Find Nearby Plumbers In Austin, Texas

Torres Plumbing demonstrates strong technical expertise and competitive pricing, with many customers praising quality workmanship and fair rates. However, professionalism is significantly undermined by recurring no-show incidents and poor communication, with multiple reviews documenting failed appointments and lack of follow-up. Project completion is generally solid but marred by instances of incomplete work and refusal to address defects, as documented in the detailed contractor review. The company excels in emergency responsiveness and problem-solving but struggles with reliability and accountability in scheduling.

• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEWS DETECTED: Multiple reviews (dated 2024-06-09, 2020-06-10) contain nearly identical phrasing and suspiciously generic praise with minimal specifics. Two reviews appear to be duplicates of the same commercial project experience (dated 2024-06-09 and 2024-04-22) with nearly identical wording.
• CRITICAL PROFESSIONALISM ISSUE: Four separate 1-star reviews (2022-12-17, 2022-06-10, 2021-07-08, 2021-06-26) document repeated no-show appointments with false promises of next-day service, causing significant client impact. This pattern is consistent and credible.
• QUALITY CONTROL CONCERN: One detailed 1-star review from a general contractor (2024-12-11) documents serious workmanship errors (misaligned valves), refusal to correct defects, and hostile behavior including threats to file liens. This review provides specific technical details and documented costs ($4,000 in repairs).
• RECENCY BIAS: Most positive reviews cluster in 2020-2024, while no-show complaints span 2021-2022. Recent reviews (2025, 2024) are predominantly 5-star, but include the serious contractor complaint from December 2024.
• INCONSISTENT PERFORMANCE: Company demonstrates excellent emergency response and technical skill in many reviews, but simultaneously exhibits chronic scheduling failures and accountability issues in others, suggesting operational inconsistency.

This WW Score of 78.2 should be treated with MODERATE-TO-HIGH caution: while based on substantial data (45 reviews), the presence of suspected duplicate/fake reviews, a credible detailed complaint about serious defects and hostile behavior, and a consistent pattern of no-show appointments significantly undermine confidence in the company's reliability despite strong technical ratings. The score reflects a company with genuine expertise but serious operational and interpersonal problems that create real risk for customers.

Greenwave Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism with consistently praised punctuality, communication, and courteous staff across 28 reviews. However, the company is significantly hampered by serious quality control and project completion issues documented in multiple reviews, including improper water heater installations causing carbon monoxide hazards, failed repairs that worsened problems, and major structural failures (collapsed pipes, improper code compliance) on large projects. Pricing feedback is mixed—many customers praise fair rates, but several report surprise service charges and high fees relative to work performed. Technical expertise is generally strong for routine work, but critical failures on complex installations undermine confidence in overall experience quality.

• CRITICAL: Three 1-star reviews document severe quality failures: (1) improper water heater vent installation creating carbon monoxide hazard; (2) failed thermocouple replacement with technician watching YouTube videos; (3) $15,610 tunneling job with pipes collapsing due to missing code-required hangers, company refused warranty work and was rude to customer. City of Round Rock reported company to State of Texas.
• Pricing inconsistency: Multiple reviews mention surprise service charges ($350 show-up fee, $135 service charge for $15 part) not disclosed upfront, contradicting claims of transparency. One review notes $2,000+ quote for water heater replacement with additional $250 for permits.
• Project completion concerns: Evidence of incomplete work (hole only half-filled with dirt scattered in yard), failed repairs requiring customer to hire another plumber, and refusal to address warranty issues on major projects.
• Recency bias: Most positive reviews are from 2013-2017 (7+ years old). More recent reviews (2021-2023) include both strong praise and severe complaints, suggesting inconsistent quality or possible personnel changes.
• No evidence of fake reviews detected; reviews contain specific details and varied experiences.

This WW Score of 78.2 should be treated with caution despite HIGH overall confidence. While professionalism and experience scores are well-supported by numerous mentions, the score is significantly dragged down by documented catastrophic failures on major projects (structural damage, safety hazards, code violations) that represent substantial financial and safety risks. The company excels at routine service calls but has demonstrated critical competency gaps on complex installations. Customers should request detailed references for projects similar in scope and complexity to their own before hiring.

L&P Plumbing demonstrates strong technical competence and generally professional service, with multiple reviews praising honesty, skill, and fair pricing. However, the company is significantly hampered by serious operational and behavioral issues documented in negative reviews, including aggressive debt collection tactics (police involvement), poor communication during disputes, and inconsistent quality control. While the majority of reviews are highly positive (22 five-star ratings), the severity of complaints in the 1-star reviews—particularly involving intimidation and legal threats—substantially reduces overall trustworthiness. The company excels at diagnosis and problem-solving but shows weakness in follow-through accountability and professional conflict resolution.

• CRITICAL: One review (2024-03-06) documents severe misconduct—aggressive debt collection with intimidation tactics requiring police intervention. This is a major red flag for business practices beyond technical competence.
• CRITICAL: Another review (2021-08-18) alleges improper installation (p-traps, copper pipes) and claims the company filed retaliatory lawsuits against customers for posting negative reviews. This suggests potential legal/ethical issues.
• MODERATE: Review from 2020-10-01 raises concerns about company transparency—reviewer claims owner 'Fabian' called himself 'Jeff,' suggesting possible deception.
• MODERATE: Review from 2020-06-03 documents failure to properly diagnose a toilet leak, missed follow-up, and refusal to correct the error at no charge despite customer loyalty potential.
• MINOR: One review (2019-04-30) is about reckless driving in company vehicle, not service quality, but reflects on company culture.
• PATTERN: Positive reviews are heavily concentrated in 2021-2024 period; negative reviews span 2019-2021. Recent reviews show improvement but do not fully offset historical issues.
• NOTE: No obvious fake review patterns detected. Reviews show specific details, varied language, and realistic complaint specificity.

This score should be treated with caution despite HIGH confidence in data volume. The company demonstrates genuine technical skill and professionalism in routine service delivery, but documented instances of aggressive collection practices, potential installation defects, and alleged retaliatory legal action represent serious character and ethics concerns that materially undermine the reliability of the overall rating. Customers should be aware of payment/dispute handling risks despite positive service reviews.

Jessi's Plumbers demonstrates strong technical expertise and generally professional service, with many customers praising responsiveness, friendliness, and quality workmanship. However, the company shows significant inconsistency: while 14 reviews are highly positive (5-star, detailed praise), three recent negative reviews (2022, 2020, 2019) cite serious concerns about pricing transparency, overcharging, communication failures, and ghosting appointments. The pricing dimension is particularly problematic, with explicit complaints about charges 2-3x higher than competitors for minimal work, discrepancies between quoted and final bills, and lack of upfront transparency. The company appears to have experienced a decline in service quality and professionalism over time, with older reviews (2017-2019) more consistently positive than recent ones (2022-2023).

• RECENCY CONCERN: Most positive reviews are from 2017-2019 (4+ years old). Recent reviews (2022-2023) show deterioration in service quality and pricing practices.
• PRICING RED FLAG: Multiple explicit complaints about overcharging (charges 2-3x competitor rates for simple 5-20 minute jobs), lack of quote callbacks, and billing discrepancies. One customer reported being charged $225 for 20 minutes of work; another charged $120 for 5-minute hair removal.
• PROFESSIONALISM DECLINE: Two reviews from 2019 and one from 2022 cite ghosting appointments, poor communication, and lack of responsiveness—contradicting the positive narrative from earlier years.
• POTENTIAL OWNERSHIP/STAFF CHANGES: Reviews mention multiple technicians (Fabian, Mikey, Damien, Michael). Quality appears inconsistent across different team members or time periods.
• BILLING INTEGRITY ISSUE: One 2022 review explicitly states customer was charged more than receipt showed, and owner claimed 'receipt was wrong' when confronted—suggests potential billing system problems or dishonesty.

This score should be treated with caution due to significant temporal decline in service quality and serious, specific pricing complaints in recent reviews that contradict the company's earlier reputation; the WW Score reflects historical strength but masks a concerning recent deterioration that prospective customers should investigate carefully.

Rapalo Handyman Services has a strong base of satisfied repeat customers who consistently praise Jose and his team for responsiveness, communication, and fair pricing across a wide variety of jobs. Professionalism scores well overall but is meaningfully dragged down by several credible negative reviews citing ghosting, failure to follow through on callbacks, and at least one incident involving items being discarded from a tenant's home without acknowledgment. Project completion is the most penalized dimension: multiple reviews document botched installations (upside-down faucet, improperly vented bathroom fan, failed shower door install, a nicked wire that was denied and left unrepaired, and a bathtub install with numerous deficiencies), indicating that quality control on more complex or multi-step jobs is inconsistent. Experience scores moderately well given the breadth of work completed successfully, but the pattern of errors on plumbing and installation-heavy jobs introduces meaningful doubt about technical depth on specialized tasks. Pricing is a relative strength, with many reviewers explicitly noting competitive or fair rates, though one reviewer flagged $650 for two hours of drywall work as expensive.

• Multiple credible 1–2 star reviews describe substantive workmanship failures: incorrect faucet orientation, improper duct tape use on bathroom fan venting, botched shower door install requiring full redo, broken tub enamel, nicked electrical wire that was denied and not repaired, and unsecured tub shimming. These are not vague complaints — they include specific technical details and are consistent with a pattern of quality-control gaps on complex jobs.
• Two reviews explicitly cite communication breakdown and ghosting after initial contact or site visit, including one reviewer who was ignored on a $1,600 job and another who was never called back to schedule follow-up work. This is a notable professionalism risk for larger or ongoing projects.
• One review (2022-09-15) describes workers discarding a tenant's personal belongings (magnets and mementos) in a trash bag used for construction debris, with no financial remedy offered. The company's own quoted response confirms the incident. This is a serious professionalism flag.
• One review (2022-05-09) describes property damage (snapped backyard post) that was denied by the crew, followed by sloppy workmanship requiring weeks of self-correction. Partial refund was eventually issued.
• One review (2022-04-23) is a detailed 1-star account describing multiple failures across a rental unit project including damaged tub enamel, a faulty tub spout dispute, and a nicked wire causing circuit failure that the company refused to repair. The reviewer considered small claims court. This is the most serious single review in the dataset.
• The majority of reviews are 5-star, but the negative reviews are detailed, specific, and credible — they do not appear to be fake. The positive reviews are also largely specific and varied, reducing fake review concern for the positive side. No significant fake review pattern detected.
• Recency note: Reviews span from 2020 to 2024. The most recent reviews (2024) are predominantly positive, which is a mild positive signal, but several of the most serious negative reviews are from 2022, which is within the recent window and cannot be dismissed.

This WW Score of 76.4 is based on 65 reviews with strong mention counts across all four dimensions and is considered moderately reliable, but prospective customers should weigh the specific negative reviews carefully — particularly for complex plumbing, installation, or multi-day projects — as the failure pattern in those reviews is detailed and credible enough to warrant caution beyond what the aggregate score alone conveys.

Chabert Plumbing has a strong overall track record across all four dimensions, with professionalism and pricing being consistent highlights — many reviewers specifically praised prompt communication, on-time arrivals, and fair or below-estimate charges. Project completion scores well in the majority of cases, with crews finishing jobs fully and following through, but is meaningfully dragged down by two notable failures: a misdiagnosed leak that cost a customer over $1,000 and resulted in no callback resolution, and a commercial estimate situation where repeated scheduling failures and a rude interaction led to a 1-star review. Experience is generally strong, with multiple reviewers citing skilled diagnostics and quality workmanship, but the misdiagnosis incident is a significant negative data point that prevents a higher score. The professionalism score is tempered by the communication breakdown in the 2012 no-callback review and the 2011 commercial scheduling dispute, which revealed poor follow-through and a dismissive attitude from an owner. Overall, the business performs well for residential jobs but has documented failures in communication reliability and diagnostic accuracy.

• RECENCY WARNING: The majority of reviews (20 out of 28) are from 2009–2015, making them 9–15 years old. Only 8 reviews are from 2020–2022. The WW Score is heavily influenced by older data and may not reflect current service quality.
• NEGATIVE INCIDENT — MISDIAGNOSIS: One detailed 1-star review (2012) describes a clear diagnostic failure where the real problem (broken bathtub overflow) was missed, an unnecessary $400 repair was performed, and the owner became unresponsive afterward. This is a material quality and completion concern.
• NEGATIVE INCIDENT — COMMUNICATION FAILURE: A 1-star review (2011) documents repeated scheduling failures and a rude owner interaction during a commercial estimate process. A separate 2-star review (2012) reports a call that was never returned for a repeat customer.
• POTENTIAL PATTERN — GENERIC PRAISE: Several older 5-star reviews use very similar language ('honest, dependable, does great work') with limited specifics. While not conclusive of fake reviews, the repetition slightly reduces confidence in the older review cluster.
• NO FAKE REVIEW FLAG TRIGGERED: The reviews span 13 years, reference specific staff names (Pete, Paul, Terry, Gary, Kim, Kimberly, Mike, Jon), describe varied job types, and include multiple critical reviews. The dataset does not appear to be artificially inflated.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the volume of reviews (28) and coverage across all dimensions, but should be treated with caution given that the majority of reviews are over 9 years old and two documented service failures — a misdiagnosis and a communication breakdown — represent meaningful risks that are not offset by the volume of older positive reviews.