Find Nearby Plumbers In Dallas, Texas

Infinite Plumbing demonstrates strong performance across professionalism, project completion, and technical experience, with consistently positive feedback on punctuality, responsiveness, politeness, and quality workmanship. However, pricing presents a notable weakness, with two explicit complaints about overcharging (one faucet install at $275, one overcharge on parts/labor) offsetting numerous mentions of fair and reasonable rates. The company excels at diagnosing problems accurately, completing jobs quickly, and maintaining clean work sites. Most reviews are from 2021–2024, providing recent and reliable data. The WW Score of 84.2 reflects strong overall capability tempered by pricing inconsistency.

• Pricing dimension shows internal contradiction: 7 reviews praise fair/reasonable/affordable pricing, but 2 reviews explicitly criticize overcharging. This suggests either inconsistent pricing practices or selective application of rates. Conservative scoring applied.
• Two reviews from 2022-05-30 and 2022-10-08 indicate potential pricing disputes; both predate most other reviews, but pattern warrants attention.
• High concentration of 5-star reviews (23 of 25) is typical for small contractor reviews but limits ability to identify systemic weaknesses. No fake review indicators detected (reviews contain specific details, varied language, named technicians, different job types).
• Recency: 16 of 25 reviews are from 2021–2024 (within 3 years); 9 reviews are from 2022 or earlier. Recent data is strong.

This WW Score of 84.2 is highly reliable for professionalism, completion, and experience dimensions (all HIGH confidence with 12+ mentions each), but pricing confidence is MODERATE (9 mentions with conflicting signals). The overall score should be trusted for general contractor quality assessment, but customers should explicitly discuss pricing structure and request itemized quotes to mitigate pricing risk.

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.

AugerPros Plumbing earns strong marks across professionalism, experience, and project completion, with the vast majority of reviewers praising punctuality, courteous technicians, clear communication, and thorough follow-through on jobs. Technicians such as Kevin, Kory, Brendon, Keith, Chance, and Brian are repeatedly cited by name for their knowledge, problem-solving ability, and willingness to explain issues in detail. Project completion scores are high, with numerous reviews confirming jobs were finished same-day or within promised timeframes, and several reviewers noted technicians succeeded where prior plumbers had failed. Pricing is the weakest dimension: while many customers found value fair and transparent, there are multiple credible 1-star and low-star reviews citing overpricing (e.g., $400 hose bib, $2,900 water heater quote, $4,500 gas line quote later deemed unnecessary), a $150 emergency upcharge complaint, and one reviewer who felt the $29 trip fee model was used as a pressure tactic. These pricing concerns are specific and credible enough to meaningfully reduce the pricing score.

• PRICING CONCERNS: Multiple credible low-star reviews cite specific overpricing incidents — $400 hose bib replacement, a $4,500 gas line quote that a second plumber resolved for roughly $1,125, a $2,900 water heater quote versus competitor quotes of $250–$400, and a $150 emergency upcharge. These are not vague complaints and meaningfully reduce pricing confidence.
• NEGATIVE PROFESSIONALISM INCIDENTS: Two reviews describe specific unprofessional technician behavior — one technician (Chance) was described as abrasive and disinterested on a call with a customer's fiancée, and another technician allegedly threw a fit when no work was authorized. These are isolated but credible.
• COMMUNICATION FAILURE: One 1-star review documents a same-day scheduling failure where the company did not disclose until 3:00 PM that they lacked a certified backflow tester, causing significant inconvenience for a time-sensitive city inspection.
• SUBCONTRACTOR QUALITY ISSUE: One 4-star review noted that excavation subcontractors damaged a fence and behaved unprofessionally, suggesting inconsistency in third-party labor quality.
• INCOMPLETE JOB INSTANCE: One review noted a technician was unable to complete a shower valve repair and had to abort, though the customer was not charged beyond the trip fee. This is a minor flag but worth noting.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK: LOW. The reviews are highly varied in length, detail, named technicians, and specific job descriptions. No significant patterns of repetitive or templated language were detected. The presence of multiple credible negative reviews further supports authenticity of the review pool.
• RECENCY: The majority of reviews are from 2022–2025, with a strong cluster in 2025 and 2024. Reviews older than 2 years (2021–2022) represent a minority and were weighted slightly lower. Overall recency is strong and the score reflects current performance.

This WW Score is based on a large, diverse, and predominantly recent review set with strong mention counts across all four dimensions, making it one of the more reliable assessments possible — however, the pricing dimension carries a meaningful downward adjustment due to multiple specific and credible overpricing complaints that prospective customers should carefully consider.

All Ways Plumbing earns strong marks across all four dimensions, driven by an exceptionally large and mostly positive review base spanning over a decade. Professionalism is the standout dimension, with dozens of reviewers explicitly praising responsiveness, punctuality, communication, and courteous behavior. Project completion scores well overall but is meaningfully dragged down by three serious negative reviews: one describing a code violation that caused flooding and toxic mold with the contractor refusing to remedy the work, one describing workers who failed to diagnose the actual problem and performed unnecessary work, and one describing a technician who avoided the main issue and fixed a minor one instead. Pricing is generally praised as fair and reasonable, but one reviewer reported being charged $633 for a faucet replacement with no upfront quote, and another noted pricing felt high — these pull the pricing score below the otherwise positive consensus. Experience scores well based on numerous specific mentions of technical knowledge and problem-solving, though the diagnostic failures in the negative reviews temper this score.

• SERIOUS FLAG: One reviewer (1-star, 2023-03-29) describes a code violation by 'Zachary Szabo' causing flooding, two types of toxic mold, inability to live in the home for 4+ months, and the contractor being held responsible by the State Examiners Board while refusing to remedy the work. This is a significant workmanship and accountability failure that materially impacts the project_completion and experience scores.
• INCOMPLETE WORK FLAG: Two additional reviews (2024-10-17 and 2012-01-03) describe technicians who failed to diagnose or address the actual problem, performing unnecessary or minor work instead. This is a pattern worth noting.
• NO-QUOTE FLAG: One reviewer (2021-01-21) reported being charged $633 with no upfront price quote provided, only receiving an invoice after the fact. This is a transparency concern for the pricing dimension.
• BEHAVIOR FLAG: One 1-star review (2021-05-08) describes rude and disrespectful behavior from a driver of the company van in a parking lot. While not a service quality issue, it reflects on professionalism.
• BLANK/UNUSABLE REVIEWS: Four reviews contained no text (only a rating), including two from 2016 and one from 2024. These were excluded from dimensional scoring but counted in total reviews analyzed.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of substantive reviews are from 2021–2025, which is positive for recency weighting. Reviews from 2009–2013 reference different named technicians (Jake, Daryl, Zac/Zachary) and may reflect a different era or staffing of the business. The serious code-violation complaint also references 'Zachary Szabo,' suggesting possible past association with the business.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK: LOW. The review corpus is large, spans many years, references specific technician names, job types, and situational details. No significant pattern of identical phrasing or suspiciously generic content detected. Confidence in authenticity is high.

This WW Score is based on a large, detailed, and temporally diverse review set and carries HIGH overall confidence; however, the presence of one serious unresolved code-violation complaint with documented regulatory involvement and two additional incomplete-work complaints means prospective customers should weigh these outliers carefully, particularly for complex or high-stakes plumbing projects.

Bow Tie Plumbing performs strongly across professionalism and project completion, with the vast majority of reviewers praising responsiveness, punctuality, courteous communication, and jobs completed fully on the same or next day. Technical experience is consistently highlighted, with multiple reviewers noting thorough problem diagnosis, creative solutions, and skilled workmanship on complex jobs. Pricing is the weakest dimension: while many reviewers describe pricing as fair or reasonable, there are credible negative data points — one reviewer explicitly called out a $350 quote for a half-hour drain cleanout as excessive, and another noted the price was higher than expected for an emergency repair. One review flagged a complete failure to respond during an emergency, which meaningfully weighs down the professionalism score despite the otherwise strong pattern. Overall, the score reflects a reliable, skilled contractor with generally competitive pricing but occasional inconsistency in quoting and responsiveness.

• One review (2024-03-29) reports that the company requested contact for a consultation but never responded during what the customer described as an emergency — this is a direct professionalism failure and was weighted accordingly.
• One review (2024-04-21) explicitly describes pricing as high, citing a $350 quote for a job estimated at 30 minutes, and notes the technician only offered a discount after the customer pushed back — this suggests inconsistent or inflated initial quotes.
• One review (2024-06-20) noted pricing was 'a bit high' for an emergency water line repair, though the reviewer partially attributed this to their own urgency.
• No strong fake review patterns detected. Reviews vary in length, specificity, rating (1–5 stars), and mention different technicians by name (Travis, Bobby, Bryson, Nick, Tyson), which supports authenticity.
• Approximately 9 of 27 reviews are older than 12 months (pre-August 2023). The most recent reviews (2024) are broadly consistent with older ones, so recency does not significantly distort the score, but the pricing complaints are concentrated in 2024 reviews, suggesting a possible recent shift in pricing practices.

This WW Score is based on 27 reviews with strong dimension coverage across all four categories and multiple named technicians, yielding HIGH confidence — the score of 83.1 is a reliable representation of this contractor's typical performance, with the primary caveat being pricing inconsistency flagged in the most recent reviews.

This contractor demonstrates strong overall performance with a WW Score of 82.3, driven primarily by consistent professionalism and reliable project completion. Technicians are frequently praised for punctuality, courtesy, and clear communication, with many reviews highlighting same-day or next-day service availability. Project completion is solid, with most jobs finished as promised and follow-through honored. However, pricing emerges as a notable weakness, with approximately 19% of reviews mentioning concerns about costs being high, overcharges, or unexpected price increases. Experience and technical knowledge are generally well-regarded, though some reviews indicate occasional diagnostic errors or incomplete solutions on first visits.

• PRICING CONCERNS: Approximately 19% of reviews (187 mentions) explicitly address pricing issues. Common complaints include: unexpected price increases after initial quotes, charges significantly higher than competitors, hidden or undisclosed fees, and perception of overcharging. Multiple reviews cite price gouging, particularly on emergency/after-hours calls and warranty work.
• FAKE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: Approximately 25-30 reviews (2.5-3% of total) show suspicious characteristics: identical phrasing ('excellent service,' 'highly recommend,' 'professional'), generic praise with zero specifics, all 5-star ratings with minimal detail, and clustered dates (particularly June 2025, May 2025). These appear to be artificially generated or incentivized reviews. Confidence in overall score reduced slightly due to this pattern.
• SCHEDULING/RESPONSIVENESS INCONSISTENCY: While most reviews praise quick response times, approximately 12 reviews document significant scheduling failures including no-shows, cancelled appointments without callback, and long delays in returning calls or providing estimates. This suggests operational inconsistency.
• QUALITY CONTROL VARIABILITY: Approximately 8-10 reviews mention incomplete first visits, misdiagnosis of problems, or work that required callbacks to fix. One review explicitly praised the company's quality control system with photo review by senior staff.
• RECENCY BIAS: Approximately 60% of reviews are from May-June 2025 (very recent), with a sharp drop-off in reviews from 2024 and earlier. This concentration may inflate current scores if recent performance differs from historical patterns.
• MULTIPLE BUSINESS ENTITIES: Reviews reference multiple business names ('The Plumber,' 'O&M Plumbing,' 'My Plumber,' 'Pro Plumbers Grapevine,' 'Roboco Enterprises Inc dba The Plumber') suggesting either franchises, rebranding, or data aggregation from multiple unrelated companies. This may compromise score reliability.

This WW Score of 82.3 should be treated with MODERATE-TO-HIGH confidence for professionalism and project completion dimensions, but MODERATE confidence for pricing due to documented overcharge patterns. The presence of suspected fake reviews (2.5-3% of dataset) and the concentration of recent reviews (60% from May-June 2025) suggest the score may not be fully representative of long-term performance. Customers should expect strong service quality and responsiveness but should obtain detailed written quotes and compare pricing with competitors before committing, particularly for large jobs or emergency services.