Find Nearby Plumbers In Seattle, Washington

GPS Plumbing (Mike) and Carter Plumbing (Luke) both receive overwhelmingly positive feedback across all four scored dimensions, with professionalism being the most frequently cited strength — reviewers consistently highlight punctuality, clear communication, friendly demeanor, and responsiveness including after-hours and emergency availability. Pricing is praised extensively, with multiple reviewers explicitly noting estimates came in significantly below competitors, no hidden charges, and in at least one case no charge at all when a job could not be completed. Project completion scores are very strong, with numerous accounts of jobs finished on time, callbacks honored without extra charge, and above-and-beyond follow-through such as hauling away old equipment and fixing unrelated issues at no cost. Experience and workmanship quality are well-documented across a wide range of complex jobs including full re-plumbing, well conversions, gas line work, and emergency pipe repairs, with reviewers frequently noting technical knowledge and problem-solving skill.

• All 70 reviews are 5-star ratings with zero negative or mixed reviews — this is statistically unusual and warrants mild caution, though the reviews do contain specific job details, named technicians, and varied scenarios that reduce the likelihood of mass fabrication.
• Reviews span two distinct contractors operating under different business names (GPS Plumbing / Mike, and Carter Plumbing / Luke) — these appear to be separate businesses whose reviews have been aggregated together. Scores reflect the combined pool and may not accurately represent either business individually.
• A significant portion of reviews are older than 12 months, with many dating back to 2018–2021 and a few as far back as 2012. Only approximately 7 reviews are from the past 12 months (mid-2024 to mid-2025), which limits recency confidence.
• The absence of any negative feedback across 70 reviews, even minor complaints, may suggest selective review collection or platform curation rather than a fully representative sample.
• One review (2020-09-16) describes a positive experience but explicitly states the reviewer did NOT end up hiring Luke due to a third-party contractor issue — this is a recommendation based on communication only, not completed work, and was treated with reduced weight for project completion scoring.

The WW Score of 89.4 is supported by a large volume of detailed, specific reviews with HIGH confidence across all four dimensions, but should be interpreted with moderate caution due to the all-5-star rating pattern, the mixing of two separate contractor businesses in one dataset, and the limited number of recent reviews from the past 12 months.

Aquarius Plumbing (Nate) receives overwhelmingly positive feedback across all four dimensions, with professionalism being the most consistently praised attribute — reviewers repeatedly highlight punctuality, clear communication, courtesy, and responsiveness across decades of reviews. Pricing scores well but is tempered slightly by two reviewers noting costs felt a little high, and one reviewer explicitly calling a $75 visit charge 'kinda ridiculous,' preventing a perfect score. Project completion is strong, with the vast majority of reviewers confirming jobs were finished correctly and on time, though one serious negative review describes Aquarius failing to return calls when a furnace broke down before Christmas — a significant reliability flag. Experience scores very highly, with numerous reviewers praising Nate's diagnostic skill, technical knowledge, creative problem-solving, and willingness to educate customers rather than upsell unnecessary work.

• ONE SERIOUS NEGATIVE REVIEW (2-star, Jan 2017): A customer reported that Aquarius installed their furnace but completely failed to return multiple calls when it broke down two days before Christmas, leaving the household without heat. The customer states they never heard back to this day. This is a significant project completion and professionalism failure that contrasts sharply with the otherwise positive record.
• ONE ADDITIONAL NEGATIVE REVIEW (2-star, Oct 2020): A customer complained that online quoting was advertised but a phone call was required to get a quote, resulting in the customer doing the work themselves. This suggests a responsiveness/communication gap for certain inquiry types.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews are older than 12 months relative to a current 2024/2025 date. Only 4 reviews are from 2022–2023. The most recent review is from June 2023. The bulk of the review base spans 2014–2021, meaning current service quality cannot be fully confirmed from recent data alone.
• ONE REVIEW (Mike/boiler, Nov 2022) references a different technician ('Mike') and appears to be for a different job type (boiler replacement). This may indicate the business has grown or uses subcontractors, which could introduce variability in service quality not fully captured by the Nate-centric reviews.
• NO FAKE REVIEW PATTERNS DETECTED: While many reviews share similar praise themes, they contain specific job details, unique personal anecdotes, varied writing styles, and span nearly a decade. This is consistent with genuine organic reviews rather than fabricated ones.

This WW Score is based on a large, detailed, and temporally diverse review set and carries HIGH overall confidence, but prospective customers should note that the most recent reviews are from 2022–2023 and that at least one serious unresolved complaint about emergency non-responsiveness exists in the record.

All Water Plumbing (Vlad and Julie) earns strong scores across all four dimensions, driven by an exceptionally large and detailed review base spanning 2016–2024. Professionalism is the standout dimension, with dozens of reviewers explicitly praising punctuality, communication, courtesy, and responsiveness — including after-hours availability. Pricing scores well, with many reviewers directly comparing AWP favorably against competitors and noting transparent, honest quotes, though two negative reviews (a doubled quote incident and a refusal to inspect under a house) introduce meaningful deductions. Project completion is also strong, with reviewers consistently noting jobs finished correctly, on time, and with follow-through — including cases where Vlad went beyond scope — but the 1-star review about a last-minute price doubling after a 2-month wait is a notable completion/trust failure. Experience scores are high, supported by detailed accounts of skilled workmanship, problem-solving, and technical knowledge across a wide variety of plumbing tasks.

• Two 1-star reviews present: one describes a last-minute price doubling after a 2-month wait (Jan 2021), and one describes a technician refusing to go under the house to assess a job before quoting (Sep 2018). Both are credible and specific, and have been factored into scoring.
• The vast majority of reviews are 5-star with highly positive language. While most contain specific details that suggest authenticity, the near-universal positivity warrants mild caution. No strong evidence of fake reviews detected — specificity, variety of jobs, and named individuals (Vlad, Julie) across many reviews support legitimacy.
• Review recency note: The most recent reviews are from 2024 and 2023, which is positive. However, a significant portion of the review base (roughly 40+ reviews) dates from 2016–2020, which is older than 12 months. The two negative reviews are from 2018 and 2021. No negative reviews appear in the 2022–2024 window, which is a positive recency signal.
• The 2021 price-doubling complaint (1-star) is particularly significant as it came from a repeat customer who had used AWP multiple times, lending it higher credibility. This was weighted accordingly in the pricing and professionalism scores.

This WW Score is based on 63 reviews with a strong mix of detail, specificity, and date range, and should be considered highly reliable — the two credible negative reviews have been factored in, and the score reflects a genuinely strong but not perfect service record.

Blake Plumbing earns strong scores across all four dimensions, driven by an exceptionally large and consistent body of reviews spanning over 15 years. Professionalism is the standout dimension, with dozens of reviewers explicitly praising punctuality, communication, courtesy, and responsiveness — including same-day and emergency availability. Pricing scores very well, with multiple reviewers noting that quotes were honored even when jobs ran longer than expected, that parts were not marked up, and that bids came in well below competitors. Project completion is also highly rated, with reviewers consistently reporting that jobs were finished correctly, callbacks were honored without additional charge, and follow-through was reliable. Experience scores are supported by specific mentions of smart problem-solving, technical explanations, and successful handling of complex or unusual installations. The one negative review (1-star, road rage incident involving a driver) does not relate to plumbing service quality and was treated as an outlier.

• 51 of 52 reviews are 5-star ratings. While the volume and span of reviews (2007–2024) reduce the likelihood of coordinated fake reviews, the near-perfect rating distribution warrants mild caution.
• Reviews span 17 years. Older reviews (pre-2019) were given reduced weight relative to more recent ones. The majority of reviews are older than 12 months from the most recent review date (2024-08-29), but the pattern of quality is consistent across time periods.
• One 1-star review (2019-02-01) describes aggressive driving behavior by a company vehicle driver and is unrelated to plumbing service quality. It was excluded from dimension scoring but noted here as a professionalism-adjacent flag.
• No fake review patterns detected. Reviews vary in length, detail, specificity, named staff members, and described scenarios. Language is not repetitive or templated. Multiple reviews reference specific staff by name (Aaron, Brian, John, Janelle), specific job types, and dollar amounts or timeframes, which supports authenticity.

This WW Score is highly reliable — it is based on 52 reviews with usable data across all four dimensions, spanning 17 years, with consistent quality signals, specific and varied reviewer language, and no credible indicators of review manipulation.

Pete's reviews paint a highly consistent picture of a reliable, professional, and skilled handyman across a wide range of tasks including electrical, plumbing, carpentry, and general repairs. Professionalism scores are driven by an overwhelming number of mentions of punctuality, responsiveness, friendly attitude, and clear communication across nearly all reviews. Project completion is a clear strength — reviewers repeatedly note jobs finished quickly, same-day or next-day service, and one reviewer explicitly praised Pete for completing work that a prior handyman abandoned. Pricing is rated positively by a large number of reviewers who describe his rates as reasonable, fair, and affordable, with one notable exception being a 4-star review citing $125 as steep for a 5-minute light switch replacement, which moderately tempers the pricing score. Experience scores are high, supported by numerous mentions of technical knowledge, problem-solving ability, and quality workmanship across diverse project types.

• The review volume is high (49 reviews) and the overwhelming majority are 5-star with very positive language, which warrants a mild fake-review awareness check. However, most reviews contain specific project details (e.g., Ring floodlight installation, rusted garbage disposal bolts, recessed LED conversions, laundry room cabinet work), which strongly suggests authenticity.
• Only one negative review exists (1-star, 2019-09-13) citing rude behavior when asked about Hawaii licensing laws. This is an isolated incident but worth noting as a professionalism flag.
• One 4-star review (2021-10-02) explicitly flagged pricing as high for a simple switch replacement — this is the only pricing concern across all reviews.
• RECENCY WARNING: The majority of reviews are older than 12 months relative to a 2025 evaluation date. The most recent review is from November 2022, and the bulk of reviews are from 2018–2019. Current performance cannot be confirmed from this dataset. Score reliability is reduced for present-day hiring decisions.
• Pete appears to operate across multiple geographic markets (Hawaii and California/Solano area mentioned), and one reviewer noted he may no longer service the Solano area. Service area consistency is unclear.

The WW Score of 89.4 is supported by a large volume of detailed, specific reviews and carries HIGH confidence in the data itself, but prospective customers should note that most reviews are 2–6 years old and current performance, availability, and pricing may differ significantly from what is reflected here.

Queen Plumbing receives consistently strong marks across all four dimensions, with professionalism being the most universally praised attribute — nearly every reviewer highlighted responsiveness, punctuality, clear communication, and courteous behavior. Pricing transparency and fairness were explicitly noted in multiple reviews, with several customers mentioning that Queen Plumbing came in lower than competing bids and avoided upselling. Project completion was well-documented, with reviewers describing jobs finished on time, callbacks honored, and work delivered at or within the original quoted price. Technical experience was also strongly evidenced, with reviewers citing the team's ability to diagnose problems efficiently, handle complex systems (hydronic heating, gas lines, older galvanized plumbing), and offer honest, practical solutions rather than unnecessary work. The overall picture is of a highly reliable, customer-focused plumbing operation with no meaningful negative signals across the review set.

• All 14 reviews are 5-star ratings with no negative or mixed feedback, which warrants mild scrutiny. However, the reviews contain specific job details, named technicians (Steve, Travis, Casey, Cody), varied scenarios, and distinct writing styles, which substantially reduces the likelihood of fabrication.
• One review (2022-06-18) is older than 12 months relative to the most recent reviews and describes only a phone consultation with no completed work — it was weighted minimally and primarily contributed to professionalism and experience dimensions.
• The review corpus is relatively small (14 reviews). Scores are directionally reliable but would benefit from a larger sample to fully confirm consistency.

This WW Score is moderately reliable given the small but highly specific and detail-rich review set; the absence of any negative feedback and the all-5-star pattern introduce a mild upward bias risk, but the specificity and variety of the reviews support genuine customer experiences.