Find Nearby Plumbers In Albany, Oregon

Six Point Plumbing demonstrates exceptional performance across all four dimensions. Professionalism is the strongest area, with all 8 reviews explicitly praising punctuality, communication, politeness, cleanliness, and responsiveness. Project completion is consistently strong with 7 mentions of timely, thorough work and follow-through on complex jobs. Experience is well-documented across 6 reviews, with customers noting skilled workmanship, technical knowledge, and problem-solving ability—notably validated by a retired construction inspector with 40 years of industry experience. Pricing receives solid marks across 5 mentions, with customers consistently describing quotes as fair, reasonable, and transparent with no hidden charges.

• All 8 reviews are 5-star ratings with uniformly positive language and no critical feedback. While the reviews contain specific details and vary in length/content, the absence of any mixed or negative reviews is unusual and warrants caution.
• Two reviews are older than 2 years (2019 and 2022), though most recent review is from September 2024, providing some recency balance.
• The consistency of praise, while detailed and credible, could suggest selection bias (only satisfied customers reviewed) rather than fake reviews per se.

This WW Score of 89.2 is highly reliable based on 8 reviews with consistent, detailed, and specific praise across all dimensions. However, the complete absence of any critical feedback or mixed ratings suggests these may represent a self-selected pool of satisfied customers, and potential negative experiences may not be represented in this dataset.

Professionalism scores well overall, with dozens of reviews praising responsiveness, punctuality, communication, and friendly technicians across multiple companies and technicians (Ryan, DJ, Gary, James, Larry, etc.). However, several negative reviews cite rude customer service, a no-show technician, and a failure to return calls, which tempers the score. Pricing is the weakest dimension: while many reviewers praise fair or competitive pricing, a meaningful cluster of negative reviews explicitly call out overcharging, lack of pricing transparency, a $320 charge for a 17-minute job, $300 for a toilet valve, and an $8,000 multi-visit failure — these are serious and specific complaints that significantly drag the pricing score down. Project completion is generally strong, with many reviews confirming same-day or next-day completion and follow-through, but notable failures include an incomplete sewer rodding job, a plumber who never returned after a partial repair, a promised drawing never delivered, and an $8,000 multi-visit case where the root problem was never diagnosed. Experience is broadly praised — technicians are frequently described as knowledgeable, skilled, and able to solve problems others could not — though a few reviews describe incorrect diagnoses, botched installs, and a technician who could not identify a collapsing pipe after multiple visits.

• 30 reviews contain no text at all — only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence per scoring rules.
• Several reviews appear to reference entirely different companies (Kelly Plumbing & Heating, Jay's Plumbing, Plumbing Pros with multiple owner names including James, Gary, Larry, Bobby, Russ, Sal). This review set appears to aggregate reviews from multiple distinct businesses, which significantly undermines the reliability of any single composite score.
• Multiple technician and owner names appear across reviews (James, Gary, Larry, Bobby, Russ, Ryan, DJ, Danny, Colin, Mario, Mike, Dean, Taylor, Jaden, Tim, Josh, Andrew, Gustavo, Andy, Sal, Rick, Abel) — strongly suggesting these are not reviews for a single contractor.
• Review dates span from 2011 to 2025, a 14-year window. Older reviews (pre-2020) may not reflect current service quality and were down-weighted in scoring.
• One review (2013) contains a serious allegation of fraud — a $2,000 deposit taken with no work performed and refusal to return funds. This is an outlier but was factored into project completion scoring.
• One review references a plumber admitting to a drinking problem as an excuse for non-performance — flagged as a serious professionalism and reliability concern.
• The pricing dimension has a notable split: many 5-star reviews praise fair pricing while multiple 1-3 star reviews cite specific dollar amounts as excessive or deceptive. This polarization reduces confidence in a single pricing score.
• Some 5-star reviews are very brief and generic (e.g., 'great.........', 'well.job was completed', 'unknown') with no specifics — possible low-effort or filler reviews, though not definitively fake.

This WW Score has LOW-TO-MODERATE reliability as a guide to any single contractor because the review corpus almost certainly aggregates feedback from multiple distinct businesses operating under similar or shared names across different geographic regions, making it impossible to attribute scores to one specific company or service team.

Stutzman Services demonstrates strong professionalism with consistent punctuality, courteous communication, and responsive staff across 38 mentions. Project completion is solid with most jobs finished on time and follow-through honored, though some callbacks and warranty issues were noted. Experience level is high with skilled technicians delivering quality workmanship. However, pricing is a significant weakness: multiple recent reviews (2024-2025) cite aggressive rate increases (76% over 2 years), lack of upfront quotes, and complaints of overcharging for simple jobs. This pricing concern substantially reduces the overall score despite otherwise strong performance.

• PRICING VOLATILITY: Two detailed negative reviews from 2024 document 76% rate increases over 2 years, far exceeding inflation. This is a material concern for value proposition.
• FOLLOW-UP FAILURES: Multiple reviews mention lack of callback/follow-up (quote not received after 2 weeks, no response to service issues post-installation).
• QUALITY INCONSISTENCY: Several older reviews (2016-2021) describe failed repairs, incomplete work (tracer wire not installed), and post-installation service refusal despite $30k+ contracts.
• CUSTOMER SERVICE GAPS: Post-sale support appears weak; customers report difficulty getting responses to problems after payment.
• RECENCY BIAS NOTED: Most recent reviews (2025, June-Feb) are uniformly 5-star with minimal detail, while critical reviews span 2016-2024. Recent positive reviews lack specificity compared to detailed negative reviews.
• EMPTY REVIEWS: 4 reviews contain only ratings with no text, reducing data quality slightly.

This score should be trusted with HIGH confidence for professionalism and project completion dimensions, but pricing concerns are material and well-documented in recent reviews. The WW Score of 78.2 reflects strong execution but significant value-for-money issues that may not be fully captured by the weighted formula. Customers should expect professional service but should negotiate pricing carefully and request detailed upfront quotes.

American Rooter has a strong base of positive reviews praising professionalism, friendliness, and technical competence, particularly around Marvin and a few named technicians. However, the pricing dimension is meaningfully dragged down by multiple credible negative reviews citing significant overcharging — including one detailed account of a $780 toilet install, a $1,300 charge for a 20-minute putty job, and a $14,000 upsell attempt for a simple drain clog — which cannot be ignored. Project completion scores are solid overall but are tempered by a few notable failures: one customer was cancelled on the day before their appointment and rescheduled 10 days out, another had a technician return three times for a cracked toilet bowl, and one reviewer reported a problem was never resolved. Professionalism scores well on average but is pulled down by a 1-star review citing unresponsiveness and a manager who never visited the property, plus a separate complaint about Marvin failing to return calls twice. The experience dimension is the strongest, with many reviewers specifically praising technical knowledge and problem-solving ability across a wide range of jobs.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: At least 20 reviews appear to be exact or near-exact duplicates submitted on the same date with the same text and rating. These were identified and counted only once per unique review to avoid score inflation. Affected pairs include: 'Good communication, timely work' (2022-12-22), 'Very professional' (2022-08-15), the sewer line replacement review (2022-06-05), 'Very efficient and professional' (2022-05-03), 'Very professional, personable, and competitive in pricing' (2021-10-13), 'Top notch business' (2021-06-03), 'Very polite, business-like demeanor' (2019-07-24), 'Very friendly. Always kept us on top of their schedule' (2019-06-18), 'do it when its warmer weather' (2018-02-28), 'what a great company' (2018-02-01), 'They are very thorough' (2017-11-20), 'I had a 5 year faucet' (2017-11-17), 'Excellent work. They communicated' (2017-11-15), 'This company was fantastic' (2017-08-14), 'Brad and team are awesome' (2016-06-16), 'The technician, Alex, was knowledgeable' (2018-07-10), 'The only negative aspect was the cost' (2018-05-08), 'Very friendly, respectful of your home' (2015-06-19), and the detailed Pros/Cons review (2018-11-29). This pattern of duplicate submissions is a significant data quality concern and may indicate platform aggregation artifacts or review manipulation.
• PRICING CONCERNS — SERIOUS: Multiple independent negative reviews cite significant overcharging. One reviewer documented a $1,300 charge for a 20-minute job that competitors quoted at $300. Another detailed $780 for a toilet install and $230 for a camera scope that competitors charge $125 for. A third reviewer was pitched $14,000 in concrete work for a slow drain. These are specific, credible, and consistent enough to materially lower the pricing score.
• MULTI-ENTITY CONCERN: Reviews reference multiple different named technicians (Marvin, Brad, Will, Dan, Alex, Lewis, Shawn, Carlos, Joe, Mike, Garrett, Keith, Bradyn, Jarred, Dylan, John) and appear to span multiple geographic markets (San Francisco CA, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Oregon). This may represent a review aggregation across multiple franchise locations or similarly named companies rather than a single contractor. Scores should be interpreted with caution as they may not reflect any single operator's performance.
• RECENCY NOTE: A significant portion of reviews predate 2022 and many are from 2013–2018. While recent reviews (2024–2025) are generally positive for Marvin specifically, the negative pricing and completion reviews from 2018–2023 are still weighted in the score. The most recent 1-star reviews (2024) cite unprofessional management behavior and upselling tactics, suggesting these issues may be ongoing.
• FOUR 'UNKNOWN' REVIEWS: Several reviews contain only the text 'unknown' with a 5-star rating and no usable content. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no evidence for any category.
• UPSELLING PATTERN: Multiple reviewers across different time periods mention aggressive upselling of monthly service plans, unnecessary concrete excavation, and high-cost replacements. This is a recurring pattern that negatively impacts both the pricing and professionalism scores.

This WW Score is based on a large volume of reviews and carries HIGH overall confidence in its directional accuracy, but should be interpreted cautiously due to confirmed duplicate reviews, a likely multi-location or multi-entity aggregation issue, and a meaningful cluster of credible negative reviews on pricing and project completion that prevent a higher score.

Ron Knight Plumbing receives strong praise across professionalism, pricing, and experience from the majority of reviewers, with recurring compliments on punctuality, friendliness, communication, and fair rates. However, the score is meaningfully dragged down by a cluster of serious negative reviews describing failed repairs that were left worse than before, refusal to remedy damage caused, and at least one no-show with no proactive communication. The project completion dimension is the most penalized, as multiple 1-star reviews explicitly describe incomplete or worsened work and a contractor who did not follow through on fixing their own mistakes. Pricing is the strongest dimension with consistent mentions of reasonable and fair rates across multiple independent reviews. The overall picture is a company with a solid base of satisfied long-term customers but a notable pattern of serious service failures that cannot be ignored.

• Three 1-star reviews from June 2020 describe nearly identical complaints about a kitchen sink leak being made worse and the company refusing to fix the damage — two of these reviews use very similar language and may represent the same customer posting multiple times, which would constitute review manipulation and should be treated with caution; however, the core complaint is specific and credible enough to retain in scoring.
• Eight reviews contain no text at all (blank review body with only a 5-star rating) — these have been excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence per scoring rules.
• A no-show incident is explicitly described in a 2019 review, with the contractor laughing about it when called back — this is a direct professionalism and project completion concern.
• A 2021 1-star review notes the company does not take after-hours calls, which is a service limitation worth flagging for prospective customers.
• A 2021 1-star review describes a receptionist being unable to answer basic service questions and discouraging the caller from even requesting a quote — a communication and professionalism concern.
• A 2019 1-star review describes multiple unanswered calls and no callback over more than a week, suggesting possible responsiveness issues during that period.
• The majority of detailed positive reviews are from 2018–2020, with fewer substantive reviews in 2021–2024, making it harder to assess current service quality with high confidence.
• Most reviews from 2024 and late 2023 are either blank or very brief and generic, which limits confidence in the company's current performance trajectory.

This WW Score is based on 38 reviews with usable content spanning 2013–2024 and carries HIGH overall confidence due to mention volume, but prospective customers should weigh the serious project completion failures described in multiple negative reviews heavily, as these represent credible and specific complaints about workmanship and accountability.

Midway Plumbing scores well on professionalism, project completion, and experience, with dozens of reviews praising courteous, knowledgeable technicians who arrive on time, communicate clearly, and complete jobs thoroughly. However, pricing is the single most damaging dimension in this dataset: a substantial and consistent pattern of complaints — spanning from 2009 through 2025 — describes charges that customers found dramatically higher than competitors, including quotes of $500 for a drain replacement, $700 for a faucet install, $550 for a flush assembly, and estimates up to $16,000 for a leak that another plumber fixed for $250. The pricing score of 38 reflects this persistent, multi-year, multi-reviewer pattern of dissatisfaction and is not an outlier. Project completion is generally strong, with most jobs described as finished correctly, though one review describes abandoned work, substandard flow, and a refused warranty — a serious flag. Overall, Midway delivers competent, professional service but at a price point that generates significant and recurring customer backlash.

• PRICING PATTERN — CRITICAL: At least 12 distinct reviews across 2009–2025 explicitly describe prices as excessive, outrageous, or criminal. This is not isolated; it is a sustained, multi-year pattern and is the most consistently negative signal in the entire dataset.
• BLANK/EMPTY REVIEWS: At least 8 reviews contain no text whatsoever (only a rating). These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence per Rule 1 and Rule 2.
• GENERIC/PLACEHOLDER REVIEWS: Multiple reviews contain only 'unknown', '.', 'Good', 'Excellent', or 'Very well' with no substantive detail. These were not scored on any dimension.
• POSSIBLE FAKE OR SOLICITED REVIEW: The 2021 review from a self-described plumbing association president praising the owner by name with no specific job detail reads as a testimonial or promotional entry rather than a genuine customer review. Confidence in that review is discounted.
• ABANDONED WORK / WARRANTY DENIAL: One review (2010) describes walls torn out unnecessarily, substandard work left incomplete, refusal to return for corrective action, and denial of advertised warranty coverage. This is a serious project completion and professionalism flag.
• UPSELL CONCERN: Multiple reviews (2017, 2011, 2015) suggest technicians push additional services or use pricing structures that inflate costs, with one reviewer alleging the company sends techs to sell expensive equipment rather than diagnose problems honestly.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent reviews (2024–2025) are generally positive on professionalism and completion, but pricing complaints persist into 2025, indicating the issue has not been resolved over time.
• CREDIT CARD SURCHARGE: One 2014 review notes a 10% surcharge for credit card payment, which the reviewer found unjustified. This is a minor but notable pricing transparency concern.
• SCHEDULING FAILURE: One 2015 review describes being told a same-day appointment was confirmed, then being informed 4 hours later it was pushed to the next day with no proactive notification — a professionalism and reliability concern.

This WW Score is based on a large, multi-year review dataset with HIGH confidence across all four dimensions; the score is considered reliable, and the low pricing dimension score in particular reflects a genuine, well-documented pattern rather than noise.