Find Nearby Plumbers In El Paso, Texas

JD Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism and technical expertise across a large sample of reviews, with consistently praised responsiveness, punctuality, and knowledgeable workmanship. Pricing is generally perceived as fair and reasonable, with transparent quotes. However, project completion reliability is notably weaker, with multiple documented instances of no-shows, ghosting after job completion, abandoned work mid-project, and failure to honor callbacks or warranty commitments. These serious follow-through failures significantly impact the overall score despite otherwise strong performance in other dimensions.

• CRITICAL: Multiple reviews document no-shows and no-call patterns (reviews dated 2024-09-04, 2021-09-29, 2020-06-10, 2017-12-05, 2018-11-05, 2019-12-17, 2019-12-31). This is a recurring systemic issue, not isolated incidents.
• CRITICAL: Several reviews report ghosting after job completion or mid-project abandonment (2021-09-29, 2019-12-31, 2019-12-17, 2019-07-08, 2022-08-17). Customers report unresponsiveness to calls and texts regarding warranty work, follow-ups, and unfinished jobs.
• CRITICAL: One review (2022-08-17) alleges ethical issues including holding $6,000 deposit without returning funds or completing work, and pressure-selling unnecessary services.
• CRITICAL: One review (2019-05-24) reports excessive pricing ($245 for 12-minute service, $225 minimum charge) with poor justification.
• CONCERN: One review (2024-04-23) reports plumber smelled of alcohol during quote visit and is not licensed.
• PATTERN: Approximately 8-10 negative reviews (1-2 star ratings) cluster around project completion failures, suggesting this is a genuine weakness rather than isolated complaints.
• NOTE: Vast majority of reviews (240+) are 5-star ratings with detailed positive language. While this reflects genuine satisfaction for completed work, the concentration of 5-star reviews with minimal critical feedback may indicate some selection bias in review platform.

This WW Score of 78.2 should be trusted with HIGH confidence due to the large sample size (251 reviews) and consistent patterns across dimensions. However, the score masks a critical vulnerability: while JD Plumbing excels at professionalism and technical work when engaged, there is documented evidence of serious reliability issues including no-shows, ghosting, and abandoned projects. Prospective customers should weight the strong technical reviews heavily but also acknowledge the material risk of communication breakdown and follow-through failure, particularly for warranty work and callbacks.

Express Plumbing demonstrates strong overall performance with a WW Score of 78.2, driven by consistently high marks in professionalism, project completion, and technical experience. The company excels at responsiveness, punctuality, and skilled workmanship, with many reviews praising specific technicians by name and highlighting professional demeanor. However, pricing emerges as a notable weakness, with multiple complaints about hidden charges, inflated estimates, and perceived overcharging relative to work performed. While the majority of recent reviews (past 12 months) are highly positive, the company has a persistent pattern of pricing disputes and occasional service failures that prevent a higher score.

• FAKE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: Reviews dated 2025-04-10 and 2025-04-07 contain identical text praising Jose Lopez with suspiciously generic language and no specific details. This appears to be duplicate/fabricated content.
• PRICING CONCERNS: 32 mentions of pricing issues reveal a consistent pattern—hidden trip charges ($125 undisclosed fee), inflated estimates, charges for minimal work ($125 for tightening a sink connection), and disputes over quoted vs. actual costs. This is a material weakness.
• INCONSISTENT SERVICE QUALITY: Multiple reviews describe no-shows, delayed callbacks (2-4 hours on emergency calls), and failure to honor 24/7 emergency service claims. Some reviews note the company's responsiveness depends heavily on which technician is assigned.
• MULTIPLE NEGATIVE REVIEWS FROM DIFFERENT INDIVIDUALS: At least 15 distinct 1-star reviews document serious issues (misdiagnosis, incomplete work, threats to elderly parents, refusal to refund deposits, poor follow-up). These are not isolated incidents.
• RECENCY BIAS NOTED: Most recent reviews (2025, 2024) are overwhelmingly positive (5-star), while older reviews (2007-2015) contain more detailed complaints. This suggests either genuine improvement or potential review manipulation.
• OWNER/MANAGEMENT ISSUES: Multiple reviews reference owner 'Nick' or 'Igor' with complaints about lack of accountability, refusal to reimburse, and dismissive behavior toward customers with legitimate grievances.
• EMPTY/MINIMAL REVIEWS: Approximately 12 reviews contain no text or only 1-2 words (e.g., 'Excelente serbicio', 'Loved it', blank), all rated 5-star. These lack substantive evidence and reduce data quality.

This WW Score of 78.2 should be treated with MODERATE-TO-HIGH confidence for recent work (2024-2025) but with significant caution regarding pricing transparency and service consistency. The company demonstrates genuine technical competence and professionalism in execution, but the persistent pattern of pricing disputes, hidden charges, and occasional service failures indicates systemic issues in business practices. Customers should obtain detailed written estimates, confirm all fees upfront, and verify service guarantees before engaging. The score reflects strong execution quality offset by legitimate concerns about honesty and follow-through on commitments.

Las Cruces Plumbing & Gas demonstrates strong professionalism with consistent praise for punctuality, courtesy, and responsiveness across 32 reviews. However, the company shows significant vulnerabilities in project completion, with multiple documented cases of incomplete work, failure to follow up on callbacks, and unresolved issues spanning months. Pricing feedback is mixed—while many customers report fair pricing and good value, at least two reviews cite unexpected overcharges beyond estimates. Technical experience is generally solid with skilled technicians, though some critical failures (e.g., clogged lines, misdiagnosis) undermine confidence. Recent reviews (2024-2025) are predominantly positive, but older reviews reveal serious service failures that suggest inconsistent quality control.

• CRITICAL: Multiple project completion failures documented—at least 3 reviews describe incomplete work, abandoned jobs, or failure to return after initial visit despite customer callbacks over months (2018-12-29, 2023-08-17, 2024-06-09)
• COMMUNICATION BREAKDOWN: At least 4 reviews cite failure to call back customers or return for promised follow-up work (2024-06-09, 2023-08-17, 2023-06-10, 2021-06-10)
• PRICING TRANSPARENCY ISSUES: Two reviews (2022-06-10, 2022-06-10) report being charged $200+ more than estimate without advance notice; company apologized but pattern suggests systemic estimating problem
• STAFF PROFESSIONALISM INCONSISTENCY: Multiple reviews cite rude/disrespectful office staff and management (2022-09-13, 2022-06-10, 2018-03-19), contrasting sharply with field technician praise
• SERIOUS INCIDENT: 2018-03-19 review documents catastrophic service failure resulting in additional water damage, customer hung up on multiple times, and owner dismissive of legitimate complaints
• EMPTY/MINIMAL REVIEWS: 8 reviews contain no text or only 1-2 words, reducing data quality
• RECENCY BIAS: 70% of reviews are from 2021 or earlier; recent reviews (2024-2025) show improvement but sample size is small (6 reviews)

This score should be treated with MODERATE-TO-HIGH caution. While professionalism scores are well-supported by 32 mentions, the project completion dimension is undermined by serious documented failures in older reviews that suggest systemic issues with follow-through and accountability. The company appears to have improved in 2024-2025, but the historical pattern of incomplete work and communication breakdowns is concerning. Customers should verify references for complex or high-value projects and obtain detailed written agreements with clear completion timelines and callback guarantees.

Torres Plumbing demonstrates strong technical expertise and competitive pricing, with many customers praising quality workmanship and fair rates. However, professionalism is significantly undermined by recurring no-show incidents and poor communication, with multiple reviews documenting failed appointments and lack of follow-up. Project completion is generally solid but marred by instances of incomplete work and refusal to address defects, as documented in the detailed contractor review. The company excels in emergency responsiveness and problem-solving but struggles with reliability and accountability in scheduling.

• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEWS DETECTED: Multiple reviews (dated 2024-06-09, 2020-06-10) contain nearly identical phrasing and suspiciously generic praise with minimal specifics. Two reviews appear to be duplicates of the same commercial project experience (dated 2024-06-09 and 2024-04-22) with nearly identical wording.
• CRITICAL PROFESSIONALISM ISSUE: Four separate 1-star reviews (2022-12-17, 2022-06-10, 2021-07-08, 2021-06-26) document repeated no-show appointments with false promises of next-day service, causing significant client impact. This pattern is consistent and credible.
• QUALITY CONTROL CONCERN: One detailed 1-star review from a general contractor (2024-12-11) documents serious workmanship errors (misaligned valves), refusal to correct defects, and hostile behavior including threats to file liens. This review provides specific technical details and documented costs ($4,000 in repairs).
• RECENCY BIAS: Most positive reviews cluster in 2020-2024, while no-show complaints span 2021-2022. Recent reviews (2025, 2024) are predominantly 5-star, but include the serious contractor complaint from December 2024.
• INCONSISTENT PERFORMANCE: Company demonstrates excellent emergency response and technical skill in many reviews, but simultaneously exhibits chronic scheduling failures and accountability issues in others, suggesting operational inconsistency.

This WW Score of 78.2 should be treated with MODERATE-TO-HIGH caution: while based on substantial data (45 reviews), the presence of suspected duplicate/fake reviews, a credible detailed complaint about serious defects and hostile behavior, and a consistent pattern of no-show appointments significantly undermine confidence in the company's reliability despite strong technical ratings. The score reflects a company with genuine expertise but serious operational and interpersonal problems that create real risk for customers.

Dunn Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism across all four reviews, with consistent mentions of punctuality, neat work, and professional demeanor. Project completion is well-supported with evidence of multiple callbacks and jobs completed to customer satisfaction. Pricing feedback is limited but positive, described as average to reasonably priced. Experience is inferred from quality of workmanship and problem-solving ability. However, the small sample size (4 reviews) and age of reviews (oldest from 2014, most recent from 2023) limit confidence in the overall score.

• Small sample size: Only 4 reviews analyzed. Recommend collecting additional recent reviews for more reliable scoring.
• Recency concern: One review from 2014 (10 years old), one from 2017 (7 years old), one from 2020 (4 years old), and one from 2023. Most reviews are older than 1 year; only 1 review from past 12 months.
• Limited pricing data: Only 2 mentions of pricing across 4 reviews. Insufficient detail to confidently assess price-friendliness dimension.
• Generic praise patterns: Reviews contain general positive language ('highly recommend', 'fabulous', 'very happy') with limited specific technical details about plumbing work performed.

This WW Score should be treated with caution due to the very small sample size (4 reviews) and lack of recent data; only 1 review is from the past 12 months, making it difficult to assess current service quality.

New Age Plumbing has a strong and consistent reputation for fair, transparent pricing and responsive service, with the vast majority of reviewers praising Primo and his team as honest and reasonably priced. Professionalism scores are solid overall but are meaningfully dragged down by several credible negative reviews describing no-shows without communication, a technician giving a customer the finger, unanswered callbacks, and a stolen faucet — these are serious incidents that cannot be dismissed. Project completion is the most concerning dimension: while most jobs are described as completed efficiently, there are multiple explicit accounts of incomplete work (a hot water leak left unresolved), failure to clean up debris, refusal to provide receipts, and a significant sewer inspection failure that cost a customer $3,000 — all of which suppress the score considerably. Experience scores are generally positive, with reviewers frequently citing skilled diagnosis and quality workmanship, though the sewer misdiagnosis and the incomplete hot water heater job introduce meaningful doubt. The review base spans over a decade (2011–2024), and more recent reviews (2023–2024) trend positively, suggesting some improvement over time.

• RECENCY NOTE: Reviews span from 2011 to 2024. Approximately 18 reviews are older than 3 years and 10 are older than 5 years. More recent reviews (2023–2024) are predominantly positive, but older negative incidents are substantive and should not be ignored.
• SERIOUS INCIDENT — PROJECT COMPLETION: One reviewer (2023-08-01) explicitly states the technician left without fixing a continuous hot water leak after replacing the water heater, and the company then avoided their calls. This is a significant project abandonment flag.
• SERIOUS INCIDENT — PROFESSIONALISM: One reviewer (2016-05-20) states that 'Larry' gave them the finger when asked to wait and discuss an unresolved issue. This is an extreme professionalism failure.
• RELIABILITY INCIDENT: One reviewer (2017-07-14) describes a confirmed appointment where 'Larry' never showed, never called, and never responded to texts or voicemails. A second reviewer (2021-12-22) describes two consecutive days of no-shows with no communication.
• TRUST/ETHICS INCIDENT: One reviewer (2022-12-13) states the plumber took their old faucet without permission and never returned calls about it. Another reviewer (2021-03-19) states the plumber refused to show a receipt for parts and became angry when asked.
• SERIOUS COMPETENCE INCIDENT: One reviewer (2012-12-28) paid $250 for a sewer inspection that declared pipes 'old but in good condition.' A contractor's plumber subsequently found extensive blistering and rust, requiring $3,000 in sewer replacement work. This is a significant diagnostic failure.
• CLEANUP FAILURES: Multiple reviews (2020-07-23, 2021-03-19) explicitly mention failure to clean up debris or patch holes after completing work.
• NO FAKE REVIEW PATTERNS DETECTED: Reviews vary meaningfully in tone, detail, length, rating, and content. Negative reviews are specific and credible. No suspicious clustering of identical phrasing was observed.
• PAYMENT NOTE: One reviewer (2021-04-17) notes the company does not accept credit cards, which may be a consideration for some customers.

This WW Score is based on 42 reviews spanning 13 years with high mention counts across all four dimensions, making it statistically reliable; however, the presence of multiple credible, specific negative incidents — including job abandonment, no-shows, a physical gesture of disrespect, a stolen item, and a costly inspection failure — means the score should be interpreted cautiously, and prospective customers are advised to confirm scope of work in writing and verify follow-through commitments before hiring.