Find Nearby Plumbers In Hillsboro, Oregon

Cascade Plumbing earns strong marks across all four dimensions based on a solid volume of reviews, with responsiveness and same-day service being the most consistently praised attributes. Professionalism scores well overall but is meaningfully dragged down by three notable negative reviews: one describing a rude customer service representative who refused to help and never called back, one describing a plumber who appeared confused on the job and then failed to follow up as promised, and one where a tech charged a diagnostic fee and recommended unnecessary invasive work without adequately investigating the problem. Pricing is generally viewed as fair or below-market, though one reviewer flagged a billing practice of charging for invoice-writing time in the vehicle, and the $135 diagnostic-only charge with no resolution drew criticism. Project completion is solid — most jobs were finished same-day or next-day — but the abandoned water heater install and the three-day water outage incident prevent a higher score. Experience is generally positive, with multiple reviewers noting competence, honesty, and quality workmanship, but the confused plumber incident and the misdiagnosed leak introduce enough doubt to keep the score conservative.

• Three reviews with 1-star ratings describe meaningfully different failure modes (rude staff, incompetent plumber, poor diagnosis), which adds credibility to the negative feedback and warrants score reduction.
• Several 5-star reviews are brief and generic (e.g., 'Knowledgeable and courteous professionals!' with no detail), which slightly reduces confidence in the upper end of positive scores.
• The majority of reviews are dated between 2017 and 2022, with no reviews from the past 12 months (relative to mid-2025). Recency of data is a concern — current service quality may differ from what is reflected here.
• No fake review patterns detected, but the mix of very short generic positives and detailed negatives suggests the negative reviews may be more reliable signal than the brief positives.

This WW Score is based on 19 reviews spanning 2015–2022 with no data from the past 12+ months, which limits its ability to reflect current performance; the score should be treated as a reasonable historical baseline but verified with more recent feedback before hiring.

7 Pines Plumbing earns strong marks for responsiveness and technical skill, with dozens of reviewers praising same-day or emergency service, knowledgeable technicians, and friendly interactions. Pricing is generally viewed as fair and transparent, with multiple reviewers explicitly noting no hidden fees and competitive quotes. However, project completion is the most significant drag on the overall score: multiple detailed negative reviews describe unfinished work left for weeks, broken promises to return, a job that took seven months instead of one week, an unresolved fixture error causing ceiling damage, and a recurring drain issue that was not properly resolved. Professionalism is similarly mixed — while many reviewers praise communication and punctuality, several credible negative reviews describe missed appointments, no-shows without notice, rude follow-up, and failure to deliver invoices or paperwork. The contrast between glowing emergency-service reviews and serious project-management failures creates a meaningful reliability gap that the score reflects.

• 5 reviews contain no text whatsoever — only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence.
• A cluster of 13 reviews share the exact same date of 2024-06-09 with no timestamps, several of which are very short and generic (e.g., 'Fast, responsive, quality work!', '7 Pines is the best in town!', 'A trustworthy, honest and gets a job done'). This pattern raises moderate concern about review authenticity or a coordinated review push. Confidence in that cluster is reduced.
• Two reviews (2024-06-09 cluster) appear nearly identical in structure and phrasing to each other and to the detailed 2024-06-09 review, suggesting possible templated or solicited reviews.
• The negative reviews are highly specific, named, and detailed — including dates, sequences of events, and named individuals — lending them strong credibility. They should be weighted heavily despite being outnumbered by positive reviews.
• Recency note: The majority of reviews are from the past 12 months (2024–2025), which is favorable for relevance. Two reviews from 2021–2022 were included but given reduced weight.
• A pattern of invoice and paperwork failures appears in at least two independent negative reviews (April 2025 and October 2024), suggesting a possible systemic administrative weakness rather than isolated incidents.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence given the volume of reviews, but the score itself should be interpreted cautiously due to a credible pattern of project completion failures and professionalism inconsistencies documented across multiple detailed, independent negative reviews.

Mr. Rooter earns strong marks for professionalism and experience, with hundreds of reviews praising courteous, knowledgeable technicians who communicate clearly, arrive promptly, and clean up after themselves. Project completion is generally solid, with most jobs finished same-day or within the promised timeframe, though a meaningful minority of reviews describe incomplete work, no-shows, or jobs that required callbacks. The most significant drag on the overall WW Score is pricing: a very large volume of reviewers — across many years and locations — explicitly describe charges as excessive, sometimes 2–4x competitor quotes, with several accounts of suspected upselling, undisclosed fees, and work billed but not performed. This pricing concern is too consistent and widespread to discount.

• PRICING CONCERN — HIGH VOLUME: Pricing complaints appear in well over 100 reviews spanning multiple years and locations. Specific complaints include: $400–$766 to snake a drain, $4,500+ for water heater replacements available elsewhere for $1,400–$2,100, $12,000 quotes for jobs completed by competitors for $1,100–$3,000, and charges for services (e.g., camera inspection) that were never performed. This is a systemic pattern, not isolated incidents.
• INCOMPLETE WORK / CALLBACKS: Multiple reviews describe jobs left unfinished, problems recurring within days, or original issues not addressed (e.g., kitchen sink still clogged after $4,500 job, drain re-clogged within 24 hours, shower still leaking after repair).
• NO-SHOW / SCHEDULING FAILURES: At least 8–10 reviews describe technicians who did not arrive at scheduled times with no proactive communication, including one review describing a 5-hour wait with no contact.
• SERIOUS SAFETY ALLEGATION: One review (dated 2024-10-14, rating 0.5) alleges that dry-cutting through a slab without asbestos precautions caused $43,000 in out-of-pocket losses and 43 days of hotel displacement. This is an extreme outlier but warrants flagging.
• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: Several review texts appear verbatim across multiple dates (e.g., 'Fast, pleasant, and excellent service!' on 2025-06-08 and 2025-06-06; 'Excellent service. Efficient and courteous...' on 2025-06-08 and 2025-06-06; 'Nathan did an excellent job...' on 2025-06-07 and 2025-06-05; 'Well done, completely satisfied.' on 2025-06-07 and 2025-06-04; 'good quality work' on 2024-09-17 twice). This suggests possible review duplication or platform aggregation artifacts. Confidence in the very recent review cluster is slightly reduced.
• BLANK REVIEWS WITH 5-STAR RATINGS: A large number of reviews (estimated 80–100+) contain no text and only a 5-star rating. These provide no usable data for dimension scoring and inflate the raw star average without substantive evidence.
• FRANCHISE VARIABILITY: Reviews reference multiple geographic locations (Santa Cruz, Portland/Vancouver, Camp Verde/Verde Valley, Inland Empire, etc.). Scores reflect the aggregate of what appears to be a multi-franchise dataset; individual location quality may vary significantly.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews with substantive text are from 2021–2025, which is within the relevant scoring window. Reviews from 2012–2019 are present but weighted less heavily per scoring rules.

The WW Score of 72.4 carries HIGH statistical confidence given the very large review volume, but consumers should treat the pricing dimension (score: 42) as a serious and well-documented risk — the volume and specificity of overcharging complaints across years and locations is too consistent to dismiss, and prospective customers are strongly advised to obtain competing quotes before authorizing any work.

MD Plumbing has a strong base of positive reviews praising punctuality, friendliness, reasonable pricing, and solid workmanship across many years of service. However, several serious negative reviews significantly temper the overall score: one reviewer describes a no-show emergency call with zero follow-up communication, another details a catastrophic new-home plumbing job with a near-fire incident and arrogant ownership, and a third describes a broken sink with the owner responding aggressively and refusing accountability. A pricing complaint emerged after a reported merger with Urban Design, where customers were charged for time the plumber was not on-site. The positive reviews are numerous but span a wide date range, with the most recent substantive reviews dating to 2023 and 2022, while the most damaging reviews are older — though the pattern of ownership conduct issues across multiple negative reviews is a meaningful signal.

• One review (rated 'unknown', 5 stars, 2016-05-04) contains no text and was excluded from dimension scoring as it provides no usable data.
• The business appears to have operated under multiple names: Grimes Plumbing, MD Plumbing, and later merged with Urban Design. Reviews span these different business identities, which may affect consistency of service quality over time.
• The 2021 negative review explicitly notes a pricing model change after the merger with Urban Design, suggesting the business may have undergone structural changes that affect comparability of older vs. newer reviews.
• The oldest negative reviews (2009, 2011, 2013) describe ownership-level conduct issues — aggression, hostility, and negligence — that are serious but may reflect a prior era of the business. However, similar themes of poor communication and dismissiveness appear in the 2018 negative review as well, suggesting these issues were not fully resolved.
• Most reviews are older than 12 months relative to a current analysis date. Only two reviews (2022, 2023) are within the past two years, limiting confidence in the current state of the business.
• No strong fake review patterns detected. Reviews vary in length, detail, and sentiment. Named technicians (Randy, Eric, Donnie, Mark) appear across multiple reviews, adding authenticity.

The WW Score of 72.1 is based on a reasonable volume of reviews with HIGH mention counts across all dimensions, but should be treated with caution given the multi-name business history, a cluster of serious negative reviews describing ownership misconduct and project failures, and the fact that only 2 of 26 reviews are from the past two years.

Town & Country Plumbing shows strong technical capability and experience (82/100) with many customers praising knowledgeable technicians who solve complex problems efficiently. Project completion is solid (76/100) with most jobs finished as promised, though several serious follow-up failures are documented. Professionalism is the weakest dimension (72/100), with multiple reports of unprofessional behavior, poor communication, and disrespectful attitudes from individual technicians offsetting numerous positive interactions. Pricing receives moderate marks (68/100) with complaints about service fees, hidden charges, and bills exceeding estimates, though some customers report fair pricing. The company shows inconsistency—excellent service from some technicians (Joe, Craig, Grant, Ed) contrasts sharply with documented instances of vulgar language, poor attitude, and lack of accountability.

• CRITICAL: Multiple severe negative reviews document serious professionalism failures including vulgar language, disrespectful behavior, threatening conduct, and complete lack of follow-up on failed work. Two reviews describe dangerous electrical work and incomplete repairs causing property damage.
• INCONSISTENCY PATTERN: Company appears to have experienced ownership/management changes (noted in 2021 review). Quality and responsiveness vary dramatically by technician and time period.
• FOLLOW-UP FAILURES: At least 3 detailed reviews document complete failure to return calls, respond to complaints, or take responsibility for incomplete/failed work. One customer had to hire another plumber after Town & Country's failed repair.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most recent reviews (2024-2025) are overwhelmingly positive 5-star ratings with minimal detail, creating potential bias. Older reviews (2013-2019) contain detailed negative accounts of serious failures. This temporal pattern warrants caution.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS: Multiple mentions of unexpected charges, service fees, bills exceeding estimates, and lack of transparency. One customer charged $700 above estimate without explanation.
• EMPTY REVIEWS: 7 reviews contain no text (only 5-star ratings), reducing data quality.

This score should be treated with MODERATE caution. While recent reviews are predominantly positive, the company has a documented history of serious professionalism and follow-up failures that caused significant customer harm. The stark contrast between glowing recent reviews and detailed negative accounts from 2013-2019 suggests either genuine improvement or potential review bias. The score reflects current apparent performance but is tempered by unresolved accountability issues and inconsistent service quality across technicians.

Mark Brightman shows strong technical capability and generally completes projects on time with quality workmanship, as evidenced by multiple positive reviews citing diverse project types and timely delivery. However, professionalism is a significant weakness, with documented issues including chronic lateness (over 1 hour late), poor communication (not calling ahead), dismissive attitude, and lack of customer service skills. Pricing is fair according to available feedback. The 2021 negative review is recent enough to be relevant and describes specific, credible incidents rather than vague complaints, suggesting genuine service inconsistency.

• Significant recency gap: three reviews from February 2022 cluster together with identical 5.0 ratings and generic praise language ('quality work', 'pleasant', 'fair priced'), while the most recent negative review is from April 2021. The clustering and generic nature of positive reviews warrants caution.
• Professionalism score heavily influenced by one detailed negative review (2021) describing multiple failures: extreme lateness, poor communication, dismissive attitude, and rudeness. This single review substantially lowers the dimension score.
• All reviews are older than 12 months (oldest from Feb 2022, most recent from Apr 2021), limiting ability to assess current service quality.
• Contradiction between positive reviews (describing reliability and timeliness) and negative review (describing chronic lateness and poor communication) suggests either inconsistent service delivery or potential data quality issues.

This score should be treated with caution due to limited sample size (4 reviews), age of data (all 1+ years old), and conflicting evidence about professionalism and reliability. The MODERATE overall confidence reflects genuine uncertainty about current service quality.