Find Nearby Plumbers In Marysville, Washington

McCarthy shows strong professionalism and technical skill when projects proceed smoothly, with multiple reviews praising communication, punctuality, and quality workmanship. However, significant concerns emerge around project completion reliability and pricing transparency. Two major negative reviews document serious issues: unexplained invoice discrepancies and a 48-day roof repair delay requiring constant follow-up, versus a competitor completing the same work in 4 days. An undisclosed $140 estimate fee also damaged trust. While positive reviews highlight excellent outcomes and responsiveness, the pattern of completion delays and billing disputes substantially undermines overall reliability.

• RECENCY CONCERN: 5 of 8 reviews are from 2019 or earlier (over 4 years old). Only 2 recent reviews from 2022 and 2021. Historical data may not reflect current operations.
• POLARIZED RATINGS: Extreme split between 5-star (5 reviews) and 1-star (3 reviews) with no middle ratings. This suggests either highly variable service quality or inconsistent customer expectations.
• PROJECT COMPLETION RED FLAG: Review from 2019-02-19 documents severe delays (48 days vs. competitor's 4 days) and poor follow-up communication despite initial responsiveness.
• PRICING TRANSPARENCY ISSUE: Review from 2018-06-25 reveals undisclosed estimate fees ($140 not mentioned during phone booking), suggesting potential hidden charges practice.
• BILLING DISPUTE: Same 2019 review documents invoice confusion where contractor backpedaled on charges clearly listed in original invoice, raising concerns about billing practices.
• SECURITY CONCERN: Review from 2019-09-19 mentions missing military belongings during water damage repair—potential liability or trust issue, though details are sparse.

This score should be treated with caution due to small sample size (8 reviews), heavy skew toward older data (5+ years old), and extreme polarization between perfect and terrible experiences. The recent positive reviews suggest possible service improvement, but the documented pattern of completion delays, billing disputes, and lack of follow-up in earlier reviews indicates systemic issues that warrant verification with recent clients before hiring.

Edmonds Plumbing shows significant inconsistency across reviews spanning multiple years. Positive reviews (2023, 2022) highlight responsive communication, timely completion, and clean work, while older negative reviews (2012, 2020) cite serious technical failures, unlicensed workers, and poor follow-up. Project completion scores are dragged down by documented instances of incomplete/incorrect work requiring emergency remediation. Professionalism is mixed—some reviews praise politeness and responsiveness, while others report difficulty scheduling and lack of accountability. The company appears to have improved recently, but historical quality control issues and lack of response to complaints remain concerning.

• RECENCY BIAS: Most positive reviews are from 2023 and 2022, while negative reviews are from 2012, 2018, and 2020. Recent performance may not reflect historical pattern.
• CRITICAL QUALITY ISSUE: 2012 review documents use of wrong-colored glue (color-coded for specific application), resulting in major leaks requiring emergency remediation by competitor. This suggests fundamental technical knowledge gaps.
• UNLICENSED WORKERS: 2020 review explicitly states Frederick uses unlicensed plumbers lacking basic skills and not following best practices.
• POOR ACCOUNTABILITY: 2012 review indicates company did not respond to BBB complaint regarding failed work.
• SAFETY CONCERN: 2018 review documents unsafe driving behavior (texting while driving company vehicle on I-5).
• SCHEDULING ISSUES: 2012 review reports 5+ contact attempts and over a week to schedule; plumber arrived without required parts, necessitating reschedule.

This score should be treated with caution. While recent reviews (2023-2022) are positive and suggest improvement, the company has a documented history of serious technical failures, use of unlicensed workers, and poor customer accountability. The WW Score reflects this mixed history, but potential customers should be aware that older negative reviews reveal fundamental quality control and licensing concerns that may not be fully resolved despite recent positive feedback.

Pacific Plumbing Supply shows a deeply mixed record across all dimensions. Professionalism is the most frequently mentioned dimension and is sharply divided: several reviewers praise specific staff members (Finn, Jack, Mike, Lisa) as friendly, patient, and knowledgeable, while a near-equal number describe staff as rude, dismissive, condescending, or outright unhelpful — including one reviewer who perceived discriminatory treatment. Project completion (interpreted here as fulfilling the customer's supply need completely) is also problematic, with multiple reviewers reporting they were turned away, sold incomplete products, or given wrong parts — including a restocking fee charged for staff error. Experience scores moderately, with some staff demonstrating strong technical knowledge and others unable to identify basic plumbing components like a pinch clamp. Pricing receives the most positive signals, with a few reviewers noting competitive or reasonable prices, though the sample is small.

• Review spread spans 2012–2020; the majority of reviews are older than 3 years relative to the most recent review date (2020-02-11), and all reviews are now more than 4 years old. Recency weighting significantly limits reliability of this score for current business quality.
• One reviewer (2018-04-03) explicitly notes management changed in the prior year, suggesting the business may have gone through a transition period. Reviews before and after this note may reflect different operational realities.
• No fake review patterns detected. Reviews vary in tone, detail, rating, and specificity. Negative reviews include specific incidents and named staff, lending credibility to the dataset overall.
• The shower stall review (2019-12-30) describes a product fulfillment failure — selling a shower stall without the ability to supply the glass component — which is a significant service gap flagged under project completion.
• A restocking fee was charged for parts the staff themselves provided incorrectly (2012-04-04), which is a notable customer service and ethics concern.

This WW Score carries HIGH mention-volume confidence across all dimensions, but its real-world reliability is significantly reduced by the age of the review dataset — all reviews predate 2021 — and the sharp internal contradictions in staff quality, suggesting inconsistent service that may depend heavily on which employee a customer encounters.

This contractor presents a deeply polarized review profile: a loyal base of long-term residential customers (particularly around the JackRabbit and Northwest Chicago operations) consistently praise individual technicians like Jim, Scott, Rick, and Tim for professionalism, punctuality, and solid workmanship. However, a substantial and recurring cluster of negative reviews — many from new construction homeowners — describes a pattern of poor office customer service, rude staff, failed warranty follow-through, and shoddy installation work that required repeat visits or third-party correction. Project completion is the most damaged dimension, with multiple reviews citing abandoned jobs, unresolved warranty repairs, incorrect installations (circulation pumps, expansion valves, water meters), and technicians leaving without completing work. Pricing feedback is mixed: some customers praise fair and transparent quotes while others allege overcharging, undisclosed fees, and being billed before work was completed. The overall score of 58.2 reflects a company with genuine technical talent among certain individual plumbers but systemic failures in office management, warranty accountability, and quality control on new construction projects.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: At least 8 reviews appear to be exact or near-exact duplicates (e.g., the Rick water line review posted twice on 2024-08-07, the Rick supply line review posted twice on 2022-10-11, the 'very professional courteous and prompt' Rick review posted twice on 2021-09-09, the hot water heater July 4th review posted twice on 2021-07-23, the 'very friendly service techs' review posted twice on 2021-04-27, the 'showed up when they said' review posted twice on 2021-04-27, the manufactured home water heater review posted twice on 2023-03-22, the 'prace and profecinal' review posted twice on 2022-08-01, and the 'absolutely horrible' review posted twice across 2017-06-11 and 2017-01-04). These duplicates inflate positive and negative counts and reduce score reliability.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Approximately 23 reviews contain no text whatsoever — only a star rating (mostly 5-star). These provide no usable qualitative data and were excluded from dimension scoring. Their presence in bulk may indicate review padding.
• SUSPECTED FAKE OR INCENTIVIZED REVIEWS: Several 5-star reviews are extremely generic ('Great service.', 'They were great', 'Close', 'I love this place!!!') with no specifics, dates, or context. Combined with the volume of blank 5-star reviews, this pattern is consistent with review padding to offset legitimate negative feedback.
• MULTI-ENTITY REVIEW POOL: Reviews appear to span at least two distinct business entities — 'JackRabbit Plumbing' (appears to operate in Colorado/mountain regions and possibly Georgia) and 'Northwest Plumbing' (Chicago area and Southeast new construction markets). Scoring these as a single contractor introduces significant noise, as the quality and customer service standards appear to differ substantially between the two operations.
• SYSTEMIC WARRANTY FAILURE PATTERN: A recurring and credible pattern exists across multiple independent reviewers describing Northwest Plumbing's failure to honor new construction warranties — including rude dismissals, no-shows, repeat failed repairs, and charging for warranty work. This is not isolated and significantly impacts the project completion and professionalism scores.
• RECENCY NOTE: The review pool spans from 2010 to 2025. Reviews older than 3 years (pre-2022) were given reduced weight in scoring. The negative warranty-related reviews are heavily concentrated in the 2016–2025 window, suggesting the problem is ongoing and not historical.
• OVERCHARGING ALLEGATION: One detailed 2017 review alleges the company charged for a minimum 3-hour job that was completed in 30 minutes and refused to provide a receipt — a potential fraud indicator that was factored into the pricing score.

This WW Score is based on a large review pool (141 reviews) with HIGH mention counts across all four dimensions, giving the score mathematical reliability, but its trustworthiness is meaningfully reduced by confirmed duplicate reviews, a high volume of blank 5-star reviews suggesting padding, and the mixing of two distinct business entities whose performance profiles differ substantially.

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.

This contractor's reviews present a deeply mixed picture across all dimensions. Professionalism scores are dragged down significantly by a missed appointment with no callback (2017) and dismissive on-site communication during a multi-visit toilet repair, partially offset by positive reports of punctuality and politeness in other reviews. Pricing is a serious concern — two reviews explicitly describe what they characterize as price gouging or exploitation, including a $600 charge for two toilets (one of which required only pouring water into a tank) and $1,200 for a flange replacement, while one reviewer found pricing fair. Project completion is similarly split — one job required three visits to resolve a toilet rocking issue that was misdiagnosed twice, while other reviewers report timely and complete work. Experience scores reflect genuine technical failures (missed cracked flange diagnosis across two visits, poor toilet installation causing a crack) alongside some competent drain and sink work.

• RECENCY WARNING: Two of the six reviews are from 2016 and 2017, making them 7–8 years old. These are given reduced weight. The four more recent reviews (2022–2023) are prioritized.
• PRICING CONCERN: Two separate reviewers explicitly allege price gouging or taking advantage of vulnerable customers. One involves a 92-year-old woman charged $300 for pouring water into a toilet tank. These are serious red flags.
• WORKMANSHIP FAILURE: The three-visit toilet repair (Review 3) reveals a pattern of misdiagnosis and poor installation quality, including a cracked toilet attributed to their own installation error.
• COMMUNICATION FAILURE: One reviewer reports two unanswered calls and a missed appointment with no follow-up, indicating potential systemic responsiveness issues.
• SMALL SAMPLE WARNING: Only 6 reviews total. The WW Score should be treated as directional only — not statistically reliable. Scores based on this few reviews carry inherent uncertainty.
• NO FAKE REVIEW PATTERNS DETECTED: Reviews vary significantly in tone, detail, rating, and content. Language is not repetitive or suspiciously generic. Reviews appear authentic.

This WW Score is based on only 6 reviews spanning 7 years, with two reviews being significantly outdated, resulting in LOW overall reliability — prospective customers should seek additional recent references before hiring.