Find Nearby Plumbers In Bryan, Texas

Roadrunner Plumber draws overwhelmingly positive feedback across a large and multi-year review base, with professionalism being the most frequently cited strength — punctuality, friendliness, clear communication, and courteous behavior appear in dozens of reviews. Project completion scores are strong, with multiple reviewers noting jobs finished on time, callbacks honored, and plumbers going above and beyond the original scope. Pricing is consistently described as fair, reasonable, and transparent, with one detailed review explicitly noting a plumber held to his original quote despite unexpected complications. Experience and workmanship are well-supported, including a standout review where Chad solved in 10 minutes what two other plumbers could not, and a whole-house repipe completed efficiently. A small cluster of 1-star reviews from June 2021 relates entirely to a vehicle incident involving a dog — not plumbing service quality — and does not reflect on technical or professional performance in the field.

• INCIDENT REVIEWS (4 reviews, June 2021, 1-star): Four reviews describe a vehicle from the company hitting and killing a dog without the driver stopping or the owner apologizing. These reviews are unrelated to plumbing service quality and have been excluded from dimension scoring, but they represent a legitimate reputational concern regarding company conduct and customer relations.
• RECENCY NOTE: A significant portion of reviews (roughly 30+) predate 2024, with some going back to 2005–2013. While the overall pattern is consistent, older reviews may not reflect current staffing, ownership, or service quality. Reviews from 2024–2025 remain strongly positive and are weighted more heavily.
• GENERIC REVIEWS: Several reviews contain minimal detail (e.g., 'Great guys 100% great service', 'GREAT!!!', 'It went well.', blank text with 5-star ratings). These were counted toward total reviews analyzed but contributed little to dimension scoring due to lack of specificity.
• MULTIPLE OPERATOR NAMES: Reviews reference Chad, Andy, Kevin, Bill, Mike, John, Craig, Nathan, Danny, and Michael — suggesting this may be a multi-operator or franchise-style brand rather than a single crew. Score consistency across operators is generally positive, but quality may vary by individual.
• THREE BLANK REVIEWS: Three reviews from October 2024 contained no text at all, only a 5-star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring entirely.
• NO NEGATIVE SERVICE REVIEWS: With the exception of one 2-star review noting a plumber was 'a complete jerk' (2017) and one 4-star noting high hourly rates, all plumbing-service reviews are 5-star. While this is largely consistent with genuine satisfaction, the near-total absence of criticism across 80 reviews warrants mild caution.

This WW Score is based on a large, multi-year review set with strong mention counts across all four dimensions, making it one of the more reliable scores possible — however, users should note the multi-operator nature of the brand, the presence of several low-detail reviews, and the unresolved reputational incident from 2021 when forming their overall judgment.

Triple S Plumbing shows a deeply polarized customer base with significant quality inconsistency. While many customers praise individual technicians (Vick, Isaac, Enrique, Ed) for professionalism, knowledge, and efficiency, a substantial number of reviews document serious issues: incomplete work, no-shows, poor follow-up, upselling tactics, and dishonest claim denials to home warranty companies. The company scores highest on experience/technical skill when work is completed, but professionalism is undermined by communication failures, rudeness from office staff (particularly Kyle), and scheduling unreliability. Pricing concerns are frequent, with customers reporting overcharges and unnecessary upsells. Project completion is the weakest dimension—many reviews cite abandoned jobs, delayed callbacks, and failure to return for promised repairs.

• PATTERN DETECTED: Multiple reviews (15+) describe identical problematic behavior when dispatched by home warranty companies (First American, American Home Shield, Old Republic): technicians allegedly diagnose issues narrowly to deny coverage, then offer private repairs at inflated prices. This suggests possible systemic coordination with warranty companies.
• OFFICE STAFF CONDUCT: Kyle (office manager/dispatcher) appears in numerous negative reviews with complaints of rudeness, condescension, dismissiveness, and refusal to help resolve issues. One review states he refused service unless customer removed negative review.
• NO-SHOW AND SCHEDULING CRISIS: At least 12 reviews document no-shows, missed appointments, failure to call back, or extreme delays (days to weeks). This is a critical reliability issue.
• UPSELLING AND OVERCHARGING: Multiple detailed reviews document unnecessary repairs recommended (sump pump $800 when only lid needed fixing; $900 for modifications when cartridges available; $1800 vs competitor's $800 for same work; $275 charged for parts worth ~$90). Pattern suggests deliberate price gouging.
• DISHONESTY WITH WARRANTY COMPANIES: Several reviews allege technicians misrepresent diagnoses to insurance companies to deny coverage, then pressure customers for private payment. One review includes photographic evidence of alleged false claim.
• INCONSISTENT QUALITY: Same company name but vastly different outcomes depending on technician assigned. Named technicians (Vick, Isaac, Enrique, Ed, Rick) receive consistent 5-star praise; unnamed or different technicians receive 1-star complaints.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION: Two reviews (dated 2024-08-10 and 2024-09-11) use nearly identical phrasing: 'Excellent plumbing service! They arrived quickly, capped the leak efficiently, and even took the time to clean up thoroughly afterward. They also provided helpful suggestions, like using a panel doorway. The entire experience was honest and reliable. Highly recommend!' This exact duplication is unusual and suggests possible review manipulation.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most negative reviews cluster in 2023-2025 (recent), while oldest positive reviews are from 2012-2016. Recent pattern suggests deterioration in service quality or business practices.
• LEGAL/COMPLIANCE ISSUES: One review alleges fraudulent permit charging (charged for permit never pulled, confirmed by county inspector). Another alleges unlicensed worker. These are serious allegations.
• AGGRESSIVE RESPONSE PATTERN: Multiple reviews note company's defensive or aggressive responses to complaints, including one stating they demanded review removal as condition for service.

This WW Score of 68.2 should be treated with caution despite HIGH confidence in data volume. The score reflects a company with severe operational inconsistencies: exceptional individual technicians paired with systemic failures in scheduling, follow-up, and office management. The polarization is extreme—roughly 60% of reviews are 5-star, 40% are 1-2 star, with few middle ratings. The company appears to perform well on direct technical work when completed, but fails critically on reliability, honesty in warranty interactions, and customer service. Customers should expect high variability in experience and should specifically request named technicians (Vick, Isaac, Enrique, Ed) if possible, avoid home warranty dispatch if alternatives exist, and obtain detailed written quotes before authorizing work. The pattern of warranty-related complaints and alleged upselling warrants skepticism about pricing and diagnosis accuracy.

Malek demonstrates strong professionalism and technical expertise, with technicians consistently praised for politeness, knowledge, and responsiveness across 38 and 22 mentions respectively. However, the company is severely hampered by pervasive pricing concerns mentioned in 15 reviews, with customers reporting dramatic markups, bait-and-switch tactics, and charges 2-10x higher than competitors for identical work. Project completion is solid but shows some gaps in follow-through and warranty handling. The stark contrast between service quality and pricing practices creates a company that executes well but exploits customers financially.

• CRITICAL PRICING PATTERN: 15 reviews explicitly detail price gouging, with documented examples of $1,500 filters, $400+ for 10-minute jobs, $500+ diagnostic fees, and charges 3-10x market rate. This is not isolated—it is systemic and repeated across multiple years (2013-2024).
• BAIT-AND-SWITCH TACTICS: Multiple reviews (2024, 2023, 2022) describe low initial quotes followed by dramatically higher final charges, and aggressive upselling despite customer refusals.
• WARRANTY/FOLLOW-UP FAILURES: Reviews mention unresolved warranty issues, missed appointments after rescheduling, lack of callback responses to complaints, and poor handling of Generac generator warranty work.
• POTENTIAL MISDIAGNOSIS: One 2024 review claims Malek misdiagnosed an AC system and possibly sabotaged it to generate repair orders; another 2018 commercial review documents contradictory diagnoses across multiple technician visits.
• RECENT REVIEWS HEAVILY NEGATIVE ON PRICING: Most negative reviews are from 2024, 2023, and 2022, suggesting pricing issues are ongoing and not historical.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK - MODERATE: 8 reviews contain no text (empty body), and several recent 5-star reviews use generic phrasing ('Excellent service, thank you. Best service ever!!!') with minimal specifics. However, detailed positive reviews with specific technician names and technical details appear genuine. The empty reviews and generic praise may inflate the positive count artificially.
• RECENCY BIAS: 35 of 67 reviews are from June 2025 (within past 30 days), and most are 5-star with minimal detail. Older reviews (2013-2018) tend to be more detailed and balanced. Recent surge in generic 5-star reviews warrants caution.

This WW Score of 68.2 should be trusted with HIGH confidence due to large sample size and consistent patterns, but the score masks a critical flaw: Malek delivers professional, competent service but systematically overcharges customers by 2-10x market rates. The company excels at execution but fails at fair pricing and honesty. Customers should expect excellent workmanship but budget significantly higher costs than competitors. The recent surge in generic 5-star reviews and empty review bodies suggests possible review manipulation, which slightly reduces confidence in the professionalism dimension.

JB Plumbing shows significant inconsistency across reviews spanning 2013–2021. While some customers praise fast service and professionalism (2020–2021 reviews), multiple older reviews document serious failures: incomplete work, property damage ($250+ in broken irrigation), missed appointments leaving a 92-year-old without plumbing, and poor follow-up on warranty issues. Project completion is the weakest dimension, with evidence of abandoned callbacks, unresolved issues, and collateral damage. Pricing concerns emerge from one review citing $500+ charges after technician error. The company appears to have improved recently, but the pattern of unreliability and shoddy workmanship in earlier reviews cannot be ignored.

• RECENCY BIAS: Most negative reviews are 6+ years old (2013–2017), while positive reviews are recent (2020–2021). This may reflect genuine improvement, but older damage claims are serious and unresolved.
• UNRESOLVED COMPLAINTS: 2015 review documents $500+ in damages with no compensation offered; 2017 review describes sewage pipe failure under foundation with no fix from JB Plumbing.
• CALLBACK FAILURES: Multiple reviews explicitly mention missed appointments, no-shows, and unresponsive communication (full mailbox, no return calls).
• WORKMANSHIP QUALITY: Evidence of technician error causing collateral damage (broken irrigation/wires) and incomplete diagnostics (failure to locate cleanout).
• SMALL SAMPLE SIZE: Only 6 reviews total limits statistical confidence; recent positive reviews may not fully offset pattern of serious failures.

This score should be treated with caution. While recent reviews suggest improvement, the company has a documented history of serious failures (property damage, missed appointments, poor follow-up) that remain unresolved. The MODERATE overall confidence reflects conflicting evidence across time periods; customers should request references from recent projects and verify insurance/licensing before engaging.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only one review was provided. This single review contains severe criticism regarding work quality, contractor performance, warranty issues, and owner accountability, but a single data point is insufficient to establish a reliable WW Score. The review is dated August 2022 (over 2 years old) and lacks specific technical details about the work performed.

• Only 1 review provided — minimum 3 reviews required for reliable scoring
• Review is dated August 2022 — significantly outside the preferred 12-month recency window
• Review contains emotional language and threats (BBB complaint, social media) but lacks specific details about what work was performed or what defects exist
• No pricing information mentioned despite complaint about warranty coverage
• Cannot validate claims without additional corroborating reviews

This score cannot be calculated or trusted. A single review is insufficient to produce a meaningful WW Score; at least 3 reviews are required for any statistical reliability.