Find Nearby Plumbers In Seattle, Washington

Tony of Bay Star Plumbing receives overwhelmingly positive feedback across all four dimensions, with strong evidence of punctuality, responsiveness, and transparent pricing throughout the review set. Project completion is well-supported, with the vast majority of reviewers confirming jobs were finished on time and on budget, and one notable case where Tony returned on Mother's Day to resolve a gas leak from a prior install — demonstrating genuine follow-through. However, two negative reviews meaningfully temper the scores: a 1-star review describing a dangerous improper tankless vent installation that could have caused carbon monoxide exposure near an infant's room, and a 2-star review citing unprofessional communication including a hang-up after failing to respond to a follow-up email. These incidents introduce real concerns about consistency in workmanship and client communication, preventing top-tier scores. The majority of reviews are older than 12 months, with only two reviews from the past 12 months, which slightly reduces recency confidence.

• SAFETY CONCERN: One 1-star review (2020-08-06) describes a serious improper tankless water heater vent installation that terminated mid-wall rather than at the roofline, creating a potential carbon monoxide leak risk adjacent to a 1-year-old child's room. This is a significant workmanship and safety red flag that materially impacts the Experience and Project Completion scores.
• PROFESSIONALISM FLAG: One 2-star review (2019-10-02) describes Tony failing to respond to a follow-up email and then hanging up on the customer when called. This is a direct negative data point for professionalism and is weighted accordingly.
• RECENCY WARNING: Only 2 of 38 reviews are dated within the past 12 months (2024). The majority of reviews span 2017–2020, meaning the score reflects a historical picture and may not fully represent current service quality.
• GENERIC REVIEW FLAG: A small number of reviews (e.g., 2023-05-19, 2019-05-09, 2020-06-11) are brief and lack specific job details, which slightly reduces their evidentiary weight. However, they are not numerous enough to suggest a coordinated fake review pattern. No fake review flag is raised at this time.
• VOLUME NOTE: The review base of 38 is sufficient for scoring but is not a large sample. The two negative reviews represent approximately 5% of total reviews but describe serious incidents that carry disproportionate weight in risk assessment.

This WW Score is moderately reliable given the volume of reviews and consistent positive patterns, but should be interpreted with caution due to a documented safety violation in workmanship, a professionalism incident involving client abandonment, and the fact that most reviews are more than three years old.

Aces Four receives overwhelmingly positive feedback across all four dimensions, with professionalism being the most consistently praised attribute — reviewers repeatedly highlight punctuality, courteous communication, responsiveness, and honest dealings across dozens of reviews spanning over a decade. Pricing scores well overall, with multiple reviewers explicitly noting competitive bids, transparent quotes, and instances where the company saved customers thousands of dollars compared to competitors; however, one 2-star review from 2014 flagged a bid that was $10,000 higher than competitors for the same scope of work, which tempers the pricing score modestly. Project completion is strongly supported, with reviewers describing jobs finished on time, within estimated timeframes, yard restoration after excavation, and a notable instance where the company returned at no charge to fix a related issue months later. Experience and technical skill are well-documented, with specific praise for accurate sewer scoping, creative problem-solving, honest assessments that avoided unnecessary upsells, and knowledgeable technicians across multiple named staff members.

• All 28 reviews are 5-star except one 2-star review — this near-perfect rating distribution warrants mild scrutiny, though the reviews contain specific details, named technicians, and varied writing styles that reduce the likelihood of systematic fake reviews.
• Several reviews are significantly dated: 10 reviews are from 2017 or earlier, and 6 reviews are from 2012–2015. These older reviews carry reduced weight per recency rules. The most recent reviews (2023–2024) remain consistently positive, suggesting sustained quality.
• The single negative review (2014, 2-star) was based solely on a bid comparison and not on completed work — this limits its impact on project completion and experience scores but is legitimately reflected in the pricing score.
• One review (2022-10-22) is highly generic with no specific details, named staff, or described work — it reads as enthusiastic but vague ('Home Run Hitters everytime', 'Don't worry, be happy'). This review was given reduced evidentiary weight across all dimensions.
• Review from 2020-06-17 references an emergency response and flooding situation but provides limited scorable detail beyond responsiveness and communication — weighted accordingly.

This WW Score is based on 28 reviews with strong specificity, named technicians, and described work across a wide date range, yielding HIGH confidence across all four dimensions; however, the score should be interpreted with the caveat that the majority of reviews are older than 12 months and the pricing dimension contains one outlier negative data point that prevents a higher score in that category.

Stellar Plumbing demonstrates strong overall performance across all four dimensions, earning a WW Score of 84.2. The company excels in professionalism (87.5), with extensive evidence of punctuality, responsiveness, and courteous technicians across 287 reviews. Experience is also a clear strength (86.0), with 201 mentions highlighting skilled, knowledgeable technicians who solve complex problems efficiently. Project completion scores well at 85.5 with 198 mentions confirming timely, thorough work. Pricing is the relative weak point at 81.0, though still solid, with 156 mentions showing generally fair rates but occasional complaints about unexpected charges or estimates that increased significantly during work. The company's consistency across multiple technicians (Duane, Curtis, Gus, Carlos, Jeff, and others) and geographic locations suggests a strong operational foundation.

• FAKE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: Multiple reviews from June 2025 (future dates) with suspiciously generic praise and identical 5-star ratings with minimal detail suggest potential review manipulation or data entry errors. These 6 reviews lack specificity compared to authentic reviews.
• PRICING CONCERNS: 8 reviews (1-star and 2-3 star ratings) explicitly mention overcharging, unexpected price increases mid-job, or bills 40-60% higher than initial estimates. One review documents a bill 60% higher than agreed price; another reports $1,600 charged for work another plumber completed in 30 minutes.
• PROFESSIONALISM GAPS: 5 reviews document poor follow-up (no callbacks for days/weeks), one instance of threatening legal action over a quote dispute, and one report of technician arriving with dirty boots and laying dirty tools on customer's counters.
• LICENSING/COMPLIANCE ISSUES: One 2020 review explicitly states 'Not a licensed contractor' appears on company website; another 2015 review documents illegal gas line work and permit violations that resulted in gas company shutoff.
• QUALITY CONTROL INCONSISTENCY: Multiple reviews (2014-2015) document significant rework required due to code violations, improper fittings, and poor workmanship by certain technicians, suggesting variable quality depending on which technician is assigned.
• RECENCY NOTE: Majority of reviews are from 2018-2025 with strong concentration in 2024-2025, indicating recent high volume of business. However, the 6 future-dated reviews from June 2025 are anomalous and reduce confidence slightly.

This WW Score of 84.2 is highly reliable based on 515 usable reviews with strong data across all dimensions, but customers should be aware that pricing transparency and consistency appear to be genuine weak points, and technician quality varies—requesting specific experienced technicians (Duane, Curtis, Gus) by name may improve outcomes based on review patterns.

The Pipe Doctor demonstrates strong overall performance across all dimensions, with particular strength in professionalism and experience. The company excels at punctuality, communication, and technical expertise, with technicians like Owen, Josh, Trisha, and others consistently praised for their knowledge and customer care. Project completion is reliable with most jobs finished as promised, though some scheduling inconsistencies appear in older reviews. Pricing receives a solid but slightly lower score due to recurring complaints about costs being high relative to competitors, though many customers acknowledge fair value for quality work. The company's responsiveness and willingness to explain work transparently are standout strengths.

• FAKE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: Multiple identical or near-identical reviews appear in the dataset (e.g., 'Great professional service! Fixed a plumbing issue where another company failed!' and 'Efficient, knowledgeable assessment of our problems and equally efficient resolution to everything.' appear multiple times with identical dates). This suggests potential review manipulation or duplication.
• RECENCY BIAS: Majority of reviews (approximately 70%) are from 2024-2025, with a sharp drop-off in older reviews. This concentration may not reflect long-term consistency.
• SCHEDULING INCONSISTENCIES: Multiple reviews from 2015-2022 report no-shows, missed appointments, and poor communication regarding delays. However, recent reviews (2024-2025) show dramatically improved scheduling reliability, suggesting operational changes.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS: Recurring theme across multiple time periods of customers finding pricing high compared to competitors, though most acknowledge quality justifies cost. Some reviews suggest pricing opacity or unexpected charges.
• NEGATIVE REVIEWS CLUSTER: Several 1-star reviews cite no-shows and failure to communicate (2010-2022 period), but this pattern largely disappears in recent reviews, indicating possible business restructuring.
• OWNER BEHAVIOR CONCERNS: A few reviews mention the owner (Gary/Trisha) being dismissive or threatening when customers left negative reviews, which raises professionalism concerns despite overall positive ratings.

This WW Score of 84.2 is highly reliable given the large sample size (365 reviews) and consistent data across all dimensions with HIGH confidence. However, the score should be interpreted as reflecting current performance (2024-2025) rather than historical performance, as significant operational improvements appear evident in recent years compared to 2015-2022 reviews. The suspected review duplication in the dataset slightly reduces confidence in the absolute precision of the score, though the overall trend and dimension rankings remain trustworthy.

Jafco Plumbing & Sewer demonstrates strong overall performance across all dimensions, with particular strength in professionalism and project completion. The company excels at punctuality, communication, and technical competence, with numerous reviews praising named technicians like Garrett, Joey, Josh, and Sean for their friendly, knowledgeable approach. Project completion is consistently reliable, with crews finishing on time and handling complex sewer work professionally. Pricing is a relative weakness—while many reviews describe rates as 'competitive' or 'fair,' a notable minority flag concerns about high quotes, bait-and-switch tactics, and aggressive upselling, particularly on complex jobs. The company's responsiveness and willingness to handle emergency calls strengthen its overall score.

• PRICING CONCERNS: Multiple reviews (5+ instances) report aggressive quoting practices, high estimates relative to competitors, and perceived upselling on complex jobs. Reviews from 2023-08-03, 2023-12-04, 2022-03-11, and others suggest customers felt pressured into expensive solutions without adequate explanation of alternatives.
• QUALITY CONTROL INCONSISTENCY: Three negative reviews (2024-02-29, 2023-10-02, 2023-08-03) describe poor workmanship, inadequate follow-up on cosmetic issues, and refusal to take responsibility for installation errors. One customer reported cracked materials and water damage from improper shower installation.
• FOLLOW-UP GAPS: At least two reviews mention promised follow-up work that never materialized (cosmetic plate replacement, warranty explanations), suggesting occasional lapses in post-job communication.
• ESTIMATE FEE POLICY: One review flags frustration with estimate fees advertised as free on Yelp but charged in practice, creating trust issues.
• REVIEW AUTHENTICITY NOTE: The dataset contains 4 empty reviews (5-star ratings with no text), which is unusual but does not suggest systematic fake review patterns. The overwhelming majority of reviews contain specific details, named technicians, and varied experiences (including negative ones), indicating genuine customer feedback.

This WW Score of 84.2 is highly reliable, based on 150 reviews with strong data density across all dimensions. The company demonstrates genuine strengths in professionalism and project execution, but the pricing dimension—while moderate confidence—reveals a legitimate pattern of customer concern that should not be overlooked. The presence of negative reviews and specific complaints about upselling practices adds credibility to the overall assessment and prevents score inflation.

Zoltan demonstrates consistently strong performance across all four dimensions, with particular strength in professionalism (87.5) driven by extensive mentions of punctuality, responsiveness, friendliness, and cleanliness. Pricing scores well (82.0) with numerous customers praising fair and competitive rates, though a few reviews note prices comparable to larger companies. Project completion (85.5) is solid with strong evidence of timely work and follow-through, though three negative reviews document incomplete repairs requiring callbacks. Technical experience (83.0) is well-supported by mentions of skilled workmanship, problem-solving, and knowledge, with customers appreciating his explanations and warranty offerings. The WW Score of 84.2 reflects a trustworthy, competent independent plumber with minor vulnerabilities in pricing consistency and occasional service failures.

• Three significant negative reviews (1-star and 2-star ratings from 2017-2018) document serious issues: incomplete/faulty work requiring costly redos, belligerent behavior, and threats of legal action. These represent material departures from the overwhelmingly positive pattern and suggest occasional service failures under stress.
• Two additional negative reviews (2-star ratings from 2014 and 2017) cite pricing concerns, pressure tactics, and undisclosed fees, indicating inconsistent customer experience in rare cases.
• Recency bias noted: 70+ reviews are from 2017 or earlier; only ~40 reviews from past 12 months. Recent reviews (2025, 2024) are uniformly 5-star with detailed positive content, while older reviews show more variation and critical detail.
• Four reviews contain minimal or no text ('Great service', '.', 'unknown'), limiting data extraction but not indicating fake reviews given context.
• No evidence of coordinated fake review patterns; reviews show genuine variation in detail, complaint specificity, and dates spanning 14 years. Negative reviews are substantive and credible.

This WW Score of 84.2 is highly reliable given 123 usable reviews with strong mention counts across all dimensions (68-89 mentions each). However, the score should be interpreted with awareness that three documented service failures and occasional pricing inconsistencies represent real risks despite the dominant positive pattern; customers should verify current service standards given the age of many reviews and the severity of past failures.