Find Nearby Plumbers In Renton, Washington

All three reviews speak positively about Albert's professionalism, including communication, punctuality, and attitude — the detailed 2018 review in particular describes his crew arriving daily at 8am and his transparent, non-pushy approach to upselling repairs. Pricing is mentioned favorably in two reviews, with one describing a competitive bid on a complex multi-story project and another noting good prices generally. Project completion is supported by two reviews, with the 2018 review noting the job ran five days over schedule but Albert's crew stayed committed and did not split attention with other jobs. Experience and workmanship quality are reflected in two reviews, with specific praise for handling dry rot, complex architectural features, and delivering a high-quality finish. Scores are tempered by the very small review pool and the age of the reviews, the most recent being from March 2021.

• Only 3 reviews total — WW Score reliability is significantly limited by small sample size.
• All reviews are dated between 2018 and 2021; none are within the past 12 months. Recent performance cannot be assessed.
• The 2019 review ('Exceptional service, good prices, amazing paint job, great communication. A very professional company and highly recommended!') is generic with no specific details, which is a minor flag for authenticity, though it does not repeat phrasing from other reviews.
• All three reviews are 5-star ratings. While not conclusive of fake reviews, the uniformity warrants caution given the small sample.

This WW Score should be treated as a preliminary positive signal only — with just 3 reviews, all older than 3 years, and one lacking specific detail, there is insufficient data to assess Albert's current performance with confidence.

Pinky's Plumbing receives consistently strong marks for professionalism at the technician level — punctuality, courtesy, communication, and appearance are praised across a large number of reviews spanning many years. However, pricing is the single most damaging dimension in this dataset: an overwhelming number of reviewers across all time periods describe charges as significantly above market rate, with multiple accounts of bait-and-switch quoting, undisclosed fees (e.g., truck operations charges), upselling pressure, and refusal to itemize costs. Project completion is mixed — many jobs are completed same-day or quickly, but there are credible accounts of failed diagnoses, work that did not resolve the issue, and at least one serious allegation of abandoned or improperly completed work requiring a third party to fix. Technical experience scores moderately, with many reviewers praising individual technicians as skilled and knowledgeable, but offset by multiple accounts of misdiagnosis, unnecessary work recommendations, and at least one installation that violated building codes. The overall WW Score of 62.1 reflects a company with strong front-line staff but a persistent and well-documented pattern of pricing misconduct that significantly undermines trust.

• PRICING MISCONDUCT PATTERN: Across multiple decades of reviews, a consistent and credible pattern emerges of significantly above-market pricing, undisclosed fees, bait-and-switch estimates, and pressure upselling. This is not isolated — it appears in reviews from 2012 through 2025.
• FAILED WORK / MISDIAGNOSIS PATTERN: Multiple reviews describe technicians failing to resolve the stated problem, with a second company fixing the issue quickly and cheaply afterward. Examples include a blocked drain fixed in 10 minutes by a competitor after Pinky's failed in 1.5 hours, a thermocouple replacement done for under $100 after Pinky's quoted $750+, and a vent clog resolved DIY after Pinky's recommended a $3,700+ dig job.
• WARRANTY / CALLBACK REFUSAL: At least two reviews describe Pinky's refusing to honor their own work under warranty, including a failed valve they installed and a boiler installation with alleged code violations.
• UPSELLING COMPLAINTS: Multiple reviews across different years describe technicians attempting to sell unrelated or unnecessary services (new water heaters, new toilets, new heating systems) before or during unrelated repair visits.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW CONCERN: A small cluster of very short, generic 5-star reviews from January 2015 ('Very satisfied with the service,' 'Exceptional. Fast. Nice worker,' 'Great. Very well!') with no specifics may be artificially inflating the positive review count. Confidence is not reduced for the overall score as these are a minority, but they are flagged.
• ONE REVIEWER ALLEGES DOXXING/RETALIATION: A 2020 review alleges that Pinky's management publicly shared a reviewer's personally identifiable information in retaliation for a negative review. This is a serious conduct flag.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews with substantive data span 2013–2025. Pricing complaints are present in both older and very recent reviews (as recently as 2025), suggesting the pattern has not improved over time. Reviews from the past 12 months (mid-2024 to mid-2025) are weighted more heavily and show continued mixed signals: strong technician-level professionalism but ongoing pricing concerns.

This WW Score is based on 125 reviews spanning over a decade with high mention counts across all four dimensions, making it statistically reliable; however, the score should be interpreted with caution given the strong and consistent pattern of pricing complaints and the presence of a small number of suspiciously generic 5-star reviews that may slightly inflate the professionalism and project completion scores.

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.

Pop's Testing Service has a deeply split review history. Positive reviews consistently praise punctuality, friendliness, affordability, and the convenience of submitting paperwork to the city on the customer's behalf. However, a significant and recurring pattern of serious complaints — spanning from 2017 through 2023 — describes the business as unreachable by phone, text, and email, with multiple no-shows and abandoned appointments. One review describes outright deceptive behavior by the owner involving a BBB complaint. The project completion score is heavily penalized because no-shows and ghosting represent a fundamental failure to deliver the core service. Pricing scores well among those who did receive service, but the inability to even reach the business undermines its value entirely.

• RECENCY CONCERN: The most recent reviews (2023–2024) include both a positive review and two serious complaints about complete unresponsiveness, suggesting the reliability problems are ongoing and not resolved.
• PATTERN OF NO-SHOWS: At least 3 separate reviews (2021, 2023, and one undated) describe scheduled appointments where the contractor did not show up and did not respond to follow-up contact — this is a critical reliability red flag.
• POSSIBLE FAKE OR THIN REVIEWS: Three reviews consist of no text at all (just a 5-star rating), and two reviews say only 'great service' or 'on time service, quickly done' with no specifics. These were excluded from dimension scoring due to lack of usable data.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW SUSPECTED: Two reviews dated 2020-06-20 and 2020-06-21 are nearly word-for-word identical ('Easy to schedule via texting message. They showed up as promised and called before the arrival. Great to work with both owner Patrick and Bryan.') — this may represent a single reviewer posting twice or a coordinated submission.
• OWNER MISCONDUCT FLAG: One review (2014) alleges the owner deceived a customer into withdrawing a BBB complaint by promising free service, then reneging. This is a serious integrity concern even if older.
• RECENCY BIAS NOTE: The majority of positive reviews are from 2020 and earlier. The 2021–2024 window contains a disproportionate share of negative reviews, suggesting a possible decline in service quality or business operations.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability — while the mention count is sufficient for statistical confidence, the severe inconsistency between positive and negative experiences, the presence of blank and near-duplicate reviews, and the concentration of failure complaints in recent years mean the score should be interpreted cautiously; prospective customers should treat the no-show and unresponsiveness complaints as serious warnings.

Aqualine's review corpus is deeply polarized: a cluster of enthusiastic 5-star reviews praising specific technicians (Jordan, Gabriel, Garrett, Isaac, Nicole, Eddie, Jeff) sits alongside a large volume of detailed 1-star accounts describing missed appointments, no-shows, wildly inflated pricing, incomplete or incorrect work, and outright refusal to follow up. The negative reviews are highly specific, credible, and span multiple years through the most recent review in September 2024, indicating persistent systemic problems rather than isolated incidents. Pricing complaints are among the most severe, with multiple reviewers documenting charges of $1,100–$9,000 for work later completed by competitors for a fraction of the cost, and at least one reviewer alleging fraudulent misdiagnosis to upsell unnecessary replacements. Project completion is a critical failure area, with multiple reviews describing abandoned jobs, wrong parts ordered, repairs marked complete in the system when they were not, and work that had to be entirely redone by other contractors. The positive reviews, while genuine in tone for the most part, are insufficient to offset the volume and severity of the negative evidence.

• FAKE REVIEW RISK — MODERATE: Several 5-star reviews are suspiciously brief and generic (e.g., 'Great service highly recommended Leo was very helpful and professional I would definitely use them again') with no job-specific detail. One reviewer explicitly states they were offered a 20% discount in exchange for a Yelp review, which directly calls into question the integrity of some positive reviews in this dataset.
• PRICING MISCONDUCT ALLEGATIONS: Multiple reviewers allege that technicians quoted prices far above market rate, refused to provide estimates before charging, and in at least two cases misdiagnosed problems (furnace, sewage backup) to upsell expensive replacements that were not needed. A second opinion in each case revealed the actual cost was dramatically lower.
• INCOMPLETE WORK PATTERN: At least four reviews describe jobs that were left unfinished, incorrectly completed, or required a second contractor to redo. One reviewer describes electrical work that was found to be a fire hazard after being redone by another electrician.
• NO-SHOW AND COMMUNICATION FAILURE PATTERN: Multiple reviews across different years describe technicians failing to arrive at scheduled times, offices promising callbacks that never came, and jobs being falsely marked as completed in internal systems.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent negative review (September 2024) describes the same systemic failures documented in reviews from 2020–2022, suggesting these are not historical issues that have been resolved.
• TECHNICIAN VARIABILITY: Positive reviews are almost exclusively tied to specific named technicians (Jordan, Nicole, Eddie, Jeff, Garrett, Isaac), suggesting quality is highly dependent on individual assignment rather than company-wide standards. Gabriel receives both praise and severe criticism across multiple reviews, adding further inconsistency.

This WW Score is based on 27 reviews with high mention counts across all four dimensions and should be considered a reliable reflection of Aqualine's overall service quality; the low score is well-supported by detailed, specific, and consistent negative evidence spanning multiple years and service types.

NW Sundance Services has an overwhelmingly negative review profile across all four scored dimensions, with the vast majority of reviews describing serious failures. Professionalism is severely damaged by pervasive reports of no-call no-shows, appointment cancellations without notice, rude office staff (multiple named individuals cited repeatedly), technicians leaving mid-job, and supervisors refusing to return calls — offset only by a meaningful minority of reviews praising specific friendly and punctual technicians. Pricing is a major red flag, with dozens of reviewers describing inflated non-covered charges, lack of itemized billing, charges for work not performed, double-billing incidents, and refusal to refund deposits — with only a handful of reviews describing fair or transparent pricing. Project completion is the weakest dimension, with an extensive pattern of abandoned work, misdiagnoses, parts never ordered or delivered, jobs closed as complete when work was not done, and customers waiting weeks to months without resolution — positive completion experiences exist but are a clear minority. Experience scores slightly higher than other dimensions due to a subset of reviews praising specific named technicians as knowledgeable and skilled, but this is heavily counterbalanced by accounts of misdiagnoses, incorrect part installations, work that created new damage (gas leaks, flooding, broken components), and technicians described as inexperienced or incompetent.

• FAKE REVIEW CONCERN — MODERATE: The positive reviews are heavily concentrated around specific named technicians (John, Rafael, David, Jason, Ralph, Josh, Ali, Blake, Jeremy, Eric, Ryan, Carlos, Chuck, George, Ray, Mike) and contain specific, credible detail. However, the volume of generic 5-star reviews with no text or minimal text (e.g., 'Great service.', 'Technician was fantastic!', blank reviews) is suspicious and may inflate the positive signal. These have been discounted in scoring.
• RECENCY NOTE: Reviews span from 2017 to June 2025. The negative pattern is consistent across all years and continues through the most recent reviews (2025), indicating no meaningful improvement over time. Recent positive reviews (2025) exist but remain a minority.
• SYSTEMIC FRAUD PATTERN: Multiple independent reviewers across different years allege that NW Sundance misreports job status to home warranty companies (marking jobs complete when not done), fabricates reasons to deny warranty coverage, and inflates non-covered charges — constituting a potential systemic billing fraud pattern that should be treated as a serious red flag.
• HOME WARRANTY DEPENDENCY: The overwhelming majority of customers were assigned NW Sundance through home warranty companies (American Home Shield, First American, 2-10, etc.). This captive customer base may explain the company's apparent lack of incentive to improve service quality, as noted by multiple reviewers.
• ABANDONED WORK PATTERN: Dozens of reviews describe technicians leaving jobs incomplete, failing to return, or closing work orders as complete without performing the work. This is the single most consistent complaint across the review corpus.
• CUSTOMER SERVICE FAILURE PATTERN: Multiple reviews name specific office staff (Hailey/Hayley, Jade, Talon, Nina, Jane, Jackie, Sam) as rude, dismissive, or deceptive. Supervisors are described as routinely unavailable or refusing to call back. This suggests a systemic management and culture problem, not isolated incidents.
• SAFETY CONCERNS FLAGGED: At least three reviews describe NW Sundance work resulting in active gas leaks left unaddressed, one involving a newborn in the home and one involving an elderly resident. These are serious safety allegations that significantly reduce trust in the company's technical competence and ethical standards.
• SCORE RELIABILITY: Despite the large review volume providing HIGH statistical confidence, the score should be interpreted as reflecting a company with deeply embedded operational and ethical problems. The minority of positive experiences appear genuine but represent a small fraction of total customer interactions.

This WW Score of 28.4 is based on 155 reviews spanning 2017–2025 with HIGH confidence across all four dimensions, and should be considered a reliable and conservative assessment of a contractor with serious, well-documented, and persistent failures in professionalism, pricing transparency, project completion, and consistent technical quality.