Find Nearby Plumbers In Beaverton, Oregon

Oasis Plumbing receives overwhelmingly positive feedback across all four dimensions, with professionalism being the most consistently praised attribute — punctuality, communication, shoe covers, pre-arrival texts, and courteous demeanor are mentioned repeatedly across dozens of reviews spanning multiple years. Project completion scores well, with the vast majority of reviewers confirming jobs were finished correctly and efficiently, though five negative reviews introduce meaningful drag: two involve outright cancellations or no-shows on emergency calls, one involves an abandoned estimate, and one describes a misdiagnosis leading to an unnecessary upsell. Pricing is generally described as fair and reasonable, with one reviewer explicitly calling the company 'sooooooo overpriced' and another corroborating high costs, which tempers an otherwise positive pricing picture. Experience and technical skill are affirmed across a wide range of complex jobs including whole-home water softeners, tankless water heater installs, main line repairs, and difficult diagnostic situations, though the misdiagnosis complaint in one negative review prevents a higher score.

• Five negative reviews (1-star) are present and substantive: two describe emergency cancellations via text or last-minute call-back failures, one describes being forgotten after an estimate was given, one describes a misdiagnosis and overpriced recommendation, and one explicitly calls pricing 'ridiculous' and 'sooooooo overpriced.' These are credible complaints that meaningfully affect project completion and pricing scores.
• A large proportion of reviews are 5-star with effusive praise, and some shorter reviews ('Outstanding', 'Excellent service, thank you', 'Awesome service knowledgeable crew') lack specifics. However, the majority of reviews contain sufficient detail, named technicians, and specific job descriptions to be considered credible.
• One review (Rating 5.0, Date 2025-01-10) has no text content and was excluded from scoring.
• Review date range spans from 2016 to 2025. Approximately 35-40 reviews are older than 3 years. Per recency rules, heavier weight was given to the 55+ reviews from 2024-2025, which remain consistently positive with no major degradation in quality signals.
• One reviewer (2022-06-16) explicitly questions the validity of negative reviews, which is a mild flag for potential bias, but does not on its own indicate fake review activity. No identical phrasing or bot-like patterns were detected across the positive reviews.
• The one 5-star review from a reviewer who only noted the business is not in their service area (Staten Island, 2017) provides no usable data on any dimension and was excluded from scoring.

This WW Score is based on a large, diverse, and detailed review set spanning nearly a decade, with high mention counts across all four dimensions and credible negative reviews factored in, making it a reliable representation of Oasis Plumbing's overall service quality — though prospective customers should note documented risks around emergency availability and pricing transparency.

South Clackamas Plumbing demonstrates strong performance across all measured dimensions. Professionalism is consistently praised with mentions of excellent communication, friendly demeanor, text updates, phone clarification, and professional systems. Project completion is solid with jobs finished as promised, problems solved, and work completed efficiently. Experience is evident through competent technicians who identify additional issues and explain solutions clearly. Pricing feedback is limited but positive, noting bids under competitors. However, all three reviews are from 2020–2021 (3+ years old), which limits confidence in current performance.

• All three reviews are from 2020–2021; no recent reviews from past 12 months available. Current service quality cannot be verified.
• Small sample size (n=3) limits statistical confidence. Recommend collecting more recent reviews before making high-confidence decisions.
• Pricing dimension based on only 2 mentions; limited evidence of consistent pricing practices.

This WW Score of 88.3 should be treated with caution due to the small sample size and age of reviews; it reflects strong historical performance but does not confirm current service levels.

Venne Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism and project completion capabilities, with multiple reviews praising their organization, communication, and ability to finish jobs thoroughly and on time. However, pricing presents a significant concern: while three reviews mention fair or reasonable pricing, one detailed 1-star review explicitly criticizes the company for charging hundreds of dollars over estimates for basic work, describing it as 'amateurish work at an absolutely premium price.' This pricing inconsistency substantially lowers the overall score. Experience scores are supported by limited mentions but suggest competent workmanship. The WW Score of 82.3 reflects strong execution and customer service tempered by legitimate pricing concerns.

• Significant pricing contradiction: 3 positive mentions of fair pricing vs. 1 detailed negative review claiming excessive overcharging. This suggests either inconsistent pricing practices or highly variable customer perception.
• Review age distribution: 2 reviews from 2024, 1 from 2022, 1 from 2021, 1 from 2020. Most recent reviews are positive; older reviews include the critical pricing complaint.
• Small sample size (5 reviews total) limits statistical reliability. Recommend gathering additional recent reviews before making major business decisions.
• The 1-star review is detailed and specific (mentions 'hundreds of dollars over other estimates'), suggesting genuine customer experience rather than fake review.

This WW Score should be treated with caution due to the small sample size (5 reviews) and the significant contradiction regarding pricing practices; the score is moderately reliable for identifying strengths in professionalism and project completion, but the pricing dimension requires additional investigation before drawing firm conclusions.

The two reviews present a stark contrast in service quality. The 2019 review praises professionalism, communication, and problem-solving ability, while the 2023 review indicates a significant decline in responsiveness and follow-through, with the customer unable to reach the company after leaving a voicemail. The WW Score of 78.3 reflects this mixed performance, weighted toward the more recent negative experience. However, this score carries limited confidence due to the very small sample size (only 2 reviews) and the 4-year gap between reviews, suggesting potential changes in business operations or staffing.

• Only 2 reviews analyzed — insufficient data for reliable scoring. Recommend collecting at least 5-10 more reviews before making business decisions.
• Significant recency concern: The positive review is from September 2019 (4+ years old), while the negative review is from May 2023. The recent review suggests a deterioration in service quality, particularly responsiveness.
• No pricing information provided in either review — cannot assess value or fairness of pricing.
• The 2023 review explicitly states the customer had to switch to a competitor (George Morlan) due to lack of response, indicating a serious service failure.

This WW Score should be treated with caution due to the very small sample size (2 reviews only) and the conflicting signals between an older positive review and a more recent negative one. The score is not reliable for decision-making without additional recent customer feedback.

KTP Plumbing shows a significant decline in service quality over time, with recent reviews (2014-2019) revealing severe communication and responsiveness failures, including unanswered calls and incomplete work. While older reviews (2010-2012) consistently praised Ken's professionalism, skill, and reliability, the contractor's performance has deteriorated markedly. The most recent reviews document chronic unresponsiveness to estimate requests and callback failures, directly contradicting earlier testimonials about prompt responses. Technical competence remains evident in positive feedback about workmanship quality, but this is severely undermined by project completion issues and communication breakdowns that have become the dominant pattern in recent years.

• CRITICAL RECENCY ISSUE: Most positive reviews are 7-10+ years old (2010-2012), while recent reviews (2014-2019) are predominantly negative. This suggests significant business deterioration.
• COMMUNICATION CRISIS: Multiple recent reviews (2019, 2018, 2014) document complete unresponsiveness—unanswered calls, ignored voicemails, and no estimate callbacks. This is the most consistent complaint in recent data.
• PROJECT COMPLETION FAILURES: 2014 review documents 6 visits for a single repair that remained incomplete, with bizarre troubleshooting approaches. 2010 review shows scheduling/punctuality issues (2+ hours late, no notification).
• CONTRADICTORY PATTERN: Older reviews praise responsiveness and reliability; recent reviews describe the opposite. This is not fake review activity but rather evidence of genuine service degradation.
• SAMPLE COMPOSITION: 4 reviews from 2010-2012 (all positive), 1 from 2014 (negative), 1 from 2016 (positive), 2 from 2018-2019 (both negative). The shift is stark and credible.

This score should be trusted with MODERATE confidence, but with a critical caveat: the business appears to have experienced significant operational decline. Recent reviews (past 5 years) are substantially more reliable indicators of current service than older testimonials, and they paint a concerning picture of communication failures and incomplete work that directly contradicts the contractor's historical reputation.

Universal Plumbing shows severe inconsistency across reviews, with two highly negative experiences (1-star ratings from 2020 and 2023) describing incomplete work, refusal to return for callbacks, poor communication, overcharging, and unprofessional behavior. Two positive reviews (5-star and 4-star) praise punctuality, quality workmanship, and fair pricing. The negative reviews are detailed and specific with concrete examples of failures, while positive reviews lack recent dates (2021 and 2017). The pattern suggests either significant deterioration in service quality or inconsistent performance across different technicians. Project completion is particularly concerning given explicit mentions of abandoned work and refusal to honor callbacks.

• CRITICAL: Two 1-star reviews describe serious failures in project completion and professionalism, including refusal to return for callbacks and incomplete work. These are detailed, specific complaints with concrete examples.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Positive reviews are from 2021 and 2017 (3-7 years old). Negative reviews are from 2023 and 2020, with the most recent being very recent (October 2023).
• INCONSISTENCY: Stark contrast between positive and negative reviews suggests either service quality degradation or highly variable performance by different technicians.
• PROFESSIONALISM RED FLAGS: One review describes accusatory behavior, refusal to return despite customer emergency, threats to charge again for callback, and lack of apology. Another describes refusal to complete work and dismissive communication.
• PRICING CONCERNS: One review explicitly describes overcharging, unauthorized substitution of materials ($60 faucet installed without consent), and misleading charge structure.
• CALLBACK FAILURES: Multiple reviews mention refusal to honor promised callbacks or return visits to fix problems.

This score should be treated with caution due to extreme polarization in reviews and recency bias favoring negative experiences. The two recent 1-star reviews describe serious, specific failures in core service dimensions (completion and professionalism), while positive reviews are significantly older. With only 4 reviews total, the sample is small, but the pattern of recent deterioration is concerning and suggests the company may not be reliably delivering on its commitments.