Find Nearby Plumbers In Everett, Washington

Adam's Plumbing shows a genuinely mixed track record across all four dimensions. Professionalism is the most frequently mentioned dimension and reveals a clear split: many customers praise punctuality, communication, and courteous crews, but a meaningful cluster of reviews — spanning multiple years — cite no-shows, repeated rescheduling, failure to respond to inquiries, and one instance of argumentative behavior from the owner. Project completion is similarly divided: several reviews confirm clean, timely, on-budget work, but others describe unresolved warranty issues, abandoned follow-up, and a job that was still leaking after being declared fixed. Pricing is generally viewed favorably — multiple reviewers note competitive quotes and no nickel-and-diming — though one reviewer found the bid nearly double what a competitor charged. Experience scores highest among the four dimensions, with reviewers consistently noting technical knowledge, problem-solving ability, and quality workmanship when the crew actually showed up and completed the job. The overall WW Score is pulled down significantly by recurring responsiveness and follow-through failures that appear across multiple years and multiple reviewers.

• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: Two reviews dated 2016-03-03 and 2016-03-02 are word-for-word identical ('Adam and his crew were simply great to work with...'). This is a strong indicator of a fake or artificially duplicated review. One instance was excluded from scoring.
• 13 reviews contain only the word 'unknown' or a single punctuation mark with no usable content. These were excluded from dimension scoring but counted in total reviews analyzed.
• RECENCY WARNING: The majority of reviews with substantive content are from 2013–2017. Only one review is from 2020 and none from 2021 onward. The WW Score may not reflect current business performance.
• RESPONSIVENESS PATTERN: At least 5 separate reviews across different years (2014, 2015, 2016, 2020) independently cite failure to respond to calls or messages, or repeated rescheduling. This is a consistent and credible pattern, not isolated incidents.
• WARRANTY/FOLLOW-THROUGH PATTERN: At least 3 reviews cite poor response to warranty or callback work, including one case where a guaranteed fix was still leaking a week later. This pattern meaningfully reduces the project completion score.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability: the volume of substantive reviews is adequate and the negative patterns are corroborated across multiple independent reviewers and years, but the near-total absence of reviews after 2020 means the score may not reflect the contractor's current quality or availability.

Scottie's Plumbing shows a deeply polarized customer base with significant quality and service inconsistencies. While positive reviews consistently praise technical skill, responsiveness on major projects, and fair pricing for complex work, negative reviews reveal chronic problems with punctuality, billing transparency, customer service responsiveness, and follow-through on callbacks. Professionalism scores are dragged down by documented instances of rudeness, late arrivals, poor communication, and unresponsive management. Pricing concerns are substantial, with multiple complaints about excessive markups, hidden charges, and inflated labor billing. Project completion issues include incomplete repairs, failed callbacks, and work that required re-doing. The company appears to perform well on large, planned projects but struggles significantly with routine service calls and customer relations.

• RECENCY CONCERN: Most reviews are 5+ years old (2013-2017). Only 6 reviews from 2020 onward. Recent data is insufficient to assess current performance.
• POLARIZATION PATTERN: Extreme bimodal distribution—predominantly 1-star and 5-star ratings with few middle scores. This suggests either genuinely inconsistent service or potential selection bias in who leaves reviews.
• FAKE REVIEW INDICATORS: Multiple reviews contain only punctuation marks (".") or "unknown" with 5-star ratings (dates: 2017-01-26, 2014-01-26, 2014-12-18, 2015-05-14, 2015-12-18, 2016-02-10). These appear to be placeholder or fraudulent entries. Confidence reduced accordingly.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW: Identical review text appears twice (2020-05-06 with different timestamps). This is unusual and suggests data quality issues.
• RESPONSIVENESS CRISIS: Multiple independent complaints about inability to reach owner/management, unreturned calls, and unresponsive 24/7 emergency line. This is a systemic issue.
• BILLING DISPUTES: Consistent pattern across multiple reviews of disputed charges, hidden fees, inflated labor time, and refusal to adjust bills. Suggests potential billing practice problems.
• CALLBACK FAILURES: At least 4 reviews document failure to return for promised callbacks or to fix problems created by initial service.
• OWNER CONDUCT: Multiple reviews describe owner (Scottie) as rude, dismissive, or unwilling to discuss complaints. One review documents owner yelling at customer over phone.

This WW Score should be treated with CAUTION. While based on 45 reviews, the data quality is compromised by fake/placeholder entries, extreme age (most pre-2018), and a highly polarized distribution that suggests either severe service inconsistency or significant selection bias. The score reflects historical performance and may not represent current operations. Recent reviews (past 12 months) are insufficient to establish current reliability. Recommend requesting recent references before hiring.

Andrews Plumbing has a mixed track record across reviews. Several customers praised responsiveness, politeness, and technical knowledge, particularly for smaller jobs like water heater replacement and sink installation. However, two significant negative reviews — one describing an abandoned rough-in job with a disputed invoice of $1,300 for minimal work, and another detailing a two-month overrun, poor tile workmanship, persistent leaks, and difficulty getting warranty work honored — substantially drag down the project completion and pricing scores. The positive reviews are largely older (pre-2020) with only one recent review from 2023, limiting confidence in current performance. The contractor appears more reliable on small, straightforward jobs than on larger remodeling projects.

• Most reviews are older than 3 years; only 1 review is from the past 12 months (2023). Current performance cannot be reliably assessed from this dataset.
• One review marked 'unknown' with no text content was excluded from scoring as it provides no usable data.
• Two serious negative reviews describe abandoned work, billing disputes, warranty non-compliance, and poor subcontractor quality — these are significant red flags for larger projects.
• The 1-star review from 2014 describes a pattern of upfront payment followed by delays and refusal to honor warranty work, which is a consumer protection concern.
• Positive reviews, while genuine in tone, are largely brief and lack specific detail, which slightly limits their evidentiary weight.

This WW Score carries moderate reliability due to a small review pool, a wide date range spanning 15 years, and two substantive negative reviews that reveal serious project management and warranty concerns that prospective customers should carefully consider.

B&L Plumbing presents a deeply polarized review profile. A cluster of recent reviews (2025, 2024) are overwhelmingly positive, praising specific technicians like Jason, Waylon, Paul, and Delainey for friendliness, punctuality, and competence. However, a substantial body of older reviews (2011–2023) documents serious and recurring problems including price gouging, incomplete work, abandoned jobs, dishonest reporting to warranty companies, rude customer service, failed inspections, and in one case an alleged physical assault. Pricing is the weakest dimension, with numerous detailed accounts of extreme overcharging, hidden fees, and inflated parts costs. Project completion is also significantly undermined by multiple reviews describing work left unfinished, problems not resolved, and follow-through failures. The experience dimension is mixed — some technicians are praised for skill and problem-solving while others are described as incompetent or deliberately deceptive.

• RECENCY SPLIT: The review set shows a stark temporal divide. Reviews from 2025 and late 2024 are almost uniformly 5-star with positive language, while reviews from 2011–2023 are predominantly 1-star with detailed, specific complaints. This pattern may reflect genuine improvement in operations, but it warrants caution.
• POSSIBLE FAKE OR INCENTIVIZED REVIEWS: Several 2025 reviews contain no text at all (rating only), and multiple short-text reviews use nearly identical generic praise ('Great service', 'Good service', 'Professional service'). These low-detail reviews inflate the recent positive signal and should be treated with skepticism.
• BLANK REVIEWS: At least 10 reviews contain no text whatsoever — only a 5-star rating. These provide no usable qualitative data and were excluded from dimension scoring but are noted as a potential manipulation pattern.
• PRICE GOUGING PATTERN: Multiple independent reviewers across different years (2011, 2014, 2016, 2018, 2019, 2020) describe nearly identical overcharging schemes, often in the context of home warranty dispatches. This consistency across unrelated reviewers strongly suggests a systemic business practice rather than isolated incidents.
• INCOMPLETE WORK PATTERN: Multiple reviews describe jobs left unfinished, yard not restored after excavation, failed city inspections, and technicians leaving without resolving the stated problem. This is a recurring theme across multiple years.
• ALLEGED PHYSICAL ASSAULT: One reviewer (2015) alleges a technician struck them in the face during a dispute over charges. This is an extreme flag for professionalism and safety.
• ALLEGED DISCRIMINATORY SERVICE: One reviewer (2020) alleges that technicians systematically refused to fix problems for tenants of color across more than 25 service calls over two years. This is a serious flag that cannot be verified but is noted.
• WARRANTY COMPANY CONTEXT: A large proportion of negative reviews involve home warranty dispatches (AHS, Old Republic, Service Line Warranty). The pattern of collecting deductibles and misreporting to warranty companies is described by multiple independent reviewers, suggesting a systemic issue.
• RECENCY WEIGHTING APPLIED: Per scoring rules, greater weight was given to reviews from the past 12 months (2024–2025). However, the volume and specificity of older negative reviews were not ignored, as they document serious and repeated patterns of misconduct.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large review volume, but the score itself should be interpreted cautiously — the strong recent positive signal is partially offset by a large body of detailed, credible negative reviews spanning nearly a decade, and the presence of multiple blank 5-star reviews raises the possibility of review manipulation inflating the recent average.

Allen Plumbing receives deeply mixed feedback across a large review set spanning over a decade. Professionalism scores moderately — many reviewers praise punctuality, responsiveness, and courteous technicians, but a meaningful number of negative reviews cite arrogance, poor communication, and unprofessional attitudes from the owner specifically. Pricing is the single most damaging dimension: an overwhelming volume of reviewers explicitly describe charges as exorbitant, non-transparent, and exploitative, with multiple reviewers comparing Allen's quotes to competitors who completed the same work for a fraction of the cost. Project completion is mixed — many jobs were finished satisfactorily, but several reviews describe incomplete work, callbacks refused without additional charges, and work that failed shortly after completion. Experience scores moderately positive, with many reviewers acknowledging technical competence, though a handful describe diagnostic failures and workmanship errors that required correction.

• THREE reviews appear to be for unrelated businesses (a dental office doctor 'Dr. Daly' and a general 'great doctor' review) — these were excluded from scoring as they are clearly misattributed reviews and do not pertain to Allen Plumbing.
• One review (2024-06-09, 'Very professional, patient and a great doctor!') is almost certainly a misplaced medical review and was excluded from scoring.
• Two reviews (2023-06-10, both referencing 'Dr Daly') are clearly for a physician, not a plumber, and were excluded from scoring.
• Pricing complaints are extremely consistent and highly specific across many independent reviewers spanning 2008–2024, lending HIGH credibility to the pattern of overcharging. This is not a one-off complaint.
• Several 5-star reviews are very brief and generic ('Good!', 'Good', 'unknown', 'I've found my plumber!') with no specifics — these may inflate the positive signal and were treated with reduced weight in narrative assessment.
• A recurring pattern exists where customers report being quoted one price and charged more, or being charged for work that did not resolve the problem — this suggests a systemic billing transparency issue.
• Multiple reviewers independently recommend a competitor ('Alewife Company' / 'Alewife Plumbers') after negative experiences with Allen Plumbing, which adds credibility to the pricing complaints.
• Review dates span from 2008 to 2025. The majority of detailed negative pricing reviews are from 2011–2018. More recent reviews (2024–2025) trend more positive, suggesting possible improvement, but the sample of recent reviews is smaller.
• One review (2011-09-23) is unusually long and appears to be a BBB complaint response — it was included as it contains substantive, specific feedback about billing practices.

This WW Score is based on a large, multi-year review set with HIGH confidence across all four dimensions, and the score of 54.3 should be considered a reliable reflection of this contractor's mixed reputation — strong on responsiveness and technical ability, but significantly undermined by a well-documented and consistent pattern of pricing complaints that spans over a decade of customer feedback.

Apollo Plumbing presents a deeply mixed picture across all four dimensions. Pricing is the most damaged dimension, with multiple detailed and credible negative reviews describing quotes of $1,500 for five inches of copper pipe, $3,400–$4,400 for basic hookups, and a $1,000 estimate given without even inspecting the problem — dragging the price score down severely. Professionalism is similarly split: older reviews praise named technicians like Corey, Diego, and Josh as courteous and communicative, while more recent reviews describe appointment cancellations, evasive scheduling staff, and a plumber who left without turning the water back on. Project completion scores moderately, with several positive reviews describing jobs finished thoroughly and even warranty callbacks honored, but offset by accounts of abandoned diagnostics, unresolved hot water issues, and work left in worse condition than found. Experience scores slightly better, with credible praise for technical problem-solving in older reviews, but undermined by recent accounts of technicians who gave up immediately or failed to diagnose a brand-new water heater.

• RECENCY CONCERN: The majority of positive reviews are from 2015–2020. The most recent reviews (2023–2024) skew heavily negative, suggesting a possible decline in service quality over time. Recent reviews should be weighted more heavily.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: Two reviews dated 2023-07-12 describe an almost identical incident involving a 75-year-old mother in a senior mobile home park. The language is nearly identical across both reviews. This appears to be the same reviewer submitting twice, or a coordinated duplicate. One instance has been counted but confidence is reduced for this data point.
• TWO REVIEWS MARKED 'unknown' WITH NO CONTENT: Reviews from 2015-12-04 and 2016-03-21 contain no usable text and were excluded from scoring.
• PRICING PATTERN WARNING: Multiple independent reviewers use the phrase 'highway robbery' and describe quotes that appear dramatically above market rate. This consistency across unrelated reviewers lends credibility to the pricing complaints and is not dismissed as outliers.
• OLDER POSITIVE REVIEWS: A cluster of detailed, named-technician positive reviews from 2019–2020 may reflect a different staffing era and should not be assumed to represent current service quality.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability — the volume of reviews is adequate and most dimensions have sufficient mentions, but the strong recency skew toward negative experiences and the significant time gap between positive and negative reviews introduce meaningful uncertainty about the contractor's current performance level.