Find Nearby Plumbers In Cedar Park, Texas

Burl's Plumbing earns strong marks across professionalism, project completion, and experience, with dozens of reviewers praising punctuality, communication, friendliness, and quality workmanship over many years. The pricing dimension is the most mixed: while many customers describe fair and transparent pricing, there are multiple credible 1-star reviews alleging bait-and-switch quoting, significant overcharging relative to phone quotes, and inflated part costs — these materially drag the pricing score down. Project completion is generally strong, with most customers reporting jobs finished correctly and on time, though one detailed negative review describes a major project that went significantly over budget, was poorly executed, and was left incomplete for days. The experience dimension is well-supported by specific praise for technical knowledge and problem-solving, though the same negative project review raises concerns about planning and execution on complex jobs.

• 10 reviews contain no text at all — only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence.
• One review (2025-04-10) is not about plumbing service quality at all — it describes a traffic incident involving a Burl's vehicle. It was excluded from scoring.
• Two nearly identical 1-star reviews dated 2020-05-11 describe the same pricing complaint (quoted $85, charged $175-$179 for a 5-minute repair). These appear to be duplicate reviews from the same customer and were treated as a single incident to avoid double-penalizing.
• A significant portion of 5-star reviews use generic praise with limited specifics (e.g., 'Great service!', 'Would recommend', 'Top notch!'). While not conclusively fake, the pattern warrants mild caution — confidence is not reduced given the large volume of detailed reviews that corroborate positive sentiment.
• Several negative reviews (2016, 2020, 2014) are 4–11 years old. While they are included in scoring, they are given reduced weight relative to the large volume of recent positive reviews from 2024–2025.
• The 2016 detailed 1-star review describes a severely mismanaged project with scope creep, poor execution, and non-responsiveness after payment — this is a significant flag for complex or large-scale jobs even if isolated.

This WW Score is based on a large and diverse review set spanning over a decade, with strong recent activity, and is considered moderately reliable — the high volume of detailed positive reviews supports the overall score, but recurring pricing complaints across multiple independent reviewers and at least one serious project failure introduce enough uncertainty to caution against treating this score as a guarantee of consistent performance, particularly on complex or large projects.

Rossco Plumbing earns strong marks for professionalism and responsiveness, with the majority of reviewers praising friendliness, punctuality, and same-day or next-day availability. Experience scores are solid overall, with multiple reviewers noting knowledgeable diagnostics and quality workmanship, though one detailed 2-star review describes a worker who damaged an adjacent cabinet, left a mess, and lacked the skill to properly assess a sink fit — a meaningful negative data point. Pricing is the weakest dimension: while several reviewers found costs fair or lower than expected, at least three reviews explicitly describe charges that exceeded what was quoted or expected, including one account of a disputed $200 overcharge during a storm. Project completion is generally positive but is tempered by one review describing a no-show after a scheduled follow-up visit, and one review noting the job was not completed (though for a legitimate scope reason). The WW Score reflects a contractor with genuine strengths in responsiveness and attitude, but with recurring pricing transparency concerns and isolated but notable workmanship and follow-through failures.

• PRICING TRANSPARENCY CONCERN: At least 3 reviews explicitly mention final charges exceeding quoted or expected amounts. One review describes a disputed $200 overcharge during a storm/pandemic, one notes the cost was 'significantly more than the stated service cost,' and one notes the project was 'considerably more than he quoted.' This is a recurring pattern, not an isolated incident.
• ABANDONED JOB FLAG: One review (no date) describes Ross arriving without the necessary tool (snake), promising to send another crew member between 2–4pm, then going completely silent — no reply to texts, calls, or voicemail. This is a serious project completion failure.
• WORKMANSHIP CONCERN: One 2-star review (2021-10-02) describes a worker who damaged an adjacent cabinet with a sawzall, left sawdust and debris behind, and failed to stop work when the sink did not fit as measured. The company acknowledged the worker should have stopped. This is a notable quality control incident.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — MODERATE: One 1-star review explicitly alleges that friends or family of the company were posting promotional comments on a local app. Several undated 5-star reviews use generic praise with minimal specifics ('I was very happy with his work!', 'Arrived on time, very friendly and very helpful'). While not conclusive, this warrants reduced confidence in the aggregate rating picture.
• RECENCY NOTE: Approximately half of the reviews have no date attached. Of the dated reviews, the most recent are from 2025 and 2024, but several key negative reviews are from 2021 and earlier. It is unclear whether the workmanship and pricing issues have been resolved over time.
• ONE UNDATED REVIEW notes the job was not completed, though the reviewer attributes this to the work being out of scope for a plumber (roofer's responsibility). This is not scored as a failure but is noted for completeness.

This WW Score is based on 29 reviews with a reasonable volume of usable data across all four dimensions, yielding HIGH confidence in the directional accuracy of the score; however, the presence of suspected promotional activity, multiple pricing transparency complaints, and at least one serious no-show incident mean the score should be treated as a moderate-confidence indicator of real-world performance rather than a definitive endorsement.

Mr. Rooter Austin demonstrates strong professionalism and technical competence across a large volume of reviews, with numerous customers praising named technicians like Steven, Nick, Alex, Zach, Dan, Celso, Rocky, and others for being courteous, knowledgeable, and thorough. Project completion scores well overall, with many jobs finished same-day or next-day and follow-through honored, though there are isolated but credible complaints about a no-show, a misdiagnosis, and one instance of faulty installation causing additional damage. The pricing dimension is the most significant drag on the overall score: a meaningful cluster of negative reviews — spanning multiple years — cite inflated estimates, lack of pricing transparency, dispatch fees charged for estimates, and charges perceived as far exceeding market rates, with at least two reviewers noting competitor quotes at one-third the price. Experience scores positively on balance, with several reviewers — including one self-identified home builder — explicitly praising workmanship quality, though one technician was noted to have called tech support mid-job and another broke a part during installation.

• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The first two reviews (dated 2025-06-03 and 2025-05-31) contain identical review text describing two separate jobs. This appears to be the same review submitted twice under different dates. Only counted once for scoring purposes.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Approximately 10 reviews contain a star rating (all 5.0) but zero review text. These provide no usable qualitative data and were excluded from dimension scoring. Their presence slightly inflates the apparent star rating average.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of positive reviews are from 2024-2025 and carry full weight. A cluster of negative pricing and professionalism reviews spans 2017-2022, suggesting some improvement over time, but pricing complaints persist into 2022 and beyond.
• PRICING CONCERN — PATTERN: Multiple independent reviewers across different years describe the same pattern: non-transparent dispatch/service fees, estimates significantly higher than competitors, and pressure tactics. This is not isolated and represents a systemic concern rather than one-off incidents.
• SERIOUS NEGATIVE INCIDENT: One review (2021-02-10, 1-star) describes improper installation causing additional water damage, refusal to fix, and refusal to provide cost breakdowns. Another (2020-08-06, 1-star) describes alleged overcharging of an elderly customer and a fraudulent inspection report. These are severe allegations that meaningfully reduce confidence in project completion and professionalism scores.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK — LOW TO MODERATE: The volume of 5-star reviews with named technicians and specific job details reduces fake review suspicion significantly. However, the 10 blank 5-star reviews and some very brief generic entries (e.g., 'Great job.', 'Excellent Service.') offer no verifiable detail and are treated with reduced weight.

This WW Score is based on a large and diverse review set spanning approximately 10 years, giving it HIGH statistical confidence, but the persistent and multi-source pricing complaints — combined with several serious service failure allegations — mean the score should be interpreted cautiously, particularly for customers who are price-sensitive or undertaking high-value jobs.

AAA Auger earns strong marks for professionalism and technical experience, with hundreds of reviewers praising courteous, knowledgeable technicians who communicate well, arrive in uniform, and explain their work clearly. Project completion is generally solid — the company is widely praised for same-day and weekend service with no extra trip charges — but is meaningfully dragged down by a recurring pattern of no-shows, broken scheduling promises, abandoned jobs, and at least one case of work that failed city inspection twice. Pricing is the most consistently criticized dimension across the review history: numerous reviewers report feeling gouged, with specific complaints including $557 to snake a drain, $1,087 for a small repair, $9,200 quoted for a job completed elsewhere for $2,425, and $500 to replace a shower cartridge quoted elsewhere for $150–$225. While many reviewers describe pricing as fair or reasonable, the volume and specificity of overcharging complaints — spanning the full date range of reviews — prevents a higher score in this dimension.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: The review 'Fabulous service technician! His customer service skills, expertise & advice were excellent.' appears verbatim on 2025-06-09, 2025-06-07, and 2025-06-06. The review 'Martin & Joe along with their Boss kept me informed...' appears verbatim on 2025-06-08 and 2025-06-05. The review 'First rate technicians. Max is one of the best techs in South Texas without question.' appears verbatim on 2025-06-08 and 2025-06-05. The review 'AAA Auger is awesome. Jon Eisen always provides us with great service at reasonable prices.' appears verbatim on 2025-06-07 and 2025-06-04. The review 'AAA Auger Plumbing Services is the best reliable source...' appears verbatim on 2025-06-02 and 2025-01-07. These duplicates are likely fake or artificially inflated reviews and have been treated as single data points in scoring.
• LARGE VOLUME OF BLANK REVIEWS: Approximately 60–70 reviews contain no text whatsoever, only a star rating (mostly 5 stars). These provide no usable qualitative data and inflate the apparent star average without supporting evidence. They have been excluded from dimension scoring.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS ARE NUMEROUS AND SPECIFIC: At least 25–30 reviews across the full date range contain detailed, credible overcharging allegations with specific dollar amounts and comparisons to competitor quotes. This is not a fringe pattern — it is a sustained, recurring theme that significantly undermines the pricing dimension.
• SCHEDULING AND NO-SHOW COMPLAINTS: Multiple reviews across different years describe the company failing to show up for scheduled appointments, providing no communication, or repeatedly rescheduling. This pattern affects the project completion score.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews with usable text span 2013–2025, with a heavy concentration in 2024–2025. Older reviews (pre-2015) are given reduced weight. The duplicate review cluster in June 2025 is a red flag for recent review manipulation.
• ONE REVIEW APPEARS TO BE A ROAD RAGE / DRIVING COMPLAINT (Jan 2025) AND ANOTHER A VEHICLE COMPLAINT (Aug 2022) — these are not plumbing service reviews and have been excluded from all dimension scoring.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION: The cluster of identical 5-star reviews posted within days of each other in early June 2025, combined with the high volume of blank 5-star reviews, suggests possible coordinated review inflation. Confidence in the most recent review cluster is LOW.

This WW Score is based on a very large review dataset spanning roughly 20 years and carries HIGH statistical confidence in its directional accuracy, but should be interpreted with caution due to confirmed duplicate reviews, a high volume of content-free ratings, and credible evidence of pricing practices that are inconsistent across technicians and jobs.

ABC Plumbing has a large and predominantly positive review base, with the majority of recent reviews (2024–2025) describing prompt, professional, and courteous technicians by name, suggesting a strong core team. Pricing is frequently praised as fair and competitive, with multiple reviewers noting ABC came in significantly lower than competitors. However, a meaningful minority of negative reviews — spanning the full date range — describe serious failures including abandoned jobs, no-shows, poor communication between office and field staff, billing disputes, work that failed shortly after completion, and in a few cases allegations of dishonest or predatory behavior. Project completion is the most consistently flagged concern in negative reviews, with multiple customers reporting work left unfinished or callbacks ignored. The score is moderated downward from what the volume of 5-star reviews might suggest, because the negative reviews contain specific, credible, and recurring patterns of failure that cannot be dismissed.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: At least 3 pairs of near-identical or word-for-word duplicate reviews were found (e.g., the Jovi/quick/reasonable review appearing on 2025-06-07 and 2025-06-04; the Tammy/Jason/external repairs review appearing on 2025-06-07 and 2025-06-04; the Dana/Matthew/bathroom sink review appearing twice on 2025-02-06). This pattern is consistent with review manipulation or accidental double-posting and reduces confidence in the authenticity of some 5-star reviews.
• IRRELEVANT REVIEWS DETECTED: At least 2 reviews appear to be for unrelated businesses or contain no plumbing-related content (e.g., 'LIFT MARKETING Website Design Agency' rated 2 stars on 2025-06-05 and 2025-06-02; a review about a fast food experience on 2018-12-15; a review referencing 'Pipe Wrench Plumbing' on 2006-08-15). These were excluded from scoring.
• REVIEWS WITH NO TEXT: Multiple reviews contained only a star rating and no written content. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence per Rule 1.
• SERIOUS NEGATIVE PATTERNS: Multiple 1-star reviews across different time periods describe abandoned work, no-shows, billing for incomplete service, poor office-to-field communication, and in one case an allegation of work that caused $15,000–$20,000 in foundation damage. These are specific and credible and were weighted accordingly.
• RECENCY NOTE: The bulk of highly positive reviews are concentrated in 2024–2025, which may reflect genuine improvement in service quality, a more active review solicitation strategy, or both. Older reviews (2013–2021) show a more mixed picture. Recent reviews were weighted more heavily per Rule 6.
• MULTI-ENTITY RISK: The review corpus appears to aggregate reviews from multiple ABC Plumbing locations or franchises across different states (Texas, California, New York, Kentucky, etc.). Scores may reflect the performance of more than one distinct business operating under the same name, which limits the reliability of the composite WW Score for any single location.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large review volume, but should be interpreted cautiously given confirmed duplicate reviews, irrelevant reviews mixed into the dataset, multi-location aggregation risk, and a recurring pattern of credible negative experiences that suggest the 5-star majority does not fully represent all customer outcomes.

Roger's Plumbing scores strongly on professionalism and experience, with the vast majority of reviewers praising courteous, knowledgeable technicians — particularly Orlando, Jim, Marcus, Eddie, and Chris — who communicate clearly, arrive on time, and go above and beyond on the job. However, pricing is the single most damaging dimension in this dataset: a substantial and consistent pattern of negative reviews explicitly calls out charges that reviewers describe as 2–4x competitor rates, surprise fees, upselling of unnecessary work, and in one case an unauthorized membership charge. Project completion is generally solid but is meaningfully dragged down by multiple reviews citing no-shows, missed appointments without callbacks, and at least one case of work that had to be redone. The combination of excellent field technicians and a problematic pricing model creates a bifurcated reputation that is clearly reflected across hundreds of reviews spanning over a decade.

• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: Two nearly identical reviews from the same reviewer (dated 2024-09-09 and 2024-08-22) describing the same rental property experience with the $53 drain special and hydro-jetting comparison. These appear to be the same person posting twice. Only counted once for scoring purposes.
• GENERIC/THIN REVIEWS: Approximately 18 reviews consist solely of a star rating with no text, and several others contain only 2–4 words (e.g., 'Professional. Detailed. Polite.' appearing twice on different dates with identical wording — possible duplicate or templated review). These were excluded from dimension scoring.
• IDENTICAL PHRASING FLAG: The review 'Professional. Detailed. Polite.' appears on both 2025-06-05 and 2025-06-02 with identical text and 5-star ratings. This is suspicious and may indicate a fake or duplicated review.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews with substantive content are from 2024–2025, which is positive for recency weighting. However, a meaningful cluster of negative pricing reviews spans 2010–2024, suggesting the overpricing concern is a long-standing and persistent issue rather than an isolated incident.
• PRICING CONCERN IS SYSTEMIC: At least 15 distinct reviews across multiple years explicitly cite overcharging, price gouging, or quotes 2–4x competitor rates. This is not noise — it is a consistent pattern that materially suppresses the pricing score.
• NO-SHOW / SCHEDULING FAILURES: At least 5 reviews describe technicians who never arrived, did not call, or failed to reschedule appropriately. One review describes 7 return visits for the same unresolved dripping faucet issue, raising a project completion concern.
• OLDER REVIEWS (pre-2020): A significant number of reviews date back to 2010–2019. These were given reduced weight in scoring relative to 2023–2025 reviews, per recency rules.

This WW Score is based on a large and diverse review set spanning 15+ years with HIGH confidence across all four dimensions; the score is considered reliable, and the pricing dimension in particular reflects a well-documented and persistent pattern that prospective customers should weigh carefully before engaging this contractor.