Find Nearby Plumbers In Haltom City, Texas

Trinity Plumbing demonstrates exceptional performance across all four dimensions. Professionalism is the strongest area, with 118 mentions highlighting punctuality, communication, friendliness, and responsiveness from technicians like Jose, Tim, and Alex. Project completion is consistently praised with 97 mentions of same-day service, thorough work, and follow-through on complex jobs including slab leaks and full repiping. Experience is well-documented across 68 mentions, with customers noting technical knowledge, problem-solving ability, and quality workmanship. Pricing receives strong marks (85/100) across 52 mentions, with customers frequently noting fair, honest, and competitive rates. The single 1-star review citing inability to find a problem is an outlier among 151 five-star reviews.

• CRITICAL: Suspected fake review pattern detected. Multiple reviews show identical or near-identical text repeated verbatim across different dates (e.g., Albert reviews repeated twice on 2025-06-03; Jose reviews repeated on 2025-05-10 and 2025-06-09; multiple other duplicates). This suggests potential review manipulation or data duplication.
• Four reviews contain no text content (empty review text with 5.0 rating), which is unusual and may indicate data quality issues.
• Extremely high concentration of 5-star reviews (151 out of 152 reviews). While one 1-star review provides some balance, the 99.3% five-star rate is unusually high and warrants caution.
• Multiple reviews from 2023-06-10 and 2024-06-09 show suspicious clustering with repetitive phrasing and generic praise, suggesting possible batch submission or review farming.
• Despite the fake review concerns, substantive reviews (particularly the detailed 2024-08-25 slab leak review and 2024-07-16 communication review) provide credible evidence of quality service, preventing a lower confidence rating.

This WW Score of 88.2 should be treated with MODERATE-TO-HIGH caution due to confirmed duplicate reviews and suspicious clustering patterns that suggest potential review manipulation; however, the numerous detailed, specific reviews describing complex plumbing work (slab leaks, repiping, emergency response) provide sufficient authentic evidence to support the overall high performance rating, though the true score may be slightly lower than calculated.

Lonnie Bravo Plumbing demonstrates strong overall performance across all four dimensions, with particular strength in technical expertise and professionalism. The contractor is consistently praised for punctuality, honest communication, fair pricing, and quality workmanship across 15 positive reviews spanning multiple years. However, one detailed 1-star review from 2016 documents significant project completion failures including incomplete work requiring multiple callbacks, poor cleanup, and damage to customer property, which materially impacts the project completion score. The overwhelming majority of recent reviews (2019-2024) show consistent excellence, suggesting possible service improvement over time or an isolated negative experience.

• One severe outlier review (1-star, 2016) describes multiple serious failures: incomplete work, property damage, missed appointments, and poor cleanup. This contrasts sharply with 15 five-star reviews and suggests either a significant past incident or potential service inconsistency.
• Review from 2014-12-16 contains only a period (.) with a 4-star rating—insufficient data to analyze.
• Most reviews (13 of 16 usable) are from 2019 or earlier, with only 3 reviews from 2023-2024. Recent data is limited.
• All positive reviews use similar language patterns (e.g., 'professional,' 'on time,' 'fair price,' 'highly recommend'), though this is consistent with genuine contractor satisfaction rather than fabrication, given the detailed specificity in most reviews and the presence of one detailed negative review.

This score should be trusted with caution: while the HIGH confidence reflects substantial positive evidence across multiple dimensions, the single detailed 1-star review documenting serious project failures introduces material uncertainty about consistency and reliability, particularly for complex multi-phase projects. Recent review volume is limited, and the 8-year gap between the negative review and most recent positive reviews makes it unclear whether past issues have been resolved.

All Star Plumbing earns strong marks across professionalism, project completion, and experience, with the vast majority of reviewers praising courteous, knowledgeable technicians who arrive on time and complete jobs thoroughly. Recurring technicians such as Kyle, Manny, Jerry, Anthony, Toan, Bobby, and Johnny are cited repeatedly for going above and beyond, explaining issues clearly, and leaving work areas clean. Project completion is a clear strength, with many reviews noting same-day or next-day service, jobs finished as promised, and follow-through on callbacks. Pricing is the weakest dimension: while many reviewers describe costs as fair or competitive, a meaningful minority of negative reviews cite quotes that were significantly higher than competitors, unexpected charges, or price discrepancies between phone estimates and final invoices. A small but notable cluster of negative reviews also flags instances of no-shows, poor communication, rude behavior, and at least one case of faulty workmanship with no warranty honored, which moderately suppresses the professionalism and project completion scores.

• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: Two reviews with identical text ('Great customer service he did what needed to be done. Our kitchen sink stopped up. Knew exactly what to do.') were posted two days apart (2025-06-06 and 2025-06-08) with the same 5-star rating. This is a likely fake or duplicate submission and was counted only once for scoring purposes.
• REVIEW SCOPE CONCERN: This review set appears to aggregate reviews from multiple distinct All Star Plumbing businesses across different cities and states (Fresno CA, Fairfield CA, Napa CA, Corona CA, Greensboro NC, Minneapolis MN area, Arizona, and others). These are almost certainly separate, unrelated businesses operating under the same or similar name. Scores and narratives may reflect a blended profile of multiple companies rather than a single contractor, significantly reducing the reliability of any aggregate score.
• RECENCY NOTE: Reviews span from approximately 2005 to June 2025. A substantial portion of reviews predate 2022 and reflect business conditions, staff, and ownership that may no longer be current. Recent reviews (2024-2025) are weighted more heavily in scoring but older reviews still influence the aggregate.
• NEGATIVE REVIEW PATTERN: Approximately 20-25 reviews (roughly 5-6% of the total) are 1-2 star ratings citing: price gouging or bait-and-switch pricing, no-shows or failure to return calls, rude or dismissive technicians, faulty workmanship with no warranty honored, and pressure tactics. These are distributed across the review history and are not isolated incidents.
• GENERIC PRAISE PATTERN: A significant number of short reviews (e.g., 'Great service!', 'Professional', 'Excellent and friendly service', 'Best experience') contain no specific detail and cannot be reliably scored. These were excluded from dimension scoring but counted toward total reviews analyzed.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Approximately 10 reviews contained no text (only a star rating). These were excluded from dimension scoring.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large volume of detailed reviews, but its practical reliability is MODERATE-to-LIMITED as a guide for hiring any single contractor, because the review pool almost certainly blends feedback for multiple unrelated businesses operating under the 'All Star Plumbing' name across different states and regions — consumers should verify they are reading reviews specific to their local branch before making a hiring decision.

All State Plumbing and Heating has a strong overall profile driven by consistently praised responsiveness, fast arrival times (often under an hour), and thorough job completion with cleanup. Individual technicians — particularly Patrick, Pauly, and Asim — are repeatedly named and commended for professionalism, friendliness, and technical competence, lending credibility to the positive reviews. However, pricing is a meaningful weak point: multiple reviewers across different time periods explicitly called out charges as exorbitant, overpriced, or lacking transparency, including a flat-rate switch that surprised at least one customer and a disputed $75 'wasted time' charge. Project completion is generally strong but is tempered by several serious complaints including no-shows without notice, failure to return calls, abandoned follow-up work, and at least one instance of a last-minute cancellation on a senior veteran. The score reflects a genuinely capable company with real service gaps that prospective customers should be aware of.

• Two reviews (2024-06-09) describing Asim and the home-building experience use nearly identical structure, phrasing, and section headers ('Reliability and Trustworthiness,' 'Tailored and Considerate Service,' 'Reliable Partner') — these appear to be duplicate or coordinated reviews and were down-weighted accordingly.
• A cluster of 6 reviews all share the exact same date (2025-05-10) and are all 5-star — while some contain specific technician names and details, the concentration warrants mild caution.
• Several reviews appear to reference different geographic locations or different business entities (e.g., Kernersville NC, references to 'Dave,' 'Paul,' 'Billy,' 'Michael M.' alongside the CT-based Asim/Pauly/Patrick crew) — it is possible this Google listing aggregates reviews from multiple locations or a formerly shared business name, which reduces score reliability.
• One 1-star review (2021-10-28) from a self-identified senior veteran describes a last-minute cancellation and refusal to wait for insurance payment — this is a significant project completion and professionalism concern.
• One 1-star review (2019-09-20) describes a technician doing minimal work, charging $150 for a shower that still did not work, and the company subsequently refusing to answer calls or return messages — a serious unresolved callback failure.
• One 1-star review (2020-08-19) reports two consecutive no-shows with no communication — a clear professionalism and reliability failure.
• One 1-star review (2019-08-09) describes a quote that was promised and never delivered, forcing the customer to hire a competitor.
• One 1-star review (2019-11-22) describes a no-show with no call or text on the day of service.
• Pricing complaints span multiple years (2020, 2021, 2025) suggesting a persistent pattern rather than isolated incidents — the pricing score was reduced accordingly.
• Reviews older than 3 years (pre-2022) were given reduced weight; reviews from 2025 and 2024 were weighted most heavily as they reflect current service quality.

This WW Score is based on a large review set (78 reviews) spanning over a decade, with strong mention counts across all four dimensions, yielding HIGH confidence — however, the score should be interpreted with caution given credible patterns of no-shows, unresolved callbacks, pricing complaints, and at least two suspected coordinated or duplicate reviews.

Mike and his team demonstrate consistently strong professionalism across a very large review base, with the vast majority of reviewers praising punctuality, politeness, cleanliness, and communication. Pricing is frequently described as reasonable and fair, with multiple reviewers noting transparent estimates and no surprise charges. However, project completion is meaningfully dragged down by a recurring and well-documented pattern of non-responsiveness: at least 15 distinct reviews describe Mike failing to return calls, not showing up for scheduled appointments, or going silent after initial contact — this is a significant and credible concern that cannot be dismissed. Experience and workmanship scores are high, with reviewers frequently citing quality craftsmanship, problem-solving ability, and 40+ years of experience, but the responsiveness and follow-through failures prevent a higher overall score.

• RESPONSIVENESS FAILURE PATTERN: At least 15 reviews explicitly describe Mike failing to return calls, missing scheduled appointments, or disappearing after initial contact. This is a consistent, multi-year pattern spanning 2011–2023 and significantly impacts the project completion score.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Only 1 review is dated within the past 12 months (April 2023). The vast majority of reviews are from 2009–2020, meaning the current quality and reliability of this contractor cannot be confidently assessed from recent data.
• CALLBACK FAILURE REVIEWS: Reviews dated 2011-09-13, 2012-01-12, 2012-07-11, 2012-10-09, 2013-05-29, 2013-08-10, 2014-10-21, 2015-05-13, 2015-12-01, 2016-06-30, 2017-04-29, 2017-06-08, 2020-09-29 all describe being ignored or stood up — this is not isolated and represents a structural reliability issue.
• ONE REVIEW (2012-05-18) alleges that a positive review was written by a relative of Mike's, which if true would indicate review manipulation. This cannot be verified but is noted as a flag.
• MINOR FAKE REVIEW RISK: A small number of reviews are extremely brief and generic (e.g., 'Well done.', 'unknown', 'Do hire Mike.', 'Excellent and punctual and professional') with no specifics. These are low-information reviews and were weighted conservatively.
• PROJECT COMPLETION CAVEAT: One review (2014-10-28) explicitly states Mike did not return to fix a caulking job that failed, requiring another company to correct the work. This is a direct project completion failure.

This WW Score is based on a very large review set spanning over a decade and carries HIGH statistical confidence in the scoring dimensions, but the score should be interpreted with caution given the well-documented and recurring pattern of non-responsiveness, the near-total absence of recent reviews, and at least one confirmed instance of incomplete follow-through on a failed repair.

Milestone's technicians are consistently praised for professionalism, punctuality, courtesy, and clear communication, driving a strong professionalism score across a very large number of reviews. However, pricing is a serious and recurring concern: multiple low-rated reviews explicitly cite quotes that were double or more the market rate, aggressive upselling, and at least one instance of a customer feeling deceived, pulling the pricing dimension down significantly. Project completion is generally positive with many jobs described as thorough and complete, but is tempered by notable failures including repeated no-show appointments, a post-repipe leak charged under warranty, and a billing dispute after membership cancellation. Experience scores well overall given the volume of reviews praising technical knowledge and problem-solving, but is offset by at least one review describing a junior technician who misdiagnosed a problem and provided wildly inflated quotes.

• HIGH VOLUME OF BLANK REVIEWS: Approximately 15 reviews contain no text whatsoever — only a 5-star rating. These provide no usable data and inflate the apparent star rating without substantive evidence. They have been excluded from dimension scoring.
• POTENTIAL FAKE OR INCENTIVIZED REVIEWS: A large cluster of reviews dated exactly 2025-05-10 and 2025-06-07 through 2025-06-09 share nearly identical structure (technician name + brief praise), all rated 5.0. While some contain specific details, the volume and date clustering raises concern about possible review solicitation campaigns or batch submissions.
• PRICING RED FLAGS: At least 4 reviews explicitly describe quotes that were 2x to 3x higher than competitor prices (e.g., $2,400 vs $900 for a fan motor; $1,600 to mount a charger; $13,000–$30,000 for a unit replacement vs a warranted part; $7,500–$8,000 electrical quote vs $500 DIY fix). This is a strong and consistent pattern of overpricing complaints.
• UPSELLING COMPLAINTS: Multiple reviews (including a 5-star reviewer) note that Milestone consistently attempts to upsell additional services, sometimes aggressively or with alarming framing about home safety.
• REPEATED NO-SHOW INCIDENTS: One detailed review documents three consecutive Saturday no-shows with management denying responsibility despite Ring camera evidence. This is a significant project completion and professionalism failure.
• WARRANTY AND BILLING DISPUTES: Two separate reviews describe being charged for work that should have been covered under warranty, and one describes continued billing after a membership was cancelled despite multiple calls to resolve it.
• RECENCY NOTE: Three reviews are from 2017 and one from 2022. These have been given reduced weight. The majority of reviews are from 2024–2025 and are considered current.
• SCORE SUPPRESSION APPLIED: Due to the volume of blank reviews, the pricing complaint pattern, and the no-show/warranty dispute incidents, scores have been conservatively adjusted downward from what raw positive-review volume alone might suggest.

This WW Score is based on a large review set (155 total, 127 with usable data) and carries HIGH overall confidence in its directional accuracy — Milestone performs well on technician professionalism and experience but has a documented and consistent pattern of pricing complaints and occasional serious service failures that meaningfully reduce the composite score.