Find Nearby Plumbers In Spokane, Washington

Division One demonstrates strong professionalism and technical expertise across multiple reviews, with staff consistently described as courteous, responsive, and knowledgeable. Project completion is reliable, with jobs finished promptly and passing inspections. However, pricing is a significant concern—one detailed 1-star review alleges a $419 quote for a $15.87 repair, claiming the company withheld simpler solutions until after the customer mentioned being a retired veteran. While other reviews praise fair pricing, this serious allegation substantially lowers the pricing dimension. Minor cleanliness and follow-up issues were noted in one review. The WW Score of 81.2 reflects strong execution but pricing transparency concerns that warrant caution.

• CRITICAL: One detailed 1-star review (07/25/23) alleges significant pricing manipulation and omission of simpler repair options. The reviewer claims a $419 quote was issued for work that required only a $15.87 part and 2 minutes of labor. The company's response does not fully address the core allegation. This is a serious red flag for pricing practices.
• Pricing dimension is heavily influenced by one extreme negative review; other reviews describe fair/good pricing, creating high variance in this dimension.
• One 4-star review (2022-10-18) notes minor follow-up issues: old parts left on ground, heat tape not wrapped, water hose not reconnected. These suggest inconsistent attention to job completion details.
• Most reviews are 2+ years old (2022-2023); only 2 reviews from 2024 and 2023. Recency is limited.
• Sample size is small (6 reviews); confidence in overall score is moderate, not high.

This WW Score should be treated with caution due to small sample size and a serious, detailed pricing allegation that contradicts other positive reviews; the pricing dimension is particularly unreliable and warrants independent verification before engaging the company for significant work.

Kalin Excavating demonstrates strong technical competency and reliable project completion, with multiple reviews praising skilled workmanship and timely delivery of complex sewer/excavation jobs. However, pricing presents a significant concern—while some customers report competitive rates, one detailed 2022 review alleges dramatically inflated quotes ($17k starting fee for repairs when comparable work costs $7-10k), creating substantial pricing inconsistency. Professionalism is mixed: crews are described as friendly and hardworking, but communication gaps (late notification of schedule changes, no advance neighbor notice, early arrival without courtesy call) detract from the experience. The company's oldest reviews (2019-2020) are more positive; the most critical pricing complaint is from 2022, suggesting possible recent deterioration in value proposition.

• PRICING VOLATILITY: Extreme discrepancy between customer reports—some praise 'competitive' and 'reasonable' pricing while another customer (2022) reports being quoted $17k for repairs when industry standard is $7-10k and competitor charged $549 for similar service. This suggests either inconsistent quoting practices or significant scope differences not explained in reviews.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most positive reviews are from 2019-2020 (3-4 years old). The most detailed negative review citing pricing abuse is from March 2022, more recent than most positive feedback. This temporal pattern warrants caution.
• COMMUNICATION GAPS: Multiple mentions of poor communication (no advance notice of schedule changes, no neighbor notification, unexpected early arrival). This is a systemic issue acknowledged by the reviewer as 'easy fixes' but not yet addressed.
• SMALL SAMPLE SIZE: Only 5 reviews analyzed. While sufficient to calculate a score, confidence remains moderate. Additional recent reviews would strengthen reliability.

This WW Score of 79.8 should be treated with MODERATE confidence due to small sample size (5 reviews), significant pricing inconsistency between customer experiences, and recency bias toward older positive reviews. The company demonstrates strong technical execution but faces credibility challenges on pricing transparency and communication. Prospective customers should obtain detailed written quotes and verify pricing against independent competitors before committing.

Neuman's Plumbing shows a generally positive track record across professionalism, project completion, and experience, with multiple reviewers praising punctuality, friendliness, and competent repair work. Ron is specifically called out as professional and courteous in multiple reviews, and jobs were consistently described as completed correctly and in a timely manner. However, one 1-star review from 2020 describes a notably poor customer service experience involving an emergency situation, where the team was inflexible and dismissive of the customer's constraints — this meaningfully pulls down the professionalism and project completion scores. Pricing was never mentioned in any review, so that dimension cannot be scored. The overall confidence is moderate given the small review pool of only 6 reviews spanning 2018 to 2023.

• Only 6 reviews total — small sample size limits reliability of all scores.
• Most reviews are older than 12 months; only one review (October 2023) falls within the past 12 months, so recency weighting is limited.
• One significant negative review (1-star, June 2020) describes dismissive and inflexible customer service during an emergency — this is a meaningful data point and was weighted accordingly.
• No pricing information was mentioned in any review — the pricing dimension cannot be scored and was excluded from WW Score calculation.
• No obvious fake review patterns detected; reviews vary in detail, tone, and rating, which supports authenticity.

This WW Score is based on a small set of 6 reviews spanning five years, with only one recent review, which limits confidence — treat this score as a directional indicator rather than a definitive assessment.

Sean consistently receives strong marks for professionalism — punctuality, communication, and attitude are praised across nearly every review, including a notable instance of returning the same day to resolve an emergency. Pricing is mentioned positively in three reviews, with customers describing costs as fair and competitive relative to the market. Project completion is the most nuanced dimension: while most jobs were resolved successfully, one 3-star review explicitly notes that the initial leak location was incorrect and the problem was ultimately resolved by replacing the water main rather than through detection — this meaningfully tempers the completion score. Experience scores moderately well given the technical nature of leak detection work and several successful diagnoses, but the one misidentification prevents a higher rating. Overall, the contractor presents as a reliable, customer-focused operator with a strong service ethic, though the small review pool and one notable completion shortfall limit full confidence.

• Small review pool of only 6 reviews — scores should be interpreted cautiously as a single additional negative review could significantly shift results.
• Four of the six reviews are older than 12 months, and three are more than 5 years old (2014, 2017, 2018). Only two reviews fall within the past 12–24 months. Recency weighting is a concern — the most current performance data is limited.
• No obvious fake review patterns detected — reviews vary in detail, tone, rating, and specificity. The one 3-star review adds credibility to the overall set.
• The 2017 3-star review raises a legitimate project completion concern: the leak was not correctly identified on the first visit, and the final resolution required replacing the water main rather than a targeted repair based on detection findings.

This WW Score carries moderate reliability due to a small and largely dated review set — prospective customers should seek more recent references before making a hiring decision.

Comfort Heating, Cooling, Electrical & Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism with consistent praise for punctuality, courtesy, and responsiveness across 31 reviews. However, pricing emerges as a significant weakness, with multiple customers reporting excessive charges ($1,800 vs. $800 for same repair, $900 for simple flue work) and unclear pricing structures. Project completion shows mixed results—while most jobs are completed, two detailed negative reviews describe incomplete work, poor installation quality, and unfinished electrical jobs. Technical experience is generally solid with knowledgeable technicians, though quality control issues are evident in installation defects. The company's score is dragged down by legitimate pricing and execution concerns despite strong interpersonal skills.

• SUSPICIOUS REVIEW PATTERN: 18 reviews contain no text or minimal text (blank or 1-3 words) all rated 5.0 between April-June 2025. This represents 27% of total reviews and suggests potential fake/incentivized reviews.
• REPETITIVE PRAISE: Multiple reviews mention technician 'JJ' by name with generic 5-star praise lacking specifics (e.g., 'JJ is the man', 'JJ is top notch'). Pattern suggests possible review manipulation.
• CONFLICTING EVIDENCE ON PRICING: Strong negative reviews cite egregious overcharging ($1,800 vs. $1,000 competitor quote, $900 for simple repair), contradicting positive reviews praising 'fair' and 'reasonable' pricing. This inconsistency suggests either inconsistent pricing practices or service quality variance.
• QUALITY CONTROL ISSUES: One detailed 1-star review (2023-10-09) describes multiple installation failures: incorrect measurements, poor line set installation, burned unit during soldering, incomplete electrical work. Another 1-star review (2023-04-27) alleges excessive overcharging for simple repair.
• RECENCY BIAS: 48 of 67 reviews (72%) are from May-June 2025, with many being blank or minimal-text 5-stars. Only 4 reviews predate 2023. Heavy concentration of recent reviews with suspicious patterns reduces reliability.
• COMMUNICATION INCONSISTENCY: First review explicitly documents poor communication (wrong service type sent, unclear pricing changes mid-visit), contradicting majority claims of excellent communication.

This score should be treated with CAUTION. While the company demonstrates genuine strengths in professionalism and technician courtesy, approximately 27% of reviews appear fabricated or incentivized (blank/minimal 5-star reviews), and legitimate negative reviews document serious pricing overcharges and installation quality failures. The pricing dimension is particularly unreliable due to only 6 mentions with conflicting evidence. A score of 78.2 likely overstates true performance; actual reliability is probably 5-10 points lower when accounting for fake reviews and documented execution failures.

Arrow Plumbing receives consistently positive feedback on professionalism, with multiple reviewers praising Troy and Scott for being thorough, honest, kind, and communicative. Project completion scores well overall — the hot water tank installation and orangeberg pipe repair were described as fully resolved and done to code — but one reviewer explicitly noted that the plumber could only complete half an hour of work before referring them elsewhere, which meaningfully drags this dimension down. Experience is rated positively across most reviews, with specific mentions of technical knowledge, code compliance, and problem-solving on older and complex plumbing systems. Pricing is the most mixed dimension: two reviewers called pricing reasonable or fair, while one reviewer expressed clear dissatisfaction at being charged $236.63 for minimal work that required a second company, introducing a notable negative signal that tempers the otherwise positive pricing picture.

• Three of the five reviews are from 2019–2021, making them 3–5 years old at time of analysis. Only one review is from the past 12 months (July 2024). Recency of the review base is limited and the score may not reflect current service quality.
• The review pool is very small (5 reviews total). Scores should be treated as directional only and not statistically robust.
• No strong fake review patterns detected. Reviews vary in tone, detail level, and rating, which is a positive authenticity signal.

This WW Score carries moderate reliability due to the small review pool of only 5 reviews spanning multiple years, with just one review from the past 12 months — consumers should seek additional recent reviews before making a hiring decision.