Germaine, and Mike — for technical skill, problem-solving ability, and courteous demeanor, which drives a solid experience score. However, professionalism is meaningfully dragged down by a recurring and well-documented pattern of no-shows, missed appointments, unreturned calls, and poor front-office responsiveness, appearing across multiple independent reviews spanning 2013 through 2024. Pricing is the weakest dimension: while many reviewers found costs fair or reasonable, a significant minority reported feeling overcharged, encountering arbitrary flat-rate billing, or receiving quotes far above market rate — including one reviewer charged $252 for a five-minute p-trap replacement and another quoted $350 for a faucet install versus a $110 market rate. Project completion scores moderately well when technicians do show up, with most jobs completed fully and a one-year warranty honored in several cases, but the no-show and scheduling failure pattern directly undermines this dimension. The overall score reflects a contractor with genuine technical strengths but serious and persistent operational reliability problems that have cost them customers and trust over many years.

• SCHEDULING AND RESPONSIVENESS PATTERN: At least 10 independent reviews across multiple years (2013–2024) explicitly describe no-shows, missed appointments without notification, unreturned voicemails, and difficulty reaching the office. This is a systemic operational issue, not isolated incidents.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS: Multiple reviews (2016–2021) describe pricing that felt arbitrary, disproportionate to work performed, or significantly above market rate. One reviewer was charged $252 for a p-trap replacement taking under 5 minutes; another was quoted $350 for a faucet install vs. a $110 market rate; a third paid $377 total for a drain unclog and p-trap. One reviewer alleged pricing changed mid-job and felt threatened when questioning the bill.
• BLANK REVIEWS: 7 reviews contained no text whatsoever (only a star rating). These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence per scoring rules.
• GENERIC SHORT REVIEWS: Several reviews contain only 1–2 sentences with no specifics (e.g., 'Fast and reliable.', 'Very professional and polite.', 'no problems', 'unknown'). These were counted only where they clearly supported a dimension but weighted conservatively.
• POSSIBLE DUPLICATE REVIEW: The review text 'Great company and knowledgeable staff! On time, very efficient and explained every step of the process in full detail. The charges were very fair and reasonable as well. Highly recommend' appears verbatim twice (2021-07-01 and 2022-06-10) from what appear to be different submissions. This may indicate a copied or fake review and was counted only once for scoring purposes.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews are older than 12 months, with the bulk of content spanning 2010–2022. Only a handful of reviews are from the past 12 months (mid-2023 to mid-2024). The most recent negative review (2024-06-09) specifically states the contractor 'lost his touch' over the past year, suggesting possible quality decline. Recent data is limited and should be treated with caution.
• ONE REVIEW (2016-04-24) APPEARS TO DESCRIBE A DIFFERENT CONTRACTOR: The review references 'Carlos' as a 'lone proprietor' operating in the Baltimore/Baltimore County area, which is geographically inconsistent with A&A Plumbing in Sunnyvale, CA. This review may have been posted to the wrong business listing and was excluded from scoring.
• IDENTITY INCONSISTENCY: Reviews reference multiple owner names including 'Mike Fox,' 'Mike Gogos,' and 'Carlos,' and reference locations including Sunnyvale CA, Palo Alto CA, Medford MA, Somerville MA, and Baltimore MD. This suggests the review pool may aggregate listings from more than one business operating under similar names, which reduces the reliability of the aggregate score.

This WW Score carries HIGH volume confidence due to the large number of reviews, but its reliability is moderately reduced by evidence of possible cross-business review aggregation, at least one confirmed duplicate review, seven blank reviews, geographic inconsistencies across listings, and a persistent multi-year pattern of scheduling failures that suggests the score may overstate operational dependability.

Rayne Plumbing demonstrates strong individual technician performance, with Robert, Jorge, Jesus, Aaron, and Carlos receiving repeated praise for skill, friendliness, and thoroughness across many reviews. However, a meaningful cluster of 1-star reviews — spanning multiple years — reveals persistent systemic issues including no-shows, missed callbacks, scheduling failures, and disputes over incomplete or inadequate work, which significantly temper the overall score. Pricing drew mixed signals: several reviewers praised affordability and transparency, while others flagged surprise charges, billing for travel to purchase parts, and fees for return visits to fix original work. Project completion is the most penalized dimension, with multiple reviews explicitly describing jobs that were not resolved on the first visit, warranty disputes, and in one case a multi-week cancellation pattern. The high volume of blank or near-blank 5-star reviews with no text also raises a fake review concern that reduces confidence in the raw star average.

• FAKE REVIEW CONCERN: At least 15 reviews consist of blank text with only a 5-star rating (dates clustered around 2020-06-09 and 2022-06-09). These provide no usable data and inflate the star average artificially. They have been excluded from dimension scoring.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The review praising Greg for a water heater rupture at 2am appears verbatim twice (2023-06-09 and 2022-07-26), suggesting a copy-paste duplicate or platform artifact.
• SCHEDULING/FOLLOW-THROUGH PATTERN: Multiple independent 1-star reviews (2019-06-10, 2019-06-12, 2016-03-10, 2022-06-09, 2024-09-23) describe no-shows, missed callbacks, and broken scheduling commitments — indicating a recurring operational weakness not isolated to one incident.
• BILLING TRANSPARENCY CONCERN: Several reviews flag unexpected charges including surprise trip fees, double-billing for return visits to fix original work, and charging for time spent purchasing parts off-site. One reviewer was charged $1,700+ in labor with $63 in materials.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of substantive reviews are from 2022–2025 and carry full weight. Reviews from 2015–2018 are present but given reduced weight. The 2008 review was noted but minimally weighted.
• OFFICE VS. FIELD DISCREPANCY: Multiple reviews explicitly distinguish between excellent field technicians and poor office/scheduling performance, suggesting a structural gap between service delivery and operations management.

This WW Score is based on a large and diverse review set with HIGH confidence across all four dimensions; however, the score should be interpreted cautiously given the presence of blank fake-pattern reviews inflating raw ratings, a documented recurring pattern of scheduling failures, and billing transparency complaints that suggest the company's quality is highly dependent on which technician is assigned.

The review corpus is sharply divided: a strong majority of positive reviews praise individual technicians — particularly Brian, Sergio, Martin, Angel, Charles, and Luis — for punctuality, friendliness, and competent drain clearing. However, a significant and credible cluster of negative reviews (roughly 20 out of 79) describes serious concerns including unauthorized or surprise credit card charges, billing disputes sent to collections years after service, rude and threatening office staff, missed appointments, and at least one instance of workmanship that caused downstream water damage. Pricing is a particular weak point: while many reviewers call fees reasonable, multiple reviewers describe mid-job price increases, double-charges, and billing for services not rendered. Project completion is dragged down by reviews citing incomplete work, a toilet installed that would not flush, a proposal that was never delivered, and a no-show after a three-hour wait. The field technicians consistently outperform the company's administrative and ownership layer, which is a recurring and credible pattern across many independent reviews.

• BILLING AND FRAUD CONCERNS: Multiple independent reviewers (at least 5) describe unauthorized or unexpected credit card charges, double-billing, invoices sent years after service with collection threats, and one reviewer alleging recurring monthly charges of $165 unrelated to their service. This is a serious pattern that materially reduces trust in the company's financial practices.
• RUDE/THREATENING OFFICE STAFF: At least 6 reviews explicitly describe office or management staff as rude, dismissive, threatening with collections, or hanging up on customers. This is a consistent and credible pattern distinct from field technician performance.
• WORKMANSHIP FAILURES: At least 3 reviews describe concrete workmanship failures — a toilet installed that would not flush, a pipe repair followed by significant water damage hours later, and a faucet replacement that leaked repeatedly due to unsoldered joints. These are not vague complaints and reduce the experience score.
• PUNCTUALITY INCONSISTENCY: While many reviews praise on-time arrival, at least 4 reviews describe technicians arriving 2–4 hours late or not showing up at all, indicating inconsistent scheduling reliability.
• PRICE TRANSPARENCY ISSUES: Multiple reviews describe quotes that changed mid-job, charges higher than agreed upon, or fees for services not completed. This significantly undermines the pricing dimension.
• NO FAKE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: Positive reviews vary in detail, mention different technicians by name, describe specific jobs and outcomes, and span multiple years. No strong evidence of coordinated fake reviews, though the volume of generic 5-star reviews with minimal detail warrants mild caution.
• RECENCY NOTE: All 79 reviews fall within the analysis window (2021–2024), with the majority (approximately 60+) dated within the past 12 months (late 2023–2024). The negative billing and conduct complaints are concentrated in 2023–2024, suggesting these issues may be worsening over time rather than improving.

This WW Score of 72.1 is based on a large, diverse, and recent review set and carries HIGH confidence, but should be interpreted with caution given the credible and recurring pattern of billing disputes, aggressive collections practices, and rude office conduct that meaningfully offsets the strong field technician performance.

Able Plumbing has a large and genuinely mixed review record spanning nearly two decades. On the positive side, individual technicians — particularly Evan, Konrad, Albert, and Jordan — are repeatedly praised for skill, thoroughness, friendliness, and going above and beyond, which drives the experience score upward. Professionalism scores are pulled down significantly by a recurring pattern of office staff failures: missed callbacks, broken scheduling commitments, and in several cases outright rude or combative behavior from both staff and the owner Glen. Pricing is the weakest dimension, with multiple reviewers explicitly calling out hidden charges, inflated hourly billing, overcharging for parts, and quotes far above competitors — though a handful of reviewers found pricing fair or even lower than expected. Project completion is mixed: many jobs were resolved efficiently and on the same day, but there are credible accounts of abandoned work, no-shows, faulty repairs that created new problems, and failure to follow through on estimates and callbacks.

• SUSPECTED FAKE OR INCENTIVIZED REVIEWS: There is a notable cluster of reviews praising 'Evan' in near-identical terms across 2019 (approximately 12–15 reviews). Phrases like 'If there were more stars to add I would' appear verbatim in two separate reviews. Multiple Evan reviews are generic in structure, lack specific job details, and read as templated praise. This pattern is consistent with either coordinated fake reviews or a staff incentive campaign. Evan-specific scores have been weighted conservatively as a result.
• RECENCY NOTE: The review set spans from 2006 to 2024. Reviews older than 2 years (pre-2023) have been given reduced weight. The most recent reviews (2023–2024) are mixed, with strong positive experiences alongside a notable 1-star review citing abandonment of work from years prior and a 1-star citing hidden charges in January 2023.
• OWNER CONDUCT FLAG: Multiple independent reviews across different years describe the owner Glen as combative, rude, or retaliatory (threatening liens, hanging up on customers, labeling complainers in a file). This is a meaningful and recurring signal, not an isolated incident.
• OFFICE STAFF PATTERN: At least 5 independent reviews across multiple years cite the office/phone staff as unresponsive, failing to return calls as promised, or being rude. This is a systemic issue reflected in the professionalism score.
• WORKMANSHIP CONCERN: One detailed 1-star review (2018) credibly documents that Able's prior repair work caused new clogs due to improper pipe angling, and that a subsequent plumber confirmed and corrected Able's errors. This is factored into the experience score.

This WW Score is based on a large review set (75 reviews) with HIGH mention counts across all four dimensions, making it statistically meaningful, but confidence is moderated by a suspected fake review cluster around one technician, a wide date range spanning 18 years, and a clear systemic pattern of office and ownership conduct issues that recurs independently across many reviewers.

A.B.E. Plumbing has a strong base of loyal, long-term customers who consistently praise responsiveness, punctuality, and technical competence across a wide range of plumbing jobs. However, a recurring and serious pattern of rude, dismissive, and even aggressive behavior from the owner Van Tran — including hanging up on customers, yelling at them for asking basic pricing questions, and showing up uninvited — significantly drags down the professionalism and pricing scores. Pricing transparency is a notable weak point, with multiple negative reviews citing hidden charges, dramatically escalating quotes mid-job, and refusal to provide upfront pricing. Project completion is the strongest dimension, as the majority of jobs described were finished successfully and in a timely manner, though one review documents an abandoned callback situation involving a faulty installation. The overall picture is a technically capable operation undermined by inconsistent and sometimes hostile customer-facing behavior.

• RECURRING CONDUCT PATTERN: At least 6 independent reviews (2017–2022) describe the owner Van Tran yelling at customers, hanging up on them, or behaving rudely when asked basic questions about pricing or scheduling. This is a systemic behavioral concern, not isolated incidents.
• PRICING TRANSPARENCY CONCERN: Multiple negative reviews describe quotes that changed significantly mid-job without clear explanation, and one review documents a bill nearly quadrupling from the original quote ($200 to $800) with no prior communication.
• ABANDONED CALLBACK: One review (2022-05-24) describes ABE refusing to service a water heater they had previously installed due to a bad installation location, with the owner hanging up on the customer. This is a serious project completion and accountability concern.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent negative reviews date from 2020–2022. The most recent reviews (2023–2024) are all positive. It is unclear whether conduct has genuinely improved or whether dissatisfied customers have stopped leaving reviews. Positive trend noted but not confirmed.
• REVIEW SPREAD: Reviews span 2013–2024. Reviews older than 3 years (pre-2022) were given reduced weight in scoring given the potential for business practices to have changed.
• NO FAKE REVIEW FLAG: No strong evidence of fake reviews detected. Reviews contain specific names, job details, dates, and a realistic mix of positive and negative sentiment. Language varies sufficiently across reviews.

This WW Score is based on 38 reviews spanning 11 years with HIGH mention counts across all four dimensions, making it statistically reliable; however, the score should be interpreted cautiously given the serious and repeated conduct complaints about the owner that appear across multiple independent reviewers and time periods.