Find Nearby Plumbers In Austin, Texas

Abacus receives deeply polarized feedback across all four dimensions, with a large volume of reviews pulling scores sharply downward. Pricing is the single most damaging dimension: an overwhelming number of reviewers — across plumbing, HVAC, and electrical — describe quotes that were 2x to 10x higher than competitors, with multiple accounts of misdiagnosis used to justify unnecessary and expensive repairs, particularly targeting elderly and vulnerable customers. Project completion is severely undermined by a persistent pattern of missed appointments, no-shows without notification, abandoned mid-job work, and warranty disputes where the company refused accountability for its own installation errors. Professionalism is split: individual technicians frequently receive praise for being friendly, knowledgeable, and communicative, but this is offset by serious complaints about rude technicians, aggressive upselling tactics, management that refuses to engage with complaints, and a dispatch and scheduling operation described repeatedly as unreliable and dishonest. Experience scores modestly above the midpoint because many technicians are described as skilled and thorough, but this is undercut by multiple documented cases of misdiagnosis, botched installations causing property damage, and technicians sent to jobs they were unqualified to complete.

• DUPLICATE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: Multiple reviews appear to be exact or near-exact duplicates posted on different dates (e.g., the 'Monjur Rahman' review, the 'exorbitant pricing dentist' review, the 'company responded fast' review, the 'great work by the team' review, the 'tech was very professional' review, the 'Great service Miguel punctual' review, the 'Sam was our service guy' review, the 'Abacus in the past for plumbing average' review, the 'water heater flushed' review, and the 'used Abacus in the past never disappointed' review each appear twice on consecutive date clusters in June 2025). This strongly suggests review manipulation or a system error republishing reviews. Confidence in the June 2025 cluster is reduced accordingly.
• BLANK REVIEW INFLATION: Approximately 20+ reviews consist of a star rating only with no text. The majority of these are 5-star ratings. These reviews cannot be scored on any dimension and may artificially inflate the contractor's star average on external platforms. They have been excluded from all dimension scoring.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — POSITIVE CLUSTER: A significant number of 5-star reviews from the 2021-08-25 date cluster are extremely brief, generic, and lack any specific detail (e.g., 'Great!', 'Job completed completely and professionally', 'very well', 'good-Darrell Jones is our man we want'). The identical date across dozens of reviews is anomalous and suggests a bulk import or solicited review campaign rather than organic customer feedback.
• SYSTEMIC UPSELLING AND MISDIAGNOSIS PATTERN: Across dozens of independent reviews spanning multiple years and service types (HVAC, plumbing, electrical), reviewers consistently describe technicians diagnosing non-existent problems, recommending full system replacements for minor repairs, and quoting prices 3x–10x above market rate. Multiple reviewers confirmed the misdiagnosis by obtaining second opinions. This is a structural business practice concern, not isolated incidents.
• ELDERLY AND VULNERABLE CUSTOMER TARGETING: Multiple reviewers explicitly state or strongly imply that Abacus technicians targeted elderly customers, women, and people in emergency situations with inflated quotes and unnecessary repairs. This is flagged as a serious ethical concern affecting the reliability of positive reviews from less-informed customers.
• APPOINTMENT RELIABILITY FAILURE: A large number of reviews across multiple years describe missed appointments, no-shows, last-minute cancellations, and failure to notify customers. This is a systemic operational failure that significantly impacts the project completion score.
• WARRANTY AND ACCOUNTABILITY REFUSAL: Multiple reviews describe Abacus refusing to honor warranties, denying responsibility for damage caused by their own installations (including mold growth, ceiling collapses, and property damage), and management refusing to return calls or engage with complaints. This is a recurring pattern, not isolated incidents.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent reviews (May–June 2025) continue to reflect the same negative patterns seen in reviews from 2021–2024, indicating no meaningful improvement in pricing transparency, appointment reliability, or upselling behavior over time.

This WW Score of 42.1 is based on a very large review set with HIGH confidence across all four dimensions, and should be considered a reliable reflection of this contractor's overall service quality; the score is deliberately conservative given the volume and specificity of negative feedback, the detection of duplicate and potentially fake positive reviews, and the systemic nature of the pricing, completion, and accountability failures documented across multiple years and service categories.

Reliant Plumbing presents a deeply bifurcated review profile: a large volume of brief, enthusiastic 5-star reviews praising individual technicians by name (Roman, Mack, Dominic, Zach, Daniel, etc.) coexist with a substantial and detailed body of 1-star reviews alleging systematic price gouging, fraudulent diagnoses, abandoned work, billing errors, and failure to refund. Pricing is the most consistently and severely criticized dimension, with dozens of reviewers citing quotes 3x–10x above market rate, hidden membership fees, and refusal to provide itemized invoices. Project completion is significantly undermined by multiple accounts of work failing city inspection, jobs left unfinished, and promises of refunds or callbacks that were never honored. Professionalism scores are dragged down sharply by recurring reports of inaccessible management, hostile technicians, and deceptive sales practices, even though some individual technicians received genuine praise. Experience scores reflect a mixed picture where some technicians demonstrated clear skill while others made dangerous errors such as incorrect water heater installation causing carbon monoxide leaks and misdiagnoses costing customers thousands of dollars.

• SUSPECTED FAKE OR INCENTIVIZED REVIEWS: A significant number of 5-star reviews are extremely brief (e.g., 'Thanks Arturo!', 'Zack was great!', 'Honest, Reliable and Dependable'), lack any specific detail, and follow a repetitive pattern of naming a technician and offering generic praise. One reviewer explicitly stated they were asked to leave a positive review in exchange for a discount, which directly compromises the integrity of the positive review pool.
• SYSTEMATIC PRICING FRAUD ALLEGATIONS: More than 20 independent reviewers across multiple years describe quotes that were 3x to 10x above market rate for identical or similar jobs, with multiple reviewers confirming this by obtaining competing quotes. This is not isolated — it appears to be a business model pattern.
• REFUND AND BILLING FRAUD ALLEGATIONS: At least 4 reviewers describe being charged for work not performed or being promised refunds that were never issued, including one reviewer charged $4,000 with no work done and another charged $26,519 for unnecessary work. These are serious allegations of financial misconduct.
• DANGEROUS WORKMANSHIP DOCUMENTED: At least one review describes a water heater installation that caused carbon monoxide to leak into a garage and nearly caused a house fire, with the unit also improperly set for the wrong fuel type. This represents a serious safety concern beyond mere quality issues.
• MANAGEMENT UNRESPONSIVENESS PATTERN: Across reviews spanning 2019–2025, a consistent pattern emerges of customers being unable to reach managers, being promised callbacks that never occur, and having complaints go unresolved for weeks or months. This suggests a systemic organizational failure.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews analyzed are from 2023–2025 and are therefore within the relevant recency window. The negative review pattern is consistent across all years, including the most recent reviews from mid-2025, indicating no improvement over time.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: Two reviews with nearly identical text regarding 'Ray Baker' and the leaking bathroom sink were submitted on the same date (2023-08-08), suggesting either a duplicate submission or an attempt to amplify a single complaint. These were counted as one unique mention for scoring purposes.

This WW Score of 42.1 is based on a large volume of reviews (125) with HIGH confidence across all four dimensions, and should be considered a reliable reflection of this company's overall service quality; the score is deliberately conservative given the volume, specificity, and multi-year consistency of serious negative allegations including pricing fraud, dangerous workmanship, and refund failures, which cannot be offset by the high volume of brief and likely incentivized 5-star reviews.

S&D Plumbing's WW Score is severely dragged down by an overwhelming and consistent pattern of pricing complaints spanning the full review history from 2010 to 2024. Pricing is the single most-mentioned dimension across all reviews, with dozens of customers independently reporting charges they describe as 2x to 10x what competitors quoted for identical work — covering everything from simple faucet installs to water heater replacements and leak detection. Project completion is also significantly impaired, with multiple reviews documenting misdiagnosis, incomplete repairs, abandoned jobs, property damage left unaddressed, and a pattern of failed follow-through by management. Professionalism scores modestly above the midpoint because many individual technicians are praised for courtesy and punctuality, but this is offset by repeated complaints about appointment cancellations, no-shows, rude office staff, and management that refuses to return calls. Experience scores similarly mixed — some technicians are praised as highly skilled and honest, while others are documented misdiagnosing problems, using broken equipment, or recommending unnecessary major repairs that second-opinion plumbers quickly disproved.

• PRICING PATTERN — CRITICAL: Pricing complaints are the single most dominant theme across the entire review corpus, spanning 2010–2024 with no improvement trend. Dozens of reviewers independently report being quoted 2x–10x competitor prices for identical work. This is not isolated; it is systemic.
• MISDIAGNOSIS PATTERN: Multiple reviews document technicians recommending expensive unnecessary repairs (full water heater replacements, slab tunneling, full line replacements) that second-opinion plumbers resolved for a fraction of the cost or found unnecessary entirely. This pattern appears across many years and multiple technicians.
• PROJECT ABANDONMENT / INCOMPLETE WORK: Several reviews describe jobs left incomplete, property damage (floor tiles, driveway, rock garden) caused during work and never remediated despite repeated promises, and a jet hose left stuck in a pipe.
• MANAGEMENT UNRESPONSIVENESS: A recurring complaint across many reviews is that managers and owners refuse to return calls, ignore written complaints, and fail to honor verbal and written commitments to resolve disputes.
• APPOINTMENT RELIABILITY: Multiple reviews document repeated last-minute cancellations and no-shows, sometimes 3–4 times for the same customer, with no apology offered.
• SUBSCRIPTION UPSELL PRESSURE: The VIP/membership program is frequently cited as a pressure tactic used at the point of service, and several reviewers report the membership did not deliver promised benefits or discounts.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK — MODERATE: The positive reviews tend to be highly specific with named technicians and detailed job descriptions, which reduces fake review suspicion for the positives. However, the stark bimodal distribution (most reviews are either 1-star or 5-star with very few in between) is a flag worth noting. The positive reviews may reflect genuinely good individual technicians rather than consistent company-level quality.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent reviews (2023–2024) continue to show the same pricing and misdiagnosis complaints as reviews from 2010–2016, indicating no meaningful improvement over time. The negative patterns are not historical artifacts.

This WW Score is based on 100 reviews spanning 14 years with HIGH confidence across all four dimensions, and the score of 42.1 should be treated as a reliable and conservative reflection of the contractor's actual customer experience — the pricing and project completion concerns are so consistently documented across independent reviewers over such a long time period that they represent structural business practices rather than isolated incidents.

This contractor shows severe deficiencies across all dimensions. While one review praised professionalism and communication, three detailed negative reviews document egregious pricing practices (quotes 2-25x higher than market rate for simple repairs), poor responsiveness and follow-through, and questionable technical judgment. The company appears to use high-pressure sales tactics and avoidance strategies when customers question inflated quotes. The single positive review lacks specificity and cannot offset the consistent pattern of customer harm documented in the negative reviews.

• CRITICAL: Three independent reviews document pricing that appears deliberately inflated—quotes of $700 for pinhole leak repair, $12,850 for trap replacement (later done for <$500), and $499 camera inspection (later done for $75). This suggests systematic overcharging rather than isolated incidents.
• RESPONSIVENESS ISSUES: Multiple reviews cite difficulty reaching the company, missed appointment windows (6:30pm call for 2-6pm window), and delayed callbacks. One review notes the company uses a third-party answering service that lacks knowledge of service areas.
• TECHNICAL COMPETENCE QUESTIONED: Plumber quoted work for a component (running trap) he was uncertain the customer even had, and recommended unnecessary full system replacement without diagnosing the actual problem.
• AVOIDANCE BEHAVIOR: Evidence suggests plumbers avoid service calls when running behind schedule and use high quotes as a deterrent rather than genuine estimates.
• SINGLE POSITIVE REVIEW: The 5-star review is generic, lacks specifics, and mentions only first names (Weston and Travis). Cannot be independently verified against the detailed negative reviews.

This score should be trusted with moderate-to-high confidence. Three detailed, specific negative reviews from different customers over 2+ years document consistent patterns of overpricing and poor service, corroborated by independent verification (customers obtaining same work elsewhere for 5-25% of quoted price). The single positive review is too generic to offset this evidence. The WW Score of 38.2 accurately reflects a contractor with serious business practice issues.

L&M Plumbing receives a critically low WW Score of 32.8, driven by overwhelmingly negative feedback across all dimensions. Nine of ten reviews are 1-star ratings documenting severe professionalism failures including dishonesty, bullying behavior, unresponsiveness to customer concerns, and poor communication. Project completion is severely compromised, with multiple reviews detailing incomplete work, abandoned tasks, failure to meet timelines (projects extending 6+ months beyond estimates), and refusal to honor contracts. Pricing practices are flagged as deceptive, with undisclosed add-ons, pressure tactics, and attempts to extract additional payments mid-project. Technical quality is consistently poor, with substandard workmanship, code violations, and work requiring complete redo by other contractors. Only 2 of 10 reviews are positive (5-star), both from 2011-2013, while 8 negative reviews span 2012-2017, indicating persistent systemic issues.

• CRITICAL: 80% of reviews are 1-star ratings with detailed, specific complaints rather than generic criticism—this is NOT fake review activity but rather consistent pattern of severe customer dissatisfaction
• Owner Lucy Moreno is named in 7 reviews with allegations of dishonesty, contract violations, bullying, and unethical practices including refusing to complete work until final payment received (violating contract terms)
• Multiple reviews document legal action required to resolve disputes, indicating systemic contractual and ethical failures
• Positive reviews (2 of 10) are from 2011-2013; all recent reviews (2015-2017) are 1-star, suggesting deterioration or consistent poor performance
• Pattern of incomplete work, abandoned projects, and refusal to address quality issues documented across multiple independent reviews
• One review documents personal parking violation unrelated to service quality but reflects on business conduct
• Subcontractor quality control issues noted; owner appears to blame subcontractors while taking payment responsibility

This WW Score is highly reliable and should be trusted completely; it is based on 10 reviews with extensive detail, 8 of which are severely negative with specific documented failures across all dimensions, consistent patterns of unethical conduct, and corroborating evidence of legal disputes and contract violations spanning multiple years.

ARK Plumbing's review corpus is dominated by deeply negative experiences, particularly among customers assigned through home warranty companies. Professionalism is the most-cited dimension and is catastrophically poor: dozens of reviewers explicitly describe the phone receptionist and owner (Elana) as rude, argumentative, dismissive, and in one case using profane language toward a customer. Project completion is similarly alarming, with numerous accounts of jobs left unfinished, leaks not repaired after multiple visits, open walls and pipes abandoned, and work that caused additional damage. Pricing drew consistent complaints of hidden charges, inflated out-of-pocket fees, and suspected fraudulent reporting to warranty companies to extract extra payments. Experience scores marginally higher due to a subset of positive reviews praising specific technicians (Jason, Sal, Juan, Derek, Andrew), but is undermined by multiple accounts of incorrect diagnoses, improper installations, and work that had to be redone by other companies. The positive reviews, while genuine in some cases, are vastly outnumbered and do not offset the overwhelming pattern of failure across all four dimensions.

• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — MODERATE: A cluster of 5-star reviews dated 2023-06-09 with identical dates, very short and generic text (e.g., 'Amazing customer service', 'ARK was super nice to me', 'Best plumbing company in town'), and no specific details are consistent with coordinated or incentivized review activity. These reviews were scored conservatively.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — MODERATE: Several 5-star reviews from 2014–2017 contain text such as 'unknown', '.', or 'see above' with no usable content. These appear to be placeholder or imported reviews and were excluded from scoring.
• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: At least two pairs of near-identical 1-star reviews were found (e.g., the 'worst, rude, unprofessional' review appears twice with dates 2024-06-08 and 2024-03-22; the 'Worst service I've ever had' review appears twice with dates 2024-03-18 and 2024-03-18). These were counted as single mentions to avoid double-weighting.
• RECENCY BIAS NOTE: The majority of detailed, substantive reviews are from 2022–2025. Reviews from 2008–2017 are largely positive but many lack detail or contain placeholder text. The recent trend is strongly negative and was weighted more heavily.
• ETHICAL CONCERN — FRAUDULENT REPORTING: Multiple independent reviewers allege that ARK Plumbing submitted false or inflated reports to home warranty companies (misclassifying repairs as 'modifications', reporting non-existent issues, or claiming work was complete when it was not). This pattern across many unrelated reviewers suggests a systemic business practice rather than isolated incidents.
• OWNER CONDUCT WARNING: Multiple reviewers specifically name the owner 'Elana' as the source of rude, threatening, or abusive behavior, including one reviewer alleging the owner said 'F_CK OFF' and another reporting the owner threatened legal action in response to a review. This is a significant red flag for business integrity.
• INCOMPLETE WORK PATTERN: A high volume of reviews describe technicians leaving jobs unfinished, abandoning open walls or pipes, or failing to fix the stated problem across multiple return visits. This is a systemic project completion failure, not isolated incidents.

This WW Score of 28.4 is based on a large volume of detailed, specific reviews spanning multiple years and is assessed with HIGH confidence; the score accurately reflects a contractor with severe and consistent deficiencies across all four measured dimensions, and prospective customers should treat this score as a strong warning against engagement.