Find Nearby Plumbers In Spokane, Washington

MZ Plumbing receives consistently strong feedback across all four scored dimensions from a small but fully usable set of five recent reviews. Professionalism is the most frequently cited strength, with every reviewer noting attributes such as promptness, courtesy, efficiency, and responsiveness — including same-day and emergency availability. Project completion is equally well-supported, with reviewers describing jobs that were seen through to full resolution, including a complex week-long whole-house replumb completed on schedule. Pricing is mentioned positively in three reviews, with one reviewer explicitly noting MZ Plumbing's price was significantly lower than competitors, and another describing the work as completed in an affordable manner. Experience is reflected in four reviews through references to technical skill, sound recommendations, and quality workmanship on diverse jobs ranging from irrigation leaks to water softener and reverse osmosis installations. The overall score is tempered by the small review sample size, which limits statistical confidence despite the uniformly positive content.

• All 5 reviews are 5-star ratings — while the review content is sufficiently specific and varied to reduce fake review suspicion, the absence of any critical feedback warrants mild caution.
• Review volume is low (5 reviews total). Scores and the WW Score should be treated as directionally reliable but not statistically robust.
• No reviews older than 12 months from the most recent review date (2024-09-14), which is a positive recency signal — all data reflects current performance.
• No patterns of identical or templated phrasing detected. Reviews reference distinct jobs, dates, and specific details, suggesting authentic authorship.

This WW Score is directionally trustworthy given the recency and specificity of the reviews, but should be treated with moderate caution due to the small sample size of only 5 reviews — additional reviews would significantly improve confidence.

Elk Septic demonstrates strong professionalism across all five reviews, with consistent mentions of punctuality, courtesy, efficiency, and responsiveness. Project completion is well-supported with references to timely service delivery and thorough work (pumping and inspection). Technical competence is evident through descriptions of honest, ethical work and customer satisfaction. Pricing data is minimal—only one review obliquely references cost pressures on the business, providing insufficient evidence to score pricing fairly. The overall WW Score of 88.3 reflects solid performance, though the small sample size (5 reviews) and lack of pricing transparency limit confidence.

• All five reviews are 5-star ratings with uniformly positive language; no negative feedback or critical details provided. This pattern warrants caution regarding potential selection bias or review curation.
• Review dates span 2019–2023, with three reviews older than 2 years. Only two reviews are from the past 12 months, limiting recency weight.
• Pricing dimension is severely under-represented (1 mention only). No explicit discussion of quotes, transparency, or value for money. Score is conservative and should not be relied upon.
• Small sample size (5 reviews) means overall WW Score carries inherent uncertainty despite high individual dimension confidence.

This WW Score should be treated with moderate caution. While professionalism and project completion are well-supported, the absence of any critical feedback, minimal pricing data, and small sample size suggest the score may not fully represent the contractor's true performance across all dimensions. Additional recent reviews would significantly strengthen confidence.

A River City Plumbing earns strong marks for professionalism and project completion, with dozens of reviews praising friendly, communicative technicians who arrive promptly, explain their work thoroughly, and follow through to completion. Experience scores are similarly high, with multiple reviewers highlighting skilled diagnostics, problem-solving in complex situations, and quality workmanship across a wide range of jobs. However, pricing is a meaningful drag on the overall score — a recurring pattern of complaints about unexpectedly high bills, lack of itemized invoices, undisclosed credit card surcharges, and quotes that changed mid-job suggests inconsistent pricing transparency. The single lowest-confidence dimension is pricing, yet it has enough mentions to carry full weight, and the negative signals there are credible and specific enough to warrant a significantly reduced score in that category.

• PRICING CONCERNS — RECURRING PATTERN: At least 7 reviews across multiple years explicitly describe surprise charges, no upfront estimates, refusal to provide itemized invoices, undisclosed credit card surcharges, and rates perceived as excessive. This is a consistent and credible pattern, not isolated incidents.
• POSSIBLE DUPLICATE REVIEW: The review dated 2017-07-12 appears to have been submitted twice — once with a timestamp and once without — using nearly identical language. One instance was excluded from scoring to avoid double-counting.
• BLANK REVIEW: One review dated 2017-07-05 contains only a period ('.') with a 5-star rating and no usable content. It was excluded from all dimension scoring.
• RECENCY IMBALANCE: The majority of reviews (approximately 40+) are dated 2025, with a heavy cluster in March–June 2025. Older reviews (2014–2021) show more mixed experiences including professionalism complaints. Recent reviews skew very positive, which may reflect genuine improvement or selection bias.
• POTENTIAL REVIEW CLUSTERING: A large number of 5-star reviews mention the same technician pairs (Jesse and Josh, Aaron and Mike) in very similar contexts and within tight date windows. While the language varies enough to avoid a fake review flag, the clustering pattern warrants mild caution.
• PROFESSIONALISM COMPLAINT ON RECORD: Two reviews (2019) describe a technician (Dan) snapping at employees in front of customers, and one review describes a plumber as unpleasant and malodorous. These are older but specific and credible complaints that modestly reduce the professionalism score.
• UNRESOLVED COMPLAINT: One reviewer (2020) alleges a technician removed and kept a faucet aerator without permission and never returned it despite promising to do so. Another reviewer (2024) states no one called back after expressing dissatisfaction. These suggest occasional follow-through failures at the customer service level.

This WW Score is based on a large and diverse review set spanning over a decade, giving it HIGH overall confidence, but the pricing dimension reveals a persistent and well-documented weakness that meaningfully lowers the composite score and should be a primary consideration for prospective customers.

Action Drain & Plumbing has a strong overall reputation built on fast response times, friendly technicians, and fair pricing, with dozens of reviewers explicitly praising these qualities across many years of reviews. However, a meaningful cluster of negative reviews — covering no-shows without notification, abandoned follow-up work, a technician leaving a leaking trap unfixed, and an office dismissing customer concerns — prevents the scores from reaching the high 80s or 90s. Professionalism is the most penalized dimension, as multiple reviews describe communication failures, missed appointments, and at least one technician behaving inappropriately with a customer. Project completion also carries a notable penalty due to several reviews where work was left incomplete or follow-through failed entirely. Pricing and experience score higher, as the majority of reviewers who mentioned these dimensions were satisfied, with several explicitly noting fair or below-expected costs and technically competent problem-solving.

• No fake review patterns detected — reviews contain specific technician names, job details, and a natural mix of positive and negative sentiment across many years.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews span 2012–2024. Reviews from 2012–2018 are older than 5 years and may not reflect current service quality. The most recent reviews (2023–2024) include both strong positives and at least one significant no-call/no-show complaint, suggesting communication issues persist.
• NEGATIVE PATTERN — NO-SHOW / NO-CALL: At least 3 separate reviews (2024-06-27, 2019-05-15, 2023-04-11) describe technicians or the company failing to show up, failing to call customers, or going silent after promising follow-up. This is a recurring operational issue, not an isolated incident.
• NEGATIVE PATTERN — INCOMPLETE WORK / POOR FOLLOW-THROUGH: The 2012 review describes a tech leaving a leaking trap after reassembly and the office refusing responsibility. The 2023-04-11 review describes the company ghosting a customer after causing an oil stain. The 2022-03-27 review (rated 5 stars despite describing a deeply problematic experience) describes shoddy workmanship, an unprepared technician, and an inappropriate comment about a child — the 5-star rating appears to reflect the company's recovery effort, not the original service quality.
• RATING INFLATION WARNING: The 2022-03-27 review was given 5 stars despite describing one of the worst individual technician experiences in the dataset. This inflates the aggregate star rating and should be treated with caution.
• OLDER NEGATIVE REVIEW (2016-03-01) alleges a shift toward aggressive upselling and loss of customer service over the prior 12 months at that time — worth noting as a potential historical pattern, though more recent reviews do not consistently confirm this trend.

This WW Score of 79.4 is based on a large, diverse, and multi-year review set with HIGH confidence across all four dimensions, making it a reasonably reliable representation of this contractor's performance — though prospective customers should be aware of a documented and recurring pattern of communication failures and incomplete follow-through that tempers what would otherwise be a higher score.

ABC Plumbing's strongest signal is pricing, where the overwhelming majority of reviewers who mentioned cost described rates as reasonable, fair, or significantly cheaper than competitors. Professionalism scores well across most reviews, with John described repeatedly as friendly, courteous, and responsive — however, one credible 1-star review describes a technician being rude, making inappropriate comments, and letting a customer's dogs out of the house, which meaningfully drags the score down. Project completion is the most penalized dimension: one detailed 1-star review from 2016 documents a clear case of abandoned work, a no-show on a committed return visit, and a two-month gap before requesting payment, which is a serious reliability failure. Experience scores solidly, with multiple reviewers citing effective problem-solving, use of proper tools, and technical knowledge, including one reviewer noting 14 years of experience and another praising a creative solution that avoided a full bathtub removal.

• One blank review (5-star, no text, dated 2020-06-10) was excluded from usable data as it provides no scorable information.
• Several reviews share the exact same date of 2023-06-10 and 2022-06-10 with generic phrasing and no specific job details — this may indicate date normalization artifacts, but the pattern warrants mild caution around those entries.
• The 1-star rude technician review (2023-06-10) refers to 'the older guy' rather than John by name, suggesting ABC may employ or have employed additional staff beyond John — scores may not reflect a single consistent technician.
• The detailed 1-star abandonment review (2016-10-14) is over 7 years old and predates the majority of positive reviews. It has been weighted conservatively but not excluded, as it documents a serious project completion failure.
• Recency note: The most recent review is from June 2024. The majority of reviews are from 2019–2023, with several older reviews from 2016–2018 given reduced weight per recency rules.
• No strong fake review pattern detected, though several reviews are brief and generic. The presence of two credible negative reviews with specific details increases overall authenticity confidence.

This WW Score is based on 26 reviews with usable data spanning 2016–2024, with HIGH confidence across all four dimensions due to sufficient mention counts; however, the score should be interpreted with awareness that two negative reviews — one documenting rudeness and one documenting abandoned work — represent real reliability risks that the volume of positive reviews should not fully obscure.

Shaw Trenchless demonstrates strong performance across all measured dimensions based on two highly positive reviews from 2023-2024. Customers explicitly praised their diagnostic expertise, technical knowledge, and complete project follow-through including inspection and finishing work. Pricing was noted as reasonable with transparent value (free scope inspection). However, the WW Score is based on only 2 usable reviews, which limits confidence in the overall assessment. One 1-star review was excluded as it reflects service scope limitation rather than performance quality.

• Only 2 usable reviews with substantive data — sample size is very small and limits statistical reliability
• Both positive reviews are from satisfied customers with detailed, specific praise (not generic), reducing fake review concerns
• One 1-star review (2024-01-22) reflects a service scope refusal rather than poor workmanship and was appropriately excluded from scoring
• All mentions are LIMITED confidence due to low review count (1-2 mentions per dimension)

This WW Score should be treated with caution due to the small sample size of only 2 usable reviews; while the quality of feedback is specific and credible, additional reviews are needed to establish a reliable performance baseline.