Find Nearby Plumbers In Medford, Oregon

Price Plumbing has a strong base of satisfied customers who consistently praise responsiveness, communication, punctuality, and fair pricing across dozens of reviews spanning several years. However, a meaningful and recurring pattern of serious complaints — including multiple no-shows without notice, unfinished jobs after payment, failure to honor warranty callbacks, and at least one instance of dangerous gas work — significantly drags down the project completion and professionalism scores. The pricing dimension scores moderately well, with many reviewers noting competitive and transparent quotes, though one reviewer cited what they felt were excessive charges. Experience scores reasonably well overall, with most technicians described as skilled and knowledgeable, but a few reviews describe technicians who appeared unqualified or unfamiliar with the job at hand. The gap between the volume of positive reviews and the severity of the negative ones — particularly around reliability and follow-through — is the defining tension in this score.

• RECURRING NO-SHOW PATTERN: At least 7 distinct reviews across multiple years (2017, 2019, 2020, 2022, 2023) describe confirmed appointments where no one showed up and no communication was provided. This is a systemic reliability issue, not isolated incidents.
• UNFINISHED WORK AFTER PAYMENT: Multiple reviews (2022-03-20, 2020-01-02, 2021-04-26) describe jobs that were paid for but never completed, with the company becoming unresponsive afterward.
• WARRANTY/CALLBACK FAILURES: Several reviews (2020-07-01 x2, 2022-12-17, 2023-01-02) describe complete inability to reach the company for warranty or follow-up service, with calls going to an answering service that may not relay messages.
• SERIOUS SAFETY CONCERN: One review (2023-01-02) alleges a dangerous gas leak caused by Price Plumbing's work on a new home build, serious enough that the gas utility had to shut off service. This is a significant safety flag.
• POSSIBLE FAKE OR LOW-DETAIL REVIEWS: Several 5-star reviews (e.g., 2022-06-30, 2021-11-03, 2019-07-28 x2, 2019-07-24, 2019-07-23, 2019-07-22) contain very generic praise with no specific job details, identical tone, and some clustered within days of each other. The 2021-11-03 review references 'best plumbers in Vegas' while most reviews appear to be Hawaii-based, suggesting it may be for a different company entirely or a misplaced review.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent reviews (2023-2024) show a mixed but somewhat improved pattern compared to the 2020-2022 period, though no-show complaints still appear as recently as mid-2023.
• PAYMENT METHOD CONCERN: One review notes the company does not accept credit cards on-site and requires PayPal, and another reviewer paid cash and never received a promised receipt after multiple requests — a minor but notable transparency concern.
• MULTIPLE TECHNICIANS/SUBCONTRACTORS: Several reviews mention different named technicians (Jose, Justin, Charles, Scott, Albert, Ed) and one reviewer was explicitly told the technician sent was not actually a Price Plumbing employee but someone 'helping out.' This suggests inconsistent quality control across personnel.

This WW Score is based on a large review set (85 reviews) spanning 2016–2024 and carries HIGH statistical confidence, but consumers should weigh the score cautiously given the documented and repeated pattern of no-shows, abandoned jobs, and warranty non-response, which represent serious reliability risks that aggregate scores can obscure.

Accurate Plumbing and Electrical Solutions has a broadly positive review base, with many customers praising friendly, professional technicians and reasonable pricing. However, a meaningful cluster of 1-star reviews describes serious quality failures — including a dangerous gas leak after a water heater install, a snake left lodged in a drain and charged for as fixed, incomplete drain clearing, hidden charges, and a refusal to honor warranty callbacks — which significantly temper the scores across all dimensions. Project completion is the most penalized dimension, as multiple reviews describe work that was not properly finished, not followed through on, or required a second company to correct. Professionalism scores are pulled down by reports of rude customer service representatives, failure to return calls, and deceptive scheduling practices. Several reviewers explicitly note that the company has declined in quality in recent years compared to its earlier reputation, which is a meaningful signal given the date range of reviews spanning 2012 to 2025.

• Four reviews posted on the exact same date (2024-10-12) with identical 5-star ratings, vague praise, and no specific technician names or job details — these are highly suspicious and may be fake or solicited reviews. Confidence in those reviews is reduced.
• Multiple reviewers explicitly state the company has deteriorated in quality over recent years compared to past performance, suggesting a meaningful decline in service standards.
• One review describes a potentially life-threatening gas leak caused by improperly tightened gas lines after a water heater installation — a serious safety and competence red flag.
• One review describes a snake being left in a drain, the job being charged as completed, and the issue only discovered when a second company was called — indicating possible fraudulent billing.
• Several negative reviews describe the company refusing to honor callbacks or warranty claims, with customer service representatives being unresponsive or dismissive.
• Review date range spans 2012 to 2025. Many of the most positive reviews are from 2017–2021 or earlier. The most recent negative reviews (2021–2024) suggest a downward trend in quality that should be weighted more heavily.
• One reviewer notes that all 5-star reviews appear to be from several years back, consistent with the observed pattern in this dataset.

This WW Score is based on a substantial volume of reviews (42) spanning over a decade, giving it HIGH statistical confidence, but the score should be interpreted cautiously given credible evidence of service quality decline in recent years, suspected fake reviews in the 2024 cluster, and multiple serious safety and completion failures documented in 1-star reviews.

Desert Pump demonstrates strong performance across all measured dimensions based on limited but positive feedback. Two substantive reviews highlight responsive emergency service, fair pricing, technical competence, and reliable follow-up care. However, the sample size is very small (only 2 usable reviews), and one review from 2016 is significantly dated. The WW Score of 82.1 reflects solid execution but should be treated as preliminary pending additional recent reviews.

• Only 3 total reviews analyzed; 1 review is unusable (incoherent complaint about scrap purchasing, unrelated to plumbing/pump services)
• Most recent usable review is from June 2022 (over 2 years old); oldest usable review is from September 2016 (8+ years old). Limited recency data.
• All scores based on 1–2 mentions each, resulting in LIMITED confidence across all dimensions. Score reliability is constrained by small sample size.
• No negative feedback on professionalism, pricing, or experience in usable reviews; however, absence of complaints does not constitute strong evidence of quality.

This WW Score should be treated as preliminary and directional only. With only 2 usable reviews and all dimensions carrying LIMITED confidence, the score provides a general sense of contractor quality but lacks the volume and recency needed for high-confidence decision-making. Additional recent reviews are strongly recommended before relying on this score.

Greg Sprague demonstrates strong technical expertise and professionalism in most engagements, with 11 reviews explicitly praising his responsiveness, punctuality, communication, and courteous demeanor. His pricing is consistently described as fair and affordable across 5 mentions. However, project completion is significantly undermined by two severe negative reviews (2013 and 2022) documenting serious follow-through failures: one involving poor installation quality with multiple failed repair attempts and complete non-responsiveness to callbacks; another involving months of ignored phone calls. These critical failures substantially lower the project completion score despite 8 positive mentions of successful job completion. Experience and technical skill are consistently praised across 9 reviews, with customers noting his problem-solving ability and knowledge.

• CRITICAL: Two 1-star reviews document severe service failures including non-responsiveness to multiple callback requests and poor workmanship. These are not isolated complaints but represent systematic failures in project completion and follow-through.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most positive reviews are from 2015-2023, but the two most damaging reviews are from 2013 and 2022, suggesting potential recurring issues with callbacks and responsiveness rather than isolated incidents.
• PATTERN ALERT: Both negative reviews specifically cite failure to return phone calls/messages despite multiple attempts. This is a consistent failure pattern across different time periods, not a one-time occurrence.
• POSITIVE REVIEW CONSISTENCY: The 13 positive reviews show consistent language patterns (e.g., 'great guy,' 'honest,' 'knowledgeable') but each contains specific, verifiable details (disposal repair, faucet installation, water heater emergency, etc.), suggesting authentic reviews rather than fabricated praise.

This score should be treated with caution. While Greg demonstrates genuine expertise and professionalism in most interactions, the documented pattern of non-responsiveness to callbacks in two separate reviews (2013 and 2022) represents a critical vulnerability in project completion that directly contradicts the majority positive feedback; potential customers should be aware that excellent initial service may not extend to follow-up support if problems arise.

Latham Plumbing demonstrates strong technical competence and generally reliable project completion, with most customers praising responsiveness and work quality. However, pricing emerges as a significant weakness, with multiple detailed complaints about high hourly rates ($100-$160/hr), charges for drive time, inflated parts markups, and overall value perception. Professionalism scores are mixed—many reviews highlight friendliness and politeness, but several customers report rudeness, dismissiveness, and unprofessional conduct. The company excels at emergency response and problem-solving but struggles with pricing transparency and consistent customer service demeanor.

• PRICING PATTERN: At least 8 reviews explicitly criticize pricing as excessive, unfair, or overcharged. Complaints include: $620 for minor shower work (2024-10-12), $460 for 2.5 hours including drive time (2021-06-10), $200 for simple faucet repair (2017-11-26), $400 for 1.5 hours (2017-01-26), $100 drive time charge (2024-10-12). This is the most consistent negative theme across the dataset.
• PROFESSIONALISM INCONSISTENCY: Multiple 1-star reviews cite rudeness, yelling at customers, dismissiveness, and unprofessional behavior (2017-11-26: 'yelled', 2016-07-04: 'brusque and unpleasant', 2024-09-10: receptionist 'laughed' at customer). Contrasts sharply with 5-star reviews praising friendliness.
• POTENTIAL PRICING DISCRIMINATION: 2024-10-12 review alleges Thomas increased rates by $100 per visit after learning customer's spouse was a doctor. This suggests possible discriminatory pricing practices.
• QUALITY INCONSISTENCY: 2018-02-20 review describes 'shoddy' work and bad advice on sewage line repair; 2018-03-18 describes incomplete diagnosis of toilet issue. These suggest variable technical competence.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most negative pricing reviews cluster in 2017-2021 period. More recent reviews (2024) show continued pricing complaints but also some positive feedback, suggesting possible ongoing issue.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK - MODERATE: Multiple empty reviews (5-star with no text) and several generic 1-2 sentence praise reviews (e.g., 'Trustworthy, efficient, honest, and smart!', 'Highly recommend!') lack specificity. However, detailed negative reviews provide counterbalance and appear authentic. Not conclusive evidence of fake reviews, but pattern noted.

This WW Score of 72.8 should be treated with MODERATE confidence. While the company demonstrates genuine technical competence and strong emergency response (HIGH confidence on experience and project completion), the pricing dimension is severely compromised by consistent, detailed complaints spanning multiple years. The professionalism score is pulled down by documented instances of rudeness and dismissiveness, creating a reliability concern. The score reflects a company that delivers functional results but at a cost customers frequently perceive as unfair, with inconsistent interpersonal professionalism. Customers with budget constraints should seek alternative providers; those prioritizing speed and technical capability may accept the premium pricing.

The majority of reviews praise Richard's Plumbing for promptness, friendliness, fair pricing, and technical competence across appliance repair and plumbing work, with many customers noting same-day service and accurate diagnoses. However, several serious negative reviews drag scores down meaningfully: one customer paid for an incomplete sewer job where the technician arrived late and unprepared, another paid in full before work was finished and was then ghosted, and a third reported a failed callback after a repeat repair failure. Pricing is generally viewed favorably, with multiple reviewers noting costs came in at or below estimate, but the unresolved billing complaint from 2008 tempers that dimension. Project completion is the most penalized dimension due to explicit accounts of abandoned or incomplete work and unresponsive follow-through. The bulk of positive reviews are older than five years, with the most recent negative review dated 2020, which raises concern about current service quality.

• 5 reviews contain no usable text ('unknown', '.', 'See above', 'How did what go overall?') and were excluded from scoring — these blank or near-blank 5-star entries may inflate the perceived rating count.
• Several positive reviews use very generic praise with no specifics (e.g., 'Excellent', 'Excellent.', 'It went well') — these contribute minimally to scoring confidence.
• The majority of reviews are more than 5 years old; only 2 reviews are from 2016 or later with substantive content, and the most recent substantive review (2020) is a 1-star complaint. Current service quality cannot be reliably inferred from older reviews.
• Three distinct reviews describe serious failures: unprepared technician and incomplete work (2020), payment taken without completing work and no follow-up (2017), and unresolved callback failure after a repair (2007–2008). These are not isolated incidents and span multiple years.
• Recency bias applied: the 2020 negative review was weighted more heavily than older positive reviews in project completion and professionalism scoring.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability — while mention counts are sufficient for statistical confidence in each dimension, the heavy skew of reviews toward dates older than 5 years and the presence of multiple credible negative reviews describing incomplete work and non-responsiveness mean this score should be treated as a historical snapshot rather than a current performance indicator.