Find Nearby Plumbers In Corpus Christi, Texas

Dwain McCain Plumbing demonstrates strong performance across all four dimensions. Professionalism is consistently praised with mentions of punctuality, responsiveness, knowledgeable staff, and courteous behavior across 6 reviews. Pricing is explicitly noted as fair and competitive in 5 reviews, with customers highlighting value for money and transparent quotes. Project completion is solid with 6 mentions of timely work, follow-through, and callback reliability, though one significant 2022 no-show incident (no-show and refusal to perform scheduled work) substantially impacts this dimension. Experience is well-documented across 5 reviews emphasizing technical skill, problem-solving ability, and quality workmanship. The WW Score of 88.2 reflects a reliable, professional contractor with strong customer satisfaction, tempered by the serious service failure in the 2022 review.

• One critical service failure: 2022 review reports scheduled appointment no-show and refusal to perform job. This is a significant red flag for project completion reliability despite otherwise strong track record.
• Review recency is mixed: 3 reviews from 2024-2023 (recent), but 2 reviews from 2019-2015 (5+ years old). Recent reviews are consistently positive; older reviews may not reflect current operations.
• No fake review patterns detected. Reviews contain specific details (names of staff members, types of repairs, response times, permit handling) and vary in length and phrasing, suggesting authentic customer experiences.

This WW Score of 88.2 is highly reliable based on 7 reviews with consistent data across all dimensions and HIGH confidence levels. However, the 2022 no-show incident represents a material service failure that should be weighted heavily in decision-making, suggesting the contractor may have operational inconsistencies despite generally strong performance.

Mike Sutton Plumbing demonstrates strong performance across all measured dimensions. Professionalism is consistently praised with explicit mentions of courtesy, responsiveness, same-day service, and honest communication. Project completion is evidenced by successful repairs and replacements across multiple systems (water heaters, pipes, sewage, toilets) with no reported callbacks or abandoned work. Technical experience is validated by long-term customer relationships (15+ years) and ability to handle complex issues. Pricing receives positive mention as fair and competitive, though fewer reviews explicitly address cost. The contractor's reputation for honesty and quality workmanship is reinforced across multiple independent reviews.

• One review (2016-06-02) contains only 'unknown' as text and cannot be analyzed; excluded from scoring.
• Review from 2019 is 5+ years old; most recent review is from October 2024, providing good recency balance.
• All four usable reviews are 5-star ratings with positive sentiment; no negative feedback present to validate balance, though specific details and independent praise patterns suggest authenticity rather than fake reviews.

This WW Score of 88.2 is reliable and should be trusted, supported by four substantive reviews with consistent positive evidence across professionalism, completion, and experience dimensions, though the small sample size (4 reviews) and limited pricing mentions suggest monitoring for additional feedback to strengthen confidence over time.

Diaz Plumbing demonstrates strong performance across all dimensions with particularly high marks for professionalism and project completion. The company excels in responsiveness, punctuality, and communication, with numerous reviews praising same-day or next-morning service and clear explanations of work. Technical expertise is consistently recognized, with specific mention of skilled technicians like Manny, Carlos, and Adrian. Pricing is generally perceived as fair and competitive, though a small number of reviews (3 out of 90) expressed concern about costs relative to expectations. The company shows exceptional follow-through on commitments and willingness to address issues without additional charges.

• One negative review (2021-02-16, rating 1.0) alleges poor scheduling and communication from Chris, contradicting the overwhelmingly positive pattern. This appears to be an isolated incident rather than systemic.
• Two reviews (2022-08-12 rating 2.0 and 2024-03-29 rating 3.0) cite pricing concerns—sticker shock or higher-than-expected costs. However, these are minimal outliers in a dataset of 90 reviews.
• Review dates span from 2018 to 2024, with strong concentration in 2023-2024 (approximately 65% of reviews). This recency weighting supports current reliability of the score.
• No evidence of fake reviews detected. Reviews contain specific details, varied language, named technicians, and realistic scenarios. Positive reviews are substantiated with concrete examples of service quality.

This WW Score of 87.2 is highly reliable, based on 90 reviews with strong data density across all four dimensions. The HIGH overall confidence reflects consistent positive feedback over multiple years, with only 3 minor negative outliers among 90 total reviews, indicating genuine customer satisfaction rather than inflated ratings.

Supreme Plumbing demonstrates strong performance across all dimensions with a WW Score of 87.2. Professionalism is a standout strength (89.5), with extensive evidence of punctuality, responsiveness, clear communication, and courteous behavior across 58 reviews. Project completion scores well at 86.0 based on 51 mentions, showing consistent job finishing and follow-through, though two significant negative reviews document incomplete work and non-responsiveness to callbacks. Pricing is solid at 82.0 across 22 mentions, with customers frequently praising fair rates and transparency, though a few reviews note higher-than-expected costs. Experience/workmanship rates 88.5 across 45 mentions, reflecting skilled technical work and problem-solving ability. The company benefits from strong recent review activity (majority from 2021 onward) and consistent positive feedback from repeat customers.

• Two critical negative reviews (1-star ratings from 2023-06-10 and 2021-12-17) document serious service failures: one involving $20,000 in work with repeated no-shows and rescheduling; another involving a major installation error (dishwasher drain connected to air vent) causing $2,000+ in water damage and mold, with the contractor refusing responsibility. These are not minor complaints and significantly impact reliability assessment.
• One 3-star review (2024-09-12) documents failure to respond to 5 emails and 1 text requesting W-9 tax information after job completion, indicating communication breakdown on administrative follow-up.
• One 3-star review (2013-05-20) notes pricing significantly higher than competitors for similar work, and one 1-star review (2012-07-09) documents no callback on pricing and missed appointment.
• One review (2022-06-10) is blank with only a 5-star rating and no text content—cannot be evaluated for data.
• Majority of reviews are 5-star with highly positive language, but this is mitigated by presence of substantive negative reviews with specific details, suggesting reviews are generally authentic rather than fake. However, some reviews use very similar phrasing ('highly recommend,' 'professional,' 'responsive') which is common in plumbing industry reviews.
• Review date range spans 2005–2025, with significant clustering in 2021–2025 (approximately 65 of 80 reviews). Older reviews (pre-2015) are sparse and may not reflect current operations.

This WW Score of 87.2 is reliable with HIGH overall confidence, supported by 51–58 mentions across three dimensions and consistent positive feedback from repeat customers. However, the score should be interpreted with caution: two serious documented failures (no-shows on $20,000 project; installation error causing $2,000+ damage) indicate that while the company typically performs well, it is capable of significant lapses in accountability and quality control. The score reflects average performance across a large sample, but prospective customers should be aware that worst-case scenarios documented in negative reviews are possible. Recommend requesting references and clarifying warranty/liability terms before engaging for major projects.

Anchor Plumbing has a strong overall reputation built across a large volume of reviews spanning more than a decade, with consistent praise for professionalism, responsiveness, and technical skill from named technicians including Jeff, Dan, Aaron, Jeremy, and Mike. Pricing is frequently cited as fair, reasonable, or competitive, with multiple reviewers specifically noting that final costs came in at or below quoted amounts. Project completion is generally strong, with many same-day and prompt responses highlighted, though a small number of negative reviews cite incomplete work, a padded-hours allegation, and one instance of a recurring problem not being resolved. Experience scores well due to numerous specific descriptions of skilled diagnostics and problem-solving, including slab leaks, main line cracks, and complex multi-fixture jobs. Scores are modestly tempered by a meaningful minority of negative reviews and by the presence of a significant number of off-topic reviews from what appear to be UPS Store locations mixed into this dataset, which reduces the reliability of the overall review pool.

• CRITICAL DATA CONTAMINATION: A substantial portion of reviews — estimated at 35 to 40 out of 155 — are clearly written about UPS Store retail locations and have no relevance to Anchor Plumbing. These reference staff names like Maggie, Dawson, Francis, Miranda, Alexa, and Josie, and describe shipping, Amazon returns, notary services, and packaging. These reviews were excluded from scoring but their presence in the dataset is a serious data integrity concern.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Approximately 10 to 12 reviews contain no text whatsoever, only a star rating. These provide no usable dimensional data and were excluded from scoring.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — MODERATE: Several reviews dated 2025-03-11 and 2025-05-10 share identical dates and exhibit generic, non-specific praise with no job details. This clustering pattern is consistent with review solicitation campaigns and warrants moderate skepticism.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of substantive plumbing reviews span from 2013 to 2025. Older reviews (pre-2019) carry reduced weight. The most recent reviews (2025) are generally positive and consistent with the historical trend.
• NEGATIVE REVIEW SUMMARY: Negative plumbing-specific reviews include: a $500 charge for an unfixed toilet (2021), a plumber padding hours caught on security camera (2017), a no-show after taking a $75 service call fee (2016), a drain clog recurring within 30 days (2014), and a 5-week faucet replacement delay with disputed charges (2012). These represent a meaningful minority but are not isolated incidents.
• ONE REVIEW (2021-01-30) describes paying nearly $500 for a toilet repair that was never resolved even after a callback — this directly impacts the project_completion score and is weighted accordingly.

The WW Score of 83.1 carries HIGH confidence for the plumbing-specific reviews analyzed, but the overall dataset is significantly contaminated with off-topic UPS Store reviews and blank entries, which means consumers should treat this score as representative of Anchor Plumbing's core service quality rather than a clean, uncontaminated review pool.

Five Star Plumbing demonstrates strong overall performance across all dimensions, with particular strength in professionalism (84.5) driven by consistent praise for punctuality, friendliness, and responsiveness. Project completion scores (83.1) reflect reliable job finishing and follow-through, though some negative reviews cite incomplete work or scheduling issues. Pricing (78.2) shows the most variability—while many customers praise fair rates and value, a notable subset reports overcharging, bait-and-switch tactics, and estimates that don't match final bills. Experience (81.6) is consistently validated through technical competence and problem-solving, though a few reviews question diagnostic accuracy. The company operates across multiple locations with varying quality consistency.

• QUALITY INCONSISTENCY ACROSS LOCATIONS: Reviews span multiple geographic areas (San Antonio, San Diego, Florida, Oklahoma, etc.) with notably different service quality. Some locations show significantly more negative feedback than others, suggesting inconsistent management or training.
• PRICING CONCERNS: Multiple reviews (15+) explicitly mention overcharging, bait-and-switch pricing, estimates that don't match final invoices, and charges significantly higher than competitors for identical work. This is the most frequently cited complaint across the dataset.
• COMMUNICATION FAILURES: Recurring pattern of unreturned calls, missed appointments, last-minute cancellations, and poor responsiveness despite claims of 24-hour service. At least 12 reviews cite these issues.
• NEGATIVE REVIEWS CLUSTER: Approximately 35 reviews rate 1-2 stars with specific complaints about dishonesty, rudeness, poor workmanship, or service failures. This represents ~7% of total reviews but suggests systemic issues beyond isolated incidents.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: Approximately 25-30 reviews contain nearly identical phrasing ('5 stars,' 'highly recommend,' 'professional and friendly,' minimal detail) with no substantive information. These cluster around specific dates (June 2025, June 2024, June 2023) suggesting possible bulk posting.
• HOME WARRANTY COMPLAINTS: Multiple reviews (8+) specifically cite problems when company is dispatched through home warranty programs, with complaints about rudeness, overcharging, and poor communication with warranty companies.
• INCOMPLETE/ABANDONED WORK: Several reviews document jobs requiring multiple visits, unfinished work, or problems recurring shortly after repair, suggesting quality control issues.
• STAFF CONDUCT ISSUES: A few reviews mention rude technicians, aggressive driving behavior, and unprofessional communication, though these are less frequent than other complaint categories.

This WW Score of 82.3 should be treated with MODERATE-TO-HIGH confidence for overall service quality, but CAUTION is warranted regarding pricing transparency and consistency across locations—the pricing dimension (78.2) likely understates customer dissatisfaction due to the high volume of specific overcharging complaints that may not be fully captured in the scoring methodology. Recent reviews (2024-2025) show more positive sentiment than older reviews (2016-2020), suggesting possible recent management improvements, but the pricing and communication issues remain persistent concerns that warrant direct inquiry before hiring.