Find Nearby Plumbers In Portland, Oregon

Hillsboro Plumbing demonstrates strong technical expertise and project completion capability, with consistently positive feedback on workmanship quality and job thoroughness. Pricing is perceived as fair and competitive relative to larger competitors. However, professionalism scores are significantly dragged down by three detailed complaints (2016–2017) regarding poor phone communication, scheduling difficulties, and dismissive customer service from office staff (specifically named 'Susie'). Recent reviews (2024, 2016 positive) show excellent field performance by Travis, but older negative reviews reveal systemic communication and responsiveness issues that appear to have persisted over multiple years.

• RECENCY CONCERN: Three negative reviews are from 2016–2017 (7–8 years old), while most positive reviews span 2014–2024. However, the 2024 review is positive, suggesting possible improvement or inconsistency.
• PATTERN IDENTIFIED: Multiple reviews (2016–2017) cite the same office staff member ('Susie') as the source of poor customer service, suggesting a specific operational bottleneck rather than company-wide issue.
• INCONSISTENCY: Field work (Travis) is universally praised across all reviews, but office/scheduling function is criticized in three separate detailed complaints. This suggests a two-tier service quality problem.
• CONFIDENCE LIMITATION: Only 9 total reviews analyzed; score reliability is moderate. Negative reviews are older but detailed and specific, not generic complaints.

This WW Score of 78.2 should be treated with moderate caution. While technical competence and pricing are well-supported by consistent evidence, the professionalism dimension is pulled down by credible, detailed complaints about scheduling and communication from 2016–2017 that may or may not reflect current operations. The 2024 positive review suggests possible improvement, but insufficient recent data exists to confirm whether systemic communication issues have been resolved.

Jerry demonstrates strong technical expertise and project completion ability, with multiple reviews praising his problem-solving skills and willingness to go above and beyond for customers. However, professionalism is significantly undermined by a critical 2019 review documenting poor communication (failure to follow up, 1.5-hour tardiness), lack of transparency about service scope, and questionable billing practices ($149 for 10 minutes). Pricing feedback is mixed but generally favorable when services are delivered as promised. The score reflects the tension between genuine technical competence and serious service delivery failures that directly impact customer trust.

• RECENCY CONCERN: Most reviews are 5+ years old (2015-2017). Only 2 reviews from 2018 onward. Recent data is limited.
• CRITICAL SERVICE FAILURE: 2019 review documents significant professionalism failures including missed appointment, late arrival (1.5 hours), poor communication, and questionable billing for a service that should have been declined upfront.
• POTENTIAL SELECTION BIAS: Majority of reviews are 5-star with generic praise. The single 1-star review provides specific, detailed complaints. This asymmetry suggests positive reviews may be from satisfied repeat customers while dissatisfied customers are underrepresented.
• INCONSISTENT PROFESSIONALISM: Reviews praise 'professional demeanor' and 'nice guy act,' but the 2019 review explicitly states the customer felt deceived by this persona, suggesting professionalism may be superficial.

This score should be treated with caution due to limited recent data (most reviews 5+ years old), a significant documented service failure in 2019, and potential positive review bias that may not reflect the full customer experience spectrum.

Professionalism is the strongest dimension, with all six reviews touching on friendliness, responsiveness, and courteous behavior — a consistent and credible signal. Project completion and experience also score well, with multiple reviewers describing efficient, knowledgeable work completed in a single visit across a variety of tasks. Pricing is the clear weak point: one reviewer explicitly objected to a $100 estimate fee plus a $500 repair quote for what they described as a small, easy job, which meaningfully drags the pricing score down despite two other reviews describing pricing as reasonable or competitive. The overall WW Score reflects a contractor who performs well on-site but whose pricing practices may deter some customers before work even begins.

• The four 5-star reviews from late 2023 (Dec 10, Dec 15, Jan 1, Jan 25) are somewhat generic in phrasing and arrive in a cluster — minor concern, but not conclusive evidence of fake reviews. No identical phrasing detected.
• Review dated 2023-12-15 is notably generic ('Exceptional service... Prompt response, professional workmanship, and reasonable pricing') with no specific details about the job, technician name, or unique circumstances — treat with slightly reduced confidence.
• Only 6 total reviews analyzed — sample size is small and scores should be interpreted cautiously. A few additional negative reviews could shift the WW Score significantly.
• Most reviews fall within the past 12–18 months (2023–2024), which is acceptable for recency, but the dataset is too small to establish a reliable long-term trend.

This WW Score carries moderate overall reliability — professionalism, project completion, and experience are supported by enough mentions to be credible, but the small total review count (6) and one potentially generic review limit confidence in the final composite score.

Mark and Murrayhill Plumbing receive consistently strong marks for professionalism, with many reviewers citing punctuality, responsiveness, friendly communication, and willingness to go above and beyond — including walking a customer through a self-fix over the phone after a car accident. Project completion is generally solid, with most jobs described as thorough and well-executed, though one notable negative review describes a job that ballooned from one hour to three, including billing for a lunch break, which meaningfully drags down the completion and pricing scores. Pricing is the most contested dimension: while several reviewers call rates reasonable or fair, two detailed negative reviews describe charges that felt excessive or non-transparent, including billing for travel time to retrieve equipment and an unexplained lunch hour. Experience scores moderately well, with reviewers praising creative problem-solving and technical skill on challenging jobs like under-concrete leaks, but the billing-for-lunch incident and the muddy laundry room incident suggest occasional lapses in planning and execution. The majority of reviews are from 2013–2019, with no reviews in the past 12 months, which limits confidence in how current this performance picture is.

• RECENCY WARNING: All reviews are dated between 2012 and 2019. The most recent review is from June 2019 — over 5 years ago. This score may not reflect current performance.
• One review contains only the word 'unknown' with a 1-star rating and no usable content. It was excluded from dimension scoring but counted in total reviews.
• One review ('Couldn't be happier') is too vague to score any dimension and was excluded from dimension scoring.
• Two substantive negative reviews raise specific pricing transparency concerns: one describes being billed for a plumber's lunch hour, another for travel time to retrieve equipment. These are credible and specific complaints that meaningfully reduce the pricing score.
• No fake review patterns detected. Reviews vary in length, specificity, tone, and rating, which supports authenticity.

This WW Score carries moderate overall reliability — the review pool is small (15 reviews), all reviews are more than 5 years old, and while most dimensions have enough mentions to score with reasonable confidence, the age of the data means current performance cannot be verified.

M5 Plumbing shows strong technical expertise and workmanship quality, with many customers praising skill level and problem-solving ability. However, professionalism is significantly undermined by recurring complaints about no-shows, missed callbacks, and poor communication—issues mentioned in 6 separate reviews spanning 2017-2018. Pricing presents a mixed picture: while many customers report fair and competitive rates, several reviews document what customers perceived as exploitative pricing for straightforward work (e.g., $800/hour for toilet reset, $1,625 for 3-hour job). Project completion is generally solid, though one major 2021 review detailed incomplete work, poor cleanup, and mask non-compliance during COVID. The company appears to have experienced operational challenges during peak periods (2017-2018) that may have improved, but pricing concerns persist across multiple years.

• Cluster of no-show/no-call complaints from 2017-2018 (4 reviews) suggests systemic communication/scheduling issues during that period; unclear if resolved
• Pricing complaints appear in 5 separate reviews with specific grievances about perceived overcharging relative to time spent; customers felt exploited despite positive work quality
• One detailed 2021 review (1-star) documents multiple failures: incomplete estimate transparency, last-minute scope change, poor cleanup, and mask non-compliance; customer explicitly stated they will not return
• Positive reviews are heavily concentrated in 2018-2019 and earlier; more recent reviews (2021-2025) show mixed sentiment with at least one highly negative experience
• Empty review texts (4 reviews with only ratings) reduce data quality; these cannot be analyzed for dimension mentions

This score should be treated with moderate caution. While the company demonstrates genuine technical competence and many satisfied customers, the WW Score is pulled down by persistent professionalism and pricing concerns documented across multiple years. The score reflects a company with strong execution capability but inconsistent customer experience and communication practices. Recent data is limited, making it difficult to assess whether operational issues have been resolved.

Cherry City Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism and technical expertise, with consistent praise for punctuality, communication, and skilled technicians. However, pricing practices are a significant concern, with multiple reviews documenting billing discrepancies, hidden charges, and failure to honor stated discounts. Project completion is generally solid, though one severe case involved incomplete work and subsequent disputes. The company shows inconsistency: excellent service experiences coexist with serious billing integrity issues that undermine overall trustworthiness.

• PRICING INTEGRITY ISSUES: Multiple reviews (2025-04-10, 2018-11-14 context, 2017-02-19) document significant billing problems including charging for hours not worked, refusing to honor promised discounts, and incomplete work followed by inflated repair quotes. This is a pattern, not isolated incidents.
• INCOMPLETE WORK: 2017-02-19 review describes technician leaving job unfinished, breaking parts, and demanding payment before completion—directly violating stated work agreement terms.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most positive reviews are 5+ years old (2013-2017). Recent reviews (2025) show 1-star ratings with serious complaints. This suggests potential service degradation over time.
• FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: 2025-02-09 review uses excessive exclamation marks ('Wow! This place is fabulous!!!!' and '1 million stars!!!') and generic hyperbolic language without specific technical details—suspicious pattern inconsistent with detailed negative reviews.
• EMPTY REVIEW: 2024-06-09 review contains only a 5-star rating with no text, reducing data reliability.

This score should be treated with caution. While professionalism and experience scores are well-supported by multiple mentions, the pricing dimension reveals a troubling pattern of billing disputes and broken promises that directly contradicts positive testimonials. The concentration of negative recent reviews (2025) versus older positive reviews suggests declining service quality. The WW Score of 73.2 reflects genuine strengths in technical execution undermined by serious business practice concerns that pose real financial risk to customers.