Find Nearby Plumbers In Dallas, Texas

Michael demonstrates strong professionalism across multiple reviews, with consistent praise for responsiveness, communication, and punctuality. Project completion is a clear strength, with customers noting jobs finished thoroughly and on time, including going above and beyond expectations. Technical expertise is evident through water heater replacements, drain work, and problem-solving. Pricing appears fair and affordable based on limited mentions, though few reviews explicitly discuss cost. The overall score reflects reliable, high-quality service delivery across most dimensions.

• All 6 reviews are 5-star ratings with no negative feedback or balanced criticism—this uniformity is atypical and warrants caution
• Reviews contain some generic praise language ('Great job', 'Nice job', 'Highly recommend') mixed with specific details, suggesting possible mix of authentic and less detailed reviews
• Small sample size (6 reviews) limits statistical confidence despite recent dates
• Pricing dimension based on only 2 mentions; insufficient data to assess price competitiveness reliably

This score should be treated with moderate caution due to the small sample size, perfect 5-star rating pattern, and limited mentions of pricing. The professionalism and project completion scores are more reliable given multiple corroborating mentions, but overall assessment would benefit from additional reviews with more critical perspective.

Jerrell's Plumbing demonstrates strong performance across all measured dimensions. Professionalism is consistently praised with explicit mentions of punctuality, courtesy, cleanliness, and responsiveness (same-day service). Project completion is evidenced by no callbacks or rework needed, successful resolution of complex jobs (5+ hour sewer line clearing), and long-term customer retention (7 years). Pricing is noted as highly competitive compared to other plumbers. However, the sample size is small (4 reviews) and most reviews are older than 1 year, limiting confidence in the overall assessment.

• Small sample size (4 reviews) limits statistical reliability
• Most reviews are older than 12 months (3 of 4 from 2018-2019); only 1 recent review from 2023
• All reviews are 5-star ratings with no negative feedback or specific criticisms, which may indicate selection bias or incomplete review representation
• Inconsistency in contractor name: first review mentions 'Daniel' while other reviews reference 'Jerrell's Plumbing Service' — unclear if same person/entity
• Limited mentions per dimension (2-3 each) means scores are based on sparse evidence

This WW Score should be treated with caution due to small sample size, age of most reviews, and lack of recent feedback. The score reflects positive sentiment but lacks sufficient volume and recency to be considered highly reliable. Additional recent reviews would significantly strengthen confidence in this assessment.

This plumber demonstrates strong professionalism with explicit mentions of quick callback response, dependability, and honest dealings across multiple reviews. Project completion is consistently affirmed with successful job execution and long-term customer retention (10+ years, multiple uses since 2021). Pricing is described as 'reasonable' in one review, though detailed pricing discussion is limited. Experience is evidenced by one reviewer's 30-year professional relationship and consistent quality work. However, the small sample size (4 reviews) and lack of detailed pricing transparency limit overall confidence.

• Small sample size (n=4) limits statistical reliability; recommend collecting additional recent reviews
• One review dates to 2018 (6+ years old); three reviews are recent (2023-2024)
• Pricing dimension based on only 2 mentions with minimal detail; no discussion of quotes, transparency, or hidden charges
• All reviews are 5-star ratings with no negative feedback; while consistent, this lacks critical perspective

This score should be treated as a preliminary indicator only. With only 4 reviews and limited detail on pricing practices, the WW Score of 88.2 reflects strong professionalism and project completion but carries MODERATE confidence due to insufficient data volume and recency distribution.

Cargill Services receives consistently strong feedback across all four scored dimensions. Professionalism is the most frequently mentioned attribute, with all five reviewers noting punctuality, clear communication, and courteous conduct — including one review specifically praising on-time arrival and project explanation throughout the job. Project completion is equally well-supported, with reviewers describing work finished on time, within quoted timeframes, and with follow-through such as a warranty offered post-service. Experience is praised across four reviews, with language like 'top notch,' 'knowledgeable,' and 'does it right' indicating genuine skill-based satisfaction. Pricing is mentioned positively in two reviews as 'very fair,' though the limited mention count keeps confidence low for that dimension.

• All 5 reviews are 5-star ratings, which warrants mild scrutiny; however, reviews contain specific details (project types, timing, named technicians, follow-up work) that reduce the likelihood of fabrication.
• Sample size is very small (5 reviews total), which limits the statistical reliability of all scores regardless of their individual quality.
• Two of the five reviews are older than 12 months (dated November and December 2023), meaning roughly 40% of the data is outside the preferred recency window; the three most recent reviews (2024) are consistent in tone and detail.
• Reviewer spelling alternates between 'Colten' and 'Colton' across reviews, which is a minor inconsistency but likely reflects natural variation rather than a fabrication signal.

This WW Score carries moderate overall reliability due to the small review pool of only 5 reviews; while the reviews are specific and credible in content, a larger sample would be needed to treat any dimension score — particularly pricing — with high confidence.

A2Z Atomic Plumbing receives consistently strong marks across all four dimensions based on 8 reviews spanning 2016–2023. Professionalism is the standout dimension, with multiple reviewers explicitly praising punctuality, courteous technicians, cleanliness, and responsive communication — including same-day and weekend availability. Pricing is frequently called out as fair, reasonable, or transparent, with one reviewer specifically noting the final cost matched the original estimate exactly. Project completion is well-supported, including a notably complex slab leak job that ran over time but was ultimately resolved fully and followed through the next day. Experience scores are solid, with references to knowledgeable staff, certified technicians, and effective problem-solving on difficult jobs, though the evidence base is slightly thinner than professionalism and pricing.

• All 8 reviews are 5-star ratings with no negative or mixed feedback — this warrants mild caution, though most reviews contain specific job details and varied language that reduce the likelihood of fabrication.
• Review recency concern: 6 of 8 reviews are older than 12 months as of 2025, with 5 reviews dated 2017 or earlier. Only 2 reviews (2022 and 2023) fall within a recent window. The score may not fully reflect current service quality.
• Sample size is small (8 reviews total). While all dimensions reached HIGH confidence via the formula, real-world reliability is limited by the low absolute number of reviews.

This WW Score carries moderate real-world reliability — the reviews are specific and credible, but the small sample size and predominantly older review dates mean the score should be treated as a reasonable directional indicator rather than a definitive assessment of current performance.

Bluefrog Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism across a very large review base, with repeated praise for punctuality, communication, courteous technicians, and clean workmanship. However, pricing is a notable weak point — multiple reviewers explicitly flagged costs as high or exorbitant, including a 1-star review citing $200+ for a single valve, a $323/hour labor rate complaint, and a reviewer who found them the highest quote among competitors. Project completion is solid overall but is meaningfully dragged down by several serious failures: one reviewer paid $4,000+ upfront and alleges the contractor disappeared with their money, another reports a water heater installation that failed inspection, a sewer repair that was never completed despite payment, and a warranty job where the technician never showed. Experience scores well given the volume of praise for knowledgeable, skilled technicians, but is tempered by at least two cases of incorrect diagnosis and one instance of a technician damaging property during a visit.

• SUSPECTED FAKE REVIEW CLUSTER: A large group of reviews dated 2019-06-11 with no specific details, identical generic praise, and no named technicians (e.g., 'Best of the Best!!!!!', 'Nice company. They did a very good job!', 'Good service.') are highly suspicious. These reviews appear to be padding and have been weighted down accordingly.
• SUSPECTED FAKE REVIEW CLUSTER: Multiple reviews dated 2020-06-10 all praising 'Erik' with very similar phrasing and structure, submitted on the same date with no specifics about job type or location. Pattern suggests coordinated review submission.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The review about the water softener installation (Angie's List, June 15) appears twice — once dated 2020-06-16 with a full update, and once dated 2020-06-16 00:00:00 without the update. Counted once.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The review praising Erik and Wenzel for after-hours water heater replacement appears twice — dated 2021-06-10 and 2020-11-19. Counted once.
• SERIOUS COMPLETION FAILURE: One reviewer (2023-06-10) alleges paying $4,000+ upfront for a sewage drain project and claims the company disappeared with the money and became unresponsive. This is an extreme flag.
• SERIOUS COMPLETION FAILURE: A reviewer (2023-02-03) paid $1,200 for sewer prep work, the job was left incomplete with an open hole, and the company became unresponsive to follow-up calls.
• SERIOUS COMPLETION FAILURE: A reviewer (2019-06-20) describes a toilet replacement that took over a month, involved three visits, left the toilet non-functional, and resulted in an elderly woman being charged $1,600 — more than double a fair rate.
• INSPECTION FAILURE: One reviewer (2025-06-06) explicitly states a water heater installation by Bluefrog did not pass inspection, yet gave a 5-star rating — this rating is inconsistent with the review text and the negative content was weighted over the star rating.
• PRICING CONCERN: Multiple independent reviewers across different time periods flagged pricing as high or excessive, including a $323/hour labor rate, $350 flat quotes for minor repairs, and a $268 diagnostic fee that does not apply toward work. This is a consistent pattern, not isolated incidents.
• RESPONSIVENESS FAILURES: Multiple reviews cite no-shows, missed appointments, unreturned calls on emergency lines, and technicians texting cancellations hours late. These span from 2016 to undated reviews, suggesting a recurring operational issue.
• RECENCY NOTE: Reviews span from 2015 to June 2025. The majority of substantive, detailed reviews are from 2022 onward. Older reviews (pre-2020) were given reduced weight. The most recent reviews (2025) are predominantly positive with high detail.
• MULTI-LOCATION CONCERN: Reviews appear to reference multiple franchise locations (Denver/Colorado, Dallas/North Dallas, Fort Lauderdale/South Florida, Pompano Beach). Scores reflect the aggregate brand performance, but individual location quality may vary significantly.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Approximately 15 reviews contained no text and only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring but counted in total reviews analyzed.
• RATING-TEXT MISMATCH: Several reviews gave 5-star ratings despite describing negative experiences (failed inspection, theft of old faucet, scheduling failures). Star ratings were not used as the primary scoring input — review text content was prioritized.

This WW Score is based on a very large review set (232 total) with high mention counts across all four dimensions, giving the score strong statistical grounding; however, reliability is moderately reduced by suspected fake review clusters, multi-location aggregation, serious unresolved completion failures, and a consistent pricing concern that suggests the score may overstate value for budget-conscious customers.