Find Nearby Plumbers In College Station, Texas

Professionalism is the strongest dimension, with multiple reviewers explicitly praising punctuality, politeness, thoroughness, and clear communication from named technicians such as Jonathon and Bryan. Project completion scores well overall, with jobs described as finished on time, cleaned up properly, and delivered as promised, though one review noted a significant negative incident where air injection during leak detection caused water to saturate carpet for three days, which tempers the score. Experience is supported by reviewers describing technically detailed work including PEX line installation, hydrophobic foam injection, pool wall repair, and foundation tunneling, all performed competently. Pricing data is sparse, with only two reviews touching on cost — one noting no charge when a leak could not be resolved (positive) and another referencing a multi-thousand-dollar job scope without explicit pricing complaint — yielding a conservative but modestly positive pricing score. Three reviews contained no usable text and were excluded from scoring.

• 3 out of 10 reviews have no text content ('unknown' or '.') and could not be scored — these may represent incomplete or placeholder entries.
• All reviews with usable text are rated 4 or 5 stars with no negative reviews present, which warrants mild caution, though the reviews do contain specific names, technical details, and one genuine criticism, reducing fake review suspicion.
• RECENCY WARNING: All reviews are dated between 2011 and 2015 — none are within the past several years. This score reflects historical performance only and may not represent current service quality.
• One review explicitly describes a negative incident: air injection during leak detection caused water to flood the master bedroom carpet, requiring 3 days to dry. This is a meaningful quality concern that was factored into the project completion and experience scores.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability due to a reasonable number of detailed reviews, but is significantly limited by the fact that all reviews are 9–13 years old, three reviews contained no usable text, and there is no recent data to confirm whether current service quality matches historical performance.

Cascade Plumbing earns strong marks across all four dimensions based on a solid volume of reviews, with responsiveness and same-day service being the most consistently praised attributes. Professionalism scores well overall but is meaningfully dragged down by three notable negative reviews: one describing a rude customer service representative who refused to help and never called back, one describing a plumber who appeared confused on the job and then failed to follow up as promised, and one where a tech charged a diagnostic fee and recommended unnecessary invasive work without adequately investigating the problem. Pricing is generally viewed as fair or below-market, though one reviewer flagged a billing practice of charging for invoice-writing time in the vehicle, and the $135 diagnostic-only charge with no resolution drew criticism. Project completion is solid — most jobs were finished same-day or next-day — but the abandoned water heater install and the three-day water outage incident prevent a higher score. Experience is generally positive, with multiple reviewers noting competence, honesty, and quality workmanship, but the confused plumber incident and the misdiagnosed leak introduce enough doubt to keep the score conservative.

• Three reviews with 1-star ratings describe meaningfully different failure modes (rude staff, incompetent plumber, poor diagnosis), which adds credibility to the negative feedback and warrants score reduction.
• Several 5-star reviews are brief and generic (e.g., 'Knowledgeable and courteous professionals!' with no detail), which slightly reduces confidence in the upper end of positive scores.
• The majority of reviews are dated between 2017 and 2022, with no reviews from the past 12 months (relative to mid-2025). Recency of data is a concern — current service quality may differ from what is reflected here.
• No fake review patterns detected, but the mix of very short generic positives and detailed negatives suggests the negative reviews may be more reliable signal than the brief positives.

This WW Score is based on 19 reviews spanning 2015–2022 with no data from the past 12+ months, which limits its ability to reflect current performance; the score should be treated as a reasonable historical baseline but verified with more recent feedback before hiring.

Porter Plumbing has a strong overall track record across a broad set of reviews spanning 2008–2024, with the majority of customers praising punctuality, responsiveness, and quality of work. Pricing is consistently described as reasonable or better than competitors, and most jobs were completed fully and on time. However, one detailed 1-star review from 2017 describes serious failures across nearly every dimension — including being very late, leaving a large mess, poor communication, unprofessional appearance, overpricing, and leaving the customer without water for 6 days — which meaningfully pulls scores down from what would otherwise be near-excellent ratings. The most recent review (2024) is positive and suggests continued quality service, but the gap between the 2024 review and the prior cluster of reviews limits recency confidence. Overall, the contractor performs well for small-to-medium jobs but the 2017 incident raises questions about performance on larger or more complex projects.

• One highly detailed 1-star review (2017) describes severe failures in professionalism, project completion, pricing, and workmanship — this is a significant outlier that materially impacts all dimension scores and cannot be dismissed.
• Multiple reviews reference different first names (Tom, Bill, Phil, Phillip) for what appears to be the same business — this may indicate multiple technicians operating under the Porter Plumbing name, making it difficult to attribute all reviews to a single individual's performance.
• The majority of reviews are older than 5 years, with most clustered between 2008–2015. Only one review is from the past 12 months (2024). Recency of data is limited and the score may not reflect current performance accurately.
• Several older 5-star reviews are brief and lack specific detail (e.g., 'Overall I felt confident with the work, price, and the man.' and 'I've used him three times over the last couple of years and have been pleased with his work and his price.'). While not conclusively fake, these low-detail reviews reduce confidence in the positive signal they provide.
• No reviews mention negative pricing experiences except the 1-star review, which described overpricing. The pricing score is moderated conservatively given this single negative data point against otherwise positive but sometimes vague pricing mentions.

This WW Score carries moderate-to-high reliability for general trend assessment given the volume of reviews, but should be interpreted cautiously due to the significant age of most reviews, the presence of one severe negative outlier, and the limited number of recent reviews to confirm current performance standards.

All Day Plumbing receives strong praise for professionalism, communication, and responsiveness across a large number of reviews, with many customers highlighting courteous, punctual technicians who explain their work clearly. However, pricing is a significant and recurring concern — multiple reviewers explicitly called out excessive quotes, hidden fees, changing prices after scope was agreed upon, and refusal to allow customer-supplied parts, which substantially drags down the pricing dimension. Project completion is generally positive, with most jobs described as finished same-day or on time, but there are notable failures including a $600 repair that left a shower non-functional, technicians cracking fixtures without disclosure, and a flooded garage during maintenance. Experience scores moderately well overall, though several reviews reveal instances where technicians misdiagnosed problems (e.g., pushing a water heater sale when the issue was electrical) or performed subpar work requiring repeat visits. The combination of strong service highs and meaningful service lows produces a mid-range WW Score that reflects a company with real capability but inconsistent execution and a pricing model that generates distrust.

• 6 reviews contain no text whatsoever — only a 5-star rating. These blank reviews provide no usable data and were excluded from dimension scoring. Their presence inflates the visible star average without contributing evidence.
• Several reviews use very similar generic praise language ('professional, knowledgeable, explained everything') which may reflect coached or templated feedback, though enough specific detail exists across the corpus to avoid a full fake-review flag.
• A disproportionate number of 5-star reviews lack any specifics about price, scope, or outcome, which limits their evidentiary value and suggests possible rating inflation.
• Pricing complaints are serious and specific: one reviewer was quoted $1,000 for a faucet and valves worth ~$20 at retail; another was quoted $4,000 for a well pump; another experienced a price that kept changing after scope was agreed; another was charged $200 extra to enter a crawl space after being told the visit fee was $95. These are not isolated incidents.
• A 2022 review describes a pattern of repeated workmanship failures under an annual maintenance contract — cracked shower not disclosed, water heater element replaced twice due to technician error, and a flooded garage. This is a significant quality-control flag.
• A 2025 review describes technicians misdiagnosing an electrical issue as a water heater failure and pushing a $600+ unnecessary repair. This raises concerns about upselling practices.
• Review dates span from 2015 to 2025. Reviews older than 2023 (approximately 12 reviews) were given reduced weight in scoring, as they may not reflect current service quality. The majority of usable reviews are from 2024–2025, which supports reasonable recency confidence.
• One review (2020) describes a scheduling failure where the company denied having an appointment that the customer claims was confirmed — a professionalism concern around administrative reliability.

This WW Score is based on a substantial volume of reviews with good recency, but reliability is moderately reduced by the presence of 6 blank reviews, recurring pricing complaints that suggest a systemic issue rather than isolated incidents, and at least two serious workmanship failure reports that indicate quality control is not consistently maintained.

JD Precision Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism and technical competence with consistently positive feedback on technician courtesy, punctuality, and knowledge. Project completion is reliable with most jobs finished as promised. However, pricing emerges as a significant weakness, with numerous explicit complaints about excessive charges, upselling tactics, and rates substantially higher than competitors. The company shows a clear pattern of premium pricing that undermines customer satisfaction despite quality workmanship. Recent reviews (2025) are predominantly positive, but historical reviews reveal persistent pricing concerns and occasional service failures.

• PRICING PATTERN: 89 mentions of pricing issues reveal systematic overcharging complaints. Multiple customers report quotes 2-4x higher than competitors for identical work. Examples: $3,700 water heater (actual cost $550), $1,400 garbage disposal (market rate $150-300), $483 for 20-minute cartridge replacement.
• UPSELLING ALLEGATIONS: Repeated complaints (15+ reviews) of aggressive upselling, unnecessary repairs recommended, and pressure tactics. Customers report technicians recommending $6,000+ in repairs during simple service calls.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK - MODERATE: Two identical reviews (Corey Thornton garbage disposal, dated 2025-06-02 and 2025-05-30) with identical text and 5-star ratings suggest possible review manipulation. Multiple empty reviews (5-star with no text) also present. However, majority of reviews contain specific details and vary in content, limiting confidence in fake review hypothesis.
• QUALITY INCONSISTENCY: Some reviews report poor workmanship (incomplete repairs, leaks after installation, sloppy attic work), while majority praise quality. Suggests variable technician performance.
• DIAGNOSTIC FAILURES: Multiple reports of incorrect diagnoses leading to unnecessary major repairs (e.g., $4,500 storm drain quote that was neighbor's pipe, $7,000 pipe replacement that wasn't needed, missed leak diagnosis costing customer $10,000 later).
• SERVICE RELIABILITY ISSUES: Several reports of missed appointments, no-shows, cancellations with minimal notice, and poor communication despite scheduling confirmations.
• RECENCY BIAS: Reviews from 2025 (past 6 months) are overwhelmingly 5-star with minimal pricing complaints. Older reviews (2016-2023) contain more balanced criticism. This temporal shift may indicate either improved practices or selective review filtering.

This WW Score of 72.8 is reliable but reflects a company with a significant value-for-money problem despite strong technical execution. The HIGH confidence is based on 365 reviews with consistent patterns across all dimensions. However, customers should expect premium pricing (often 2-3x market rate) and should obtain multiple quotes before engaging. The company excels at professionalism and technical skill but fails on affordability, making it suitable only for customers prioritizing quality over cost.

Wilson Plumbing demonstrates strong technical competence and generally reliable project completion, with many customers praising their skill, responsiveness, and ability to diagnose problems accurately. Professionalism is solid across most interactions, though communication lapses and occasional rudeness on phone calls are documented concerns. The primary weakness is pricing: multiple reviews explicitly cite excessive charges, lack of transparent quotes, and bills significantly higher than competitor estimates. The company's practice of mailing invoices without upfront pricing transparency compounds customer frustration. While long-term customers express loyalty and satisfaction, newer or one-time customers frequently report sticker shock and pricing disputes.

• FAKE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: Three identical reviews (word-for-word) dated 2025-04-10, 2025-04-07, and appearing as duplicates. These appear to be either spam or coordinated negative reviews and should be weighted with caution.
• PRICING CONCERNS: Multiple explicit complaints about high hourly rates ($264/hour, $128.50/hour), lack of upfront quotes, and final bills 2-3x higher than competitor estimates. At least 6 detailed pricing complaints across different time periods.
• COMMUNICATION FAILURES: Several reviews document unresponsive phone service (5 calls with no callback, 3 calls with no response), contradicting the generally positive professionalism scores. Phone responsiveness appears inconsistent.
• QUALITY CONTROL ISSUES: Multiple reviews describe incomplete work, callbacks needed, damaged property (scratched faucets, dented door trim, broken cabinet), and installation errors (cartridges installed in wrong locations, improper backfilling on major job).
• RECENCY BIAS: Most negative reviews cluster in 2024-2025 (recent), while many positive reviews are from 2008-2020 (older). This suggests potential service quality decline or changing customer expectations.
• INCONSISTENT SERVICE QUALITY: Wide variance in outcomes—some customers report exceptional service while others report negligence, suggesting inconsistent crew quality or training.

This WW Score of 72.8 is reliable for understanding Wilson Plumbing's overall performance, but the score masks significant internal contradictions: technical competence and responsiveness are genuinely strong (HIGH confidence), but pricing practices are a consistent pain point that materially impacts customer satisfaction. Prospective customers should expect quality work but should demand detailed written quotes upfront and be prepared for costs at the higher end of the market. Recent reviews suggest potential service degradation or increased pricing, warranting caution for new customers.