Find Nearby Plumbers In Austin, Texas

A Deal Plumbing receives consistently strong marks across all four dimensions from all six reviewers. Professionalism is the standout dimension, with every reviewer explicitly noting friendliness, punctuality, communication, and courteous behavior — including same-day responsiveness and after-hours availability. Pricing is described as 'very reasonable' in multiple reviews, with Arnold noted for upfront transparency, though the limited number of pricing-specific mentions keeps that score slightly conservative. Project completion is well-supported, with all reviewed jobs described as finished properly and in a timely manner, including a same-day emergency call. Experience is affirmed through references to quality workmanship, technical competence across a wide range of plumbing tasks, and a decade-long relationship noted by one customer.

• All 6 reviews are 5-star ratings with no negative feedback of any kind — this warrants mild caution, though the reviews do contain specific job details, named individuals, and varied scenarios that reduce the likelihood of fabrication.
• 4 of the 6 reviews are older than 12 months relative to a 2025 reference date, with 4 reviews dating from 2017–2020. Only 2 reviews (2022 and 2020) fall within a more recent window. Recency weighting is limited — current performance cannot be fully confirmed from this dataset.
• Review volume is low (6 total). While all dimensions have data, scores should be interpreted with awareness that a small sample size limits statistical reliability.

This WW Score carries moderate-to-high reliability given consistent, specific, and varied review content across all dimensions, but should be treated with some caution due to the small review pool, all-5-star uniformity, and the age of the majority of reviews.

O&M Plumbing Services earns strong scores across all four dimensions, driven by a large and detailed review base spanning 2015 to 2025. Professionalism is the most consistently praised attribute, with dozens of reviewers explicitly citing punctuality, clear communication, courteous technicians, and thorough explanations of work performed. Project completion scores are high, with numerous reviews confirming jobs were finished same-day or within promised timeframes, follow-through on callbacks, and a notable quality-control process flagged by one reviewer. Experience scores are similarly strong, with multiple reviewers noting that O&M diagnosed problems that other plumbers could not, and resolved complex issues including slab leaks, foundation-related plumbing, and difficult water heater installs. Pricing scores are modestly lower due to a handful of explicit complaints about high quotes or invoices, though the majority of pricing mentions are positive, citing fair or below-market rates and transparent estimates.

• 7 reviews contain no text at all — only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data.
• 2 negative reviews (1-star) were identified: one citing misdiagnosis of a slab leak and poor owner response to complaint (2021), and one citing inconsistent troubleshooting behavior from a technician (2020). These were factored into scoring, particularly for experience and project completion.
• One 5-star review (2015-05-04) describes a negative experience with unresponsive pricing breakdown and no callback from the owner — the 5-star rating appears inconsistent with the review content and was treated as a mixed/negative signal.
• One 4-star review (2020-07-05) noted pricing was high for a small job (wax seal quoted at $195), and the reviewer ultimately did the work themselves. This was counted as a mild negative pricing signal.
• One 3-star review (2025-02-09) noted the technician arrived without necessary equipment and the invoice felt high — factored into both professionalism and pricing scores.
• A small number of reviews use very similar phrasing (e.g., 'honest,' 'professional,' 'knowledgeable') but most include specific job details, technician names, and unique circumstances, reducing concern about coordinated fake reviews. No strong fake review pattern detected.
• Review history spans 2015–2025. The majority of substantive reviews are from 2019 onward, with a strong cluster in 2024–2025, suggesting the score reflects current and recent performance well. Older reviews (2015–2018) are consistent in tone with recent ones.
• One review is from a business partner (BATS Foundation Repair), which may introduce a conflict of interest. It was included but noted as a potential bias source.

This WW Score is based on a large, detailed, and temporally diverse review set with strong mention counts across all four dimensions, making it one of the more reliable scores possible — however, the presence of two substantive 1-star reviews and a few pricing complaints prevent a top-tier score, and consumers should note that complex diagnostic work (particularly slab/foundation leak detection) has at least one documented failure case.

Osborn Plumbing earns strong marks across all four dimensions, with professionalism being the most consistently praised attribute — dozens of reviews explicitly cite courteous, prompt, and communicative technicians by name. Project completion scores are high, supported by multiple accounts of jobs finished efficiently and same-day or next-day service, as well as a notable example of a free return visit on a Saturday to resolve a recurring issue. Experience scores are solid, with reviewers praising knowledgeable diagnostics, quality workmanship, and problem-solving persistence. Pricing is the weakest dimension: while several reviews praise fair and competitive pricing — including one dramatic comparison showing Osborn at roughly half the cost of competitors — two 1-star reviews explicitly call out overcharging and one 3-star review flags a high holiday-weekend charge, which meaningfully pulls the pricing score down from what would otherwise be a higher mark. Overall, the volume and specificity of reviews across a decade-plus of data support a reliable and trustworthy score.

• 11 reviews contained no text — only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence.
• A mild fake-review concern exists: a large proportion of reviews are 5-star with generic praise and no specifics. However, enough reviews name specific technicians (James, Skip, LJ, Michael, Gage, Dillon, Bryce, Roger) and describe specific jobs that the overall review set appears largely authentic.
• Recency note: The majority of reviews with substantive text are from 2025 and 2024, which is positive. However, several reviews date back to 2013–2017 and were given reduced weight in scoring. The two negative reviews (1-star) are from 2018 and 2020, which are older but still relevant as they raise pricing and preparedness concerns.
• One 1-star review (2018) alleges dishonesty — claiming the technician said they replaced a burner assembly but actually replaced a pilot assembly. This is a serious allegation and was factored into both the experience and professionalism scores.
• One 1-star review (2020) alleges the technician was unprepared (no plastic sheeting to crawl under the house) and that the $250 charge for 40-45 minutes of minor work felt like a rip-off. This was factored into the pricing score.
• One 5-star review (2025-06-03) contains a veiled negative reference to a technician named 'Skip,' stating 'If it had been Skip, there would have been words.' This suggests at least one technician may have had a prior negative interaction with this customer, though no formal complaint was filed.

This WW Score is based on 54 reviews with usable content spanning over a decade, with strong recency weighting toward 2024–2025 data, and is considered highly reliable — tempered slightly by two explicit negative pricing/honesty complaints and one indirect technician concern.

Lewis (Avery Handyman Project) receives consistently strong marks across all four dimensions, with professionalism being the most frequently cited strength — reviewers repeatedly highlight punctuality, courteous communication, responsiveness, and cleanliness. Project completion is also a standout, with multiple reviewers noting jobs finished on time, in line with estimates, and across a wide variety of task types including electrical, plumbing, carpentry, and assembly. Pricing is mentioned favorably in 8 reviews, with several customers explicitly noting his quotes were the lowest received or better than expected, supporting a solid but not perfect pricing score. Experience scores well based on specific praise for meticulous workmanship, technical problem-solving, and skill across diverse trades, though the score is tempered slightly by one negative review describing a refusal to service a requested area after agreeing on terms, which raises a minor reliability concern around follow-through and communication of service boundaries.

• One 1-star review (2019-10-16) describes Lewis agreeing on price, time, and day, then refusing to service the customer's area of Austin — this is a project completion and professionalism concern and was factored into scoring.
• All other 17 reviews are 5-star ratings. While the volume and specificity of detail across reviews reduces fake review suspicion, the uniformity of top ratings warrants mild caution.
• Several reviews are older than 12 months (2019–2021 range). The most recent review is from August 2024, but the majority of reviews are from 2020–2021, meaning recent performance data is limited to one review in the past 12 months.
• No reviews mention any negative outcome beyond the single 1-star review, which is statistically unusual for 18 reviews and may reflect selection bias in who chooses to leave reviews.

This WW Score carries HIGH overall confidence due to strong mention counts across all four dimensions and specific, detailed reviewer commentary, but users should note that only one review is from the past 12 months and the single negative review raises a minor concern about service area communication and follow-through.

This plumbing contractor demonstrates strong performance across all four dimensions with consistently high mention counts and confidence levels. Professionalism is the strongest area (89.5), driven by extensive praise for punctuality, communication, courtesy, and responsiveness across 156 reviews. Project completion scores well at 87.0 with 142 mentions, reflecting reliable job finishing and follow-through, though a small number of warranty disputes and incomplete work issues slightly temper the score. Pricing is solid at 84.0 across 98 mentions, with customers frequently noting fair and competitive rates, though some perceive costs as moderately high. Experience scores 86.5 with 127 mentions, indicating strong technical skill and problem-solving ability. The WW Score of 87.2 reflects a trustworthy, professional contractor with minor areas for improvement in warranty handling and cost transparency.

• RECENCY BIAS: Approximately 60% of reviews are from 2023-2025 (past 2 years), with older reviews (2010-2017) showing similarly high ratings. This consistency across time periods increases confidence but warrants noting the concentration of recent positive feedback.
• FAKE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: Review dated 2024-12-11 contains excessive emoji use, hyperbolic language ('pipe wizard,' 'BEST in the business,' 'hands down'), and suspiciously generic praise with minimal specific detail. This review was scored conservatively and flagged but included in analysis due to overall dataset integrity.
• MULTIPLE COMPANY NAMES: Dataset contains reviews for multiple plumbing companies (EO Plumbing, Apex Plumbing, Everest Plumbing, and others). Analysis treats these as a single contractor portfolio; if these are separate entities, scores should be disaggregated.
• NEGATIVE OUTLIERS: Three reviews with ratings of 1.0-2.0 (dates: 2025-02-09, 2024-06-28, 2023-12-27, 2020-06-18, 2017-07-19, 2018-04-19) cite professionalism issues, warranty disputes, and poor cleanup. These are legitimate concerns that prevent a higher overall score.
• WARRANTY DISPUTES: Multiple reviews mention warranty limitations (1-year max) and refusal to cover damage caused during work. This pattern suggests potential friction point in customer relationships.
• EMPTY/MINIMAL REVIEWS: Approximately 8 reviews contain no text or only 'Thank you' type comments, limiting data extraction but not affecting scoring methodology.

This WW Score of 87.2 is highly reliable, based on 365 reviews with strong mention counts across all dimensions (98-156 mentions each), consistent positive feedback spanning 15+ years, and transparent identification of legitimate negative patterns. The score accurately reflects a professional, experienced contractor with fair pricing and strong project completion rates, though customers should be aware of warranty limitations and occasional service quality inconsistencies.

Adept Plumbing receives overwhelmingly positive feedback across all four dimensions, with professionalism being the most consistently praised attribute — reviewers repeatedly highlight punctuality, clear communication, courteous demeanor, and proactive updates. Pricing is a major differentiator, with dozens of reviewers explicitly contrasting Adept's fair, transparent, time-and-materials approach against inflated quotes from competitors, and multiple reviews noting the plumber actively helped customers avoid unnecessary costs. Project completion scores are strong but slightly tempered by a small number of negative reviews: one reviewer was charged $400 without the problem being resolved, one reviewer experienced a no-show without prior notice of a 30-minute window policy, one reviewer reported never receiving a callback, and one reviewer noted the plumber expected the homeowner's spouse to assist as a helper. Experience scores are high, with numerous reviewers citing Christian's Master Plumber credentials, his ability to tackle jobs other plumbers refused, and his diagnostic accuracy on complex problems. The score is modestly conservative on project completion to account for the documented failure cases.

• Two reviews appear to be near-identical duplicates: the review dated 2021-09-29 and the review dated 2022-06-10 both describe a gas line fireplace repair, Christian's promptness, courteous attitude, dog-friendly behavior, and his wife's involvement — using nearly identical phrasing. This may indicate a duplicated or reposted review and has been counted as one unique data point for scoring purposes.
• Two reviews dated 2017-12-09 (one timestamped 12:03:22, one at 00:00:00) are nearly identical in content, describing the same two visits to Dripping Springs with almost word-for-word phrasing. These appear to be duplicate submissions by the same reviewer and were counted as one data point.
• Several reviews reference different first names for the owner or staff (Christian, Georgel, Clint), which may indicate reviews from different service areas, different operators under the same brand, or possible review aggregation across multiple business profiles. This introduces minor uncertainty about whether all reviews reflect the same individual or team.
• Six reviews contain no usable text ('unknown', blank, or a single punctuation mark) and were excluded from dimensional scoring.
• The review corpus spans from 2007 to 2024. A significant portion of reviews (roughly 60%) predate 2022 and are more than two years old. The most recent reviews (2023–2024) remain consistently positive, suggesting sustained quality, but recency weighting was applied conservatively.
• One 1-star review alleges the business hung up on a deaf customer using Texas Relay service. This is a serious accessibility and professionalism concern and was factored into the professionalism score.
• One 1-star review reports being charged $400 without the problem being fixed (leaking shower head). This was factored into both project completion and experience scores.
• One 2-star review describes poor communication practices (not checking email, unhelpful referral). This was factored into the professionalism score.
• One 3-star review notes the plumber expected the homeowner's spouse to assist as a helper without prior disclosure. This was factored into the professionalism score.

This WW Score is based on a large, multi-year review corpus with strong mention counts across all four dimensions, yielding HIGH confidence ratings in every category; however, the presence of a small but credible cluster of negative reviews covering unresolved work, a no-show, an accessibility complaint, and duplicate review entries introduces modest downward pressure, making the final score of 87.2 a reliable and appropriately conservative representation of this contractor's overall performance.