Find Nearby Plumbers In Renton, Washington

The overwhelming majority of reviews praise Adrian and the APS Plumbing team for punctuality, friendliness, and professional conduct, with multiple reviewers specifically noting same-day or rapid response times. Pricing is consistently described as reasonable and fair, with one reviewer explicitly noting a lower quote than competitors. Project completion is strong, with jobs described as finished efficiently, same-day, and with creative problem-solving on difficult tasks. The one significant negative review — a 1-star from 2013 — describes a rude scheduler, an appointment dispute, and a refusal of service, which meaningfully pulls the professionalism score down from what would otherwise be near-perfect. That review is over 10 years old and is given reduced but non-zero weight given its recency distance.

• RECENCY FLAG: The sole negative review is dated January 2013 — over 11 years old. It has been considered but given reduced weight relative to the 16 reviews from 2023–2024.
• CLUSTER FLAG: Six reviews share the exact same date of 2023-09-12 and five share 2023-09-13. While the review content varies and appears specific enough to be genuine, this tight clustering warrants mild scrutiny. No identical phrasing was detected, so fake review status is not confirmed, but the pattern is noted.
• NEGATIVE REVIEW NOTE: The 2013 review describes a scheduler behaving rudely and refusing service — this is a legitimate professionalism concern and has been factored into the professionalism score despite its age.
• NAME INCONSISTENCY: Reviews reference the contractor as both 'Adrian' and 'Adrien' — likely the same individual with a spelling variation, not a separate concern.

This WW Score is based on 17 reviews with strong dimension coverage across all four categories; confidence is HIGH overall, though the September 2023 date clustering slightly tempers certainty, and the 11-year-old negative review, while factored in conservatively, represents a data point from a business context that may no longer reflect current operations.

Spencer's Eastside Plumbing demonstrates strong overall performance across most dimensions, with particular strengths in technical expertise and professionalism. Nine reviews explicitly praise responsiveness, punctuality, friendliness, and communication, while eight reviews highlight skilled workmanship and problem-solving ability. Pricing is consistently described as fair and reasonable across three mentions. However, project completion shows a notable weakness: one detailed 2012 review documents serious follow-through failures including missed appointments and unresponsiveness after a job was approved, which significantly impacts this dimension's score. The majority of reviews are recent (2019-2024), lending credibility to current performance, though the older negative review raises historical concerns about consistency.

• One critical negative review from 2012 documents severe communication and follow-through failures after job approval, creating a significant outlier that contradicts the overwhelmingly positive pattern. This suggests either past operational issues or a single problematic engagement.
• Nine of eleven reviews are 5-star ratings with generic positive language (e.g., 'excellent,' 'highly recommend,' 'fantastic job'). While not necessarily fake, the uniformity and lack of specific detail in most reviews limits depth of analysis.
• Review from 2012 notes the contractor's website was down, suggesting possible business disruption or closure at that time, making it unclear if current operations reflect the same company.
• Two reviews from 2012-2013 are significantly older and may not reflect current business practices or staffing.

This score is moderately reliable for current performance (2019-2024 reviews show consistent quality), but the single severe negative review from 2012 regarding project abandonment and communication failures introduces uncertainty about consistency and follow-through under pressure; recommend treating project completion dimension with caution and verifying current responsiveness directly.

Emerald City Plumbing demonstrates strong overall performance with a WW Score of 82.3, driven primarily by consistent professionalism and technical expertise across multiple reviews. The company excels in responsiveness, communication, and workmanship quality, with most recent positive reviews praising Wayne and Rory's customer service and problem-solving abilities. However, a critical 1-star review from 2018 documenting two no-shows and failure to provide an estimate significantly impacts the project completion score, revealing reliability issues that cannot be ignored. Pricing is generally perceived as fair and competitive, though one reviewer noted the work was 'not cheap.' The older negative review (2018) and recency of most positive reviews (2019-2023) suggest potential improvement over time, but the no-show incident demonstrates a serious operational weakness.

• CRITICAL: One 1-star review (2018-05-06) documents two consecutive no-shows and failure to follow up with estimate—this is a major red flag for reliability and professionalism that contradicts the otherwise positive pattern
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most reviews are 3+ years old (2016-2021); only 2 reviews from 2022-2023. Older reviews may not reflect current operations
• POTENTIAL BIAS: 8 of 9 reviews are 5-star ratings with generally positive language; the single 1-star review is highly detailed and credible, suggesting the positive reviews may be skewed toward satisfied customers while dissatisfied customers may not review
• MULTIPLE TECHNICIANS: Reviews mention Wayne, Rory, and Ray—unclear if these are the same person or different team members, which affects consistency assessment

This WW Score of 82.3 should be treated with MODERATE-to-HIGH confidence for recent work (2022+) but with caution regarding reliability, as the documented no-show incident from 2018 reveals a serious operational flaw that may or may not have been corrected; the score is pulled down appropriately by this incident and reflects genuine risk in scheduling and follow-through.

Green Planet Plumbing demonstrates strong performance across all measured dimensions. Professionalism is consistently praised across all four reviews, with specific mentions of organization, friendliness, responsiveness, and conscientiousness. Project completion is exemplary—all jobs were finished on time with no abandoned work, and the company went beyond scope (fixing additional issues). Technical expertise is evident in complex problem-solving, particularly Justin Moore's ability to devise solutions other plumbers deemed impossible. Pricing appears competitive based on two explicit mentions of fair value relative to other bids. The primary limitation is the small sample size (4 reviews) and age of reviews (all from 2019–2020), which reduces confidence in the overall score.

• All reviews are from 2019–2020; no recent reviews (past 12 months) available to assess current service quality
• Small sample size (n=4) limits statistical confidence; recommend collecting more recent reviews before making high-stakes decisions
• Pricing dimension based on only 2 mentions; insufficient data to confidently assess pricing practices across broader customer base
• No negative reviews present; while not necessarily fake, absence of any critical feedback is atypical and may not reflect full customer experience spectrum

This score should be treated with caution due to the small sample size and age of reviews; while the data strongly suggests quality work, the lack of recent feedback and absence of any critical perspectives limits confidence in how current performance compares to historical results.

Ally Plumbing scores well on professionalism and experience, with a large number of reviewers praising individual technicians by name for punctuality, clear communication, courteous demeanor, and technical competence. However, pricing is a significant and recurring drag on the overall score: multiple reviewers across the review period explicitly describe quotes as 4x competitor prices, $350 for a 2-minute repair, $1,300 for a simple water line, and $700 for a tankless cleaning — and several 1-star reviews are driven entirely by pricing complaints. Project completion is mixed: the majority of jobs were finished satisfactorily, but there are credible, detailed accounts of abandoned or incomplete work, a major repipe job that ran thousands over quote with permit issues and an unfinished half-bath, a misdiagnosis with an incorrect shower handle reinstall, and a deliberate upsell scheme involving falsely claimed part unavailability documented across two separate reviews. These serious completion and ethics failures prevent a higher score despite the many positive experiences.

• PRICING CONCERN: Pricing complaints are frequent, specific, and span the entire review period. Multiple reviewers cite quotes 2x–4x competitor prices. This is a systemic pattern, not isolated incidents.
• ETHICS/DECEPTION FLAG: Two independent reviews (April 2024) describe a near-identical scheme where Ally plumbers falsely claimed parts would take 3 weeks to arrive in order to upsell a more expensive same-day replacement. Both reviewers independently confirmed with the parts supplier that parts were available immediately. This is a serious and credible pattern of deceptive sales practice.
• PROJECT COMPLETION FAILURE: One detailed review (March 2024) describes a whole-house repipe that ran thousands over quote due to plumber miscounting fixtures, permit charges that were refunded by the city but not fully passed back to the customer, and a half-bath left non-functional requiring a callback.
• MISDIAGNOSIS FLAG: At least two reviews describe incorrect diagnoses or incorrect work performed, including a wrong toilet installed that did not qualify for a Seattle rebate and a shower misdiagnosis by a technician who was later said to have left the company.
• BILLING TRANSPARENCY ISSUE: At least two reviews describe billing disputes where customers could not get itemized explanations or manager callbacks, suggesting inconsistent billing transparency despite some reviewers praising it.
• NO-SHOW FLAG: One review (April 2024) reports a complete no-show with no communication.
• OVERBOOKING FLAG: One review (January 2024) describes being canceled the day of an appointment due to overbooking during a cold snap emergency, with the office staff handling it unprofessionally.
• PRICE MATCHING DECEPTION: One review (September 2024) describes being told Ally would price match, only for the technician to refuse to fully honor that commitment on arrival.
• RECENCY NOTE: All reviews are from 2022–2024. The vast majority are from 2024, making the dataset highly current and relevant. The single 2022 review is positive but carries minimal weight.
• NO FAKE REVIEW PATTERNS DETECTED: Reviews vary significantly in length, detail, tone, and rating. Named technicians appear across multiple reviews independently. Negative reviews are specific and credible. No artificial inflation pattern detected.

This WW Score is based on 85 reviews with strong recency (nearly all within 12 months) and high mention counts across all four dimensions, making it a HIGH confidence assessment — however, the score should be interpreted with caution given documented patterns of deceptive upselling, billing disputes, and project overruns that suggest meaningful operational risk despite many positive individual technician experiences.

3 Dog Plumbing has a strong long-term reputation for quality workmanship and punctuality, with many reviewers explicitly praising on-time arrivals, skilled repairs, and thorough follow-through on jobs. However, pricing is a recurring concern — multiple reviewers independently described the service as pricey, and one noted the plumber's dismissive response when questioned about cost, which meaningfully drags down the pricing dimension. Professionalism scores well overall but is tempered by one notable failure: a plumber who cancelled due to illness and then never returned a callback, representing a real responsiveness breakdown. Project completion is generally strong, with reviewers describing jobs finished correctly the first time and no need for return visits, though the no-callback incident also reflects a follow-through gap. The experience dimension is the strongest, with consistent praise for technical skill, problem-solving, and quality of work across many years of reviews.

• 3 reviews contain only the text 'unknown' and provide no usable content — these were excluded from dimension scoring but counted in total reviews analyzed.
• 2 reviews contain only vague filler text ('As above', 'See above') with no substantive detail — excluded from dimension scoring.
• The majority of reviews are older than 5 years, with most dating from 2009–2016. Only 2 reviews fall within the past 5 years (2019 and 2020), and none are within the past 12 months. Recency weighting significantly limits confidence in current service quality.
• No fake review patterns detected — reviews vary in tone, detail level, and rating, and several include specific job descriptions, dollar amounts, and named individuals, suggesting authenticity.

The WW Score carries HIGH dimensional confidence due to mention volume, but should be interpreted cautiously given that the overwhelming majority of reviews are more than 5 years old and current service quality cannot be reliably inferred from this dataset.