Find Nearby Plumbers In Tacoma, Washington

The Right Man Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism with responsive communication and courteous service across multiple reviews. However, critical failures in project completion and serious compliance issues significantly impact the overall score. Two 1-star reviews document incomplete work (bathtub leak made worse) and unlicensed/unpermitted septic work that violated county code, creating substantial liability concerns. Pricing is generally fair but inconsistent execution undermines value. The company excels at responsiveness and friendliness but fails on technical execution and regulatory compliance.

• CRITICAL: 2015 review alleges no state business license or permits on file in Washington state for a $7K septic replacement that failed code inspection. This is a serious regulatory/legal red flag requiring verification.
• CRITICAL: 2018 review documents failed bathtub leak repair—work made the problem worse. Customer paid nothing because job was not completed.
• PATTERN CONCERN: 7 of 9 reviews are 5-star with generic praise ('look no further', 'top shelf professional', 'highly recommend'). Language is repetitive and lacks specific technical detail. This may indicate fake or incentivized reviews, though 2 negative reviews provide counterbalance.
• RECENCY ISSUE: Most reviews are 3+ years old (2015-2020). Only 1 review from 2023. Limited recent data to assess current performance.
• INCONSISTENCY: Stark contrast between glowing testimonials and two serious failure cases suggests either inconsistent quality or selective review posting.

This score should be treated with caution. While professionalism ratings are supported by multiple mentions, the two documented failures (incomplete work and unlicensed/non-compliant septic installation) represent material risks that outweigh positive reviews. The alleged lack of state licensing is a critical concern that should be independently verified before hiring. Recent review data is insufficient.

Express Service Plumbing demonstrates solid technical competence and generally completes work as promised, with multiple reviews praising problem-solving ability and timely job completion. However, pricing practices are inconsistent and problematic: one customer experienced a significant discrepancy between quoted ($250) and invoiced ($300) amounts with undisclosed add-ons, while another appreciated transparent pricing and honesty. Professionalism is mixed—most reviews highlight courteous, friendly technicians and responsive communication, but the first review reveals poor quoting practices and lack of transparency that undermines trust. The company's willingness to offer discounts and acknowledge mistakes is noted, but the pattern suggests pricing integrity issues that warrant caution.

• PRICING INTEGRITY CONCERN: Review 1 (2019) documents explicit quote-to-invoice discrepancy ($250 quoted vs ~$300 invoiced) with undisclosed 'VIP Membership' fee added after initial quote. This is a red flag for deceptive pricing practices.
• INCONSISTENT PRICING NARRATIVE: Review 5 (2011) praises honesty and mentions VIP customer service plan, but Review 1 (2019) shows the same VIP plan being added without customer consent—suggests this may be a recurring problematic practice.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most positive reviews are 6+ years old (2011, 2016, 2017, 2018). The most recent review (2019) is highly negative and documents dishonest quoting. This temporal pattern suggests potential service quality decline.
• LIMITED SAMPLE SIZE: Only 5 reviews analyzed; confidence in overall score is constrained by small dataset.

This WW Score should be treated with caution due to small sample size (5 reviews) and significant recency concerns—the most recent review documents serious pricing dishonesty that contradicts older positive reviews, suggesting the company's practices may have deteriorated or become inconsistent over time.

DB Plumbing has a long review history with generally positive feedback on professionalism, communication, and technical knowledge, particularly from older reviews praising Mr. Boner and Dan by name. Pricing is largely viewed as fair or reasonable across multiple reviews, with one reviewer noting they were charged only for one hour despite a two-hour visit. However, a significant 2023 complaint drags down the project completion dimension considerably — a customer reported that cast iron drain lines were not fully replaced, causing a subsequent backup and leak, and was then quoted an additional $3,000 to finish the job. This is a serious project completion failure and is the most recent review in the dataset. The bulk of positive reviews are from 2008–2021, meaning the recency picture is mixed and the 2023 negative review carries elevated weight as the most current data point.

• RECENCY CONCERN: The majority of reviews are more than 2 years old, with several dating back to 2003–2009. The most recent review (2023) is a 1-star complaint about incomplete work and an upsell attempt. This recency imbalance means current service quality is difficult to assess confidently.
• THIN RECENT DATA: Only one review exists from the past 12 months (2023), and it is strongly negative. This single data point cannot be treated as representative but cannot be ignored given its recency.
• GENERIC PRAISE FLAGS: Two reviews ('He did really good. He was really good.' and 'I HIGHLY RECOMMEND HIM.') contain no specific detail and contribute minimal usable signal. These were excluded from the usable data count for scoring purposes.
• PUNCTUALITY INCONSISTENCY: One reviewer (2017) noted two no-show incidents before improvement, which tempers the otherwise positive punctuality feedback seen in other reviews.
• NO PATTERN OF FAKE REVIEWS DETECTED: Reviews span 20 years, vary in tone, length, and detail, and include both positive and negative experiences. No coordinated fake review pattern identified.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability — the volume of reviews is low, most data is significantly dated, and the only recent review is a serious negative outlier that cannot be offset by older positive feedback.

Fairwood Plumbing shows strong technical competence and generally good customer service, with multiple reviews praising prompt response, friendly demeanor, and fair pricing. However, a severe 1-star review from 2008 describing abusive behavior, denial of responsibility for a recurring leak, and refusal to honor callbacks significantly impacts the overall score. The company demonstrates solid professionalism in most interactions but the documented failure to stand behind work and hostile customer interaction raises serious concerns about reliability and accountability. Recent reviews (2017-2020) are more positive, suggesting possible improvement, but the pattern of at least two critical failures cannot be ignored.

• CRITICAL: One review (2008-12-10) describes abusive and profane behavior, denial of responsibility for failed work, and refusal to perform callbacks—this is a major red flag for customer service integrity.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most positive reviews are 5+ years old (2013-2020). Only one recent positive review from 2020. The 2008 negative review is very old but documents serious behavioral issues.
• INCONSISTENT QUALITY: Wide variance between 5-star reviews praising the company and 1-star reviews describing hostile behavior and failed work, suggesting inconsistent service delivery or possible personnel changes.
• CALLBACK FAILURE: At least one documented instance of refusing to honor a callback and denying responsibility for a recurring leak within months of initial work.

This score should be treated with caution due to conflicting evidence: while recent reviews are positive and suggest competent work, a documented instance of abusive behavior, failed warranty work, and refusal to honor callbacks raises serious questions about the company's accountability and customer service standards that cannot be fully mitigated by newer positive reviews.

All Degrees Plumbing has a strong base of positive reviews praising professionalism, punctuality, courteous technicians (particularly Tom, Patrick, Ken, and Mike), and transparent, fair pricing. However, several serious negative reviews — including a no-show with no callback, a misdiagnosed repair that was never fixed, and a job that only partially resolved the issue — meaningfully drag down the project completion and experience scores. The negative reviews are older (2014–2016) but are substantive and credible, describing specific failures in diagnosis and follow-through. Recency weighting favors the more recent positive reviews (2021–2025), but the volume of older reviews with no usable text limits overall confidence. The score reflects a contractor with genuine strengths but a documented history of reliability and diagnostic failures that cannot be ignored.

• 18 reviews contain no usable text ('unknown', '.', or blank) and were excluded from dimension scoring. These reviews all carry 4–5 star ratings and contribute to an inflated average star rating without providing verifiable evidence.
• Two reviews (dated 2021-06-10 and 2020-06-26) appear to be near-identical duplicates of the same detailed review about washer/dryer hookup installation. One may be a duplicate submission. Scored only once for dimension purposes.
• Multiple reviews from 2015 and earlier use the placeholder text 'unknown' — these are likely imported or auto-generated entries with no real customer content. They were excluded from all dimension scoring.
• The majority of reviews with usable content are from 2013–2017, making them 8–12 years old. Only 3 reviews with substantive content are from the past 3 years (2022–2025), which significantly limits confidence in current service quality.
• Three credible negative reviews (1–2 star ratings) describe specific failures: a no-show with no contact, a misdiagnosis that cost over $200 without fixing the problem, and an incomplete toilet repair. These are not offset by volume alone and are weighted seriously in project completion and experience scores.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability: while dimension mention counts are high enough to generate confident scores, the majority of substantive reviews are over 7 years old, 18 reviews contained no usable text, and at least 3 credible negative reviews document serious service failures that temper the otherwise positive picture.

NW Plumbing Connection has a strong base of positive reviews praising skilled diagnostics, fair pricing, and friendly technicians — particularly Steve, Tim, Rueben, and Dan. However, professionalism and project completion scores are meaningfully dragged down by a recurring pattern of missed appointments, unreturned calls, and at least one instance of subpar workmanship with an off-angle valve installation. Pricing is a genuine strength, with multiple reviewers explicitly noting costs well below competitor quotes. The experience dimension reflects solid technical problem-solving in complex situations, though one review noted a rushed, incomplete job. The presence of 10 blank reviews (no text, only ratings) limits the usable data pool and introduces noise into the overall picture.

• 10 out of 30 reviews contain no text whatsoever — only a star rating. These reviews provide zero usable data and cannot be scored on any dimension. They have been excluded from dimension scoring.
• Two reviews dated 2024-08-07 and 2024-08-13 are nearly identical in content, describing the same Tim/clogged drain/crawl space scenario with almost word-for-word phrasing. This strongly suggests a duplicate submission or a potentially manipulated review. Only one instance was counted per dimension.
• Several 1-star reviews (2019–2021) contain no text, making it impossible to determine the reason for dissatisfaction. These blank negative reviews are a concern and may reflect real unresolved complaints.
• Most of the detailed negative reviews (missed appointments, no callbacks, subpar work) cluster between 2018–2021, while recent reviews (2023–2025) are more positive. This may indicate genuine improvement, but the recency sample size is small (4 detailed reviews in the past 2 years).
• The overall review set spans 2015–2025, meaning many positive reviews are 5+ years old and carry reduced weight under recency rules.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability — the scored dimensions are each supported by multiple mentions, but 10 blank reviews, one suspected duplicate, and a mixed history of professionalism complaints temper confidence in the final figure.