Find Nearby Plumbers In Bend, Oregon

Deschutes Plumbing demonstrates strong overall performance across all measured dimensions. Professionalism is a clear strength, with 48 reviews explicitly praising punctuality, communication, attitude, and responsiveness—particularly highlighting technicians like Roger, Brian, and Jason. Project completion is solid with 42 mentions of timely, thorough work and follow-through. Experience and technical skill are well-documented across 35 reviews, with customers noting problem-solving ability and quality workmanship. Pricing shows more variability: while 10 reviews praise fair/reasonable pricing and value, 3 negative reviews cite aggressive markups on materials and rejection of smaller jobs, creating a moderate confidence score of 78. The company's willingness to remedy mistakes (reimbursement for botched work) and handle callbacks demonstrates accountability, though two older reviews (2013, 2015) flag no-shows and poor follow-up.

• Three negative reviews (1-star and 3-star) from 2013, 2015, and 2021 cite serious issues: no-show with no follow-up, materials markup 3-5x retail cost, and rejection of $4,600 job as 'too small.' These are credible, specific complaints that contradict the overwhelmingly positive narrative.
• Majority of reviews (50+ of 61) are from past 12 months (Feb 2025–June 2025), with a cluster of 5-star reviews from Feb 9, 2025 that are generic in praise but lack specific detail. However, these are balanced by detailed, specific positive reviews from the same period, reducing suspicion of fake reviews.
• One review (April 2021) explicitly documents material cost inflation: $14.36 retail parts charged at $43, representing a 3x markup. This suggests potential pricing inconsistency or aggressive billing practices on materials.
• Two very old negative reviews (2013, 2015) may reflect past management or operational issues; however, they document serious failures (no-show, poor follow-up) that should not be dismissed.
• Recency bias: 82% of reviews are from 2020 onward; only 5 reviews predate 2020. Recent reviews are overwhelmingly positive, but older reviews show material concerns.

This WW Score of 84.2 is reliable for assessing current professionalism, completion, and technical skill, supported by HIGH confidence across three dimensions with 35–48 mentions each. However, the pricing dimension (MODERATE confidence, 13 mentions) reveals material inconsistency and potential aggressive billing practices that warrant caution; customers should request itemized quotes and verify material costs independently. The three credible negative reviews (no-show, material markup, job rejection) are outliers but represent real service failures that should temper expectations. Overall, Deschutes Plumbing appears to deliver strong technical work and responsiveness, but pricing transparency and consistency remain concerns.

Blue Sky Plumbing and Bear Creek Plumbing collectively generate a strong but not perfect score. Professionalism is the most frequently cited strength, with dozens of reviews praising punctuality, courtesy, and clear communication from named technicians like Jay, Bill, Jeremy, and Stacy. Project completion scores well overall, with most reviewers confirming jobs were finished satisfactorily, though one notable 1-star review from 2018 describes a technician (Mike) who abandoned a job without explanation, and a 4-star review from 2025 mentions an initial misdiagnosis that required correction. Experience scores are high, with multiple reviewers specifically praising technical skill, problem-solving on complex systems, and technician knowledge. Pricing receives positive mentions in several reviews — including references to reasonable bills, warranty part sourcing, and fair estimates — but is not discussed frequently enough to be a dominant signal, and no negative pricing complaints were found.

• MIXED CONTRACTOR DATA: Reviews appear to cover two distinct businesses — Blue Sky Plumbing/Heating and Bear Creek Plumbing. These should ideally be scored separately. The WW Score here reflects a blended analysis.
• BLANK REVIEWS: At least 4 reviews contain no text whatsoever (only a star rating of 5.0). These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence.
• RECENCY IMBALANCE: The majority of Bear Creek Plumbing reviews are from 2014–2023, with some as old as 2014. Blue Sky reviews are predominantly from 2024–2025. Older reviews were down-weighted accordingly.
• ONE-STAR ABANDONMENT FLAG (Bear Creek): A 2018 review explicitly states the technician Mike stopped responding after initial contact and never completed the job. This is a meaningful project completion failure and was factored into the project completion score.
• ONE-STAR REVIEW (Blue Sky, 2025-05-10): A 1-star rating with no review text was submitted. Without context it cannot be scored dimensionally but signals a dissatisfied customer and was noted.
• POSSIBLE FAKE REVIEW PATTERN (MILD): A high concentration of 5-star reviews with very similar phrasing ('professional, courteous, knowledgeable') across Blue Sky reviews raises mild concern. However, most reviews name specific technicians and describe specific jobs, which reduces the likelihood of coordinated fake reviews. Confidence is not reduced but flagged for awareness.
• TECHNICIAN-LEVEL VARIANCE: Quality appears to vary by individual technician. Jay Crosley and Bill Connors receive consistently strong reviews; Mike (Bear Creek) received the only abandonment complaint. Aggregate scores may mask individual technician inconsistency.

This WW Score is moderately reliable given the large number of reviews with usable data and strong mention counts across all four dimensions, but should be interpreted with caution due to the blending of two separate businesses, the presence of blank reviews, and a meaningful project abandonment incident in the Bear Creek subset.

All Ways Plumbing earns strong marks across all four dimensions, driven by an exceptionally large and mostly positive review base spanning over a decade. Professionalism is the standout dimension, with dozens of reviewers explicitly praising responsiveness, punctuality, communication, and courteous behavior. Project completion scores well overall but is meaningfully dragged down by three serious negative reviews: one describing a code violation that caused flooding and toxic mold with the contractor refusing to remedy the work, one describing workers who failed to diagnose the actual problem and performed unnecessary work, and one describing a technician who avoided the main issue and fixed a minor one instead. Pricing is generally praised as fair and reasonable, but one reviewer reported being charged $633 for a faucet replacement with no upfront quote, and another noted pricing felt high — these pull the pricing score below the otherwise positive consensus. Experience scores well based on numerous specific mentions of technical knowledge and problem-solving, though the diagnostic failures in the negative reviews temper this score.

• SERIOUS FLAG: One reviewer (1-star, 2023-03-29) describes a code violation by 'Zachary Szabo' causing flooding, two types of toxic mold, inability to live in the home for 4+ months, and the contractor being held responsible by the State Examiners Board while refusing to remedy the work. This is a significant workmanship and accountability failure that materially impacts the project_completion and experience scores.
• INCOMPLETE WORK FLAG: Two additional reviews (2024-10-17 and 2012-01-03) describe technicians who failed to diagnose or address the actual problem, performing unnecessary or minor work instead. This is a pattern worth noting.
• NO-QUOTE FLAG: One reviewer (2021-01-21) reported being charged $633 with no upfront price quote provided, only receiving an invoice after the fact. This is a transparency concern for the pricing dimension.
• BEHAVIOR FLAG: One 1-star review (2021-05-08) describes rude and disrespectful behavior from a driver of the company van in a parking lot. While not a service quality issue, it reflects on professionalism.
• BLANK/UNUSABLE REVIEWS: Four reviews contained no text (only a rating), including two from 2016 and one from 2024. These were excluded from dimensional scoring but counted in total reviews analyzed.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of substantive reviews are from 2021–2025, which is positive for recency weighting. Reviews from 2009–2013 reference different named technicians (Jake, Daryl, Zac/Zachary) and may reflect a different era or staffing of the business. The serious code-violation complaint also references 'Zachary Szabo,' suggesting possible past association with the business.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK: LOW. The review corpus is large, spans many years, references specific technician names, job types, and situational details. No significant pattern of identical phrasing or suspiciously generic content detected. Confidence in authenticity is high.

This WW Score is based on a large, detailed, and temporally diverse review set and carries HIGH overall confidence; however, the presence of one serious unresolved code-violation complaint with documented regulatory involvement and two additional incomplete-work complaints means prospective customers should weigh these outliers carefully, particularly for complex or high-stakes plumbing projects.

CMP Plumbing demonstrates strong overall performance across all four dimensions, with particular strength in experience and professionalism. The company excels at responsive communication, punctuality, and technical skill, with many reviews praising quick response times and knowledgeable work. Pricing is generally perceived as fair and reasonable, though a minority of reviews flag concerns about hourly billing practices and deposit handling. Project completion is solid with most jobs finished promptly, though a few negative reviews cite no-shows and incomplete follow-through. The WW Score of 82.3 reflects a reliable contractor with consistent quality, tempered by occasional service reliability issues.

• FAKE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: Multiple reviews dated 2024-06-09 with identical 5.0 ratings and minimal/generic text (empty reviews, 'Excellent value and service as always!', 'Excellent work') suggest potential review manipulation or bulk posting. These 4 reviews lack specificity and detail.
• INCONSISTENT QUALITY: Significant variance in service quality across reviews. Multiple 1-star reviews cite no-shows, missed appointments, and unprofessional phone conduct, contrasting sharply with predominantly 5-star reviews. This suggests inconsistency in service delivery or team performance.
• NO-SHOW PATTERN: At least 3 reviews explicitly mention no-shows or failure to appear for scheduled appointments (2023-06-10 1-star, 2022-06-11 1-star, undated 1-star review). This is a material concern for project completion reliability.
• DEPOSIT/BILLING CONCERNS: Two reviews (2022-06-11 and 2018-12-21) raise issues with billing practices—one regarding deposit cashing before work started, another regarding travel time billing. These suggest potential transparency issues in pricing.
• VERY OLD REVIEWS: Several reviews are from 2010-2018 (8+ years old). Recent reviews (past 12 months) are more reliable; older reviews may not reflect current operations.
• UNDATED REVIEWS: 16 reviews lack dates, making recency assessment impossible for those entries. This reduces confidence in temporal trends.
• POTENTIAL STAFF VARIATION: Reviews mention multiple team members (Ric, Steven, Kenny, Jamie, Michael, CJ) with varying quality levels. One 2018 review explicitly notes 'only one plumber experienced' and the other employee was 'green,' suggesting staffing quality issues.

This WW Score of 82.3 should be treated with MODERATE-TO-HIGH caution. While the majority of reviews are positive and detailed, the presence of suspicious bulk reviews from 2024-06-09, multiple documented no-shows, billing practice concerns, and significant variance in service quality across team members suggest the company is inconsistent. The score reflects average performance across a large dataset, but individual customer experience may vary substantially depending on which team member is assigned and whether scheduling reliability is critical to the customer's needs. Recent reviews (2023-2025) are more reliable than older data.

JP Plumbing demonstrates strong overall performance with a WW Score of 82.1, driven by consistently high marks in professionalism (86.5), project completion (85.3), and technical experience (84.7). The company excels at punctuality, responsiveness, communication, and workmanship quality, with 127 mentions of professional conduct and 98 mentions of reliable job completion. However, pricing emerges as a significant weakness (68.2), with 32 explicit mentions of overcharging, hidden fees, and unfair labor rates that substantially undermine customer satisfaction. While most reviews are highly positive, the pricing complaints are detailed and credible, suggesting systematic pricing concerns rather than isolated incidents.

• PRICING PATTERN DETECTED: Multiple credible complaints (at least 12 distinct reviews) cite overcharging, excessive labor rates ($300-$700/hour claims), and lack of transparency in pricing. Examples include: $1000 toilet installation (customer found toilet cost $300), $518 per hose bibb installation, $385 for 20-minute tube change, $1600 water pressure work (competitors quoted $600-$750). This is not isolated—it represents a systemic concern.
• QUALITY CONTROL ISSUES: Several reviews document incomplete or defective work requiring callbacks: shower installation with improper soldering causing water damage to ceiling, cartridge replacement that broke within a week with no callback response, toilet installation with leak resuming within an hour. These suggest inconsistent quality despite generally positive feedback.
• COMMUNICATION GAPS: One review (2021-06-20) reports inability to reach owner Joe for over a week. Another (2022-06-29) describes lack of response to refund request after equipment damage during service.
• RECENCY NOTE: Approximately 40% of reviews lack specific dates or are undated, making temporal analysis difficult. However, reviews from past 12 months (2025-2024) show consistent patterns of both high satisfaction and pricing complaints, indicating ongoing issues.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK - MODERATE: Approximately 15-20 reviews contain only ratings with no text or minimal generic praise ('unknown', blank text, single words). While not conclusive evidence of fabrication, the volume of empty/minimal reviews is higher than typical and may inflate apparent satisfaction. However, detailed negative reviews are also present, suggesting the dataset is not entirely fabricated.
• INCONSISTENT PRICING PHILOSOPHY: Some reviews praise 'reasonable' or 'fair' pricing while others in similar timeframes describe identical work as 'outrageous.' This suggests either highly variable pricing practices or inconsistent application of discounts/service fees.

This WW Score of 82.1 is reliable for professionalism and project completion dimensions (HIGH confidence based on 127 and 98 mentions respectively), but the pricing score of 68.2 should be weighted heavily in decision-making—the company has documented credibility issues with cost transparency and labor rate justification that appear systematic rather than anecdotal. Prospective customers should request detailed written quotes and compare with competitors before committing. The company's technical competence is not in question, but financial fairness is a legitimate concern supported by multiple independent, detailed complaints.

Everist Irrigation demonstrates strong technical expertise and professionalism across most dimensions, with particularly high marks for experience and skill level. However, the score is tempered by two critical failures: a severe communication breakdown resulting in a 7-week bid delay with no follow-up, and a quality/warranty dispute that resulted in a 1-star review. While the majority of reviews (19 of 23) are highly positive and date-distributed across a decade, the recent negative reviews (2023 and 2016) indicate systemic issues with responsiveness and quality assurance that persist despite the company's growth. Pricing is consistently described as fair and reasonable, and project completion is generally strong when work is initiated.

• CRITICAL: Two 1-star reviews indicate serious operational failures—one involving complete communication breakdown on a bid (7 weeks, no follow-up despite 3 calls), and another citing poor quality work and owner's refusal to warranty services. These are not isolated complaints but suggest systemic issues.
• RECENCY CONCERN: The most recent 1-star review (2023-08-21) is very recent and describes a current operational problem (bid delays, poor follow-up), not a historical issue. This suggests problems may be ongoing.
• PATTERN ALERT: Multiple reviews mention communication issues (2021 review explicitly cites duplicate emails, unclear communications, need for CRM system). Combined with the 2023 bid delay, communication appears to be a chronic weakness.
• QUALITY VARIANCE: One review (2016) explicitly states 'very disappointed in quality of work' and owner 'does not warranty his services.' This contradicts the majority narrative and suggests quality control issues.
• REVIEW AGE DISTRIBUTION: 13 of 23 reviews are older than 5 years (pre-2019). While recent reviews are mostly positive, the two most recent negative reviews (2023, 2016) suggest problems have not been fully resolved despite company growth.

This score should be treated with MODERATE-to-HIGH caution. While the majority of reviews are genuinely positive and detailed, the two recent 1-star reviews reveal critical operational failures in communication and quality assurance that directly contradict the overall narrative. The WW Score of 82.1 reflects strong technical capability but masks significant reliability and follow-through problems that appear to be systemic rather than isolated. Prospective customers should specifically inquire about bid timelines, communication protocols, and warranty policies before engaging.