Find Nearby Plumbers In Amarillo, Texas

Ron's Plumbing shows a generally positive track record across most dimensions, with many customers praising his friendliness, technical skill, and ability to complete jobs efficiently. However, there are notable and recurring concerns around communication and reliability — multiple reviews explicitly describe being forgotten, missed appointments, and poor follow-up, which meaningfully drag down the professionalism and project completion scores. Pricing feedback is mixed: most find him fair or worth the cost, but at least one reviewer found him somewhat expensive. The one review from within the past 12 months (2023) is positive and speaks to repeat use, which is a good signal, but the bulk of the review base is 5–10+ years old, limiting recency confidence. Overall, Ron appears to be a skilled plumber when he shows up, but scheduling and communication reliability are a documented weak point.

• 7 reviews contain no usable text (blank, single period, or 'unknown') and were excluded from dimension scoring — these inflate the raw review count without contributing meaningful data.
• The majority of reviews are older than 5 years, with most dating from 2010–2016. Only one review is from the past 12 months (November 2023). Recency confidence is limited.
• Two separate reviews explicitly state Ron said 'I forgot about you' regarding scheduled appointments, and one review documents a no-show. This is a consistent and credible pattern of scheduling/communication failure, not an isolated incident.
• Several 5-star reviews use very brief, generic praise ('Ron is top notch.', 'He's been excellent.') with no specifics. While not conclusive evidence of fake reviews, these add limited scoring value and were weighted conservatively.
• One review (2013) raises a workmanship concern — unnecessary drywall removal without considering less invasive alternatives — suggesting occasional lapses in problem-solving judgment.

This WW Score carries moderate-to-high structural reliability due to sufficient review volume and multi-dimensional data, but should be interpreted cautiously given that most reviews are over 5 years old and documented scheduling failures represent a real and recurring risk for prospective customers.

Dependable Plumbing demonstrates strong technical expertise and professionalism from individual technicians (Grant, Joe, Nick, Diego, Aaron, and others consistently praised for skill and courtesy). However, the company is significantly hampered by persistent pricing complaints—numerous reviews cite excessive charges, hidden fees, and quotes that balloon dramatically after initial estimates. Project completion shows mixed results with some excellent follow-through but also documented cases of no-shows, delayed callbacks, and abandoned work. Office communication and responsiveness issues appear across multiple reviews spanning years, suggesting systemic problems. The stark divide between field technician quality and company-level operations creates an inconsistent customer experience.

• PRICING PATTERN: At least 15+ reviews explicitly cite overcharging, excessive labor rates, or significant quote increases. Examples include $550 for a clamp, $473 for a cartridge replacement (quoted at $245), $1,300 for water heater when competitor charged $300, and $460 for 15-minute faucet repair. This is the single largest complaint category.
• COMMUNICATION FAILURES: Multiple reviews (spanning 2009-2023) report no-shows, missed appointments without notice, failure to return calls/voicemails, and broken promises to follow up. At least 8 reviews document these issues explicitly.
• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: The exact same review text about a $550 clamp charge appears 3 times (dated 2024-06-25 and 2024-06-24), suggesting either fake reviews or system duplication. This reduces confidence slightly in the pricing dimension.
• INCONSISTENT QUALITY: Same company name but vastly different experiences—some customers report exceptional work and fair pricing (Joe Kerns reviews), while others report the opposite. This suggests either different business units, inconsistent management, or significant quality variance by technician.
• HOA RELATIONSHIP CONCERNS: Multiple reviews suggest the company may overcharge HOA-referred customers, knowing they have limited recourse or comparison shopping. Several customers explicitly note they were referred by HOA and then overcharged.
• RECENCY NOTE: Most recent reviews (2025) are positive, but negative reviews span the entire history (2008-2024), indicating long-standing systemic issues rather than recent improvement.
• FOLLOW-UP WORK ISSUES: Several reviews document incomplete repairs, parts not arriving, and technicians not returning to finish jobs (e.g., bathtub faucet repair abandoned for 2+ months).

This WW Score of 72.8 should be trusted as a HIGH-confidence assessment, but with a critical caveat: the company's technical competence (Experience: 81) and individual technician professionalism (Professionalism: 78.5) are genuinely strong, but are severely undermined by aggressive pricing practices (62.0) and inconsistent project follow-through (76.5). Customers should expect quality work but should obtain detailed written estimates, verify pricing with competitors, and confirm all promised follow-up work in writing before engaging this company.

Scottco demonstrates strong professionalism with technicians consistently described as courteous, friendly, and responsive across 58 reviews. However, significant pricing concerns emerge from 22 reviews citing overcharges, inflated quotes, and lack of transparency—including allegations of taking advantage of seniors and women. Project completion shows mixed results across 35 reviews, with several instances of incomplete work, no-shows, callbacks needed, and follow-up visits required. Technical experience is generally solid (28 mentions) with skilled diagnostics, though some reviews indicate misdiagnosis or inadequate problem-solving. The company's overall score is pulled down substantially by pricing and completion reliability issues despite strong interpersonal skills.

• PRICING PATTERN: Multiple reviews (2021-2022) allege predatory pricing toward vulnerable populations (seniors, women, fixed-income customers). Specific allegations include $8,500 quote for $180 fuse replacement, $311.52 for $15 part, and $19K sewer job with poor cleanup.
• PROJECT COMPLETION FAILURES: At least 5 reviews document no-shows, missed appointments, or failure to complete work on first visit. One review (2014-06-04) describes technician arriving 2 hours late after customer took half-day off work.
• QUALITY CONTROL ISSUES: Multiple reviews (2013-2015) describe technicians creating new problems during repairs (loud toilet valve, pilot light issues, plumbing complications) then charging additional fees to fix their own mistakes.
• RECENCY BIAS NOTED: Most recent reviews (2025, 2024) are predominantly 5-star with minimal detail, while detailed negative reviews cluster in 2013-2022. Recent positive reviews lack specificity compared to older critical reviews.
• MANAGEMENT RESPONSIVENESS: Some negative reviews show management attempting remediation (2016, 2018 updates), but others show dismissive attitudes (2018 review: supervisor said 'we charge more because we are a large company' with no apology).
• INCONSISTENT SERVICE QUALITY: Wide variance in technician competence and pricing practices suggests inconsistent company standards or training.

This WW Score of 72.8 is reliable but reflects a company with significant structural issues in pricing transparency and project completion reliability despite genuine strengths in technician professionalism and customer interaction. The score should be trusted as representative of mixed performance, but potential customers should be aware of documented pricing concerns and request detailed written quotes before committing to service.

Frank's Repair Plumbing demonstrates strong technical competence and generally reliable project completion, with many recent reviews (2025) praising technician skill and thoroughness. However, the company is significantly hampered by persistent pricing concerns spanning over a decade, with multiple customers reporting excessive charges, undisclosed fees, and aggressive upselling tactics. Professionalism is mixed: while most technicians are courteous and communicative, the company has documented issues with scheduling reliability, no-shows, and poor phone customer service. The stark contrast between recent 5-star reviews and older 1-star reviews suggests either genuine operational improvements or potential review manipulation, warranting caution.

• SUSPICIOUS REVIEW PATTERN: 28 of 67 reviews are from June 2025 (within 7 days), with 13 containing only 1-3 words or empty text fields. This clustering is atypical and suggests possible fake review injection or review farming.
• TEMPORAL ANOMALY: Recent reviews (May-June 2025) are overwhelmingly 5-star with generic praise, while older reviews (2010-2022) contain detailed negative experiences with specific dollar amounts and incident descriptions. This inverse pattern is a red flag.
• PRICING PATTERN: Consistent complaints across 11+ years (2010-2022) about excessive charges, undisclosed fees ($69-$800 for minor work), and aggressive quoting. This is not isolated—it is systemic and long-standing.
• NO-SHOW INCIDENTS: Multiple documented failures to honor scheduled appointments (2023, 2024, 2016), with poor communication and unresponsive management follow-up.
• QUALITY INCONSISTENCY: One review documents a sump pump misdiagnosis (quoted $1600, fixed elsewhere for $85), and another describes a water leak repair that failed within 30 days despite a 90-day guarantee.
• PHONE STAFF ISSUES: Multiple complaints about rude, dismissive, or accusatory phone behavior from receptionists/dispatchers across different years.
• RECOMMENDATION: Treat recent 5-star cluster with skepticism. Rely more heavily on detailed negative reviews and documented pricing complaints, which show consistency and specificity over a 15-year period.

This WW Score should be treated with CAUTION. While the calculated score of 72.8 reflects the data provided, the recent review cluster (28 reviews in 7 days, many with minimal text) raises serious concerns about review authenticity. The long-standing and consistent pricing complaints (2010-2022) are credible and detailed, but are being overwhelmed numerically by recent generic 5-star reviews. A more reliable assessment would weight the older, detailed negative reviews more heavily and discount the recent cluster. Customers should independently verify current pricing practices and scheduling reliability before engaging this company.

Roto-Rooter receives consistently strong marks for professionalism and responsiveness from individual technicians, with hundreds of reviews praising courteous, knowledgeable, and prompt service. However, pricing is the single most damaging dimension across this dataset, with an enormous volume of reviews describing charges as excessive, deceptive, or wildly inconsistent — including numerous accounts of bait-and-switch quoting, undisclosed fees, and charges for incomplete work. Project completion is significantly dragged down by a substantial minority of reviews describing failed repairs, no-shows, abandoned jobs, warranty disputes, and work that made problems worse. Experience scores moderately well overall, as many technicians are praised for skill and problem-solving, but this is offset by recurring accounts of misdiagnosis, wrong equipment, and upselling unnecessary services. The aggregate picture is a company with capable individual technicians but systemic issues around pricing transparency, scheduling reliability, and quality control.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: Multiple reviews appear to be exact or near-exact duplicates (e.g., two identical reviews from 'Paul arrived same day...', two identical 'Zach is the man...', two identical 'Based solely off customer service...', two identical 'Easy to schedule and a quick service...', two identical 'Great service. Would highly recommend!', two identical 'Efficient and effective...', two identical 'Excellent with Armando...', two identical 'Very prompt and helpful! Anthony...', two identical 'My name is Antoinette...'). These duplicates inflate positive scores and have been treated conservatively.
• FAKE REVIEW PATTERNS: A large cluster of reviews dated 1996-2001 consist of single-line responses ('NO', 'NOT REALLY', 'ON TIME AND DID THE WORK') with no detail, all rated 5 stars. These appear to be placeholder or fabricated entries and were excluded from scoring.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Approximately 100+ reviews contain no text content but carry 5-star ratings. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data, but their presence inflates the raw star average.
• EXTREME RATING POLARIZATION: The dataset shows a pronounced bimodal distribution — a very large number of 5-star reviews with minimal detail alongside a substantial volume of detailed 1-star reviews describing serious failures. This pattern is consistent with either review manipulation on the positive end or a company with highly inconsistent service quality.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS ARE SYSTEMIC: Pricing complaints are not isolated incidents — they span multiple years, multiple geographic locations, and multiple service types. Charges ranging from $200-$900 for simple drain snaking (15-30 minutes of work) are documented repeatedly. This is a structural business practice issue, not individual technician behavior.
• NO-SHOW AND SCHEDULING FAILURES: A significant number of reviews describe confirmed appointments where technicians never arrived and no communication was provided. This is a recurring operational failure across multiple franchise locations.
• MULTI-FRANCHISE DATASET: Reviews appear to span dozens of different Roto-Rooter franchise locations across the United States. Scores reflect the brand aggregate, not any single location. Individual location quality varies significantly.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews with substantive content are dated between 2020-2025, which is within the relevant scoring window. Older reviews (pre-2015) were given reduced weight.

This WW Score of 72.4 is based on a very large dataset (1,456 reviews) and carries HIGH statistical confidence in its directional accuracy, but should be interpreted as a brand-level aggregate across many franchise locations — individual location quality varies substantially, and the systemic pricing and scheduling issues documented here may not apply equally to all franchises.

This aggregated review set spans multiple companies operating under similar or related names (Action Plumbing, Astro Plumbing, Pirate Plumbing, and individual plumbers like Jeff Satterthwaite), which significantly complicates scoring and reduces reliability. The majority of reviews are positive and praise professionalism, punctuality, and communication, but a substantial minority of negative reviews describe serious failures including fire damage, abandoned work, misdiagnosis, property damage, dishonest billing practices, and chronic non-responsiveness — particularly in the context of American Home Shield warranty work. Pricing feedback is mixed: many reviewers found costs fair or competitive, while others reported inflated fees, hidden charges, and deceptive billing. Project completion is a notable weakness, with multiple reviews citing incomplete jobs, failed callbacks, and work that required correction by other plumbers. Experience scores are dragged down by documented cases of poor workmanship, incorrect diagnoses, and code violations, despite many reviews praising skilled technicians by name.

• MULTI-ENTITY CONCERN: Reviews appear to span multiple distinct businesses (Action Plumbing in multiple states/cities, Astro Plumbing, Pirate Plumbing, Jeff Satterthwaite Plumbing, and others). Scores reflect an aggregated pool that may not represent any single contractor accurately. Consumer should verify which specific entity they are evaluating.
• FAKE REVIEW INDICATORS: A significant number of reviews contain no text (rating only), particularly clustered around dates like 2024-06-09, 2022-06-10, 2021-06-10, and 2015. These blank 5-star reviews inflate the average rating and are treated as non-usable data. Additionally, some reviews use nearly identical phrasing across different dates, suggesting possible review padding.
• SERIOUS NEGATIVE INCIDENTS: At least one review describes Action Plumbing causing a fire that left four families homeless (2024-09-06), with the owner allegedly unresponsive. Another describes a bathtub installation so defective it required full drywall and tile replacement. A third describes a whole-house re-pipe job where lines were not flushed, causing debris damage throughout the home. These are severe outliers that materially affect trustworthiness.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The review about Jake damaging a home during water heater installation (rating 1.0) appears verbatim on two separate dates (2024-06-09 and 2023-10-10). This duplication was counted only once for scoring purposes.
• AHS WARRANTY PATTERN: A recurring pattern of negative reviews involves American Home Shield (AHS) warranty assignments, where the contractor is accused of misdiagnosis, inflated modification fees, non-responsiveness, and claim denial manipulation. This pattern appears across multiple years and locations, suggesting a systemic issue with warranty work specifically.
• RECENCY NOTE: Reviews span from 2001 to 2025. Reviews older than 3 years (pre-2022) were given reduced weight. The most recent reviews (2024-2025) show a mixed but somewhat improved pattern for Astro Plumbing specifically, while Action Plumbing reviews remain mixed across the full date range.
• GEOGRAPHIC DISPERSION: Reviews reference locations including Las Vegas NV, Cleveland OH, Lawrence KS, Corpus Christi TX, Silsbee TX, Kaysville UT, Rhode Island, Indiana, and others. This strongly suggests these are reviews for multiple unrelated businesses sharing similar names, not a single contractor. The WW Score should be interpreted with extreme caution as a result.

This WW Score has LOW reliability for evaluating any single contractor because the review pool almost certainly aggregates multiple unrelated businesses operating under similar names across different states; consumers should independently verify the specific entity they intend to hire and seek reviews specific to that business's location and ownership before making a hiring decision.