Find Nearby Plumbers In Irving, Texas

Herndon McFarland Plumbing demonstrates strong overall performance across all measured dimensions. Professionalism is a standout strength, with 68 reviews explicitly praising punctuality, courteous behavior, communication, and attention to detail (shoe covers, cleanup, protective coverings). Project completion is consistently reliable, with 55 reviews confirming timely job delivery, thorough follow-through, and willingness to address issues post-completion. Experience and technical skill are well-documented across 38 reviews, particularly for complex slab leak detection and diagnosis. Pricing receives solid marks (82.0) from 22 reviews citing fair value and transparent quotes, though some reviews note higher costs for specialized work. One significant negative review from 2019 regarding unprofessional office conduct and owner defensiveness creates a notable blemish, but this is substantially outweighed by 99 predominantly positive reviews spanning 20 years.

• One strongly negative 1-star review (2019-06-14) describing unprofessional office staff behavior, unauthorized tenant contact, and rude owner response. This contrasts sharply with the overwhelmingly positive pattern but appears to be an isolated incident rather than systemic.
• Multiple reviews with minimal text ('unknown', '.') totaling approximately 10 reviews—these provide 5-star ratings but no substantive data. While they do not contradict the positive pattern, they add little analytical value.
• One 4-star review (2016-08-24) criticizing the practice of sending trainees alongside plumbers, suggesting inconsistent crew composition. This is a legitimate concern but mentioned only once.
• Review from 2014-02-24 mentions potential warranty issue post-repair in master bath, though outcome is unclear. No follow-up complaints found in subsequent reviews.
• Overall pattern shows extremely high concentration of 5-star reviews (approximately 88 of 100). While this is consistent with genuinely excellent service, the near-absence of 2-3 star reviews (only 3 found) is atypical and warrants noting, though no evidence of fake reviews detected—reviews contain specific details, varied language, and realistic problem descriptions.

This WW Score of 87.2 is highly reliable, based on 100 reviews spanning 20 years with strong consistency across all four dimensions and HIGH confidence in three of four categories. The company demonstrates genuine expertise in complex plumbing diagnostics and repair, exceptional professionalism and punctuality, and fair pricing. The single serious negative review from 2019 is a legitimate concern but appears isolated; however, it prevents a higher score. Customers should feel confident in this company's technical capability and service delivery, though the 2019 incident suggests potential office management issues worth clarifying before engagement.

ProCo Plumbing demonstrates strong performance across all measured dimensions. All three reviews explicitly praise professionalism, with consistent mentions of punctuality, responsiveness, and courteous communication. Project completion is consistently highlighted, with multiple complex jobs solved and completed on time. Experience and technical skill are strongly endorsed, particularly for solving difficult problems in older homes. Pricing is mentioned positively in two reviews as fair and affordable, though limited explicit detail on pricing transparency. The small sample size (3 reviews) and moderate recency spread (2023–2024) warrant a MODERATE overall confidence level.

• Sample size is very small (n=3); scores should be considered preliminary and updated as more reviews accumulate
• Two reviews are 5-star ratings with enthusiastic language; third is 3-star but still positive, which adds credibility and reduces concern about fake reviews
• Pricing dimension based on only 2 mentions; more explicit pricing feedback would strengthen confidence in that score
• No negative feedback or complaints present; this is consistent with genuine positive experiences but limits ability to assess weaknesses

This WW Score of 88.3 is moderately reliable for a small contractor with limited review volume; it reflects genuine positive feedback across all dimensions, but should be treated as preliminary pending accumulation of additional reviews (target: 10+ reviews for HIGH confidence).

Jennings Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism with consistently punctual, courteous technicians who communicate well with customers. Technical expertise is solid, with many customers praising knowledgeable staff and quality workmanship. However, pricing concerns emerge in multiple reviews citing costs 25-30% above competitors, and several significant warranty/follow-up issues damage the project completion score. Notable failures include refusing to honor warranty work, poor handling of mistakes, and unresponsiveness to callbacks. While the majority of recent reviews (2024-2025) are highly positive, older reviews reveal systemic problems with accountability and customer service that persist across years.

• DUPLICATE NEGATIVE REVIEWS: The garden faucet leak warranty dispute appears twice (2024-06-09 and 2024-04-05) with nearly identical text, suggesting either a duplicate submission or systematic issue with this specific job type.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS: Multiple reviews (at least 3) explicitly state pricing is 25-30% higher than competitors, with one reviewer noting they felt 'upsold' on unnecessary work.
• WARRANTY/FOLLOW-UP FAILURES: At least 5 reviews document refusal to honor warranty work, poor callbacks, or unwillingness to fix mistakes without additional charges. This is a critical pattern.
• OFFICE STAFF ISSUES: Multiple reviews (at least 4) cite rude, condescending, or unsympathetic phone staff and office manager behavior, contrasting sharply with field technician professionalism.
• NO-SHOW/SCHEDULING PROBLEMS: At least 3 reviews document no-shows, missed appointments, or failure to return calls despite confirmed bookings.
• DIAGNOSTIC ERRORS: Several reviews describe misdiagnosis (e.g., 2017-07-01 review where technician missed a hot water pipe leak and blamed roaches/tiles instead).
• RECENCY BIAS NOTED: Reviews from 2024-2025 are predominantly 5-star with minimal detail, while older reviews (2014-2019) contain more substantive criticism. This may reflect improved operations or selection bias in recent reviews.
• EMPTY REVIEWS: 8 reviews contain no text, only 5-star ratings, reducing data quality.

This WW Score of 78.2 is reliable with HIGH overall confidence due to large sample size (100 usable reviews) and consistent patterns across dimensions. However, the score masks significant operational inconsistencies: field technicians are genuinely professional and skilled, but office operations, pricing transparency, and warranty accountability are weak points. Customers should expect quality work but should negotiate pricing upfront and get warranty terms in writing. The company's willingness to stand behind work appears inconsistent, particularly on complex jobs or warranty claims.

Reeves Family Plumbing has a strong base of loyal, long-term customers who consistently praise the professionalism, punctuality, and friendliness of technicians — particularly DJ, Jordan, and others named across many reviews. However, the score is meaningfully pulled down by a cluster of serious negative reviews that allege billing fraud, hidden charges, misrepresentation of services, failure to complete jobs, and poor office communication. Pricing is the weakest dimension: multiple reviewers explicitly called out overcharging, quotes that tripled in scope, and at least one allegation of unauthorized credit card charges. Project completion is also mixed — while most jobs appear to be finished, several reviews describe incomplete work, no-shows, and failure to honor follow-up commitments. The high volume of glowing 5-star reviews from 2024 featuring the same two technicians (DJ and Jordan) raises a mild flag for review clustering, though the reviews are not identical in phrasing and appear largely genuine.

• REVIEW CLUSTERING WARNING: A disproportionately large number of 5-star reviews from October 2024 (16+ reviews on the same date of 2024-10-12) all mention the same two technicians (DJ and Jordan). While phrasing varies, the volume and date concentration is unusual and may reflect a coordinated review solicitation campaign. Confidence in this cluster is reduced.
• SERIOUS NEGATIVE FLAG — BILLING FRAUD ALLEGATION: One reviewer (2021-04-23) alleges the company charged a credit card without authorization for $3,615 beyond the agreed contract, and states they filed a police report and BBB complaint. This is a severe allegation that significantly impacts the pricing and trustworthiness assessment.
• SERIOUS NEGATIVE FLAG — BILLING TRANSPARENCY: Multiple negative reviews (2023-09-07, 2024-03-13, 2018-01-25, 2023-04-06) describe bait-and-switch pricing, charges for services not performed, and office staff being unresponsive or dismissive when billing disputes were raised.
• INCOMPLETE WORK FLAG: At least two reviews (2016-06-10, 2014-05-15) describe paying for service calls where the core problem was not resolved, and one review (2025-05-10) describes being ignored after the initial job when follow-up issues arose.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of highly positive reviews are from 2024-2025 and are recent. The most serious negative reviews (fraud allegation, billing disputes) are from 2021-2024. Older reviews (pre-2018) are given reduced weight in scoring.
• THREE REVIEWS CONTAINED NO USABLE TEXT ('unknown' or blank) and were excluded from dimension scoring.

This WW Score is based on a large review set with HIGH mention counts across all dimensions, but the score should be interpreted cautiously due to credible and specific allegations of billing fraud, unauthorized charges, and incomplete work that meaningfully offset the strong volume of positive professionalism feedback.

Accu-Find Slab Leak has a strong overall reputation built across many years of reviews, with consistent praise for professionalism, courteous staff, and timely service. The office contact LeAnna and owner Barry are repeatedly cited by name as responsive and communicative, which drives the professionalism score upward. However, two serious negative reviews meaningfully drag down the scores: a 2025 review documenting unglued PVC joints from a 2021 job raises a significant workmanship and quality-control concern under project completion and experience, and a 2014 review describes billing irregularities, inadequate tooling, and poor job management. Pricing receives a mixed signal — several reviews praise fair or reasonable pricing, but at least two explicitly flag the cost as high or expensive, keeping that score conservative. The presence of 6 blank reviews with only star ratings provides no usable data and were excluded from dimension scoring.

• 6 reviews contain no text whatsoever — only a star rating. These were excluded from all dimension scoring as they provide no verifiable evidence of quality.
• Two reviews dated 2019-06-11 and 2019-01-11 contain nearly identical text praising J.R. and the team. This appears to be a duplicate review submitted twice, possibly by the same customer. Only one instance was counted per dimension to avoid inflating scores.
• Two reviews dated 2015-05-11 and 2015-06-12 are also near-identical in content. Same duplication concern applies — only one was counted per dimension.
• The 2025 review (1-star) is the most recent review in the dataset and describes a serious workmanship defect — unglued PVC joints discovered 3 years after a major slab repipe. This is a significant quality flag and was weighted heavily under project completion and experience per recency rules.
• The majority of detailed positive reviews are from 2013–2019, making them 6–12 years old. Only two substantive reviews exist from 2020 onward. Recency weighting reduces confidence that current service quality matches historical praise.
• Several generic 5-star reviews with no detail (e.g., 'Great service from this company.') were noted but not flagged as definitively fake — they are too sparse to score but do not meaningfully inflate results.

This WW Score carries HIGH confidence in terms of mention volume, but prospective customers should weigh the recency gap heavily — the most recent substantive review (2025) is a serious 1-star complaint about defective workmanship, and the bulk of positive evidence is 5–12 years old.

Tempo Air demonstrates strong professionalism and technical expertise, with many customers praising technicians like Randy Newkirk for courtesy, thoroughness, and knowledge. However, the company is significantly undermined by persistent pricing concerns—customers report inflated charges, hidden fees, and aggressive upselling tactics. Project completion issues are notable, with multiple reports of delayed scheduling, missed appointments, multiple technician visits to resolve single issues, and poor follow-up on warranty claims. While individual technicians often perform well, systemic problems in scheduling, communication, and management responsiveness create a pattern of customer frustration that offsets technical competence.

• FAKE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: Multiple reviews (at least 6) are nearly identical word-for-word praise for Randy Newkirk, posted on the same dates (2025-06-08, 2025-06-05, 2025-02-06, etc.). This suggests potential review manipulation or template-based submissions. Confidence in professionalism score reduced accordingly.
• PRICING CONCERNS ARE SYSTEMIC: At least 15 reviews explicitly mention overcharging, hidden fees, inflated service charges, bait-and-switch tactics, and refusal to provide cost breakdowns. This is not isolated—it reflects company policy and practice.
• PROJECT COMPLETION FAILURES: Multiple customers report the same issue requiring 3-7 technician visits, missed appointments without notice, delayed scheduling (6+ days for urgent issues), and failure to honor warranty claims. One customer waited a year with 4 visits before the actual problem was identified.
• MANAGEMENT UNRESPONSIVENESS: Several reviews document managers failing to return calls, providing voicemails instead of actual callbacks, and refusing to address customer complaints or warranty issues.
• QUALITY CONTROL INCONSISTENCY: While many technicians (Randy, Jay, Fernando, etc.) receive high praise, others are reported as dismissive, arrogant, or incompetent. This suggests inconsistent training or hiring standards.
• WARRANTY MISREPRESENTATION: Multiple customers report being told they were covered under warranty, only to be charged when technicians arrived, or being denied warranty coverage after initial assurance.
• RECENCY NOTE: Most positive reviews cluster in early 2025 and late 2024, while negative reviews span 2013–2024, suggesting either recent service improvements or review manipulation. Older reviews (2015–2023) show consistent complaints about pricing and follow-up.

This WW Score of 72.8 should be treated with caution due to suspected review manipulation in the professionalism dimension and a clear bifurcation between technician quality (high) and company operations (low). The score reflects strong individual performance but masks serious systemic issues in pricing transparency, project management, and customer service that appear in nearly 30% of reviews. Customers should expect excellent technical work but should be prepared for aggressive upselling, hidden charges, and potential scheduling difficulties.