Find Nearby Plumbers In Olympia, Washington

Trophy Plumbing shows a deeply polarized performance profile. Recent reviews (2024) consistently praise Andy's professionalism, responsiveness, and technical skill, with multiple mentions of same-day or next-day service and fair pricing. However, older reviews (2016–2017) reveal serious systemic failures including no-shows, incomplete work, installation defects, overcharging, and poor follow-up communication. The company appears to have undergone significant changes in ownership and personnel, with the newer Andy-led operation performing substantially better than the legacy operation. Professionalism scores are dragged down by documented instances of rudeness, no-shows, and lack of callback responsiveness in older reviews. Project completion is compromised by multiple accounts of incomplete work, defective installations, and failure to honor appointments. Pricing concerns stem from documented overcharging and inflated quotes relative to market rates in several 2016 reviews.

• MAJOR RECENCY BIAS: 12 of 13 most recent reviews (2024 and 2023) are 5-star with Andy; 8 of 12 older reviews (2016–2017) are 1-star. This suggests significant company restructuring or ownership change. Scores heavily weighted toward recent positive data.
• OWNERSHIP/PERSONNEL CHANGE DETECTED: Early reviews reference 'Joe' (old owner) and 'Heath' (staff); recent reviews reference 'Andy' exclusively. One 2016 review explicitly states 'new owner was rude' and contrasts with 'Joe the old owner was nice.' This is not fake reviews but rather a genuine operational transformation.
• INSTALLATION QUALITY CONCERNS: Multiple 2016–2017 reviews document defective installations (shower stall gap, gas line safety hazard with propane leak, water pump failure, water heater code violation, incomplete oven hookup). These are specific, detailed complaints with consequences.
• PRICING FRAUD ALLEGATIONS: Three 2016 reviews allege significant overcharging ($1,300 vs. $350–$400 for same work, commission-based incentive structure leading to unnecessary upsells). These are serious allegations with corroborating detail.
• NO-SHOW PATTERN: Multiple reviews (2016–2017) document scheduled appointments with no-show and no callback. One 2024 review also reports no-show and no callback after appointment confirmation.
• COMMUNICATION BREAKDOWN: Several older reviews cite unreturned calls, unanswered phones, ignored emails, and rude staff interactions. Recent reviews show opposite pattern (quick callbacks, clear communication).
• SINGLE RECENT NEGATIVE: One 2024 review (June 16) reports no-show and no callback after appointment confirmation, suggesting the issue may not be entirely resolved despite overall improvement.

This score should be interpreted with caution: the 68.2 WW Score reflects a company in apparent transition, with recent performance (2024) substantially stronger than legacy performance (2016–2017). If evaluating for current service, weight recent reviews heavily and expect professionalism and responsiveness similar to 2024 reviews; however, the historical pattern of installation defects and overcharging warrants verification of current practices and independent inspection of complex work. The single 2024 no-show suggests old issues may not be entirely resolved.

H2O Away demonstrates strong technical expertise and initial professionalism, with multiple reviews praising quick response times, knowledgeable staff, and quality mitigation work. However, the company is significantly undermined by severe project completion failures—most critically, one customer's rebuild was abandoned for 8 months with no follow-up. Communication breakdowns during the rebuilding phase are a recurring complaint, with slow project timelines and unresponsiveness cited in multiple reviews. Billing practices through third-party collection agencies (Claims One, Solution One) have generated additional customer frustration and distrust. While older reviews (2019–2021) are overwhelmingly positive, recent reviews (2024) reveal systemic issues with project management and follow-through that substantially lower overall reliability.

• RECENCY CONCERN: Positive reviews cluster heavily in 2019–2021 (6 five-star reviews). Recent reviews from 2024 (past 12 months) are predominantly negative (three 1–2 star reviews), suggesting deterioration in service quality or operational changes.
• PROJECT ABANDONMENT: One review explicitly states work was abandoned for 8 months with no rebuild completion—this is a critical failure in project completion.
• BILLING DISPUTES: Multiple reviews cite aggressive third-party billing/collection practices (Claims One, Solution One) with threats, overcharges, and poor communication. This suggests systemic issues beyond the core service.
• COMMUNICATION PATTERN: Recent reviews consistently cite slow communication, unresponsiveness, and lack of follow-up during rebuilding phases, contradicting the professionalism shown in mitigation work.
• INCONSISTENT SERVICE: Older reviews praise Taylor and the team; recent reviews suggest the company 'is not interested in actually completing projects' and moves at 'an incredibly slow pace.' This indicates either staffing changes or operational degradation.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: Reviews from 2020–2021 contain nearly identical phrasing ('walked me through the whole process,' 'prompt, professional, super thorough,' 'company you can trust') across multiple reviews, suggesting possible template-based or fabricated positive reviews.

This score should be treated with CAUTION. While the overall WW Score of 68.2 reflects mixed performance, the temporal split is critical: the company excels at initial mitigation and emergency response but fails significantly at project completion and post-service communication. Recent customer experiences (2024) are substantially worse than historical reviews (2019–2021), suggesting current reliability is lower than the aggregate score indicates. Do not rely on this company for full rebuild projects without explicit contractual guarantees and milestone-based payment terms.

This company exhibits a stark bifurcation in performance. Positive reviews (5 from 2021–2023) consistently praise professionalism, friendliness, technical knowledge, and responsiveness. However, recent reviews (2024 and late 2023) reveal severe failures: theft allegations, project abandonment after additional quotes, non-responsiveness to callbacks, and equipment failures with no follow-up. Project completion is the weakest dimension, with multiple reports of incomplete work, unresponsiveness, and abandoned projects. Pricing concerns emerge in one review citing a $6,000 additional quote that led to project abandonment. The company's reliability has deteriorated significantly in the past 12 months.

• CRITICAL: Serious allegation of theft in September 2024 review — customer claims repair person stole family jewelry. This is a major red flag for trustworthiness and home access safety.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Positive reviews cluster in 2021–2023 (older than 12 months). Recent reviews (2024 and late 2023) are predominantly negative (1–2 stars), suggesting recent service degradation.
• PROJECT ABANDONMENT: Multiple reviews (Jan 2024, Jan 2024) report abandoned projects and inability to reach company after initial contact.
• RESPONSIVENESS FAILURE: At least 3 reviews explicitly mention inability to reach company by phone/text for days or weeks after service initiation.
• EQUIPMENT FAILURE: One review reports hot water heater failed after one day with no callback support.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEWS: The 5-star reviews from 2021–2023 use similar phrasing ('professional,' 'friendly,' 'highly recommend') and lack specific problem details, though they do include some unique details (heat conditions, specific names). However, the stark contrast with recent negative reviews suggests these may not reflect current operations.
• INCONSISTENT QUALITY: The dramatic shift from uniformly positive (2021–2023) to uniformly negative (2024) suggests either operational collapse or data from different entities.

This WW Score should be treated with CAUTION. While the MODERATE confidence reflects adequate mention counts, the company's apparent recent deterioration (evidenced by 2024 reviews) and the serious theft allegation create significant trust concerns that override the historical positive data. Recent performance appears substantially worse than historical performance, and the score may not reflect current service quality. Recommend prioritizing the most recent reviews (2024) when making decisions.

DNA Plumbing shows significant inconsistency across reviews. While multiple customers praise professionalism, friendliness, and technical knowledge (Izzy's work, fast service, knowledgeable staff), critical failures in project completion severely damage the overall score. Two major incidents—a $35,000 liner job completed incorrectly with only 6 feet of coverage instead of full length, and a 9-hour no-show emergency call—indicate serious follow-through problems. Pricing appears fair when work is completed, but incomplete or abandoned projects undermine trust. The company demonstrates capability but lacks reliability in execution and communication.

• MAJOR RED FLAG: Catastrophic project failure on $35,000 bathroom/sewer work—liner installed incorrectly and incompletely (6 feet vs. full length required). This is a high-value, high-impact failure.
• MAJOR RED FLAG: Severe professionalism failure on 2019-04-12 review—9-hour delay with poor communication, customer left without service on emergency sewer issue. Dwayne's conduct was disrespectful and unprofessional.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most positive reviews are from 2018-2022 (older than 12 months). The two most recent reviews (2023 and 2022) include one catastrophic failure and one positive. Recent track record is mixed.
• INCONSISTENCY PATTERN: Stark contrast between glowing 5-star reviews (generic praise, no specifics) and detailed 1-star reviews (specific failures, quantified losses). Positive reviews lack detail; negative reviews are highly specific and credible.
• COMMUNICATION FAILURE: 2019 review shows non-responsiveness to quote requests—customer contacted multiple times with no response.

This score should be treated with caution. While the MODERATE confidence reflects adequate review volume, the extreme polarization (five 5-star vs. three 1-star with no middle ground) and documented high-value project failures suggest the company's actual reliability is lower than the 62.8 score indicates. The $35,000 liner failure and emergency no-show are serious red flags that outweigh generic positive testimonials. Potential customers should request detailed references and written guarantees before engaging.

Treat Plumbing shows strong technical expertise and experience (90/100), with multiple reviews praising Vern's 30 years of knowledge and professional approach. However, professionalism is significantly undermined by a critical communication failure—a customer's calls went unanswered for over a week in February 2024, preventing any engagement. Project completion data is limited and mixed, with one positive outcome but insufficient detail on timeliness and follow-through. Pricing is poorly documented with only one vague complaint about an insurance job lacking transparency. The company's score is dragged down by the recent responsiveness failure, which directly contradicts claims of professionalism.

• CRITICAL: Recent communication failure (Feb 2024) — customer calls went to voicemail with no callback for over a week. This is a serious professionalism red flag.
• Limited sample size (4 reviews) reduces overall reliability. Two reviews are from 2021 and earlier, limiting recency.
• Pricing dimension severely underdocumented — only one mention with vague complaint about 'blank check' on insurance work. Cannot reliably assess value proposition.
• Project completion data sparse — only 2 mentions with limited detail on timeliness and follow-through.
• Positive reviews focus heavily on Vern specifically; unclear if this reflects company-wide standards or individual performance.

This WW Score should be treated with caution due to small sample size and a recent critical communication failure that contradicts professionalism claims. The score reflects genuine concerns about responsiveness, but insufficient data on pricing and project completion limits confidence in the overall assessment.

Professionalism scores moderately well, with multiple reviewers praising punctuality, friendly communication, and on-time arrivals, though one review alleges dishonesty about the scope of work. Pricing is the weakest dimension and is heavily penalized: multiple independent reviewers across different years explicitly called out overcharging — a $1,600 water heater quote, $300 for 10 minutes of digging, and deceptive upselling — which significantly drags this score down. Project completion is generally positive, with most jobs described as finished promptly and thoroughly, though one reviewer noted a material substitution (brass pipe replaced with flex pipe) they did not approve of. Experience is reasonably solid, with reviewers citing knowledgeable technicians and effective problem-solving, including a same-day furnace board replacement at well under half a competitor's price. The pricing concerns are consistent, multi-year, and come from multiple distinct reviewers, making them a reliable signal rather than an outlier.

• One review (2012-06-21) appears to be for a completely different contractor named 'Dave Renkel' who does window, gutter, roof, and chimney cleaning — this review was excluded from scoring as it does not appear to relate to the plumbing/well/septic contractor being evaluated.
• One review (2015-10-09) contained only the text 'unknown' and provided no usable data — excluded from scoring.
• Pricing complaints span multiple years (2007, 2014, 2020) and come from clearly distinct reviewers with specific dollar amounts cited, indicating a consistent and credible pattern of overcharging rather than isolated incidents.
• One reviewer (2014-10-27) alleged the company lied about the scope of a rebuild and substituted materials without consent — this is a professionalism and project completion concern beyond just pricing.
• The majority of reviews are older than 12 months, with most predating 2022. Only one review (2023) falls within the past 12 months. Recency weighting is limited and the score may not reflect current business practices.
• No fake review patterns detected — reviews vary in rating, tone, detail level, and specific complaints, suggesting authentic authorship.

This WW Score carries moderate overall reliability: the pricing and professionalism concerns are well-evidenced across multiple independent reviews, but the score is based on a small total review set and most data is more than two years old, meaning current performance may differ significantly.