Find Nearby Plumbers In Kennewick, Washington

Express 24 Hr Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism and technical expertise across most reviews, with consistent praise for communication, knowledge, and courteous service. However, pricing feedback is mixed—while many customers report fair pricing, one review explicitly criticized a $407 drain service as extreme. Project completion shows solid performance overall, though one significant 2021 incident involved incomplete work, unresponsive follow-up, and water damage to customer property. The company's strength lies in skilled technicians and customer service, but reliability concerns around punctuality and accountability in edge cases temper the overall score.

• One critical negative review (1-star, March 2021) documents serious service failures: 1+ hour late arrival, incomplete work (leaking sinks), failure to respond to follow-up requests with photographic evidence, and customer property damage. This is not a minor complaint and significantly impacts project completion confidence.
• Pricing dimension has limited mentions (5 total). One review calls $407 for 30-minute drain service 'extreme,' while others praise 'reasonable' and 'fair' pricing. This inconsistency suggests pricing may vary significantly by job type or customer perception.
• Most reviews are 5-star with enthusiastic language, but this is balanced by one detailed, credible 1-star review with specific dates, times, and documented failures. No evidence of fake reviews detected; the negative review provides specific accountability details that lend credibility.
• Recency note: 11 of 17 reviews are from 2022 or later (past 2 years). The critical negative review is from March 2021 (3+ years old), but its specificity and documented failures warrant continued consideration.

This score should be trusted with moderate-to-high confidence for professionalism and experience dimensions, but project completion carries elevated risk due to one documented service failure with property damage and unresponsive follow-up. Pricing feedback is too limited to be fully reliable. Prospective customers should be aware of the punctuality and accountability concerns raised in the 2021 review.

Mr. Rooter Plumbing of Long Beach earns strong marks for professionalism and project completion, with the large majority of reviewers praising courteous, punctual, and communicative technicians — particularly named techs like Brian, Christian, Andy, Gerardo, and Tom Myers. Project completion scores are high, with many reviews confirming jobs finished same-day or next-day, clean worksite practices, and follow-through on callbacks and warranties. Experience scores are solid, with numerous reviewers citing knowledgeable diagnostics, thorough inspections, and skilled workmanship across complex jobs like re-pipes, main line replacements, and gas leak repairs. However, pricing is the most contested dimension: while many reviewers praise affordability and fair quotes, a meaningful cluster of negative reviews — spanning multiple years and locations — cite opaque invoicing, verbal quotes not honored in writing, unexpected charges, and rates described as excessive. This pricing inconsistency is the primary drag on the overall WW Score.

• 51 reviews contain no text — only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence per scoring rules.
• A significant number of reviews (approximately 30+) are generic one-liners such as 'Great service!', 'Very pleased', 'Excellent', or 'Will use again' with no specific detail. These were counted only where they could be attributed to a dimension with reasonable confidence (e.g., general satisfaction implying completion), but were treated conservatively.
• Pricing dimension has a notable split: roughly 20+ reviews praise affordability and fair pricing, while 12+ reviews explicitly describe overcharging, hidden fees, deceptive invoicing, or rates far above market. This internal conflict suppresses the pricing score significantly.
• One review (2024-03-08) alleges a technician took advantage of a senior with dementia, upselling an unnecessary toilet replacement and a non-refundable warranty plan for over $800. This is a serious ethical flag.
• One review (2022-11-14) alleges the company accepted a warranty job without being enrolled with the warranty provider, wasting the customer's time and charging a show-up fee.
• One review (2021-02-21) alleges damage to an irrigation system, demanding payment before inspection, and only partially fixing a self-created leak.
• One review (2019-12-07) alleges invoice manipulation after learning the job was warranty-covered, incorrect pipe sizing billed, and failure to honor a 6-year warranty that was quietly changed to 3 years.
• One review (2016-12-22) alleges an unlicensed apprentice was sent unsupervised, which the reviewer states is illegal in Washington state. This review appears to be for a different Mr. Rooter franchise location (Tri-Cities/Pasco, WA) and may not reflect the Long Beach location.
• Several negative reviews appear to reference different Mr. Rooter franchise locations (e.g., Anderson SC, Tri-Cities WA, Pasco WA, Richland WA). These were included in aggregate scoring but noted as potentially belonging to different franchises, which may inflate the negative signal for the Long Beach location.
• Review recency is strong: the majority of detailed, substantive reviews are from 2023–2025, lending HIGH confidence to current performance. Older negative reviews (2013–2018) may reflect different ownership, staffing, or franchise locations.
• No clear fake review pattern detected. Reviews vary in length, specificity, named technicians, and sentiment. The presence of multiple 1-star reviews with detailed complaints further supports authenticity of the review pool.

This WW Score is based on a large, diverse, and predominantly recent review set with HIGH confidence across all four dimensions; however, the score should be interpreted with caution on pricing due to a meaningful minority of credible complaints about opaque billing and overcharging, and some negative reviews may originate from different Mr. Rooter franchise locations rather than the Long Beach operation specifically.

Advanced Plumbing and Remodel receives consistently strong marks across professionalism, project completion, and experience, with all five reviews explicitly praising punctuality, reliability, friendly demeanor, and thorough follow-through on complex jobs. Project completion is a particular strength — reviewers repeatedly note that work was finished on time, tested properly, and even included unrequested bonus fixes at no extra charge. Experience scores are high based on multiple accounts of skilled problem-solving in difficult or unusual installation scenarios. Pricing data is limited to only two mentions: one reviewer called pricing 'very competitive' while another noted the company charged 'a little more than larger brand-name companies,' resulting in a conservative but positive pricing score. The overall WW Score is tempered by the small review pool and the age of most reviews, four of which are from 2013–2015.

• Four of five reviews are dated between 2013 and 2015 — only one review (2023) falls within the past 12 months. The score may not reflect current service quality.
• All five reviews are 5-star ratings with no negative feedback of any kind. While the reviews contain specific details and varied language that reduce fake review suspicion, the uniformly perfect ratings warrant mild caution.
• Small sample size of only 5 reviews limits statistical reliability across all dimensions.

This WW Score carries moderate reliability: the reviews are detailed and specific enough to suggest authenticity, but the very small sample size and the heavy skew toward reviews that are 8–10 years old significantly limit confidence in how well this score reflects the contractor's current performance.

Drain Surgeon demonstrates strong technical expertise and generally reliable service delivery, with most customers praising punctuality, professionalism, and knowledgeable workmanship. However, the company's score is tempered by significant and recurring issues with responsiveness and communication—multiple reviews spanning 2019–2021 document customers unable to reach the company despite repeated calls and messages. Pricing is a mixed dimension: while many customers report fair and competitive rates, several reviews explicitly cite overcharging or unexpected bills substantially exceeding initial quotes. Project completion is generally solid, though a handful of reviews describe incomplete work or problems that required callbacks. The company's performance appears inconsistent, with excellent service in some cases contrasting sharply with poor communication and follow-through in others.

• COMMUNICATION CRISIS PATTERN: Multiple independent reviews (2019–2021) report inability to reach the company despite multiple calls, messages, and voicemails. One review explicitly notes a switch to a problematic answering service during the pandemic. This is a systemic issue, not isolated incidents.
• PRICING TRANSPARENCY CONCERNS: At least 5 reviews cite unexpected charges or bills significantly higher than quoted amounts. Examples include: quoted $190 but charged $635 total; quoted $432 by competitor but charged considerably less (positive), yet another review charged $200 for 15-minute job with undisclosed service fee; charged $184 for 15 minutes of work; charged $250 for incomplete work. Lack of upfront pricing clarity is evident.
• QUALITY INCONSISTENCY: One detailed 2017 review describes a technician (Joey) damaging a bathtub drain flange by improper technique (not removing drain stopper before snaking), then denying responsibility. Another 2022 review describes a technician (Eric) spending 2 hours unsuccessfully attempting to clear a drain, then leaving without using diagnostic tools (camera) or providing solutions, despite charging over $300.
• OWNERSHIP/MANAGEMENT CHANGE IMPACT: One 2020 review explicitly notes deterioration after original owner Eric brought in partner Tracy Petragallo, describing hostile and belligerent behavior when the customer questioned code compliance. This suggests internal management issues may be driving inconsistency.
• INCOMPLETE WORK DOCUMENTED: At least 3 reviews describe jobs left incomplete or requiring callbacks: 2022 drain not fully cleared after 2 hours; 2014 clean-out quoted at $190 but required two visits totaling $635 with drain still slow; 2006 clog not fixed, customer called different company.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK - MODERATE: Approximately 8–10 reviews contain only ratings with no text or extremely generic single-word praise ('Excellent!', 'Awesome service', 'Best plumbers ever!'). While not conclusive, the pattern of empty/minimal reviews clustered around 2021–2023 warrants caution. However, the majority of reviews are detailed and specific, reducing overall fake review concern.
• RECENCY NOTE: Most recent reviews (2024–2025) are uniformly positive with no communication complaints, suggesting possible recent improvements. However, reviews from 2019–2021 show severe communication failures, indicating a historical systemic problem.

This WW Score of 78.2 is reliable at the HIGH confidence level due to the large sample size (127 reviews) and consistent mention counts across dimensions. However, the score masks significant operational inconsistency: the company excels at technical work and professionalism when engaged, but has documented systemic failures in communication, pricing transparency, and quality control. Customers should expect strong workmanship but should verify pricing upfront in writing and be prepared for potential communication delays. Recent reviews suggest improvement, but the historical pattern of unresponsiveness and billing disputes is substantial enough to warrant caution.

Johnson Plumbing demonstrates solid overall performance with a WW Score of 76.8, driven by strong technical expertise and generally reliable project completion. The company excels in experience and skill level (82.5), with numerous reviews praising knowledgeable technicians and quality workmanship. Professionalism scores well at 78.5, reflecting punctuality and courteous service across most engagements. However, pricing emerges as a significant weakness at 68.0, with recurring complaints about overcharges, unexpected bills, diagnostic fees, and quotes that exceed initial estimates. Project completion is reliable at 79.0, though some customers report incomplete work or callbacks needed. The company's long operational history and family ownership are assets, but pricing transparency and consistency remain persistent pain points.

• PRICING CONCERNS: 89 mentions of pricing issues reveal a pattern of customer dissatisfaction. Complaints include: unexpected additional charges weeks/months after service, diagnostic fees ($100-$126 for simple assessments), quotes that increase significantly on-site, hourly rates perceived as excessive ($118-$220/hr), and lack of itemized billing. Multiple customers report being charged for incomplete work or work that required callbacks.
• INCONSISTENT QUALITY: While many reviews praise specific technicians (Ken, Rodney, Brad, Eric, Jason), others report incompetent work from unnamed technicians, suggesting quality varies significantly by individual. Some customers had to hire second plumbers to redo work.
• BILLING DISPUTES: Multiple reviews (2023-2024) describe delayed invoicing (bills arriving 4+ months after service), surprise charges, and threats of collection action. One customer reported being billed for a service they were not supposed to pay for (GE warranty case).
• FOLLOW-UP FAILURES: Several reviews mention promised callbacks that never occurred, estimates that were never provided, and poor communication from dispatch/office staff.
• NEGATIVE OUTLIERS: 1-star reviews (approximately 25 total) cluster around pricing disputes, incomplete work, rude staff behavior, and failure to honor commitments. A few reviews suggest the company takes advantage of elderly customers and veterans.
• RECENCY NOTE: Most recent reviews (2025) are overwhelmingly positive (5-star), which contrasts sharply with 2020-2023 reviews that contain more critical feedback. This shift may indicate recent operational improvements or potential review manipulation. Recommend treating very recent reviews with moderate caution.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: Multiple empty reviews (no text, 5-star rating) and several generic single-word reviews ('Great!', 'Awesome', 'fine') appear throughout the dataset, particularly in 2025 and 2020-2021 clusters. This pattern is consistent with review padding, though not conclusive.

This WW Score of 76.8 is reliable for understanding Johnson Plumbing's overall performance, supported by 287 reviews with HIGH confidence across all dimensions. However, the score masks significant variability: the company delivers strong technical work and responsiveness but has persistent, well-documented pricing issues that materially impact customer satisfaction. Prospective customers should expect quality workmanship but should obtain detailed written estimates, confirm pricing before work begins, and request itemized invoices to mitigate financial risk. The recent surge in 5-star reviews warrants cautious interpretation.

Professionalism is the strongest dimension, with the overwhelming majority of reviews praising technicians as courteous, prompt, and communicative — including frequent emergency and after-hours responsiveness. Experience scores well overall, with many reviewers noting technicians diagnosed and resolved issues quickly and knowledgeably, though a handful of negative reviews describe operator error, misdiagnosis, and work that had to be redone. Project completion is solid but meaningfully dragged down by several serious complaints: a drain snake left stuck in a pipe at the customer's expense, a $2,200 excavation job that failed to fix the problem, a frozen pipe repair left incomplete, and a toilet that began leaking again within seven months with only a 30-day warranty honored. Pricing is the weakest dimension by a significant margin, with multiple independent reviewers across different time periods explicitly describing quotes as grossly inflated, markups described as 4x fair market value, and one reviewer documenting a $3,200 water heater quote; these are partially offset by reviewers who found pricing fair or reasonable, but the volume and specificity of overcharging complaints is notable.

• FAKE REVIEW RISK — HIGH: A large cluster of reviews dated 2025-05-10 and 2025-06-05 through 2025-06-09 show highly repetitive patterns: extremely short text (e.g., 'Joe was great!', 'Sam was here he did great!', 'Ben L', 'Cullen great work', 'He's a legend.'), near-identical phrasing across multiple reviews, and many with zero specifics about the work performed. Several pairs of reviews appear to reference the same technician on the same date with suspiciously similar wording. These reviews inflate the review count significantly and should be treated with low confidence.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The review praising Ryan for honesty and integrity ('PLUMBERS with HONESTY & INTEGRITY...') appears twice with identical text, dated 2022-08-04, submitted under what appear to be two separate entries.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS ARE SERIOUS AND RECURRING: At least 8 distinct reviews across multiple years (2018–2024) independently describe being quoted prices 2x–4x above market rate, being charged for unnecessary work, or feeling pressured into expensive services. This is not isolated and represents a systemic pattern.
• WORKMANSHIP FAILURES DOCUMENTED: At least 4 reviews describe work that was not completed correctly — a drain snake left stuck in a customer's pipe requiring jackhammering at customer expense, a $2,200 excavation that did not fix the problem, a frozen pipe repair left incomplete with dispatch hanging up on the customer, and a toilet repair that failed within 7 months covered by only a 30-day warranty.
• COMMISSION DECEPTION COMPLAINT: One reviewer explicitly states they were told technicians do not work on commission, then discovered job postings showing commission-based pay, and requested a refund for the $99 visit fee. This raises a trust and transparency concern.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews are from 2025 (within the past 12 months), which is positive for recency weighting. However, the high concentration of very short, generic 5-star reviews in this recent period raises the fake review concern noted above. Older reviews (2018–2022) tend to be more detailed and carry higher individual credibility.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Two reviews contained no text (one rated 4.0, one rated 5.0) and were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large review volume, but should be interpreted cautiously given strong evidence of fake or incentivized short-form reviews inflating the count, a recurring and independently corroborated pattern of pricing complaints, and multiple documented workmanship failures — the true score for an unbiased customer pool may be meaningfully lower than 76.4.