Find Nearby Plumbers In Portland, Oregon

Realistic Plumbing has a deeply mixed record across its review history. The majority of positive reviews praise Roger's responsiveness, honesty, and willingness to advise customers without unnecessary charges, which supports moderate scores in professionalism and pricing. However, a highly detailed 1-star review describes a serious project abandonment — an incomplete sewer, water, and gas line installation with safety violations, repeated no-shows, and poor communication — which significantly drags down the project completion score. A second 1-star review cites rude behavior from a plumber, further undermining professionalism. The experience dimension is supported by several reviews noting knowledgeable diagnostics and quality workmanship, but the incomplete ADU project introduces doubt about execution on larger jobs.

• RECENCY WARNING: The majority of reviews are older than 3 years, with only 2 reviews from 2021–2022. The most recent positive reviews are from 2018–2022, and the most damaging negative review is from 2021. The score may not reflect current business performance.
• SERIOUS NEGATIVE SIGNAL: One detailed 1-star review (2021) describes project abandonment, safety violations, repeated no-shows (5+), failure to pass city inspections, and unresponsive communication. This is a high-credibility negative review due to its specificity and length.
• OLDER REVIEWS RELIABILITY: Several reviews date back to 2005–2014, which are over 10 years old. These were included in scoring but carry reduced real-world relevance to current contractor quality.
• POSSIBLE STAFFING INCONSISTENCY: Reviews reference multiple individuals (Roger, Anthony, a father-son team), suggesting variable crew quality. The rude plumber in the 1-star review may not be Roger himself, but reflects on the business overall.
• NO FAKE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: Reviews vary in length, detail, tone, and rating. No suspicious repetition or identical phrasing was identified.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability due to a small review set spanning nearly two decades, with the most actionable signal being a detailed 2021 project abandonment complaint that substantially offsets otherwise positive historical feedback.

Always Affordable Plumbing receives genuinely mixed feedback across all dimensions. On professionalism, several reviewers praised punctuality, communication, and courtesy, but two detailed 1-star reviews describe a bad attitude, extreme messiness, failure to clean up after work, and a deeply unprofessional response from staff including verbal abuse when complaints were raised — these significantly drag the professionalism score down. Pricing is a clear strength, with multiple reviewers explicitly noting costs far below competitor quotes and good value, earning a relatively strong score in that dimension. Project completion is a serious concern: one review describes a flooding incident caused by leaving plumbing open while turning water back on, water damage to rugs and ceilings, and no effort to help remediate — while another notes measurement errors requiring a callback, and a third warns against using them for large projects. On the experience dimension, workmanship quality is inconsistent — skilled enough to tackle jobs others won't, but with documented cosmetic errors, shoddy faucet installation, and a flooding incident suggesting lapses in technical care on larger jobs.

• Two detailed 1-star reviews describe serious incidents: flooding caused by leaving plumbing open during water restoration, and a faucet installed with a visible gap and damaged wood mount — these are significant quality and liability concerns.
• One 1-star reviewer reports that the company's listed email address is non-functional and that a staff member screamed profanities and hung up when a complaint was raised — this is a major customer service and business integrity red flag.
• The reviewer from 2023-04-10 explicitly notes their jobs were approximately 2 years prior to writing, meaning some positive experiences may reflect older service quality that may not represent current performance.
• Several positive reviews are relatively brief and lack specific detail (e.g., 2022-08-04, 2021-04-28, 2022-03-01), which limits their evidentiary weight compared to the highly detailed negative reviews.
• Recency note: The most recent review is from May 2024, but the two most damaging negative reviews are from 2022. The 2024 and early 2023 reviews are more positive, which may suggest some improvement, but the sample size is too small to confirm a trend.
• No fake review patterns detected — reviews vary in length, detail, rating, and tone, suggesting authentic authorship.

This WW Score is based on 9 reviews with usable data across all four dimensions; while confidence is MODERATE to HIGH on individual dimensions due to mention counts, the small total review pool and the presence of two highly detailed, credible negative reviews — including a flooding incident and a reported abusive customer service interaction — mean this score should be treated with caution, particularly for large or complex plumbing projects.

This contractor has a very small review pool of only 3 reviews, making any score highly provisional. Two positive reviews praise reasonable pricing, friendly attitude, timely work, and clean job sites, which is encouraging. However, one negative review raises a serious concern about the use of inferior materials, which directly impacts the experience and trustworthiness dimensions and cannot be dismissed. The negative review lacks specific detail but is a direct warning against hiring, and per conservative scoring rules it has been weighted meaningfully. Until a larger body of reviews is available, this score should be treated as a rough early signal only.

• Only 3 reviews total — score is statistically unreliable and should not be used as a definitive quality indicator.
• One 1-star review explicitly warns against hiring this company and cites use of inferior materials. This is a serious allegation that could not be verified or refuted with the available data.
• The negative review is vague and lacks specific detail, which slightly reduces its evidentiary weight, but its severity (materials quality, trustworthiness, home safety) means it cannot be ignored.
• All three reviews are recent (within the past 14 months as of early 2025), which is a positive sign for recency, but the sample size remains too small to draw confident conclusions.

This WW Score is LOW RELIABILITY due to only 3 reviews being available, including one serious negative allegation about materials quality — significantly more reviews are needed before this score can be trusted.

Beaverton Plumbing presents a deeply mixed record across all four dimensions. Professionalism is the most heavily flagged dimension, with numerous reviews citing no-shows, unreturned calls, rude office staff, and at least one employee (Joel) singled out negatively — though many individual plumbers (Paul, Colby, Steven Jr., Felix, Nick, Taylor, Mike, Bryan) received genuine praise for courtesy and attitude. Pricing is the weakest dimension by far, with a substantial cluster of reviews explicitly describing hidden travel time charges, billing for time not worked, mask surcharges added without disclosure, and parts billed at 4–5x retail — patterns consistent across multiple reviewers spanning several years. Project completion is middling: many jobs were finished well and on time, but there are credible accounts of misdiagnosis, abandoned work, warranty refusals, a no-show appointment, and one case where the company failed all three requested tasks. Experience scores moderately, with skilled individual plumbers praised for complex jobs, but offset by an apprentice drilling into the same joist five times, a misdiagnosed shower leak costing $200, and a scoping technician who gave up on a job another company completed easily. The company underwent a bankruptcy and ownership change in late 2023, and recent 2024–2025 reviews trend more positively, suggesting possible improvement under new ownership.

• BILLING FRAUD PATTERN: Multiple independent reviewers across different years describe nearly identical schemes — plumbers sitting in vans before or after work while billing for that time, undisclosed travel time charges, and charges exceeding quoted amounts. This is a systemic pattern, not isolated incidents.
• HIDDEN CHARGES: At least three reviewers report being charged a $15 mask surcharge not disclosed at booking. Two reviewers report being charged for travel time from the previous job location rather than from the shop, without prior disclosure.
• NO-SHOW / RESPONSIVENESS FAILURES: At least five reviews describe missed appointments with no call, unreturned emails, or unreturned voicemails. This is a recurring operational failure.
• WARRANTY REFUSAL: Two separate reviews describe the company refusing to stand behind work that failed within weeks of completion, citing narrow 30-day warranty windows.
• OWNERSHIP CHANGE / BANKRUPTCY: The company went bankrupt in September 2023 and was purchased by a new entity operating under the same name. The new owner explicitly disclaimed liability for prior work. Reviews before and after this date may reflect different operational standards and should be weighted accordingly.
• RECENCY NOTE: Reviews from 2024–2025 (post-ownership change) are more positive on average, with specific praise for Paul, Colby, and Derek. However, two 1-star reviews from early 2025 still cite billing irregularities and a messy job site, indicating problems have not been fully resolved.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Four reviews contained no text (only a star rating). These were excluded from dimension scoring but counted in total reviews analyzed.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — LOW LEVEL: A cluster of 5-star reviews dated 2024-06-09 share the same date and are brief and generic (e.g., 'They are the best in service and efficiency'). While not conclusive, this warrants mild caution. Confidence is not significantly reduced as other reviews on those dates contain specific names and details.
• OLDER REVIEW WEIGHT: A significant portion of reviews predate 2022 and reflect a prior ownership era. These were weighted less heavily in scoring, particularly for professionalism and pricing dimensions.

This WW Score is based on a large review set (75 reviews) spanning over a decade, giving HIGH statistical confidence in the patterns identified, but consumers should note that pre-2024 reviews reflect a now-bankrupt prior ownership, and the billing irregularity pattern — though somewhat reduced in recent reviews — has not fully disappeared, making the pricing dimension score particularly unreliable as a predictor of future experience.

Pacific Plumbing and Drain has a deeply polarized review history, with a significant number of strongly negative reviews pulling all four dimensions down considerably. Professionalism scores moderately due to a meaningful split: many positive reviews praise individual technicians like Patrick, Billy, Jon, and David as friendly and professional, while a near-equal volume of negative reviews cite no-shows, rescheduling failures, rude staff, and employees hanging up on customers. Pricing is the weakest dimension, with multiple reviewers explicitly describing hidden charges, quotes that ballooned significantly at billing, and in one case an alleged attempt to charge $3,000 for a job another company quoted at $300–$400. Project completion is severely impacted by recurring complaints of jobs left unfinished, return visits required, and work that failed shortly after the technician left. Experience scores modestly above the midpoint because several positive reviews do highlight skilled, knowledgeable technicians, but this is offset by multiple accounts of wrong parts ordered, incorrect diagnoses, and work that had to be redone by other companies.

• PRICING FRAUD CONCERN: Multiple independent reviewers describe significant discrepancies between quoted and final billed amounts, and at least one review alleges the company attempted to charge $3,000 for a repair another company completed for $300–$400. This pattern suggests a systemic pricing integrity issue, not isolated incidents.
• INCOMPLETE WORK PATTERN: At least 5 reviews explicitly state the job was declared complete by the technician but was not actually resolved, requiring callbacks or a different company to finish the work. This is a serious and recurring project completion failure.
• DISHONESTY ALLEGATIONS: Two or more reviews allege the company provided false information to home warranty companies (American Home Shield) to avoid or inflate claims. This is a significant integrity flag.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of positive reviews are from 2015–2020, while the most recent reviews (2024) are predominantly 1-star. The trend line is clearly negative and worsening. Recent performance should be weighted more heavily, and the score reflects this concern.
• NO-SHOW AND SCHEDULING FAILURES: Multiple reviews across different years describe repeated rescheduling, missed appointments with no notice, and staff claiming they 'were just about to call' when the customer initiated contact. This is a systemic reliability issue.
• SENIOR/VULNERABLE CUSTOMER CONCERN: One 2024 review explicitly states the company was aware the customer was a senior citizen and VA-disabled veteran and still charged excessive fees for incomplete work. This is a notable ethical flag.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — LOW LEVEL: Several older 5-star reviews are brief, generic, and lack specific detail (e.g., 'honest, trustworthy and reliable' with no context). While not conclusive, these reviews contribute marginally less confidence to the positive side of the score.

This WW Score is based on 50 reviews spanning approximately 12 years and carries HIGH statistical confidence in terms of mention volume, but the strong negative trend in recent 2024 reviews and multiple serious allegations of dishonest billing, incomplete work, and misconduct mean the score should be treated as a warning signal — prospective customers should exercise significant caution.

Pipe Systems presents a deeply mixed record across all four dimensions. Positive reviews highlight quick response times, professional demeanor, and competent workmanship on straightforward jobs, with several customers praising punctuality and thoroughness. However, serious negative reviews — including an abandoned water heater installation with code violations and no permit pulled, a drain job charged for without resolution, a warranty dispute where the owner stopped returning calls, and a complaint about false 24-hour emergency advertising — significantly drag down every dimension. The professionalism score is particularly penalized by multiple documented instances of unreturned calls, late arrivals, and in one case threatening behavior from a technician. Project completion suffers heavily due to at least two clear cases of work left incomplete or improperly finished with no follow-through. The review set spans from 2010 to 2023, meaning many negative reviews are quite old, but the most recent reviews (2020, 2023) are positive, suggesting possible improvement over time — though the sample is too small to confirm a trend.

• Review date range spans 13 years (2010–2023). The majority of negative reviews are from 2010–2018, while the two most recent reviews (2020, 2023) are positive. Scores may not reflect current business quality, but recency weighting cannot fully offset the severity of documented failures.
• One review (2010, rating 2.0) is extremely detailed and describes multiple serious failures: no permit pulled for water heater installation, code violations (missing seismic strap), technician threatening behavior, owner failing to return calls, and a second technician apparently working off-books. This single review carries significant weight due to its specificity and verifiability.
• One review (2017, rating 1.0) documents a warranty dispute where the owner explicitly refused to honor a callback without additional charge and then stopped responding entirely — a serious professionalism and project completion failure.
• One review (2013, rating 1.0) raises a concern about the business operating under a different name ('Beaverton Plumbers') on Google while requesting checks made out to 'Pipe Systems' — a potential deceptive marketing flag.
• One review (2018, rating 1.0) accuses the business of false advertising regarding 24-hour emergency service availability.
• No fake review patterns detected. Reviews vary significantly in length, detail, tone, and rating, suggesting authentic authorship across the set.
• The check-name discrepancy noted in the 2013 review (Google listing as 'Beaverton Plumbers', checks to 'Pipe Systems') and the 2010 review (check written to 'Niall', not Pipe Systems) suggest possible inconsistent business practices around payment and identity.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability: the review volume is adequate and reviews appear authentic with strong specificity, but the 13-year date range and the disproportionate severity of several negative reviews (code violations, abandoned work, threatening conduct) introduce meaningful uncertainty about whether the score reflects the contractor's current operational standards.