Find Nearby Plumbers In Portland, Oregon

This aggregated review set spans many years and appears to represent multiple businesses operating under similar or identical names (Royal Flush Plumbing, Pro Plumbing Service, and others), which significantly complicates scoring reliability. The majority of reviews are strongly positive, praising punctuality, communication, professionalism, and technical skill — with many customers citing same-day or emergency responsiveness as a standout quality. However, a meaningful minority of negative reviews (roughly 15-20% of substantive reviews) describe serious issues including no-shows, missed appointments without notification, overcharging without upfront disclosure, incomplete or defective work, and poor customer service when complaints were raised. Pricing is the weakest dimension, with multiple reviewers across different time periods describing charges they felt were excessive, non-transparent, or inconsistent with quoted amounts. Project completion scores are dragged down by recurring complaints about abandoned work, callbacks not honored, and jobs requiring multiple return visits to fix errors.

• MULTI-ENTITY CONCERN: Reviews reference multiple distinct business names including 'Royal Flush Plumbing,' 'Pro Plumbing Service,' and references to individual owner-operators (Jarrod, Steve, Ben, Doug, Ted, Jose, etc.) across different geographic markets (Atlanta GA, Philadelphia PA, Providence RI, Las Vegas NV, Hollister CA, Cleveland OH, Oregon City OR, and others). This dataset almost certainly aggregates reviews from multiple unrelated businesses, severely limiting the reliability of any single composite score.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION: A significant number of reviews contain zero substantive detail — only a star rating or a single generic phrase like 'Great service!' or 'Amazing!' with no specifics. Approximately 60-80 reviews fall into this category. Several clusters of reviews share identical or near-identical dates (e.g., dozens of reviews dated 2025-05-10, 2025-04-10, 2025-03-11, 2025-02-09, 2025-01-10) which is statistically anomalous and suggests possible review manipulation or bulk import artifacts.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: At least one review (Ted and his crew sewer line replacement) appears to be posted twice with identical text and nearly identical dates (2024-07-18). Additionally, two reviews from 2021-09-24 are near-identical complaints about overcharging for a kitchen faucet installation.
• RECENCY NOTE: The dataset spans from approximately 2003 to June 2025. Reviews older than 12 months (pre-June 2024) should be weighted less heavily. The most recent reviews (2025) are predominantly positive, but the volume of blank or generic 5-star reviews in recent months raises authenticity concerns.
• PRICING TRANSPARENCY PATTERN: Multiple independent negative reviews across different years and locations describe a consistent pattern of pricing not disclosed upfront, charges significantly exceeding verbal quotes, and management being unresponsive or dismissive when customers raised billing concerns. This is a recurring structural issue, not isolated incidents.
• NO-SHOW / SCHEDULING PATTERN: A recurring theme across negative reviews spanning 2008 to 2022 involves technicians failing to appear within scheduled windows, no calls to notify customers, and rescheduled appointments also being missed. This pattern appears in enough reviews to be considered a systemic reliability concern rather than isolated incidents.
• WORK QUALITY FAILURES: Several detailed negative reviews describe defective workmanship including broken components attributed to technician error, incomplete jobs, and refusal to return to fix mistakes under warranty. These are high-severity complaints that meaningfully reduce the project completion score.

This WW Score carries LIMITED-to-MODERATE reliability for any single business decision due to strong evidence that the review dataset aggregates multiple unrelated businesses across different markets, combined with a statistically anomalous clustering of blank and generic 5-star reviews that suggests possible review inflation; the score is best interpreted as a broad industry-level benchmark rather than a precise assessment of any one contractor.

Precision Plumbing draws a large volume of strongly positive reviews praising individual technicians by name for professionalism, punctuality, clear communication, and technical skill — these positives are consistent and span many years and locations. However, a meaningful minority of negative reviews (roughly 15–18% of substantive reviews) describe serious issues including no-shows, scheduling failures, poor communication, alleged price gouging, overcharging, warranty disputes, substandard workmanship, and in at least two cases regulatory investigations by the Nevada State Contractors Board. Pricing is the weakest dimension: while many reviewers call pricing fair or reasonable, a notable cluster of negative reviewers describe charges they considered grossly excessive (e.g., $528/hour, $750 for a $1.99 fix, $1,400 for a 20-minute job, $650 for a cartridge replacement). Project completion is moderately strong but is dragged down by multiple documented no-shows, abandoned jobs, and at least one case of work left incomplete for weeks. Experience scores well overall given the volume of praise for diagnostic skill and quality workmanship, but is tempered by a handful of reviews describing incompetent diagnosis or dangerous substandard work.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: Numerous reviews appear to be exact or near-exact duplicates posted on the same or adjacent dates (e.g., multiple identical 'Fast, affordable, friendly, and super reliable' reviews on 2018-02-22; identical 'Great family business' reviews on 2022-09-08; identical 'Will hire again' reviews on 2022-09-12; identical 'Great and quick service' and 'Excellent customer service' reviews on 2022-09-06; identical 'He did a good job and was nice to work with' reviews on 2022-10-20; identical 'Friendly service, great job' reviews on 2022-10-01; identical 'Kieth was very easy to work with' reviews on 2022-10-22; identical 'Very high quality work promp service' reviews on 2023-01-24; identical 'The young man did an expert job' reviews on 2022-12-16; identical 'Precision Plumbimg is a great Company' reviews on 2020-10-24 and 2020-10-25). This pattern strongly suggests review manipulation or system duplication and reduces confidence in the raw positive review count.
• REGULATORY FLAG: At least two reviews (dated August 2024) allege that Precision Plumbing (dba aaa Precision Plumbing, Las Vegas) was under investigation by the Nevada State Board of Contractors for substandard work, failed city inspection, a life-threatening gas leak, and deceptive practices. These are serious allegations that, if accurate, represent significant safety and integrity concerns.
• MULTI-ENTITY CONCERN: Reviews appear to reference multiple distinct businesses operating under the 'Precision Plumbing' name across different geographic markets (Las Vegas NV, Bay Area CA, Michigan, South Carolina, California Central Valley, etc.) as well as references to 'Plumbing Squad' and 'Budget Water Heaters.' Scores may reflect an aggregation of different companies rather than a single contractor, which limits the reliability of any single composite score.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS PATTERN: A recurring pattern of pricing complaints exists across multiple reviewers and years — including allegations of price gouging against elderly or disabled customers, charges not matching quotes, refusal to provide itemized receipts, and hourly rates described as $600+ per hour for simple jobs. This is not isolated and depresses the pricing score significantly.
• NO-SHOW AND SCHEDULING FAILURES: Multiple independent reviewers across different time periods describe no-shows, missed appointment windows without notification, and failure to return calls. This is a consistent pattern affecting the project completion score.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews with substantive content are from 2019 through mid-2025, with the most recent cluster from May–June 2025. Reviews from 2025 are predominantly positive and recent, which is a positive signal, but the negative regulatory and safety reviews from mid-2024 are also recent and carry significant weight.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Approximately 40–50 reviews contain no text and only a 5-star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence per scoring rules, but their volume inflates the apparent star average.

This WW Score of 72.1 carries HIGH data confidence due to the large review volume, but should be interpreted cautiously given confirmed duplicate reviews suggesting possible manipulation, multi-entity ambiguity across geographic markets, serious unresolved regulatory allegations from 2024, and a consistent minority pattern of pricing, scheduling, and workmanship complaints that cannot be dismissed as outliers.

American Leak Detection receives consistently strong praise for individual technician professionalism, punctuality, communication, and attitude — the majority of positive reviews highlight friendly, courteous, and knowledgeable technicians by name. However, a substantial and recurring pattern of negative reviews significantly drags down the pricing and project completion dimensions: numerous customers report being charged hundreds to over a thousand dollars for failed or inaccurate leak detection, incorrect leak location markings that led to costly unnecessary excavation, and refusal to honor warranties or return without additional charges. The experience dimension is mixed — while many technicians demonstrate impressive diagnostic skill, a meaningful minority of reviews describe technicians who failed to find leaks that competitors located quickly, used outdated methods, or caused property damage. Pricing complaints are pervasive, with customers frequently describing the service as overpriced relative to results delivered, and several noting hidden or unexpected charges. The overall score reflects a company with genuinely skilled and professional staff in many locations, undermined by serious and repeated failures in leak detection accuracy, warranty follow-through, and pricing transparency.

• DUPLICATE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: Multiple reviews from June 2025 (dates 2025-06-04 through 2025-06-09) contain identical or near-identical text repeated across different dates — e.g., 'On time got the job done' appears twice, 'Chris got right to work and diagnosed the points of the leak quickly' appears twice, 'Very professional and thorough' appears twice, 'Pool kept going down way too fast...' appears twice, 'Etienne Hogue from American Leak Detection is a master of his trade...' appears twice, 'Matt was very thorough and friendly...' appears twice, 'I'm so impressed with the work performed by Casey...' appears twice, 'Appreciate the detectives who found the source of my ceiling leak...' appears twice, 'Matt was great. Arrived on time...' appears twice, 'Christian Lopez did a fantastic job...' appears twice. These are highly suspicious and likely fake or artificially inflated reviews. Confidence in the most recent review cluster is reduced accordingly.
• FRANCHISE INCONSISTENCY: This appears to be a national franchise with many independently operated regional offices. Review quality, technician skill, and customer service vary dramatically by location. Scores reflect the aggregate across all branches and may not represent any single local office accurately.
• RECURRING COMPLAINT PATTERN — FAILED DETECTION: A statistically significant number of negative reviews (estimated 60+ reviews) describe the same failure mode: ALD charges full price for leak detection but fails to locate the leak, marks the wrong location leading to costly unnecessary excavation by plumbers, and then refuses to refund or return without additional charges. This is not isolated to one branch.
• RECURRING COMPLAINT PATTERN — WARRANTY REFUSAL: Multiple reviews across different locations and years describe ALD refusing to honor stated warranties, citing expired 30-day windows, claiming a 'different leak' was found, or demanding additional payment to return after failed repairs.
• RECURRING COMPLAINT PATTERN — PRICING OPACITY: Multiple reviews describe being charged full rates ($300–$795+) for very short visits (10–30 minutes), being charged when no leak was found, and not being informed of pricing structure upfront. One review notes a contractor's license listed as 'inactive' with no liability insurance as of late 2022.
• PROPERTY DAMAGE COMPLAINTS: Several reviews describe technicians causing property damage (holes in walls, broken pipes, damaged flooring, dirty linens used as mops) with the company refusing to take responsibility.
• BLANK REVIEWS EXCLUDED FROM SCORING: Approximately 88 reviews contained no text and only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring but counted in total reviews analyzed.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent reviews (May–June 2025) are heavily dominated by 5-star ratings, many of which are duplicates or very brief. The longer, more detailed negative reviews span 2012–2025 and represent a consistent longitudinal pattern of service failures.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large volume of reviews, but the score itself should be interpreted cautiously — the aggregate masks extreme variance between regional franchise offices, a documented pattern of fake or duplicated recent reviews inflates the positive signal, and the recurring nature of serious complaints about failed detection, warranty refusal, and pricing practices suggests systemic issues that a blended score cannot fully capture.

Roth Home / Ponderosa Heating & Cooling scores strongly on professionalism and technician experience, with a very large volume of reviews praising individual technicians by name for being courteous, knowledgeable, punctual, and communicative. Project completion is generally solid, with most jobs described as finished correctly and on time, though a meaningful minority of reviews describe abandoned work, repeat visits needed to fix errors, and at least one case of improper installation causing long-term damage. The single largest drag on the WW Score is pricing, which is the most frequently and consistently criticized dimension across the entire review set — dozens of reviewers across multiple years describe charges they characterize as extreme, predatory, or wildly above market rate, with specific examples including $3,500–$4,700 for water heater replacements, $2,000+ for toilet valve replacements, $1,300+ for single-hour labor jobs, and refusal to provide itemized invoices. The pricing complaints are not isolated incidents but represent a sustained, cross-platform pattern spanning 2013 to 2025, significantly reducing confidence in fair value delivery.

• DUPLICATE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: A large block of reviews dated 2025-06-06 through 2025-06-09 appear to be near-exact or exact duplicates of each other (same review text, same technician names, same phrasing). For example, the Roth HVAC installation review ('Roth Heating & Cooling did a GREAT job taking out my old HVAC system...') appears verbatim at least three times across different dates. Similarly, reviews for Tayler Bell, Garrett Whitford, Nick Montgomery, Nikki, Taylor, Austin, Jacob H, Rick Bennett, Juan, and others appear duplicated across the June 6–9 cluster. These duplicates were counted as single unique reviews for scoring purposes to avoid artificial inflation.
• FAKE OR SOLICITED REVIEW SUSPICION: The June 2025 cluster contains an unusually high density of 5-star reviews with very similar structure (technician name + positive adjective + 'professional'), many lacking specific detail. This pattern is consistent with a review solicitation campaign. Confidence in the June 2025 cluster is reduced accordingly.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS ARE SEVERE AND CONSISTENT: Across dozens of independent reviews spanning 2013–2025, customers describe being charged $300–$1,600/hour equivalent labor rates, refusal to provide itemized bills, flat-fee structures not disclosed at scheduling, and estimates that were double to triple competitor quotes. Multiple reviewers explicitly used terms such as 'predatory,' 'price gouging,' 'rip off,' and 'scam.' This is not a fringe complaint — it is the single most common negative theme in the dataset.
• APPOINTMENT NO-SHOW AND CANCELLATION PATTERN: Multiple reviews across different years describe confirmed appointments that were missed with no proactive communication, last-minute cancellations, and dispatchers who denied appointments existed. This recurs across 2017, 2023, and 2024 reviews.
• WORKMANSHIP FAILURES DOCUMENTED: Several reviews describe incorrect installations (mini-split installed in wrong location with kinked line, furnace maintenance that left a disconnected wire, shower valve installed off-level, HVAC system failing days after installation), suggesting quality control issues that are not reflected in the majority of positive reviews.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews are from 2025 (heavily clustered in May–June 2025) and 2023–2024. Reviews from 2013–2019 are present but carry less weight. The pricing complaints and workmanship failures are present across all time periods, suggesting these are structural issues rather than isolated incidents.
• COMPANY NAME INCONSISTENCY: Reviews reference multiple business names including 'Roth Home,' 'Roth Heating & Cooling,' and 'Ponderosa Heating & Cooling,' suggesting this score covers a company that has undergone rebranding or acquisition. Some older negative reviews reference the transition period as a source of service decline.

This WW Score is based on a very large review dataset with HIGH statistical confidence on all four dimensions, but the overall score should be interpreted with caution due to confirmed duplicate reviews in the June 2025 cluster, a strong and consistent pattern of pricing complaints that is likely underrepresented in the professionalism and experience scores, and documented workmanship failures that suggest the positive technician-level reviews do not fully capture systemic quality control issues.

Advanced Plumbing has a strong base of positive reviews praising responsiveness, professionalism, and technical skill across a wide range of jobs including water line replacements, water heater installs, and full repiping projects. However, a meaningful cluster of 1-star reviews — spanning multiple years and locations — raises serious concerns: recurring complaints include overcharging with non-itemized bills, pressure tactics, failure to return calls, incomplete or incorrect work, refusal to warranty poor workmanship, and in several cases hostile responses from ownership when customers raised concerns. Pricing is a particular weak point, with multiple reviewers citing unexpected charges, minimum fees for minimal work, and quotes dramatically higher than competitors. Project completion is also mixed, with several reviews describing jobs that required multiple return visits to correct errors, or work that was abandoned entirely. The positive reviews are numerous and often detailed, but the volume and specificity of negative reviews — including from experienced professionals in construction and architecture — prevent a high overall score.

• 35 reviews contain no text — only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence.
• Two reviews are near-identical duplicates with the same wording about being 'absolutely amazing' and 'super sharp on plumbing needs' posted under different dates (2022-09-23 and 2023-06-07). This may indicate a fake or recycled review.
• Two reviews are near-identical duplicates praising 'Eric and Jessica' and 'Fred' with nearly word-for-word identical text posted on different dates (2018-08-22 and 2019-06-08). This strongly suggests a fake or copy-pasted review and confidence in the positive review pool is reduced accordingly.
• The review corpus spans from 2010 to 2025 and appears to aggregate reviews from multiple businesses operating under the name 'Advanced Plumbing' across different states (Virginia, Florida, Oregon, Michigan, Missouri, California, Texas). Scores from geographically distinct businesses may not reflect a single contractor's performance.
• Several negative reviews describe the owner or staff becoming hostile, making harassing phone calls, or calling customers liars when complaints were raised — a significant red flag for business conduct.
• One negative reviewer with 50+ years of architectural experience describes deceptive practices including faulty leak detection, pressure to over-scope work, and an inadequate insurance report — this carries elevated credibility weight.
• A 2010 review describes a lawsuit over a billing dispute where the written estimate was $1,300 but the final bill was $4,300 — an extreme pricing discrepancy that was never resolved through mediation.
• Recency note: The majority of reviews with substantive text are from 2017–2025, with the most recent cluster from 2024–2025. Older reviews (pre-2016) were given reduced weight in scoring.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large volume of reviews, but the score itself should be interpreted cautiously given strong evidence that reviews may span multiple unrelated businesses sharing the same name, the presence of suspected duplicate/fake reviews, and a persistent pattern of serious complaints about billing practices, incomplete work, and hostile customer service responses that meaningfully offset the large volume of positive feedback.

Mr. Rooter Newberg scores well on professionalism, with dozens of reviewers explicitly praising friendliness, punctuality, communication, and courteous behavior across many years of reviews. Experience and project completion also score positively, with multiple reviewers noting skilled diagnostics, thorough work, and jobs completed same-day or on schedule — including complex sewer line repairs. However, pricing is a significant and recurring drag on the overall score: at least 10 distinct reviewers explicitly complained about high costs, flat-fee billing surprises, feeling overcharged, or bait-and-switch pricing tactics, which pulls the pricing dimension well below average. One serious complaint involved a failed repair where the technician refused a callback without additional payment, and another involved use of incorrect materials with no accountability, both of which negatively impact the project completion and experience scores. The WW Score of 72.1 reflects a contractor with genuine service strengths but a consistent and well-documented pricing problem that prospective customers should weigh carefully.

• 36 reviews contain no text whatsoever (blank, 'unknown', or single punctuation marks) — these were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence per scoring rules.
• Several reviews use 'unknown' as the full review text, which may indicate imported or placeholder records from a third-party aggregator rather than genuine customer submissions.
• A cluster of 9 reviews all dated 2015-06-25 and 2015-06-26 with minimal or no text (single periods or very generic phrases) is suspicious and may represent bulk-imported or low-quality data; these were excluded from dimension scoring.
• Pricing complaints are numerous and span from 2013 to 2024, indicating a persistent structural issue with the company's flat-fee billing model rather than isolated incidents.
• One review (2015-10-18) describes a failed repair where the technician demanded additional payment to return and fix their own incomplete work — a serious project completion and professionalism concern.
• One review (2016-06-24) describes use of incorrect materials (rubber-lined hose for ice maker) with no corrective action taken — a notable experience and accountability failure.
• One review (2015-03-17) alleges the company hijacked a competitor's phone listing and engaged in aggressive upselling for unnecessary repairs — an ethical flag that could not be independently verified from reviews alone.
• Most reviews with substantive text are from 2024–2025, which is positive for recency. However, pricing complaints appear consistently across all time periods including recent years (2024), suggesting the issue has not been resolved.
• The 2022 review alleging $3,000 overcharge plus $1,000 in wall repair costs is an outlier in severity but is a single data point and was weighted accordingly.

This WW Score is based on a large review set with strong mention counts across all four dimensions, giving it HIGH overall confidence; however, the score should be interpreted with caution on pricing specifically, as the volume and consistency of overcharging complaints across a decade of reviews represents a well-evidenced pattern rather than isolated dissatisfaction.