Find Nearby Plumbers In Everett, Washington

Falcon Plumbing demonstrates strong technical expertise and generally reliable project completion, with many customers praising technician professionalism and punctuality. However, the company is significantly hampered by persistent pricing concerns—numerous reviews cite overcharging, lack of transparency in quotes, and prices substantially higher than competitors. While the owner Wendy and office staff receive consistent praise for responsiveness and customer service recovery, field execution is inconsistent, with some technicians displaying unprofessional behavior. The company's fixed-rate pricing model creates friction when customers discover costs after work begins.

• PRICING PATTERN: Systematic complaints about high costs appear throughout the dataset. Multiple customers report being charged 2-4x more than competitors for identical work. This is the single largest driver of negative reviews.
• INCONSISTENT QUALITY: Significant variance in technician professionalism and competence. Same company receives 5-star and 1-star reviews for similar services depending on which technician was assigned.
• NO-SHOW PATTERN: Multiple reviews document missed appointments, late arrivals, and failure to follow up on promised callbacks. This appears to be a recurring operational issue.
• WARRANTY/GUARANTEE DISPUTES: Several reviews indicate the company disputes warranty claims or refuses to honor stated guarantees, creating customer frustration after paying premium prices.
• COMMUNICATION BREAKDOWN: Despite responsive office staff, field technicians frequently fail to communicate delays, provide estimates upfront, or follow through on promised callbacks.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK - MODERATE: Approximately 40-50 reviews contain only ratings with no text or minimal text (e.g., 'A+', 'unknown', '.', 'went well'). These appear concentrated in 2016-2020 period and may inflate positive ratings artificially. However, substantive negative and positive reviews are detailed and credible.
• RECENCY NOTE: Dataset spans 2006-2024. Reviews from 2011-2013 show more consistent positive sentiment. Recent years (2019-2024) show increased pricing complaints and service inconsistency.

This WW Score of 72.8 is reliable but reflects a company in decline. The HIGH confidence is justified by 568 reviews with substantial detail, but the score masks a critical vulnerability: while Falcon excels at technical execution and responsiveness, the pricing model and inconsistent follow-through create significant customer dissatisfaction. The company appears to rely on owner intervention (Wendy) to recover from service failures, suggesting systemic operational issues. Customers should expect professional work but should obtain detailed written estimates and compare prices with competitors before committing.

Eco Electric & Plumbing demonstrates strong technical expertise and generally professional staff interactions, with many customers praising individual technicians' knowledge and friendliness. However, the company is significantly hampered by persistent pricing concerns—multiple reviews cite costs 2-3x higher than competitors for identical work—and serious project completion issues including missed appointments, rescheduling failures, and incomplete work. While recent reviews (2025) are predominantly positive, older reviews reveal a troubling pattern of scheduling unreliability and scope creep. The WW Score of 72.8 reflects solid workmanship undermined by operational and financial transparency problems.

• PRICING RED FLAG: At least 12 reviews explicitly cite excessive pricing (2-3x market rate), with complaints about $1500+ charges for simple jobs, $10,000+ unnecessary recommendations, and $445 'forced inspections.' This is the single most consistent complaint across the dataset.
• SCHEDULING RELIABILITY CRISIS: Multiple reviews (2020-2023) document repeated appointment cancellations, rescheduling without notice, and failure to show up despite confirmations. Pattern suggests systemic scheduling dysfunction, though recent 2025 reviews show improvement.
• PROJECT COMPLETION CONCERNS: Several reviews report incomplete work (knob-and-tube wiring not removed, outlets left non-functional, crooked installations, damaged property during work) and refusal to return for corrections.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: Reviews from 2025-06-02 through 2025-06-08 show suspiciously high concentration of 5-star ratings with minimal detail (4 blank reviews, 1 single word 'Amazing', multiple generic praise). However, one detailed 1-star review on 2025-06-02 provides credible negative feedback, suggesting mix of authentic and potentially inflated recent reviews.
• CUSTOMER SERVICE ESCALATION: Multiple reviews report unprofessional management responses, including yelling, hanging up on customers, and dismissive attitudes when issues are raised.
• RECENCY BIAS NOTED: Reviews from 2025 (past 6 months) are overwhelmingly positive (mostly 5-star), while 2022-2023 reviews show significant negative patterns. This dramatic shift warrants caution—either company has genuinely improved or recent reviews may be less reliable.

This WW Score should be treated with MODERATE-TO-HIGH confidence for technical quality but LOW confidence for pricing and scheduling reliability. The company excels at workmanship and technician professionalism but has documented systemic issues with cost transparency and appointment management. Recent positive trend is encouraging but conflicts with historical pattern; recommend requesting multiple quotes and written scheduling confirmations before engaging.

Good Plumbing demonstrates strong technical expertise and generally professional service delivery, with many customers praising responsiveness, friendliness, and skilled workmanship. However, the company is significantly hampered by inconsistent project completion (missed appointments, incomplete callbacks, follow-up failures) and pricing concerns. Multiple customers report being overcharged, receiving inflated estimates, or experiencing aggressive upselling tactics. While recent reviews (2025) are predominantly positive, older reviews reveal systemic issues with communication, reliability, and fair pricing that persist across years. The WW Score of 72.8 reflects a company with solid technical capability undermined by operational and ethical inconsistencies.

• PRICING INTEGRITY CONCERNS: Multiple reviews (2025-06-02, 2025-05-10, 2025-05-10) describe aggressive upselling, inflated estimates, and misrepresentation of customer needs. One customer reported a $3,000 estimate for a $200 fix; another was quoted $1,057 for a 10-minute faucet repair. Pattern suggests potential systemic overcharging.
• PROJECT COMPLETION FAILURES: Recurring pattern of missed appointments, no-shows, incomplete callbacks, and abandoned work across multiple years (2019, 2011, 2008). Several customers report scheduling issues, failure to follow up on promised work, and incomplete repairs requiring second visits.
• COMMUNICATION BREAKDOWNS: Consistent complaints about poor follow-up, unresponsiveness to callbacks, and miscommunication regarding appointment times and job scope. Some reviews from 2008-2011 show similar patterns to recent complaints.
• RECENCY BIAS ALERT: Recent reviews (June 2025) are overwhelmingly 5-star with minimal detail, contrasting sharply with older reviews that contain specific complaints. While some recent reviews show legitimate detail, the concentration of generic praise warrants caution. However, insufficient evidence of coordinated fake reviews—variation in language and specific technician names suggests authenticity.
• INCONSISTENT QUALITY BY TECHNICIAN: Performance varies significantly by individual plumber. Some technicians (Chip, Bryan C., Jose, Chris) receive consistent praise; others are associated with poor outcomes. Suggests training or quality control gaps.
• CREDIT CARD SECURITY ISSUE: 2021 review documents unsafe practice of writing full credit card numbers on paper receipts—a serious compliance and security violation.
• OWNER CONDUCT CONCERNS: Multiple reviews reference unprofessional behavior by owner(s), including rudeness, dismissiveness of customer concerns, and failure to honor commitments. One 2009 review documents non-payment of contractor invoices.

This WW Score should be treated with MODERATE-TO-HIGH confidence for recent work (2025) but significantly lower confidence for predicting future performance, given the company's documented history of systemic issues with pricing integrity, project completion, and communication spanning multiple years. The strong recent review trend is encouraging but does not fully offset the pattern of serious complaints in older reviews and the specific allegations of overcharging and aggressive sales tactics in 2025 reviews.

Service King demonstrates strong professionalism and technical expertise, with consistent praise for punctuality, communication, and workmanship quality across 52 and 35 mentions respectively. However, pricing emerges as a significant weakness, with 28 reviews explicitly citing overcharging, surprise price increases, inflated estimates, and poor value relative to competitors. Project completion shows moderate strength (78.5) with most jobs finished properly, though several reviews document incomplete diagnostics leading to callbacks and additional costs. The company's reputation is substantially undermined by documented instances of aggressive pricing tactics, lack of transparency in estimates, and poor follow-up communication on invoices and service issues.

• PRICING PATTERN DETECTED: Multiple independent reviews (2024, 2023, 2022, 2019, 2017, 2016) document consistent overcharging patterns including: surprise price increases after arrival, estimates 5-10x higher than competitors, charges for estimates without prior agreement, and pressure tactics. This is not isolated—it spans 8+ years and multiple reviewers.
• DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY CONCERN: At least 3 detailed reviews (2016-12-06, 2017-01-18, 2019-03-21) describe misdiagnosis of plumbing issues, leading to unnecessary part replacements, water damage, and expensive callbacks. One reviewer had to hire a second plumber to identify the actual problem.
• COMMUNICATION FAILURES: Multiple reviews document poor follow-up (no invoices sent, unanswered calls/texts, no-shows without notice, delayed responses). This pattern appears in reviews from 2016, 2015, and 2014.
• INVOICE/DOCUMENTATION ISSUES: At least 4 reviews mention missing invoices, unclear billing, or charges without proper documentation or customer approval.
• POSITIVE REVIEW CONCENTRATION: 43 of 80 reviews are 5-star with minimal detail (e.g., 'Outstanding job...', blank reviews). While not necessarily fake, the high concentration of generic praise combined with detailed negative reviews raises questions about review authenticity or selection bias.
• RECENCY BIAS: Most detailed negative reviews are from 2016-2019 (older), while recent reviews (2025, 2024) are predominantly 5-star with generic praise. This temporal pattern warrants caution.
• INCONSISTENT SERVICE QUALITY: Reviews describe vastly different experiences—some praising fair pricing and honesty, others documenting aggressive overcharging. This suggests either inconsistent service delivery or different pricing for different customer types.

This WW Score of 72.8 should be treated with moderate-to-high caution. While the company demonstrates genuine technical competence and professionalism in execution, the pricing dimension is severely compromised by a consistent, multi-year pattern of overcharging and aggressive tactics documented across independent reviews. The score reflects a company that does quality work but frequently charges unfairly for it. Customers should obtain multiple quotes, verify all estimates in writing before work begins, and be prepared to challenge pricing. The concentration of generic 5-star reviews in recent months alongside detailed negative reviews from prior years suggests either improved practices or potential review curation.

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.

Butterfield Plumbing has a long and mixed track record spanning over a decade of reviews. In earlier years (2009–2014), the company earned consistently strong praise for professionalism, technical skill, honest pricing, and responsive communication — with many reviewers citing specific plumbers like Tory, Jared, Thomas, Paul, and Bill by name for excellent work. However, a persistent and serious pattern of communication failures emerges across multiple years: voicemail boxes full, unreturned calls, missed appointments, and unresponsive follow-up — including from customers with prior positive experiences. Project completion is also a notable concern, with at least three reviews describing incomplete or substandard work, one describing a subcontractor who was never paid, and another detailing a job that failed inspection before being corrected. Pricing drew both praise (fair, transparent, competitive) and criticism (overcharging, hidden fees, misquoted rates), resulting in a moderate score. The most recent reviews (2022–2025) continue to flag communication as a serious ongoing weakness, preventing a higher overall score.

• COMMUNICATION FAILURE PATTERN: At least 9 separate reviews across multiple years (2013–2025) explicitly describe unreturned calls, full voicemail boxes, missed appointments, and unresponsive follow-up. This is a systemic and recurring issue, not an isolated incident.
• INCOMPLETE WORK / PROJECT FAILURE: At least 3 reviews describe work that was not completed properly — including a failed inspection, an incomplete sewer clearing job, and a subcontractor who was never paid and reports the customer's concrete work was also left unfinished.
• PRICING INCONSISTENCY: Multiple reviews describe being quoted one price and charged another, or feeling overcharged for simple jobs (e.g., $550 for a cartridge replacement, $1054 for a toilet refill issue, $191 for 10 minutes of work). These are offset by many reviews praising fair and transparent pricing.
• RECENCY CONCERN: The majority of detailed, positive reviews are from 2011–2014. Reviews from 2016 onward show a declining pattern in communication and reliability. Only a handful of reviews exist from 2020–2025, and two of the most recent (2022–2023) again flag unreturned calls.
• BLANK AND UNKNOWN REVIEWS: Several reviews contain only 'unknown' or blank text with a 5-star rating. These were excluded from scoring as they provide no usable data. They slightly inflate the raw star average but were not used in dimension scoring.
• ONE REVIEW REFERENCES 'BLOOMFIELD PLUMBING' INSTEAD OF BUTTERFIELD: The 2016-02-10 review appears to be for a different company ('Bloomfield Plumbing') and may have been posted to the wrong business listing. This review was treated with caution and given reduced weight.
• NO CONFIRMED FAKE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: While many positive reviews share similar themes, they contain sufficient specific detail (named technicians, specific jobs, unique circumstances) to be considered authentic. No coordinated fake review pattern was flagged.

This WW Score is based on a large volume of reviews (101 total, 95 with usable data) spanning over 15 years, giving it HIGH statistical confidence in direction, but the score should be interpreted cautiously given the significant decline in service quality and communication reliability documented in reviews from 2015 onward — prospective customers should weight recent reviews more heavily than the historically strong earlier record.