Find Nearby Plumbers In Portland, Oregon

PEX Plumbing receives consistently strong marks across all four dimensions from the five reviews analyzed. Professionalism is the most frequently cited strength, with every reviewer explicitly noting friendliness, courtesy, and professional conduct. Project completion is also well-supported, with reviewers describing full home repipes completed efficiently, on schedule, and with proper follow-through including inspection and cleanup. Pricing is mentioned positively in three reviews, with references to competitive quotes and not being overcharged, supporting a solid but not exceptional pricing score. Experience and technical skill are highlighted in four reviews through references to knowledgeable work, correct installations, and efficient execution, though the small total review count limits full confidence in these scores.

• Small sample size of only 5 reviews — scores should be treated as directional rather than definitive.
• Two reviews (2018-05-25 and 2018-07-05) are approximately 6–7 years old and were given reduced weight relative to the three more recent reviews (2021–2024).
• All reviews are 5-star ratings with no negative or mixed feedback present. While the reviews contain specific details and varied language suggesting authenticity, the absence of any critical feedback warrants mild caution.
• Two of the five reviews reference a specific individual named Juan, while the remaining three reference a team-based operation under the PEX Plumbing brand — this may indicate the business has evolved or that some reviews reflect a different service model.

This WW Score is based on a small but reasonably specific and varied set of reviews spanning multiple years; it should be treated as a promising early signal rather than a high-confidence assessment, and prospective customers are encouraged to seek additional recent reviews before making a hiring decision.

Curtis Leonard of Yore Place demonstrates strong technical expertise and customer service across multiple dimensions. Five of six reviews praise his knowledge, punctuality, and friendly demeanor, with particular strength in problem-solving and workmanship quality. Pricing is consistently described as fair and competitive, with customers noting he charged less than competitors. However, one 2019 review documents a critical failure in responsiveness—a voicemail about an emergency water heater leak went unreturned, significantly impacting the professionalism score. The majority of reviews are older than 5 years, limiting recency assessment.

• RECENCY CONCERN: Five of six reviews are from 2010–2017; only one review from 2019. Limited recent data to assess current service standards.
• RESPONSIVENESS FAILURE: One explicit complaint (2019) about unreturned voicemail for emergency water heater issue directly contradicts the positive professionalism narrative in older reviews. This suggests possible service degradation or inconsistency.
• SMALL SAMPLE SIZE: Only 6 reviews total limits statistical confidence, particularly for a business that may have served many more customers.

This score should be treated with caution due to small sample size, significant age of most reviews, and a recent documented failure in basic responsiveness that conflicts with the otherwise positive historical record.

George Washington Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism across all three reviews, with consistent praise for punctuality (with advance notice when delayed), politeness, and professional demeanor including attention to detail like wearing booties. Project completion is solid, with jobs finished and follow-through demonstrated (e.g., calling about the cat). Pricing appears reasonable based on two mentions ($88/hour without travel charges, described as 'reasonably priced'), though limited data constrains confidence. Technical skill is evidenced by problem-solving (diagnosing valve packing issue) and willingness to avoid unnecessary work. However, all reviews are significantly dated (2006–2018), with the most recent being 6+ years old, limiting currency of assessment.

• All three reviews are older than 12 months; most recent is from 2018. No recent data available to assess current service quality.
• Very small sample size (n=3) limits statistical reliability despite moderate confidence scores.
• One review from 2006 is 18 years old and may not reflect current operations or standards.

This WW Score should be treated with caution due to the very small sample size and age of reviews; while the available data is positive and specific, the lack of recent feedback makes it difficult to assess current service quality with confidence.

Cornel's Plumbing scores strongly on professionalism, with the vast majority of reviewers explicitly praising technician friendliness, punctuality, communication, and courteous demeanor across a wide range of named technicians including Jake, Juan, Tony, Brandon, Wayne, Arturo, and others. Project completion is also solid, with many reviews confirming jobs were finished on time, callbacks were honored, and follow-through was demonstrated — though a notable cluster of negative reviews describes appointment cancellations, no-shows, and rescheduling failures that meaningfully drag this score down. Experience scores well overall, with numerous reviewers citing accurate diagnoses, technical knowledge, and quality workmanship, though a handful of reviews describe technicians who failed to diagnose simple issues or recommended unnecessary replacements. Pricing is the weakest dimension by a significant margin: multiple detailed negative reviews explicitly describe pricing as grossly inflated, with quotes ranging from 2x to 10x what competitors charged for identical work, and several reviewers felt they were being upsold or misled on scope — this is the primary driver pulling the WW Score below 80.

• DUPLICATE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: A large number of reviews appear to be exact or near-exact duplicates posted on consecutive dates (e.g., June 5-8, May 9-10). Identical review text submitted on different dates strongly suggests artificial review inflation or a platform ingestion error. Affected reviews include at minimum: 'Tony was absolutely amazing...', 'Living in a rental with an AC...', 'Such a great experience with Cornel's Plumbing today...', 'Very cordial, informative and professional.', 'Tony was the tech that came out today...', 'Fast and very friendly...', 'Joe, Ernest & Nathan...', 'Juan was great!', 'Joe fixed the problem...', 'Very friendly and did a wonderful job quickly replacing our broken water heater...', 'Outstanding and expert service...', 'Joe & Kevin were rock stars...', 'The guy came over for an estimate...', 'Juan was very patient...', 'The technician was very knowledgeable...', 'Jake and Joe were amazing...', 'They are the best...', 'Arrived promptly on time...', 'Juan, our plumber, was very nice...', 'One of best companies I've worked with...', 'Wayne was patient...', 'This is my first time using Cornell...', 'Nathan was excellent!', 'After a terrible experience...', 'Thomas K arrived promptly...' — all appear twice. Confidence in raw review count is reduced accordingly.
• PRICING CONCERNS — MULTIPLE INDEPENDENT REVIEWERS: At least 8-10 distinct, detailed negative reviews explicitly describe pricing as excessive, with quotes of $1,246 for a $30 DIY fix, $4,700 for a job resolved by a competitor for a fraction of the cost, $2,000 for a pressure regulator worth $100-200 in parts, $500+ for a 15-20 minute job, and $850 vs $380 for the same work. This is a consistent and credible pattern, not isolated complaints.
• UPSELLING ALLEGATIONS: Multiple independent reviewers (not duplicates) allege technicians recommended unnecessary replacements or inflated scopes without proper diagnosis — including a water heater condemned without testing, a shower cartridge diagnosed as failed without being turned on, and an AC system quoted at $3,000+ on suspicion alone. One reviewer had a furnace declared condemned by a novice tech that was later found fully functional by a qualified tech.
• APPOINTMENT RELIABILITY ISSUES: At least 3 independent reviews describe confirmed appointments being cancelled same-day or resulting in no-shows, including one detailed account of two consecutive cancellations and a no-show on the day of service with no proactive communication.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews are from 2024-2025 and are within the past 12 months, which is favorable for recency weighting. However, the duplicate review cluster inflates apparent recent volume. Older reviews (2016-2019) are predominantly positive and reflect a smaller, owner-operated business with a different service model.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — MODERATE: The duplicate review submissions across consecutive dates are highly anomalous. Whether caused by a platform bug or intentional submission, they inflate the apparent review count and positive signal. The true unique review count is estimated at approximately 140-150, not 185.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large volume of reviews, but should be interpreted with caution given a significant duplicate review pattern that inflates positive signals, a consistent and credible multi-reviewer pattern of pricing complaints, and recurring upselling allegations — the true score for price-sensitive customers may be materially lower than the 78.4 composite suggests.

All Pro Plumbing earns strong marks for professionalism, with the vast majority of reviewers explicitly praising punctuality, courtesy, communication, and respectful behavior from technicians across many years of reviews. Experience and workmanship are also well-regarded, with numerous customers citing skilled diagnostics, creative problem-solving, and quality repairs. Project completion is solid overall but is meaningfully dragged down by several serious negative accounts: one customer describes being ghosted after a complex job began, another details a repipe that left two leaks with no follow-through, a third describes a technician who performed no work but billed for it, and a fourth describes a no-show. Pricing is the weakest dimension — while many customers praise fair or competitive pricing, a notable cluster of reviews explicitly flags hidden fees (crawlspace surcharges, travel fees not disclosed upfront, 2x parts markup), and at least two reviews cite being overcharged or feeling deceived on cost, pulling this score down considerably.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: Two pairs of reviews are near-identical in text but posted on different dates (Marcus/toilet review on 2025-05-09 and 2025-05-07; Marco/sewage ejector review on 2025-05-09 and 2025-05-07). These appear to be duplicate submissions and were counted only once each for scoring purposes.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Six reviews contain no text (only a 5-star rating). These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence per Rule 1 and Rule 2.
• SERIOUS COMPLETION FAILURES: Multiple reviews describe significant project abandonment or follow-through failures — including a ghosted customer mid-project (Kaleo, 2024), a repipe job left with two leaks and no return visit (2017), a technician who cut off laundry access and never returned to complete work (2017), and a no-show appointment (2023). These materially reduce the project completion score.
• HIDDEN FEES PATTERN: At least four separate reviews across different years explicitly mention undisclosed fees — a $45 travel/driving fee, a $200 crawlspace surcharge, a 2x parts markup, and materials charges not mentioned during phone quotes. This is a recurring pattern that reduces the pricing score.
• TECHNICIAN DISHONESTY ALLEGATION: One detailed 1-star review (2024) alleges a technician billed for work never performed (cartridge replacement) and that a second plumber confirmed the original work was never done. This is a serious integrity flag.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews span 2016–2025. Reviews from 2016–2019 include several serious negative experiences. More recent reviews (2023–2025) are predominantly positive, suggesting possible service improvement over time, though negative patterns around pricing transparency and project completion persist into 2024.
• GENERIC PRAISE REVIEWS: A small number of reviews (e.g., 'Professional all the way. Definitely referring friends.' and 'Professionals! On time and thourghal!') are very brief and lack specific detail. These were included but weighted conservatively given their low informational value.

This WW Score is based on a large review set (155 total, 149 with usable data) spanning nearly a decade, giving it HIGH statistical confidence; however, the score should be interpreted with caution due to documented patterns of hidden fees, at least four credible project abandonment or no-show incidents, and one serious allegation of billing fraud — issues that the high volume of positive reviews may otherwise obscure.

CH Kruse Plumbing has a strong overall track record built on decades of reviews, with the majority of customers praising punctuality, friendly staff, and responsive communication. Professionalism scores are tempered by a notable cluster of 1-star reviews specifically citing reckless driving by company vehicle operators — a recurring and credible complaint spanning multiple years and reviewers. Project completion is solid for jobs that were actually executed, but is meaningfully dragged down by several reviews citing no-shows, failure to respond to quote requests, and at least one instance of incomplete or substandard work. Pricing is generally viewed as fair to competitive, with multiple reviewers explicitly noting better-than-expected bills, though two reviews cite overpricing and one describes a confusing and unprofessional billing interaction. Technical experience is consistently praised across a wide range of plumbing tasks, including specialty work on Manabloc manifolds and polybutylene systems, reflecting genuine expertise.

• DRIVING COMPLAINTS: Four separate reviews (2024-06-09, 2024-06-09, 2024-11-11, 2025-02-09) from different reviewers cite reckless or dangerous driving by company vehicle operators. These are specific, credible, and recurring — not a one-off incident. This pattern meaningfully reduces the professionalism score.
• NO-SHOW / RESPONSIVENESS FAILURES: At least three reviews (2022-08-02, 2022-02-20, 2015-05-28) describe being ignored, receiving no response to quote requests, or being stood up for scheduled appointments. This is a consistent pattern affecting project completion confidence.
• INCOMPLETE WORK COMPLAINT: One detailed 1-star review (2017-04-13) describes a technician refusing to attempt the primary job, substandard caulking work, and a missing part that was never followed up on — a credible and specific account of poor workmanship.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: Two reviews (2020-08-24 and 2021-06-10) appear to be near-identical in content, both describing Daniel doing the same work with nearly identical phrasing. One may be a duplicate submission. Neither was excluded from analysis but this was noted.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Seven reviews contained no text (only a star rating). These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of highly detailed positive reviews are from 2014–2021. Recent reviews (2024–2025) are fewer in number and include a higher proportion of negative driving-related complaints, which may indicate a shift in operational quality or fleet management issues.
• NO FAKE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: While many reviews are positive, they contain specific names, job details, and varied language. No coordinated fake review pattern was identified.

This WW Score is based on 75 reviews with usable data spanning over a decade and carries HIGH overall confidence; however, consumers should weigh the recurring reckless driving complaints and documented no-show/responsiveness failures as meaningful risk signals before hiring.