Find Nearby Plumbers In Bremerton, Washington

This contractor demonstrates strong professionalism with consistent punctuality, excellent communication, and courteous demeanor across nearly all reviews. Project completion is solid with most jobs finished promptly and thoroughly, though one significant 2019 review indicates an incomplete resolution to a downspout blockage despite high cost. Technical experience is evident through detailed diagnostics, video documentation, and problem-solving capability. Pricing is the weakest dimension—while most customers found value fair, two reviews explicitly noted high costs relative to outcomes, and one customer expressed frustration with poor post-service explanation despite premium pricing.

• RECENCY CONCERN: 7 of 11 reviews are from 2016–2018 (5+ years old). Only 4 reviews from 2019 or later. Recent performance data is limited.
• PRICING INCONSISTENCY: Two reviews (2019-08-01 and 2019-03-01) mention high pricing and poor value, contrasting sharply with enthusiastic praise in older reviews. This may indicate recent price increases or service quality drift.
• INCOMPLETE PROJECT: 2019-03-01 review documents a $400+ service that failed to resolve the core problem (downspout blockage), with poor written explanation. This is a material project completion failure.
• POTENTIAL REVIEW BIAS: Multiple 5-star reviews from 2016–2018 use similar enthusiastic language ('nicest plumbers,' 'highly recommend,' 'class act') with minimal specific detail. While not definitively fake, the pattern suggests possible selection bias toward satisfied customers in older reviews.
• NAME INCONSISTENCY: Reviews reference 'Doug,' 'Shawn,' and 'Sean' interchangeably—likely the same individuals with spelling variations, but creates minor clarity issues.

This score should be treated with MODERATE-to-HIGH confidence for historical performance, but recent data (past 2 years) suggests potential service or pricing concerns that warrant direct inquiry before hiring. The 2019 incomplete project and pricing complaints are material red flags that offset the strong professionalism ratings.

Mario's Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism with consistent punctuality, responsiveness, and courteous communication across most reviews. Pricing is generally perceived as fair and reasonable, though two older reviews cite overcharging concerns. Project completion is solid overall, with most jobs finished on time and to satisfaction, though one 2023 review documents abandonment of a job mid-process. Technical expertise is evident in diagnostic ability and quality workmanship. The WW Score of 82.1 reflects reliable service with some reliability concerns that prevent a higher rating.

• One highly negative 2024 review (Feb 15) alleges faulty work, non-responsiveness, and fraud; claims shop address does not exist. This is a serious red flag requiring investigation, though it contrasts sharply with 24 other positive reviews.
• One 2023 review documents job abandonment after scheduling delays and incomplete work, suggesting potential capacity or reliability issues during that period.
• Two older reviews (2022) cite overpricing concerns, though these are isolated and predate the majority of recent positive feedback.
• Most reviews (20 of 25) are from 2024 or 2023; only 5 reviews are older than 2 years, suggesting recent service quality is the primary indicator.
• The 2024 fraud allegation is inconsistent with the pattern of 24 other reviews praising honesty and professionalism; this warrants verification before full trust.

This score should be treated with MODERATE-to-HIGH caution: while 24 of 25 reviews are positive and recent (past 18 months), one detailed 2024 allegation of fraud and non-responsiveness creates material doubt about consistency and trustworthiness that cannot be ignored without independent verification.

Express Septic demonstrates strong overall performance with particular strengths in technical expertise and experience (88/100), supported by consistent praise for knowledgeable technicians across 16 reviews. Professionalism scores 82/100 across 21 mentions, reflecting excellent customer service, friendliness, and responsiveness, though tempered by three negative reviews citing communication failures and rudeness. Pricing is competitive and fair (85/100, 10 mentions), with customers consistently noting reasonable rates and transparent quotes. Project completion scores 78/100 (8 mentions) and is the weakest dimension, with documented instances of missed appointments, no-shows, and poor communication about scheduling windows, though actual work quality when completed is consistently praised. The company excels at technical problem-solving and customer education but struggles with operational reliability and communication consistency.

• Three negative reviews (2020-12-31, 2019-08-06, 2015-07-18, 2015-07-03) document serious communication and scheduling failures: no-shows without notification, missed appointment windows (7:30pm arrival for 8am-noon window), and rude phone interactions. These are not isolated complaints.
• Communication issues appear across multiple time periods (2015, 2019, 2020), suggesting systemic operational problems rather than isolated incidents.
• One review (2023-06-16) mentions a quote that was 3x higher than expected with 'weird charges,' contradicting the general pricing narrative, though customer ultimately chose competitor.
• Majority of reviews are 5-star with highly positive language, but negative reviews are specific and detailed about failures, lending them credibility. No evidence of fake reviews detected; variation in review quality and presence of substantive criticism suggests authentic feedback.

This WW Score of 82.1 is reliable and should be trusted, supported by 25 reviews with HIGH overall confidence. The score accurately reflects a company with exceptional technical expertise and generally strong customer service, significantly undermined by documented communication and scheduling failures that create operational risk for customers. The presence of specific, detailed negative reviews alongside overwhelmingly positive ones suggests the score reflects genuine performance variation rather than bias.

Ed San Gil & Company demonstrates strong performance across all measured dimensions. Professionalism is consistently praised across all three reviews, with explicit mentions of transparency, efficiency, responsiveness, and personable demeanor. Technical skill and workmanship quality are highlighted in all reviews, with specific examples of complex problem-solving (40-foot water line reroute, tight crawlspace work). Pricing is noted as reasonable and competitive in two reviews. Project completion is evidenced by successful job delivery despite challenging conditions. However, the sample size is small (3 reviews) and all are older than 2 years, limiting confidence in the overall score.

• Small sample size (n=3) limits statistical reliability
• All reviews are older than 2 years (oldest from 2017, most recent from 2022); no recent data available to assess current performance
• All reviews are 5-star ratings with no negative feedback; while not necessarily fake, this perfect rating pattern warrants noting
• Limited mentions of pricing dimension (2 mentions) reduces confidence in that score

This WW Score should be treated with caution due to the small sample size and age of reviews; while the available data is positive and specific, more recent reviews would be needed to confidently assess current service quality.

Allied Sewer/Trenchless In Seattle demonstrates strong performance across all measured dimensions. Professionalism is consistently praised with explicit mentions of excellent communication, timeline management, and courteous owner interaction across all three reviews. Project completion is evidenced by successful job delivery, proper restoration work, and inspection passage. Pricing is highlighted as fair and competitive, with two reviews specifically noting significant savings versus competitors. Technical expertise is demonstrated through complex trenchless technology application and problem-solving on multi-building projects. However, the small sample size (3 reviews) and age of one review (2017) limit confidence in the overall score.

• Only 3 reviews analyzed — sample size is small and limits statistical reliability
• One review is from 2017 (7 years old); only 2 reviews from past 12 months
• All reviews are 5-star ratings with no negative feedback — consider whether this reflects genuine universal satisfaction or potential selection bias
• No explicit mentions of warranty, guarantees, or post-project support in any review
• Pricing dimension based on only 2 mentions; confidence is LIMITED for this metric

This WW Score of 89.2 should be treated with moderate caution due to the small sample size (3 reviews) and recency concerns; while the reviews are detailed and specific, the lack of any critical feedback and reliance on older data suggests the score may not fully represent current performance variability.

Sewer Rat demonstrates strong technical expertise and fair pricing, with most customers praising responsiveness, punctuality, and honest workmanship. However, the WW Score is tempered by significant and recurring complaints about office staff professionalism—multiple reviews cite rude, dismissive, or hostile phone interactions with the receptionist/office manager. Additionally, there are documented instances of incomplete work, no-shows, and poor follow-through on callbacks. While field technicians are consistently praised, the office communication failures and occasional project completion issues prevent a higher overall score despite the company's genuine technical competence.

• RECURRING OFFICE STAFF ISSUE: At least 7 reviews explicitly mention rude, obnoxious, or unprofessional behavior from the receptionist/office manager (Debbie or unnamed woman). This is a systemic weakness that contradicts the positive field technician feedback.
• PROJECT COMPLETION CONCERNS: Multiple reviews document incomplete work (faucet installation left lopsided with leaking gaskets), no-shows (stood up twice with no callback), and abandoned jobs (drain disassembled and left on floor). These are serious red flags.
• QUALITY CONTROL VARIANCE: One review reports a crew member's negligent repair caused a flood with tens of thousands in damage; another reports a technician made a drain worse (plugged it completely) and left a mess without proper cleanup.
• CALLBACK/WARRANTY ISSUES: Several reviews mention failure to honor warranties, refusal to provide credit for incomplete work, and dismissive responses to follow-up requests.
• REVIEW AGE DISTRIBUTION: Approximately 40% of reviews are from 2020 or earlier. Recent reviews (2024-2025) are predominantly 5-star with minimal detail, which may indicate selection bias or review platform changes. Older reviews (2008-2013) contain more detailed negative feedback about office staff.
• POSITIVE REVIEW CLUSTERING: Multiple 5-star reviews with identical or near-identical phrasing (e.g., 'honest,' 'professional,' 'punctual,' 'fair pricing') appear clustered by date, particularly in June 2024 and June 2020. While not conclusive evidence of fake reviews, the pattern warrants caution.

This WW Score of 78.2 is reliable at the HIGH confidence level due to substantial mention counts across all dimensions (32-58 reviews per category). However, the score masks a critical operational split: field technicians consistently deliver quality work and professionalism, but office staff interactions are a significant liability that materially impacts customer satisfaction and repeat business. Prospective customers should expect excellent technical service but should be prepared for potentially difficult phone interactions and should document all agreements in writing.