Find Nearby Plumbers In Gresham, Oregon

NaDean's Custom Plumbing has a strong overall track record across most dimensions, with consistent praise for professionalism, punctuality, quality of workmanship, and fair pricing across many reviews. Multiple reviewers specifically called out Dean and the team as prompt, professional, skilled, and honest, with several noting transparent and reasonable costs. However, one detailed 1-star review from 2017 describes being stood up twice, a technician arriving without tools, and a complete lack of follow-up communication — a serious professionalism and project completion failure that meaningfully drags down those dimension scores. The vast majority of reviews are older than three years (most from 2012–2019), with only one review from 2021, which limits confidence in how well these scores reflect current performance. Two reviews contained no usable text ('unknown' or a single period) and were excluded from scoring.

• RECENCY WARNING: Only 1 review is from the past 3 years (2021). The majority of reviews date from 2012–2019, with several from 2014–2015. This score may not reflect current service quality.
• 2 reviews contained no usable text ('unknown' or '.') and were excluded from all dimension scoring.
• One serious 1-star review (2017) describes repeated no-shows, a technician arriving without tools, and zero follow-up — this is a significant negative data point that was weighted accordingly in professionalism and project completion scores.
• Several older 5-star reviews are brief and generic (e.g., 'Dean is a great plumber. Prompt, professional & clean.') with minimal detail, which slightly reduces confidence in those individual data points. However, enough reviews contain specific job details to suggest the review set is largely authentic.
• Facebook link included in one review — noted but not treated as a fake review indicator on its own.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability: the dimension scores are supported by a reasonable number of mentions, but the heavy skew toward reviews older than 3–5 years significantly limits how well this score predicts current contractor performance.

Damon and ABC Heating & Cooling receive consistently strong praise across most reviews for responsiveness, friendliness, technical competence, and fair pricing — including after-hours availability and going out of their way in difficult conditions. However, one detailed 1-star review from a paying customer describes serious professionalism and billing failures: refusal to provide a written estimate in a timely manner, aggressive and unprofessional behavior over payment, and a billing discrepancy on the credit card surcharge. This review is specific, credible, and materially drags down the professionalism and project completion scores. The majority of positive reviews are older than 12 months, with only two falling within the past 12 months, which limits recency confidence. Overall, the business shows genuine strengths but has at least one documented pattern of conduct that warrants caution.

• One highly detailed 1-star review (2017-10-04) describes aggressive payment demands, failure to provide a written estimate, and a billing discrepancy — this is a credible negative signal and has been weighted accordingly.
• Six of eight reviews are older than 12 months (some dating back to 2014 and 2016), reducing recency confidence. Only two reviews are from the past 12 months (2024).
• Several positive reviews use somewhat generic praise ('honest', 'reliable', 'professional') without specific job details, though enough reviews include concrete specifics to avoid a fake review flag.
• Small review sample (8 total) limits statistical reliability of all dimension scores despite HIGH confidence labels based on mention counts.

This WW Score carries moderate overall reliability — the mention counts are sufficient to trigger HIGH confidence labels on all dimensions, but the small total sample size, predominance of older reviews, and one serious credible negative review mean the score should be interpreted cautiously rather than as a definitive quality indicator.

M5 Plumbing shows strong technical expertise and workmanship quality, with many customers praising skill level and problem-solving ability. However, professionalism is significantly undermined by recurring complaints about no-shows, missed callbacks, and poor communication—issues mentioned in 6 separate reviews spanning 2017-2018. Pricing presents a mixed picture: while many customers report fair and competitive rates, several reviews document what customers perceived as exploitative pricing for straightforward work (e.g., $800/hour for toilet reset, $1,625 for 3-hour job). Project completion is generally solid, though one major 2021 review detailed incomplete work, poor cleanup, and mask non-compliance during COVID. The company appears to have experienced operational challenges during peak periods (2017-2018) that may have improved, but pricing concerns persist across multiple years.

• Cluster of no-show/no-call complaints from 2017-2018 (4 reviews) suggests systemic communication/scheduling issues during that period; unclear if resolved
• Pricing complaints appear in 5 separate reviews with specific grievances about perceived overcharging relative to time spent; customers felt exploited despite positive work quality
• One detailed 2021 review (1-star) documents multiple failures: incomplete estimate transparency, last-minute scope change, poor cleanup, and mask non-compliance; customer explicitly stated they will not return
• Positive reviews are heavily concentrated in 2018-2019 and earlier; more recent reviews (2021-2025) show mixed sentiment with at least one highly negative experience
• Empty review texts (4 reviews with only ratings) reduce data quality; these cannot be analyzed for dimension mentions

This score should be treated with moderate caution. While the company demonstrates genuine technical competence and many satisfied customers, the WW Score is pulled down by persistent professionalism and pricing concerns documented across multiple years. The score reflects a company with strong execution capability but inconsistent customer experience and communication practices. Recent data is limited, making it difficult to assess whether operational issues have been resolved.

Drain Master Plumbing (under original ownership/Matt) demonstrated strong professionalism with consistent praise for punctuality, politeness, cleanliness, and responsiveness across multiple reviews. However, pricing feedback is mixed—while some reviews highlight fair and transparent pricing, the 2013 update reveals a significant deterioration after the business was sold to Kevin's Plumbing, with aggressive upselling and refusal to itemize quotes. Project completion shows moderate strength with most jobs completed satisfactorily, though one 2005 review indicates incomplete resolution of the original drainage problem. Technical skill and problem-solving ability are generally praised, but the mixed results and older review dates (most pre-2013) limit confidence in current performance.

• RECENCY CONCERN: Most reviews are from 2005-2012; only one substantive review from 2013. Current business status unclear—2013 update indicates ownership change and service degradation.
• BUSINESS TRANSITION: Original owner (Matt/Drain Master) sold business to Kevin's Plumbing in 2013. The 2013 update explicitly states service quality declined significantly post-sale. This is a critical structural change that undermines reliability of older positive reviews.
• PRICING INCONSISTENCY: Strong positive pricing feedback (2012 original review, 2007 review) contradicts sharply with 2013 update describing aggressive upselling, refusal to itemize, and $1400 quote for work another plumber did free. This suggests either business model change or reviewer bias.
• PROJECT COMPLETION FAILURE: 2005 review indicates unresolved drainage issue—customer reported problem returned after service, suggesting incomplete diagnosis or work.
• DATA QUALITY: Reviews span 18 years (2005-2013) with significant gaps. No reviews after 2013 available to assess current state.

This WW Score should be treated with caution. While the original Drain Master Plumbing under Matt showed strong performance, the 2013 business sale to Kevin's Plumbing appears to have fundamentally altered service quality. The score reflects historical data that may not represent current operations, and the explicit warning in the 2013 update about service degradation suggests the business may no longer be operating under the original standards. Verification of current ownership and recent customer feedback is strongly recommended before engaging this service.

Gates Plumbing shows strong professionalism and pricing practices with multiple positive mentions of responsiveness, communication, and fair rates. However, a severe 2018 incident involving repeated failed repairs, water damage, and broken promises significantly impacts the project completion score. While most recent reviews (2019-2023) are highly positive and mention technical skill, the unresolved dispute and owner's refusal to honor commitments raises serious concerns about accountability when problems occur. The company demonstrates competence in routine work but has documented integrity issues in handling failures.

• CRITICAL: One detailed 1-star review (2018-11-09) describes catastrophic service failure with three botched repair attempts, resulting in water damage and owner's broken promise to 'make things right.' This is not a minor complaint and directly contradicts the positive narrative in other reviews.
• RECENCY BIAS: Most positive reviews are from 2019-2023, while the most damaging review is from 2018. However, the 2018 incident involved legal/financial consequences that should not be dismissed as outdated.
• INTEGRITY CONCERN: Owner explicitly stated 'I'd rather close my doors than pay for this' and later contradicted his own promise ('I did [say I'd make it right], but that doesn't mean I'm going to pay you'). This pattern suggests potential reliability issues when claims are made.
• PATTERN INCONSISTENCY: Positive reviews mention 'great service' and 'never disappointed,' but the detailed negative review shows systemic failure in diagnosis and follow-through on the same core service (plumbing repair).

This score should be treated with caution. While recent reviews are consistently positive and suggest competent routine work, the documented 2018 incident involving repeated failures, water damage, and owner's refusal to honor commitments represents a material integrity risk that cannot be overlooked. The WW Score reflects strong technical and professional performance on routine jobs, but the company's handling of failures and accountability is questionable.

D&A Pump has a strong track record of responsive, same-day service and technically competent work across multiple reviews spanning 2016–2021, with customers consistently praising Jason and his team for punctuality, friendliness, and effective problem-solving. Pricing was noted as reasonable or fair in three reviews, supporting a solid but not exceptional pricing score. However, the most recent review (March 2022) is a serious red flag: a customer reported a confirmed leak that went unaddressed for over seven months despite repeated contact attempts, ultimately forcing them to hire another contractor. This single but highly credible negative review significantly drags down the project completion and professionalism scores, as it represents a complete failure of follow-through and communication. The contrast between the glowing older reviews and this recent abandonment pattern warrants caution for prospective customers.

• CRITICAL — Most recent review (March 2022) describes a confirmed case of abandoned work: a leak was acknowledged by D&A staff but never repaired, and the company became completely unresponsive for over 7 months. This is a serious project completion and professionalism failure.
• RECENCY CONCERN — The negative review is the most recent data point (2022). All positive reviews are from 2016–2021, with the most recent positive review being nearly a year prior to the complaint. This suggests a possible decline in service quality over time.
• REVIEW VOLUME — Only 6 total reviews span a 6-year period, which is a very thin dataset. Scores should be treated with caution despite some HIGH confidence labels based on mention counts.
• No fake review patterns detected — reviews contain specific details, varied language, and include both positive and negative experiences, suggesting authenticity.

This WW Score carries moderate overall reliability due to the small review pool (6 reviews over 6 years) and a significant unresolved complaint in the most recent review that directly contradicts the positive pattern seen in older reviews.