Find Nearby Plumbers In Portland, Oregon

Repipe Specialists of Oregon has a large and broadly positive review base, with many customers praising the speed of work (often completed in one day), the professionalism of individual crew members, and competitive pricing compared to traditional plumbers. However, a recurring and significant pattern of complaints substantially lowers scores across all dimensions: the company operates as a broker/sales intermediary that subcontracts all actual plumbing work, and multiple reviewers report being misled about this arrangement, the scope of work, hole sizes, pipe sizing, and warranty terms. Project completion is notably dragged down by repeated reports of incomplete work, failed city inspections (sometimes multiple times), unpatched holes left for weeks, and poor follow-through on complaints. Professionalism scores are tempered by communication breakdowns between Repipe Specialists and their subcontractors, aggressive or dismissive customer service responses, and warranty disputes. Pricing scores reflect that while initial quotes are often competitive, several customers report unexpected additional charges, cost overruns, and feeling misled about what was included.

• 6 reviews contain no text (rating only) and were excluded from dimensional scoring as they provide no usable data.
• Several reviews from 2025 use very brief, generic positive language with no specifics (e.g. 'Great crew to work with', 'Very happy with the work!', 'Very pleased'). While not conclusively fake, these add limited signal and were scored conservatively.
• A notable cluster of 5-star reviews specifically praise sales consultant 'Alvin' or 'Alvin Chan' by name across multiple recent reviews (2024), which may reflect a coordinated review solicitation campaign by that individual rather than organic feedback about the company overall.
• The review corpus spans from 2010 to 2025. Reviews older than 3 years (pre-2022) were given reduced weight as they may not reflect current business practices or subcontractor quality.
• A structural business model risk is flagged: Repipe Specialists is consistently identified across many reviews as a sales broker that subcontracts all work. Quality is therefore highly variable depending on which subcontractor is assigned, making scores less predictive of any individual customer's experience.
• Multiple reviews report failed city inspections (sometimes 2-3 failures), unpatched holes, incomplete scope of work, and warranty disputes — these are serious project completion red flags that significantly impact the project completion score.
• At least one review (2021) describes a bucket with feces hidden in the basement, and another describes a worker standing on a toilet seat and breaking it — these are serious professionalism incidents attributed to subcontractors.

This WW Score is based on a large review set (85 reviews) spanning 15 years, giving HIGH statistical confidence in the score direction, but the wide variance in customer experience — driven by the subcontractor model — means individual outcomes may differ significantly from the aggregate score, and prospective customers should research which specific subcontractor will be assigned to their job.

Pilot Plumbing and Drain earns strong marks for professionalism and experience across a large volume of reviews, with many customers praising named technicians for being knowledgeable, courteous, communicative, and thorough. Project completion is generally solid, with most jobs described as finished on time and correctly, though a meaningful cluster of negative reviews documents incomplete work, misdiagnosis, and jobs that required return visits to fix errors. The most significant drag on the overall score is pricing, which is the single most-complained-about dimension: multiple reviewers across several years describe quotes as excessive, non-transparent, and inconsistent, with specific complaints about undisclosed dispatch fees, charges for unauthorized services, and dramatically higher prices than competitors for identical work. The owner's publicly stated philosophy that there is no such thing as a 'fair' or 'reasonable' price was cited directly by one reviewer as a concern, and several negative pricing reviews appear to be independent and credible. Overall, the company demonstrates genuine technical capability and strong customer-facing staff, but its pricing practices and occasional quality-control failures meaningfully reduce trustworthiness.

• PRICING CONCERN — HIGH SEVERITY: At least 10 independent reviews explicitly cite excessive, non-transparent, or inconsistent pricing. Specific complaints include: undisclosed $89–$189 dispatch fees, charges for unauthorized diagnostic services, quotes that doubled between visits, $570 for a 10-minute snake job, $482 for 30 minutes with no repairs, and $1,387 for a job that did not resolve the problem. This is a systemic pattern, not isolated incidents.
• INCOMPLETE/INCORRECT WORK PATTERN: Multiple reviews describe work that was not completed correctly on the first visit, required callbacks, or was outright misdiagnosed (e.g., wrong root cause identified, urinal snaking done incorrectly, shower valve replaced unnecessarily, sewage issue unresolved after $1,200 spent). This suppresses the project completion score.
• UNAUTHORIZED SERVICES: Two independent reviewers (May 2024 and Oct 2024) describe technicians performing uninvited inspections or treatments in their homes and then charging for them without prior consent. This is a notable ethical flag.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Four reviews contained no text (only a star rating). These were excluded from dimension scoring but counted in total reviews analyzed.
• DRIVING COMPLAINT: One 1-star review (May 2025) is solely about a company van driver's unsafe driving behavior and contains no plumbing service data. This was excluded from all dimension scoring.
• POSSIBLE DUPLICATE REVIEW: Two reviews from different dates (2024-08-13 and 2024-07-23) contain nearly identical text praising technician Zack. This may indicate a duplicated submission and was counted as one unique mention to avoid inflating scores.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews are from 2022–2025, providing a reasonably current picture. A small number of reviews date to 2018–2021 and were given reduced weight. Pricing complaints span the full date range, suggesting the issue is not improving over time.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK — LOW TO MODERATE: The volume of highly specific, named-technician positive reviews reduces fake review suspicion significantly. However, several 5-star reviews are very brief and generic (e.g., 'They did a fantastic job on my sewer line!!') with no specifics. Overall, the review set appears predominantly authentic but a small subset of generic 5-star reviews warrants mild caution.

This WW Score is based on 78 reviews spanning 2018–2025, with strong data density across all four dimensions, and should be considered a reliable representation of this contractor's performance profile — with the important caveat that the pricing dimension reflects a well-documented and recurring concern that prospective customers should investigate carefully before hiring.

NW Plumbing Services earns broadly positive marks for professionalism and responsiveness, with many reviewers praising friendly staff, prompt communication, and courteous technicians. Pricing is generally viewed as fair or reasonable, though one reviewer found costs excessive and another found a quote more than double competitors, preventing a higher score. Project completion is the most concerning dimension: multiple detailed negative reviews describe abandoned follow-ups, failed inspections on a new build, a month-and-a-half toilet saga with 8 visits, a missed appointment with no callback, and a water heater installation promise that was never fulfilled — these drag the score down significantly despite many satisfied customers. Experience scores moderately well overall, with skilled work praised in many reviews, but serious workmanship failures on custom and new-build projects — including incorrectly positioned slab plumbing, improperly installed fixtures, and structural wall damage — introduce meaningful doubt about consistency at higher complexity levels.

• 7 reviews contain no text at all — only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence.
• A cluster of 7 reviews all share the exact date 2024-06-09 with minimal or no text, which is a pattern consistent with solicited or bulk-submitted reviews. Confidence in that cluster is reduced.
• Several reviews are older than 5 years (2011–2016) and a significant portion predate 2020. Recency weighting was applied; older reviews were given reduced influence on final scores.
• Two separate 1-star reviews describe serious workmanship failures on new construction and custom projects (structural wall damage, failed inspections, incorrect slab plumbing, improperly installed fixtures). These are specific, detailed, and credible and were weighted heavily in project completion and experience scoring.
• The 2023 1-star review notes that positive reviews appear to be from 'at least 3 years ago,' suggesting a possible decline in service quality over time. Score trends should be monitored.
• No clear evidence of fully fabricated reviews, but the generic praise in several short 5-star reviews ('Great company,' 'Just the best,' 'Speedy and amazing staff') with no specifics limits their evidentiary value and they were weighted conservatively.

This WW Score is based on 55 reviews with usable content spanning over a decade, with HIGH confidence across all four dimensions due to mention volume, but consumers should note that serious project failure reviews are specific and credible, the recency of positive reviews is mixed, and performance on complex or custom jobs appears materially weaker than on routine plumbing work.

Power Plumbing and Pfeifer Plumbing collectively show strong professionalism and technical competence across a large number of reviews, with many customers praising specific plumbers by name for thoroughness, communication, and quality workmanship. Project completion scores are solid, with multiple reviewers noting jobs were finished on time, callbacks were honored at no extra charge, and follow-through was consistent. However, pricing is a significant and recurring concern: at least six independent reviewers explicitly complained about being charged for drive time without prior disclosure, inflated hourly rates ($250–$265/hr), excessive markups on parts, and in one case a wildly inflated repair estimate ($10,000 for a job that cost $400 elsewhere). These pricing complaints are specific, credible, and consistent enough to substantially drag down the pricing dimension. The experience dimension is buoyed by many detailed, specific accounts of skilled diagnosis and problem-solving, though one notable review described a plumber incorrectly declaring a job impossible that another plumber easily completed.

• BLANK REVIEWS: Seven reviews contain no text whatsoever (only a star rating). These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data.
• SUSPECTED LOW-QUALITY REVIEWS: Several reviews are extremely brief and generic (e.g., 'Always there for us. Great company.', 'Very prompt and efficient.', 'Great Customer Service!', 'It's my dads work', 'unknown'). These were given minimal weight as they lack specifics.
• MIXED CONTRACTOR POOL: Reviews appear to cover at least two distinct entities — 'Power Plumbing' (a company with multiple plumbers including Steve, Brian, David, Adam, Aaron, Nick, Mike) and 'Pfeifer Plumbing' (sole operator Danaya Pfeifer). Scores reflect the combined pool but the two businesses may have meaningfully different performance profiles.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS ARE SYSTEMIC AND CREDIBLE: At least 6 reviews independently and specifically describe the same undisclosed drive-time billing practice, high hourly rates, and parts markups at Power Plumbing. One review alleges a $10,000 estimate for a repair that cost $400 elsewhere. This pattern is too consistent to dismiss and significantly lowers the pricing score.
• RECENCY NOTE: A substantial portion of Pfeifer Plumbing reviews date from 2015–2021, which is more than 3 years old. These were included but given reduced weight relative to 2024–2025 reviews. The most recent Power Plumbing reviews (2024–2025) continue to show both strong service and pricing complaints.
• ONE EXPERIENCE FAILURE: One 1-star review (2023) describes a Power Plumbing plumber incorrectly declaring a faucet installation impossible, charging over $500 for a teardown, and a second plumber completing the job easily. This is a notable competence failure that tempers the otherwise strong experience score.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK — LOW-MODERATE: The all-caps review ('WORKING WITH ADAM AT POWER PLUMBING HAS BEEN THE BEST...') and the review 'It's my dads work' raise minor authenticity concerns. The all-caps review reads as potentially written by someone with a personal or business relationship. These were not excluded but were weighted conservatively.

This WW Score is based on a large and diverse review set (55+ usable reviews) spanning multiple years, and the HIGH confidence ratings across all four dimensions make the overall score reasonably reliable — however, users should note that the pricing score reflects a documented, systemic billing practice complaint specific to Power Plumbing, and that the review pool mixes two distinct businesses, so the score is best interpreted as a blended average rather than a precise rating of either entity alone.

Caliber Services receives strong praise for individual technicians — particularly Barry, Dan, and Kevin — who are frequently described as professional, polite, knowledgeable, and effective. However, the company carries meaningful negative signals: multiple 1-star reviews cite serious concerns including a no-show with no call, hidden or excessive charges (travel time, diagnostic fees), incomplete work left unresolved for years, and at least one instance of a technician making a problem worse without follow-through. Pricing is the weakest dimension, with several reviewers explicitly calling out high travel charges, inflated diagnostic fees, and a case where an incomplete diagnosis would have cost a customer hundreds of dollars unnecessarily. Project completion is mixed — most jobs appear to be finished, but there are credible accounts of abandoned callbacks, unfinished pipe work, and a multi-year leak caused by improper installation. The overall picture is a company with capable individual technicians but inconsistent quality control and accountability at the organizational level.

• 9 reviews contain no text — only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence.
• A cluster of 14 reviews share the exact same date (2024-06-09), which is unusual and may indicate bulk review submission or platform migration artifacts. Treat this cluster with caution.
• All blank-text reviews carry 5-star ratings, which inflates the raw star average without contributing any verifiable evidence.
• One reviewer (2022-06-01) describes a non-service complaint about parking behavior, which reflects on company culture and neighborhood respect but is not directly scorable under the four dimensions.
• The negative reviews span from 2017 to 2024, suggesting recurring issues with follow-through, pricing transparency, and technician quality are not isolated incidents.
• One 2-star review (2023-11-22) describes an incomplete HVAC diagnosis that would have cost the customer $820 for a 30-year-old furnace — a significant red flag for experience and pricing integrity.
• One 1-star review (2020-07-25) describes multi-year unresolved leaks from improper installation and technicians arriving with muddy feet and a hostile attitude — a credible and detailed negative account.

This WW Score is based on 40 reviews with usable content across all four dimensions and carries HIGH overall confidence, but should be interpreted cautiously given documented patterns of inconsistent follow-through, pricing complaints, and a suspicious cluster of same-date reviews that may not reflect organic customer feedback.

All American Plumbing & Drain receives strong praise across many reviews for responsiveness, friendliness, and technical competence — particularly from technician Josh and owner Kevin. However, the score is meaningfully pulled down by a recurring pattern of serious failures: a faulty installation that caused major water damage with no refund follow-through, appointment no-shows and cancellations without notice, a significant communication breakdown that resulted in a customer being charged $160 for a service call that should never have been booked, and at least one instance of pricing changing multiple times mid-interaction. Pricing is generally viewed as fair but is undermined by two explicit complaints about final bills exceeding quotes or prices shifting unexpectedly. Project completion scores reflect strong performance in most jobs but are penalized by the faulty connection incident, the abandoned appointment, and the unresolved refund promise — all of which represent direct failures to follow through. The experience dimension scores highest, as the majority of reviews that comment on workmanship quality are positive and specific.

• REFUND FAILURE: The 2024-11-02 review explicitly states owner Kevin promised a refund under $200 for a faulty installation that caused major water damage but never followed through despite receiving the invoice. This is a significant trust and accountability concern.
• FAULTY WORKMANSHIP: The 2024-11-02 review describes a faulty connection installed by AAP that came apart within a week and caused major water damage — a serious project completion failure.
• APPOINTMENT NO-SHOW: The 2022-07-07 review describes a confirmed appointment that was never entered into the system, resulting in a no-show and the owner hanging up on the customer. This is a direct professionalism and reliability failure.
• COMMUNICATION FAILURE / POSSIBLE OVERBOOKING: The 2024-01-02 review describes repeated appointment cancellations, rude phone behavior, and inability to answer basic service questions. The 2020-09-05 review describes 10+ days of no contact or returned calls.
• BOOKING ERROR RESULTING IN CHARGE: The 2024-01-25 review describes a $160 charge for a service call that should never have been booked, as the customer clearly communicated the job type (radiant heating) upfront with photos. Owner allegedly denied receiving this information.
• PRICING INCONSISTENCY: The 2024-06-04 review notes the price changed three times in under five minutes. The 2023-09-06 review notes the final bill exceeded the quoted amount. These suggest inconsistent or unreliable pricing practices.
• RECENCY NOTE: All negative reviews are from 2020 through 2024, with the most serious complaints (faulty install, refund failure, booking error with charge) occurring in 2024, suggesting these are not isolated historical issues.
• NO FAKE REVIEW FLAGS: Review language is varied, specific, and includes both positive and negative experiences with named individuals and specific job details. No patterns of fake reviews detected.

This WW Score is based on 28 reviews with high mention counts across all four dimensions and is considered moderately reliable, though the presence of multiple serious and recent complaints — including a faulty installation causing property damage, an unresolved refund, appointment no-shows, and a disputed billing incident — introduces meaningful downward pressure that the high volume of positive reviews does not fully offset.