Find Nearby Plumbers In Washington, District Of Columbia

Stevens Plumbing demonstrates solid technical competence and generally professional field technicians, with many customers praising specific plumbers like Alejandro, Alex, and Stan for their skill and courtesy. However, the company is significantly hampered by inconsistent customer service, pricing concerns, and follow-up issues. While professionalism scores well on individual technician interactions, office communication and responsiveness are frequently criticized. Pricing is a major weakness, with numerous complaints about high labor rates, material markups, and charges that customers felt were inflated or unjustified. Project completion suffers from scheduling delays, missed appointments, and inadequate follow-up on warranty issues, though most jobs that proceed are completed competently.

• PRICING PATTERN: Multiple reviews (at least 12) explicitly criticize pricing as excessive, with complaints about $75-$110+ hourly rates, material markups 50% above retail, and charges for diagnostic work not disclosed upfront. This is a consistent and material concern.
• CUSTOMER SERVICE INCONSISTENCY: Stark contrast between field technician quality (often 5-star) and office/management interactions (frequently 1-2 star). Phone staff described as condescending, unhelpful, rude, and even yelling at customers. This suggests systemic management issues.
• FOLLOW-UP FAILURES: Multiple reviews document failure to return calls, honor callbacks, follow up on warranty issues, and complete promised return visits. At least 8 reviews mention non-responsiveness or abandoned follow-up.
• SCHEDULING PROBLEMS: Numerous complaints about inability to schedule emergency calls, missed appointment windows, long wait times (5-10 days for emergencies), and refusal to accommodate customers despite missed windows.
• QUALITY CONTROL ISSUES: Several reviews report incomplete repairs requiring multiple visits, new leaks created during repairs, misdiagnosis of problems, and work that had to be redone by competitors.
• AGGRESSIVE BEHAVIOR: At least 3 reviews describe threatening, confrontational, or abusive behavior by field staff or management (cursing, pointing fingers, threatening customers, showing up unannounced demanding payment).
• RECENCY NOTE: Most negative reviews cluster in 2014-2023 period. Recent reviews (2024) are predominantly positive, suggesting possible recent management changes or improved operations, but historical pattern is concerning.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK - LOW: Reviews show sufficient specificity, variation in detail, and balanced criticism mixed with praise. No obvious patterns of identical phrasing or suspiciously generic language. Appears to be genuine customer feedback.

This WW Score of 72.8 should be treated with caution: while field technician competence is genuinely strong (HIGH confidence), the company's overall reliability is undermined by serious and consistent issues with pricing transparency, customer service responsiveness, and management accountability. The score reflects a company with excellent technical talent but poor operational execution and customer-facing processes. Customers should expect quality work but should negotiate pricing carefully, get everything in writing, and be prepared for communication challenges.

Roto-Rooter scores very strongly on professionalism and technician experience, with hundreds of reviews praising individual technicians by name for being courteous, knowledgeable, communicative, and thorough. Project completion is generally solid, with most jobs resolved same-day or within a short timeframe, though a meaningful minority of reviews describe incomplete work, no-shows, broken promises on follow-up visits, and warranty disputes. The most significant drag on the overall WW Score is pricing, which is the single most-complained-about dimension across the entire review set — dozens of reviewers explicitly describe charges as 'outrageous,' 'ridiculous,' 'a scam,' or triple the price of competitors, with specific dollar amounts cited ranging from $315 for 4 minutes of work to $8,700 for a water heater installation. Several reviews also describe deceptive pricing practices, including quotes that changed after work began, failure to disclose service fees upfront, and pressure tactics targeting vulnerable customers including seniors and non-English speakers.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: A significant number of reviews appear to be exact or near-exact duplicates posted on different dates (e.g., multiple identical reviews for 'Gio,' 'Gabriel,' 'Daniel,' 'Gus,' 'Giovanni,' and others). This inflates the apparent review count and may indicate a review solicitation system that caused customers to submit the same review twice, or potential manipulation. Confidence in raw review count is reduced.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Approximately 150-200 reviews contain no text and only a star rating (almost all 5-star). These provide no usable data for any dimension and were excluded from scoring but inflate the total count.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS ARE SEVERE AND SPECIFIC: Negative pricing reviews are not vague — they cite specific dollar amounts, compare to competitor prices, and describe practices such as quoting after work begins, refusing to honor coupons, and charging elderly or non-English-speaking customers without disclosure. This is a systemic pattern, not isolated incidents.
• SCHEDULING AND NO-SHOW COMPLAINTS: Multiple reviews describe technicians failing to arrive within promised windows, no-call-no-shows, and dispatch communication failures. This is a recurring pattern affecting the project completion score.
• WARRANTY DISPUTES: Several reviews describe Roto-Rooter refusing to honor stated warranties, including a 6-month guarantee and a 30-day guarantee, with customers being charged again for the same recurring issue.
• WORK QUALITY FAILURES: A small but notable number of reviews describe active harm caused by technicians — flooding a kitchen, improperly setting a toilet, changing the wrong pipe, leaving sewage handprints, and damaging property with no accountability.
• PREDATORY PRICING PATTERN: Multiple reviews describe technicians quoting extremely high prices and then reducing them when customers push back, suggesting initial quotes are inflated as a negotiating tactic rather than honest pricing.
• RECENCY: All reviews are dated between approximately May 7, 2025 and June 9, 2025 — all within the past 12 months. Recency weighting is fully applied.

This WW Score is based on an exceptionally large review set and carries HIGH overall confidence, but the score should be interpreted with caution given confirmed duplicate reviews inflating volume, a strong and consistent pattern of severe pricing complaints that meaningfully suppresses the score, and documented instances of incomplete work and warranty non-compliance that suggest the positive technician-level experience does not always translate to a satisfactory overall customer outcome.

This aggregated review set spans multiple brands and technicians operating under a shared service umbrella (4 Service Pros, Trade Pros, Home Service Pros, Service Works, Express Electric), making this a complex multi-entity dataset. Professionalism scores well on average — the majority of reviews praise punctuality, communication, and courteous technicians — but is meaningfully dragged down by a significant cluster of serious complaints including no-shows, ignored callbacks, technicians leaving jobs incomplete, and at least one alleged credit card fraud incident. Pricing is the weakest dimension: while some reviewers praise fair or competitive rates, a substantial number of reviews explicitly call out excessive charges, aggressive upselling, inflated estimates for unnecessary work, and hidden fees — including multiple instances where second-opinion companies completed the same job for a fraction of the cost. Project completion is mixed: many jobs are completed same-day and efficiently, but there are documented cases of abandoned work, failed repairs requiring return visits, warranty disputes, and at least one multi-month displacement due to alleged HVAC negligence. Experience scores relatively well, as many individual technicians are praised for diagnosing problems accurately and demonstrating strong trade knowledge, though this is offset by several cases of misdiagnosis and recommending unnecessary replacements.

• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The review praising John for fixing a GFCI kitchen outage appears verbatim twice (2025-06-09 and 2025-06-06). This is a likely fake or duplicate submission and has been discounted.
• MULTI-ENTITY DATASET: Reviews reference at least six distinct brand names (4 Service Pros, Trade Pros, Home Service Pros, Service Works, Express Electric, Snell/4 Service Pros). Scores reflect an aggregated picture across these entities and may not represent any single company accurately.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK — MODERATE: Several reviews from the 2022-06-07 and 2023-06-07 date clusters are suspiciously uniform in date, contain no review text (rating only), and include generic praise with no specifics. These blank or near-blank reviews have been excluded from scoring but inflate the raw review count.
• UPSELLING AND PRICE GOUGING PATTERN: A recurring and credible pattern exists across multiple independent reviewers describing technicians recommending unnecessary full system replacements (HVAC, water heaters, toilets) at prices 2x–10x what competitors charged. This is a significant red flag for pricing integrity.
• SERIOUS MISCONDUCT ALLEGATIONS: At least one review alleges forged signatures on work orders and repeated charges for ineffective work resulting in mold displacement. Another alleges a technician committed credit card fraud. These are unverified but materially impact trustworthiness.
• ABANDONED WORK / NO-SHOW PATTERN: Multiple reviews describe technicians failing to return after diagnosing issues, no-shows within scheduled windows, and customers left without heat or hot water for extended periods with no follow-up.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent reviews (2025) are predominantly positive and reference specific technicians (Guido Miranda, Cody Mikkola, John Newman). The most severe negative reviews are concentrated in 2020–2022. This may indicate operational improvement over time, but the volume of historical negatives is too significant to ignore.
• BLANK REVIEWS EXCLUDED: Approximately 8–10 reviews contained no text and only a star rating. These were excluded from dimensional scoring as they provide no usable evidence per scoring rules.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large review volume, but should be interpreted cautiously given the multi-entity nature of the dataset, documented patterns of upselling and pricing complaints, serious misconduct allegations, and a meaningful number of project completion failures — the score of 72.4 likely overstates quality for any single worst-performing entity within this group and understates it for the best-performing technicians.

All Plumbing has a large and long-running review history that reveals a genuinely mixed picture. Professionalism scores moderately well overall — the majority of reviewers praise courteous, communicative technicians — but a meaningful minority of reviews (roughly 20-25%) describe serious failures including no-shows without notification, rude staff, language barriers preventing communication, and outright dismissive management responses to complaints. Pricing is the weakest dimension: multiple detailed negative reviews describe charges that reviewers found significantly above market rate, inconsistent quoting, billing disputes, and instances where customers felt taken advantage of, including a vulnerable elderly customer; while many positive reviews mention fair or reasonable pricing, the volume and specificity of pricing complaints prevents a high score. Project completion is similarly split — many reviews praise efficient, same-day or next-day resolution, but a notable cluster of reviews describes incomplete work, misdiagnoses requiring a second company, abandoned jobs, and failure to follow up on callbacks. Experience scores slightly higher because the majority of reviewers who comment on technical skill are positive, with several reviews specifically praising expert diagnosis and problem-solving, though a handful of reviews describe outright incompetence or incorrect diagnoses that cost customers additional money.

• VOLUME AND SPAN WARNING: Reviews span from approximately 2009 to 2025 across what appears to be multiple distinct contractor entities or franchise locations (references to Angel Miranda in Vallejo CA, Kabir/Kewin in Arlington VA, Shaban/Apex on Thumbtack, and others). Scores may reflect an aggregated pool of different businesses operating under similar or related names rather than a single contractor. This significantly reduces the reliability of any single composite score.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — UNDATED REVIEWS: Approximately 16 reviews have no date (listed as 'None'). Several of these are suspiciously brief, generic, and uniformly 5-star with vague praise ('Super professional', 'Great experience', 'Ali is great to work with'). These undated reviews show patterns consistent with solicited or fabricated reviews and have been treated with reduced weight.
• BLANK/CONTENT-FREE REVIEWS: Approximately 10 reviews contain no text whatsoever (only a star rating). These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent dated reviews (2025) are predominantly positive and short-form, while many of the most detailed negative reviews date from 2013–2021. The score reflects the full corpus; if only 2024–2025 reviews are considered, professionalism and completion scores would be modestly higher.
• MANAGEMENT/CUSTOMER SERVICE PATTERN: Multiple independent reviews across different years describe the same pattern of rude or dismissive management responses when complaints are raised. This is a systemic flag, not isolated incidents.
• PRICING INCONSISTENCY FLAG: Several reviews describe being quoted one price and then charged significantly more upon job completion, or discovering post-service that the work was unnecessary or overpriced. This pattern appears across multiple years and locations.

This WW Score carries HIGH statistical confidence due to the large review volume, but its practical reliability is MODERATE at best because the reviews appear to span multiple distinct contractor entities or locations operating under related names, making it impossible to attribute all scores to a single business with certainty.

Brian B. Quick earns strong marks for professionalism and technical experience, with dozens of reviewers praising named technicians — particularly James, Dan, Tim, Jose, Ray, and Jamal — for being knowledgeable, courteous, thorough, and communicative. However, pricing is a significant and recurring concern: multiple independent reviewers across different years describe charges they considered outrageous (e.g., $420 to snake a drain, $500 for 20 minutes of work, quotes 3–4x higher than competitors), which substantially drags down the pricing dimension. Project completion is generally positive but is meaningfully undermined by several credible accounts of incomplete work, no-shows, rescheduling failures, and at least two cases where a paid repair did not resolve the problem and follow-up was mishandled. The overall WW Score of 72.4 reflects a company with genuine technical talent and strong customer-facing staff, offset by a persistent pattern of pricing complaints and occasional execution failures.

• PRICING PATTERN WARNING: At least 10 independent reviews across 2022–2025 explicitly describe prices as outrageous, excessive, or far above competitor quotes. This is a consistent and credible pattern, not isolated incidents.
• PROJECT COMPLETION FAILURES: Multiple reviews describe jobs left incomplete or recurring problems not resolved after payment (e.g., $2,500 repair that leaked again, sewage issue returning after $1,000+ spend, toilet running issue not fixed after service call).
• NO-SHOW / RESCHEDULING ISSUES: At least 3 reviews describe technicians not arriving within the promised window, repeated rescheduling, or being told at the end of a 3-hour window that no one was coming.
• UPSELLING CONCERNS: Several reviewers describe technicians recommending unnecessary replacements or inflating scope mid-job (e.g., garbage disposal replacement recommended without opening the cabinet, toilet ring charge added mid-installation, chimney liner job ballooning by $3,000).
• 7 REVIEWS HAD NO TEXT (rating only): These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable qualitative data.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK — LOW: The review set is large, spans multiple years, references many different named technicians, and includes a substantial number of negative reviews with specific details. This pattern is consistent with authentic reviews. No significant fake review flag raised.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews are from 2022–2025, with strong representation in 2025. Older reviews (2016–2021) skew more positive and may reflect a different operational period or team composition. Pricing complaints appear more concentrated in 2022–2024.

This WW Score is based on 113 reviews with usable content spanning 2016–2025, with HIGH confidence across all four dimensions; the score is considered reliable and reflects a genuine split between strong technical and interpersonal performance on one hand, and a documented pattern of pricing concerns and occasional completion failures on the other.

O'Neill Plumbing presents a deeply split profile across its review history. Recent reviews (2024–2025) are overwhelmingly positive, praising named technicians like Ricky, Jordan, Ozzy, Hunter, and Bobby for punctuality, friendliness, technical skill, and thorough workmanship. However, a substantial body of older reviews — and a meaningful minority of recent ones — document serious professionalism failures, including explosive temper incidents attributed to owner Shannon O'Neill, price-quoting inconsistencies (quotes not honored, unexpected charges), no-show appointments, and at least one instance of threatening behavior toward a customer. Pricing is a recurring concern across all time periods, with multiple reviewers citing hourly rates of $280–$400 and final bills significantly exceeding estimates. Project completion is generally strong when jobs are completed, but there are documented cases of abandoned work, missed callbacks, and jobs left unfinished. The experience dimension scores highest, as technical skill is rarely disputed even by dissatisfied customers.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: At least 3 sets of near-identical or word-for-word duplicate reviews were found (e.g., two identical 5-star reviews for Ricky and Tucker on 2025-05-25 and 2025-05-23; two identical 5-star reviews for Ricky and Hunter on 2025-05-25 and 2025-05-23; three identical 1-star reviews about cancellations and property damage dated 2019-10-14 and 2019-11-07). These duplicates inflate review count and may artificially skew the score. Confidence in raw review volume is reduced.
• BEHAVIORAL PATTERN — OWNER TEMPERAMENT: Multiple independent reviewers across a wide date range (2007–2023) describe the same pattern of explosive, threatening, or abusive behavior from owner Shannon O'Neill, including screaming at customers, using profanity, threatening to remove completed work, and making intimidating statements. This is a consistent and credible pattern, not isolated incidents.
• PRICING INCONSISTENCY: Multiple reviews document quotes not being honored at time of service, with final bills 50–100% above estimates. One reviewer documented a $600–700 quote becoming $1,029 after pushback. Another documented a phone quote of $450–500 becoming a written bid of $1,200 and a final bill of $1,335. This is a recurring and serious concern.
• NO-SHOW / SCHEDULING FAILURES: At least 5 independent reviews document missed appointments, no-shows without notification, or appointments with no record in the system. This is a recurring operational failure.
• RECENCY SPLIT: Reviews from 2024–2025 are almost uniformly positive and reference a consistent team of named technicians (Ricky, Jordan, Ozzy, Hunter, Bobby). Reviews from 2007–2023 are far more mixed and contain the majority of serious complaints. This may indicate genuine operational improvement, a change in staffing, or a geographic split between service areas (some reviews appear to reference a Virginia/DC-area operation while others reference Seattle). Scores are weighted toward recent reviews but older negative patterns are not ignored.
• POSSIBLE MULTI-LOCATION CONFUSION: Several reviews reference Virginia, DC, Maryland, and Alexandria locations, while the majority reference Seattle and West Seattle. It is possible that some reviews are for a different O'Neill Plumbing entity. This introduces noise into the dataset and reduces scoring precision.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — LOW LEVEL: A small number of 5-star reviews contain no specific detail (e.g., 'EXCELLENT EVERY TIME', 'unknown', blank text with 5 stars). These have been excluded from usable data counts but their presence is noted.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large review volume, but the score itself should be interpreted cautiously given documented duplicate reviews, a credible pattern of owner misconduct in older reviews, recurring pricing transparency failures, and possible multi-location data contamination — the true score for the current Seattle operation may be meaningfully higher than 72, while the historical overall picture including owner interactions warrants the conservative scoring applied here.