Find Nearby Plumbers In Fort Worth, Texas

Comfort Experts receives a critically low WW Score of 32.8, driven by severe deficiencies across all dimensions. Pricing is the most damaging factor (18/100), with overwhelming evidence of systematic overcharging, deceptive quotes, and predatory upselling practices—customers consistently report being quoted 3-10x higher prices than competitors for identical services. Professionalism scores poorly (42/100) due to frequent reports of rude technicians, missed appointments, no-shows, poor communication, and refusal to serve certain customer types. Project completion is severely compromised (35/100), with multiple accounts of incomplete work, failed callbacks, warranty disputes, and unresolved issues requiring second opinions. Experience shows moderate technical capability (48/100) but is undermined by dishonest diagnostics, unnecessary part replacements, and commission-driven recommendations rather than genuine problem-solving. The company exhibits a clear pattern of prioritizing sales over customer welfare.

• SYSTEMIC FRAUD PATTERN DETECTED: 42 reviews explicitly mention overpricing, deceptive quotes, or unnecessary upselling. This is not isolated—it is company policy. Multiple customers report technicians on 100% commission structure incentivizing dishonest recommendations.
• PREDATORY PRICING: Documented cases of charging $300-$430 for $20-$36 capacitors, $3000 for freon (industry standard $65), $6000+ for repairs costing $120-$300 elsewhere. Pattern is consistent across 15+ years of reviews.
• REFUSAL OF SERVICE: Multiple customers report being refused service because they have home warranties or rental properties, despite willingness to pay out-of-pocket. This suggests discriminatory practices.
• NO-SHOW AND MISSED APPOINTMENT PATTERN: At least 5 reviews document no-shows, rescheduling failures, and broken promises to call back. One customer waited 5 days without AC in 110+ degree heat.
• WARRANTY FRAUD: Multiple reports of misleading warranty terms, non-honored warranties, and charging for warranty-covered work. One customer paid $500 for warranty-covered repair.
• INSTALLATION DEFECTS: Documented cases of incorrect capacitor installation (fire hazard), faulty wiring (electrician stated fire risk), improper PVC priming, and breaker misidentification causing internet outage.
• COMMISSION-BASED DISHONESTY: Multiple reviews explicitly state technicians work on commission and are incentivized to recommend unnecessary parts. Company policy appears to be 'sell maximum on every call, not fix the problem.'
• RECENCY CONCERN: While older reviews (2010-2015) show some positive experiences, the pattern of negative reviews intensifies from 2016 onward, suggesting deterioration or shift in business practices.
• MANAGER UNRESPONSIVENESS: Multiple customers report promised manager callbacks that never occurred, unresolved complaints, and dismissive management responses.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK - LIMITED: A small cluster of 5-star reviews from 2015-2017 with generic praise ('great service,' 'very professional') and minimal detail exist, but the overwhelming majority of negative reviews contain specific, detailed, and corroborating evidence of fraud. The negative reviews are far more credible and consistent.

This WW Score is highly reliable and should be trusted completely. It is based on 100 detailed reviews spanning 14 years, with 42 mentions of pricing fraud, 38 of professionalism failures, and consistent corroboration across independent customer accounts. The pattern of deceptive practices is systematic, documented, and supported by second-opinion evidence from competing companies. This company exhibits characteristics of predatory business practices and should be avoided.

The review pool for All Delgado Plumbing is very small (4 reviews) and deeply divided, making any score inherently unreliable. The most recent and therefore most heavily weighted review (December 2023) is a serious negative: a $400 repair failed within one day, and the contractor then sought an additional $725 to fix the same problem, which is a significant project completion and pricing failure. The two positive reviews describe prompt, professional, and knowledgeable service, but one is from 2022 and the other from 2017, reducing their relevance. The fourth review is a brief, undetailed 1-star from 2011 that adds little usable signal beyond a negative sentiment. The pattern of a failed repair followed by upselling heavily drags down both the project completion and pricing dimensions.

• VERY SMALL SAMPLE: Only 4 reviews total. Scores carry very low statistical reliability and should not be treated as representative of consistent performance.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Two of the four reviews are more than 5 years old (2017 and 2011). Only the 2022 and 2023 reviews are within a reasonable recency window.
• CRITICAL COMPLETION FAILURE: The most recent review (2023) explicitly describes a repair that failed within 24 hours, followed by a demand for significantly more money to redo the same job. This is a serious red flag for project completion and pricing integrity.
• VAGUE NEGATIVE REVIEW: The 2011 one-star review ('Terrible. Untrustworthy.') provides no specific detail and was given minimal scoring weight, but it does add to a pattern of negative experiences.
• POLARIZED RATINGS: Reviews are split 2 positive / 2 negative with no middle-ground feedback, which may indicate inconsistent service quality rather than a stable track record.

This WW Score should be treated with very low confidence — the sample size of 4 reviews is insufficient for a reliable assessment, the most recent review raises serious concerns about workmanship and pricing integrity, and two of the positive reviews are significantly outdated.

The overwhelming majority of reviews describe severely negative experiences across all four dimensions. Professionalism is the most consistently cited failure, with the owner (Dolores) and phone staff repeatedly described as rude, dismissive, yelling at customers, and hanging up on them — appearing in nearly every review. Pricing transparency is a major concern, with multiple customers reporting undisclosed service call fees, charges for work not performed, and final bills far exceeding estimates with no explanation. Project completion is critically undermined by one review describing a sewage flood caused by the company forgetting to unplug a line after work, another describing a job that ran three days over schedule, and a case where a pipe was charged as cleaned but remained clogged. The only positive review (5 stars, 2014) is brief, generic, and lacks specific detail, while a 4-star review from 2012 is based on a service call that was never actually completed. The score is dragged marginally above zero by these two outlier reviews and one partial positive interaction.

• The single 5-star review (2014) is notably brief, generic, and contains no specific details about the work performed, technician, or job type — it may not reflect a genuine detailed customer experience and was weighted conservatively.
• The 4-star review (2012) is based on a service call that was never completed — the reviewer explicitly states no plumbing work was done — limiting its value as evidence of quality.
• Most reviews are older than 12 months; the most recent review is from April 2023, but the majority of reviews date from 2016–2020, reducing recency confidence.
• A pattern of owner (Dolores) personally responding to complaints with hostility, hanging up on customers, and making dismissive or insulting remarks appears across multiple independent reviews spanning several years, suggesting a systemic and persistent issue rather than isolated incidents.
• One review describes a potentially dangerous incident where sewage flooded a home with young children and an elderly person due to company negligence, and the company refused to offer any compensation or cleaning assistance.
• Multiple reviews describe undisclosed service call fees charged after customers were told they would receive a free quote, suggesting a potentially deceptive business practice.

This WW Score is based on 10 reviews with strong cross-dimensional coverage and HIGH confidence across all four scored dimensions; the score of 18.7 is considered a reliable reflection of the documented customer experience, though the age of most reviews (2016–2020) means current performance cannot be fully confirmed.

This review set cannot be reliably scored. The majority of reviews (approximately 50+ of 60) are memorial/condolence posts about the contractor's death between 2014-2019, not service reviews. These posts praise character and past work but do not evaluate current service dimensions. The remaining ~10 reviews are from 2010-2014 and contain only generic praise without specific evidence of punctuality, pricing transparency, completion details, or technical skill. No review explicitly discusses pricing fairness, hidden charges, timeline adherence, or technical problem-solving in measurable terms.

• CRITICAL: Majority of reviews (50+ of 60) are memorial/condolence posts about contractor's death, not service evaluations. These cannot be scored against current service dimensions.
• All reviews are older than 12 months; most are 10+ years old (2010-2014). Recency is severely compromised.
• Remaining service reviews lack specificity: praise is generic ('great guy,' 'nice person,' 'good work') without concrete evidence of dimension performance.
• No reviews explicitly mention pricing transparency, quote accuracy, hidden charges, or cost comparisons—cannot score PRICE FRIENDLY dimension.
• No reviews detail project timelines, delays, callbacks, or completion issues—cannot reliably score PROJECT COMPLETION dimension.
• Professionalism mentions (punctuality, communication) are present in ~8-10 reviews but lack sufficient detail and are overwhelmed by memorial content.
• Experience/skill mentions exist but are vague ('knows what he's doing,' 'skilled') without technical specifics.
• Potential data integrity issue: The contractor (Tiho Maric) passed away in 2014, yet reviews continue through 2021. The 2021 review appears to reference a different person ('Jonathan') and may not be for the same business.

This score cannot be calculated reliably. The dataset is dominated by memorial posts rather than service evaluations, all data is older than 10 years, and remaining reviews lack the specificity required to score dimensions objectively. Any WW Score derived from this data would be meaningless.

This contractor shows severe and consistent performance issues across multiple dimensions. Three reviews explicitly criticize unprofessional behavior including failure to honor commitments, non-responsiveness to callbacks, and lack of follow-through on promised return visits. Pricing concerns appear in three reviews, with complaints of overcharging and unfair rates relative to work quality. Project completion is undermined by warranty non-compliance and abandoned communication. One positive 2014 review praising fair pricing and problem-solving skill is heavily outweighed by three recent negative reviews (2016, 2021) citing poor workmanship, overcharging, and broken promises. The extreme recency gap and consistency of negative feedback suggests systemic operational problems.

• CRITICAL: Three of four reviews are 1-star ratings with severe complaints; only one 5-star review from 2014 (10 years old). Massive recency concern — negative reviews cluster in 2016 and 2021, suggesting deterioration or persistent issues.
• PROFESSIONALISM RED FLAG: Multiple explicit mentions of non-responsiveness, broken promises to return calls, failure to honor stated commitments, and lack of follow-through. This is a pattern, not isolated incidents.
• PRICING RED FLAG: Consistent complaints of overcharging and unfair pricing across multiple reviews. One review explicitly states 'charge top dollar' and another criticizes 'over charge you.'
• WARRANTY/GUARANTEE ISSUE: Review 1 explicitly states company does not 'stand behind their work or honor their warranties' — this is a critical trust failure.
• SAMPLE SIZE LIMITATION: Only 4 reviews total. While all 4 are usable, this is a very small dataset. The single positive review is significantly older (2014) than the negative cluster (2016, 2021).

This score should be treated with extreme caution due to very small sample size (n=4) and severe recency bias — the positive review is 10 years old while negative reviews are recent and consistent. The contractor appears to have serious systemic issues with responsiveness, follow-through, and pricing fairness, but a WW Score cannot be reliably calculated with only 4 reviews and such polarized ratings. Additional recent reviews are needed to establish current performance level.

All three reviews speak positively about staff knowledge and helpfulness, suggesting solid professionalism and experience at the counter level. One review explicitly mentions a warranty discovery and careful part selection, indicating genuine technical competence. Pricing is touched on only once, with a favorable mention of a free warranty replacement and a low-cost part, but this is insufficient to draw broad conclusions. Project completion is partially evidenced by two reviews noting parts were available immediately or arrived next day, though this reflects supply fulfillment rather than full contracting work. All reviews are from 2017–2019, meaning none fall within the past 12 months, which limits their current relevance.

• All reviews are older than 5 years (2017–2019); current service quality cannot be reliably inferred from this data.
• Only 3 reviews total — this is the minimum threshold for any WW Score calculation; reliability is very low.
• Reviews appear to describe a plumbing supply counter/retail operation rather than a traditional contracting or installation service; dimensions like project completion are not directly applicable in the conventional sense.
• No negative feedback present across all reviews, but the small sample size makes this unremarkable rather than a strong positive signal.
• WW Score has been withheld due to insufficient review volume and data age — a numeric score would be misleading given these constraints.

This score report should be treated as largely unreliable due to only 3 reviews, all of which are over 5 years old and describe a retail supply counter context rather than full contracting work.