Find Nearby Plumbers In Eugene, Oregon

Precision Plumbing draws a large volume of strongly positive reviews praising individual technicians by name for professionalism, punctuality, clear communication, and technical skill — these positives are consistent and span many years and locations. However, a meaningful minority of negative reviews (roughly 15–18% of substantive reviews) describe serious issues including no-shows, scheduling failures, poor communication, alleged price gouging, overcharging, warranty disputes, substandard workmanship, and in at least two cases regulatory investigations by the Nevada State Contractors Board. Pricing is the weakest dimension: while many reviewers call pricing fair or reasonable, a notable cluster of negative reviewers describe charges they considered grossly excessive (e.g., $528/hour, $750 for a $1.99 fix, $1,400 for a 20-minute job, $650 for a cartridge replacement). Project completion is moderately strong but is dragged down by multiple documented no-shows, abandoned jobs, and at least one case of work left incomplete for weeks. Experience scores well overall given the volume of praise for diagnostic skill and quality workmanship, but is tempered by a handful of reviews describing incompetent diagnosis or dangerous substandard work.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: Numerous reviews appear to be exact or near-exact duplicates posted on the same or adjacent dates (e.g., multiple identical 'Fast, affordable, friendly, and super reliable' reviews on 2018-02-22; identical 'Great family business' reviews on 2022-09-08; identical 'Will hire again' reviews on 2022-09-12; identical 'Great and quick service' and 'Excellent customer service' reviews on 2022-09-06; identical 'He did a good job and was nice to work with' reviews on 2022-10-20; identical 'Friendly service, great job' reviews on 2022-10-01; identical 'Kieth was very easy to work with' reviews on 2022-10-22; identical 'Very high quality work promp service' reviews on 2023-01-24; identical 'The young man did an expert job' reviews on 2022-12-16; identical 'Precision Plumbimg is a great Company' reviews on 2020-10-24 and 2020-10-25). This pattern strongly suggests review manipulation or system duplication and reduces confidence in the raw positive review count.
• REGULATORY FLAG: At least two reviews (dated August 2024) allege that Precision Plumbing (dba aaa Precision Plumbing, Las Vegas) was under investigation by the Nevada State Board of Contractors for substandard work, failed city inspection, a life-threatening gas leak, and deceptive practices. These are serious allegations that, if accurate, represent significant safety and integrity concerns.
• MULTI-ENTITY CONCERN: Reviews appear to reference multiple distinct businesses operating under the 'Precision Plumbing' name across different geographic markets (Las Vegas NV, Bay Area CA, Michigan, South Carolina, California Central Valley, etc.) as well as references to 'Plumbing Squad' and 'Budget Water Heaters.' Scores may reflect an aggregation of different companies rather than a single contractor, which limits the reliability of any single composite score.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS PATTERN: A recurring pattern of pricing complaints exists across multiple reviewers and years — including allegations of price gouging against elderly or disabled customers, charges not matching quotes, refusal to provide itemized receipts, and hourly rates described as $600+ per hour for simple jobs. This is not isolated and depresses the pricing score significantly.
• NO-SHOW AND SCHEDULING FAILURES: Multiple independent reviewers across different time periods describe no-shows, missed appointment windows without notification, and failure to return calls. This is a consistent pattern affecting the project completion score.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews with substantive content are from 2019 through mid-2025, with the most recent cluster from May–June 2025. Reviews from 2025 are predominantly positive and recent, which is a positive signal, but the negative regulatory and safety reviews from mid-2024 are also recent and carry significant weight.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Approximately 40–50 reviews contain no text and only a 5-star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence per scoring rules, but their volume inflates the apparent star average.

This WW Score of 72.1 carries HIGH data confidence due to the large review volume, but should be interpreted cautiously given confirmed duplicate reviews suggesting possible manipulation, multi-entity ambiguity across geographic markets, serious unresolved regulatory allegations from 2024, and a consistent minority pattern of pricing, scheduling, and workmanship complaints that cannot be dismissed as outliers.

American Leak Detection receives consistently strong praise for individual technician professionalism, punctuality, communication, and attitude — the majority of positive reviews highlight friendly, courteous, and knowledgeable technicians by name. However, a substantial and recurring pattern of negative reviews significantly drags down the pricing and project completion dimensions: numerous customers report being charged hundreds to over a thousand dollars for failed or inaccurate leak detection, incorrect leak location markings that led to costly unnecessary excavation, and refusal to honor warranties or return without additional charges. The experience dimension is mixed — while many technicians demonstrate impressive diagnostic skill, a meaningful minority of reviews describe technicians who failed to find leaks that competitors located quickly, used outdated methods, or caused property damage. Pricing complaints are pervasive, with customers frequently describing the service as overpriced relative to results delivered, and several noting hidden or unexpected charges. The overall score reflects a company with genuinely skilled and professional staff in many locations, undermined by serious and repeated failures in leak detection accuracy, warranty follow-through, and pricing transparency.

• DUPLICATE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: Multiple reviews from June 2025 (dates 2025-06-04 through 2025-06-09) contain identical or near-identical text repeated across different dates — e.g., 'On time got the job done' appears twice, 'Chris got right to work and diagnosed the points of the leak quickly' appears twice, 'Very professional and thorough' appears twice, 'Pool kept going down way too fast...' appears twice, 'Etienne Hogue from American Leak Detection is a master of his trade...' appears twice, 'Matt was very thorough and friendly...' appears twice, 'I'm so impressed with the work performed by Casey...' appears twice, 'Appreciate the detectives who found the source of my ceiling leak...' appears twice, 'Matt was great. Arrived on time...' appears twice, 'Christian Lopez did a fantastic job...' appears twice. These are highly suspicious and likely fake or artificially inflated reviews. Confidence in the most recent review cluster is reduced accordingly.
• FRANCHISE INCONSISTENCY: This appears to be a national franchise with many independently operated regional offices. Review quality, technician skill, and customer service vary dramatically by location. Scores reflect the aggregate across all branches and may not represent any single local office accurately.
• RECURRING COMPLAINT PATTERN — FAILED DETECTION: A statistically significant number of negative reviews (estimated 60+ reviews) describe the same failure mode: ALD charges full price for leak detection but fails to locate the leak, marks the wrong location leading to costly unnecessary excavation by plumbers, and then refuses to refund or return without additional charges. This is not isolated to one branch.
• RECURRING COMPLAINT PATTERN — WARRANTY REFUSAL: Multiple reviews across different locations and years describe ALD refusing to honor stated warranties, citing expired 30-day windows, claiming a 'different leak' was found, or demanding additional payment to return after failed repairs.
• RECURRING COMPLAINT PATTERN — PRICING OPACITY: Multiple reviews describe being charged full rates ($300–$795+) for very short visits (10–30 minutes), being charged when no leak was found, and not being informed of pricing structure upfront. One review notes a contractor's license listed as 'inactive' with no liability insurance as of late 2022.
• PROPERTY DAMAGE COMPLAINTS: Several reviews describe technicians causing property damage (holes in walls, broken pipes, damaged flooring, dirty linens used as mops) with the company refusing to take responsibility.
• BLANK REVIEWS EXCLUDED FROM SCORING: Approximately 88 reviews contained no text and only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring but counted in total reviews analyzed.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent reviews (May–June 2025) are heavily dominated by 5-star ratings, many of which are duplicates or very brief. The longer, more detailed negative reviews span 2012–2025 and represent a consistent longitudinal pattern of service failures.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large volume of reviews, but the score itself should be interpreted cautiously — the aggregate masks extreme variance between regional franchise offices, a documented pattern of fake or duplicated recent reviews inflates the positive signal, and the recurring nature of serious complaints about failed detection, warranty refusal, and pricing practices suggests systemic issues that a blended score cannot fully capture.

R&J Rooter receives consistently strong marks across all four dimensions from a small but coherent set of reviews. Professionalism is the most well-supported dimension, with all five reviewers explicitly noting punctuality, responsiveness, politeness, and communication. Project completion is equally well-evidenced, with every reviewer confirming that their drain or plumbing issue was fully resolved in a timely manner. Experience is supported by three reviews that reference technical competence, including diagnosing issues a prior rooter missed and effectively clearing difficult blockages. Pricing is mentioned positively in two reviews as fair and reasonable, but the limited mention count keeps confidence low on that dimension.

• Small sample size of only 5 reviews limits overall reliability of the WW Score.
• All reviews are 5-star ratings, which warrants mild caution; however, reviews contain specific details, varied language, and concrete job descriptions, reducing the likelihood of fake reviews.
• The most recent review is from May 2023, meaning all reviews are older than 12 months at time of analysis. Performance may have changed since then.
• No negative or mixed reviews are present, so weaknesses or failure modes cannot be assessed.

This score is moderately reliable given the specificity and consistency of the reviews, but the small sample size of 5 reviews and the fact that all reviews are over one year old mean the score should be treated as a promising but preliminary indicator rather than a definitive assessment.

Matt's service demonstrates strong technical competence and fair pricing across multiple positive reviews, with customers praising responsiveness, efficiency, and problem-solving ability. However, a critical 1-star review from 2022 documents complete communication failure—no callback or response to text messages despite explicit request for text contact—which significantly impacts the professionalism score. The positive reviews are detailed and specific, but the sample size is small (5 total) and one review dates back to 2018, limiting confidence in the overall assessment.

• One severe negative review (2022) documents communication breakdown and non-responsiveness, directly contradicting claims of 'very responsive' in other reviews. This suggests inconsistent service quality or possible staffing changes.
• Review from 2018 is significantly outdated and may not reflect current operations.
• Small sample size (5 reviews) limits statistical reliability. Recommend collecting more recent reviews before making high-confidence decisions.
• Positive reviews show some generic praise language ('great guy', 'highly recommend') but also include specific technical details (camera inspection, septic line work, same-day service), so fake review risk is LOW.

This score should be treated with caution due to the small sample size, presence of a critical service failure, and age of one review. The MODERATE overall confidence reflects conflicting evidence: strong technical and pricing performance offset by documented communication failures. Additional recent reviews are needed to establish reliable trend data.

Jack-O Plumbing demonstrates solid professionalism with timely service and courteous communication across multiple reviews. Project completion is consistently strong, with jobs finished promptly and follow-through on recommendations. However, pricing presents a significant concern: one detailed 2018 review alleges double-charging for service visits ($125 twice for minimal work on day two), with the company allegedly unwilling to adjust overcharges. Positive reviews praise fair pricing in some contexts, but the explicit overcharge complaint creates material doubt. The business appears to have experienced operational disruption (disconnected phone number noted in 2024), raising current reliability questions. Most reviews are 6+ years old, limiting recency confidence.

• RECENCY CONCERN: 4 of 5 reviews are from 2013–2018; only 1 review from past 12 months (2024), and that review indicates the business phone number is disconnected, suggesting possible closure or operational disruption.
• PRICING RED FLAG: One detailed 1-star review (2018) explicitly alleges double-charging ($125 per visit on consecutive days with minimal work on second visit) and claims the company was unwilling to adjust overcharges. This directly contradicts positive pricing claims in other reviews.
• SAMPLE SIZE LIMITATION: Only 5 reviews total; confidence in aggregate score is inherently limited despite moderate mention counts per dimension.
• BUSINESS STATUS UNCLEAR: The 2024 review seeking current contact information and reporting a disconnected phone number raises questions about whether the business is currently operational.

This WW Score should be treated with caution due to small sample size (5 reviews), significant age of most data (6+ years old), and unresolved pricing dispute allegations that contradict positive reviews; the apparent operational disruption noted in 2024 further undermines confidence in current reliability.

Surrett's Plumbing shows strong technical skill and generally professional conduct, with multiple reviews praising punctuality, communication, and quality workmanship. However, a detailed 2019 review reveals significant concerns: incomplete work (missing water spigots, debris left under house), unresponsiveness to callbacks, fixture installation issues, and unexpected additional charges beyond the original quote. While four reviews are highly positive, the one detailed negative review documents multiple project completion failures and professionalism lapses that substantially lower confidence in consistency. The company's age (oldest review from 2011, most recent from 2021) and small sample size limit reliability.

• One review (2014-01-05) contains only a period with no substantive content — treated as unusable data
• Significant recency gap: most reviews are 3+ years old (2011–2021); only one review from past 12 months would be needed for stronger confidence
• One detailed negative review (2019) contradicts the pattern of five-star reviews, documenting incomplete work, poor communication, and billing disputes — this is a material red flag suggesting inconsistent service quality
• The 2019 negative review is specific and detailed (debris left, missing fixtures, unresponsive to callbacks, unexpected charges), making it credible and not dismissible as an outlier

This score should be treated with caution. While positive reviews suggest competent work, the detailed 2019 complaint documents serious project completion and professionalism failures that indicate inconsistent service delivery. The small sample size (6 reviews, 5 usable) and age of most reviews (3+ years old) further limit confidence. Potential customers should weigh the positive feedback against documented risks of incomplete work, poor communication, and unexpected additional charges.