Find Nearby Plumbers In Portland, Oregon

All three reviews are positive and paint a consistent picture of a punctual, communicative, and friendly contractor. Professionalism scores well across all reviews, with mentions of arriving on time or early, being friendly, and communicating clearly. Project completion is supported by all three reviews describing jobs that were finished successfully, in some cases faster than expected. Pricing is mentioned favorably in one review (came in under a competing quote) and implied positively in another, but with only two explicit mentions this dimension carries limited confidence. Experience is reflected in the plumber's ability to propose alternative solutions, explain issues clearly, and complete technical work such as drain line relocation and gas pipe adjustment.

• Only 3 reviews total — WW Score should be treated as preliminary and not fully reliable.
• All reviews are 5-star with no negative feedback; while the reviews do contain specific details that reduce fake review suspicion, the uniformly perfect ratings warrant mild caution.
• All reviews are from 2023; no reviews from 2024 or later are present, so recency beyond approximately 18 months cannot be confirmed.
• Small sample size means a single negative future review could significantly shift scores.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews and should be considered a preliminary signal only — significantly more reviews are needed before this score can be trusted as a reliable indicator of contractor quality.

All four reviews are positive and describe responsive, same-day or next-day service with friendly communication, supporting a solid professionalism score. Pricing is explicitly mentioned as fair or better than quoted in three reviews, which is a meaningful positive signal. Project completion is generally supported — jobs were finished and follow-through was demonstrated — though one review notably redirected the customer to another provider for a faster part, which slightly tempers the completion score. Experience scores are moderate; reviewers describe competent work on standard plumbing tasks (faucet repair, water heater replacement) but do not describe complex problem-solving or exceptional technical skill. The overall score is constrained by the very small review pool of only four reviews, all of which are older than 12 months, limiting reliability.

• Only 4 reviews total — WW Score should be treated as preliminary and low-reliability.
• All reviews are dated between 2015 and 2020 — none are within the past 12 months. Business activity and quality may have changed significantly.
• All reviews are 5-star ratings. While the review texts contain specific details that reduce fake review suspicion, the uniformly perfect ratings across a small sample warrants caution.
• One review (2018) describes the plumber redirecting the customer to a competitor for faster service — this is honest and commendable but slightly reduces the project completion score as the job was not completed by this contractor.

This WW Score is based on only 4 reviews, all more than 4 years old, and should be considered a low-confidence preliminary estimate that requires significantly more recent review data before it can be trusted as a reliable indicator of current service quality.

Pete's Quality Plumbing shows consistent strengths in technical knowledge and experience, with multiple reviewers praising his diagnostic ability, problem-solving, and depth of plumbing expertise across different job types. Professionalism scores well overall — punctuality, communication, and attitude are frequently cited positively — but are meaningfully offset by one review reporting a complete failure to respond to a voicemail and text, which is a direct professionalism concern. Pricing feedback is notably positive, with one reviewer specifically highlighting that Pete reduced his final bill below the estimate, reflecting genuine transparency and fairness. Project completion is rated moderately well based on described outcomes, though the small review set limits confidence. The overall score is tempered by the age of most reviews — five of six are from 2018 or earlier, with the most recent usable positive reviews dating to 2018 and 2016, reducing confidence in how well this reflects current performance.

• RECENCY WARNING: Five of six reviews are from 2018 or earlier. The most recent review is from December 2018. No reviews exist from the past 5+ years. This score may not reflect current service quality.
• RESPONSIVENESS CONCERN: One reviewer explicitly reported being ignored after leaving both a voicemail and a text message, with no callback received. This directly contradicts the positive communication pattern described in other reviews and warrants attention.
• SMALL SAMPLE SIZE: Only 6 reviews total. Scores should be treated as directional indicators only, not statistically reliable assessments.
• NO FAKE REVIEW PATTERNS DETECTED: Reviews vary in detail, tone, length, and rating. One negative review is present. No signs of coordinated or fabricated feedback.

This WW Score carries LIMITED overall reliability due to a very small review sample of only 6 reviews, the majority of which are between 5 and 12 years old, making it difficult to assess Pete's current quality of service with confidence.

Home Gnome Crawl Spaces receives mostly positive feedback across professionalism, pricing, and project completion, with four of five reviewers expressing satisfaction. However, one detailed 1-star review raises a meaningful concern: the contractor dismissed a customer's technically grounded questions about French drain specifications and was described as vague on structural recommendations, which meaningfully impacts the experience and professionalism scores. Pricing feedback is generally favorable, with multiple reviewers noting reasonable estimates and no upselling. Project completion feedback is positive where work was actually performed, with on-time arrivals and completed jobs noted. The single negative review carries significant weight given the small total review pool and the specificity of its technical criticism.

• Very small review pool (5 reviews total) — scores carry limited statistical reliability and should be treated with caution.
• All reviews are from 2022 or earlier, meaning no data exists from the past 12 months (relative to a 2024/2025 evaluation date). Business quality may have changed.
• The 1-star review describes the contractor dismissing technically sound industry guidance on French drain materials and being defensive when challenged — a notable professionalism and experience concern.
• Three of the four 5-star reviews are somewhat generic in phrasing ('excellent,' 'highly recommend,' 'very impressed') with limited specific detail, which slightly raises concern about review authenticity, though not conclusively.
• One review (the free inspection review) involved no paid work, limiting its usefulness for scoring project completion and pricing.

This WW Score is based on only 5 reviews, all more than 12 months old, and should be considered LOW reliability — prospective customers are strongly advised to seek more recent references before hiring.

Ranieri Plumbing receives generally positive feedback across professionalism, pricing, and workmanship, with multiple reviewers praising responsive communication, knowledgeable staff, and fair pricing. However, one significant negative review from 2019 describes a failure to fix the reported problem, a refusal to provide a detailed breakdown of work and materials, and a full charge for unresolved work — this meaningfully drags down both the project completion and professionalism scores. The most recent reviews (2023) are positive and suggest the business has maintained good customer relationships, but the small total review count limits confidence across all dimensions. Pricing is noted as fair but not the cheapest option by at least one reviewer, and one reviewer explicitly cited Ranieri as the best bid among multiple quotes, indicating some variability in pricing perception.

• Very small review pool (6 total reviews) spanning 2017–2023 — scores should be treated as preliminary and low-confidence overall.
• Most reviews are older than 12 months; only 2 reviews fall within the past 12 months (2023), limiting recency weighting.
• The 2019 1-star review describes a serious service failure: charging full price without resolving the issue and refusing to provide an itemized breakdown. This is a meaningful red flag for transparency and project completion.
• Several positive reviews are somewhat generic (e.g., 'great service,' 'great people') with limited specific detail, which slightly reduces their evidentiary weight, though they do not appear to be coordinated fake reviews.

This WW Score is based on only 6 reviews spanning six years and should be considered a low-confidence preliminary assessment — prospective customers are strongly advised to seek additional recent references before hiring.

Apollo Plumbing, Heating & Air receives strong and consistent praise for technician professionalism, friendliness, punctuality, and communication — the vast majority of positive reviews highlight named technicians who were courteous, thorough, and knowledgeable. However, pricing is a serious and recurring concern: a substantial number of reviewers across multiple years describe charges they considered grossly excessive, ranging from $750 for under-an-hour jobs to $3,500+ quotes that competitors completed for under $500, significantly dragging down the pricing dimension. Project completion is mixed — most jobs are completed satisfactorily, but there are notable failures including a $15K re-pipe that failed city inspection, an $18K mini-split installation that was never properly resolved, repeated callbacks for unfixed toilets, and at least one instance of a no-show. Experience scores moderately well given the volume of praise for technical skill, but is tempered by documented cases of misdiagnosis, incorrect installations, and technicians admitting they did not understand the equipment they sold.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: Five reviews appear to be exact duplicates posted on consecutive dates (June 5–8, 2025): 'Zander gave us an estimate today...', 'Rob was great a very informative.', 'Eric arrived within the window quoted...', 'Eric & Mike B were great...', and 'We love the guys here!'. Each of these five review texts appears twice with different dates. This is a strong indicator of fake or artificially inflated reviews. Confidence in the overall positive signal has been reduced accordingly.
• RECENCY NOTE: Reviews span from 2021 to June 2025. The majority of negative pricing and project completion reviews are from 2022–2024, while the most recent reviews (2025) skew heavily positive. This pattern may reflect genuine improvement or continued review manipulation.
• PRICING PATTERN: At least 15 distinct reviews across multiple years describe pricing as predatory, excessive, or far above competitor quotes. Specific complaints include: $956 quote for a $5 part fix, $2,500 for 2.5 hours of solo plumbing, $3,500 quote for a job competitors did for under $450, $3,000+ for a water heater installation with no itemized invoice, and a $75 dispatch fee charged even when no work is performed. This is a systemic and well-documented concern, not isolated incidents.
• PROJECT COMPLETION FAILURES: Multiple reviews document serious completion failures — a $15K re-pipe that failed city inspection and left water pressure worse than before; an $18K mini-split that short-cycled and was never properly resolved; a toilet repaired three times for over $1,000 that still leaked; and a $4K drain job that did not fix the root-clogged end of the pipe.
• UPSELLING CONCERNS: Multiple independent reviewers across different years describe technicians prioritizing membership sales and upsells over diagnosing or completing the actual job requested. This is a recurring behavioral pattern, not isolated.
• BLANK REVIEWS: At least 2 reviews contained no text (only a 5-star rating) and were excluded from dimension scoring but counted in total reviews analyzed.
• ALL-5-STAR PATTERN IN RECENT REVIEWS: The most recent 40+ reviews are almost exclusively 5-star with no critical feedback, which combined with the confirmed duplicate reviews raises concern about review authenticity for the most recent period.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large review volume, but the score itself should be interpreted cautiously — the pricing dimension reflects a well-documented and systemic pattern of overcharging that is likely to directly impact consumer outcomes, and the presence of confirmed duplicate reviews inflates the apparent positivity of the professionalism and experience dimensions.