Find Nearby Plumbers In Portland, Oregon

Tri County Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism with consistent praise for punctuality, communication, and friendly staff across 26 reviews. Pricing is competitive and transparent, with 18 mentions highlighting fair rates and honest recommendations that often save customers money. Project completion is solid with 22 mentions of timely work and problem resolution, though one significant 2013 review detailed scope creep and material markup concerns that moderately impacts this dimension. Technical skill and experience are well-documented across 16 reviews, with specific praise for master plumbers Roy, Jeremy, and Tony. The company shows particular strength in emergency response and customer service.

• One detailed negative review from 2013 (1-star) describes significant issues: undisclosed scope expansion ($1,000 initial quote became $4,000 total), material markup concerns, and poor communication about pipe wrapping. This is a material complaint that suggests potential pricing opacity in complex jobs.
• One 2016 review (1-star) reports complete non-responsiveness to a Sunday message inquiry, contradicting the company's otherwise strong communication reputation.
• One 2022 review is blank (5-star with no text), reducing data quality slightly.
• Majority of reviews (28 of 43) are older than 3 years, with only 3 reviews from 2024. Recent performance data is limited.
• High concentration of 5-star reviews (37 of 43) with minimal critical detail in many creates some concern about review authenticity, though the two detailed negative reviews and scattered 4-star reviews with specific critiques suggest genuine mixed feedback rather than fake reviews.

This WW Score of 82.1 is reliable and should be trusted, supported by HIGH confidence across all four dimensions based on substantial mention counts (16-26 per dimension). However, the score is tempered by one serious 2013 complaint about pricing practices in complex jobs and limited recent data (only 3 reviews from 2024), suggesting the company's current performance should be verified with recent references before committing to major work.

Ironman Plumbing demonstrates strong overall performance across all dimensions, with particular strength in pricing competitiveness and technical expertise. The company excels at responsiveness, professionalism, and delivering quality workmanship on complex water line projects. However, the score is tempered by two significant recent failures: a 2025 warranty callback issue where the owner was unresponsive to multiple contact attempts, and a 2018 quote follow-up failure. These represent critical breakdowns in project completion and communication that directly contradict the otherwise consistent pattern of excellence.

• CRITICAL: May 2025 review (most recent) documents severe warranty callback failure—customer reported water leak 5 months post-repair, left multiple messages (phone, office, texts) with NO response. This is a major red flag for follow-through and professionalism.
• September 2018 review documents quote follow-up failure—customer received no response after 2+ weeks and 2 follow-up emails. Pattern suggests inconsistent communication systems.
• One blank 5-star review (June 2024) with no text—cannot verify legitimacy.
• Majority of reviews (24 of 31) are from 2016-2022, with only 6 reviews from 2023 onward. Recent performance data is limited.
• High concentration of 5-star reviews (26 of 31) with very similar language patterns ('exceptional service,' 'professional,' 'highly recommend') suggests possible review clustering, though specificity and detail in most reviews mitigates fake review concerns.
• Two 1-star reviews both involve communication/callback failures, suggesting this may be a systemic weakness despite strong technical performance.

This score should be treated with CAUTION. While the overall WW Score of 82.1 reflects genuinely strong technical performance and pricing, the two recent critical failures (2025 warranty callback and 2018 quote follow-up) indicate that communication and follow-through systems are unreliable. The score is heavily weighted toward older reviews (2016-2022); current reliability cannot be fully assessed. Recommend contacting recent customers directly before engaging.

Signature Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism with consistent punctuality, excellent communication, and courteous service across 68 reviews. Technical expertise is well-documented with 52 mentions of skilled workmanship and problem-solving. Pricing is competitive and transparent, with 32 reviews praising fair rates and value. However, project completion shows the lowest score (76.0) due to 8 documented instances of scheduling failures, no-shows, ghosting, and incomplete callbacks that significantly impact reliability. The company excels in quality and customer interaction but struggles with operational consistency.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: The master bath remodel review (starting 'Signature plumbing is BY FAR the best...') appears identically 3 times (2022-06-10, 2021-06-24 twice). This suggests either platform duplication or potential review manipulation.
• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: The full repiping review (starting 'Faced with full repiping & underslab drain...') appears identically 3 times (2020-06-10, 2020-02-27, 2020-01-29). Likely platform duplication but reduces confidence in review authenticity.
• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: The retired electrician review (starting 'I am a retired electrician...') appears identically 2 times (2020-06-10, 2019-12-09).
• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: The scheduling failure review appears identically 2 times (2018-06-07 with different timestamps). This is a critical negative review duplicated.
• SCHEDULING RELIABILITY PATTERN: 8 reviews explicitly document scheduling failures including no-shows, ghosting, missed callbacks, and rescheduling issues (dates: 2019-06-11, 2018-06-07 x2, 2017-04-10, 2017-03-11, 2016-11-23, and 2 others). This is a material weakness despite overall positive sentiment.
• QUALITY CONTROL ISSUES: 4 reviews document significant workmanship problems including incorrect toilet installation causing floor damage, mixed hot/cold water pipes, faulty diverter installation, and incomplete testing (dates: 2023-06-10, 2022-08-11, 2022-08-10, 2022-06-20). These are serious defects.
• GENERIC/MINIMAL REVIEWS: 12+ reviews contain only 1-3 words or generic praise with no specifics ('unknown', '.', 'Excellent no problem', 'repair dripping hot water pipe above kitchen'). These provide minimal evidentiary value.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Majority of reviews are from 2015-2020 (older than 4 years). Only ~25 reviews are from 2022-2023. Recent data is limited, making current performance assessment difficult.
• INCONSISTENT TEAM COMPOSITION: Reviews reference 'Dave', 'Rick/Ric', 'Brent', and 'Greg' as team members, but the 2023 negative review states 'there are no other employees' (solo operation). This inconsistency across time suggests business model changes or review accuracy issues.

This WW Score of 81.2 should be treated with MODERATE-to-HIGH caution. While the score reflects genuinely strong professionalism and expertise based on 68+ substantive positive reviews, the presence of 3 duplicate review sets, 8 documented scheduling failures, 4 serious quality defects, and a heavy skew toward older reviews (pre-2021) significantly undermines confidence in current reliability. The project completion dimension is artificially supported by positive reviews that do not mention scheduling, masking a material operational weakness. Recommend treating the professionalism and experience scores as trustworthy (HIGH confidence) but viewing the overall score as optimistic given documented follow-through failures.

Evertrust Plumbing demonstrates strong overall performance with a WW Score of 81.2, driven primarily by consistently high marks in professionalism, project completion, and technical experience. The company excels at punctuality, responsiveness, and workmanship quality, with 68 mentions of professional conduct and 59 mentions of reliable job completion. However, pricing emerges as a notable weakness, with 22 mentions revealing customer concerns about cost transparency and occasional overcharging relative to market rates. Communication challenges, particularly with office staff (Chelsea) regarding phone responsiveness, appear in multiple reviews and slightly dampen the professionalism score. The company's strength lies in field technicians (David, Nathan, Nate) who consistently deliver quality work and honest service.

• COMMUNICATION BOTTLENECK: Multiple reviews (at least 6) explicitly mention difficulty reaching the company by phone, with customers unable to get callbacks or having to wait extended periods. This is a systemic operational issue that contradicts the high professionalism scores for field work.
• PRICING INCONSISTENCY: At least 5 reviews mention pricing concerns—some praising fair rates while others report significantly higher bills than quoted or market rates (e.g., $683 vs. $350-400 quoted; $500 assessment fee complaint). This suggests either inconsistent pricing practices or poor quote accuracy.
• QUALITY CONTROL VARIANCE: Two reviews (2022-08-25, 2019-09-27) report incomplete or failed repairs requiring callbacks or additional work, including toilet flange installation errors that caused water damage. This contradicts the high project completion score and suggests occasional lapses in workmanship or follow-up.
• STAFF PERFORMANCE DISPARITY: Reviews consistently praise field technicians (David, Nathan, Nate) but criticize office staff (Chelsea, Dennis) for poor communication and follow-up. This indicates a two-tier service quality issue.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: Approximately 15 reviews from 2023-06-10 and 2021-06-10 are blank or contain only ratings with no text. Additionally, several reviews from 2024-10-11 appear to be near-identical duplicates. This suggests possible review manipulation and warrants caution in overall score confidence.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most detailed positive reviews cluster in 2023-2024, while older reviews (2016-2019) show more mixed results with pricing and communication issues. Recent reviews may reflect improved operations or selection bias.

This WW Score of 81.2 should be considered moderately reliable but with important caveats: while field technician performance is well-documented and consistently strong (HIGH confidence), the company's operational infrastructure (phone communication, pricing consistency, quality control) shows material weaknesses that are underrepresented in the overall score due to fewer explicit mentions. The suspected review manipulation (duplicate and blank entries) and significant communication complaints suggest the true score may be 3-5 points lower. Customers should expect excellent field work but should prepare for communication delays and verify pricing carefully before committing.

Tod demonstrates strong professionalism across all four reviews, with consistent praise for responsiveness, punctuality, courtesy, and communication. Project completion is solid, with all jobs finished successfully and callbacks honored (toilet reinstall, door repair). Technical skill is evident across multiple domains (plumbing, electrical, general handyman work). Pricing data is minimal (only one explicit mention of 'fair' prices), limiting confidence in the pricing dimension. All reviews are 5-star ratings from 2020–2022, with no negative feedback present.

• All four reviews are 5-star ratings with uniformly positive language and no critical feedback—this pattern warrants caution, though reviews do contain specific details (toilet installation, closet door repair, mask-wearing) that suggest authenticity rather than generic praise.
• Review dates range from 2020–2022; no reviews from the past 12 months limits recency assessment.
• Pricing dimension based on only 1 mention; score should be treated as exploratory rather than definitive.
• Small sample size (4 reviews) limits statistical reliability; recommend collecting additional recent reviews before making high-confidence business decisions.

This WW Score of 88.3 is based on a small sample of uniformly positive older reviews with limited pricing data; it should be considered a preliminary assessment rather than a definitive measure of current performance, and additional recent reviews are needed to validate these findings.

Meticulous Plumbing earns strong marks for professionalism and experience, with the overwhelming majority of reviewers praising punctuality, communication (including SMS/photo technician alerts), courteous demeanor, and technical skill across a wide range of complex jobs in older homes. Project completion scores are high but tempered by a meaningful cluster of negative reviews describing incomplete work, abandoned jobs, a plumber leaving with a leak still present, and one instance of a failed dishwasher installation causing water damage with disputed accountability. Pricing is the most consistently flagged concern across the review set: numerous customers across multiple years describe sticker shock, flat-rate billing perceived as excessive for short jobs, lack of upfront phone estimates, and specific instances where labor charges of $300–$664 for under an hour of work felt exploitative — though a comparable number of reviewers found pricing fair or competitive relative to other companies. The WW Score of 79.4 reflects a genuinely strong service operation held back by a persistent and well-documented pricing transparency problem and a small but credible pattern of incomplete or mishandled jobs.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: At least 6 reviews appear to be near-identical or exact duplicates posted on different dates (e.g., two identical 5-star reviews on 2025-06-06 and 2025-06-04; the Edgar/Edgar DIY review posted twice in Oct 2024; the 'My neighbor suggested' review posted twice; the Joe kitchen faucet review posted three times in Dec 2022; the 'Meticulous was referred' review posted twice; the Josh/faucet review posted twice). This inflates the review count and may artificially boost scores. Confidence is maintained at HIGH due to volume but this pattern warrants scrutiny.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS ARE SYSTEMIC AND SPAN MULTIPLE YEARS (2017–2025): Negative pricing reviews are not isolated incidents — they describe a structural business practice of flat-rate billing without upfront phone estimates, $89 dispatch fees with only partial credit, and charges perceived as grossly disproportionate to time and parts. This is a genuine and recurring pattern, not outlier dissatisfaction.
• INCOMPLETE WORK PATTERN: Multiple reviews (1-star and 2-star) describe plumbers leaving jobs unfinished, failing to follow through, or departing without resolving the stated issue. One review describes a plumber leaving with a leak still active; another describes being told to call Roto-Rooter after a paid visit; another describes a permit expiring before inspection with no resolution offered.
• TECHNICIAN QUALITY INCONSISTENCY: A 3-star review explicitly notes that experience varies significantly by which technician is sent, and one review describes a first plumber recommending unnecessary wall demolition that a second plumber immediately identified as avoidable. This suggests uneven skill distribution across the team.
• OLDER REVIEWS (PRE-2022) carry less weight per RULE 6. A significant portion of reviews date from 2017–2021. The scoring has been weighted toward the larger and more recent 2022–2025 review body, which remains predominantly positive with the pricing concern persisting throughout.
• ONE SEVERE NEGATIVE REVIEW (2018) describes a failed dishwasher installation causing subfloor water damage, owner refusing refund, and no follow-up — this is a serious workmanship and accountability flag, though it is an isolated incident in the broader dataset.
• ONE REVIEW (2017) describes a dramatic pricing shift from prior years, alleging the company moved to a flat-rate model that resulted in an implied labor rate of ~$779/hour. This aligns with the broader pricing complaint pattern and suggests the flat-rate system has been in place for at least 7+ years.

This WW Score is based on a very large review dataset (193 reviews) with HIGH confidence across all four dimensions, making it statistically robust; however, the score should be interpreted with the understanding that pricing transparency is a documented and recurring structural issue, and that a small but credible subset of reviews describes genuinely incomplete or mishandled work — meaning the score reflects a company that performs well in most cases but carries meaningful risk in cost predictability and occasional execution.