Find Nearby Plumbers In El Paso, Texas

E&J Plumbing demonstrates strong overall performance with particular strengths in experience and project completion. The majority of reviews (9 of 11) praise professionalism, punctuality, and courteous behavior. However, two significant negative reviews from 2008 and 2011 document serious issues: repeated cancellations and failure to follow through on commitments, and unprofessional telephone behavior including hanging up on a prospective customer. These incidents substantially lower the professionalism and project completion scores despite overwhelming positive feedback. Pricing is generally described as fair and competitive, though one recent review (2024) noted a desire for upfront cost estimates.

• RECENCY CONCERN: 7 of 11 reviews are older than 8 years (2006-2016). Only 2 reviews from past 12 months. Recent reviews are positive, but historical pattern of serious service failures (2008, 2011) cannot be ignored.
• CRITICAL INCIDENT: 2011 review documents unprofessional phone behavior (hanging up, threatening police call). 2008 review documents repeated cancellations and apparent dishonesty about availability. These are not minor complaints.
• PATTERN INCONSISTENCY: Stark contrast between overwhelmingly positive reviews and two serious negative incidents suggests either significant service variability or potential changes in business practices over time.
• ONE REVIEW UNUSABLE: Review dated 2015-02-04 contains only 'unknown' as text and cannot be analyzed for content.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: Review dated 2017-04-28 from 'Danny, Pool Builder' uses identical phrasing ('prompt, professional, easy to work with') as 2020 review and contains excessive punctuation ('!!!!') suggesting possible self-review or template-based submission.

This score should be treated with MODERATE caution. While recent reviews (2024, 2014) are uniformly positive and detailed, the two serious documented failures in 2008 and 2011 involving cancellations and unprofessional conduct represent material concerns that cannot be dismissed. The age of most reviews limits ability to assess current service quality. Recommend requesting recent client references and clarifying current cancellation and emergency service policies before engaging.

Innovative Trades demonstrates strong professionalism across multiple reviews, with consistent praise for punctuality, politeness, cleanliness, and respectful conduct (7 mentions, score 88). Project completion is well-documented with successful water heater replacements, fan installations, and complex repairs, though one 2021 review raises concerns about lack of accountability for muddy boots and poor judgment (6 mentions, score 75). Technical expertise is evident across electrical diagnostics, plumbing repairs, and problem-solving abilities (5 mentions, score 85). Pricing feedback is limited but positive where mentioned (2 mentions, score 80). The overall WW Score of 82.1 reflects solid performance tempered by limited pricing data and one significant professionalism lapse from 2021.

• RECENCY CONCERN: Most reviews are 4+ years old (2016-2020). Only 2 reviews from 2023 and 1 from 2021. Recent performance data is limited.
• NEGATIVE REVIEW ANALYSIS: The 2021 1-star review explicitly criticizes lack of professionalism and failure to 'own up' to muddy boots incident. This directly contradicts the otherwise pristine record and suggests accountability issues.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: Reviews from 2023, 2020, and 2018 contain suspiciously similar generic praise language ('above and beyond,' 'highly recommend,' 'professional all the way through,' 'exceptional service'). The first 2023 review is notably verbose and repetitive in its praise without specific technical details.
• PRICING DATA SPARSE: Only 2 reviews mention pricing/fairness. Insufficient data to confidently assess this dimension.

This score should be treated with moderate caution due to heavy reliance on older reviews (most pre-2021), potential fake review patterns in recent submissions, and one credible negative review that contradicts the otherwise perfect record. The 82.1 score is reliable for general guidance but may not reflect current service quality.

Agustin and his team receive consistently positive feedback across professionalism, pricing, and workmanship, with multiple reviewers praising their courteous demeanor, promptness, and fair pricing. Pricing is a notable strength, with several reviewers explicitly calling it affordable, reasonable, or even suggesting the contractor could charge more. Project completion scores are solid but tempered by one reviewer noting that on at least one or two occasions the job was not completed on the first visit and required a return trip the next day. Experience is rated positively based on specific mentions of clean installs, technical knowledge, and efficient problem-solving, though the evidence base is moderate. The overall score is held back somewhat by the age of many reviews — five of nine reviews are from 2013 or earlier — which limits confidence in how well they reflect current performance.

• RECENCY CONCERN: 5 of 9 reviews are from 2013 or earlier (some as far back as 2011), making them over 10 years old. Only 3 reviews are from the past 12 months (2023). Current performance may differ significantly from historical reviews.
• LOW DETAIL REVIEWS: Several reviews ('Finished quickly', 'Overall good.') provide almost no usable information and were given minimal weight in scoring.
• INCOMPLETE JOB FLAG: One reviewer explicitly noted the job was not completed on the first visit on at least one or two occasions, requiring a return visit the next day. This negatively impacts the project completion score.
• ALL 5-STAR RATINGS: Every review is rated 5 stars, which warrants mild caution. However, the reviews vary enough in detail and specificity that outright fabrication is not strongly suspected — this pattern is noted but not flagged as definitive evidence of fake reviews.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability due to the small review pool of 9 reviews, the majority of which are more than 5 years old, limiting confidence that the score accurately reflects the contractor's current quality of service.

Villegas Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism and fair pricing across recent reviews (2024), with consistent praise for responsiveness, communication, and transparent estimates. However, project completion is significantly impacted by three older negative reviews (2019–2021) documenting no-shows and incomplete work, including a pressure regulator installation that failed to meet specifications. The stark contrast between recent 5-star reviews and older 1-star reviews suggests either significant operational improvement or potential review authenticity concerns. The WW Score of 78.2 reflects solid current performance tempered by documented historical failures.

• TEMPORAL ANOMALY: Six recent reviews (2024) are uniformly 5-star with detailed, specific praise; three older reviews (2019–2021) are uniformly 1-star with serious complaints. This pattern warrants caution—either the business improved dramatically or review authenticity should be questioned.
• RECENCY BIAS: All positive reviews are from the past 12 months (Feb–Nov 2024). All negative reviews are 3+ years old (2019–2021). This creates a strong recency effect that may not reflect current reliability.
• INCOMPLETE WORK DOCUMENTED: 2021 and 2020 reviews explicitly state no-show and failure to respond despite home warranty company contact. 2019 review documents incorrect installation (pressure regulator set to 50 psi instead of requested 80 psi). These are serious project completion failures.
• SAMPLE SIZE CONCERN: Only 8 reviews total. While recent reviews are positive, the small sample and temporal clustering reduce statistical reliability.

This score should be treated with MODERATE confidence. Recent performance (2024) appears strong, but three documented failures from 2019–2021 raise questions about consistency and reliability. The dramatic improvement over time is encouraging but unverified; recommend requesting recent references and clarifying what operational changes were made. Do not rely solely on this score for high-value projects without additional due diligence.

Gibby Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism and project completion capabilities, with multiple reviews praising quick response times, courteous behavior, and thorough workmanship. However, pricing is a significant weakness, with 6 reviews explicitly mentioning concerns about cost transparency, overpricing, and discrepancies between verbal estimates and final bills. The company excels at technical skill and customer interaction but struggles with pricing communication and fairness perception. Most reviews are older than 3 years, which limits recency confidence.

• RECENCY CONCERN: 7 of 10 reviews are from 2018 or earlier (more than 5 years old). Only 3 reviews from 2020 onward. This significantly limits the reliability of current performance assessment.
• PRICING PATTERN: Multiple reviews (2019, 2018, 2012) cite pricing concerns including lack of transparency, verbal vs. final bill discrepancies, and perceived overcharging. This is a consistent complaint across different time periods.
• ESTIMATE ACCURACY: Two reviews (2019, 2012) specifically mention problems with estimate accuracy and lack of written quotes, suggesting a systemic issue with pricing communication.
• SAMPLE SIZE: Only 10 reviews total is a relatively small sample for confident scoring, particularly given age distribution.

This WW Score of 75.8 should be treated with MODERATE confidence due to small sample size (10 reviews) and significant recency issues (70% of reviews older than 5 years). The pricing weakness is well-documented across multiple time periods and appears systemic, but current service quality cannot be reliably assessed from this data.

Angel's Plumbing has a strong base of positive reviews praising professionalism, punctuality, and fair pricing across multiple reviewers, which drives solid scores in those dimensions. However, the dataset is heavily skewed toward very old reviews — the majority predate 2015, with only four reviews from the past three years — significantly reducing the reliability of the overall picture. Two notable negative reviews drag down the project completion and professionalism scores: a 2022 no-show with non-functional contact numbers, and a 2008 warranty dispute where the plumber refused to honor a callback without charging a service fee. The 'unknown' review with no text and the two extremely brief reviews from 2016 provide no usable signal and were treated as minimal data. Taken together, the contractor shows genuine strengths but also documented failures in follow-through and reliability that cannot be ignored.

• RECENCY WARNING: The majority of reviews (14 out of 20) are from 2010 or earlier, making them 14+ years old. Only 4 reviews are from the past 3 years. The WW Score may not reflect current service quality.
• NO-SHOW INCIDENT (2022): One reviewer reported a missed scheduled appointment window with both listed phone numbers being non-functional — one rejecting incoming calls, one completely dead. This is a significant reliability red flag.
• WARRANTY DISPUTE (2008): A reviewer reported that the plumber refused to honor a written labor warranty on a water heater installation without charging a $65 service call fee, raising concerns about follow-through on commitments.
• LOW-CONTENT REVIEWS: One review contains only the word 'unknown' with no text, and two 2016 reviews ('They are honest, prompt, and caring.' and 'unknown') provide minimal verifiable detail. These were given very limited scoring weight.
• POSSIBLE BUSINESS CONTINUITY ISSUE: Multiple older reviews reference a 'father and son' team and the name 'Chronis Plumbing,' while newer reviews reference only 'Angel' as a solo operator. It is unclear whether this is the same business entity, which may affect score continuity.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK: LOW — Reviews are generally specific and varied in language. No strong pattern of fake reviews detected, though the generic older reviews reduce confidence slightly.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability due to the heavily dated review pool, two documented service failures, and a possible business identity shift between older and newer reviews — consumers should weight the 2022–2024 reviews most heavily when making a hiring decision.