Find Nearby Plumbers In Houston, Texas

Ritter Plumbing has a long history of positive reviews praising responsiveness, punctuality, and willingness to go the extra mile, including returning late in the evening to finish jobs and handling emergency calls on weekends. However, professionalism is meaningfully dragged down by a credible 1-star review alleging rude behavior toward potential customers and a serious accusation of replacing functional parts and reselling them. Pricing is the weakest dimension, with two explicit complaints about excessive charges — $475 for a dishwasher line clearing and $750 for less than one hour of pipe replacement — partially offset by several reviews praising reasonable or fair pricing. Project completion scores moderately well, with multiple reviews confirming jobs were finished same-day and follow-through was honored, though the dataset is heavily skewed toward older reviews. The overall picture is a contractor with genuine skill and loyal repeat customers but notable red flags around pricing transparency and at least one serious professionalism concern.

• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: Two reviews dated 2015-09-10 are nearly word-for-word identical (clogged tub drain, first-time customer, Joey came back late in the evening). This is a strong indicator of a fake or artificially duplicated review. One has been discounted in scoring.
• SERIOUS ALLEGATION: One reviewer (2023-12-14) accuses the contractor of calling customers rude names and replacing functional parts to resell them on Facebook Marketplace. This is unverified but specific and credible enough to warrant a significant professionalism penalty.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS: Two separate reviewers explicitly describe feeling ripped off — $750 for under one hour of work and $475 for a dishwasher drain clearing. These are specific, detailed complaints that reduce confidence in pricing fairness.
• RECENCY CONCERN: The majority of reviews are older than 3 years, with many dating back to 2009–2018. Only 4 reviews are from the past 24 months (2023–2025). The contractor's current quality and pricing practices may differ significantly from the historical record.
• 6 REVIEWS HAD NO TEXT: Six reviews contained only a star rating and no written content. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence per scoring rules.
• OVERALL CONFIDENCE REDUCED TO MODERATE due to the duplicate review, serious unverified allegation, recency of most positive reviews, and pricing inconsistency signals.

This WW Score carries moderate reliability — the volume of reviews is adequate but the dataset is heavily weighted toward older reviews, contains a likely duplicate, includes a serious unverified misconduct allegation, and shows a meaningful split on pricing fairness that prevents a high-confidence positive assessment.

Reny's Plumbing has a strong base of positive feedback across professionalism, pricing, and technical skill, with multiple reviewers praising punctuality, fair estimates, and quality workmanship on complex jobs like under-slab repairs and full replumbing. Pricing is a clear strength, with one detailed review showing Reny's quote coming in dramatically lower than a competitor while also correctly diagnosing the actual problem. However, professionalism and project completion scores are meaningfully dragged down by a detailed 1-star review describing a missed appointment, no callback from the owner, and faulty workmanship that resulted in over $1,100 in remediation costs for the customer. One additional review noted slow completion time, further tempering the project completion score. The combination of strong positives and at least one serious, credible negative complaint produces a mid-range score that reflects a contractor with real capability but documented reliability and quality-control concerns.

• One review (2016-01-13) references generic Google review snippets such as 'Overall, best plumbing company!' and 'Best plumbing service!' embedded within the review text — these quoted phrases are suspiciously generic and may reflect astroturfed or low-credibility external reviews, though the surrounding review content appears genuine and specific.
• Several positive reviews (2015-11-24, 2015-12-11 x2) are clustered on nearly identical dates, which could indicate a solicited review campaign around that period. However, the content of each is sufficiently distinct to avoid outright dismissal.
• Most reviews are older than 3 years, with the majority dating from 2014–2016. Only one review is from the past 3 years (2021). Recency is very limited, reducing confidence in how well these scores reflect current performance.
• The serious negative review (2014-10-29) describes a no-show appointment, unresponsive owner, and defective workmanship causing $1,110 in follow-on costs. This is a high-credibility complaint due to its specificity and financial detail and has been weighted accordingly.
• Total review count is low (9 reviews), limiting statistical reliability of all dimension scores despite some dimensions reaching HIGH confidence thresholds by mention count.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability — the mention counts are sufficient to generate HIGH confidence on individual dimensions, but the very small total review pool, the age of most reviews, and the presence of one serious credible negative complaint mean this score should be treated as a directional signal rather than a definitive assessment of current contractor quality.

All three reviews consistently praise professionalism, citing punctuality, politeness, cleanliness, and good communication from both the owner and crew. Pricing is explicitly highlighted as a strength across all reviews, with one reviewer noting a savings of $800 over competitors and another describing the estimate as very reasonable with a military discount offered. Project completion is well-supported, with jobs described as finished on schedule, on time, and with no outstanding issues. Workmanship quality is noted in each review, including a full-house repipe completed in two days, a skilled water heater installation in a challenging attic location, and efficient weekend service. However, the total review count is only 3, which significantly limits the reliability of these scores despite their consistency.

• Only 3 reviews analyzed — this is the minimum threshold for a WW Score calculation. Results should be treated as preliminary and not fully reliable.
• All reviews are 5-star ratings. While the reviews contain specific details and varied language that reduce fake review suspicion, the uniformly perfect ratings with a small sample size warrant caution.
• All reviews are dated between August and December 2022, meaning all data is over 12 months old as of 2024. No recent reviews are available to confirm current service quality.
• No negative feedback or constructive criticism present in any review, which is statistically uncommon even for high-quality contractors. This may reflect selection bias or a limited review pool rather than a flawless track record.

This WW Score carries LIMITED reliability due to the very small sample size of only 3 reviews, all of which are over one year old — prospective customers should seek additional recent reviews before making a hiring decision.

C&R Plumbing receives consistently positive feedback on professionalism, with multiple reviewers highlighting same-day responsiveness, respectful technicians, clear communication, and thorough cleanup after work. Project completion is generally strong, though one review noted a toilet repair required multiple visits before being resolved — a mild concern offset by the fact the company honored a no-extra-charge policy for the repeat visit. Pricing data is thin, based on a single review, but that review praised the company's fair billing practice of not charging for return visits on the same problem. Workmanship appears solid across the reviews that addressed it, with specific mentions of quality lasting and thorough job execution. The overall score is tempered by the very small review pool and the significant age of most reviews.

• Only 6 reviews total — this is a very small sample and the WW Score should be treated with caution.
• 4 of 6 reviews are more than 3 years old, and 3 reviews are more than 5 years old (2011, 2013, 2018). Recent performance cannot be reliably assessed from this data.
• Only 2 reviews fall within the past 12 months relative to the most recent review date (2022). Recency weighting significantly limits confidence.
• One review ('Good.' with a 3-star rating and no detail) provides almost no usable data and may reflect a neutral or mildly dissatisfied experience with no elaboration.
• No fake review patterns detected — reviews vary in detail, tone, and specificity, which is a positive signal.

This WW Score carries LIMITED overall reliability due to a very small review pool of only 6 reviews, the majority of which are significantly outdated, making it difficult to assess the contractor's current quality of service with confidence.

Daniel generally receives positive feedback for being friendly, courteous, and reasonably priced, with several reviewers explicitly praising his pricing and willingness to go beyond the immediate job. However, one notable negative review from 2010 raises a meaningful concern about professionalism — specifically entering a home with dirty shoes, an unkempt appearance, and poor customer service — which meaningfully pulls down the professionalism score. Project completion is generally positive, with reviewers noting jobs were finished and even additional work done at no extra charge, though the dataset is small. The overall score is tempered by the age of most reviews, with the majority being 5 or more years old, and only two reviews from the past 5 years providing current signal.

• RECENCY WARNING: The majority of reviews are significantly older than 1 year. Only 2 reviews are from 2018–2019; the remaining 6 range from 2005 to 2017. This score may not reflect current service quality.
• LOW REVIEW VOLUME: Only 8 reviews total. Scores are based on a small sample and should be treated with caution.
• ONE NEGATIVE REVIEW WITH SPECIFIC DETAIL: The 2-star review from 2010 contains specific, credible complaints (dirty shoes on white carpet, $175 charge for a half-turn of a valve, poor customer service) that meaningfully impact professionalism and pricing scores.
• GENERIC REVIEW FLAGGED: The review 'They did a great job.' (2008) contains no usable detail and was excluded from dimension scoring.
• NO FAKE REVIEW PATTERNS DETECTED: Reviews vary in tone, detail level, and rating, suggesting authentic submissions.

This WW Score carries LIMITED overall reliability due to the small number of reviews, the age of most data points, and one credible negative review that introduces meaningful uncertainty about professionalism and pricing consistency.

People's Plumbing has a deeply mixed record across a large review base spanning roughly 18 years. In recent reviews (2024–2025), professionalism scores are strong, with many customers praising punctuality, communication, and technician courtesy — particularly Matt, Sergio, and Josh. However, a significant cluster of negative reviews — many from the 2016–2022 period but some as recent as 2025 — describe serious failures in project completion, including work that failed shortly after service, refusal to honor warranties beyond 30 days, abandoned jobs through AHS, and technicians leaving without fully resolving issues. Pricing is a notable weak point, with multiple reviewers explicitly calling out excessive markups, inflated labor rates, and charges for fixing the company's own mistakes. Experience scores are buoyed by many positive accounts of skilled diagnosis and problem-solving, but are dragged down by credible accounts of misdiagnosis, poor workmanship, and technicians lacking proper equipment. The overall picture is a company with capable technicians who perform well in direct-hire situations but has a documented pattern of poor accountability, warranty disputes, and pricing transparency issues.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: Two reviews dated 2017-06-15 and two dated 2018-09-22 appear to be near-identical or exact duplicates. These were counted once each for scoring purposes.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: Two reviews dated 2013-09-29 are near-identical. Counted once for scoring.
• RECENCY IMBALANCE: A large portion of reviews (roughly 60+) predate 2023. The most recent 12 months (2024–2025) show a notably more positive trend, but older negative reviews carry significant weight given their specificity and volume.
• AHS/WARRANTY PATTERN: Multiple independent reviewers across different years describe a consistent pattern of People's Plumbing closing AHS claims without completing work, refusing to return, and offering only 30-day warranties. This is a systemic flag, not isolated incidents.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS ARE SPECIFIC AND CREDIBLE: Multiple reviewers cite specific dollar amounts and hourly rate calculations (e.g., $636/hr, $600/hr, $150 charge to fix their own installation error, excessive part markups). These are not vague complaints and significantly reduce the pricing score.
• GENERIC 5-STAR REVIEWS: Several reviews contain only 'unknown' as text with 5-star ratings. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they contain no usable data. This pattern may indicate placeholder or unverified reviews.
• SERGIO CONFLICT: One review (2022) makes a specific and serious allegation against technician Sergio involving theft of a thermostat. A separate review (2020) praises Sergio highly. This conflict is noted but the allegation is treated as a single data point.
• POSITIVE REVIEW CLUSTERING: Multiple 5-star reviews from June 2025 mention the same technician pair (Matt and Todd) within days of each other. While not conclusive, the clustering and similar phrasing warrants mild caution about review authenticity for that specific batch.

This WW Score is based on a large and diverse review set spanning 18 years, giving it HIGH statistical confidence, but the score should be interpreted with caution given the significant volume of detailed negative reviews describing systemic issues with warranty honoring, pricing transparency, and project completion — particularly for customers routed through home warranty programs.