Find Nearby Plumbers In Seattle, Washington

Washington Energy Services demonstrates significant inconsistency across all dimensions. While professionalism scores reasonably well (75.3) with many positive mentions of courteous, knowledgeable technicians, this is heavily offset by serious project completion failures (64.8) including missed appointments, incomplete work, extended delays, and poor follow-through on callbacks. Pricing concerns (62.1) are substantial, with numerous complaints about overcharging, inflated quotes, and lack of transparency. Experience ratings (71.2) reflect mixed quality—some installations are excellent while others involve serious defects, misdiagnosis, and rework. The company shows a troubling pattern of high-pressure sales followed by poor service delivery and difficulty obtaining refunds or accountability.

• CRITICAL: Systematic pattern of project completion failures across HVAC, windows, doors, and electrical work. Multiple reviews cite 4-13 week delays, missed appointments with no notification, incomplete installations requiring multiple callbacks, and work left unfinished for weeks or months.
• CRITICAL: Recurring pattern of questionable diagnostic practices and potential upselling. Multiple independent reviews describe technicians recommending expensive replacements (furnaces, heat pumps, AC units) that were later determined unnecessary by competing contractors. CO2 misdiagnosis appears in at least 3 separate reviews.
• CRITICAL: Severe customer service failures. Customers report difficulty reaching the company, broken promises about callbacks, rude staff, and refusal to honor warranties or take responsibility for defective work. Several reviews mention having to threaten legal action to obtain refunds.
• CRITICAL: Quality control issues across multiple service lines. Reviews document scratched/damaged installations, missing parts, incorrect products installed, code violations, water damage from poor sealing, and improper workmanship requiring third-party corrections.
• MODERATE: Pricing transparency concerns. Multiple customers report being quoted high prices without detailed information, discovering competitors charge 30-50% less for identical work, and feeling overcharged relative to actual labor and materials.
• MODERATE: Appointment scheduling dysfunction. Numerous reviews cite 4-hour windows with no specific time, technicians arriving outside scheduled windows, no-shows without notification, and inability to accommodate customer schedules.
• MODERATE: Inconsistent service quality by technician. Reviews suggest some technicians are excellent while others are inexperienced, with customers requesting 'senior techs' being ignored by scheduling.
• MODERATE: Potential fake review risk is LOW. Reviews are highly detailed, specific, include names of technicians, dates, and dollar amounts. Negative reviews provide extensive documentation of problems. Positive reviews also include specific details and acknowledge company weaknesses in some cases.

This WW Score of 68.2 should be treated with caution as a company-wide average, as Washington Energy Services exhibits extreme inconsistency: some customers report exceptional experiences while others describe serious failures in completion, diagnosis, and accountability. The HIGH confidence in this score reflects substantial data (125 reviews), but the underlying business appears to have significant structural problems in project management, quality control, and customer service that create substantial risk for potential customers.

Mr. Rooter demonstrates strong professionalism and technical experience across the majority of reviews, with many customers praising named technicians for being courteous, knowledgeable, punctual, and communicative. However, pricing is the single most damaging dimension in this dataset: a large and consistent volume of reviews explicitly describe charges as excessive, shocking, or far above market rate — including multiple complaints about $400–$800+ for simple jobs, and at least one allegation of unnecessary work totaling over $8,000. Project completion is mixed: many jobs are completed same-day and efficiently, but there are notable failures including missed appointments, abandoned or indefinitely delayed projects, warranty disputes, and at least one case where a job was never completed by Mr. Rooter but was resolved by a competitor. The overall WW Score of 67.2 reflects a company with genuinely skilled and friendly field technicians undermined by a systemic pricing model that generates significant customer dissatisfaction and distrust.

• DUPLICATE REVIEW FLAG: Reviews dated 2025-06-06 and 2025-06-04 are word-for-word identical (the long Vinnie/sewer pipe review). Similarly, reviews dated 2025-06-05 and 2025-06-03 are word-for-word identical (the $669.77 faucet cartridge complaint at 30 minutes), and reviews dated 2025-06-05 and 2025-06-04 are near-identical with only a minor time difference (10 vs 30 minutes). Additionally, the two 'We requested the plumber give us 1 hour call prior to arrival' reviews (2025-06-05 and 2025-06-03) are word-for-word identical. These duplicates have been counted only once each for scoring purposes.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — POSITIVE SIDE: A significant number of reviews (approximately 15-20) contain zero substantive detail — no job description, no technician name, no specifics — and consist only of a 5-star rating with no text, or a single generic phrase like 'Great job' or 'Easy quick and the best value.' These have been excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data.
• PRICING CONCERN — SYSTEMIC: Pricing complaints are not isolated incidents. At least 20+ reviews across multiple years and job types explicitly describe charges as far above market rate, including: $669.77 for a 10-30 minute faucet cartridge swap, $425 for a $10 fill valve, $450 to snake a drain, $784 for a garbage disposal diagnosis (competitor fixed it for free), $1,350 for a 1.5-hour outdoor faucet repair, $3,200 for 6 feet of crawlspace pipe, and $8,453 for allegedly unnecessary sewer work. This is a persistent and credible pattern, not outlier complaints.
• PROJECT COMPLETION CONCERN: Multiple reviews describe missed or rescheduled appointments with no proactive communication. One detailed review (May 2021) describes a month-long incomplete sewer project with permit failures, safety violations, and no follow-through. Another review describes a no-show with no record of the appointment in their system. A further review describes a technician failing to complete a clog clearing that a competitor resolved the next day.
• WARRANTY/FOLLOW-THROUGH CONCERN: At least two reviews describe warranty disputes where recurring problems were not honored or were dismissed on technicalities (e.g., 13-month warranty expiring one month early). One review describes a callback for a warranty issue that resulted in additional charges rather than a free fix.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews with substantive content span 2019–2025, with the most recent cluster from mid-2025. Reviews from 2007 and 2013 have been given minimal weight. The pricing complaints and professionalism praise are both consistent across the full date range, suggesting these are stable characteristics of the business.
• TECHNICIAN VARIANCE: Quality appears highly dependent on which technician is assigned. Noah, Dominique, Aric, Robert Fulton, Vinnie, and several others receive repeated specific praise. Conversely, at least 3-4 reviews describe specific technicians as rude, incompetent, or dishonest. This variance reduces confidence in consistency of service delivery.

This WW Score is based on a large volume of reviews (163 total, 148 with usable data) spanning multiple years, giving it HIGH statistical confidence; however, the score should be interpreted with caution given confirmed duplicate reviews, a significant number of content-free 5-star ratings that may inflate the raw star average, and a clear systemic pricing issue that is likely to be the most practically relevant factor for prospective customers.

Benjamin Franklin Plumbing receives consistently strong marks for professionalism, punctuality, and technical competence from a large volume of reviewers, with many customers praising courteous, knowledgeable technicians who arrive on time and explain their work clearly. However, pricing is the single most dominant negative theme across thousands of reviews, with an extraordinary number of customers reporting charges that are two to five times higher than competing plumbers for identical work — a pattern so consistent and widespread it significantly drags down the overall score. Project completion is mixed: while most jobs are finished correctly, a meaningful minority of reviews describe incomplete work, warranty disputes, no-shows, and situations where problems were not resolved on the first visit. Experience scores are moderate-to-good, with many technicians demonstrating genuine expertise, but offset by recurring reports of misdiagnosis, unnecessary upselling, and technicians who appeared to lack knowledge for the specific job at hand.

• PRICING CONCERN — Extreme and consistent overpricing is the single most reported issue across this review set, spanning thousands of individual reviews across multiple years and franchise locations. Customers routinely report paying 2x–5x the market rate for standard jobs. This is not isolated; it appears to be a systemic franchise pricing model.
• UPSELLING PATTERN — A very large number of reviews describe aggressive or misleading upselling tactics, including recommending unnecessary full replacements instead of repairs, inflated estimates that drop significantly when the customer pushes back, and high-pressure sales pitches for service contracts.
• FRANCHISE INCONSISTENCY — Reviews span many different franchise locations operating under the Benjamin Franklin Plumbing brand. Quality, pricing, and professionalism vary significantly by location, making aggregate scores less reliable for any single location.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK — A significant portion of reviews (estimated 15–20%) contain no text and only a 5-star rating. These blank 5-star reviews are a known pattern associated with review padding. Confidence in the positive score distribution is reduced accordingly.
• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED — Multiple reviews appear to be exact duplicates (identical text, same or adjacent dates), suggesting possible review manipulation or system errors in the data set.
• WARRANTY AND FOLLOW-THROUGH ISSUES — Dozens of reviews describe warranty disputes, failure to honor service agreements, no-call no-shows on scheduled return visits, and management that was unresponsive to complaints — indicating systemic customer service failures beyond individual technician performance.
• ELDERLY AND VULNERABLE CUSTOMER EXPLOITATION — Multiple reviews explicitly describe situations where elderly or vulnerable customers were quoted prices far above market rate, with some reviewers alleging deliberate targeting of people who lacked knowledge to push back.
• RECENCY NOTE — Reviews span from approximately 2004 to June 2025. The most recent reviews (2025) continue to show the same pricing complaints and mixed service quality as older reviews, suggesting no meaningful improvement over time.

This WW Score is based on an exceptionally large review dataset and carries HIGH statistical confidence in its directional accuracy; however, the score should be interpreted with caution because it aggregates multiple franchise locations under one brand, a significant volume of blank 5-star reviews artificially inflates the raw rating, and the pricing dimension — which is overwhelmingly negative — is the most reliable and consistent signal in the entire dataset.

Beacon Plumbing scores reasonably well on professionalism and experience at the technician level, with a large volume of reviews praising individual techs by name for being friendly, knowledgeable, punctual, and communicative. However, pricing is a serious and recurring problem: dozens of independent reviewers across multiple years describe charges they consider grossly excessive, hidden fees, undisclosed trip charges, and quotes that were dramatically higher than competitors who completed the same work successfully. Project completion is mixed — the majority of jobs are finished, but a meaningful number of reviews describe work that failed to resolve the issue, required callbacks, or was abandoned, and in several cases a second company fixed the problem cheaply after Beacon could not or would not. Management conduct is flagged in multiple negative reviews as aggressive, dismissive, or threatening when customers raised billing disputes, which significantly drags down the professionalism score from what individual technicians would otherwise earn. The WW Score of 62.4 reflects a company with capable field staff undermined by a systemic pricing and customer-service culture problem.

• SUSPECTED FAKE OR SOLICITED REVIEWS: Multiple reviews are near-identical in phrasing (e.g., two reviews dated 2025-06-08 and 2025-06-06 are word-for-word duplicates: 'Tony & Victor saved the day by fixing our dryer vent and sharing much knowledge and expertise. It was a tricky job in a cramped space but they made it happen!'). Additionally, one reviewer explicitly disclosed that the technician (Robert W.) had them write a review while he watched and photographed it before completing the transaction — a coercive review-solicitation practice. Several other reviews are extremely brief and generic (e.g., 'Tony and Victor were awesome', 'Tony and Victor were great', repeated across many entries with no specifics), which is consistent with on-site solicitation. Confidence in the aggregate positive score is reduced accordingly.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS ARE SEVERE AND SYSTEMIC: At least 25-30 reviews independently describe pricing as excessive, hidden, or deceptive. Specific complaints include: $10,500 for a tankless water heater replacement; $835 charged for no work performed; $700+ charged without authorization; $6,148 for a backflow preventer valve; $1,100 for 1.5 hours of work; $2,700 for a job estimated at $500 elsewhere; $9,000 bid vs. $1,000 completed by another company; $25,000 sewer replacement recommended when a $400 snaking by a competitor resolved the issue. This is not isolated — it is a pattern.
• MANAGEMENT CONDUCT FLAGGED: Multiple reviewers describe aggressive, threatening, or dismissive behavior from managers when billing disputes were raised. One reviewer describes a manager who 'used intimidation to try and silence my complaint' and was 'interrupting' and 'accusing.' Another describes a manager who 'laughed' at a customer complaint. Another describes a senior manager who was 'extremely rude, argumentative and condescending.' This is a significant reputational and operational risk.
• MISDIAGNOSIS AND UNNECESSARY WORK PATTERN: At least 6-8 reviews describe Beacon recommending expensive excavation, full replacements, or major repairs that a second-opinion plumber resolved quickly and cheaply (e.g., snaking roots for $400 vs. $10,000+ excavation quote; calcium buildup cleared in 5 minutes vs. full pipe replacement recommendation; sewer scope showing 'multiple failures' vs. competitor scope showing no issues). This pattern suggests either systemic upselling or inadequate diagnostic skill.
• INCOMPLETE WORK AND FAILED CALLBACKS: Several reviews describe jobs that were not completed, issues that recurred shortly after service, or promised callbacks that never came. One reviewer paid $1,172 for a furnace that was never fixed. Another paid $835 with the toilet still clogged when the tech left. A backflow valve leak was declared 'stabilized' but was not fixed, and the follow-up call never came.
• REVIEW RECENCY: The majority of reviews are from 2022 through mid-2025, with strong representation in the past 12 months. The negative pricing and management conduct complaints are present across all time periods, suggesting these are not isolated historical issues but ongoing operational patterns.
• BLANK REVIEWS WITH 5-STAR RATINGS: At least 6 reviews contain no text whatsoever but carry 5-star ratings. These provide no usable data and inflate the raw star average without contributing meaningful evidence of quality.

This WW Score of 62.4 is based on a very large review set (281 reviews) and carries HIGH statistical confidence in its directional accuracy; however, the score should be interpreted with caution given confirmed evidence of coerced and duplicate reviews inflating the positive signal, and the true pricing and project-completion performance is likely worse than even this score reflects for customers who do not research alternatives before signing work orders.

Black Hills Inc. receives strongly positive marks for professionalism in terms of technician demeanor, punctuality, and communication, with dozens of reviews praising individual techs by name for being polite, knowledgeable, and courteous. However, this positive professionalism picture is significantly undermined by a substantial and recurring pattern of serious pricing complaints — including allegations of bait-and-switch tactics, wildly inflated quotes (e.g., $16,000 for 20 feet of gas line, $425 for a $30 igniter part), lack of invoice transparency, and targeting of elderly or vulnerable customers. Project completion is mixed: many jobs are completed well and on time, but there are multiple credible accounts of abandoned work, repeat service failures on newly installed systems, missed appointments, and units that remained non-functional after multiple technician visits. Experience scores moderately, as many techs demonstrate genuine skill, but a meaningful subset of reviews describe misdiagnoses, unnecessary upselling of full system replacements for minor repairs, and installation errors discovered months or years later.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: A block of reviews dated 2025-06-09 through 2025-06-04 appears to be an exact duplicate of reviews from 2025-06-06 through 2025-06-04 (identical text, same ratings, slightly shifted dates). This strongly suggests review manipulation or a platform ingestion error. Duplicate entries were identified and counted only once per unique review text to avoid score inflation.
• FAKE REVIEW PATTERN SUSPECTED: A high concentration of 5-star reviews with identical or near-identical phrasing (e.g., multiple 'Techs were very polite and explained the condition of the furnace' entries on different dates) suggests possible review padding or automated submission. Confidence in the positive review cluster is reduced accordingly.
• PRICING ABUSE PATTERN: At least 20+ distinct reviews across multiple years describe dramatically inflated quotes, undisclosed fees, bait-and-switch pricing, and charges far exceeding market rates. This is a systemic pattern, not isolated incidents.
• ELDERLY AND VULNERABLE CUSTOMER TARGETING: Multiple reviews explicitly describe technicians attempting to sell unnecessary full system replacements or grossly overpriced repairs to elderly customers, widows, and seniors. One reviewer describes a $7,500 quote for an electrical panel that was not malfunctioning.
• INSTALLATION QUALITY CONCERNS: Several reviews describe faulty installations discovered months or years later — including disconnected PVC condensate pipes, unclosed crawl space vents allowing rodent entry, and improperly sized systems — suggesting quality control issues on complex jobs.
• REPEAT SERVICE FAILURES: Multiple customers report the same system failing repeatedly after repair or installation, with some units requiring 4+ service visits within a year of install. One customer reports a condensation pump failure recurring two years after replacement.
• RECENCY NOTE: Reviews span from 2016 to June 2025. The most recent 12 months (mid-2024 to mid-2025) contain a mix of strong positives and serious negatives. Pricing complaints and project completion failures appear consistently across all time periods, indicating these are not isolated historical issues.
• LIEN DISCLOSURE COMPLAINT: One detailed review alleges that Black Hills failed to disclose that their financing partner (Salal Credit Union) places a lien on the customer's home, and that the sales representative deliberately obscured this fact during the application process.
• MISSED APPOINTMENTS: Multiple reviews describe no-shows, last-minute cancellations, and scheduling failures with no proactive communication to customers.

This WW Score of 62.4 is based on a large volume of reviews and carries HIGH overall confidence, but should be interpreted cautiously given confirmed duplicate review entries suggesting possible manipulation, a systemic and well-documented pattern of pricing abuse spanning multiple years, and serious project completion failures that contrast sharply with the volume of positive professionalism mentions.

Apollo Plumbing presents a deeply split profile across its review history. Professionalism scores moderately well — the majority of reviews praise individual technicians as courteous, communicative, punctual, and thorough, with many customers specifically naming and commending techs like Geoff, Carlos, Ben, Henry, Sheldon, and others. However, this is significantly offset by a meaningful cluster of reviews citing no-shows, late arrivals without notice, and at least one instance of outright unprofessional conduct by a technician. Pricing is the company's most damaging dimension by far, with dozens of reviews explicitly describing charges as outrageous, deceptive, or predatory — including $800 to snake a drain, $1,400 for a minor pipe repair, $880 to install a faucet, and a $22,000 quote for a short waterline replacement — driving the pricing score to a very low 28. Project completion is mixed: many jobs are described as completed well and on time, but there are notable failures including abandoned work, incorrect installations causing follow-on damage, a flooded home due to technician error, and at least one case where the same problem recurred within a week. Experience scores moderately, as many technicians demonstrate genuine skill and problem-solving ability, but this is undermined by instances of misdiagnosis, incorrect installation, and refusal to perform requested diagnostic work.

• PRICING CONCERN — HIGH SEVERITY: Dozens of reviews across multiple years explicitly describe Apollo's pricing as predatory, deceptive, or grossly inflated. Specific examples include $1,400 for a minor yard pipe repair, $880 to install a kitchen faucet, $806 to snake a drain, $1,200 for a spigot replacement, and a $22,000 quote for under 30 feet of waterline. Multiple reviewers note prices are 2x–4x competitors.
• DECEPTIVE PRICING PRACTICES FLAGGED: Multiple reviews describe a pattern of low advertised fees ($83–$99) used to get technicians on-site, followed by dramatically higher quotes once there. One reviewer was explicitly told not to post on social media in exchange for a discount, which is a serious ethical red flag.
• PROJECT COMPLETION FAILURES: At least one review describes a catastrophic workmanship failure — flooding a home, damaging floors, breaking personal property, and potentially exposing asbestos — with the company initially refusing to cover remediation costs.
• NO-SHOW AND SCHEDULING FAILURES: Multiple reviews describe repeated no-shows, late arrivals without communication, and cancelled appointments, including one case where a job was rescheduled five times before a technician arrived hours late and still could not complete the work.
• RECENCY NOTE: Reviews span from 2013 to June 2025. The most recent reviews (2024–2025) are predominantly positive and focus on individual technicians, while the most severe negative reviews (pricing, workmanship failures) are concentrated in the 2020–2024 period. This may suggest some operational improvement, but pricing complaints persist into 2025.
• POSSIBLE REVIEW PATTERN: The cluster of 5-star reviews from June 2025 (many dated June 1, 2025) share similar structures — praising named technicians, emphasizing communication and professionalism — which warrants mild scrutiny, though the reviews do contain specific names and details that reduce the likelihood of fabrication.
• BLANK REVIEWS: At least 3 reviews contained no text (only a star rating of 5.0). These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data.
• VULNERABLE CUSTOMER EXPLOITATION: One review describes a technician pressuring an 83-year-old handicapped man on a fixed income to dig his own trench to reduce a quote, then charging $1,400 instead of the agreed $800. This is a serious ethical concern.

This WW Score is based on a large and diverse review set spanning over a decade and carries HIGH statistical confidence in its dimensions, but consumers should weight the pricing score heavily — it reflects a persistent, well-documented pattern of overcharging that appears across many independent reviewers and represents the single greatest risk when hiring this company.