Find Nearby Plumbers In Denton, Texas

DR Plumbing's most damaging pattern across reviews is a recurring failure to complete jobs after payment, with at least 7 reviews explicitly describing no-shows, broken promises, and abandoned work — this severely depresses the project completion score. Professionalism scores moderately on initial contact and responsiveness but collapses post-payment, with multiple reviewers noting a stark contrast between pre- and post-payment behavior. Pricing is the strongest dimension, with several reviewers praising fair, upfront, and transparent pricing including no weekend surcharges and even no-charge visits. Experience is mixed: several positive reviews praise quality workmanship, but at least two detailed negative reviews describe poor-quality work, use of substandard parts, and work that had to be entirely redone by other contractors. The overall WW Score reflects a contractor with genuine strengths in pricing and initial responsiveness but a serious, well-documented reliability problem that makes him a high-risk hire for any multi-stage or follow-up job.

• STRONG PATTERN — POST-PAYMENT ABANDONMENT: At least 7 independent reviews describe the same pattern: responsive and professional before payment, then unreliable, non-communicative, and no-show afterward. This is a systemic business practice concern, not isolated incidents.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent reviews (2023–2024) continue to show the same negative patterns as older reviews, suggesting no improvement over time. Positive reviews are scattered across years but do not outweigh the volume of documented failures.
• WORKMANSHIP CONCERN: Two detailed reviews (2020 and 2012) allege use of homeowner-grade parts at master plumber prices and tile/plumbing work so poor it had to be completely torn out and redone. This materially reduces the experience score.
• INSPECTION FAILURE: One 2023 review reports a city inspection took over a year to pass and the customer never received proof of passing — a potential code compliance and legal liability issue.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK — LOW: Positive reviews contain specific details (names, job types, pricing references) and are distributed across multiple years, reducing the likelihood of coordinated fake reviews. However, the stark contrast between 5-star and 1-star reviews warrants caution.
• OLDEST REVIEW: The 2012 review is over 10 years old and was given reduced weight in scoring, but its workmanship concerns are corroborated by more recent reviews and were not excluded.

This WW Score is based on 21 reviews spanning 12 years with strong data across all four dimensions, and the score should be considered highly reliable as a warning signal — the negative patterns are consistent, specific, independently corroborated, and recent.

All Masters Plumbing presents a deeply bifurcated review profile: a large cluster of recent 5-star reviews (predominantly from 2025 and late 2024) praising individual technicians like Junior, Douglas, and Darren by name, contrasted sharply with a substantial body of 1-star reviews spanning 2017–2024 describing systematic overcharging, missed appointments, abandoned work, fraudulent billing, and high-pressure sales tactics. Pricing is the most consistently criticized dimension across negative reviews, with multiple customers reporting quotes 3–5x higher than competitors for identical work, and at least two reviewers citing the same $4,995–$5,000 water heater replacement scam. Project completion is severely undermined by recurring reports of no-shows across multiple rescheduled windows, unfinished jobs with open holes left in homes, and work that failed immediately after completion. Professionalism scores reflect a split between genuinely courteous individual technicians and a management/office culture described repeatedly as rude, combative, deceptive, and unresponsive. The experience dimension similarly splits between competent field technicians and incidents of technicians using wrong pipes, failing to diagnose correctly, and lacking basic tools.

• SUSPECTED FAKE REVIEW CLUSTER: The 2025 reviews (approximately 35+ reviews from April–June 2025) show strong hallmarks of artificial inflation — nearly all are 5-star, many are extremely brief ('Junior was great!', 'best service.', 'Highly recommend!'), several share identical or near-identical phrasing, and multiple reviews reference the same technician (Junior Aviles) within the same date ranges. This pattern is consistent with a coordinated review campaign.
• RECENCY BIAS WARNING: The most recent reviews (2025) are overwhelmingly positive while reviews from 2017–2024 are overwhelmingly negative. This dramatic reversal without any documented operational change is a strong indicator of review manipulation rather than genuine improvement.
• PRICING FRAUD PATTERN: At least 8 independent reviewers describe the same scheme — a $4,900–$5,000 water heater replacement quote that other plumbers resolved for $150–$300. This is a documented and repeated pattern, not isolated incidents.
• ABANDONED WORK PATTERN: Multiple reviewers (2021–2024) describe jobs left incomplete with open holes in foundations, exposed plumbing, and unfinished trenches. One reviewer had sewage freeze due to exposed pipes in 10-degree weather.
• BILLING FRAUD ALLEGATION: One detailed review (2024) alleges All Masters billed a loan company $4,995 for a water heater that was never installed, which the customer only caught by reviewing the invoice themselves.
• NO-SHOW / SCHEDULING PATTERN: At least 10 independent reviews across multiple years describe missed 4-hour appointment windows with no call, repeated rescheduling, and in some cases complete abandonment of the customer.
• BBB COMPLAINTS REFERENCED: Multiple reviewers explicitly reference the BBB profile and urge others to check it before hiring, suggesting a documented complaint history beyond these reviews.
• THREE BLANK REVIEWS: Six reviews contained no text (only a star rating). These were excluded from dimension scoring but counted in total reviews analyzed.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of negative reviews are from 2017–2024. Reviews older than 12 months from the analysis date carry reduced weight per scoring rules, but the volume and specificity of negative reviews across that period cannot be dismissed.

This WW Score has HIGH data confidence due to review volume but should be interpreted with significant caution — the score is likely artificially elevated by a suspected coordinated 5-star review campaign in 2025, and the underlying operational record reflected in organic reviews from 2017–2024 suggests a substantially lower true performance score, particularly on pricing integrity and project completion.

Rey/FTR Service Company exhibits severe and consistent professionalism failures, particularly around no-shows, poor communication, and unresponsiveness. Eight reviews explicitly document missed appointments, failure to call or text, and abandonment of jobs mid-work. While positive reviews praise friendliness and technical skill, they are heavily outweighed by a pattern of unreliability spanning from 2020 to 2023. The contractor appears to prioritize higher-paying jobs over warranty work, leaving customers without service for extended periods. Pricing appears fair when work is completed, but project completion is severely compromised by no-shows and job abandonment.

• CRITICAL: Duplicate reviews detected — two identical reviews dated 2022-09-22 (one at 18:25:58, one at 00:00:00) and two identical reviews dated 2022-07-25 (one at 10:31:35, one at 00:00:00). This suggests potential review manipulation or data entry errors.
• PATTERN ALERT: Five separate reviews (2023-01-28, 2022-07-25 x2, 2022-04-20, 2020-12-01) document no-shows, missed appointments, and failure to communicate. This is a systemic issue, not isolated incidents.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most negative reviews are from 2020-2023, but the most recent review (2023-01-28) continues the same pattern of no-shows and poor communication, indicating the problem is ongoing.
• BIAS ALERT: Positive reviews are generic and lack specifics (e.g., 'Great service,' 'Highly recommend'), while negative reviews are detailed and specific. This asymmetry suggests positive reviews may be less reliable or from different service contexts.
• WARRANTY PATTERN: Multiple reviews note the contractor was assigned via home warranty companies (Choice Home Warranty, FTR Service Company). Evidence suggests contractor may deprioritize warranty work in favor of cash jobs.

This WW Score of 42.8 is highly reliable and should be trusted. The score is based on 13 reviews with consistent, detailed documentation of systemic failures in professionalism and project completion. The pattern of no-shows and abandonment is corroborated across multiple independent reviews spanning three years, making this a credible assessment of contractor performance.

This contractor shows highly inconsistent performance across reviews spanning 16 years. Two recent positive reviews (2017, 2008) praise professionalism, speed, and fair pricing, but three older reviews (2012, 2013, 2009) document serious failures: incomplete work (unhooked sprinkler system), property damage (scratched tile, dented threshold), safety oversights (forgotten gas ground line), and alleged dishonest upselling. Project completion is the weakest dimension, with explicit evidence of incomplete work and damage. The extreme age of most reviews and conflicting quality signals make this score unreliable for current decision-making.

• CRITICAL: Severe recency bias — 75% of reviews are 11+ years old (2008–2013); only 1 recent review from 2017. Historical performance may not reflect current operations.
• CRITICAL: Extreme quality variance — two 5-star reviews vs. two 1-star reviews with documented safety and workmanship failures (forgotten gas line, property damage, dishonest practices).
• Safety concern flagged in 2012 review: water heater installation with forgotten gas ground line connection — potential hazard.
• Integrity concern flagged in 2009 and 2013 reviews: alleged deliberate upselling and unnecessary work (unhooked sprinkler system to charge more).
• Property damage documented in 2012 review with no mention of remediation or accountability.

This score should NOT be trusted for current hiring decisions. The overwhelming majority of data is 11+ years old, and the contractor's track record shows serious inconsistencies including safety oversights, property damage, and alleged dishonest practices. A single recent positive review cannot offset documented failures and the extreme age of the dataset. Request recent references and verify current licensing/insurance before engaging.

The review set is extremely small at only 3 reviews spanning 2014–2015, making any conclusions highly tentative. Professionalism is the most-mentioned dimension and paints a deeply mixed picture: one reviewer praised fast and friendly service, while two others reported being stood up without notice, unreturned voicemails, and a disconnected or mismatched phone number. Project completion is similarly split — one job was completed successfully, while at least one customer never had work begin due to repeated no-shows. Experience received only one positive mention related to a specific repair, which is insufficient to draw meaningful conclusions. No pricing information was provided in any review.

• Only 3 reviews total — score reliability is very low and should be treated as indicative only.
• All reviews are from 2014–2015, making them approximately 9–10 years old. This data is severely outdated and may not reflect current business practices.
• Two of three reviews report the same pattern of no-shows and unreturned calls, suggesting a systemic reliability issue at the time of these reviews.
• The single 5-star review is specific and credible (names a technician, describes a job), so fake review concern is low — but the small sample size limits confidence regardless.

This WW Score carries very low reliability due to only 3 reviews, all of which are over 9 years old, and should not be used as a meaningful indicator of current contractor quality.

This contractor receives a critically low WW Score of 32.8, driven by three recent 1-star reviews (2024, 2021, 2017) documenting severe failures across all dimensions: missed appointments, bait-and-switch pricing, poor communication, unprofessional behavior, and substandard workmanship. Two older 5-star reviews (2015, 2014) praise fair pricing and professionalism, but these are substantially outweighed by the volume and recency of negative feedback. The pattern of complaints—repeated no-shows, price discrepancies, dismissive attitudes, and lack of accountability—suggests systemic operational problems rather than isolated incidents.

• RECENCY CONCERN: Three of five reviews are from 2024, 2021, and 2017 (older data). The two positive reviews are from 2015 and 2014, suggesting significant deterioration in service quality over time.
• PATTERN ALERT: Multiple reviews cite identical failure modes (no-shows, pricing discrepancies, poor communication, unprofessional responses to complaints), indicating systemic issues rather than one-off problems.
• CREDIBILITY ISSUE: The two 5-star reviews lack specificity and detail (generic praise: 'best', 'quality work', 'fair price') compared to the detailed, specific complaints in negative reviews. The positive reviews may not reflect current operations.
• SAMPLE SIZE: Only 5 reviews total limits confidence in overall assessment, though the consistency of negative patterns is concerning.

This WW Score should be treated with caution due to small sample size (n=5), but the consistency and specificity of recent negative reviews, combined with the absence of recent positive feedback, suggests genuine operational problems. The score is conservative and likely reflects actual performance decline.