Find Nearby Plumbers In Seattle, Washington

Mill Creek Plumbing scores strongly on professionalism and project completion, with the large majority of reviewers praising responsiveness, punctuality, courteous staff, and jobs completed fully and on time. Experience scores are solid, with many reviewers noting skilled, knowledgeable work across a variety of plumbing tasks. However, pricing is the most contested dimension: while many reviewers describe fair or competitive rates, several reviews — including a 1-star and a 3-star — explicitly call out high hourly rates ($180/hr, $373/hr), unexpected charges, and a lack of upfront estimates, which meaningfully drags the pricing score down. Two negative reviews also flag incomplete follow-through (ghosting a customer after a visit and failing to return with a promised bid), which moderately reduces the project completion score.

• Pricing complaints are significant: at least 4 reviews explicitly mention high or unexpected charges, lack of upfront estimates, or feeling overcharged. This is a meaningful pattern, not an outlier.
• One review (2023-06-13) describes being ghosted after an initial visit with no follow-up bid provided and no bathroom fixed — a direct project completion failure.
• One review (2014-10-21) describes a customer never being given an estimate or hourly rate before work began, resulting in a $515 bill for a minor repair — a transparency concern.
• One review (2022-12-30) explicitly states the technician seemed inexperienced and failed to solve the problem, which is a direct negative signal for the experience dimension.
• One review (2014-12-18) disputes labor time billing, claiming they were charged for 2 hours when less than 1.5 hours of actual work was performed, including being charged to write up the work order.
• Review spread spans 2014 to 2024. The most recent reviews (2023–2024) are mixed, including both a strong positive and a significant negative. The bulk of highly positive reviews are from 2019–2021, which may reflect a period of peak performance. Recency weighting slightly tempers overall confidence.
• No strong fake review patterns detected. Reviews vary in length, detail, rating, and tone. Negative reviews are specific and credible. Positive reviews reference named staff members and specific job details, which adds authenticity.

This WW Score is based on 38 reviews spanning a decade with strong mention counts across all four dimensions, making it a reasonably reliable assessment, though the pricing dimension and a small number of project completion failures introduce meaningful uncertainty that prospective customers should weigh carefully.

Raptor Plumbing receives consistently strong marks for professionalism, with numerous reviewers citing punctuality, friendliness, clear communication, and respectful conduct across many technicians including Miguel, Jason, Graydon, and Roy. Experience and workmanship are also well-regarded, with multiple reviewers praising diagnostic skill, thoroughness, and problem-solving on complex issues. Project completion scores are solid but tempered by one serious negative review describing a warranty callback that ended with a flooded home and a disputed invoice more than double the expected amount, which is a significant red flag. Pricing is a mixed picture: several reviewers praise fair or competitive pricing, while one reviewer explicitly noted the cost was three times the next closest quote, and another review described a bait-and-switch scenario with a warranty job. Overall the contractor performs well but the pricing and completion dimensions carry meaningful downward pressure from credible negative experiences.

• One review (1-star, undated) describes a serious warranty callback failure: the same issue recurred within 6 months, the technician manual-snaked for under 5 minutes, quoted $600 but invoiced over $1,200, and the house flooded after they left. This is a significant project completion and pricing concern.
• One 3-star review explicitly states the job cost three times the next closest quote, directly contradicting the 'affordable' and 'competitive' claims in other reviews.
• A large number of reviews are undated, making it impossible to assess recency for roughly 18 of 27 reviews. Recency weighting could not be applied to these reviews.
• Several undated reviews use somewhat generic praise ('very professional', 'great experience', 'highly recommend') with limited specifics, which slightly reduces confidence in those individual data points. However, enough reviews contain specific names, job details, and narrative context to suggest the review set is largely authentic.
• No clear evidence of coordinated fake reviews, but the high proportion of 5-star ratings (25 of 27) warrants mild caution. The presence of two credible negative reviews with specific details supports overall authenticity.

This WW Score is based on 27 reviews with a high volume of dimension-specific mentions, giving it HIGH overall confidence, but the score should be interpreted with caution given the serious unresolved warranty complaint, the pricing outlier, and the large number of undated reviews that prevent full recency analysis.

Trueman Plumbing demonstrates strong performance across all dimensions with explicit evidence of professionalism, project completion, and technical expertise. Reviews consistently praise responsiveness, communication, scheduling flexibility, and quality workmanship. Pricing feedback is limited but positive where mentioned, with customers noting good value relative to competitor bids. The company shows strong problem-solving ability and follow-through on callbacks. However, the dataset is small and heavily weighted toward older reviews (most from 2012–2022), which limits confidence in current performance.

• Two reviews contain only 'unknown' text with 5.0 ratings and generic timestamps (2016-01-08 and 2015-09-29), suggesting incomplete or placeholder data. These were excluded from scoring.
• All 7 usable reviews are 5-star ratings with no negative feedback, which is atypical. While language varies and includes specific details (names, situations, timelines), the absence of any critical feedback or lower ratings warrants caution.
• Review recency is a concern: 5 of 7 usable reviews are older than 3 years (2012–2016), with only 2 reviews from 2021–2022. Current performance cannot be reliably assessed from this dataset.
• Pricing dimension is based on only 2 mentions, limiting confidence in that score.

This WW Score should be treated with moderate caution. While the company shows strong historical performance with consistent professionalism and project completion, the small sample size, age of most reviews, and absence of any critical feedback reduce confidence in how well this score reflects current service quality. Recent customer feedback is needed to validate ongoing performance.

Ryan demonstrates strong professionalism across all five reviews, with consistent praise for courtesy, responsiveness, and problem-solving attitude. Project completion is solid, with evidence of thorough follow-through, proactive identification of secondary issues, and willingness to schedule additional appointments to fully resolve problems. Pricing is described as fair and affordable in three reviews. Technical expertise is evident through knowledgeable diagnostics and efficient repairs. However, the review dataset is small (5 total) and heavily skewed toward older dates (4 of 5 reviews from 2014–2015), which limits confidence in current performance reliability.

• RECENCY CONCERN: 80% of reviews (4 of 5) are from 2014–2015, with only one review from 2020. Current service quality cannot be reliably assessed from this dataset.
• SMALL SAMPLE SIZE: Only 5 reviews analyzed. Scores are based on limited data and may not represent consistent performance.
• ALL 5-STAR RATINGS: No negative or mixed reviews present. While not necessarily fake, the absence of any critical feedback is atypical and should be noted.

This score should be treated with caution due to the small sample size (5 reviews) and significant recency bias (80% of reviews older than 8 years). While the available data is positive and specific, it does not reliably reflect current contractor performance.

Howard demonstrates strong professionalism across all four reviews, with consistent praise for punctuality, friendliness, and responsiveness. Pricing is highlighted positively in two reviews, with customers noting fair and competitive rates compared to alternatives. Project completion is evidenced in three reviews showing efficient, complete work with no callbacks needed. Technical skill is mentioned in two reviews regarding problem diagnosis and repair quality. However, the small sample size (4 reviews) and age of most reviews (three from 2012–2016) limit confidence in this assessment.

• RECENCY CONCERN: Three of four reviews are from 2012–2016 (8+ years old). Only one review is from recent years (2017). This significantly limits the reliability of current service quality assessment.
• SMALL SAMPLE SIZE: Only 4 reviews analyzed. Recommend collecting additional recent reviews before making high-confidence business decisions.
• GENERIC PRAISE PATTERN: Reviews contain similar positive language ('amazing experience,' 'great service,' 'best part') with limited specific technical details, though this may reflect genuine satisfaction rather than fake reviews.
• LIMITED PRICING DATA: Only 2 of 4 reviews mention pricing, making the pricing score less reliable.

This WW Score should be treated with caution due to the very small sample size (4 reviews) and the age of most data (2012–2016). While the available evidence is positive, a current assessment would require recent reviews to validate whether service quality has been maintained.

Mike's Plumbing earns strong marks across all four dimensions, driven by an overwhelming volume of positive reviews praising punctuality, communication, friendly technicians, and quality workmanship across a wide range of jobs. Professionalism is the most frequently cited strength, with dozens of reviewers specifically calling out on-time arrivals, courteous staff, clean work habits, and responsive office personnel. Pricing scores moderately well — the majority of reviewers describe fair, competitive, or below-estimate final costs, but a meaningful minority of negative reviews cite unexpectedly high charges, undisclosed labor rates, and a significant bait-and-switch pricing complaint that cannot be ignored. Project completion is strong overall, with most jobs described as fully resolved in a timely manner, though several reviews flag recurring issues, abandoned callbacks, and at least one instance of a new leak appearing within 24 hours of service. Experience scores well, with many reviewers praising skilled diagnosis, creative problem-solving, and technical knowledge, though a handful of negative reviews describe technicians who could not resolve the issue or required senior intervention.

• Two reviews (dated 2024-10-29 and 2024-11-08) are nearly word-for-word identical in content, both complaining about a $310/hour charge for a water heater troubleshooting visit that yielded no resolution. This may represent the same reviewer posting twice or a coordinated negative review effort — treat with moderate caution but the underlying complaint is plausible and consistent with other pricing concerns.
• Two reviews (dated 2025-06-06 and 2025-06-04) are exact duplicates of a detailed positive review about a kitchen sink replumb job. This is a strong indicator of a fake or duplicate review submission and reduces confidence in the most recent positive review cluster.
• Two reviews (dated 2024-10-09 and 2024-10-03) are near-identical positive reviews about the same sewer line incident involving Cody. This may be a duplicate submission by the same reviewer.
• Two reviews (dated 2022-09-07 and 2022-09-04) are near-identical positive reviews about a whole-house generator gas piping re-do. Likely duplicate submissions.
• Two reviews (dated 2008-07-11) are exact duplicates of a positive review. Likely a duplicate submission.
• Multiple reviews contain no text and only a star rating (5 stars). These provide no usable data for any dimension and were excluded from dimension scoring.
• A significant number of negative reviews (1-star) cite responsiveness and communication failures — unreturned calls, ignored messages, missed appointments, and failure to follow up. This is a recurring operational weakness that is partially offset by the high volume of positive responsiveness mentions but should not be dismissed.
• The review corpus spans from approximately 2008 to 2025. Reviews older than 2022 carry reduced weight per recency rules. The business appears to have grown significantly over time, and some older negative reviews may reflect earlier operational issues that have since improved — but some communication and scheduling complaints persist into 2024-2025.
• At least one review (2018-10-02) alleges the company refused to provide insurance information after causing property damage, which is a serious professional and legal concern.
• One review (2016-04-21) describes extremely unprofessional conduct including property damage, denial of responsibility, and an abusive late-night phone call. This is an outlier but a serious one.

This WW Score is based on a very large review corpus (281 reviews) spanning over 15 years, giving it HIGH statistical confidence in direction and relative dimension ranking, but the score should be interpreted with caution due to confirmed duplicate/fake positive reviews, a recurring pattern of communication and scheduling failures in negative reviews, and several serious pricing transparency complaints that suggest inconsistent customer experiences depending on the job type and technician assigned.