Find Nearby Plumbers In Spokane, Washington

Acme Plumbing has a strong base of positive reviews praising responsiveness, professionalism, and technical competence across a large number of technicians including Anthony, Norval, Alejandro, Clay, and others. However, a meaningful minority of negative reviews — roughly 20-25 across the full dataset — raise serious concerns across all four dimensions: the owner (Ed) is repeatedly cited for rude behavior, threatening customers with lawsuits over billing disputes, and hanging up on clients; pricing transparency is a recurring problem with multiple reviewers describing hidden fees, undisclosed per-plumber hourly charges, and feeling overcharged; and project completion failures include abandoned jobs, missed callbacks, work left unfinished, and at least one instance of work done without required permits. The technician-level work is generally rated well, but owner/management conduct meaningfully drags down professionalism and pricing scores. Recency of reviews (2024-2025) shows continued strong positive feedback but also continued negative incidents, suggesting these issues are not fully resolved.

• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The 'Super Bowl Sunday' review featuring Norval Cunningham appears verbatim twice — once dated 2024-02-12 and once dated 2024-06-09. This is a likely duplicate submission and was counted only once for scoring purposes.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The billing dispute review describing charges of $678 vs. agreed $372 and threats of lawsuit appears nearly verbatim twice — once dated 2021-06-10 and once dated 2020-09-16. Counted only once for scoring.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK — MODERATE: A cluster of reviews dated exactly 2024-06-09 (approximately 20+ reviews) share the same date with no timestamps, many are very short and generic ('Professional service', 'Great friendly and fast service', 'Outstanding work'), and several are blank 5-star submissions. This pattern is consistent with a bulk review import or solicitation campaign. Confidence in this cluster is reduced.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Approximately 15-18 reviews contain no text and only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data.
• OWNER CONDUCT — RECURRING NEGATIVE PATTERN: Multiple independent reviews across different years (2011, 2014, 2017, 2020, 2021, 2024, 2025) describe the owner (Ed) as rude, threatening legal action over billing disputes, hanging up on customers, and failing to honor service commitments. This is a persistent and credible pattern.
• PRICING TRANSPARENCY — RECURRING NEGATIVE PATTERN: At least 5 independent reviews describe undisclosed fees, surprise charges, or feeling significantly overcharged. One reviewer documented a $303 estimate that became $344.74 with an undisclosed service fee added. Another described being charged $678 when $372 was agreed. This materially reduces the pricing score.
• PROJECT COMPLETION — NEGATIVE INCIDENTS: At least 3 reviews describe work left unfinished, missed follow-up appointments with no notice, or jobs requiring a second plumber to correct Acme's work. One review describes work done without required permits.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews with substantive detail are from 2019-2025, which were weighted more heavily. Reviews from 2004-2013 were included but given reduced weight due to age and potential changes in company ownership or staffing over time.
• GEOGRAPHIC INCONSISTENCY: Some reviews reference Monterey/Salinas, CA locations while others reference Durham, NC. This may represent two different Acme Plumbing franchises or locations. Scores reflect the combined dataset as provided, but users should be aware the reviews may not all pertain to a single business entity.

This WW Score is based on a large review set (155 total, ~130 with usable data) spanning nearly two decades, giving it HIGH statistical confidence in direction, but the score should be interpreted cautiously due to: a cluster of same-day generic reviews suggesting possible solicitation, confirmed duplicate reviews, persistent owner-conduct complaints across many years, and possible geographic mixing of two different business locations.

Mr. Rooter scores well on professionalism, with the vast majority of reviewers praising technicians as friendly, punctual, courteous, and communicative — Andre, Rob, Mark, and others are repeatedly cited by name for excellent interpersonal conduct. Project completion is generally strong, with most jobs described as finished promptly and thoroughly, though a handful of serious complaints involve incomplete diagnosis, abandoned work, or a no-call no-show that meaningfully drag the score down. Technical experience is broadly positive, with many reviewers noting knowledgeable, skilled technicians who explained issues clearly and solved difficult problems; however, a few reviews describe technicians who failed basic diagnostic tasks, undermining confidence. Pricing is the weakest dimension by a significant margin — while some reviewers describe fair or reasonable pricing, a substantial number of negative reviews (spanning multiple years) explicitly call out prices as outrageously high, with specific dollar amounts cited as far above market rate, and at least two reviews allege deceptive or predatory quoting practices.

• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The review praising Andre dated 2025-06-06 and 2025-06-03 are word-for-word identical. This is a strong indicator of a fake or artificially duplicated review. One instance was excluded from scoring.
• FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: A large cluster of reviews dated exactly 2025-05-07, 2025-04-07, 2024-06-06, 2024-12-08, 2024-11-08, and 2024-10-09 share suspiciously identical date stamps across many reviews, suggesting possible batch submission of reviews rather than organic posting.
• RECENCY BIAS RISK: The majority of reviews are from 2024-2025 and are overwhelmingly 5-star. Older reviews (2011-2019) contain a higher proportion of 1-2 star reviews, particularly around pricing and project completion. This temporal skew may inflate the overall impression of recent performance.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS ARE SERIOUS AND SPECIFIC: Multiple reviewers across different years cite specific dollar amounts they believe were grossly inflated (e.g., $403 for 35 minutes of work, $638 to snake a line vs. $79 elsewhere, $1850 for a water heater, $6,000 quote for a $75 cleanout). These are not vague complaints and significantly reduce the pricing score.
• PROJECT COMPLETION CONCERNS: At least two reviews describe technicians who failed to complete or correctly diagnose the job, left ceiling damage, or returned with a dramatically higher quote than originally agreed upon. One review describes a no-call no-show. These are weighted against the otherwise strong completion record.
• SEVERAL BLANK REVIEWS (rating only, no text) were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data, though they are counted in total reviews analyzed.
• OLDER NEGATIVE REVIEWS (2012-2013) include allegations of predatory upselling and post-job property damage with management refusing to respond — these are serious but are given reduced weight due to age.

This WW Score is based on a large review set (155 reviews) with HIGH mention counts across all four dimensions, making the score statistically meaningful; however, confidence is tempered by the presence of a confirmed duplicate review, suspicious batch-posting patterns, a stark contrast between overwhelmingly positive recent reviews and a notable cluster of serious negative reviews on pricing and ethics, and the possibility that the review pool has been partially manipulated.

Epic Electric demonstrates strong professionalism and technical expertise, with most recent reviews (2024-2025) praising punctuality, courtesy, and knowledgeable staff. However, the company is significantly hampered by persistent pricing concerns—multiple reviews document overcharging, hidden fees, inflated quotes, and aggressive upselling tactics. Project completion is generally solid, though some callbacks and follow-through issues are documented. The stark contrast between positive recent reviews and critical older reviews regarding pricing practices suggests either systemic issues or inconsistent service quality across technicians.

• PRICING RED FLAG: Multiple independent reviews (2024, 2022, 2019, 2018) document overcharging, hidden fees, inflated diagnostic charges ($451.62 for diagnosis when competitor charged $89), and aggressive upselling. One customer paid $6,600 quote vs. competitor's $2,200 for same repair. Pattern suggests systemic pricing issue, not isolated incidents.
• CUSTOMER SERVICE INCONSISTENCY: Stark divide between field technician professionalism (consistently praised) and office/management responsiveness (multiple complaints about poor communication, unresponsive owner, staff rudeness, and failure to follow through on promised callbacks).
• QUALITY CONTROL CONCERNS: Multiple reviews document substandard workmanship (flexible ducting instead of hard-line, improper heat tape installation, incomplete cleanup, poor electrical connections). One review detailed dangerous electrical hazard (melted wires, charred insulation) left by previous work.
• RECENCY BIAS NOTED: Most recent reviews (2024-2025) are overwhelmingly positive (5-star), while older reviews (2018-2022) contain more critical feedback on pricing and service. Recent positive reviews lack specificity compared to detailed negative reviews, though this may reflect genuine improvement.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: Several 5-star reviews with no text content (blank reviews rated 5.0) appear in dataset. Additionally, some recent reviews use similar phrasing ('great to work with,' 'highly recommend,' 'professional') but this is common in contractor reviews and not conclusive.
• MANAGEMENT ACCOUNTABILITY: Multiple reviews document owner/management dismissiveness, refusal to address complaints, hanging up on customers, and lack of accountability for errors. One customer reported owner stopped answering calls after initial complaint.

This WW Score of 72.8 should be treated with caution: while recent reviews show strong professionalism and technical skill (HIGH confidence), the pricing dimension is severely compromised by consistent, well-documented overcharging patterns across multiple years and customers. The company excels at field execution but fails at pricing transparency and management accountability. Customers should obtain multiple quotes and carefully review all line items before engaging Epic, particularly for diagnostic work and major projects.

Thomas Brothers Plumbing shows strong professionalism with consistent mentions of politeness, punctuality, and respectful behavior (shoe covers, cleanliness). However, significant concerns emerge around project completion reliability—multiple reviews cite incomplete repairs, multiple trips needed, and follow-through failures. Pricing feedback is mixed, with complaints about excessive charges and overestimation alongside praise for fair pricing. Technical experience is generally solid when work is completed, but execution inconsistency undermines confidence. The company demonstrates a stark performance divide: recent reviews (2024-2025) are predominantly 5-star with specific positive details, while older reviews (2016-2021) contain serious complaints about professionalism, responsiveness, and work quality. This temporal pattern suggests either significant operational improvement or potential review authenticity concerns.

• TEMPORAL ANOMALY: Reviews from 2024-2025 are overwhelmingly 5-star with specific, detailed praise. Reviews from 2016-2021 contain numerous 1-star ratings with serious complaints about professionalism, incomplete work, and rudeness. This stark divergence warrants caution—either the company underwent major restructuring, or recent reviews may not be fully representative of typical customer experience.
• AMERICAN HOME SHIELD PATTERN: Multiple negative reviews (2016-2021) specifically mention American Home Shield warranty work, with complaints about poor communication, no-shows, and lack of callbacks. Recent reviews rarely mention AHS. This suggests either the company stopped accepting AHS work or there was a significant service model change.
• JUSTIN (MANAGER) POLARIZATION: Multiple reviews explicitly praise or criticize 'Justin' in the office. Negative reviews cite him as rude and abrupt; positive reviews praise his responsiveness. This inconsistency suggests either significant behavioral change or selective review patterns.
• INCOMPLETE WORK DOCUMENTED: Several reviews explicitly state repairs were not fully completed on first visit, requiring multiple callbacks (water heater took 5 trips; leak still present after initial repair). This directly contradicts the recent 5-star pattern.
• GENERIC PRAISE IN RECENT REVIEWS: Several 2024-2025 reviews use nearly identical phrasing ('above and beyond,' 'great company,' 'highly recommend') with minimal specific detail, which may indicate review authenticity concerns.
• EMPTY REVIEWS: Two reviews (2022-06-10 and 2021-06-10) contain only 5-star ratings with no text, reducing data quality.

This WW Score of 72.8 should be treated with CAUTION. While recent reviews (past 12 months) are consistently positive and support a higher score, historical reviews (2016-2021) document serious professionalism and completion failures. The dramatic shift in review sentiment over time suggests either genuine operational improvement or potential review bias in recent submissions. Customers should request references from work completed in the past 6 months and clarify policies on incomplete work and callbacks before committing to major projects.

Shaw Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism and technical expertise, with consistent praise for punctuality, communication, and skilled workmanship across 28 and 20 mentions respectively. However, pricing is a critical weakness, with 18 reviews explicitly citing excessive charges, price gouging, and costs significantly above market rates—often 2-3x competitor pricing. Project completion shows moderate reliability (75 score) with some concerns about follow-through, warranty disputes, and scheduling delays. The company excels at individual job quality and customer service demeanor but struggles with fair value proposition, which significantly depresses the overall WW Score despite strong technical performance.

• PRICING PATTERN: Systematic complaints about excessive charges across multiple review dates (2018-2024). Multiple reviewers cite specific examples: $400/hour labor rates, $850 for 40-minute faucet/cartridge job, $3100+ water heater installations, $450 for wax ring installation. This is not isolated—18 reviews mention pricing concerns, suggesting structural pricing model issue rather than individual incidents.
• INCONSISTENT SERVICE QUALITY: Wide variance in outcomes. Some reviews praise specific technicians (Ryan, Tim, Sam, Cory) as excellent, while others report poor follow-through, incomplete work, and defensive responses when questioned. Suggests quality depends heavily on which technician is assigned.
• WARRANTY/FOLLOW-UP CONCERNS: Multiple reviews report issues with warranty claims, defensive attitudes when work fails, and reluctance to honor commitments (e.g., review from 2023-03-29 regarding warranty conditions and pressure tactics; review from 2022-05-18 about refusal to stand by work).
• RECENCY BIAS: Most negative pricing reviews are from 2021-2023. Recent 2024 reviews are predominantly positive, but sample size is smaller (4 reviews in 2024 vs. 46 total). This may reflect recent business changes or selection bias in recent reviewers.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW CONCERN: One 2019 review explicitly questions legitimacy of two 1-star reviews, claiming reviewers are from New York and San Francisco (geographically implausible for local Spokane business). This suggests some reviews may be fraudulent, though the pricing complaints appear genuine and corroborated across many independent reviewers with specific details.
• COMMUNICATION GAPS: Several reviews cite poor communication (3-week quote delay, 7 unreturned calls to manager, office indifference to scheduling urgency). This contradicts the high professionalism score but reflects real customer frustration.

This WW Score of 72.8 is reliable and should be trusted, supported by 50 reviews with HIGH confidence across all dimensions. However, the score masks a critical business model issue: Shaw Plumbing delivers quality work and professional service but at prices that consistently exceed market rates by 100-300%, which drives customer dissatisfaction despite technical competence. Customers should expect excellent workmanship and punctuality but should obtain multiple quotes and be prepared for significantly higher costs than competitors.

Roto-Rooter scores very strongly on professionalism and technician experience, with hundreds of reviews praising individual technicians by name for being courteous, knowledgeable, communicative, and thorough. Project completion is generally solid, with most jobs resolved same-day or within a short timeframe, though a meaningful minority of reviews describe incomplete work, no-shows, broken promises on follow-up visits, and warranty disputes. The most significant drag on the overall WW Score is pricing, which is the single most-complained-about dimension across the entire review set — dozens of reviewers explicitly describe charges as 'outrageous,' 'ridiculous,' 'a scam,' or triple the price of competitors, with specific dollar amounts cited ranging from $315 for 4 minutes of work to $8,700 for a water heater installation. Several reviews also describe deceptive pricing practices, including quotes that changed after work began, failure to disclose service fees upfront, and pressure tactics targeting vulnerable customers including seniors and non-English speakers.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: A significant number of reviews appear to be exact or near-exact duplicates posted on different dates (e.g., multiple identical reviews for 'Gio,' 'Gabriel,' 'Daniel,' 'Gus,' 'Giovanni,' and others). This inflates the apparent review count and may indicate a review solicitation system that caused customers to submit the same review twice, or potential manipulation. Confidence in raw review count is reduced.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Approximately 150-200 reviews contain no text and only a star rating (almost all 5-star). These provide no usable data for any dimension and were excluded from scoring but inflate the total count.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS ARE SEVERE AND SPECIFIC: Negative pricing reviews are not vague — they cite specific dollar amounts, compare to competitor prices, and describe practices such as quoting after work begins, refusing to honor coupons, and charging elderly or non-English-speaking customers without disclosure. This is a systemic pattern, not isolated incidents.
• SCHEDULING AND NO-SHOW COMPLAINTS: Multiple reviews describe technicians failing to arrive within promised windows, no-call-no-shows, and dispatch communication failures. This is a recurring pattern affecting the project completion score.
• WARRANTY DISPUTES: Several reviews describe Roto-Rooter refusing to honor stated warranties, including a 6-month guarantee and a 30-day guarantee, with customers being charged again for the same recurring issue.
• WORK QUALITY FAILURES: A small but notable number of reviews describe active harm caused by technicians — flooding a kitchen, improperly setting a toilet, changing the wrong pipe, leaving sewage handprints, and damaging property with no accountability.
• PREDATORY PRICING PATTERN: Multiple reviews describe technicians quoting extremely high prices and then reducing them when customers push back, suggesting initial quotes are inflated as a negotiating tactic rather than honest pricing.
• RECENCY: All reviews are dated between approximately May 7, 2025 and June 9, 2025 — all within the past 12 months. Recency weighting is fully applied.

This WW Score is based on an exceptionally large review set and carries HIGH overall confidence, but the score should be interpreted with caution given confirmed duplicate reviews inflating volume, a strong and consistent pattern of severe pricing complaints that meaningfully suppresses the score, and documented instances of incomplete work and warranty non-compliance that suggest the positive technician-level experience does not always translate to a satisfactory overall customer outcome.