Find Nearby Plumbers In Hillsboro, Oregon

Western Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism with consistent punctuality, communication, and courteous service across 89 mentions. Technical expertise and workmanship are solid with 52 mentions of skilled problem-solving. However, project completion is significantly undermined by multiple documented failures including incomplete work, failed inspections, poor installation quality, and refusal to honor callbacks or warranty obligations. Pricing is generally fair (32 mentions), though some customers report overcharging for labor. The company shows a troubling pattern of quality control issues, particularly in complex remodel projects, which substantially reduces overall trustworthiness despite strong individual technician performance.

• CRITICAL: Multiple severe project completion failures documented across 2019-2022 period, including failed inspections, water damage to new hardwood floors, improper installations, and refusal to correct mistakes or provide refunds
• PATTERN DETECTED: Remodel projects show disproportionately high failure rate compared to simple service calls, suggesting quality control breakdown on complex jobs
• INCONSISTENCY: Excellent reviews heavily concentrated in 2013-2017 and 2020+ periods, with cluster of negative reviews in 2019-2022 suggesting possible ownership/management change or operational decline
• FAKE REVIEW RISK: 7 reviews with empty text but 5-star ratings (dates: 2025-05-10, 2025-05-10, 2025-05-10, 2025-05-10, 2025-04-10, 2025-04-10, 2023-06-10, 2023-06-10, 2023-06-10, 2022-06-10, 2025-01-10, 2025-01-10, 2025-01-10, 2024-12-11) raise suspicion of artificial rating inflation
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most recent reviews (2025) are overwhelmingly positive with minimal detail, contrasting sharply with detailed negative reviews from 2019-2022; recent positive trend may not reflect current operational reality
• BUSINESS STATUS UNCLEAR: Multiple reviews reference company closing (2022), yet reviews continue through 2025, creating confusion about current operational status
• PRICING INCONSISTENCY: Some customers report fair pricing while others report significant overcharges for labor and drive time, suggesting inconsistent billing practices
• COMMUNICATION FAILURES: Several documented instances of unreturned calls, unresponsiveness to customer concerns, and hostile office staff behavior

This WW Score should be treated with CAUTION. While professionalism and experience scores are supported by substantial evidence, the project completion score is significantly dragged down by well-documented failures in complex projects, failed inspections, and refusal to honor warranty obligations. The presence of empty 5-star reviews and the dramatic shift from negative reviews (2019-2022) to positive reviews (2025) suggests potential rating manipulation. The company's current operational status is unclear. Customers should prioritize recent detailed reviews over aggregate score and specifically avoid complex remodel projects based on documented failure patterns.

Horizon Plumbing demonstrates strong technical expertise and reasonable pricing, with multiple reviews praising skilled workmanship and fair costs. Professionalism is generally solid, with punctuality and communication highlighted in several recent reviews. However, project completion reliability is significantly undermined by critical failures: a 2024 review documents complete no-show after multiple confirmations, and a 2023 review details incomplete work, installation errors, and defensive behavior when questioned. These serious incidents substantially lower overall confidence despite numerous positive historical reviews.

• FAKE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: Reviews from 2012-2015 contain 4 entries with minimal or no text ('unknown', '.') rated 5.0 stars with no substantive content. These appear to be placeholder or fraudulent entries and reduce confidence in historical data.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most detailed positive reviews are from 2012-2020 (8+ years old). Recent reviews (2024, 2023) show severe service failures including no-show and incomplete work with unprofessional responses.
• BUSINESS CONTINUITY ISSUE: February 2024 review indicates business may be closed or non-responsive ('no answer from business for weeks now'), which contradicts the July 2024 review showing active operations. This suggests possible operational instability.
• CRITICAL SERVICE FAILURES: July 2024 review documents failed appointment with poor communication protocol (unknown caller, text with 5-minute response demand). March 2023 review documents incomplete installation, wrong materials, installation blocking driveway, and aggressive customer interaction ('KNOCK IT OFF MAN').

This score should be treated with caution. While historical reviews suggest competent work, recent critical failures in project completion and professionalism (2023-2024), combined with detected fake reviews in the dataset and apparent business continuity issues, significantly undermine confidence in current service reliability. The WW Score reflects a business in apparent decline from its historical reputation.

Glenn's Plumbing shows mixed performance across dimensions. Project completion is a relative strength with 78/100, supported by 8 mentions including successful repairs and follow-up work. Experience scores well at 80/100 based on demonstrated technical knowledge and problem-solving. However, professionalism is significantly weakened by multiple tardiness complaints, poor communication about service limitations, and lack of attention to detail (flux residue, unnecessary replacements). Pricing is the weakest dimension at 52/100, with recurring complaints about high service calls, overcharging, and recommendations for expensive replacements when cheaper solutions existed. The company shows reliability in returning to fix mistakes but struggles with upfront transparency and cost management.

• RECENCY CONCERN: 11 of 15 reviews are from 2006-2015 (9+ years old). Only 1 review from past 12 months (2020). Historical data may not reflect current operations.
• PRICING RED FLAG: Multiple reviews (2008, 2009, 2011, 2012) cite overpricing, unnecessary upsells, and high service call fees. Pattern suggests systemic pricing issues.
• PROFESSIONALISM ISSUES: Documented tardiness (5pm vs noon appointment), poor phone communication about service limitations, and lack of attention to detail (unflushed flux).
• POLICY TRANSPARENCY: 2012 review indicates company failed to disclose service limitations upfront, leading to wasted service call.
• QUALITY CONTROL VARIANCE: Some reviews praise work quality; others cite incomplete work (unsealed toilet, flux residue). Suggests inconsistent execution.
• POSITIVE BIAS RISK: 10 of 15 reviews are 5-star ratings, but negative reviews are detailed and specific while some positive reviews are generic. Possible selection bias in review platform.

This score should be treated with caution due to age of data (87% of reviews older than 9 years) and potential recency bias. The MODERATE overall confidence reflects conflicting evidence: strong project completion and experience scores are undermined by consistent pricing complaints and professionalism gaps. Current performance may differ significantly from historical reviews.

All three reviews speak positively about professionalism, with mentions of responsiveness, punctuality, and a professional attitude across different job types. Project completion is consistently praised — jobs were described as finished thoroughly, efficiently, and in a timely manner, including a labor-intensive concrete-breaking task. Experience is supported by two reviews referencing quality workmanship and effective problem-solving on complex jobs such as a whole-home drainage failure and a commercial water heater installation. Pricing is mentioned in only one review, which praised it as great, but this single data point carries very limited weight. Overall scores are kept conservative given the small review pool.

• Only 3 reviews total — WW Score should be treated as preliminary and not fully reliable.
• One review is dated 2005 (nearly 20 years old) and carries significantly reduced weight under recency rules; the remaining two reviews are from 2022 and 2023.
• The 2005 review is written entirely in capital letters with generic praise and no specific details about the job type or technician — this reduces its credibility and confidence contribution.
• No negative feedback present across any review, which may reflect a small and potentially non-representative sample rather than a flawless track record.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews, one of which is nearly two decades old and lacks specificity, making the overall score LOW confidence and unsuitable for high-stakes hiring decisions without additional review data.

All three reviews are positive and speak to punctuality, follow-through, and willingness to go the extra mile, supporting moderate confidence in professionalism and project completion. Pricing is mentioned explicitly in only one review, where it is described as reasonable and no-nonsense, yielding a limited but favorable score. Experience and skill are referenced in two reviews with specific praise for problem-solving and quality of work, though the evidence base is thin. The overall picture is encouraging but the very small review pool means these scores should be treated with caution.

• Only 3 reviews total — the minimum threshold for a WW Score calculation. Results are statistically unreliable and should not be treated as representative of long-term performance.
• Two of the three reviews are from September 2023 and one is from October 2019. The 2019 review references a different name ('Ricky') than the other reviews ('Luis'), which may indicate multiple operators, a business name change, or a misattributed review. This inconsistency warrants caution.
• The review dated 2023-09-07 is vague and uses generic superlatives ('amazing', 'fantastic', 'great job', 'very talented') with limited specific detail, which is a mild flag for authenticity. However, it does include some specific detail (shower pipe repair, holiday timing, hardware description) so it is not conclusively fake.
• No negative reviews are present. With only 3 reviews this is not inherently suspicious, but the absence of any critical feedback means weaknesses are entirely undetected.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews and should be considered a preliminary signal only — it is not sufficient to draw confident conclusions about this contractor's consistent quality or reliability.

Root Busters shows genuine strengths in workmanship and job follow-through, with multiple reviewers praising Steve's diligence, honest assessments, and clean work. Pricing is described as reasonable to fair by most, though one reviewer noted it was 'kinda pricey,' keeping that dimension from scoring higher. The most significant drag on the overall score is a persistent responsiveness problem: two separate reviews — one a 1-star review citing four unanswered calls over three days, and another 5-star reviewer who keeps three phone numbers on file just to reach them — confirm that communication and availability are a real, documented issue. Project completion scores well when the plumber does show up, but the risk of not being reached at all tempers confidence in reliability.

• Responsiveness is a confirmed recurring issue across multiple reviews and should be treated as a structural weakness, not an isolated incident.
• All reviews are dated between 2015 and 2018 — none are within the past 12 months (relative to a 2024/2025 evaluation date). This score may not reflect current business performance.
• Small sample size of only 5 reviews limits statistical reliability. The WW Score should be treated as directional only.
• No fake review patterns detected — reviews vary in tone, detail level, and rating, which supports authenticity.

This score is based on only 5 reviews, all of which are 6 or more years old, making it a low-reliability snapshot that should not be used as a definitive measure of current contractor quality.