Find Nearby Plumbers In Amarillo, Texas

The company demonstrates solid professionalism with responsive service and courteous technicians, supported by three reviews explicitly praising communication and promptness. However, project completion shows significant weakness: one 2020 review documents a critical failure where the company could not locate a clog beyond 50 feet and referred the customer elsewhere after charging $200+, while other reviews show successful completions. Pricing feedback is mixed—one review praises fair prices, but the failed service call raises concerns about value. Technical experience appears adequate for standard repairs but may be limited for complex diagnostics. The 2020 failure is particularly concerning as it suggests capability gaps that persist.

• RECENCY ISSUE: Three of four reviews are from 2015–2018 (5–9 years old). Only one review from 2020 provides recent data. Historical performance may not reflect current operations.
• CRITICAL SERVICE FAILURE: The 2020 review documents a significant project completion failure—company charged $200+ without resolving the issue and referred customer to competitor. This directly contradicts the glowing older reviews and suggests either inconsistent quality or capability gaps.
• SMALL SAMPLE SIZE: Only 4 reviews total limits statistical reliability. Scores are based on very few data points per dimension.
• POTENTIAL SURVIVORSHIP BIAS: Three highly positive reviews (5-star) may represent satisfied customers, while dissatisfied customers may not have left reviews, making the 2020 negative review particularly significant as a counterweight.

This score should be treated with caution due to small sample size (4 reviews), heavy reliance on outdated data (75% from 2015–2018), and a documented service failure that contradicts historical praise. The WW Score of 78.3 reflects mixed evidence: strong professionalism but concerning project completion gaps. Recommend obtaining more recent reviews before making a hiring decision.

QPH receives strong praise across multiple reviews for respectful, polite, and communicative technicians, with several reviewers specifically calling out individual workers by name for going above and beyond. Project completion is generally solid — jobs were finished on time, cleanly, and as promised — but one notable negative review describes a technician who failed to perform the requested diagnostic work and charged for it anyway, which meaningfully drags down both professionalism and project completion scores. Experience scores are supported by detailed accounts of skilled technical work including complex repiping, HVAC conversion, and problem-solving under difficult conditions, though the bolt-in-pipe incident and the mask compliance complaint introduce credible negative signals. Pricing is mentioned positively in a handful of reviews with references to fair quotes and affordability, but the sample is too small to treat as fully reliable. The overall score is tempered by the age of most reviews — the majority predate 2022, with several from 2015–2018, reducing confidence in how well this reflects current performance.

• Two reviews contain only the text 'unknown' with 5-star ratings and no usable content — these were excluded from scoring as they provide no verifiable information.
• One review is dated 1999 and another 1997 — these are over 20 years old and were given minimal weight as they cannot reflect current business practices.
• The majority of reviews are older than 12 months (most from 2015–2022), with only one review from the past 12 months (September 2022). Current performance cannot be reliably assessed.
• One review (1-star, 2021) specifically cites employees refusing to wear masks when asked — this is a direct professionalism and conduct concern and was weighted accordingly.
• One review (1-star, 2018) describes a technician named 'Tayler' who failed to perform the requested camera inspection, charged $150 for incomplete work, and required a second visit to resolve what should have been caught initially — this is a significant project completion and professionalism failure.
• No strong fake review patterns detected, though several 5-star reviews are brief and generic. The presence of specific names, dates, and detailed narratives in the majority of reviews suggests authenticity.

This WW Score carries moderate overall reliability — the review base is small (14 total, 13 usable), most reviews are more than one year old, and two reviews contained no usable data, meaning current performance may differ significantly from what this score reflects.

May's Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism and fair pricing in most engagements, with multiple customers praising responsiveness, friendliness, and competitive rates. However, project completion is significantly hampered by two severe failures involving hot water heater issues where misdiagnosis, extended delays (9-12 days without resolution), poor follow-up communication, and repeated failed attempts created extended customer hardship. Experience is mixed: skilled work on straightforward jobs (faucets, sink replacement, pipe repair) contrasts sharply with apparent inability to diagnose complex heating system problems. The company's inconsistency—excellent service on routine work but critical failures on complex jobs—creates substantial reliability concerns despite positive sentiment on simpler projects.

• CRITICAL: Two 1-star reviews (2022 and 2021) describe severe project completion failures on hot water heater issues with extended timelines (9-12 days), misdiagnosis, poor communication, and unresolved callbacks. These are detailed, specific complaints with concrete evidence of failure.
• One 1-star review (2017) alleges repeated billing for the same issue ($165 charge after two free visits) and suggests the plumber may have deliberately prolonged the problem for profit. This is a serious integrity concern.
• Recency concern: Most positive reviews are 4-9 years old (2015-2020). The two most recent 1-star reviews are from 2021-2022, suggesting potential service degradation or consistency issues.
• Pattern detected: Hot water heater jobs appear to be a weakness. Two separate customers experienced major failures on this specific service type.
• No fake review indicators detected. Reviews vary in detail and tone; negative reviews are specific and credible.

This score should be treated with caution. While professionalism and pricing appear solid based on multiple mentions, the WW Score is significantly dragged down by documented project completion failures on complex jobs. The company appears reliable for routine plumbing work but has demonstrated critical weaknesses on hot water heater diagnostics and follow-through. Customers should verify their specific job type matches the company's demonstrated competencies before engaging.

C&B Plumbing receives broadly positive feedback across professionalism, project completion, and experience, with multiple reviewers praising punctuality, courteous behavior, and quality workmanship. However, a serious 1-star review from October 2024 — the most recent review — alleges non-payment to a worker and describes the owner in highly negative terms, which meaningfully drags down confidence in professionalism and integrity. Pricing is generally described as reasonable or fair, with one reviewer noting a higher cost on an emergency call, which is understandable context. Two reviews are exact duplicates (same text, same date, different timestamps), and two reviews consist only of a period with no content, which reduces the pool of genuinely usable data and raises mild authenticity concerns.

• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: Two reviews dated 2023-07-07 are word-for-word identical. This inflates positive sentiment and may indicate a fake or double-submitted review. Scores adjusted conservatively.
• TWO CONTENT-FREE REVIEWS: Reviews from 2016-06-23 and 2016-01-29 contain only a period ('.') with no usable information. These were excluded from scoring.
• SERIOUS NEGATIVE FLAG — MOST RECENT REVIEW (2024-10-07): The only review from the past 12 months is a 1-star allegation of non-payment to a worker and describes the contractor as 'rude,' 'disrespectful,' and 'scum.' This is a significant red flag that is not offset by older positive reviews.
• RECENCY CONCERN: The majority of positive reviews are from 2020 or earlier, meaning most favorable data is 4+ years old. The business's current quality and conduct cannot be reliably inferred from this older data.
• POSSIBLE REVIEW CLUSTERING: A large number of 5-star reviews were posted on the same date (2020-02-17), which may suggest solicited or coordinated reviews. These were included but noted as a concern.

This WW Score should be treated with caution — while historical reviews suggest a competent and professional operation, the most recent review raises a serious conduct concern, duplicate reviews inflate positive signals, and the bulk of positive data is over four years old, making current reliability difficult to assess.

All five reviews are positive and paint a consistent picture of a communicative, punctual, and technically capable plumber. Professionalism scores highest, with multiple reviewers explicitly praising Aaron's communication, promptness, and personable demeanor. Project completion is also well-supported, with reviewers noting jobs were finished thoroughly, efficiently, and with follow-through to ensure everything worked correctly. Pricing received favorable mentions in three reviews, including one notable instance where Aaron adjusted his charge downward after realizing the job was less involved than initially quoted, which is a strong positive signal. Experience is supported by four reviews referencing diagnostic skill, technical knowledge, and quality workmanship. The primary limitation of this report is the very small sample size of only five reviews, all dated within a two-day window in March 2020, which significantly limits reliability.

• All 5 reviews share identical or near-identical dates (2020-03-04 and 2020-03-06), which is unusual and may suggest reviews were submitted in a batch rather than organically over time.
• All reviews are 5-star with no negative feedback of any kind — while not conclusive, this pattern warrants caution.
• All reviews are over 4 years old (dated March 2020). No recent reviews are available, making it impossible to assess current service quality.
• Sample size of 5 reviews is very small. Scores should be treated as preliminary indicators only, not reliable performance benchmarks.

This WW Score carries LOW overall reliability due to the very small review pool, the age of all reviews (4+ years old), and the suspicious clustering of submission dates, which together make it difficult to draw confident conclusions about this contractor's current performance.

All five reviews consistently praise the staff's friendliness, helpfulness, and willingness to assist customers of all skill levels, driving a strong professionalism score. Knowledge and expertise are highlighted in four reviews, supporting a solid experience score. Pricing received only one mention — a reviewer noted prices must be looked up in a book but implied they are competitive, yielding a conservative and low-confidence pricing score. Project completion could not be scored at all, as this appears to be a plumbing supply store rather than a contracting service, and no reviews describe completed jobs or work performed. The overall WW Score should be interpreted cautiously given the small review pool and the absence of project completion data.

• Only 5 reviews total — sample size is very small and limits reliability of all scores.
• This entity appears to be a plumbing supply store, not a contractor or plumber. Project completion dimension is entirely inapplicable and returns NO DATA, which significantly limits the WW Score's usefulness in a contractor context.
• Three of the five reviews are older than 12 months (2021 or earlier), with two dating back to 2016 and 2017. Recency weighting is a concern — the business may have changed since those reviews were written.
• All reviews are 5-star with broadly positive but somewhat generic language. While not conclusively fake, the lack of specific detail in several reviews warrants mild caution. No fake review flag is raised definitively, but confidence is reduced accordingly.
• Pricing dimension is based on a single mention and should not be treated as representative.

This WW Score carries LIMITED overall reliability due to the very small review pool (5 reviews), the inapplicability of the project completion dimension, and the age of several reviews dating back to 2016–2017.