Find Nearby Plumbers In Abilene, Texas

Mr. Rooter of Abilene presents a deeply polarized review profile: recent reviews from 2024–2025 are overwhelmingly positive, praising friendly, professional technicians who complete jobs efficiently, while a substantial body of older reviews (2018–2022) documents serious failures including no-shows, abandoned work, fraudulent billing, rude staff, and incompetent diagnoses. Pricing is the weakest dimension, with numerous credible and detailed accounts of inflated out-of-pocket charges, warranty padding, and quotes far exceeding competitors. Project completion is also significantly dragged down by multiple reviews describing jobs left unfinished, repeat visits that failed to resolve issues, and outright refusal to complete covered warranty work. The professionalism score reflects a split between genuinely courteous field technicians praised in recent reviews and a pattern of rude office staff, dispatcher failures, and unprofessional owner conduct documented across multiple independent reviews. Experience scores moderately, as some technicians are clearly skilled, but others are described as incompetent or unwilling to properly diagnose problems.

• RECENCY SPLIT: Reviews from 2024–2025 are almost entirely 5-star with specific technician names and positive detail. Reviews from 2018–2022 are predominantly 1-star with highly specific, credible complaints. This suggests either a significant operational change or selective review solicitation in recent years.
• POSSIBLE SOLICITED REVIEWS: Several recent 5-star reviews are very brief and generic (e.g., 'Excellent job', 'They fixed my deficiencies', 'Always quick easy and friendly') with no specifics. Combined with the volume of named-technician reviews, this pattern may indicate active review solicitation from satisfied customers while dissatisfied customers are less likely to be prompted.
• 7 BLANK REVIEWS with only a 5-star rating and no text were excluded from dimension scoring. These inflate the apparent star average without providing usable data.
• PRICING FRAUD ALLEGATIONS: Multiple independent reviewers with specific dollar amounts allege systematic overbilling through home warranty channels, including fabricated line items, charging for uncovered work that was actually covered, and quoting prices 2–3x higher than competitors. These are credible and consistent across unrelated reviewers.
• INCOMPLETE WORK PATTERN: At least 5 reviews describe technicians leaving without completing the assigned job, including one reviewer who described a technician asking to take photos of work he did not perform to submit as completed.
• OWNER CONDUCT: Multiple reviews specifically cite the owner as rude, dismissive, and unwilling to correct errors, which is a structural concern beyond individual technician performance.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of negative reviews are from 2018–2022. Reviews from 2023 onward trend more positive. Scores have been weighted to reflect this but the older negative reviews are numerous and credible enough to materially impact all dimensions.

This WW Score is based on a large and diverse review set with HIGH mention counts across all dimensions, making the score mathematically reliable; however, the extreme polarization between recent positive reviews and older negative reviews — combined with credible fraud allegations and possible solicited review patterns — means consumers should treat this score as a moderate-confidence signal and carefully read the negative reviews before hiring.

Brown Plumbing presents a deeply polarized review profile. A substantial portion of positive reviewers praise individual technicians by name, highlight same-day responsiveness, and describe friendly, professional interactions — suggesting the company is capable of excellent service. However, an equally substantial and persistent body of negative reviews spanning over a decade consistently alleges price gouging, hidden fees, overbilling for hours not worked, failure to complete jobs, and refusal to honor callbacks or warranties. Pricing is the most damaged dimension, with dozens of reviewers describing charges they considered double or triple fair market rates, dispatch fees charged even when no work was performed, and estimates that ballooned after work began. Project completion is also significantly impacted by multiple reviews describing incomplete work, failed repairs that recurred within days or weeks, and technicians who did not return to finish jobs. Professionalism scores are dragged down by serious allegations including a technician becoming physically threatening, staff calling customers names, and owners dismissing complaints aggressively.

• PRICING PATTERN — SYSTEMIC CONCERN: Across reviews spanning 2011–2025, a recurring and consistent pattern of alleged overbilling, undisclosed dispatch fees, charging for hours not worked, and estimates that significantly exceeded final bills is documented. This is not isolated to one or two reviews but appears in at least 25+ independent accounts.
• PROJECT COMPLETION FAILURES: Multiple reviews describe the same drain or pipe problem recurring within days or weeks of a paid repair, with the company refusing to return without additional charges. At least 3 reviews describe work that was never completed after payment.
• CALLBACK AND NO-SHOW PATTERN: At least 6 reviews across different years describe scheduled appointments where technicians never arrived and no courtesy call was made, suggesting a systemic scheduling or accountability issue.
• SERIOUS CONDUCT ALLEGATION: One review (2017-12-20) describes a contractor becoming physically threatening and using abusive language in front of a child. A separate review (2020-10-09) describes office staff using profane language toward a customer's real estate agent. These are severe professionalism flags.
• POSSIBLE LICENSE/PERMIT CONCERN: One review (2019-10-09) alleges the company's license was suspended per the DBPR website and that work was performed without permits and not up to code. This could not be verified from reviews alone but warrants independent verification.
• POSSIBLE FAKE OR GENERIC REVIEWS: Approximately 8–10 five-star reviews contain no specific detail, job description, or technician name (e.g., 'Great service.', 'Did right by me', 'Always super nice and easy to work with', blank-text 5-star entries). These reviews provide no usable data and may inflate the star average without reflecting actual service experiences.
• RECENCY NOTE: Negative reviews are not limited to older periods — significant pricing complaints and no-show complaints appear in 2024 and 2025, indicating the issues documented historically have not been resolved.
• MULTI-ENTITY RISK: The review corpus appears to aggregate reviews for potentially more than one business operating under the 'Brown Plumbing' name across different geographic regions (references to Abilene TX, Redding CA, Lakehead CA, Iowa, Florida). Scores may reflect multiple distinct businesses and should be interpreted with caution.

This WW Score is based on a large review set (120 reviews) with HIGH confidence across all four dimensions, but the score should be treated with caution due to strong evidence of systemic pricing and completion issues, serious conduct allegations, the likely aggregation of multiple geographically distinct businesses under one name, and a meaningful number of suspiciously generic five-star reviews that may artificially inflate positive sentiment.

Black Plumbing receives strong praise for individual technicians — names like Doug, Tim, Riley, Camin, Adriel, and Will appear repeatedly with genuine, specific compliments about friendliness, punctuality, and technical skill, which supports moderate-to-good professionalism and experience scores. However, pricing is the most consistently criticized dimension across the review history, with multiple customers explicitly alleging overbilling, unexplained material markups, charging for hours not worked, and lack of transparent estimates — this drives the pricing score down significantly to 42. Project completion is mixed: many jobs are described as fully resolved, but a meaningful number of reviews describe incomplete work, recurring issues after service, and at least one case where a sewer line was installed sloping uphill requiring a callback. The overall WW Score of 62.1 reflects a company with capable field technicians but systemic concerns around billing transparency and quality control that have persisted across multiple years of reviews.

• PRICING INTEGRITY CONCERN: Multiple independent reviews across different years (2014, 2017, 2018, 2022, 2023, 2024) allege overbilling, charging for hours not worked, unexplained or inflated parts costs, and lack of itemized invoices. This is a recurring pattern, not isolated incidents.
• WORKMANSHIP FAILURES: At least 4 reviews describe work that was not completed correctly — including a sewer line installed going uphill, a faucet tightened rather than repaired, a drain still clogged after service, and recurring electrolysis at water heater connections after replacement.
• RESPONSIVENESS FAILURE: One review describes a 30+ hour wait with no callback despite a reported active water leak and advertised 24/7 service.
• OWNERSHIP CONDUCT FLAG: One detailed review alleges the owner called a customer to confront them about a negative review, used the word 'slander,' and made personal attacks. This is a significant professionalism concern at the leadership level.
• RECENCY BIAS NOTE: The majority of highly positive reviews are from 2025 and late 2024, while the majority of detailed negative reviews span 2014–2024. The recent positive trend may reflect operational improvements, a change in ownership, or a shift in review solicitation practices — but the negative history should not be discounted.
• POSSIBLE REVIEW SOLICITATION PATTERN: A cluster of 5-star reviews in April and May 2025 share similar structure (technician name + brief praise + 'highly recommend') which may indicate active post-service review solicitation. This is not necessarily fake but inflates recent sentiment. Confidence is not reduced but the pattern is noted.
• ONE BLANK REVIEW: One review contained a 5-star rating with no text and was excluded from dimension scoring.
• OWNERSHIP CHANGE NOTE: Multiple reviews reference a change in ownership (described as being bought out by a New York company), with several long-term customers explicitly stating quality and pricing declined after the transition.

This WW Score is based on 72 reviews spanning over a decade and carries HIGH overall confidence due to volume, but users should weigh the persistent billing complaints and workmanship failure reports heavily — the score of 62.1 likely represents a company with capable individual technicians but meaningful systemic risks around pricing transparency and job completion quality.

This contractor shows strong professionalism and technical skill when work is completed, with positive mentions of responsiveness, friendliness, and problem-solving ability. However, a critical 1-star review from 2020 documents incomplete work and refusal to honor callbacks, which severely impacts the project completion score. The pricing feedback is mixed, with one customer satisfied and another reporting $850 in losses. The recency of three positive reviews (2023-2024) versus one older negative review (2020) suggests possible improvement, but the incomplete work complaint represents a serious red flag that cannot be ignored.

• CRITICAL: One review documents incomplete project work and refusal to complete callbacks—this is a major red flag for reliability and follow-through.
• RECENCY CONCERN: The negative review is from January 2020 (4+ years old), while positive reviews are from 2023-2024. This temporal gap makes it unclear if the business has genuinely improved or if the old complaint reflects a resolved systemic issue.
• SMALL SAMPLE SIZE: Only 4 reviews limits confidence in the overall score. Additional recent reviews would be needed to validate whether the 2020 incident was an outlier or indicative of ongoing problems.
• PRICING TRANSPARENCY: Limited explicit discussion of pricing in reviews. One customer reported significant financial loss ($850), but context around whether this was a pricing dispute or incomplete work cost is unclear.

This score should be treated with caution due to the small sample size and the presence of a serious project completion failure, despite recent positive feedback. The contractor demonstrates technical competence and professionalism when engaged, but the documented refusal to complete work and honor callbacks is a material concern that warrants verification before hiring.

No Sweat Plumbing shows a mixed but generally positive track record across its reviewable history, with notable strengths in technical skill and job follow-through on complex projects. However, professionalism is significantly dragged down by two serious negative incidents: a 2019 no-show/scheduling failure and a 2018 case where a worker allegedly knowingly completed a faulty installation and accepted payment from a vulnerable customer. Pricing feedback is limited but consistently notes costs on the higher end, though most reviewers felt the value was acceptable. The majority of reviews are older than five years, which substantially limits confidence in how well these scores reflect current performance.

• Three reviews are marked 'unknown' with no review text — these were excluded from scoring as they contain no usable data.
• Review dated 2019-10-29 describes a serious scheduling and communication failure with no follow-through — this is the most recent substantive review and carries elevated weight under recency rules.
• Review dated 2018-02-16 alleges a worker knowingly completed a faulty installation and accepted payment from a pregnant homeowner who could not verify the work — this is a significant integrity and professionalism flag.
• The majority of substantive reviews are from 2011–2017, meaning the score may not reflect current business practices. Only one review is from the past 5 years (2019).
• Several 5-star reviews contain minimal detail ('It was great. They were fine.' / 'It went fine.') which limits their scoring utility and raises minor concern about review depth, though full fake review patterns are not clearly present.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability due to the age of most reviews, the presence of two serious negative incidents in the more recent record, and three reviews with no usable content — prospective customers should treat this score cautiously and seek more current references before hiring.

Flournoy Plumbing shows significant inconsistency across reviews spanning 2008–2014. While some customers praise quick response times and polite technicians, major concerns emerge around project completion and follow-through. Multiple reviews document unfulfilled promises (callbacks never made, cleanup never completed), poor workmanship (damaged trim, muddy carpet, incorrect installations), and misleading product information. Pricing is consistently flagged as high relative to value. The most damaging review details a year-long dispute over a faulty tankless water heater installation with electrical and plumbing code violations. Professionalism scores are dragged down by lack of accountability and respect for customer property.

• CRITICAL: Multiple reviews (2014, 2010) document repeated failure to honor callbacks and follow-through commitments—core business reliability issue.
• CRITICAL: 2012 review reveals serious code violations, misleading product claims, and adversarial customer service requiring small claims court intervention.
• Property damage pattern: Three separate reviews mention physical damage to customer homes (gouged trim, damaged carpet, driveway concrete collapse).
• Pricing complaints appear in 3 reviews; customers describe rates as 'high' and 'expensive' relative to work performed.
• Recency concern: Most reviews are 10+ years old (2008–2014); only one review from past 12 months would be needed to assess current performance, but none provided.
• Inconsistent quality: Stark contrast between 5-star reviews (quick, polite, professional) and 1–3 star reviews (negligent, deceptive, damaging)—suggests either highly variable technician quality or selective positive reviews.

This score should be treated with caution due to age of reviews (2008–2014) and small sample size, but the pattern of documented project completion failures, property damage, and code violations is serious and consistent enough to warrant significant concern about contractor reliability and accountability.