Find Nearby Plumbers In Denton, Texas

Reynolds Plumbing has an overwhelmingly positive review history spanning nearly two decades, with the vast majority of customers praising punctuality, responsiveness, courteous communication, and fair transparent pricing. Professionalism scores are strong but tempered by a handful of credible negative reviews: one customer reported condescending and aggressive behavior from the owner on the phone, another described the owner failing to show up for two rescheduled appointments, and a third noted a rushed cleanup and incomplete job finish. Pricing is generally regarded as fair and competitive, with multiple reviewers noting the final bill came in at or below the quoted estimate, though one reviewer felt blindsided by an $85 charge for a trivial task and another felt $250 was not worth it for a repair that failed quickly. Project completion is solid overall, but is meaningfully dragged down by at least three credible accounts of incomplete or failed work: a repair that did not hold, a drain clog that was never resolved after multiple failed visits, a callback that was never honored, and a job where drywall was left open without prior disclosure. Experience scores are high across the board, with many reviewers citing skilled diagnostics, quality workmanship, and knowledgeable technicians, though one reviewer explicitly stated the technician arrived unprepared with the wrong equipment and failed to clear a simple kitchen clog.

• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: Two reviews with nearly identical text ('I just called Reynolds Plumbing a few minutes ago and they are on their way to the property. This will be my second time using them and they have been great!') were submitted on 2024-06-06 and 2024-06-09 with the same 5-star rating. These appear to be the same review submitted twice and were counted as one data point.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: Two reviews with identical text ('Repair didn't last long. Pipe was feed less than 1/4 inch into the coupling. Not worth paying $250.00 for.') were submitted on 2023-04-12 and 2023-04-13. These were counted as one data point.
• RECENCY NOTE: A significant portion of reviews (roughly 60%) predate 2020 and many are from 2009–2017. The business appears to operate across two distinct geographic markets (Miami/South Florida and Pittsburgh/Western PA area), which may reflect different crews, ownership structures, or franchise arrangements. Scores from older reviews may not reflect current service quality.
• OWNER CONDUCT FLAG: One reviewer (2022-04-23) alleged that the owner Larry personally wrote a fake retaliatory Google review impersonating a customer after receiving a negative review. This is a serious integrity concern and was factored into the professionalism score.
• INCOMPLETE JOB FLAG: Multiple independent reviewers cited incomplete work or unresolved callbacks — including a drain clog never fixed after multiple visits (2021), a repair that failed within days (2023), and a job left with open drywall holes without prior disclosure (2022). These are credible, specific, and consistent enough to meaningfully reduce the project completion score.
• GENERIC REVIEWS: A number of reviews contain very little usable detail (e.g., 'unknown', 'extremely well', 'It went well.', 'Fantastic...', 'very good', 'Successful repair'). These were counted toward total reviews analyzed but contributed minimal scoring data and were not used to inflate any dimension score.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — LOW LEVEL: The volume of brief, generic 5-star reviews with no detail (particularly from 2012–2017) is slightly elevated. While not conclusive, this pattern warrants mild caution. No significant confidence reduction was applied beyond the generic review exclusion from scoring.

This WW Score is based on a large and diverse review set spanning 15+ years and carries HIGH overall confidence, but readers should weigh the credible negative reviews regarding owner conduct, failed callbacks, and incomplete work more heavily than the volume of brief generic positives, and should note that the business appears to serve two distinct geographic markets whose service quality may differ.

Drip Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism across all five reviews, with consistent praise for punctuality, communication, politeness, and technical knowledge. Project completion is well-supported with multiple mentions of finished work and follow-through on repairs. Pricing receives limited but positive mention in one review describing the service as 'affordable.' Experience is evidenced through technical problem-solving and knowledgeable explanations, though fewer explicit mentions. The WW Score of 89.3 reflects reliable performance across dimensions, though the small sample size (5 reviews) and limited pricing data warrant moderate overall confidence.

• Small sample size (5 reviews) limits statistical reliability; recommend reassessment once 10+ reviews are available
• All reviews are 5-star ratings with no critical feedback; while not necessarily fake, this perfect rating distribution is atypical and should be monitored for balance
• Pricing dimension based on only 1 mention ('affordable'); insufficient data to confidently assess value proposition
• Most recent review is from July 2024; older reviews (2023) may reflect outdated service standards

This score should be treated as a preliminary indicator of quality rather than a definitive assessment; the small review count and absence of any critical feedback limit confidence, and additional reviews are needed to validate these findings.

All three reviews explicitly praise professionalism, with mentions of prompt arrival, clear communication, thorough explanations, and respectful demeanor across emergency and standard service calls. Pricing is consistently described as fair and transparent, with customers noting honest cost breakdowns and competitive quotes compared to alternatives. Project completion is uniformly strong, with jobs finished correctly and completely, including emergency response within half a day and follow-through with contractor recommendations. Technical skill and problem-solving ability are evident in complex work (slab leak diagnosis, flood emergency response, soldered faucet replacement). The WW Score of 89.3 reflects strong performance across all dimensions, though confidence is moderate due to the limited sample size of only 3 reviews.

• Sample size is very small (n=3), limiting statistical reliability and generalizability
• All reviews are 5-star ratings with uniformly positive language; no negative feedback or critical perspectives present
• Two reviews (Halston/Holsten) may reference the same person with name variation, suggesting possible duplicate or related entries
• Reviews lack specific technical details about plumbing work quality in some cases, relying more on emotional satisfaction than objective workmanship assessment
• Most recent review is from May 2024, but one review is from May 2023 (over 1 year old)

This score should be treated with caution due to the very small sample size (3 reviews) and absence of any critical or negative feedback, which limits confidence in the overall assessment despite strong individual dimension scores.

Windsor Companies demonstrates strong performance across all measured dimensions, with particular strength in project completion (92.0) and professionalism (90.0). Multiple reviews explicitly praise punctuality, on-time arrival, timely completion, and courteous behavior from named staff members (Chad, Jeremy, Brandon, Les). Workmanship quality is consistently highlighted as excellent and exceeding expectations. Pricing receives a solid score based on one detailed mention of competitive pricing against four other estimates, though limited data on this dimension prevents higher confidence. The company shows reliable follow-through and customer care across a 5-year review span.

• Review recency concern: 6 of 9 reviews are from 2019-2020 (4-5 years old); only 1 recent review from August 2024. This limits confidence in current service quality.
• Pricing dimension severely under-represented: only 1 review mentions pricing explicitly. Score is based on minimal data.
• Three reviews are extremely sparse (ratings only with minimal text: 'water line from the street to the house replaced', 'As expected', 'It was good and they were efficient'). While not necessarily fake, these provide limited substantive evidence.
• All 9 reviews are 5-star ratings with no negative feedback. While not definitively fake, the complete absence of any critical comments or lower ratings is atypical and should be noted.

This WW Score of 88.2 should be treated with moderate caution due to significant recency bias (67% of reviews are 4+ years old) and extremely limited pricing data. The professionalism and project completion scores are reliable, but the overall score's predictive value for current service quality is reduced by the age of most reviews.

Wilson Home Services demonstrates strong professionalism and technical expertise across most reviews, with technicians consistently praised for punctuality, courtesy, and knowledge. However, significant pricing concerns emerge across multiple reviews, with customers reporting overcharges, lack of transparency, and quotes substantially higher than competitors. Project completion shows mixed results: while most jobs are completed successfully, several critical failures exist including no-shows, missed appointments, unresolved issues, and ignored follow-up calls. The company's membership program (WHAM) has generated substantial complaints regarding promised refunds that were never delivered and poor service recovery. Recent reviews (2024-2025) are predominantly positive, but older reviews (2019-2023) reveal systemic issues with accountability and customer communication that appear partially unresolved.

• CRITICAL: Multiple reviews (at least 4) report promised refunds that were never issued, with customers unable to reach the company for follow-up. This suggests potential systemic issues with accountability and financial integrity.
• CRITICAL: Pricing discrepancies are severe and recurring. Multiple customers report being quoted 3-4x market rates or charged significantly more than agreed upon. One customer was quoted $4,000 for a $900 water heater; another paid $250 for a 2-minute $80 job.
• RED FLAG: Several reviews report no-shows and missed appointments despite confirmation calls. One customer waited from December 28, 2023 to January 16, 2024 with no contact and disconnected phone lines.
• RED FLAG: Membership program (WHAM) appears problematic. Multiple customers report promised refunds never received and inability to cancel membership due to unresponsive staff.
• PATTERN: Older reviews (2018-2021) show more balanced feedback with some pricing complaints. Recent reviews (2024-2025) are overwhelmingly positive with minimal detail, suggesting possible review manipulation or selection bias.
• CONCERN: Multiple reviews mention technicians being 'no longer with the company' the day after service, raising questions about staff stability and quality control.
• CONCERN: One review reports a technician quoted $12,000 for a system replacement when the actual fix cost $60 (burned wire), indicating potential diagnostic dishonesty.
• NOTE: 5 reviews are empty (no text, only 5-star rating), which is unusual and may indicate fake or placeholder reviews.

This WW Score of 76.8 should be treated with caution due to significant internal contradictions: while professionalism and experience scores are solid and based on substantial evidence, the pricing dimension reveals serious systemic issues that directly contradict the overall positive rating. The company appears to deliver quality work but at inflated prices with poor transparency and accountability. Recent reviews are suspiciously positive compared to historical patterns, suggesting possible review curation. Customers should prioritize obtaining detailed written quotes and comparing with competitors before engaging this company.

United Mechanical demonstrates strong professionalism, experience, and project completion capabilities, with consistent praise for timely service, knowledgeable technicians, and quality workmanship. However, pricing emerges as a significant weakness, with multiple customers reporting overcharges, unexpected fees, travel charges, and billing discrepancies that contradict the company's reputation for honesty. While many long-term customers express loyalty and satisfaction, the pricing complaints are specific, detailed, and span multiple years, suggesting systemic issues rather than isolated incidents. The company excels at technical competence and customer interaction but struggles with transparent and fair pricing practices.

• PRICING PATTERN: At least 10 reviews explicitly cite overcharging, hidden fees, unexpected charges, or billing disputes. Examples include: $669 for a relay replacement, $368.65 vs. ~$200 quoted, $250 refrigerant charge without permission, $409 after-hours minimum, $1035 for 4 hours of work. This is a material and recurring concern.
• RECENCY BIAS: Most negative reviews (pricing complaints, service failures) cluster in 2013-2021. Recent reviews (2024-2025) are predominantly positive. This may reflect either company improvement or selection bias in recent reviewers.
• EMPTY REVIEWS: 13 reviews contain no text (only ratings). These were counted but provided no substantive data for scoring.
• DUPLICATE REVIEWS: The review dated 2017-11-15 and 2018-06-11 about 'dream home' with black mold and broken pipes appear to be identical or near-identical, suggesting possible review manipulation or data duplication.
• CONTRACTOR MODEL CONCERN: One 2024 review explicitly states technicians are contracted, not employees, and must pay 'truck fees' to United Mechanical. This business model may contribute to pricing pressures and quality inconsistency.
• INTEGRITY CONCERNS: Multiple reviews (2013, 2014, 2016) cite lack of transparency, failure to disclose cheaper alternatives (e.g., city services), and billing for time spent in truck after work completion.
• INCONSISTENT SERVICE QUALITY: Reviews mention variability in technician quality and professionalism depending on which technician is assigned, suggesting inconsistent training or oversight.

This WW Score of 76.8 is reliable at HIGH confidence due to 75 reviews with substantive data, but the score masks a critical bifurcation: the company excels in professionalism and technical competence but has a documented pattern of pricing disputes and billing practices that undermine customer trust. Prospective customers should expect quality work but should obtain detailed written quotes and clarify all fees upfront before engaging services.