Find Nearby Plumbers In Seattle, Washington

The aggregate review pool spans multiple companies (1-Tom-Plumber, Art of Plumbing, Faucet Brothers Plumbing, and at least one unnamed contractor), which significantly complicates scoring reliability — these are not reviews for a single contractor. Professionalism scores moderately well overall, with many reviewers praising punctuality, communication, and courtesy, but is meaningfully dragged down by several explicit complaints of rudeness, missed appointments, and unprofessional conduct across different companies. Pricing is the weakest dimension: multiple reviewers across different companies flagged prices as extremely high, non-itemized billing, and hidden or surprise charges, though a comparable number praised fair or reasonable pricing. Project completion is generally strong, with most reviewers confirming jobs were finished and problems resolved, but notable failures include a 3-week delay on a simple toilet replacement, abandoned work, and at least one case of a paid job left leaking with refusal to return. Experience scores highest, with many detailed accounts of skilled diagnosis, efficient repairs, and technical knowledge, though offset by a handful of reviews describing incompetent or damaging work.

• CRITICAL: Reviews appear to be drawn from multiple distinct companies (1-Tom-Plumber, Art of Plumbing, Faucet Brothers Plumbing, and possibly others). Aggregating these into a single WW Score is methodologically unreliable and the score should not be attributed to any single contractor.
• 33 reviews contain no text whatsoever — only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence per scoring rules.
• Several reviews for Art of Plumbing cluster on the same dates (e.g., 2024-09-12, 2023-06-10, 2019-06-11) with very short, generic praise and no specific details, raising a moderate concern about review authenticity or solicitation campaigns.
• The Double LL Steakhouse left two nearly identical reviews for Art of Plumbing on different dates (2019 and 2018), suggesting possible duplicate or solicited reviews.
• Negative reviews include serious allegations: refusal to fix a leaking drain pipe after being paid over $5,000, destruction of property without permission, refusal to provide contractor license, and a plumber who made a situation worse and charged $139 for it.
• Pricing complaints are explicit and recurring across multiple companies: one reviewer cited a $1,365 charge for 12 inches of copper pipe replacement; another cited $875 labor for 4 faucets and a disposal; another was quoted 3x higher than competitors.
• One reviewer (2025-05-26) explicitly states the company missed three scheduled appointments over several weeks — a serious project completion failure.
• One reviewer (2020-09-14) alleges the contractor poured concrete over an unverified leaking pipe, destroyed property without permission, and refused to return after being paid over $5,000 — this is a severe outlier that materially impacts scoring.
• Review dates span from 2012 to 2025. Reviews older than 3 years (pre-2022) were given reduced weight in scoring. A significant portion of the review pool is more than 2 years old.
• Because this dataset aggregates reviews from multiple companies, the WW Score cannot be reliably used to evaluate any single contractor and should be treated as illustrative only.

This WW Score has LOW practical reliability for evaluating any individual contractor because the review dataset spans at least three distinct plumbing companies; the score reflects an aggregate of mixed businesses rather than a single operator, and should not be used as a hiring signal without first separating reviews by company.

Ready Rooter earns strong marks for professionalism and experience across a large and diverse review base, with dozens of customers praising courteous, knowledgeable technicians who arrived on time, wore shoe covers, explained issues clearly, and cleaned up after themselves. Project completion is also generally solid, with most reviewers confirming jobs were finished same-day or within a short timeframe, and at least one notable instance of a callback being honored beyond the stated guarantee window. However, pricing is the most contested dimension: while many reviewers describe fair or reasonable rates, a meaningful cluster of negative reviews — including one with a detailed $38,500 quote that was $15,000+ above competitors, one alleging a technician over-diagnosed a repair by 5x the actual cost, one describing a $920 charge for a service typically priced at $400, and multiple allegations of bait-and-switch or lien threats — significantly drag the pricing score down. A small number of reviews also flag reliability issues such as missed appointments without notification and one incident of a technician arguing with and walking out on a client.

• PRICING CONCERNS: Multiple independent reviewers across different time periods describe significantly inflated quotes, price changes after work began, or charges for incomplete work. This is a recurring pattern, not isolated incidents, and materially reduces confidence in pricing fairness.
• APPOINTMENT RELIABILITY: At least two reviews (2024 and 2014) describe technicians failing to show up during scheduled windows without proactive notification. One 2022 review also cites no follow-up on an estimate.
• TECHNICIAN CONDUCT: One 2025 review (1-star) describes a Ready Rooter technician arguing loudly with a manager and leaving the job site. This is a serious professionalism flag.
• GUARANTEE INCONSISTENCY: One reviewer reports receiving an invoice stating 'no guarantee on parts or labor' despite the company website advertising 100% satisfaction guaranteed. This contradiction is a trust concern.
• BLANK REVIEWS: 18 reviews contained no text — only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring but counted in total reviews analyzed. The volume of blank 5-star reviews is slightly elevated and warrants mild fake-review awareness, though not conclusive.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews with substantive detail are from 2023–2025, which is positive for relevance. However, pricing complaints span from 2011 through 2024, suggesting this is a persistent issue rather than a historical anomaly.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK: LOW-MODERATE. Most positive reviews include specific technician names, job details, and varied language. Generic praise exists but is not dominant. No strong evidence of coordinated fake reviews, though the volume of blank 5-star entries is noted.

This WW Score is based on a large review set (136 total, 107 with usable data) spanning over a decade, giving it HIGH statistical confidence; however, the recurring and multi-source pricing complaints introduce meaningful uncertainty around value for money, and prospective customers should obtain multiple quotes before committing to larger jobs.

Bob Oates earns strong marks for professionalism and responsiveness across a large volume of reviews, with dozens of customers praising courteous, punctual, and communicative technicians by name. Project completion scores well overall, supported by many accounts of jobs finished on time and follow-through on callbacks, but is meaningfully dragged down by several serious complaints including an abandoned multi-month job, a no-call/no-show, a gas line rupture during excavation, and at least one instance of work left incomplete requiring a return visit. Pricing is the weakest dimension: while many reviewers describe costs as reasonable or competitive, a significant minority — across multiple years — explicitly describe charges as excessive, extortionate, or wildly out of proportion to the work performed, including quotes of $2,500 for a $250 job, $3,200 to install a garbage disposal, $2,000 for 24 inches of PVC pipe, and $630 for a ten-minute filter installation. Experience scores moderately well, with many skilled technicians praised by name, but offset by documented instances of misdiagnosis, incomplete scoping, and a technician who failed to check for leaks before leaving. The overall picture is a company with genuine strengths in responsiveness and professionalism but notable and recurring weaknesses in pricing transparency and consistency of workmanship.

• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The review beginning 'I returned in the early afternoon last week from a long trip' appears twice with identical text but different dates (2025-06-04 and 2025-06-02). One instance was excluded from scoring to avoid double-counting.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The review praising TJ and Joe for water main directional drilling appears twice with identical text and the same date (2024-07-27). One instance was excluded from scoring.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — MODERATE: A notable number of reviewers have very few total reviews on their profiles (flagged by one reviewer in the dataset itself). Several 5-star reviews contain only generic praise with no specifics (e.g., 'Reliable, efficient, and easy to work with!', 'Great customer service and friendly.'). Confidence is not reduced to LOW because the majority of reviews contain specific names, dates, and job details, but the generic subset warrants caution.
• SERIOUS SAFETY INCIDENT: One reviewer reports that Bob Oates struck a gas line during excavation, requiring emergency evacuation. The reviewer states no apology or compensation was offered. This is a significant safety and liability flag.
• ABANDONED JOB COMPLAINT: One reviewer describes a job begun in November 2021 that remained incomplete as of May 2022, with the company allegedly going non-responsive and failing to ensure permits and code compliance.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS ARE RECURRING AND SPAN MULTIPLE YEARS (2017–2025): Multiple independent reviewers across different years describe being quoted or charged amounts they describe as grossly excessive. This is not isolated and represents a systemic pattern.
• PERMIT COMPLIANCE CONCERN: One reviewer explicitly states Bob Oates does not pull permits for work that legally requires them, including water heater replacements.
• MISDIAGNOSIS PATTERN: Multiple reviews describe technicians recommending unnecessary replacements (garbage disposal, faucet, air gap) without proper diagnosis. In at least two cases, the actual problem was minor and fixed cheaply by others.
• NO-CALL/NO-SHOW COMPLAINT: At least two reviews describe confirmed appointments where no technician arrived and no communication was provided.
• REFUND PROMISE NOT HONORED: At least two reviewers describe being promised refunds or credits (including a Yelp discount) that were never delivered despite repeated follow-up.
• 15 reviews contained no text (rating only) and were excluded from dimension scoring but counted in total reviews analyzed.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews are from 2024–2025 and carry full recency weight. Negative reviews span from 2017 to 2025, indicating some issues are not historical anomalies but ongoing patterns.

This WW Score is based on a large and diverse review set (163 total, 148 with usable data) spanning approximately eight years, giving it HIGH statistical confidence, but the score should be interpreted with caution given documented patterns of pricing complaints, at least one serious safety incident, recurring misdiagnosis issues, and suspected padding from generic 5-star reviews — the true experience may vary significantly depending on the technician assigned and the complexity of the job.

Cahill's Plumbing & Heating earns strong marks for professionalism and responsiveness across a large volume of reviews, with many customers praising same-day or next-day availability, friendly technicians, and clear communication. However, pricing is a significant and recurring concern: multiple negative reviews cite charges of $300–$900+ for short jobs with little transparency, and at least two reviewers explicitly describe bait-and-switch or unexplained fee escalation tactics. Project completion is generally solid, with most jobs finished promptly, but several serious negative reviews describe incomplete work, new leaks caused by technicians, abandoned or botched jobs, and a 2013 case involving raw sewage left unresolved. Experience scores moderately well overall, with many reviewers praising knowledgeable technicians, but offset by documented cases of incorrect diagnoses, improper installations, and a technician unfamiliar with a standard toilet brand. The WW Score of 74.2 reflects a company with genuine strengths in responsiveness and customer service that is meaningfully dragged down by a consistent pattern of pricing complaints and a non-trivial number of serious workmanship failures.

• PRICING CONCERN — HIGH SEVERITY: At least 7 reviews explicitly describe overcharging, lack of itemized invoices, or unexpected fee increases after work began. Specific examples include $610 for a 10-minute valve replacement, $300 for a 15-minute drain snake, $726 for a garbage disposal, and $900+ with no prior estimate. This is a statistically significant pattern across multiple years.
• WORKMANSHIP FAILURES: Multiple reviews describe work that caused new problems — a 2013 review details raw sewage left in a yard with an improperly connected septic line; a 2023 review describes new leaks caused by the crew and garbage left under the house; a 2012 review describes a faucet connection failure that flooded an office requiring 6 days of remediation equipment.
• MANAGEMENT CONDUCT: At least 3 separate reviews (2012, 2022 x2) describe the owner or manager (Russell or Riley Cahill) becoming defensive, raising their voice, and hanging up on customers when complaints were raised. This is a repeated behavioral pattern, not an isolated incident.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: Two reviews with identical text regarding a water heater installation appear dated 2023-10-30, one with a timestamp and one without. These appear to be the same review submitted twice and were counted only once for scoring purposes.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: Two reviews with identical text describing the worst experience with a septic/shower drain issue and manager conduct appear dated 2022-04-25, one with a timestamp and one without. Counted only once for scoring.
• RECENCY NOTE: The review corpus spans from 2005 to 2025. Reviews older than 5 years (pre-2020) were given reduced weight. The majority of high-volume data comes from 2020–2025, which is considered the primary scoring window. Older negative reviews (2010, 2012, 2013) are noted but treated as lower-weight historical signals.
• GENERIC REVIEWS FLAGGED: Several reviews contain no substantive detail (e.g., 'Fantastic!!', 'Excellent!', a blank review body with 5 stars, 'Read above' with 1 star, 'unknown' with 2 and 4 stars, a single period). These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK — LOW-MODERATE: The majority of 5-star reviews contain specific names, dates, and job details, which reduces fake review suspicion. However, a cluster of undated or minimally detailed 5-star reviews from the 2023-06-09 batch warrants mild caution as they may reflect a solicited review campaign.

This WW Score is based on a large and diverse review set spanning 20 years with HIGH confidence across all four dimensions; however, the score should be interpreted cautiously given a documented and recurring pattern of pricing opacity, at least three serious workmanship failures, and repeated reports of confrontational management behavior when complaints were raised.

Premier Plumbing has a strong base of positive reviews praising individual technicians — particularly Travis, Jeremy, and others — for punctuality, friendliness, and technical competence. However, the score is meaningfully dragged down by several serious negative reviews describing no-shows, abandoned work mid-job, failure to follow through on callbacks, and at least one instance of a tenant being injured by a faulty installation. Pricing is a mixed picture: many reviewers praised fair or competitive pricing, but multiple reviewers explicitly called out costs as high or excessive compared to competitors. Project completion is the most concerning dimension, with credible accounts of incomplete work, rescheduling failures, and unresolved issues that significantly lower confidence in consistent delivery. The business also underwent a merger with Ally Plumbing that was not transparently communicated to customers, which raises integrity concerns flagged by multiple reviewers.

• BUSINESS IDENTITY CONCERN: Multiple reviewers note that Premier Plumbing merged with Ally Plumbing but continued advertising under the Premier name without disclosure. Reviewers explicitly called this dishonest. This may mean some positive reviews reflect the old Premier entity, not the current operator.
• SERIOUS SAFETY INCIDENT: One reviewer reported a tub spout flew off and struck a tenant during first use after Premier's installation. The company failed to respond urgently and did not call back within the promised timeframe. This is a significant workmanship and liability flag.
• ABANDONED WORK / NO-SHOW PATTERN: At least three independent reviews describe no-shows, cancelled appointments without notice, or work left incomplete mid-job (pipes cut with no running water for days). This is a recurring pattern, not an isolated incident.
• PAYMENT WITHOUT RECEIPT: One reviewer paid nearly $6,000 cash and was unable to obtain a receipt or any response from the owner. This is a serious financial integrity flag.
• RECENCY CONCERN: The majority of positive reviews are from 2018–2019. Reviews from 2020 onward are fewer and include a higher proportion of negative experiences. The most recent reviews (2021–2022) skew negative, suggesting possible service quality decline post-merger.
• POSSIBLE REVIEW INFLATION FROM PRE-MERGER ENTITY: The large volume of glowing 2018–2019 reviews may reflect a different business (original Premier Plumbing) that no longer operates under the same management. Scores derived from this full dataset may overstate current service quality.
• NO FAKE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: While many positive reviews are enthusiastic, they contain specific technician names, job details, and varied language. No clear fake review pattern identified, though the pre/post-merger split warrants caution.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large review volume, but the score's practical reliability is MODERATE at best given credible evidence of a business ownership transition, a pattern of serious service failures in more recent reviews, and a safety incident — consumers should weight post-2020 reviews most heavily when making a hiring decision.

AnEwhere Plumbing has a strong base of positive reviews spanning several years, with consistent praise for professionalism, fair pricing, and quality workmanship across a wide variety of jobs. Pricing transparency is a recurring highlight, with multiple reviewers explicitly noting honest bids, no upselling, and fair rates compared to competitors. However, a detailed 1-star review from January 2025 significantly tempers the score — it alleges incomplete work (old plumbing left in place without disclosure), poor finishing quality (holes in ceiling, goop on a $4,000 heater, crooked visible pipes), and a lack of care on a major job, with the reviewer noting other plumbers subsequently shook their heads at the work. A second 1-star review flags a failure to return a call about a sewage emergency, raising a responsiveness concern. These negative data points are recent and specific, and carry meaningful weight against an otherwise positive but aging review base.

• Two reviews contain no text — only a star rating (one 1-star, one 5-star). These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence.
• A significant portion of positive reviews are older than 3 years (2017–2021), which reduces their weight under recency rules. The most recent detailed negative review (January 2025) is given elevated weight.
• The January 2025 1-star review is highly specific and credible — it describes incomplete plumbing replacement without disclosure, cosmetic damage to a $4,000 heater, poor pipe finishing, and corroboration from other plumbers who viewed the work. This is a serious quality and transparency concern.
• Several older 5-star reviews are brief and generic (e.g., 'Good guys', 'Great service', 'Old school reliability') with no job-specific detail. While not conclusively fake, these add limited evidentiary value and were weighted conservatively.
• Two reviews (2018) both reference a negative experience with 'Purdy Plumbing' in nearly identical framing. While these appear to be from different customers, the similar structure warrants mild scrutiny — they were not flagged as fake but were noted.
• Recency warning: The majority of detailed positive reviews are from 2017–2021. Only a small number of substantive reviews exist from 2022–2025, and the most detailed recent review is negative.

This WW Score is based on a reasonably sized review set with HIGH mention counts across all dimensions, but reliability is moderated by the recency imbalance — most positive reviews are 3–8 years old — and a credible, specific recent negative review that raises legitimate concerns about workmanship quality and transparency on larger jobs.