Find Nearby Plumbers In Dallas, Texas

Mr. Quick Fix (Jay) has a large and predominantly positive review base spanning several years, with the majority of customers praising his responsiveness, punctuality, communication, and broad skill set across plumbing, carpentry, electrical, and general handyman work. However, a meaningful cluster of negative reviews raises serious concerns: one customer reported an incomplete and failed leak repair with no refund and poor follow-through; another described a bait-and-switch pricing situation with a deck job that caused additional damage; a third reported rude behavior and unexpected billing overruns; and a fourth described misleading advertising of unlicensed workers as electricians. Pricing confidence is tempered by multiple complaints about charges exceeding estimates without prior notice, and at least two reviewers noted prices were on the higher end. Project completion scores are pulled down by documented cases of abandoned or failed work and at least one instance where Jay reportedly told a customer he would 'give up on this effort.' The experience score reflects genuine skill acknowledged by many customers but is moderated by instances of poor workmanship on specific jobs such as tile installation and deck power washing.

• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The review dated 2022-06-16 and the review dated 2023-06-10 are nearly word-for-word identical ('Mr. Quick Fix did a phenomenal job on two small/medium projects...'). This may indicate a fake or recycled review and has been flagged accordingly.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The review dated 2020-10-27 (with timestamp 12:04:59) and the review dated 2020-10-27 (with no timestamp) are identical in content. This appears to be the same review submitted twice and was counted only once.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The review dated 2018-10-15 and the review dated 2019-06-11 ('I will start off by saying that I am so thankful we found Jay...') are nearly word-for-word identical. This is a strong indicator of a fake or recycled positive review.
• ANIMAL ABUSE CLUSTER: Five 1-star reviews dated 2018-06-11 all reference a video of Jay throwing rocks at dogs. These reviews contain no service-related content and appear to be a coordinated reputational attack rather than legitimate service reviews. They have been excluded from dimension scoring but are flagged here for transparency.
• LICENSING CONCERN: One verified 1-star review (2024-10-24) explicitly states that workers responded to an ad for licensed electricians but disclosed they were handymen only after hours of work. The boss then attempted to collect payment despite the customer having to hire licensed electricians to redo the work. This is a significant consumer protection concern.
• FAILED CALLBACK / ABANDONED WORK: At least two reviews document Jay failing to honor callbacks or complete repairs after payment — one involving a $1,000+ leak repair that failed and resulted in no refund, and one involving a deck job where the customer was charged more than double the estimate after damage was caused.
• PRICING TRANSPARENCY ISSUES: Multiple reviews note that final charges exceeded quoted estimates without prior notification, including one awning job that went from a $300-$400 estimate to $625, and one deck job that escalated from ~$500 to over $1,400. This pattern reduces confidence in the pricing dimension.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews are from 2016-2020. Reviews from the past 12 months (2024) include both a strong positive cluster and the most serious licensing/misrepresentation complaint. Recent data is mixed.
• GENERIC REVIEWS: Several short reviews (e.g., 'Door Repair at our home and business', 'Really great company, very detailed work', 'Amazing... Best Handyman, I've ever worked with') contain no specific detail and contribute minimal scoring value. These were noted but not excluded.

This WW Score is based on a large review set (120 reviews) and carries HIGH overall confidence in terms of data volume, but the score should be interpreted cautiously due to documented patterns of failed project completion, pricing disputes, a licensing misrepresentation incident, at least two confirmed duplicate/recycled reviews, and a coordinated negative review cluster that required manual exclusion.

Professor Plumb has a strong base of positive reviews praising honesty, fair pricing, and technical skill, with many customers highlighting plumbers like Blue, Brian, and Jeff by name for going above and beyond — including refusing payment for minor fixes and offering free advice. However, a significant and recurring pattern of negative reviews specifically around no-shows, missed appointments, failure to return calls, and abandoned or incomplete work substantially drags down the professionalism and project completion scores. The pricing dimension scores well because multiple reviewers explicitly noted competitive quotes, prices coming in below competitors, and no hidden charges, though one reviewer alleged price inflation targeting. Project completion is the most penalized dimension due to multiple documented cases of jobs left unfinished, unresolved callbacks, and at least one case of property damage with no owner follow-up. Experience scores highest because when work was actually performed, reviewers consistently praised the technical quality and problem-solving ability of the technicians.

• RECURRING NO-SHOW PATTERN: At least 7 reviews across multiple years (2015, 2016, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2024) describe missed appointments with no call, suggesting a systemic scheduling and accountability problem rather than isolated incidents.
• INCOMPLETE WORK DOCUMENTED: At least 3 reviews describe jobs that were not completed — including a gas line left unrepaired after two visits, a bathtub installation left leaking and unlevel, and a drain that was charged $750 but remained clogged.
• OWNER UNRESPONSIVE TO COMPLAINTS: Multiple negative reviewers explicitly state the owner (Duane/Blue) was contacted but never responded to complaints about property damage, billing disputes, or incomplete work.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent reviews (2024) include both a strong positive and two serious no-show complaints, suggesting the scheduling reliability issue has not been resolved as of early 2024.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK — LOW: The positive reviews are largely specific, name individual technicians, describe distinct scenarios, and vary in writing style. Fake review risk is assessed as low, though the volume of generic 5-star praise warrants mild caution.
• SCORE SUPPRESSION APPLIED: Professionalism and project completion scores were deliberately held conservative due to the volume and specificity of negative experiences, which represent a meaningful minority (~15 of 75 reviews) with serious operational concerns.

This WW Score is based on 75 reviews spanning approximately 10 years with HIGH mention counts across all four dimensions, making the score mathematically reliable; however, the persistent no-show and incomplete-work complaints across multiple years indicate a real operational risk that the aggregate score partially masks, and prospective customers should weigh the negative reviews carefully before booking.

Riddell Plumbing demonstrates strong positive performance across the majority of reviews, with many customers praising courteous, professional technicians who respond quickly and complete jobs effectively. However, a meaningful cluster of negative reviews — spanning multiple years — raises legitimate concerns across all four dimensions: pricing transparency issues (overcharging, undisclosed flat-rate switches, alleged price gouging during emergencies), incomplete or failed first-attempt repairs requiring costly return visits, poor internal communication and scheduling follow-through, and at least one documented instance of a technician becoming verbally aggressive with a customer. Professionalism scores are pulled down by recurring complaints about rude staff, no-shows, and poor communication protocols, even though the majority of reviewers report positive interactions. Project completion is similarly mixed, with several reviews describing jobs left unfinished, warranty denials, and work that failed shortly after service. Pricing is the weakest dimension, with multiple independent reviewers citing overcharging, lack of upfront quotes, and rates significantly above market averages.

• 14 reviews contain no text at all — only a 5-star rating. These blank reviews provide no usable data and were excluded from dimension scoring. Their volume (nearly 20% of total reviews) slightly inflates the perceived star average.
• Several recent 2025 reviews are extremely brief and generic (e.g., 'Fast quick service', 'Well done', 'Professional and courteous') with no specifics. While not conclusive, the pattern of many short 5-star reviews clustered around the same dates warrants mild fake-review suspicion.
• Recency note: The most detailed and credible negative reviews date from 2017–2023. Recent 2024–2025 reviews are overwhelmingly positive but thin on detail, which may reflect genuine improvement or selective review solicitation.
• Pricing dimension flagged: At least three independent reviewers across different years explicitly cited overcharging, undisclosed billing method switches (hourly vs. flat rate), and one reviewer cited a quoted rate of $450/hour during a declared emergency — a potential violation of Texas price gouging law.
• One review (2023-08-29, 1-star) describes an extremely serious incident including property damage (chipped marble sink), billing disputes, and a technician using profane and threatening language toward a customer. The company reportedly never responded to this complaint.
• One review (2019-12-30, 1-star) describes alleged manipulation of an elderly customer with dementia, which is a serious ethical and legal concern. This review was treated as credible given its specificity and detail.
• Project completion concern: Multiple reviews describe jobs that failed within days of completion and required return visits, with the company in some cases refusing warranty coverage and charging full price again.

This WW Score is based on a substantial volume of reviews (72 total, 58 with usable data) spanning over a decade, giving it HIGH statistical confidence, but consumers should weigh the score carefully given the presence of several detailed, credible negative reviews describing serious issues with pricing transparency, workmanship quality, and customer treatment that are not fully offset by the large number of brief, generic positive reviews.

Apex Supply Richardson receives overwhelmingly positive feedback for staff helpfulness, product knowledge, and willingness to go above and beyond — with named associates like Spencer, Jeff, Erick, Derrick, Brenda, and Clayton frequently praised. However, several credible negative reviews expose meaningful failures: poor follow-through on orders (wrong parts ordered twice, no callbacks), unhelpful or dismissive staff on specific occasions, and a restrictive return policy with a 15–25% restocking fee. Pricing is a notable concern, with one reviewer paying $300 for a pipe available for $12 elsewhere, and another noting the cheapest rain head was $1,200 — though a few reviews mention reasonable or competitive prices. Project completion scores are dragged down by documented failures to resolve warranty issues, deliver complete orders, and follow up with customers. The experience dimension scores moderately well due to consistent praise for technical knowledge, but is tempered by instances where staff refused to engage with part lookups or gave poor product recommendations.

• SUSPECTED FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: A large cluster of reviews dated 2025-03-11 and 2025-04-10 share nearly identical structure — new customer visits store, Jeff (or another named associate) helps them with a remodel, they are extremely satisfied, and they 'highly recommend' asking for Jeff specifically. Multiple reviews reference a wife's remodel or a friend's recommendation with suspiciously similar phrasing. This pattern is consistent with solicited or incentivized reviews and should reduce confidence in the positive score cluster.
• 6 reviews had no text content (rating only) and were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most detailed negative reviews span from 2016 to 2024, while the bulk of positive reviews are concentrated in 2025 and late 2024. The negative reviews are older but describe systemic issues (poor follow-up, wrong orders, dismissive staff) that have not been explicitly contradicted by recent reviews with comparable specificity.
• RETURN POLICY CONCERN: Multiple reviews independently flag a 15–25% restocking fee as a pain point, and one reviewer was denied a return on an item delivered incomplete by Apex itself. This is a documented and recurring issue.
• PRICING CONCERN: One reviewer documented paying $300 for a pipe available for $12 on Amazon with no discernible quality difference. Another noted the cheapest rain head shower option was $1,200. These are not isolated complaints and materially affect the pricing score.

This WW Score is based on a large review set with high mention counts across all dimensions, but confidence is meaningfully reduced by a suspected cluster of solicited or fake positive reviews in early 2025, which inflates the positive signal — the true score for this business is likely lower than the calculated figure suggests.

Xtreme Air Services demonstrates strong professionalism with punctual, courteous technicians who communicate well and explain work clearly. However, pricing is a significant weakness—numerous reviews explicitly cite excessive markups, overcharging, and aggressive upselling tactics that undermine customer trust. Project completion is generally solid with timely service and follow-through, though some scheduling and communication failures are documented. Technical expertise is evident in most cases, though several reviews report misdiagnosis or incomplete problem-solving. The company's reputation is polarized: loyal long-term customers praise reliability, while newer or one-time customers frequently report feeling overcharged and manipulated.

• PRICING PATTERN: 32 reviews explicitly mention pricing concerns. Recurring complaints include: $1600 quoted then dropped to $1000 for same job competitors charged $400; $416 for capacitor when warranty covered it ($80 labor elsewhere); $400 for $65 capacitor; $1700 duct cleaning deemed unnecessary by second opinion; $2194 for warranty compressor; $750 quoted then discounted to $475 for capacitor; $583 for hose replacement. This pattern suggests systematic overpricing and aggressive upselling.
• DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY: Multiple reviews report misdiagnosis or incomplete diagnostics—compressor replacement quoted when only electrical short needed ($4000-6000 vs $200 actual cost); zone board replacement quoted when wiring was simply connected wrong; duct cleaning and blower wheel cleaning deemed unnecessary by competitors; capacitor warranty not checked. Suggests inconsistent technical competency.
• SCHEDULING & COMMUNICATION FAILURES: Several reviews document poor office communication, missed appointments, rescheduling without notice, and dispatch inefficiency. One review explicitly states 'office communication is horrible' and they schedule customers for unrequested services on unavailable dates.
• INSTALLATION QUALITY ISSUES: Multiple reviews report poor initial installations requiring callbacks—incorrect airflow sizing, improper wiring for variable speed units, thermostat not installed at time of AC installation, emergency drain disconnected, electrical hazards (blackened socket, corroded prongs). Suggests quality control gaps.
• FOLLOW-UP & ACCOUNTABILITY: Several reviews report difficulty obtaining itemized receipts, no response to email requests for documentation, and owner (Eddy) taking no responsibility for installation errors. One customer reported 4+ service calls for same issue over 1 year.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: Approximately 35-40 reviews dated 2025-04-10 and 2025-06-02 to 2025-06-08 contain minimal detail, generic praise, or no comment text. Many are single-sentence 5-star ratings (e.g., 'Very Professional', 'Juan was great to work with!', blank reviews). This clustering and lack of specificity raises authenticity concerns, though individual technician names are mentioned which adds some credibility.
• RECENCY BIAS: Most detailed negative reviews are from 2018-2023. Recent reviews (2025) are predominantly 5-star with minimal detail. This temporal pattern may indicate either improved service or review manipulation.
• SAFETY CONCERNS: One review documented electrical hazard (blackened socket, corroded prongs) missed by Xtreme technicians. Another reported gas line disconnected to water heater during furnace install, causing false diagnosis of water heater failure.

This WW Score of 72.8 is reliable but reflects a deeply polarized company: strong on professionalism and responsiveness, critically weak on pricing transparency and diagnostic accuracy. The HIGH confidence is based on 152 reviews with substantial mentions across all dimensions, but the score is heavily dragged down by consistent, explicit pricing complaints (32 mentions) and documented diagnostic failures. Long-term customers rate highly; first-time or one-time customers frequently report feeling overcharged. The clustering of generic 5-star reviews in 2025 raises minor authenticity concerns but does not override the substantial body of detailed negative feedback from 2018-2023. Recommend obtaining multiple quotes before engaging and requesting itemized receipts in writing.

1st Call Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism with consistently praised responsiveness, punctuality, and courteous technicians across 48 mentions. Technical expertise and workmanship quality are solid (81.0 on 28 mentions), with many customers noting knowledgeable staff who explain problems clearly. However, pricing emerges as a significant weakness (58.0 on 18 mentions), with multiple customers reporting excessive charges, upselling of unnecessary services, and quotes far exceeding competitor bids. Project completion is adequate (75.0 on 32 mentions) but marred by instances of incomplete work, failed callbacks, and jobs requiring multiple visits. The company shows strong recent performance (2025 reviews predominantly 5-star) but historical reviews (2012-2016) reveal serious patterns of overcharging and service failures that suggest either past systemic issues or ongoing concerns masked by improved recent marketing.

• PRICING FRAUD PATTERN: Multiple independent reviews (2012-2016) allege deliberate overcharging, upselling unnecessary services (water softeners, full system replacements), and misrepresentation of problems. Examples: $1500 for 30-min copper pipe replacement, $1900 quote vs $150 actual fix, $654 garbage disposal replacement that customer resolved with $20 tool.
• INCOMPLETE WORK & FAILED CALLBACKS: At least 5 reviews document jobs requiring multiple visits, promised callbacks never made, and work left unfinished (concrete pad not replaced, basement flooding, drywall damage not repaired).
• RECENT REVIEW CLUSTERING: 35+ reviews from June 2025 alone, all 5-star with similar praise patterns (specific technician names, quick response, professional). While some detail is present, the volume and timing suggest possible review campaign or inflated recent activity.
• HISTORICAL VS RECENT DIVERGENCE: Pre-2017 reviews contain 12+ one-star ratings with detailed fraud allegations; post-2024 reviews are almost entirely 5-star. This dramatic shift warrants skepticism about whether underlying issues persist or have genuinely been resolved.
• FRANCHISE QUALITY CONTROL: One review explicitly notes company contracts work to independent plumbers with no quality control, explaining inconsistent service quality across locations.
• UNRESOLVED REFUND CLAIMS: Multiple customers report promised refunds never received and managers becoming unavailable after complaints.

This WW Score of 72.8 should be treated with caution: while recent reviews (2025) show consistently high professionalism and responsiveness, the historical pattern of pricing fraud, incomplete work, and failed callbacks (2012-2019) suggests systemic issues that may not have been fully resolved. The dramatic clustering of 5-star reviews in 2025 raises questions about review authenticity. Customers should prioritize obtaining detailed written estimates, verifying pricing against competitors, and requesting specific guarantees in writing before engaging this company.