Find Nearby Plumbers In Fort Smith, Arkansas

Tri-State Plumbing shows mixed performance across all dimensions. Positive reviews highlight fast response times, professional service, and fair pricing, but two significant negative reviews from 2013 and 2021 describe incomplete work, poor technical execution (heating miscalculations, defective water heater repair), and aggressive collection practices. The 2023 review is incomplete and provides no usable data. The contractor demonstrates capability in routine plumbing tasks but has documented failures in complex projects and poor follow-through on problem resolution.

• RECENCY CONCERN: Most reviews are 5+ years old (2013, 2019, 2021). Only one recent review from 2023, which is incomplete and provides no rating basis.
• SERIOUS UNRESOLVED ISSUES: 2013 review documents heating design failures, defective water heater repair, and threatening collection letter—suggesting systemic quality and customer service problems.
• INCOMPLETE WORK PATTERN: 2021 review explicitly states plumbing problem was not addressed despite payment; 2013 review shows refusal to return and fix defective work.
• CONFLICTING EVIDENCE: Positive reviews praise professionalism and fairness, but negative reviews describe poor technical work and aggressive behavior, suggesting inconsistent service quality or potential selection bias in positive reviews.

This score should be treated with caution due to limited recent data, serious unresolved complaints involving incomplete work and poor follow-through, and a significant time gap between reviews that makes current performance assessment difficult.

This company shows strong technical expertise and professionalism when work is completed, with reviewers praising diagnostic skill and courteous behavior. However, the WW Score is significantly dragged down by severe project completion failures: one review documents two missed appointments, broken promises for callbacks, and a 3-week delay that forced the customer to hire a competitor. Pricing appears fair when services are delivered, but the small sample size and recency bias (two reviews from 2021-2022 vs. one recent negative from 2024) create uncertainty. The recent 1-star review raises concerns about consistency and reliability.

• RECENCY CONCERN: Two of three reviews are from 2021-2022; only one recent review (October 2024) which is highly negative. This suggests possible service degradation or inconsistency over time.
• PROJECT COMPLETION RED FLAG: The October 2024 review explicitly documents two missed appointments and broken callback promises, indicating systemic reliability issues that contradict the positive older reviews.
• SMALL SAMPLE SIZE: Only 3 reviews limits confidence in any dimension. Scoring is based on very limited data.
• POTENTIAL INCONSISTENCY: Stark contrast between glowing 5-star reviews (2021-2022) and damning 1-star review (2024) suggests either service quality decline or highly variable performance.

This score should be treated with caution due to only 3 reviews, significant recency concerns, and a stark contradiction between older positive reviews and a recent critical failure. The company may have experienced service degradation, or performance may be highly inconsistent. Additional recent reviews are needed to establish reliable confidence.

Andrews Plumbing has a mixed but analyzable record across all four dimensions. Professionalism scores moderately — several reviews praise punctuality, responsiveness, and respectful demeanor, but at least two reviews describe poor communication and a dismissive owner attitude when billing disputes arose. Pricing is a notable concern: while one reviewer praised exceptional value and another called them 'a little expensive but worth it,' two detailed negative reviews describe overbilling, padding of hours, and an unwillingness to fairly adjust charges when work was incomplete or mishandled. Project completion is the most damaging dimension — two substantive negative reviews describe incomplete jobs, a misdiagnosis that dragged on for 20+ days, and a failure to follow through without customer prompting, which significantly pulls this score down. Experience is similarly mixed: several reviews praise skilled, careful workmanship, but one reviewer had a mixing valve replaced incorrectly twice before another company resolved it in 30 minutes, and another describes a misdiagnosed broken pipe — these are serious technical failures that temper the otherwise positive signals.

• 6 reviews contain only the word 'unknown' with no usable content — these were excluded from scoring as they provide no actionable data.
• The review dated 2012-02-09 contains only the word 'Great.' with no detail — treated as non-usable for dimension scoring.
• The majority of reviews (15 of 17) are older than 5 years, with the most recent usable review from January 2020. This score reflects a historical picture and may not represent current service quality.
• No reviews from the past 12 months are present. Recency confidence is low — this contractor's current performance is unknown.
• The two most detailed negative reviews (2011 and 2015) describe a pattern of billing disputes and owner resistance to fair resolution, which is a recurring concern worth noting.

This WW Score is based on a small set of reviews, the vast majority of which are over 5 years old, limiting its reliability as a predictor of current service quality — treat this score as a historical reference only and seek recent reviews before hiring.

Blaylock Heating and Plumbing shows a mixed performance profile across the reviews with usable content. The standout positive review from 2015 highlights strong technical problem-solving, transparent pricing, and thorough follow-through on a complex drain issue. However, a detailed 2-star review explicitly describes poor communication, missed appointments, a lost work order, and a project that ran three times over the estimated timeline — significantly dragging down professionalism and project completion scores. The remaining usable reviews are brief or vague, offering limited additional signal. The overall picture is of a company capable of good work but with documented reliability and communication failures.

• 4 of 9 reviews have 'unknown' review text — these contain no usable content and were excluded from scoring.
• Most reviews with usable content are from 2011–2015, making them 9–14 years old. No reviews from the past 12 months are present. This score should not be treated as reflective of current performance.
• The two 'unknown' text reviews with 5-star ratings from 2015–2016 may represent incomplete data submissions or potentially low-effort reviews; they were excluded due to absence of any reviewable content.
• Sample size is very small (only 5 reviews with usable data), making all scores low-reliability estimates.

This WW Score carries LOW reliability due to a very small usable review sample, complete absence of recent reviews, and multiple reviews with no text content — treat this score as a rough historical indicator only and seek current references before hiring.

Professionalism is the most-mentioned dimension across all 5 reviews, but is meaningfully dragged down by one review describing a last-minute cancellation 30 minutes before an appointment — a significant reliability failure. The three positive professionalism reviews consistently highlight promptness and easy communication, which is encouraging. Pricing received only two mentions but both were explicitly positive, describing fair and excellent pricing. Project completion scores moderately; most jobs described were completed successfully and efficiently, but the cancellation incident represents an instance of non-completion. Experience scores are based on three reviews that describe competent, efficient work including diagnosing multiple issues beyond the original scope.

• One review (1-star, 2023-12-23) describes a last-minute cancellation 30 minutes before the appointment, which is a direct reliability concern and significantly impacts professionalism and project completion scores.
• The 5-star review dated 2018-11-13 is over 6 years old and carries reduced weight due to recency rules; it is the sole pricing data point from that era.
• Total review count is only 5, which is very low. The WW Score should be treated as preliminary and not fully reliable.
• No fake review patterns detected — reviews vary in detail, tone, and rating, suggesting authentic responses.

This WW Score is based on only 5 reviews spanning 6 years, making it LOW reliability overall; the score should be treated as a preliminary signal only and not a definitive assessment of this contractor's quality.

Paschal receives strongly polarized feedback across a very large review set. On professionalism, the majority of individual technician interactions are praised as courteous, polite, and communicative, but this is heavily offset by a persistent and well-documented pattern of missed appointments, no-shows, poor scheduling communication, and rude office staff — issues that appear consistently across years and locations. Pricing is the weakest dimension by far: dozens of independent reviewers explicitly describe charges as 2x to 5x competitive rates, with multiple accounts of upselling unnecessary parts or services, lack of itemized invoices, and predatory pricing toward elderly or vulnerable customers. Project completion suffers significantly from recurring themes of repeat callbacks for the same unresolved issues, abandoned or incomplete work, and parts delays leaving customers without heat or AC for days or weeks. Experience scores moderately well because many individual technicians are described as knowledgeable and skilled, but this is undermined by multiple credible accounts of misdiagnosis, incorrect repairs, and work that had to be redone by competitors at a fraction of the cost.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: Multiple reviews appear to be exact word-for-word duplicates posted on different dates (e.g., the Spanish-language 1-star review appears twice on 2025-06-09 and 2025-06-06; 'They were very nice and prompt...' appears twice; 'Tech Mike Rodriguez...' appears twice; 'Donna at Paschal...' appears four times on 2023-09-10; 'Competitive price, prompt follow up...' appears four times on 2023-10-07; 'technician was great, really knew his stuff...' appears four times on 2024-02-24; 'Great service' appears four times on 2024-01-19; 'Do not use this company...' appears twice on 2024-01-19; 'Excellent service with a quick response time...' appears four times on 2023-08-25; 'Overall, the experience was positive...' appears four times on 2023-08-23; 'Don't waste your time with this company...' appears three times on 2024-05-31). These duplicates inflate the apparent review count and may distort the score. Confidence in raw volume is reduced accordingly.
• FAKE/INFLATED POSITIVE REVIEW PATTERN: A large number of 5-star reviews contain no text (blank body), generic one-liners ('Great service!', 'Outstanding!', 'Great job!'), or suspiciously identical phrasing. These reviews provide no usable data and suggest possible review padding.
• SYSTEMATIC UPSELLING COMPLAINTS: Multiple independent reviewers across different years and locations describe technicians recommending unnecessary full-unit replacements when minor repairs were needed, quoting prices 2x-5x what competitors charged for identical work. This is a structural business practice concern, not isolated incidents.
• SCHEDULING RELIABILITY IS A SYSTEMIC FAILURE: No-shows, missed appointment windows, lack of proactive communication, and rescheduling without notice are documented in dozens of reviews spanning 2012 to 2025, indicating this is an unresolved operational problem.
• PREDATORY PRICING TOWARD VULNERABLE CUSTOMERS: Multiple reviewers explicitly describe elderly or disabled customers being quoted prices 3x-5x market rate for standard repairs. One review describes a $4,500 labor charge for a warranty part replacement; another describes $3,000 for a coil replacement that competitors charged $300 for.
• RECENCY NOTE: The bulk of reviews with substantive content span 2019-2025, with the most recent cluster from May-June 2025. The negative patterns (scheduling, pricing, upselling) are consistent across the entire date range, suggesting these are not improving over time.
• COMPANY ACQUISITION CONTEXT: Several reviews note that Paschal acquired previously well-regarded companies (Walker AC, Big Bear, Lyerla), and multiple long-term customers of those prior companies report significant service degradation post-acquisition. Some positive reviews in the dataset appear to reference the predecessor companies rather than Paschal directly, which may inflate positive scores.

This WW Score of 58.2 is based on a very large review set and carries HIGH statistical confidence, but should be interpreted cautiously due to confirmed duplicate reviews inflating volume, a significant proportion of blank or generic 5-star reviews suggesting possible review manipulation, and a stark divide between positive individual technician experiences and deeply negative systemic issues around pricing, scheduling, and project completion.