Find Nearby Plumbers In Lakewood, Washington

Grays Rooter demonstrates consistently strong performance across all four dimensions. All seven reviews are positive (5-star ratings) with explicit mentions of fast response times, fair pricing well below competitor estimates, complete problem resolution, and skilled technical work. Professionalism is evidenced by courteous behavior, punctuality (10-minute response, same-day service), and willingness to accommodate customer schedules. Pricing feedback is notably strong, with multiple reviews highlighting fair costs and transparency compared to other companies. Project completion is universal—all jobs were finished completely with no callbacks needed. Experience is demonstrated through quick diagnostics, problem-solving ability, and customer education.

• All seven reviews are 5-star ratings with uniformly positive language and no critical feedback. While the reviews contain specific details (names, job types, timelines) that suggest authenticity, the complete absence of any negative or mixed feedback is unusual and warrants caution.
• Review dates span 2016–2020, with most reviews older than 4 years. Only one review is from 2020. Recent performance data is limited.
• Multiple reviews mention the same technician names (Andrew, Rob), which adds consistency but also suggests a small team. No feedback on other team members or company performance during staff turnover.

This WW Score of 88.2 is reliable based on consistent, detailed positive feedback across all dimensions with HIGH confidence. However, the complete absence of any critical feedback and age of most reviews (4+ years old) suggest caution—current performance may differ, and recent customer experience data is needed to fully validate this score.

Sky Plumbing demonstrates strong overall performance across all measured dimensions. Professionalism is a clear strength, with 42 reviews explicitly praising punctuality, communication, politeness, and courteous behavior. Project completion is consistently reliable, with 35 reviews confirming jobs finished completely and efficiently. Technical experience is well-documented across 28 reviews highlighting skilled workmanship and problem-solving ability. Pricing receives moderate support (16 mentions) with most customers describing rates as reasonable and fair, though a few older reviews (2012-2013) cite pricing disputes. The company shows particular excellence in responsiveness, cleanliness, and diagnostic accuracy.

• Three negative reviews (1-star ratings from 2012-2013 and one 1-star from 2025) stand in stark contrast to overwhelmingly positive recent reviews. The 2012-2013 complaints involve pricing disputes and unprofessional behavior; these are significantly older and may reflect past operational issues that have since been resolved.
• The 2025 one-star review ('Irresponsible, greedy and unethical') provides no detail or context, making it impossible to assess validity. This appears anomalous given the consistent 5-star pattern in recent months.
• Most reviews (approximately 80%) are from 2024-2025, indicating strong recent performance. Only 3 reviews predate 2020, suggesting either improved operations or selection bias in review retention.
• Two reviews contain blank text fields but 5-star ratings, reducing data quality slightly but not affecting scoring.
• No evidence of fake review patterns detected. Reviews contain specific names, detailed scenarios, varied language, and authentic problem-solving narratives. Positive reviews are substantiated with concrete examples.

This WW Score of 87.2 is highly reliable, based on 57 reviews with strong data density across all dimensions and predominantly recent evidence (past 12 months). The score is anchored by 42 professionalism mentions and 35 project completion mentions, both at HIGH confidence. The main caveat is that pricing assessment relies on only 16 mentions (MODERATE confidence), and the three negative reviews—while statistically minor—suggest occasional service failures warrant caution on complex or high-value projects.

Rooter-Man Plumbing earns strong marks across professionalism, project completion, and experience, with the overwhelming majority of reviewers praising promptness, friendliness, technical knowledge, and thorough follow-through on jobs. The team is frequently described as punctual, communicative, and skilled, with multiple named technicians (Jake, Paul, Jared, Rob) receiving individual praise. However, pricing is a meaningful drag on the overall score: at least five reviewers explicitly called out costs as high or significantly above market rate, including one reviewer charged $496 for roughly one hour of work and another who paid three times the average local rate for a pressure relief valve replacement. The one negative professionalism review describing an unfriendly, uncommunicative technician is noted but is an outlier against a large volume of positive feedback. Recency is strong, with the majority of reviews dated within the past 12 months.

• PRICING CONCERN: At least 5 reviews explicitly flag pricing as high or well above market average. One reviewer (2018) reported $496 for ~1 hour of basket strainer work; another (2018) reported $200+ per toilet snake; another (2018) reported 3x average local rate for a pressure relief valve; a 2019 reviewer paid $422.90 for under an hour of drain snaking; and a 2025 reviewer noted pricing as a surprise. This is a consistent and recurring pattern across multiple years and should be weighted seriously.
• NEGATIVE PROFESSIONALISM FLAG: One 1-star review (2025-03-11) describes a technician who was unfriendly, uncommunicative, and left without explanation after delivering an overpriced quote. This is an outlier but is recent and credible.
• 3 REVIEWS HAD NO TEXT: Three reviews contained only a star rating and no written content. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence.
• OLDER REVIEWS PRESENT: Several reviews date back to 2012, 2018, 2019, 2020, and 2021. While these were included in scoring, more weight was given to the large volume of 2025 reviews. The pricing complaints span multiple years, suggesting this may be a persistent issue rather than an isolated incident.
• NO STRONG FAKE REVIEW INDICATORS DETECTED: While many reviews are positive, they contain specific names, job details, and varied language. No strong evidence of coordinated fake reviews was found.

This WW Score is based on a substantial volume of 55 reviews with strong recency and high mention counts across all four dimensions, making it a reliable representation of this contractor's performance — though prospective customers should independently verify pricing before committing to any quote.

All City Construction earns strong marks across all four dimensions, with professionalism and pricing being particular strengths — multiple reviewers explicitly praised courteous staff, clear communication, punctuality, and fair pricing well below competitor bids. Project completion is the most nuanced dimension: the majority of reviews describe thorough, complete work often finished in a single day, and one review even highlights the company returning multiple times at no charge to fully resolve a persistent issue. However, three negative reviews meaningfully drag this dimension down — one describes being stood up twice with no call, one details incomplete yard cleanup, cut sprinkler lines that were covered up rather than disclosed, and a refusal to return to address the damage, and one 1-star review offers no specifics but signals dissatisfaction. The experience dimension is well-supported, with reviewers citing skilled diagnosis, creative problem-solving on difficult jobs, and technical explanations given to homeowners. The negative reviews are credible and specific enough to warrant a conservative adjustment across completion and professionalism scores.

• Three negative reviews (1-star) are present. One is vague with no detail, but two are highly specific and credible — describing no-shows without notification and a serious incident of undisclosed damage to a sprinkler system with subsequent refusal to remediate. These are not dismissed.
• Several 5-star reviews use enthusiastic but generic language ('amazing people,' 'great job'). However, the majority of positive reviews include specific names, job details, and contextual information, reducing fake review concern significantly.
• Review date range spans 2013–2024. Reviews older than 3 years (pre-2022) were given reduced weight in scoring. The most recent negative review is from 2022 and the most recent positive reviews are from 2023–2024, suggesting some improvement over time but the older negative incidents cannot be ignored.
• One review (2022-01-14, 1-star) provides zero detail — 'One star is too many to give this contractor. Move onto a better underground construction Co.' This was noted but given limited scoring weight due to absence of specifics.
• The 2017 negative review describing cut sprinkler lines, failure to disclose damage, and refusal to return is a serious project completion and professionalism concern. It was weighted accordingly and is the primary driver of the project completion score reduction.

This WW Score is based on 24 reviews spanning over a decade, with strong mention counts across all four dimensions and a mix of highly detailed positive and credible negative reviews, making it a moderately reliable assessment — though users should note that the negative reviews raise legitimate concerns about accountability and follow-through that the score alone does not fully convey.

Mike's Plumbing earns strong marks across all four dimensions, driven by an overwhelming volume of positive reviews praising punctuality, communication, friendly technicians, and quality workmanship across a wide range of jobs. Professionalism is the most frequently cited strength, with dozens of reviewers specifically calling out on-time arrivals, courteous staff, clean work habits, and responsive office personnel. Pricing scores moderately well — the majority of reviewers describe fair, competitive, or below-estimate final costs, but a meaningful minority of negative reviews cite unexpectedly high charges, undisclosed labor rates, and a significant bait-and-switch pricing complaint that cannot be ignored. Project completion is strong overall, with most jobs described as fully resolved in a timely manner, though several reviews flag recurring issues, abandoned callbacks, and at least one instance of a new leak appearing within 24 hours of service. Experience scores well, with many reviewers praising skilled diagnosis, creative problem-solving, and technical knowledge, though a handful of negative reviews describe technicians who could not resolve the issue or required senior intervention.

• Two reviews (dated 2024-10-29 and 2024-11-08) are nearly word-for-word identical in content, both complaining about a $310/hour charge for a water heater troubleshooting visit that yielded no resolution. This may represent the same reviewer posting twice or a coordinated negative review effort — treat with moderate caution but the underlying complaint is plausible and consistent with other pricing concerns.
• Two reviews (dated 2025-06-06 and 2025-06-04) are exact duplicates of a detailed positive review about a kitchen sink replumb job. This is a strong indicator of a fake or duplicate review submission and reduces confidence in the most recent positive review cluster.
• Two reviews (dated 2024-10-09 and 2024-10-03) are near-identical positive reviews about the same sewer line incident involving Cody. This may be a duplicate submission by the same reviewer.
• Two reviews (dated 2022-09-07 and 2022-09-04) are near-identical positive reviews about a whole-house generator gas piping re-do. Likely duplicate submissions.
• Two reviews (dated 2008-07-11) are exact duplicates of a positive review. Likely a duplicate submission.
• Multiple reviews contain no text and only a star rating (5 stars). These provide no usable data for any dimension and were excluded from dimension scoring.
• A significant number of negative reviews (1-star) cite responsiveness and communication failures — unreturned calls, ignored messages, missed appointments, and failure to follow up. This is a recurring operational weakness that is partially offset by the high volume of positive responsiveness mentions but should not be dismissed.
• The review corpus spans from approximately 2008 to 2025. Reviews older than 2022 carry reduced weight per recency rules. The business appears to have grown significantly over time, and some older negative reviews may reflect earlier operational issues that have since improved — but some communication and scheduling complaints persist into 2024-2025.
• At least one review (2018-10-02) alleges the company refused to provide insurance information after causing property damage, which is a serious professional and legal concern.
• One review (2016-04-21) describes extremely unprofessional conduct including property damage, denial of responsibility, and an abusive late-night phone call. This is an outlier but a serious one.

This WW Score is based on a very large review corpus (281 reviews) spanning over 15 years, giving it HIGH statistical confidence in direction and relative dimension ranking, but the score should be interpreted with caution due to confirmed duplicate/fake positive reviews, a recurring pattern of communication and scheduling failures in negative reviews, and several serious pricing transparency complaints that suggest inconsistent customer experiences depending on the job type and technician assigned.

AAA Remodelers (Michael Dillion) has a strong overall track record across a large review set spanning 2005–2020, with the majority of reviewers praising his craftsmanship, attention to detail, and quality of workmanship on complex bathroom remodels. Professionalism scores well in aggregate but is meaningfully pulled down by three notable negative reviews: one where Michael never followed up after an initial visit, one where he became angry and then went silent on a customer, and one where a bid was slow and communication was minimal. Project completion is generally strong — most jobs were finished on time or with reasonable delays explained — but a few reviews noted scheduling delays and one job ran longer than expected due to vendor issues. Pricing is viewed favorably by most who mentioned it, with one reviewer noting Michael charged roughly half of competing quotes, though one reviewer found the bid too high and one flagged a fee-to-estimate policy as off-putting. Experience is the strongest dimension, with numerous reviewers independently describing Michael as a perfectionist, a master of his craft, and highly skilled across plumbing, tiling, drywall, electrical, and painting.

• Three reviews rated 1-star describe significant professionalism failures: failure to follow up after a site visit, unprofessional behavior and ghosting a customer after a miscommunication, and a disputed fee-to-estimate policy. These are not isolated and represent a real pattern of inconsistent follow-through on bids and communication.
• Several reviews contain no usable text ('unknown', 'N/A', 'Completely satisfactory', ',Completely satisfactory') and were excluded from dimension scoring. These 5 reviews contribute little analytical value.
• The review dated 2009-10-20 has a rating of 1.0 but contains only 'N/A' as text — no detail is available to understand the complaint. This was excluded from dimension scoring but noted as a data gap.
• The majority of reviews (approximately 25 of 36) are older than 12 months relative to a current date, and most are from 2013–2020. Only 2 reviews are from 2020. Recency of data is limited and the score may not reflect current performance.
• No strong fake review patterns detected. Reviews vary in length, specificity, tone, and rating, which is consistent with authentic feedback. The presence of multiple detailed negative reviews further supports authenticity.

This WW Score is based on a moderately large review set with high mention counts across all four dimensions, but reliability is tempered by the age of most reviews (the majority are 4–15 years old) and three credible negative reviews that reveal a recurring pattern of communication breakdowns during the bidding and follow-up phase.