Find Nearby Plumbers In Shreveport, Louisiana

The majority of reviews speak highly of this contractor's professionalism, citing punctuality, friendly communication, and clear explanations of work being performed. Technical knowledge and problem-solving ability are consistently praised across multiple reviews, with several customers noting that Todd and his team diagnosed and resolved issues quickly and thoroughly. Project completion scores well, with multiple reviewers confirming jobs were finished same-day or as promised, including after-hours service. Pricing is mentioned positively in a few reviews as fair and reasonable, though the limited number of pricing mentions reduces confidence in that dimension. One 1-star review from 2019 citing a complete lack of follow-up contact is a notable negative signal that tempers the otherwise strong scores.

• One 1-star review (2019-11-23) explicitly states no one contacted the customer regarding their problem — this is a serious professionalism and project completion concern that is factored into scoring.
• The majority of reviews are older than 12 months, with most dating from 2015–2019 and two from 2007 and 2017. Recency is low; current service quality cannot be reliably inferred from this data.
• Several reviews are highly positive with specific details, which reduces fake review suspicion, but the volume of older reviews limits reliability of the overall picture.
• Only 13 total reviews analyzed — sample size is small, which limits statistical confidence across all dimensions.

This WW Score carries moderate reliability due to a small and predominantly dated review set; the single negative review and lack of recent data mean the score should be interpreted cautiously rather than as a definitive measure of current service quality.

A-Plumber scores well on professionalism, with multiple reviewers citing punctuality, clear communication, and courteous behavior — including same-day scheduling and arrival notifications. Project completion is generally strong, with jobs described as finished correctly and thoroughly, though one 2018 review raises a serious concern about a $700 charge for what the customer described as a 20-minute repair involving a single fitting and a bag of lime. Pricing is the weakest dimension: while several reviewers praised reasonable or fair rates, that one detailed complaint of perceived price gouging significantly pulls the score down and cannot be ignored. Experience scores moderately well, supported by specific mentions of technical diagnosis, expert-level knowledge, and helpful guidance on fixtures, though the sample is small. Overall confidence is tempered by the small review pool, the wide date range spanning over a decade, and one significant negative pricing incident.

• One review (2018-12-18, 1-star) contains a detailed and specific allegation of price gouging — $700 charged for approximately 20 minutes of work involving one fitting and a bag of lime. This is a credible negative signal and has been weighted accordingly in the pricing dimension.
• Review date range spans from 2012 to 2024 — over 12 years. Two reviews are from 2021 and earlier, and one is from 2012. These older reviews carry reduced weight under recency rules. The 2012 review in particular should be treated as largely unreliable for current assessment.
• Several 5-star reviews use somewhat generic praise ('great job,' 'excellent service,' 'quality work') with limited specifics. While not conclusive evidence of fake reviews, a few entries lack the detail needed to fully validate their claims. Confidence is slightly reduced for those reviews.
• Total review count is low (9 reviews). While the WW Score can be calculated, findings should be treated as preliminary. More reviews would significantly improve reliability.

This WW Score is based on a small and temporally scattered review set spanning over a decade, which limits its reliability — the score reflects a reasonable directional signal but should not be treated as a definitive assessment of current service quality.

Long Run Plumbing demonstrates solid technical competence and generally fair pricing, with multiple reviews praising work quality and cost-effectiveness. However, professionalism is a significant concern, with documented issues including a no-show appointment, unprofessional owner behavior (alleged substance impairment and poor conflict resolution), and staff conduct questions. Project completion is generally reliable with one notable exception (the no-show). The company has a long service history with some loyal customers, but recent reviews (2012 and earlier) dominate the dataset, limiting recency assessment.

• RECENCY ISSUE: 7 of 11 reviews are from 2012 or earlier (9+ years old). Only 3 reviews from 2013 onward. Current performance cannot be reliably assessed.
• PROFESSIONALISM RED FLAG: 2015 review contains serious allegations of owner unprofessionalism, including slurred speech suggesting substance impairment, poor conflict resolution, and blame-shifting. This is a material concern.
• NO-SHOW INCIDENT: 2021 review documents a no-show appointment after promising same-day service, indicating potential reliability issues.
• VAGUE REVIEWS: Two reviews contain minimal detail ('unknown' and 'See above'), reducing data quality.
• STAFF CONDUCT: 2013 review questions assistant's work ethic and engagement, though work quality was acceptable.
• INCOMPLETE CLEANUP: 2012 review notes excess dirt left on lawn requiring customer to hire additional service, suggesting attention to detail gaps.

This score should be treated with caution due to severe recency bias (64% of reviews are 9+ years old) and serious professionalism concerns documented in recent years. The score reflects historical performance but may not represent current service quality. The 2015 and 2021 negative reviews suggest potential ongoing issues that warrant direct inquiry before hiring.

Branch Brothers Plumbing receives consistently positive feedback across the three usable reviews, with customers highlighting same-day responsiveness, polite workers, and successful completion of challenging jobs such as an attic water heater replacement and a slab leak repair. Professionalism and project completion are the best-supported dimensions, each mentioned across three reviews with specific details about timeliness and follow-through. Experience scores moderately well based on two reviews that describe technically demanding work handled competently. Pricing is entirely unmentioned across all reviews, so no score can be assigned for that dimension. The overall picture is positive but the evidence base is very thin, with only three usable reviews spanning over a decade.

• One review contains only the word 'unknown' and provides no usable data — excluded from scoring.
• The review dataset spans from 2011 to 2023, meaning three of the four reviews are more than 10 years old. Only one review (2023) falls within the past 12 months and carries meaningful recency weight.
• With only 3 usable reviews, the WW Score is at the minimum threshold for calculation and should be treated with significant caution.
• No pricing information is mentioned in any review — this dimension cannot be evaluated at all.
• Small sample size (3 usable reviews) means a single negative experience could dramatically alter this score.

This WW Score is based on only 3 usable reviews, the majority of which are over 10 years old, making it a low-reliability snapshot that should not be used as a definitive measure of current service quality.

Robert Brown Plumbing has a strong base of loyal, repeat customers who praise the team's friendliness, punctuality, and technical competence on many jobs. However, a meaningful cluster of negative reviews — spanning multiple years — reveals serious recurring issues: no-shows or failure to follow up after charging customers, rude staff interactions, and at least one significant pricing complaint alleging a quote nearly $7,000 above competitors for the same work. Project completion is the most damaged dimension, with multiple reviewers explicitly describing jobs left unfinished, no callbacks after payment, and unresolved problems. The mixed record across both positive and negative reviews across several years prevents a high overall score despite the volume of praise.

• 17 reviews contain no text — only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable qualitative data.
• Several positive reviews dated 2025-04-10 share the exact same date and follow a similar generic praise pattern ('knowledgeable, courteous, efficient'), raising a moderate concern about coordinated or solicited reviews. Confidence in those reviews is reduced.
• Two reviews are near-identical duplicates (same text, same 1-star rating, dates 2024-06-09 and 2023-07-02). This was counted as one unique complaint to avoid double-weighting.
• A significant number of reviews are older than 12 months (many from 2017–2022). Recency weighting was applied; more recent reviews (2024–2025) were given higher weight in scoring.
• Pricing dimension shows a high-severity negative outlier: one reviewer documented receiving a quote approximately $6,890 higher than the final cost paid to a competitor for identical work, and the company's own response partially acknowledged the discrepancy. This significantly pulled down the pricing score.

This WW Score is based on a moderately large review set with usable text data across all four dimensions, but reliability is tempered by a high volume of blank reviews, suspected solicited positive reviews on a single date, and a duplicate negative review — the score of 68.4 should be treated as a fair but cautious representation of this contractor's real-world performance.

Perot Plumbing receives consistently strong marks for professionalism, punctuality, and responsiveness across a large number of reviews, with many customers praising Chris for arriving on time, communicating clearly, and being courteous. However, pricing is a serious and recurring concern — multiple independent reviewers across different years explicitly describe charges of $385–$900 for short jobs they considered grossly excessive, and at least two reviewers were quoted by other plumbers that they had been overcharged. Project completion is mixed: most jobs are completed successfully and efficiently, but there are notable failures including a misdiagnosed leak requiring a return visit, an incomplete faucet repair, and two separate reviews describing a complete scheduling breakdown during the 2021 winter storm. Experience scores moderately well given strong technical praise in many reviews, but is tempered by the misdiagnosis incident and one case where a nickel was used as a plumbing shim instead of proper materials. Overall, the contractor performs reliably in many situations but carries meaningful risk around pricing transparency and occasional execution failures.

• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: Two reviews are word-for-word identical ('Reliable, efficient and personable! Chris was great to work with...') with different dates (2014-05-09 and 2024-06-09). This is a strong indicator of a copied or fake review and reduces confidence in the most recent 5-star entries.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: Two reviews are nearly identical regarding the 2021 winter storm scheduling failure, posted by what appear to be two different customers describing the same experience in very similar language — this is likely two real customers, not a duplicate, but noted for transparency.
• SUSPICIOUS REVIEW: One review (2020-06-10, Rating 1.0) reads entirely positively ('good, caring plumber... reasonable prices') yet carries a 1-star rating. This is internally inconsistent and may indicate a data entry error or platform glitch. It was treated as a positive review for scoring purposes but flagged here.
• RECENCY NOTE: A significant portion of reviews (roughly 55%) are older than 3 years, with many dating back to 2007–2017. Pricing complaints span from 2007 to 2023, suggesting the overpricing issue is persistent and not isolated to a single period.
• PRICING RISK: At least 6 reviews explicitly describe being charged 2–5x what comparable plumbers charge for the same work. This is a statistically significant pattern across many years and should be treated as a structural concern, not an outlier.
• BLANK REVIEW: One review (2020-06-10, Rating 5.0) contains no text. It was excluded from dimension scoring as it provides no usable data.

This WW Score is based on 38 reviews with usable content spanning 2007–2024 and carries HIGH overall confidence due to volume, but consumers should weight the persistent and multi-year pricing complaints heavily, as they represent the single most documented pattern in the entire review set.