Find Nearby Plumbers In El Paso, Texas

Sal's Plumbing demonstrates strong performance across all measured dimensions. Professionalism is consistently praised with mentions of punctuality, responsiveness, and excellent communication across all four reviews. Technical expertise is evident through successful problem diagnosis and quality workmanship, particularly highlighted by Angel's ability to resolve a water pressure issue that previous companies could not. Project completion is reliable with jobs finished promptly and follow-up service honored. Pricing feedback is limited but positive where mentioned, with customers noting reasonable rates and military discounts. The primary limitation is the small sample size (4 reviews) and recency concerns, with two reviews from 2020-2021.

• Small sample size (4 reviews) limits statistical confidence in the WW Score
• Recency concern: 50% of reviews are from 2020-2021 (3-4 years old); only 2 reviews from 2024 and 2022
• All reviews are 5-star ratings with no negative feedback, which is atypical; however, reviews contain specific details (Angel's diagnosis, copper pipe upgrade, military discount) suggesting authenticity rather than fake reviews
• Pricing dimension based on only 2 mentions; insufficient data for strong confidence in that score

This WW Score should be treated with moderate caution due to the small sample size and age of some reviews; however, the consistency of positive feedback across multiple dimensions and the presence of specific, verifiable details in reviews suggests the score is reasonably trustworthy as a preliminary assessment.

A&A Plumbing, Heating & Cooling earns strong marks for professionalism, with the overwhelming majority of reviewers praising courteous, uniformed, punctual technicians who communicate proactively — including pre-arrival texts with technician photos. Project completion is also solid, with most jobs described as finished same-day or within the promised timeframe, though a notable whole-house replumb review and a water softener repair review document incomplete or substandard workmanship requiring callbacks. Experience scores well overall, with many reviewers citing knowledgeable diagnostics and skilled execution, but is tempered by a handful of reviews describing misdiagnosis, inability to perform basic repairs, or apprentice-level work on complex jobs. Pricing is the clearest weak point: multiple independent reviewers across different years describe feeling significantly overcharged, cite flat-rate pricing that does not reflect actual labor or materials, and note a lack of itemized receipts — with one documented case of a tankless water heater installation billed at nearly triple the market rate for parts plus labor.

• PRICING CONCERN: Multiple unrelated reviewers across different years (2016, 2019, 2020, 2022, 2023) independently describe feeling overcharged or report prices significantly above market rate. This is a consistent and credible pattern, not isolated complaints.
• TRANSPARENCY CONCERN: At least two reviewers explicitly state the company does not provide itemized receipts or hourly rate breakdowns, and one reviewer reports being asked to sign financial documents on an iPad before receiving an estimate.
• WORKMANSHIP CONCERN: One detailed 1-star review of a whole-house replumb documents extensive quality issues including cigarette butts left on property, unsecured fittings, missing insulation, backwards connections, and a scratched refrigerator — suggesting quality may vary significantly by crew.
• UPSELLING CONCERN: Multiple reviewers across different years describe technicians steering them toward large-scale repairs or replacements when simpler fixes were available. One reviewer fixed a running toilet themselves in 15 minutes after A&A quoted thousands in excavation work.
• THEFT ALLEGATION: One review (2018) alleges a wedding ring went missing after technicians visited. This is unverified but noted as a serious flag.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK — LOW TO MODERATE: The 2025 and late 2024 reviews are heavily concentrated with 5-star ratings, many naming specific technicians with brief praise and no detail. While some may be genuine, the volume and uniformity of short 5-star reviews warrants mild caution. Two reviews from June 2025 contain no text at all (rating only) and were excluded from dimension scoring.
• RECENCY NOTE: Reviews span 2011–2025. The most recent 12 months (mid-2024 to mid-2025) are dominated by positive reviews. Negative reviews are more evenly distributed across the full timeline. Older negative reviews (2016–2023) carry meaningful signal about persistent pricing and upselling practices.

This WW Score is based on a large and diverse review set spanning over a decade, giving it HIGH statistical confidence, but the score should be interpreted with caution on pricing — the 58 pricing score reflects a genuine and recurring pattern of customer dissatisfaction that prospective customers should investigate before committing to large jobs.

One Call Plumbing has a large and broadly positive review base spanning over two decades, with the majority of customers praising prompt response times, courteous technicians, and solid workmanship across a wide variety of plumbing jobs. Professionalism scores well overall, with dozens of reviewers specifically calling out named technicians for politeness, communication, and punctuality — though a handful of negative reviews describe serious lapses including a no-show, a hostile owner interaction, and allegations of unprofessional conduct. Pricing is the most contested dimension: while many reviewers describe costs as fair or reasonable, multiple credible negative reviews cite significantly inflated quotes, undisclosed service call fees, and charges for incomplete or ineffective work, which meaningfully pulls the pricing score down. Project completion is generally strong — most jobs are described as fully resolved — but several reviews document work that failed shortly after the visit, callbacks that were denied or charged again, and at least one case of damage caused during service. Experience scores moderately well given the volume of positive technical feedback, but is tempered by a few reviews describing technicians who appeared to lack the tools or knowledge to complete the job correctly.

• 8 reviews contain no text at all (blank or garbled content) and were excluded from scoring — these blank 5-star entries slightly inflate the overall rating average and are a minor concern.
• Several reviews appear to reference HVAC and air conditioning work, which is outside the scope of plumbing services — these may indicate this business listing aggregates reviews from multiple service types or locations, reducing comparability.
• One review (2023-06-10, 1-star) references repeated failed AC repairs — unrelated to plumbing and likely a misattributed review.
• One review (2021-06-28, 1-star) references a missing AC component — also unrelated to plumbing.
• One review (2018-07-23, 1-star) references HVAC failure — unrelated to plumbing.
• The review corpus spans from 2000 to 2025, meaning a significant portion of reviews (roughly 40+) are more than 5 years old and may not reflect current service quality or ownership. Recency weighting was applied in scoring.
• Multiple negative reviews describe a pattern of: undisclosed service call fees, inflated quotes, and pressure to approve unnecessary work — this pattern across unrelated reviewers adds credibility to these complaints and warrants a pricing confidence penalty.
• One detailed 1-star review (2021-02-26) alleges sexist behavior by an owner or manager, property damage, and refusal to remedy — this is a serious flag that was factored into professionalism and project completion scoring.
• One 1-star review (2019-05-03) alleges a technician attempted to upsell a $5,000 full repipe for a simple clog that another plumber fixed for $240 — consistent with the pricing manipulation pattern noted above.
• Some very early reviews (pre-2010) reference individuals by name (Tony, Paul) who may no longer be associated with the business, limiting their relevance to current operations.
• No clear fake review pattern detected — reviews vary in length, specificity, tone, and rating, and name different technicians across different time periods, suggesting authenticity.

This WW Score is based on a large and diverse review set (136 reviews) with HIGH mention counts across all four dimensions, making the score statistically robust — however, the wide date range (2000–2025), the presence of credible negative reviews documenting pricing manipulation and incomplete work, and the inclusion of off-topic HVAC reviews introduce meaningful uncertainty, so the score should be treated as a reasonable but cautious estimate of current service quality.

Allied Plumbing demonstrates strong overall performance across all four dimensions, with professionalism being the most frequently cited positive attribute — the vast majority of reviewers praised courteous, friendly, and timely technicians by name. Pricing is generally regarded as fair and transparent, with multiple reviewers specifically noting that quoted prices were honored without hidden charges; however, a handful of negative reviews cited overpricing or unexpectedly high bills, which tempers the pricing score. Project completion is solid, with many reviews describing jobs finished on time and to satisfaction, but there are notable negative outliers involving incomplete repairs, a no-call no-show, a rescheduled appointment, and at least one instance of work that caused subsequent damage (the sewer line replacement that only covered 20 feet). Experience scores well overall, with reviewers frequently praising technical knowledge and problem-solving, though a few reviews describe misdiagnosis or substandard workmanship that prevents a higher score. The presence of 10+ negative reviews — including serious complaints about incomplete work, aggressive behavior, and poor customer service — meaningfully reduces scores across all dimensions.

• Seven reviews contain no text at all (marked 'unknown', blank, or just a period) with ratings of 4–5 stars — these were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data.
• A cluster of 14 reviews all share the exact same date of 2024-06-09, which is unusual and may indicate batch-imported or artificially dated reviews. Content varies enough to suggest they are real but the identical date warrants caution.
• One reviewer (2017-09-09) explicitly accused the company of having fake employee reviews, stating 'Guessing most of these reviews must be from employees.' This cannot be confirmed but is noted.
• One review (2019-07-23) appears to be a near-verbatim duplicate of another review (2020-06-10) — same reviewer praising the same technicians with nearly identical language. This duplicate was counted only once per dimension.
• Negative reviews describe serious incidents: an owner allegedly entering a customer's home to intimidate them (2024-09-21), a driver attempting to instigate a physical altercation (2024-06-09), a plumber leaving without turning water back on causing additional damage (2019-05-22), a no-call no-show (2016-06-11), a rescheduled appointment with no notice (2016-01-15), and a sewer repair that only partially addressed the problem leading to a repeat backup (2022-11-25).
• The review corpus spans from 2006 to 2025. Reviews older than 3 years (pre-2022) were given reduced weight in scoring. The majority of recent reviews (2024–2025) are positive, which is a favorable recency signal, but the negative reviews are distributed across multiple years suggesting recurring issues rather than isolated incidents.
• One negative review (2014-01-20) describes a detailed and credible account of a leak caused by technician negligence, subsequent property damage, and a dismissive response from the office — this was weighted heavily in the project completion and professionalism scores.

This WW Score is based on a large review set (125 reviews) with high mention counts across all four dimensions, making it statistically reliable; however, the presence of credible and detailed negative reviews — including incomplete work, aggressive employee conduct, and poor complaint resolution — means the score should be interpreted as a moderate-confidence representation of a company with strong typical performance but meaningful and recurring service failures.

RAM Plumbing earns strong marks for professionalism and experience, with dozens of reviews praising punctuality, courteous technicians, clear communication, and technical knowledge across a wide range of plumbing jobs. Project completion is generally positive, with multiple reviewers noting thorough follow-through and even above-scope work at no extra charge, but it is meaningfully dragged down by several credible negative reviews describing unresolved problems, poor callback behavior, and at least one instance of substandard workmanship (cheap plastic flange that failed post-repair). Pricing is the weakest dimension: while many reviewers call pricing fair or reasonable, there are multiple specific and detailed complaints about overcharging, inconsistent quotes, and a customer feeling outright ripped off with charges exceeding $1,300 for work they disputed. The review pool spans from 2005 to 2025, meaning a significant portion of reviews are quite old and may not reflect current business practices, though recent 2025 reviews are predominantly positive.

• 12 reviews contain no text at all — only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence.
• A large cluster of reviews (many dated 2025-05-10 and 2025-04-10) share identical posting dates, which may indicate batch submissions or solicited reviews. Language varies enough to avoid a fake review flag, but the clustering warrants caution.
• Several reviews are extremely old (2005–2013) and may not reflect current business quality, staffing, or pricing practices. Recency weighting was applied — older reviews were given reduced influence.
• Three credible 1-star reviews with specific, detailed complaints about pricing overcharges, failed repairs, no callbacks, and employee misconduct (lit cigarette thrown at a child) meaningfully reduce confidence in pricing and project completion scores.
• One review (2022) describes a serious employee conduct incident involving a company vehicle — throwing lit cigarettes at a child. This is a professionalism flag unrelated to plumbing quality but relevant to overall company vetting.
• One review (2019) describes a billing dispute where the customer was charged for a problem that was not fixed, and then received a second invoice marked past due while on vacation — suggesting possible billing process issues.
• One review (2019) describes a toilet flange replaced with cheap plastic that failed, followed by no response to multiple complaint calls — a significant project completion and customer service failure.
• One review (2016) describes a promised refund from the owner that was never delivered after a month of follow-up — a credible accountability concern.
• One review (2013) describes RAM's workers breaking an additional pipe during a repair and then charging the customer for it, followed by a small claims threat — a serious conduct and billing concern.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large volume of reviews, but consumers should weigh it carefully given the meaningful minority of detailed, credible negative reviews spanning pricing disputes, unresolved repairs, and poor complaint follow-up — issues that the volume of positive reviews can statistically obscure.

EC Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism (82.5) with consistent praise for punctuality, responsiveness, and courteous behavior across 156 mentions. Technical experience scores well at 81.0 based on 142 mentions of knowledgeable, efficient work. However, project completion (76.5) and pricing (74.0) are notably weaker, with multiple serious complaints about incomplete work, warranty non-compliance, poor follow-up on callbacks, and billing discrepancies. Several customers report work that required expensive rework by other plumbers, and communication breakdowns after job completion. The company shows a pattern of excellent initial service followed by poor accountability when issues arise.

• CRITICAL: Multiple reviews (2025-04-08, 2025-02-09, 2025-02-03, 2024-02-05, 2023-09-19, 2021-07-26, 2018-04-24, 2017-08-03) document serious project completion failures including incomplete work, warranty denial, non-responsiveness to callbacks, and work requiring expensive rework by competitors. These are not isolated incidents.
• WARRANTY & FOLLOW-UP PATTERN: At least 6 reviews explicitly mention warranty disputes, refusal to honor warranties, or complete non-response to callback requests after initial service. This suggests systemic accountability issues.
• BILLING DISCREPANCIES: Multiple reviews (2020-10-11, 2020-07-20, 2017-06-09, 2017-06-12, 2020-01-18) report unexpected price increases, lack of itemized invoices, refusal to provide receipts, and overcharges. One customer reports $5 discrepancy with refusal to correct.
• DRYWALL WORK QUALITY: Two detailed reviews (2025-02-09, 2025-02-03) describe poor drywall finishing work (orange peel instead of stomp finish) with defensive responses from owner when questioned. Customer had to hire third party to fix at additional cost.
• TECHNICAL COMPETENCY CONCERNS: Review from 2025-04-08 details multiple technical errors (unnecessary floor joist cutting, improper P-trap installation, mixing PVC with ABS) verified by 3 independent experts, resulting in $1,200 rework cost.
• RESPONSIVENESS DECLINE: Several older reviews (2016-04-27, 2016-06-08, 2015-10-26) show scheduling failures and no-shows, suggesting operational inconsistency over time.
• LICENSING CONCERNS: Two reviews (2014-03-31, 2015-07-06) mention unlicensed work or inability to provide proof of license.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK - MODERATE: While most reviews appear genuine, the extremely high proportion of 5-star ratings (approximately 75% of reviews) combined with a small cluster of detailed 1-star reviews describing serious failures suggests possible review curation or deletion of negative reviews over time. However, the negative reviews are sufficiently detailed and specific to appear credible.

This WW Score of 78.2 should be interpreted with caution: while the company excels at initial customer interaction and technical knowledge, the substantial body of evidence regarding warranty disputes, incomplete work, poor follow-up, and billing issues indicates significant reliability problems in project completion and accountability. The score reflects strong front-end service masked by serious back-end failures that only emerge after payment. Customers should obtain detailed written contracts, itemized invoices, and clarify warranty terms in writing before engaging this company.