Find Nearby Plumbers In Dallas, Texas

Mr. Rooter of Frisco has a strong base of positive reviews praising professionalism, punctuality, and responsiveness — particularly from technicians Sebastian and Gavin — which drives solid scores in professionalism, project completion, and experience. However, pricing is a significant and recurring concern: multiple independent reviewers across different time periods explicitly describe hidden charges, bait-and-switch pricing tactics, membership plan upsells, and charges perceived as grossly disproportionate to the work performed, pulling the pricing dimension down substantially. Project completion is generally positive but is tempered by a few notable failures including a no-show appointment, an unresolved plumbing issue, and damage to a customer's sprinkler system that was not fully remedied. The cluster of 8 reviews all posted on the same date (2025-05-19) with nearly identical phrasing and structure raises a fake review flag that reduces confidence in the upper end of the professionalism score.

• SUSPECTED FAKE REVIEW CLUSTER: 8 reviews all dated 2025-05-19 share nearly identical structure ('Sebastian and Gavin [superlative praise]. [One sentence endorsement]. Highly recommended.') with no specific job details, suggesting coordinated or inauthentic posting. These reviews were included but weighted conservatively.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: Two reviews dated 2024-09-12 and 2024-08-30 are word-for-word identical (the hot water heater review). Only one was counted for scoring purposes.
• PRICING PATTERN WARNING: At least 7 independent reviews across multiple years (2018–2025) explicitly describe deceptive or excessively high pricing, hidden charges, membership plan bait-and-switch, and charges not disclosed upfront. This is a consistent and credible pattern, not isolated incidents.
• PROJECT FAILURE NOTED: One reviewer (2022-01-05) reports a no-show appointment after purchasing a membership plan. One reviewer (2018-11-23) reports the problem was not fixed and a mess was left. One reviewer (2024-11-13) reports accidental damage to sprinkler system with disputed accountability.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews are from within the past 12 months (2024–2025), which is favorable for recency weighting. Older negative reviews (2018–2019) regarding pricing practices appear to reflect a persistent pattern that continues into 2025.

This WW Score carries HIGH overall confidence due to a large review volume with broad dimensional coverage, but the pricing score in particular should be treated as a serious red flag given the volume, specificity, and multi-year consistency of complaints about deceptive billing practices.

Milestone's individual technicians are frequently praised for being polite, punctual, and knowledgeable, which drives a respectable professionalism and experience score. However, pricing is a significant and recurring concern — multiple reviewers explicitly describe quotes as excessive, inflated, or far above competitor estimates, pulling the pricing dimension down sharply. Project completion is the most damaging dimension: several reviews describe failed follow-through, no-shows across multiple rescheduled appointments, work that had to be entirely redone, and unresolved communication breakdowns. The gap between strong on-site technician performance and poor company-level reliability, billing practices, and follow-through is the defining tension in this review set.

• Significant pricing complaints: multiple reviewers independently describe quotes 2x–4x higher than competitors for identical work (HVAC fan replacement, full system replacement). This is a consistent and specific pattern, not isolated.
• Recurring project completion failures: at least 3 reviews describe repeated no-shows or missed appointment windows; 1 review describes HVAC and plumbing work that had to be entirely removed and redone by another company.
• Deceptive or high-pressure sales practices flagged by multiple reviewers: timeshare-style sales presentations, unnecessary upsells, auto-renewal of memberships without notice, and difficulty canceling subscriptions.
• One review (2024-11-07, 1-star) appears to be an ongoing update to a prior review, suggesting a prolonged unresolved dispute — this reflects systemic responsiveness failure.
• The 1-star review about TV ads (2024-07-23) contains no actionable service data and was excluded from scoring.
• No fake review patterns detected. Reviews vary in length, specificity, tone, and rating. Named technicians appear across multiple reviews independently. Review set appears authentic.
• All reviews are dated within the past 12–18 months (2023–2024), so recency weighting does not significantly alter the analysis.

This WW Score is based on 62 reviews with strong mention counts across all four dimensions, yielding HIGH confidence ratings throughout — however, the score should be interpreted cautiously given the sharp split between positive individual technician experiences and serious systemic concerns around pricing, sales practices, and project follow-through.

Align Foundation Repair demonstrates genuine technical expertise and fair pricing, with multiple reviewers — including real estate professionals and repeat customers — praising the quality of assessments and the honesty of recommendations. However, professionalism and project completion scores are significantly dragged down by a recurring and serious pattern of communication failures: multiple independent reviewers across different years describe unanswered calls, unreturned emails, delayed quotes, and missing post-job documentation such as engineering reports, plumbing tests, and warranty paperwork. These are not isolated incidents but a systemic issue spanning from 2013 through 2024, which prevents the company from scoring higher despite its clear technical competence. Pricing is a relative strength, with several reviewers noting competitive bids and no hidden charges. The wide spread between the experience score and the professionalism/completion scores reflects a company that does good work when fully engaged but struggles with follow-through and administrative reliability.

• SYSTEMIC COMMUNICATION FAILURE: At least 6 independent reviews (2013, 2014, 2016, 2018, 2024 x2) explicitly describe unanswered calls, unreturned emails, and failure to deliver paid-for documentation. This is a persistent operational weakness, not an anomaly.
• RECENCY CONCERN — MIXED SIGNALS: The most recent negative review (April 2024) describes the same communication breakdown pattern seen in reviews from 2013–2016, suggesting the issue has not been resolved over a decade.
• WARRANTY/FOLLOW-THROUGH ISSUES: Two reviews (2018, 2013) describe significant difficulty invoking warranty service, with one reviewer noting a near-3-month resolution timeline and another still lacking documentation 2 months post-repair.
• INCOMPLETE WORK CONCERN: One reviewer (2019, 3-star) reported a new structural issue (sagging garage side) appearing after pier installation and felt the engineering assessment provided was inadequate for the price paid.
• REVIEW AGE SPREAD: Reviews span 2010–2024. Reviews older than 3 years (pre-2022) account for the majority of the dataset. While patterns are consistent, older reviews carry reduced weight per scoring rules.
• NO SUSPECTED FAKE REVIEWS: Language, specificity, and rating distribution (mix of 1, 2, 3, and 5 stars with detailed narratives) suggest authentic reviews. No fake review flag applied.

This WW Score is based on 22 reviews with high mention counts across all four dimensions, making it statistically reliable in direction, though the score should be interpreted cautiously given that the negative reviews describe serious and repeated operational failures that directly contradict the positive experiences described by satisfied customers.

Frymire demonstrates strong professionalism with courteous, knowledgeable technicians who communicate clearly and arrive on time in most cases. However, the company is severely undermined by pervasive pricing concerns—numerous reviews document excessive markups, hidden charges, and aggressive upselling tactics that suggest systematic overcharging. Project completion is inconsistent, with multiple reports of incomplete work, no-shows, and unresolved issues requiring callbacks. Technical expertise is generally solid, but is overshadowed by allegations of misdiagnosis and unnecessary repairs designed to drive sales rather than solve problems.

• CRITICAL: Systematic pricing fraud pattern detected. 40+ reviews document excessive charges, hidden fees, and deceptive billing practices. Examples include: $539 for a $24 capacitor replacement, $1,256 for shower stems (competitor charged $525), $2,225 labor for free compressor, $1,622 installation for $700 device. This is not isolated—it is a company-wide pattern.
• CRITICAL: Aggressive and deceptive sales practices. Multiple reviews describe technicians misdiagnosing problems to justify unnecessary replacements (e.g., recommending $13,000 AC replacement when only $100 part needed, recommending $6,600 compressor when $200 switch was actual issue). Technicians listed as 'sales' on LinkedIn. Stock photos of dusty units allegedly used to justify unnecessary cleaning.
• CRITICAL: No-show and cancellation pattern. At least 5 reviews document scheduled appointments with no technician arrival, cancellations without rescheduling, or technicians arriving hours late. One customer had appointment cancelled because they missed confirmation call during already-confirmed window.
• CRITICAL: Post-sale service failures. Multiple reviews report inability to reach company after purchase, no callbacks from managers despite promises, and refusal to honor warranties or provide refunds. One customer waited over a year for invoice on warranty work.
• CRITICAL: Ownership/corporate changes. Company acquired by Granite Comfort (NY investment firm) around 2024. Multiple reviews note decline in service quality post-acquisition. Earlier bankruptcy and takeover by Earthwise noted in 2018 reviews. Name changes and rebranding suggest pattern of avoiding accountability.
• CRITICAL: Defective installations and incomplete work. Multiple reviews document new HVAC systems requiring 6+ service visits to fix, water damage from improper condensation line cleaning, incorrect wiring, wrong gauge wire, defective coils, and damage to customer property (ceiling, shower rod, air purifier) without compensation.
• CRITICAL: Warranty and guarantee violations. Company refuses to honor warranties on installations they performed, claims work is 'under warranty' but charges $2,000 labor, and fails to register systems with manufacturers thereby voiding warranties.
• CRITICAL: Outdoor tankless water heater fraud. Multiple customers report being sold outdoor tankless units for $11,000-$12,000 that freeze in winter with no warning provided upfront. Company blamed customers for freezing, refused responsibility.
• CRITICAL: Fake review detection. First 20 reviews (dated 2025-06-08 to 2025-05-07) show suspicious patterns: (1) Identical phrasing repeated verbatim across multiple reviews ('Jamal did a good job and spelled out your proposals well' appears twice identically), (2) Suspiciously generic praise with minimal specifics, (3) All 5-star ratings with no critical detail, (4) Clustering of identical dates with multiple reviews, (5) Several blank/empty review texts rated 5-star. These appear to be fabricated positive reviews designed to inflate ratings. Confidence in positive reviews from this period should be significantly reduced.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most recent reviews (June 2025) are likely fake. Negative reviews are predominantly from 2018-2023, suggesting company may have improved or simply stopped receiving honest feedback. However, the volume and consistency of negative allegations across 5+ years suggests systemic issues rather than isolated incidents.
• PATTERN: Company uses '$89 service fee' as bait-and-switch tactic. Fee is waived if customer accepts service, but used to collect money from customers who decline overpriced estimates. Multiple reviews document this practice.
• PATTERN: Upselling maintenance programs. Company aggressively pushes $15-20/month 'club' or 'membership' plans, then charges full price for work anyway or claims work not covered. Customers report feeling trapped into memberships.
• PATTERN: Misrepresentation of code requirements. Multiple reviews document company claiming city code requires expensive upgrades (surge protectors, anode rods, flex hoses, etc.) that other plumbers confirm are unnecessary or already included.
• PATTERN: Damage and cleanup failures. Multiple reviews report company leaving debris, damaging walls/ceilings/fixtures, and refusing to compensate or complete repairs. One customer had to clean up after duct cleaning crew and suffered back pain.

This WW Score of 68.2 should be treated with EXTREME CAUTION. While the score reflects genuine data from 176 reviews, the first ~20 reviews (all 5-star, dated June 2025) appear fabricated and artificially inflate the professionalism and project completion scores. The pricing score of 42.0 is likely conservative—it is based on explicit overcharge allegations, but the true scope of systematic fraud may be worse. The company exhibits a clear pattern of predatory practices including deceptive sales, excessive markups, incomplete work, and warranty violations documented across 5+ years and 100+ negative reviews. The recent positive reviews should be heavily discounted. This company presents significant financial and service risk to customers.

Chorbie demonstrates strong technical expertise and professionalism from individual technicians, with many customers praising specific employees for knowledge and friendliness. However, the company suffers from significant operational inconsistencies in project completion—including missed appointments, incomplete work, and poor follow-through on callbacks. Pricing concerns are substantial, with multiple customers citing excessive hourly rates ($129/hour) and unexpected charges. Communication and responsiveness vary widely; while some customers report excellent email/phone responsiveness, others describe slow replies, unanswered calls, and poor coordination between office and field staff. The company's transition from WeedXtinguishers to Chorbie appears to have introduced quality and service degradation according to long-term customers.

• SIGNIFICANT OPERATIONAL INCONSISTENCY: Multiple reviews (at least 15+) report missed appointments, no-shows, rescheduling without notification, and incomplete work. This is a critical pattern.
• COMMUNICATION BREAKDOWN: Recurring complaints about slow email responses (24+ hours), unanswered phone calls, and poor coordination between office and field teams. Some customers report calling 3-7+ times without callbacks.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS: At least 8 reviews explicitly mention excessive pricing, hidden charges, or unexpected billing. Hourly rates of $129/hour cited as unreasonable. One customer reported being charged $400+ without consent after cancellation.
• QUALITY VARIANCE: Significant inconsistency in mowing quality—some reviews praise excellent work, others report grass cut too short/too long, improper edging, and grass left unbagged despite payment for bagging service.
• CANCELLATION ISSUES: Multiple customers report difficulty canceling service, unauthorized charges after cancellation, and continued service visits after cancellation requests.
• POST-ACQUISITION DECLINE: Several long-term customers (5+ years) explicitly state service quality declined after transition from WeedXtinguishers to Chorbie branding.
• TECHNICAL KNOWLEDGE GAPS: Some reviews indicate technicians lack proper knowledge of grass types, mowing heights, and lawn care best practices, resulting in lawn damage.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK - MODERATE: Several highly positive reviews use similar phrasing ('above and beyond,' 'goes above and beyond,' 'excellent job') and lack specific details. However, negative reviews are detailed and credible, so overall fake review risk is limited rather than high.

This WW Score of 68.2 is reliable due to substantial data (80 reviews with 48-52 mentions per dimension), but the score masks a company with serious operational problems. The high confidence reflects data volume, not service quality—Chorbie excels in individual technician professionalism and expertise but fails consistently in project completion, communication, and pricing transparency. Customers should expect inconsistent service delivery and should be prepared for billing disputes and missed appointments.

Metro Flow Plumbing receives consistently strong marks for professionalism, punctuality, and courteous technicians across a large volume of recent reviews, with many customers praising named plumbers by name for their communication and thoroughness. However, pricing is the single most damaging dimension in this dataset — a substantial and persistent pattern of complaints spanning over a decade describes charges that are routinely described as triple or quadruple competitor rates, with hidden service fees, flat-rate pricing that is not disclosed upfront, and several reviewers feeling deceived or taken advantage of. Project completion and technical experience scores are moderately strong, with most jobs described as completed successfully, though a handful of serious complaints involve disputed diagnoses, work that caused new problems, and at least one case of a no-show after confirmed appointments. The stark contrast between the glowing recent reviews and the deeply critical older reviews — many of which are highly specific and credible — significantly tempers the overall score.

• PRICING CONCERN — PERSISTENT AND SEVERE: At least 20 reviews across multiple years explicitly describe pricing as exorbitant, triple or quadruple competitor rates, or outright deceptive. This is the most consistently negative theme in the dataset and is corroborated by specific dollar amounts cited by multiple independent reviewers.
• POSSIBLE FAKE REVIEW INFLATION: A cluster of 2025 reviews (especially those dated 2025-04-10 and 2025-06-02) show suspiciously uniform 5-star ratings with very brief, generic praise and no specific detail. Six reviews in this dataset contain no text at all (blank body, 5-star rating) and were excluded from scoring but noted as a red flag.
• RECENCY BIAS WARNING: The majority of positive reviews are from 2024-2025, while the majority of critical reviews are from 2009-2022. This may reflect genuine improvement, or it may reflect review solicitation practices that suppress older negative sentiment. Both interpretations are plausible.
• SERIOUS SERVICE FAILURE — ABANDONED APPOINTMENT: One review (2021-02-20) describes a confirmed appointment being cancelled the morning of service with the customer being spoken to aggressively and threatened. This is a significant professionalism and project completion failure.
• DISPUTED DIAGNOSIS / POTENTIAL FRAUD: One review (2022-08-07) describes paying $433 for a camera inspection that identified a leak requiring $7,000 in repairs; a second company found no leak at all after digging. A second review (2018-07-05) describes a service contract inspection during which a leak appeared under a sink that had been dry moments before. These are serious credibility concerns.
• UNDISCLOSED SERVICE FEES: Multiple reviews across many years describe being charged $49–$89 trip or service fees that were not clearly disclosed upfront and did not apply toward the cost of work. This is a recurring transparency issue.
• BLANK REVIEWS EXCLUDED: 6 reviews contained no text and were not scored but were counted in total_reviews_analyzed.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large review volume, but consumers should treat the pricing dimension as a near-certain liability and independently verify quotes before authorizing any work, as the pricing complaints are too numerous, specific, and consistent across too many years to dismiss.