Find Nearby Plumbers In Tigard, Oregon

Global Plumbing demonstrates strong overall performance across all dimensions, with particular strength in professionalism and pricing fairness. The company excels at responsive communication, punctuality, and honest dealings with customers. Technical expertise is consistently praised, with multiple reviews highlighting problem-solving ability and quality workmanship. However, project completion shows slightly lower confidence due to a small number of negative reviews citing incomplete work, warranty issues, and follow-up failures. The presence of 4 one-star reviews (approximately 5% of total) indicates occasional service failures that prevent a higher score despite overwhelming positive feedback.

• Four 1-star reviews (2023-05-31, 2021-10-08, 2020-05-02, 2019-09-24, 2014-05-01, 2012-01-13) indicate legitimate service failures: incomplete work requiring rework, unprofessional behavior (cursing at customer), unresponsiveness to phone calls, poor warranty handling, and billing disputes. These are not isolated complaints and suggest systemic issues with consistency.
• Review from 2023-05-31 explicitly states customer paid in full, same problem recurred months later, and company demanded full payment again instead of honoring warranty—this is a significant project completion failure.
• Review from 2021-10-08 documents unprofessional conduct (technician cursing) and poor complaint handling by management (denying incident without investigation).
• Review from 2020-05-02 indicates unresponsiveness—customer called back and company would not answer phone.
• Review from 2019-09-24 describes poor workmanship on repiping job requiring two separate corrections by another plumber, and inspector compliance issues.
• Older reviews (pre-2018) show some billing disputes and reliability issues, though these may reflect historical problems.
• Majority of reviews are 5-star with enthusiastic language, but this is balanced by credible negative reviews with specific details, suggesting genuine mixed performance rather than fake reviews.

This WW Score of 82.1 is reliable and based on substantial data (80 reviews with HIGH confidence across all dimensions), but the score masks meaningful variability: approximately 95% of reviews are 5-star with strong praise, while 5% report serious failures in project completion and professionalism. The company appears to deliver excellent service most of the time but has documented issues with warranty follow-up, consistency, and complaint resolution that warrant caution. Prospective customers should expect high-quality work in most cases but should clarify warranty terms and follow-up procedures in writing before engaging.

SOS Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism with consistently courteous, responsive staff and timely service across most reviews. However, the company shows significant inconsistency in project completion and pricing transparency, with multiple complaints about incomplete work, follow-up failures, and unexpected charges. Experience-level feedback is generally positive regarding technical knowledge and problem-solving, though some reviews indicate diagnostic errors. The WW Score of 76.8 reflects a company with solid fundamentals but notable reliability and pricing concerns that prevent a higher rating.

• CRITICAL: Multiple reviews (at least 8) report no-shows, missed appointments, or failure to follow up on callbacks despite claims of 24/7 service. This is a systemic professionalism issue.
• PRICING CONCERNS: At least 6 reviews explicitly mention overcharging, inflated estimates, hidden charges, or unexpected fees. One elderly customer was allegedly charged $4,320 for work estimated at $800-$1,500 by competitors.
• PROJECT COMPLETION FAILURES: Multiple reviews (at least 5) report incomplete work, jobs requiring multiple visits to fix, or work that had to be redone by other contractors or homeowners.
• QUALITY INCONSISTENCY: Several reviews report poor workmanship (leaking installations, damaged fixtures, incorrect diagnostics) despite other reviews praising quality.
• OWNER/MANAGEMENT ISSUES: Multiple reviews describe rude, dismissive, or threatening behavior from ownership when complaints were raised. One review reports owner threatening legal action over payment disputes.
• WARRANTY DISPUTES: At least 2 reviews report the company refusing to honor stated warranties or guarantees.
• RECENCY NOTE: Most negative reviews cluster in 2017-2024 period, suggesting ongoing systemic issues rather than historical problems. Recent reviews (2024-2025) are predominantly 5-star with minimal detail, which may indicate review selection bias.
• FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: Approximately 15-20 reviews from June 9, 2024 show identical timestamps, minimal detail, or generic praise without specifics. Several are blank or single-sentence reviews. This clustering suggests possible review manipulation.
• ELDERLY CUSTOMER COMPLAINTS: Multiple reviews specifically mention poor treatment of elderly customers, including overcharging and delayed emergency service.

This WW Score should be treated with MODERATE-TO-HIGH caution. While the score of 76.8 is supported by substantial data (150 reviews), the company exhibits a troubling pattern of inconsistency: excellent service in some cases paired with serious failures in others, particularly around appointment reliability, pricing transparency, and warranty honoring. The recent clustering of generic 5-star reviews and the prevalence of detailed negative reviews from 2017-2024 suggest the company may have systemic operational issues that are not fully reflected in the overall score. Prospective customers should request detailed written estimates, confirm appointment times in writing, and consider the company's mixed track record before committing to major projects.

Roto-Rooter scores very strongly on professionalism and technician experience, with hundreds of reviews praising individual technicians by name for being courteous, knowledgeable, communicative, and thorough. Project completion is generally solid, with most jobs resolved same-day or within a short timeframe, though a meaningful minority of reviews describe incomplete work, no-shows, broken promises on follow-up visits, and warranty disputes. The most significant drag on the overall WW Score is pricing, which is the single most-complained-about dimension across the entire review set — dozens of reviewers explicitly describe charges as 'outrageous,' 'ridiculous,' 'a scam,' or triple the price of competitors, with specific dollar amounts cited ranging from $315 for 4 minutes of work to $8,700 for a water heater installation. Several reviews also describe deceptive pricing practices, including quotes that changed after work began, failure to disclose service fees upfront, and pressure tactics targeting vulnerable customers including seniors and non-English speakers.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: A significant number of reviews appear to be exact or near-exact duplicates posted on different dates (e.g., multiple identical reviews for 'Gio,' 'Gabriel,' 'Daniel,' 'Gus,' 'Giovanni,' and others). This inflates the apparent review count and may indicate a review solicitation system that caused customers to submit the same review twice, or potential manipulation. Confidence in raw review count is reduced.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Approximately 150-200 reviews contain no text and only a star rating (almost all 5-star). These provide no usable data for any dimension and were excluded from scoring but inflate the total count.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS ARE SEVERE AND SPECIFIC: Negative pricing reviews are not vague — they cite specific dollar amounts, compare to competitor prices, and describe practices such as quoting after work begins, refusing to honor coupons, and charging elderly or non-English-speaking customers without disclosure. This is a systemic pattern, not isolated incidents.
• SCHEDULING AND NO-SHOW COMPLAINTS: Multiple reviews describe technicians failing to arrive within promised windows, no-call-no-shows, and dispatch communication failures. This is a recurring pattern affecting the project completion score.
• WARRANTY DISPUTES: Several reviews describe Roto-Rooter refusing to honor stated warranties, including a 6-month guarantee and a 30-day guarantee, with customers being charged again for the same recurring issue.
• WORK QUALITY FAILURES: A small but notable number of reviews describe active harm caused by technicians — flooding a kitchen, improperly setting a toilet, changing the wrong pipe, leaving sewage handprints, and damaging property with no accountability.
• PREDATORY PRICING PATTERN: Multiple reviews describe technicians quoting extremely high prices and then reducing them when customers push back, suggesting initial quotes are inflated as a negotiating tactic rather than honest pricing.
• RECENCY: All reviews are dated between approximately May 7, 2025 and June 9, 2025 — all within the past 12 months. Recency weighting is fully applied.

This WW Score is based on an exceptionally large review set and carries HIGH overall confidence, but the score should be interpreted with caution given confirmed duplicate reviews inflating volume, a strong and consistent pattern of severe pricing complaints that meaningfully suppresses the score, and documented instances of incomplete work and warranty non-compliance that suggest the positive technician-level experience does not always translate to a satisfactory overall customer outcome.

This aggregated review set spans multiple businesses operating under similar 'All About Plumbing' or 'Allison Plumbing' names, making direct attribution difficult, but the overall picture is a contractor with a strong positive majority offset by a meaningful minority of serious complaints. Professionalism scores are dragged down by recurring patterns of no-shows, missed appointments, poor communication, and failure to return calls — issues mentioned explicitly across dozens of negative reviews spanning multiple years. Pricing receives a moderate-to-low score because while many customers praise fair and competitive pricing, a notable cluster of reviews describe bait-and-switch tactics, charges added without consent, overcharging seniors, and prices that jumped significantly from quoted amounts. Project completion is similarly mixed: the majority of jobs are described as completed well, but multiple reviews describe abandoned work, callbacks not honored, problems made worse, and in at least two cases customers had to take legal action or dispute charges. Experience scores highest because the technical skill of individual plumbers is frequently praised, with many reviewers noting knowledgeable diagnosis and quality workmanship — though a handful of reviews describe misdiagnosis, broken pipes caused by the plumber, and failed repairs.

• MULTIPLE BUSINESS ENTITIES: Reviews appear to cover several distinct businesses operating under similar names including 'All About Plumbing,' 'All In A Day Plumbing,' 'Allison Plumbing,' and variations. Scores reflect an aggregate and may not represent any single contractor accurately.
• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: At least 6 reviews appear to be near-identical duplicates (e.g., two identical reviews about Ray Buchanan dated 2023-03-25, two identical reviews about the 'ALL ABOUT NOT CARING' experience dated 2024-05-27, two identical reviews about the Troy water hammering job, two identical reviews about the water filtration estimate with Xzavia). This inflates review count and may indicate review manipulation or platform aggregation artifacts.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Approximately 20+ reviews contain no text content and only a 5-star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data. Their presence in high volume is a mild fake-review signal.
• RECENCY NOTE: Reviews span from 2006 to 2025. A significant portion of reviews (roughly 40%) are dated 2022 or earlier, including many from 2019 and before. Older reviews carry reduced weight. The most recent reviews (2024-2025) continue to show both strong positives and serious negatives, suggesting persistent quality inconsistency.
• SERIOUS MISCONDUCT ALLEGATIONS: Multiple reviews allege fraud, unauthorized credit card charges, charging for work not performed, referring customers to fraudulent contractors, and in one case a customer reports winning a court judgment against the company. These are not scored but significantly reduce trust in the overall profile.
• NO-SHOW PATTERN: At least 10 distinct reviews across multiple years describe scheduled appointments where no plumber arrived and no call was made. This is a persistent and documented pattern affecting the professionalism score.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK — MODERATE: The large volume of very short, generic 5-star reviews with no detail (e.g., 'Great service,' 'Excellent,' 'Professional,' 'Fast reliable service') alongside blank-text 5-star entries raises moderate concern about review padding. Confidence is not reduced to LOW given the large volume of detailed genuine reviews, but the inflated positive count should be noted.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large review volume, but moderate trust reliability due to the presence of multiple business entities in the dataset, duplicate reviews, blank reviews, and serious misconduct allegations that suggest the true score for any single contractor may differ materially from this aggregate.

3 Mountains Plumbing scores reasonably well on professionalism, with the majority of reviewers praising courteous, friendly, and communicative technicians — however, this is significantly offset by a recurring pattern of missed or cancelled appointments, no-shows, and poor follow-through on scheduling commitments. Pricing is the weakest dimension by a wide margin: an unusually high volume of reviewers across many years explicitly describe charges as grossly inflated, double or triple competitor rates, and non-transparent — with multiple reviewers filing complaints or switching companies after receiving quotes. Project completion is mixed: many jobs were finished satisfactorily, but a meaningful cluster of reviews describe abandoned work, unresolved callbacks, failed inspections, and jobs left incomplete for weeks or months. Technical experience is generally adequate but undermined by several credible accounts of misdiagnosis, unnecessary upselling, and workmanship errors that required correction by other companies.

• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The review by 'Jeff Morris' dated 2024-09-18 appears verbatim twice. Only one instance was counted in scoring.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The detailed negative review about the $5,479 underground pipe job (dated 2023-08-16) appears twice with near-identical content under two different ratings (1.0 and 0.5). Only one instance was counted in scoring.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The Gabe/polybutylene pipe review dated 2016-05-05 appears twice with near-identical content. Only one instance was counted in scoring.
• PRICING PATTERN WARNING: An unusually high number of reviewers (across 2013–2024) independently describe pricing as 2x–4x competitor rates, with flat-rate billing used in ways that obscure per-hour costs. This is a systemic concern, not isolated incidents.
• RELIABILITY CONCERN — SCHEDULING AND NO-SHOWS: Multiple independent reviews across different years describe confirmed appointments that were missed, cancelled day-of, or rescheduled without notice. This is a recurring operational failure.
• RECENCY NOTE: Reviews span 2013–2024. The most recent reviews (2024) include both a positive and a significant negative experience. The bulk of the review corpus is from 2015–2022. Older reviews (pre-2018) carry reduced weight per scoring rules.
• FAKE REVIEW AWARENESS: A small number of very short, generic 5-star reviews ('Great service', 'They are pros.', 'Solved problem!', 'Great experience.') lack any specific detail and cannot be used to score dimensions — they were excluded from dimension scoring but counted in total reviews analyzed.

This WW Score is based on a large review corpus (155 reviews) with HIGH confidence across all four dimensions, making it a reliable representation of this contractor's performance — the low pricing score and mixed project completion score in particular reflect consistent, well-documented patterns across many independent reviewers spanning over a decade.

Christian Plumbing exhibits highly inconsistent performance across all dimensions. While some reviews praise professionalism, fair pricing, and skilled workmanship (particularly from older reviews 2012-2014), recent reviews (2017-2024) reveal serious problems with project completion, including incomplete work, installation errors, failure to honor callbacks, and dishonest communication. Pricing complaints appear in multiple recent reviews citing overcharges and inflated quotes. The company demonstrates technical competence in some cases but critical failures in others, including improper installations that required customer corrections and unresolved issues abandoned after initial service.

• SEVERE RECENCY BIAS: Reviews from 2012-2014 are predominantly 5-star with glowing praise; reviews from 2017-2024 are predominantly 1-star with serious complaints. This suggests either significant business deterioration or a change in ownership/management.
• PATTERN OF INCOMPLETE WORK: Multiple recent reviews (2017, 2019, 2022, 2024) explicitly mention failure to complete work properly, abandoned callbacks, and installations that did not meet specifications.
• PRICING INCONSISTENCY: Older reviews cite fair/reasonable pricing; recent reviews cite overcharges ($200 extra on sink install, $650 vs $150 for same sewer line work), suggesting pricing practices have changed or become predatory.
• COMMUNICATION FAILURES: Recent reviews document broken promises, missed appointments, deferred calls, and failure to follow up on unresolved issues.
• POSSIBLE BUSINESS CHANGE: The stark contrast between pre-2015 and post-2017 reviews suggests potential ownership change, staff turnover, or business model shift. Owner 'Roger' is praised in 2012-2014 reviews but absent from recent complaints.

This score should be treated with CAUTION. While based on 21 reviews with adequate mention counts, the extreme temporal polarization (older reviews uniformly positive, recent reviews uniformly negative) suggests the company's current performance may be significantly worse than the overall score indicates. Recent reviews (past 3 years) should be weighted more heavily than historical data, which would lower the score substantially. Consumers should prioritize the 2017-2024 reviews as more representative of current service quality.