Find Nearby Plumbers In Edmonds, Washington

Marc and A-Breakthrough Plumbing show a strongly split record across nearly 50 reviews spanning over a decade. Professionalism scores are dragged down significantly by multiple credible accounts of unprofessional behavior including swearing at employees in front of customers, aggressive and agitated conduct during pricing disputes, pressuring customers to leave positive reviews, and suggesting cash payments to avoid tax. Pricing is the weakest dimension: multiple independent reviewers explicitly state they were charged roughly double the going rate, and one reviewer confirmed this via a competing plumber's assessment of a receipt; the pattern of undisclosed price increases after work begins is a recurring complaint. Project completion is mixed — Marc demonstrates strong responsiveness and follow-through in many cases, but there are several serious failures including a leak that required four visits and was still not fixed, a dishwasher installation left unlevel and requiring a second contractor, and a bathroom remodel that had to be remediated by another company. Experience scores moderately, with many positive accounts of quick diagnosis and effective repairs, offset by documented cases of misdiagnosis, poor workmanship, and jobs requiring correction by other tradespeople.

• PRICING CONCERN: Multiple independent reviewers (at least 5) explicitly state Marc charged approximately double the market rate, with one reviewer having a receipt reviewed by a competing plumber who confirmed the overcharge. This is a strong and consistent signal.
• REVIEW SOLICITATION: At least two reviewers (2019 dishwasher review, 2021 scam review) explicitly state Marc asked them to leave a positive review while on-site or immediately after the job, which undermines the reliability of generic 5-star reviews with no detail.
• CASH PAYMENT SUGGESTION: One reviewer (2021) explicitly states Marc suggested paying cash to avoid tax — a serious ethical and legal flag.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK: A significant number of older 5-star reviews (2010–2014) are brief, generic, and lack specific detail (e.g., 'Marc is great!', 'Efficient and professional!'). Combined with documented on-site review solicitation, these should be treated with reduced confidence.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent reviews (2021–2024) skew negative (1–2 stars), suggesting a possible decline in service quality over time. The positive reviews are predominantly from 2010–2015. Recency weighting reduces the overall score.
• PATTERN OF PRICE ESCALATION: Multiple reviews describe a consistent pattern of a low initial quote followed by a significantly higher final bill revealed only after work is completed, with no written estimates provided.
• INCOMPLETE WORK: At least 3 reviews describe work that was not completed correctly and required a second contractor to fix, including a leak repair with 4 failed visits, an unlevel dishwasher installation, and a bathroom remodel described as a 'mess'.
• EMPLOYEE CONDUCT: One reviewer witnessed Marc verbally abusing an employee using profanity on-site. Another reviewer noted a worker arrived appearing intoxicated. These are serious professionalism flags.

This WW Score is based on 50 reviews with high mention counts across all four dimensions, giving it strong statistical grounding, but reliability is moderately reduced by documented on-site review solicitation, a pattern of generic 5-star reviews with no specifics, and a clear negative trend in the most recent reviews — the score of 68.4 should be treated as a cautionary signal rather than a passing grade.

D&T Plumbing has a small and aging review base, with only 4 reviews containing usable detail and the most recent substantive review dating to 2019. Professionalism scores moderately well — Dan is described as pleasant, committed, prompt, and knowledgeable across multiple reviews — but one review explicitly notes the crew 'just show up at the door and don't let you know they are coming,' which is a communication concern. Pricing is described as fair and transparent in two reviews, with one reviewer noting the final bill came in under estimate, though it is not described as cheap. Project completion is the most concerning dimension: one reviewer explicitly states that D&T failed to have a required city inspection performed before burying a water main repair, and then failed to follow through on a promised $200 refund — a serious flag for accountability and regulatory compliance. Experience is generally positive based on the detailed 2019 and 2013 reviews, showing persistence and problem-solving ability, but the sample is too small to score with high confidence.

• Two reviews contain only the word 'unknown' with no review text — these were excluded from scoring as they provide no usable data.
• SERIOUS CONCERN: One reviewer (1-star, 2011) reports that D&T buried a water main repair without obtaining the required city inspection, which may constitute a code violation. The contractor also promised a $200 refund and did not pay it, indicating a follow-through failure.
• All usable reviews are between 5 and 13 years old. The most recent substantive review is from June 2019. There is NO review data from the past 12 months. This score should be treated with significant caution as it may not reflect current service quality.
• The two 'unknown' reviews both carry 5-star ratings with no text, which is a pattern sometimes associated with low-quality or placeholder reviews. They were excluded from scoring.
• Total usable review count is very low (4 reviews). Scores are based on limited evidence and should not be considered highly reliable.

This WW Score carries LOW overall reliability due to a very small usable review sample (4 reviews), an entirely outdated review set with no data from the past several years, two content-free reviews excluded from analysis, and one serious unresolved complaint involving a regulatory compliance failure and an unpaid refund promise.

Go Jo Plumbing receives a critically low WW Score of 32.8, driven by severe and consistent failures across professionalism, pricing, and project completion. Four of five reviews report major problems: extreme overcharging ($1,326 for a $30-40 job), incorrect installation causing structural damage and mold, poor workmanship requiring corrective work, and unresponsiveness to damage claims. Only one positive review from 2014 highlights technical skill and fair pricing on a specific job, but this is heavily outweighed by recent negative experiences (2019-2023). The company's pattern of non-communication and refusal to address failures is particularly damaging.

• CRITICAL: Multiple reviews report severe overcharging and potential fraud (2023 review: $1,326 for routine faucet replacement; 2019 review: nearly double market rate)
• CRITICAL: Two reviews (2021) document serious installation failures resulting in structural damage, mold, and sewage contamination with no response or remediation from company
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most negative reviews are from 2019-2023; one positive review is from 2014 (10 years old) and may not reflect current operations
• PATTERN: Multiple reviews cite non-responsiveness and refusal to acknowledge or fix problems, suggesting systemic customer service failure
• CONFLICT OF INTEREST NOTED: First review involves property management company (CENTURY 21) as intermediary, complicating attribution but pricing claim is explicit

This score is moderately reliable given 5 reviews with consistent negative patterns across recent years, though the small sample size and one outlier positive review from 2014 introduce some uncertainty. The convergence of multiple independent complaints about overcharging and poor workmanship significantly strengthens confidence in the low rating.

Only one review contains substantive customer feedback (the 2016 review). That review explicitly praises professionalism (friendly personality, honesty, responsiveness) and experience (knowledgeable about plumbing). The 2020 review is a service listing/advertisement, not a customer review, and provides no evaluable feedback. With only 1 usable review mentioning 2 dimensions, the dataset is insufficient to calculate a reliable WW Score. No data exists on pricing or project completion.

• First review (2020) is not a customer review—it is a service advertisement/listing describing offerings. It contains no customer experience data and should not be weighted as evidence.
• Only 1 genuine customer review available; minimum 3 reviews required for reliable scoring.
• Review data is severely outdated (2016); no recent customer feedback available.
• No mentions of pricing, value, or project completion in any review.
• Insufficient data to calculate WW Score.

This score cannot be reliably calculated due to insufficient usable review data (only 1 genuine customer review) and absence of information on critical dimensions like pricing and project completion. Any score derived from this dataset would be unreliable.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only one review was analyzed. The review explicitly mentions strong technical expertise (problem-solving, diagnosis of complex issues) and project completion (bathroom redesign, sink installation). However, no dimensions related to professionalism (punctuality, communication, attitude) or pricing (value, fairness, transparency) are addressed. A single review cannot provide reliable scoring across all dimensions.

• Only 1 review provided — statistically insufficient for reliable WW Score calculation
• Review is from 2018 (6+ years old) — does not reflect current service quality
• No explicit mention of professionalism factors (punctuality, responsiveness, communication style)
• No pricing information provided — cannot assess value or fairness
• Generic praise ('favorite plumber') without specific detail on timeline, cost, or communication

This score cannot be reliably calculated or trusted due to insufficient review volume (n=1) and age of the single review (2018). At least 3 recent reviews are required for meaningful WW Score assessment.

Only a single review was available for analysis, which severely limits the reliability of any scoring. The review mentions honesty and efficiency, which loosely maps to professionalism, but provides no specific detail about punctuality, communication, appearance, or responsiveness. Pricing, project completion, and experience dimensions received no usable data whatsoever. A conservative professionalism score of 70 was assigned given the vague but positive language used. No WW Score could be calculated due to insufficient review volume.

• Only 1 review analyzed — far below the minimum of 3 required for a reliable WW Score.
• Review language is generic and lacks specific detail ('great trustworthy guys', 'honest and efficient') — cannot verify authenticity or extract meaningful dimension data.
• Three of four scoring dimensions have NO DATA due to the single review providing no relevant information for pricing, project completion, or experience.
• Review is dated 2023-01-11 — over 12 months old depending on current date, reducing recency weight.

This score report should not be trusted for decision-making purposes — only one vague review was available, leaving three of four dimensions completely unscored and the WW Score incalculable.