Find Nearby Plumbers In Frisco, Texas

Rick and North Plumbing Service receive consistently positive feedback across professionalism, with multiple reviewers explicitly praising punctuality, responsiveness, friendliness, and communication — including a notable instance of phone-based guidance during the 2021 Texas winter storm. Pricing is mentioned favorably in a handful of reviews, with one reviewer specifically contrasting Rick's reasonable estimate against a competitor charging $200/hour, and another noting the price was 'reasonable,' though the limited number of pricing mentions keeps confidence moderate. Project completion is well-supported, with multiple reviewers describing jobs finished correctly and on time, including repeat use over many years — a strong signal of consistent follow-through. However, a 1-star review citing complete non-responsiveness to an online inquiry is a meaningful flag, and the vast majority of reviews are more than 3 years old, with most dating back to 2005–2014, which significantly limits the reliability of this score for assessing current performance.

• RECENCY CONCERN: Only 2 of 11 reviews are from the past 3 years (2021 and 2020). The majority of reviews are from 2007–2014, with one from 2005. This score may not reflect current service quality.
• NON-RESPONSIVENESS FLAG: One reviewer (2011) reported zero response to an online inquiry form, resulting in a 1-star rating. This is the only negative review and relates specifically to communication/responsiveness.
• LOW VOLUME: Only 11 total reviews span approximately 16 years, which is a very thin review base. Scores should be treated with caution despite some HIGH confidence labels on individual dimensions.
• ONE REVIEW WITH NO USABLE DATA: The review reading only 'Water Heater Replaced' (2020) provides no scorable information and was excluded from dimension scoring.
• NO FAKE REVIEW PATTERNS DETECTED: Reviews vary in length, specificity, tone, and date. Language is not repetitive or suspiciously generic. No fake review flag warranted.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability due to the small total review volume, the significant age of most reviews, and one documented responsiveness failure — prospective customers should seek more recent references before making a hiring decision.

Rush Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism and technical expertise, with multiple reviews praising punctuality, friendliness, and knowledgeable staff. Pricing is generally perceived as fair and competitive. However, project completion is a significant weakness—two reviews explicitly document incomplete work, abandoned materials, and failure to follow up on callbacks, which substantially lowers the overall score. The company shows inconsistency: excellent service experiences are offset by serious lapses in accountability and cleanup. Recency is a concern, as most positive reviews are from 2014–2017, while critical reviews span 2017–2018.

• RECENCY ISSUE: 9 of 11 reviews are older than 6 years (pre-2018). Only 2 reviews from 2020 and 2018. Current performance cannot be reliably assessed.
• PROJECT COMPLETION RED FLAG: Review from 2017-06-01 documents incomplete work (framing not removed, concrete spilled, personal items left behind) and no callback response. This is a serious accountability failure.
• OWNER CONDUCT CONCERN: 2018-12-23 review describes aggressive, disrespectful behavior by the owner in a parking lot incident. While not directly work-related, it reflects on company culture and integrity.
• INCONSISTENCY PATTERN: Stark contrast between glowing 5-star reviews (mostly older) and detailed 1-star reviews citing poor follow-up and unprofessional conduct. This suggests either significant service degradation over time or inconsistent quality.
• CALLBACK FAILURE: Multiple mentions of lack of responsiveness to follow-up requests (2017-06-01 review explicitly states 'never received a call back').

This score should be treated with caution due to age of data and inconsistent service patterns; the WW Score reflects historical performance (mostly 2014–2017) rather than current operations, and serious project completion and accountability issues documented in more recent reviews warrant direct verification before engaging this contractor.

The majority of reviews are positive and praise professionalism, timeliness, and responsiveness, with multiple mentions of repeat usage across different job types. However, one detailed 1-star review raises serious allegations including fraud (demanding cash to avoid taxes), racist remarks, vandalism, leaving a home without water for 3 days, and overcharging for incomplete work — all of which significantly drag down scores across every dimension. The positive reviews are largely generic in nature, with limited specific detail about workmanship or pricing transparency, reducing their evidentiary weight. One 5-star review appears to directly rebut the 1-star complaint in a manner that raises authenticity concerns. Given the severity and specificity of the negative review versus the relative vagueness of most positive ones, conservative scoring is warranted.

• SERIOUS ALLEGATION: One reviewer alleges fraud (demanding cash to avoid taxes), racist remarks, vandalism, and leaving a property without water for 3 days — these are severe claims that materially impact all dimension scores.
• REBUTTAL REVIEW CONCERN: The 5-star review dated 2022-10-05 (one day before the 1-star complaint dated 2022-10-06) directly attacks the negative reviewer's credibility, which is an unusual pattern and may suggest a coordinated or retaliatory response.
• GENERIC PRAISE: Several 5-star reviews contain little to no specific detail (e.g., 'Highly recommend Texas Plumbing Solutions!' with no elaboration), reducing their evidentiary value per scoring rules.
• COMPANY NAME INCONSISTENCY: Reviews reference at least three different business names — 'MNP Solutions of Frisco,' 'Texas Plumbing Solutions,' and 'Metro North Plumbing' — which raises questions about whether all reviews are for the same entity.
• RECENCY NOTE: All reviews fall between 2022 and 2023; none are within the past 12 months from a typical 2024–2025 analysis window, reducing recency confidence.
• LOW REVIEW VOLUME: Only 6 total reviews provide a very limited sample size, making any score highly sensitive to individual outliers, especially the detailed negative review.

This WW Score should be treated with significant caution — the small review pool, presence of a detailed and serious negative allegation, generic positive reviews with limited specificity, and possible company name inconsistencies collectively undermine confidence in the overall score.

Captain Ron's Plumbing presents a mixed picture across all four dimensions. Three of the four reviews are positive, praising responsiveness, reasonable pricing, and thorough workmanship on complex jobs. However, the one negative review (1-star, dated 2020) is serious: it describes a technically substandard repair method that sacrificed water pressure, an exorbitant charge of $1,300 (negotiated down to $1,000), and a complete failure to follow up after the customer reported the issue — with both the technician and the owner going silent. This single review meaningfully drags down scores across professionalism, pricing, project completion, and experience. Additionally, three of the four reviews are from 2017–2019, making them over five years old, which significantly limits their reliability for assessing current performance. Only one review (2023) is recent, and while positive, it lacks detail on pricing or technical specifics.

• RECENCY WARNING: Three of four reviews are from 2017–2019, making them 5–7 years old. Only one review (2023) reflects recent performance. Scores should be treated with caution as they may not reflect current service quality.
• SERIOUS COMPLAINT FLAG: The 2020 one-star review describes a technically improper repair (pipe lining that reduced water pressure), overcharging, and deliberate non-response from both the technician and the owner after the issue was reported. This is a significant red flag for accountability and workmanship.
• LOW REVIEW VOLUME: Only 4 reviews total. This is insufficient to draw reliable conclusions about consistent performance. Scores carry MODERATE confidence at best.
• NO FAKE REVIEW PATTERNS DETECTED: Reviews vary in tone, detail level, and rating. No suspicious repetition or generic phrasing was identified.

This WW Score should be treated with low-to-moderate trust due to the very small review sample (4 reviews), the age of most reviews (3 of 4 are over 5 years old), and one serious unresolved complaint that raises meaningful concerns about workmanship quality and post-job accountability.

Paschal receives strongly polarized feedback across a very large review set. On professionalism, the majority of individual technician interactions are praised as courteous, polite, and communicative, but this is heavily offset by a persistent and well-documented pattern of missed appointments, no-shows, poor scheduling communication, and rude office staff — issues that appear consistently across years and locations. Pricing is the weakest dimension by far: dozens of independent reviewers explicitly describe charges as 2x to 5x competitive rates, with multiple accounts of upselling unnecessary parts or services, lack of itemized invoices, and predatory pricing toward elderly or vulnerable customers. Project completion suffers significantly from recurring themes of repeat callbacks for the same unresolved issues, abandoned or incomplete work, and parts delays leaving customers without heat or AC for days or weeks. Experience scores moderately well because many individual technicians are described as knowledgeable and skilled, but this is undermined by multiple credible accounts of misdiagnosis, incorrect repairs, and work that had to be redone by competitors at a fraction of the cost.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: Multiple reviews appear to be exact word-for-word duplicates posted on different dates (e.g., the Spanish-language 1-star review appears twice on 2025-06-09 and 2025-06-06; 'They were very nice and prompt...' appears twice; 'Tech Mike Rodriguez...' appears twice; 'Donna at Paschal...' appears four times on 2023-09-10; 'Competitive price, prompt follow up...' appears four times on 2023-10-07; 'technician was great, really knew his stuff...' appears four times on 2024-02-24; 'Great service' appears four times on 2024-01-19; 'Do not use this company...' appears twice on 2024-01-19; 'Excellent service with a quick response time...' appears four times on 2023-08-25; 'Overall, the experience was positive...' appears four times on 2023-08-23; 'Don't waste your time with this company...' appears three times on 2024-05-31). These duplicates inflate the apparent review count and may distort the score. Confidence in raw volume is reduced accordingly.
• FAKE/INFLATED POSITIVE REVIEW PATTERN: A large number of 5-star reviews contain no text (blank body), generic one-liners ('Great service!', 'Outstanding!', 'Great job!'), or suspiciously identical phrasing. These reviews provide no usable data and suggest possible review padding.
• SYSTEMATIC UPSELLING COMPLAINTS: Multiple independent reviewers across different years and locations describe technicians recommending unnecessary full-unit replacements when minor repairs were needed, quoting prices 2x-5x what competitors charged for identical work. This is a structural business practice concern, not isolated incidents.
• SCHEDULING RELIABILITY IS A SYSTEMIC FAILURE: No-shows, missed appointment windows, lack of proactive communication, and rescheduling without notice are documented in dozens of reviews spanning 2012 to 2025, indicating this is an unresolved operational problem.
• PREDATORY PRICING TOWARD VULNERABLE CUSTOMERS: Multiple reviewers explicitly describe elderly or disabled customers being quoted prices 3x-5x market rate for standard repairs. One review describes a $4,500 labor charge for a warranty part replacement; another describes $3,000 for a coil replacement that competitors charged $300 for.
• RECENCY NOTE: The bulk of reviews with substantive content span 2019-2025, with the most recent cluster from May-June 2025. The negative patterns (scheduling, pricing, upselling) are consistent across the entire date range, suggesting these are not improving over time.
• COMPANY ACQUISITION CONTEXT: Several reviews note that Paschal acquired previously well-regarded companies (Walker AC, Big Bear, Lyerla), and multiple long-term customers of those prior companies report significant service degradation post-acquisition. Some positive reviews in the dataset appear to reference the predecessor companies rather than Paschal directly, which may inflate positive scores.

This WW Score of 58.2 is based on a very large review set and carries HIGH statistical confidence, but should be interpreted cautiously due to confirmed duplicate reviews inflating volume, a significant proportion of blank or generic 5-star reviews suggesting possible review manipulation, and a stark divide between positive individual technician experiences and deeply negative systemic issues around pricing, scheduling, and project completion.

Strittmatter receives a critically low WW Score of 42.3, driven primarily by severe and consistent pricing complaints across 19 reviews, with a score of only 28.0. Customers repeatedly report being quoted exorbitant prices for parts and labor, with multiple instances of markups of 300-500% compared to market rates. Professionalism scores 54.0 across 18 mentions, reflecting mixed experiences: some technicians are described as friendly and knowledgeable, but many reviews cite unprofessional behavior, poor communication, unresponsiveness to callbacks, and aggressive sales tactics. Project completion (48.0, 12 mentions) is undermined by installation defects, incomplete diagnostics, and failure to honor warranty obligations. Experience (62.0, 13 mentions) shows technical capability in some cases but is overshadowed by misdiagnosis, unnecessary upsells, and pressure to replace entire systems when repairs would suffice.

• CRITICAL: Systematic overpricing pattern across 19 reviews spanning 2014-2024. Parts marked up 300-500% above market value; labor charges appear commission-driven rather than service-focused.
• AGGRESSIVE SALES TACTICS: Multiple reviews (at least 8) describe technicians recommending full system replacements ($9,500-$14,000) when simple repairs ($50-$500) resolved the issue. Second opinions consistently contradicted initial diagnoses.
• INSTALLATION QUALITY ISSUES: Several reviews document defective installations (improper AC line placement causing water damage, plenum too small for proper airflow, copper line blocking filter access, wall damage).
• WARRANTY HANDLING: Company charged service fees for warranty claims and failed to return customer calls, violating reasonable customer service expectations.
• COMMISSION-BASED INCENTIVES: Multiple reviews explicitly note technicians appear to work on sales quotas, creating conflict of interest between customer needs and company profit.
• INCONSISTENT SERVICE QUALITY: Stark contrast between 5-star reviews (mostly 2016-2017, praising specific technicians like Chris B, DJ, Justin, OC) and 1-star reviews (concentrated 2018-2024, citing overpricing and poor service). This suggests either significant company decline or highly variable technician quality.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most negative reviews are from 2018 onward; most positive reviews are from 2015-2017. This temporal pattern suggests deterioration in service quality or business practices over time.
• DIAGNOSTIC FEES: Company charges $79 for estimates/diagnostics, then pressures customers into expensive solutions. Competitors offer free estimates, undercutting this practice.

This WW Score of 42.3 is highly reliable (HIGH confidence) due to 28 detailed reviews with consistent patterns of overpricing and sales-driven diagnostics. The score should be trusted as a strong warning signal; the company's business model appears centered on maximizing revenue per service call rather than fair pricing or customer value.