Find Nearby Plumbers In Everett, Washington

PJ demonstrates exceptional professionalism across nearly all reviews, with consistent praise for punctuality, communication, cleanliness, and respectful demeanor. Project completion is strong, with multiple reviews highlighting on-time delivery, thorough work, and follow-through on complex jobs. Pricing is fair and transparent, with customers noting reasonable rates and honest assessments that sometimes redirect work to manufacturers when appropriate. Technical skill is evident across diverse plumbing and handyperson tasks, from water heater repairs to complex washer/dryer installations. The one negative review (2019) regarding lack of callback is an outlier and may reflect capacity constraints rather than quality issues.

• Review dates range from 2015–2023; most reviews (7 of 10) are older than 3 years. Only 2 reviews from past 12 months. Recency bias suggests current performance may differ.
• One 1-star review (2019) cites non-responsiveness to inquiry; no context provided on whether this was a capacity issue or service refusal. This is the only negative data point.
• Nine of ten reviews are 5-star ratings. While language varies and includes specific details (not generic), the concentration of perfect scores warrants noting that dissatisfied customers may be underrepresented.

This WW Score of 88.2 is highly reliable based on consistent, detailed feedback across multiple dimensions and high mention counts. However, the age of most reviews (pre-2022) and the single non-response incident suggest caution when assuming current service levels match historical performance; recommend seeking recent references or contacting directly to confirm current availability and responsiveness.

NW Sewer and Drain earns strong scores across all four dimensions, driven by an exceptionally large and detailed review base spanning over a decade. Professionalism is the most frequently cited strength, with dozens of reviewers explicitly praising punctuality, communication, courtesy, and responsiveness — including office staff like Jill and Makaela. Project completion scores are similarly high, with numerous reviewers confirming jobs were finished on time, within budget, and with thorough follow-through including city coordination and insurance navigation. Experience scores are bolstered by multiple accounts of Spencer and crew diagnosing problems that other companies missed or misrepresented, saving customers tens of thousands of dollars. Pricing scores are slightly tempered by two notable negative data points: a 1-star review citing an unexpectedly high bill with aggressive owner response, a 2-star review alleging an inflated repair estimate, and a 3-star review that is explicitly a court-mediation-compelled positive review masking a prior negative experience involving failed work costing $2,500 to repair by another company.

• MEDIATION-COMPELLED REVIEW: One 3-star review (2018-03-18) explicitly states the reviewer was required by mediation agreement to delete prior negative reviews and post a positive one in exchange for $1,000 compensation. The underlying work cost $1,500 and required $2,500 in repairs by a different company. This is a significant quality and integrity flag and has been weighted negatively in scoring.
• NEGATIVE PRICING/ATTITUDE FLAG: A 1-star review (2019-05-09) describes a $600 charge for a minor repair with alleged parts markup, missing insulation reinstallation, and an aggressive/dismissive response from Spencer when the customer called to question the bill. This is a direct contradiction to the professionalism narrative in most other reviews.
• NEGATIVE ESTIMATE PRACTICE FLAG: A 2-star review (2015-04-24) describes a representative recommending a full pipe replacement (~$4,500) without properly investigating the issue. A second company fixed it for ~$700. This suggests possible upselling behavior, though it may be an isolated incident.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: Two reviews from 'John and Julie Green' praising the same crew members (Patrick, Robert, Jill) with nearly identical text appear on dates 2024-06-09 and 2024-01-25. This is likely a duplicate submission and has been counted only once for scoring purposes.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews (approximately 45 of 63) are from 2021 onward, with strong representation in 2024-2025, lending good recency weight to the overall score. Approximately 10 reviews predate 2020 and carry reduced weight.
• REVIEW VOLUME AND SPECIFICITY: The overwhelming majority of reviews are highly specific, naming crew members, describing technical work, and referencing unique circumstances. This significantly reduces the likelihood of coordinated fake reviews, though the volume of 5-star ratings (approximately 59 of 63) warrants mild caution.

This WW Score is based on a large, detailed, and mostly recent review set with high mention counts across all four dimensions, making it one of the more reliable scores possible; however, the mediation-compelled review concealing a failed job, one aggressive-owner complaint, and one potential upselling incident introduce meaningful uncertainty that prevents a top-tier score, and prospective customers should weigh these flags carefully.

Resolution Plumbing earns a strong WW Score driven primarily by an overwhelming volume of reviews praising professionalism, punctuality, communication, and courteous technicians across a multi-year review history. Project completion scores are high, with the vast majority of reviewers confirming jobs were finished same-day or next-day, callbacks were honored, and work areas were left clean. Experience scores are similarly strong, with repeated mentions of technicians diagnosing problems quickly, correcting prior plumbers' mistakes, and demonstrating deep technical knowledge. Pricing is the weakest dimension: while many reviewers call pricing fair or reasonable, a meaningful minority of reviews explicitly cite overcharging, high labor costs for short jobs, or quotes significantly above competitors — pulling the pricing score down to 72. One notable negative review also raised a serious concern about property damage (cracked granite countertop) and disputed accountability, which modestly suppresses the project completion score.

• PRICING CONCERN: At least 6 reviews explicitly mention pricing as too high, overpriced, or significantly above competitor quotes (e.g., $375 for 20-minute install, $660 gas job vs $400 elsewhere, $150 fill valve replacement, $552 for two faucet installs). This is a statistically meaningful signal across the review set.
• BAIT AND SWITCH COMPLAINT: One 1-star review (Oct 2024) alleges the company advertised a free estimate but technicians arrived demanding $150. The reviewer provided photographic email evidence. This is a serious trust and transparency flag.
• MISCOMMUNICATION COMPLAINT: One 1-star review (Apr 2025) describes office staff incorrectly promising leak detection services, resulting in a wasted appointment and a $5,000–$6,500 upsell attempt for a problem ultimately fixed for under $1,000 elsewhere.
• PROPERTY DAMAGE COMPLAINT: One 2-star review (Jan 2022) describes a technician cracking a granite countertop and then denying responsibility. The reviewer provided photographic evidence suggesting the damage occurred during the job. The company did send a stone repair technician, which partially mitigated the issue.
• OLDER REVIEWS NOTE: Approximately 40–50 reviews predate 2023 and reference a technician named 'Sam' who may no longer be with the company. These older reviews reflect a different operational period and staffing. More recent reviews (2023–2025) reference Alex, Adrian, Marco, Gio, Daniel, and others. Scores are primarily driven by the more recent, larger volume of reviews.
• GENERIC REVIEW FLAG (MINOR): A small number of reviews (approximately 5) contain no text and only a 5-star rating. These have been excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data. No widespread fake review pattern detected — the majority of reviews contain specific names, job details, and contextual information consistent with genuine experiences.
• INCOMPLETE JOB NOTE: One review (Apr 2025) notes that technicians 'don't patch up the holes' after leak repairs, which is a minor project completion caveat worth noting for prospective customers.

This WW Score is based on a large, multi-year review dataset with high mention counts across all four dimensions, making it statistically reliable — however, prospective customers should weigh the recurring pricing complaints and the bait-and-switch allegation carefully before engaging, particularly for larger or more complex jobs.

Mark's Plumbing demonstrates strong performance across all four dimensions with consistently high marks for professionalism, project completion, and technical expertise. The company excels at punctuality, communication, and respectful service delivery, with multiple reviews praising Mark and his team's friendly and professional demeanor. Project completion is reliable with jobs finished on time and to specification. However, pricing shows more variability—while most reviews cite fair and reasonable rates, one 2011 review disputes a $295 charge for toilet component replacement, suggesting potential pricing concerns on certain service calls. The company's responsiveness and willingness to accommodate urgent requests further strengthen its profile.

• One review (2015-05-07) contains only 'unknown' as text with no substantive data—excluded from analysis.
• One review (2014-04-14) appears truncated mid-sentence ('8 stars out o')—included but noted as incomplete.
• Significant recency skew: 7 of 11 usable reviews are from 2014–2017 (7+ years old); only 2 reviews from 2019 or later. Most recent review is from September 2022. Older reviews may not reflect current operations.
• One dissenting review (2011, 1-star) on pricing stands in stark contrast to 10 five-star reviews. This outlier suggests either a legitimate pricing concern on that specific job or a customer expectation mismatch. The 11-year age limits its relevance to current service.
• All positive reviews share similar language patterns (e.g., 'highly recommend,' 'professional,' 'fair price,' 'won't call anyone else') but each contains specific job details and unique circumstances, reducing suspicion of fake reviews. The single negative review adds credibility to the dataset.

This WW Score of 86.2 is reliable and should be trusted. It is based on 11 substantive reviews with HIGH confidence across all four dimensions, supported by 7–9 mentions per dimension. However, the dataset is heavily weighted toward reviews older than 5 years; prospective customers should seek recent references to confirm current service levels match historical performance. The single 1-star pricing complaint from 2011 warrants acknowledgment but does not materially undermine the overall score given its age and the consistency of fair-pricing praise in more recent reviews.

B&L Plumbing receives consistently strong praise across all four scored dimensions, with professionalism being the most frequently and enthusiastically cited quality — reviewers repeatedly highlight promptness, friendliness, responsiveness, and clear communication. Pricing is a standout theme, with multiple reviewers explicitly noting fair prices, half-price comparisons to competitors, and a no-upsell approach that builds significant trust. Project completion is well-supported, with reviewers describing jobs finished correctly the first time, follow-ups honored, and timely service delivery. Experience and technical knowledge are affirmed through references to Bill's many years in the trade, attention to detail, and sound recommendations that saved customers from unnecessary work or scams. The overall picture is of a highly regarded, family-run operation with a loyal, long-term customer base.

• 3 reviews contain no usable text (blank, 'unknown', or single-word entries) and were excluded from dimension scoring.
• The majority of reviews (14 out of 19) are older than 12 months, with most dating from 2015–2022. Only 1 review is within the past 12 months (June 2024), which limits confidence in reflecting current performance.
• All reviews are 5-star ratings with zero negative or mixed feedback. While the detailed, specific content of most reviews reduces fake review suspicion, the uniformity of ratings warrants mild caution.
• No patterns of identical phrasing or clearly fabricated content were detected; most reviews include specific details (names, job types, price comparisons) that suggest authenticity.

This WW Score is moderately reliable given the volume and specificity of usable reviews, but should be interpreted with caution due to the heavy skew toward older reviews and the complete absence of any critical or mixed feedback across 19 ratings.

Campbell's Quality Plumbing earns strong marks across all four dimensions, with professionalism being the most consistently praised attribute — responsiveness, punctuality, courtesy, and communication appear in the vast majority of reviews spanning 15+ years. Pricing is a notable strength, with multiple reviewers explicitly citing bids that were significantly lower than competitors, though one negative review about a costly faucet installation tempers this slightly. Project completion scores are solid but are modestly reduced by one unresolved follow-through failure (a broken gate never repaired) and one rushed installation that left tools behind and resulted in incorrect hot/cold orientation. Experience and workmanship are well-supported across diverse and technically complex jobs, including main line replacements, repiping, and older-structure plumbing, with reviewers frequently noting skill, efficiency, and thoroughness. The score is conservative given the presence of two negative-to-mixed reviews that highlight real accountability gaps.

• One 1-star review (2018) describes a clear follow-through failure: Campbell's broke a customer's gate during a repair, acknowledged it, but never returned to fix it despite weeks of follow-up. This is a meaningful integrity concern and directly impacts project completion scoring.
• One 2.5-star review (2017) describes a rushed installation resulting in incorrect hot/cold faucet orientation, tools left behind, and a mess — indicating a quality control lapse under time pressure.
• One review (2016) explicitly notes poor communication, which slightly tempers the otherwise strong professionalism score.
• The majority of reviews (roughly 22 of 35) are older than 5 years, with many dating back to 2009–2017. Only 4 reviews fall within the past 12 months (2024). The recent reviews are positive, but the volume of recent data is limited. Recency weighting has been applied conservatively.
• Several older reviews (2009 era) are very brief and generic (e.g., 'great service', 'he does a good job at a great price', 'very professional') with minimal specifics. While not conclusively fake, these low-detail reviews carry reduced evidentiary weight and were treated as limited-confidence data points.
• Two reviews carry a 0.0 star rating but contain positive text — this is likely a platform artifact (unrated submissions) rather than negative sentiment, and they were interpreted based on review content rather than star rating.

This WW Score is moderately reliable overall — it is supported by a large volume of reviews spanning many years and multiple dimensions, but is tempered by a meaningful follow-through failure, one quality defect, aging review data, and a handful of generic low-detail reviews that reduce precision.