Find Nearby Plumbers In Flower Mound, Texas

Service Time Plumbing (Marq/Mark Johnson) demonstrates exceptional performance across all four dimensions. Professionalism is consistently praised with explicit mentions of punctuality, politeness, cleanliness, and respectful demeanor in 20 reviews. Pricing receives strong marks with 12 reviews highlighting fair, honest, and reasonable rates with no upselling. Project completion is evidenced in 18 reviews describing thorough work, quick response times, and reliable follow-through on complex jobs. Technical expertise is confirmed in 14 reviews citing Master Plumber credentials, problem-solving ability, and quality workmanship on challenging installations. All 24 reviews are 5-star ratings from 2020-2021.

• All 24 reviews are 5-star ratings with no negative feedback — this is statistically unusual and warrants caution
• Most reviews (21 of 24) are from 2020-2021, with only 3 reviews from 2021-12 and none from 2022 onward — recency is limited
• Several reviews use similar phrasing patterns ('professional,' 'fair price,' 'highly recommend') which could indicate curated or template-based responses, though content specificity varies enough to suggest genuine experiences
• No reviews mention any problems, delays, or dissatisfaction — absence of critical feedback is atypical for a large review set

This WW Score of 92.3 is based on strong evidence across all dimensions with HIGH confidence, but the uniformly positive rating distribution and age of reviews (mostly 2020-2021) suggest this score should be treated as a historical baseline rather than current performance; verification of recent work (2023-2024) is recommended before making a decision.

Texas Prime Plumbing demonstrates strong overall performance across all four dimensions. Professionalism is consistently praised with 11 mentions highlighting punctuality, politeness, and responsiveness—though one 2011 review noted a 15-minute delay and excessive phone use by the owner. Pricing receives solid marks across 8 mentions for affordability and fair rates, though one 2013 review indicated a quote-to-charge discrepancy. Project completion shows 9 mentions of timely, thorough work, but is tempered by a 2013 incident where plumbers did not fully complete a toilet installation and a 2006 review suggesting the company declined follow-up work. Experience is well-documented across 7 mentions with strong technical problem-solving demonstrated, particularly in the detailed 2021 review. The company's 10+ year relationships with customers and multi-decade history support reliability.

• Review age: 11 of 15 reviews are older than 12 months (from 2004–2012), with only 4 recent reviews (2013–2021). This limits confidence in current service standards.
• Inconsistency in project completion: 2013 review explicitly states incomplete work (toilet not set, customer finished task); 2006 review suggests company declined to perform quoted work. These are material gaps in follow-through.
• 2011 review mentions dissatisfaction with workmanship quality (metal tape on exposed vent location deemed inappropriate), suggesting occasional quality control issues.
• Quote accuracy concern: 2013 review states customer was quoted significantly less than final charge, raising transparency questions.
• Most recent detailed review (2021) is highly positive and resolves prior contractor issues, suggesting possible service improvement, but sample size of recent reviews is small.

This WW Score of 84.2 is moderately reliable but should be interpreted cautiously: while all four dimensions have HIGH confidence based on mention counts (7–11 each), the dataset is heavily weighted toward reviews from 2004–2012, making current service quality uncertain. Recent reviews (2013–2021) show mixed signals including incomplete work and pricing discrepancies, which offset the strong historical reputation. The score reflects a company with solid fundamentals and long-term customer loyalty, but with documented instances of incomplete project delivery and communication gaps that warrant verification before engaging.

On Point Plumbing has an overwhelmingly positive review base spanning from 2017 to 2025, with the vast majority of customers praising punctuality, responsiveness, and courteous demeanor across multiple technicians including Cesar, Krasi, Brandon, and others. Pricing is consistently described as reasonable, fair, and competitive, with several reviewers explicitly noting they compared quotes and found On Point to be the best value. Project completion scores are strong but modestly penalized due to two serious 1-star reviews: one involving a technician who allegedly broke attic stairs and denied it, and two reviews describing a contractor named Ken McCain who took payment, did minimal work, and then completely abandoned the job and went unresponsive. A third 1-star review noted the company lacked specialized leak-detection equipment and still charged for the visit. These incidents meaningfully drag down the project completion and professionalism dimensions. Experience scores are high overall, with numerous reviewers citing skilled diagnostics, quality workmanship, and honest assessments that saved customers significant money.

• TWO SERIOUS ABANDONMENT COMPLAINTS: Two reviews from March 2022 describe a contractor named Ken McCain who accepted payment, performed minimal work, dug trenches, and then completely disappeared — ghosting clients for weeks and failing to honor his contract. This represents a significant project completion failure and potential fraud.
• EQUIPMENT LIMITATION COMPLAINT: Two near-identical 1-star reviews (dated 2024-01-14 and 2024-06-09) describe the same experience — being charged despite the technician lacking equipment to detect a concealed leak. These two reviews appear to be duplicates of the same incident posted twice, which is noted but not double-counted.
• BROKEN PROPERTY COMPLAINT: One 1-star review (2024-06-29) alleges a technician broke expensive pull-down attic stairs and denied responsibility. The reviewer states they have photographic evidence.
• POSSIBLE DUPLICATE/NEAR-DUPLICATE REVIEWS: Two reviews dated 2025-05-10 are nearly identical in structure and phrasing (both describe clearing a kitchen drain, both praise Cesar's professionalism and courteous demeanor in almost the same language). These may be fabricated or submitted by the same person. Confidence in the 5-star cluster from that date is reduced.
• TWO BLANK REVIEWS: Two reviews contain no text (one from 2021-06-10, one from 2023-01-02) with 5-star ratings. These were excluded from scoring as they provide no usable data.
• MULTI-TECHNICIAN BUSINESS: Reviews reference multiple different technicians (Cesar, Krasi, Brandon, Skyler, Esteban, Clinton, Justin, Nick, Ken McCain), suggesting this may be a franchise, multi-location, or aggregated business profile. Quality and reliability may vary significantly by technician and region.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews are from 2020–2025, which is positive for recency weighting. The Ken McCain abandonment complaints are from 2022 and may reflect a contractor no longer associated with the company, but this cannot be confirmed from the reviews alone.

This WW Score carries HIGH overall confidence due to the large volume of detailed, specific reviews across many years, but consumers should be aware that serious complaints about job abandonment, property damage, and equipment limitations meaningfully temper what would otherwise be a near-perfect score, and the multi-technician nature of this business means individual experience may vary significantly.

A Better Deal has a strong base of loyal, long-term customers who consistently praise technicians like Andrew, Ray, and Tom for prompt after-hours response, honest assessments, and fair pricing — including multiple accounts of no-charge service calls and warranty honors. However, a meaningful cluster of negative reviews spanning multiple years raises serious concerns: repeated no-shows and missed appointment windows, rude office staff interactions, billing disputes involving charges higher than quoted, at least one allegation of unpermitted HVAC installation with poor workmanship, and one detailed account of misdiagnosis leading to compressor failure and costly repairs. The pricing dimension is pulled down by several credible complaints of overcharging and lack of transparency, despite many positive pricing mentions. Project completion is similarly mixed, with strong follow-through praised by many but offset by documented cases of abandoned work, unreturned calls, and incomplete jobs. The overall score reflects a company with genuine strengths in availability and customer loyalty but with recurring operational and quality-control issues that cannot be ignored.

• 6 reviews contained no text — only a star rating. These were excluded from dimensional scoring as they provide no usable evidence.
• One review (2012) references a child support/NSF check issue with the business owner's family — this is a character/integrity flag but not directly scorable as an HVAC service dimension. Noted for context.
• Several 5-star reviews are brief and generic (e.g., 'Tom is awesome.', 'Great job Ray.', 'THEY DID A GOOD JOB.') with no specific detail. These were counted only where a dimension could be inferred but treated as low-evidential weight.
• No clear fake review pattern detected — reviews span 2001 to 2025, include varied technician names, specific incident details, and a realistic mix of positive and negative experiences. Review authenticity appears generally credible.
• Multiple credible 1-star reviews allege: no-shows without notification (at least 3 separate reviewers), charges above quoted price (at least 3 reviewers), rude office/phone staff (at least 3 reviewers), unpermitted installation and poor workmanship (1 detailed review), and incomplete paid work not returned to finish (1 reviewer). These are not isolated incidents.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews with usable data are from 2024–2025, which is positive for recency weighting. However, negative reviews are distributed across multiple years (2015, 2016, 2017, 2019, 2020, 2024, 2025), suggesting some issues are persistent rather than historical anomalies.
• One 2024 negative review alleges a replaced compressor blew out the entire unit, followed by a $13,000 replacement quote — a serious workmanship and integrity allegation that warrants caution.
• One 2025 negative review alleges a $980 quote for a blower motor with no transparency on part cost, and staff refused to answer basic pricing questions — consistent with older overcharging complaints.

This WW Score is based on a large review set (95 reviews) spanning over two decades with HIGH confidence across all four dimensions, making the score statistically robust — however, the persistent pattern of negative reviews across multiple years regarding no-shows, billing disputes, and workmanship failures means prospective customers should treat this score as reflecting a company with a genuinely split service record rather than a uniformly reliable provider.

Kidd Plumbing demonstrates strong technical competence and project completion capability, with multiple reviews praising workmanship quality and timely job delivery. Pricing is consistently noted as fair and competitive, often significantly lower than competitors. However, professionalism scores are pulled down substantially by one detailed 2021 review documenting poor communication, lack of follow-up, and dismissive attitude from Russell, which directly contradicts the reliability claims in other reviews. The company shows inconsistency in customer service quality across different interactions.

• RECENCY CONCERN: Most positive reviews are from 2016–2019 (5–8 years old). Only 2 reviews from 2021 onward, with the most recent positive review from April 2024 but the most recent negative review from December 2021. Older reviews may not reflect current operations.
• PROFESSIONALISM INCONSISTENCY: One detailed negative review (Dec 2021) explicitly documents poor communication and unprofessional behavior from Russell, directly contradicting the 'reliable' and 'professional' claims in other reviews. This suggests inconsistent service quality or potential personnel issues.
• GENERIC PRAISE PATTERN: Several reviews use very similar phrasing ('amazing,' 'highly recommend,' 'the only plumber to use') with minimal specific technical detail, though the 2019 and 2017 reviews do provide concrete examples (pricing comparisons, specific work done), reducing but not eliminating concern about authenticity.

This score should be treated with caution due to significant recency bias (most data is 5+ years old), a documented professionalism failure in 2021 that contradicts other claims, and a small sample size (7 reviews). The WW Score reflects historical strength in technical work and pricing, but current reliability is uncertain given the communication issues documented in the most recent negative review.

Bernard's Plumbing presents a deeply mixed record across all four dimensions. Pricing is the weakest area, with numerous reviewers explicitly citing excessive charges for routine work such as drain cleaning, camera inspections without deliverables, and opaque or bait-and-switch quoting practices — including one reviewer who confirmed a BBB complaint could not be processed due to questions about the company's legitimacy. Project completion is also problematic, with multiple accounts of work that failed shortly after completion, a technician who left a job unfinished and then attempted to charge for correcting his own errors, and at least one instance of a refund being withheld. Professionalism scores slightly higher due to a cluster of older positive reviews praising responsiveness and courtesy, but these are substantially offset by documented instances of hanging up on customers, unlicensed workers, and failure to return calls. Experience scores modestly, as some reviewers praise technical skill and attention to detail, but others raise serious concerns about unlicensed technicians and improper installations requiring callbacks.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: Two reviews with identical full text and the same date (2020-11-20) were submitted, and two more near-identical 1-star reviews about a broken pipe repair ($600) were submitted on the same date (2017-02-19). These duplicates were counted only once each for scoring purposes.
• TWO BLANK REVIEWS (no text, only a 5-star rating) were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data.
• RECENCY CONCERN: The majority of positive reviews are from 2020 or earlier, with several dating back to 2004–2012. The most recent reviews (2020–2021) skew heavily negative, suggesting a possible decline in service quality over time.
• LICENSING CONCERN: Multiple independent reviewers (2017, 2018) explicitly state that the technician sent to their home was not a licensed plumber. One reviewer also noted that the BBB could not process a complaint because Bernard's Plumbing was not registered as a valid company.
• PATTERN OF PRICING COMPLAINTS: At least 7 separate reviews independently cite overcharging, lack of pricing transparency, hidden fees, or refusal to disclose costs upfront — this is a consistent and credible pattern, not isolated incidents.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — MODERATE: Several 5-star reviews from 2020-06-10 share the exact same date and are extremely brief and generic (e.g., 'Very nice people', 'This company is reliable and professional'). This clustering pattern raises suspicion of coordinated or incentivized reviews. Confidence in the positive review pool is reduced accordingly.

This WW Score is based on 34 reviews with usable content spanning 2004–2021, with HIGH mention counts across all dimensions; however, the score should be interpreted cautiously given documented concerns about unlicensed workers, duplicate and potentially fake reviews, and a clear negative trend in the most recent reviews.