Find Nearby Plumbers In Austin, Texas

All three reviews are recent (within the past 12 months) and consistently praise Thomas Snow across multiple dimensions. Professionalism stands out strongly, with reviewers noting punctuality, clear communication, and a conscientious attitude including staying on-site to verify completed work. Pricing is highlighted as highly competitive and transparent, with one reviewer noting he was charged only for the originally quoted hour despite unexpected complications. Project completion and workmanship quality are affirmed across all reviews, with no mention of unfinished work or callbacks needed. However, the total review count is very low at just 3, which significantly limits the reliability of this score despite its positive direction.

• Only 3 reviews total — WW Score is directionally positive but statistically unreliable. Treat with caution.
• All reviews are 5-star, which warrants mild scrutiny; however, each review contains specific, distinct details and unique phrasing, reducing the likelihood of fake or incentivized reviews.
• No negative feedback or constructive criticism present across any review — this may reflect genuine satisfaction but could also reflect a small and self-selected sample.

This score is based on only 3 reviews and should be considered a preliminary positive signal rather than a definitive assessment — significantly more reviews are needed before this score can be trusted with confidence.

All three reviews paint a consistently positive picture of Blackburn Plumbing across every dimension. Professionalism stands out strongly, with multiple reviewers explicitly praising friendliness, honesty, patience, and integrity — including a notable instance where the technician voluntarily reduced a quoted price when less work was needed. Pricing is rated favorably, with transparent quotes, a voluntary price reduction, and mention of first responder and healthcare discounts, though one reviewer noted uncertainty about whether they were the cheapest option. Project completion is well-supported, with all three jobs resolved fully and in a timely manner, including a same-day and next-day response. Experience is evidenced by quick and accurate diagnoses across different job types, including water heater warranty navigation and leak assessment, suggesting solid technical competence.

• Only 3 reviews total — the WW Score cannot be considered statistically reliable and should be treated as directional only.
• All three reviews are 5-star ratings with no negative feedback whatsoever. While the reviews do contain specific details and varied scenarios (reducing the likelihood of fabrication), the uniformly perfect ratings warrant mild caution.
• One review dates from June 2023, which is over 12 months old relative to the most recent review (June 2024). The sample is too small to assess meaningful trend direction.
• No fake review patterns detected — each review describes distinct scenarios, specific individuals (Ryan, Gabe), and unique job types, which supports authenticity.

This score is based on only 3 reviews and should be treated as a promising early signal rather than a definitive assessment — significantly more reviews are needed before the WW Score can be considered highly reliable.

Alex receives consistently positive feedback across all three reviews, with two reviewers specifically praising his prompt communication and responsiveness, which drives the professionalism score. Two reviews confirm work was completed successfully and to satisfaction, supporting a moderate project completion score. The experience score is tempered by the fact that one review ('Does great work!') is entirely generic with no supporting detail, limiting confidence. Pricing is completely unmentioned across all reviews, so no score can be assigned to that dimension. With only 3 reviews total, all scores must be treated as preliminary and low-confidence.

• Very small sample size (3 reviews) — WW Score should be considered unreliable until more reviews are available.
• One review ('Does great work!') is entirely generic with no specifics — it contributes minimal usable signal and may reflect a low-effort or placeholder review.
• All three reviews are 5-star ratings with no critical feedback — while not conclusive, this pattern warrants caution in a small dataset.
• Most reviews are older than 12 months (two from 2023, one from 2022) — recency weighting is limited and current performance cannot be confirmed.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews with limited detail, no pricing data, and all ratings at 5 stars, making it a low-confidence preliminary assessment that should not be treated as a definitive measure of contractor quality.

Sylvester receives mostly positive feedback across a small review set, with particular praise for fair pricing and responsiveness in emergencies. Three of four reviewers highlight his affordability and willingness to do honest work, and one reviewer noted a follow-up call to check on elderly clients, suggesting genuine care. However, one review explicitly calls him incompetent and rude, which is a significant negative signal that cannot be dismissed, especially given the small sample size. The professionalism score is pulled down meaningfully by this negative review, as it directly contradicts the positive tone of the others. Overall, the picture is cautiously positive but far from conclusive given only four reviews spanning over a decade.

• Very small sample size of only 4 reviews — scores carry limited statistical reliability.
• Reviews span from 2011 to 2017, meaning all reviews are more than 6 years old. There is no recent data to assess current performance.
• One review (1-star, 2016) explicitly cites incompetence and rudeness, which is a direct contradiction to the other reviews and cannot be ignored.
• The oldest review (2011) references a highly emotional family situation, which may introduce positive bias in that reviewer's assessment.
• No reviews from the past 12 months — current quality of service is entirely unknown.

This WW Score should be treated with low confidence due to the very small number of reviews, the presence of one strongly negative review, and the fact that all reviews are over 6 years old with no recent data available.

Patterson Plumbing has a deeply mixed record across all four dimensions. On the positive side, many reviews — particularly from 2011–2014 and a handful from 2019–2024 — praise punctuality, friendliness, responsiveness, and clean, efficient work. However, serious negative reviews drag every dimension down significantly: multiple reviewers describe abandoned or incomplete jobs, shoddy workmanship with multiple return visits required, unlicensed workers, rude behavior from the owner, and deceptive pricing practices (notably a $500 add-on falsely described as a code requirement). Project completion is especially concerning, with at least four reviews describing work left unfinished, repeated no-shows, or jobs requiring significant rework. Pricing is similarly mixed — some reviewers praise fair or even zero-cost service, while others report overcharging, unclear billing, and deceptive upsells. The experience dimension is undermined by reviews citing improper installations, code violations, and work that created new problems rather than solving existing ones.

• RECENCY WARNING: The majority of reviews are older than 3 years, with only 3 reviews from the past 12 months (2024). The bulk of data comes from 2011–2013, which may not reflect current service quality.
• SERIOUS WORKMANSHIP CONCERNS: At least 3 reviews (2013, 2021, 2024) describe installations that failed code inspection or were outright dangerous, including a gas water heater with disconnected venting leaking carbon monoxide into an attic.
• LICENSING CONCERN: One reviewer (2013) reported that the plumber's license appeared to have lapsed for 3 years per the state website. A separate reviewer (2023) stated 'none of the workers are licensed.'
• ABANDONMENT PATTERN: Multiple reviews (2015, 2015, 2012) describe a consistent pattern of taking payment or partial payment and then repeatedly canceling or failing to return to complete work — a significant red flag.
• DECEPTIVE PRICING FLAG: The 2024 review explicitly states a $500 add-on was falsely described as a code requirement, which the city inspector confirmed was not required. This is a serious ethical concern.
• OWNER CONDUCT: One review (2016) describes the owner Ron becoming verbally aggressive and 'blowing up' at a customer who raised a legitimate scheduling complaint.
• GENERIC POSITIVE REVIEWS: Several older 5-star reviews (2011–2013) are very brief and lack specific detail (e.g., 'Excellent, no problems with anything', 'They came they cut they glued & they left', 'unknown'). While not conclusively fake, these add limited evidentiary weight.
• MULTIPLE WORKERS NAMED: Reviews reference Dan, Danny, Reggie, Steve, Roy, Caleb, Ray, and Ron — suggesting either a larger team or significant staff turnover, making it difficult to assess consistency across the business as a whole.

This WW Score is based on a substantial volume of 44 reviews spanning over a decade, giving it HIGH statistical confidence, but the score should be interpreted cautiously given the serious and recurring nature of the negative reviews, the predominance of older data, credible licensing concerns, and a documented pattern of job abandonment and deceptive billing.

Professionalism is the most heavily mentioned dimension and also the most polarizing — Josh (the plumber) is consistently described as professional, pleasant, and knowledgeable, while Alyssa (the business manager/spouse) is the subject of multiple detailed, credible complaints about aggressive texting, threatening behavior, and hostile communication across at least four separate reviews spanning 2015–2023. This pattern is too consistent and specific to dismiss, and it significantly drags the professionalism score down. Pricing is generally viewed favorably, with several reviewers noting fair or affordable rates, though one reviewer flagged an inflated charge for incomplete work and another described an unsolicited upsell attempt. Project completion is mixed — most jobs were finished, but at least two reviews document faulty initial work requiring a return visit, and one describes a job quoted but not fully completed. Experience scores reasonably well, with Josh praised for technical knowledge and problem-solving across multiple reviews, though the recurring installation defects in two independent reviews prevent a higher score.

• RECURRING CONDUCT PATTERN — At least 4 independent reviews (2015, 2018, 2020, 2023) describe nearly identical behavior from Alyssa: aggressive/threatening text messages or calls, demanding payment before fixing faulty work, and hostile responses to customer complaints. This is a systemic issue, not an isolated incident.
• FAULTY WORKMANSHIP PATTERN — At least 2 independent reviews (2018, 2020) describe the same type of defect: a faucet installed incorrectly that required a return visit. This suggests a recurring quality control issue, not a one-off mistake.
• BILLING IRREGULARITY — Multiple reviews mention the credit card reader not working and an inability or refusal to provide a final price at time of service. This is flagged as a potential business practice concern.
• RECENCY CONCERN — The two most recent reviews (October 2023) are both 1-star complaints about rudeness and attitude, suggesting the conduct issues have not improved over time. The majority of positive reviews are from 2015–2022.
• REVIEW AGE SPREAD — Reviews span 2015 to 2023. Positive reviews are concentrated in 2015–2022; negative reviews appear throughout the entire range. No fake review patterns detected — negative reviews are highly specific and credible, and positive reviews contain sufficient detail to appear genuine.

This WW Score is based on 23 reviews with high mention counts across all four dimensions and is considered reliable; however, the score should be interpreted cautiously given a well-documented and recurring pattern of unprofessional conduct by one team member that has persisted across at least 8 years of reviews.