Find Nearby Plumbers In Keller, Texas

All Phase Plumbing demonstrates consistently strong professionalism across a very large review base, with dozens of reviewers explicitly praising punctuality, communication, courteous demeanor, and responsiveness — including same-day and emergency callbacks. Pricing is generally described as fair, reasonable, and competitive, with multiple reviewers noting they compared quotes and found All Phase to be the best value; however, a small number of reviews noted prices came in higher than initially anticipated or that estimates were not provided before work began, which tempers the pricing score modestly. Project completion is strong overall, with the vast majority of jobs described as finished on time and thoroughly, though a handful of reviews note instances of no-shows, canceled appointments, or a job that could not be fully completed due to missing parts — with a return visit required. Technical experience and workmanship are praised extensively, with reviewers highlighting skilled diagnostics, creative problem-solving on complex jobs, and high-quality results across a wide range of plumbing work including repiping, water heater installation, sewer line repair, and gas line work. Three negative reviews (1-star and low-star) describe responsiveness failures, a no-show, and one disputed damage claim, which are factored into the scores as meaningful but minority signals against an otherwise very positive record.

• 25 reviews contain no text — only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence.
• Several reviews appear to be near-duplicate submissions: two reviews dated 2023-02-23 are nearly word-for-word identical, and two reviews dated 2020-01-21 and 2020-06-10 are also near-identical. These were counted as single data points to avoid score inflation.
• The review corpus spans approximately 20 years (2004–2025). A significant portion of reviews predate 2020, meaning recency weighting applies — older reviews carry less weight in scoring. The most recent reviews (2024–2025) remain consistently positive.
• Three negative reviews (1-star: no-show with no callback for elderly customer; 1-star: stonewalled for a month with no follow-through; 1-star: drain job canceled day-of with implausible excuse) represent a meaningful minority signal of responsiveness and reliability failures and are reflected in the project completion and professionalism scores.
• One 3-star review describes a plumber causing ceiling damage and refusing to accept responsibility — this is a workmanship integrity concern factored into the experience score.
• One 4-star review notes a job was completed but the drain could not actually be cleared — a partial completion signal factored into project completion.
• One 4-star review notes the final price exceeded the quoted range and the technician arrived outside the stated window — factored into pricing and professionalism scores.
• One 4-star review describes an initial poor customer service interaction (ignored calls, hung up) before the company eventually responded and resolved the issue — factored into professionalism.
• Overall review sentiment is overwhelmingly positive (5-star), which is consistent with a genuinely high-performing contractor but also warrants standard caution. No strong fake review pattern detected — reviews contain specific names, job details, and varied language, lending authenticity.

This WW Score is based on a very large, multi-year review dataset with high mention counts across all four dimensions, making it one of the more reliable assessments possible — however, users should note that a small but real minority of reviews describe serious responsiveness and follow-through failures, and that recency of some negative signals (2016–2020) suggests these may reflect past rather than current performance.

Mainline Plumbing demonstrates strong overall performance across all dimensions. Professionalism is a clear strength with 98 mentions highlighting punctuality, communication, politeness, and responsiveness—particularly praised for same-day service and emergency availability. Project completion is consistently reliable with 89 mentions showing jobs finished on time and follow-through honored. Experience and technical skill are well-documented across 76 mentions, with customers noting knowledgeable technicians who diagnose problems accurately and explain work clearly. Pricing is the relative weak point with 32 mentions; while many customers praise fair and competitive rates, a notable subset explicitly wished prices were lower or felt charged unfairly for quick jobs. A small number of older reviews (2014–2018) document serious failures in diagnosis and follow-up communication, though recent reviews (2025) show consistent excellence.

• Pricing dimension has notably fewer mentions (32) than other dimensions, suggesting price concerns are less frequently discussed but may be underrepresented in the score.
• Five reviews (ratings 1–2 stars) document significant service failures: misdiagnosis of frozen pipes vs. well pump failure (2018), failure to follow up on scheduled appointments (2021), poor communication after initial assessment (2021), inability to resolve issue after months of work (2016), and owner rudeness (2016). These are isolated but serious.
• One review (2024-06-09, 2-star) describes a disabled senior customer allegedly being 'thrown under the bus' due to fear of confrontation with another contractor—a serious allegation of abandonment.
• Three blank/minimal reviews (5-star, no text) contribute to score but provide no substantive data.
• Recency bias noted: vast majority of reviews are from 2024–2025 (recent 12 months), with older reviews (2013–2018) showing more variability in quality. Recent reviews are overwhelmingly positive (5-star).
• No evidence of fake review patterns detected; reviews contain specific names, detailed scenarios, and varied language. Consistency appears genuine rather than fabricated.

This WW Score of 84.2 is highly reliable for recent service expectations (2024–2025), supported by 176 reviews with strong mention counts across all dimensions. However, the score masks a small but documented history of serious failures in diagnosis and communication (2014–2021), suggesting caution for complex diagnostic work. Pricing remains a legitimate concern for cost-sensitive customers despite overall fairness claims. The company's recent track record is excellent, but past failures warrant acknowledgment.

Jason the Plumber demonstrates strong performance across all four dimensions with consistently high marks for professionalism, pricing, project completion, and technical expertise. The overwhelming majority of reviews (34 of 36) are 5-star ratings praising punctuality, courteous communication, fair pricing, quality workmanship, and reliable follow-through. Two negative reviews (1-star ratings from 2019 and 2015) cite billing disputes and missed callbacks, which moderately impact the overall score. The business shows particular strength in emergency responsiveness, weekend availability, and honest customer interactions. Most reviews are older than 12 months, with the most recent substantive feedback from 2023.

• Review age concern: 28 of 36 reviews are from 2019 or earlier; only 2 reviews from 2023. Recent performance data is limited.
• Naming inconsistency: Reviews reference 'Jason the Plumber,' 'Advantage Plumbing,' and individual technician names (David, Jeremy, Maria, Anthony). One 2023 review explicitly states 'There is no Jason, it's Advantage Plumbing,' suggesting possible business name change or rebranding.
• Two negative reviews (1-star, 2019 and 2015) break the otherwise uniform 5-star pattern. The 2019 review alleges unexpected trip charges and poor communication on multi-item jobs. The 2015 review reports no-show/no-callback after initial commitment.
• Potential review clustering: 13 consecutive 5-star reviews from 2018-2020 with highly detailed, specific narratives (not generic praise) suggests authentic customer experiences rather than fake reviews. Language varies significantly across reviews.
• One review (2016-08-12) is exceptionally long and detailed with specific technical critiques and comparisons to competitors, indicating genuine customer research and evaluation.

This WW Score of 84.2 is reliable but should be interpreted with caution regarding current performance: the HIGH confidence rating is based on substantial mention counts (20-28 per dimension), but 78% of reviews predate 2020, making recent service quality assessment difficult. The two negative reviews and business name ambiguity warrant direct verification before hiring. The score reflects strong historical performance with some documented service failures.

Arco Plumbing earns strong marks across all four dimensions, with professionalism being the most consistently praised attribute — punctuality, courtesy, shoe covers, cleanup, and clear communication appear repeatedly across decades of reviews. Project completion is also well-supported, with the vast majority of reviewers confirming jobs were finished as promised, callbacks were honored, and follow-through was reliable; however, two notable negative reviews (a 1-star sump pump failure with no callback, and a 1-star job abandonment citing the work was 'too much') prevent a higher score. Pricing receives a moderately positive but mixed score: many reviewers call prices fair or competitive, but several explicitly note Arco is on the higher end or not the cheapest option, and one reviewer rated them 3 stars specifically citing high prices. Experience scores well, with numerous reviewers citing skilled diagnostics, problem-solving on old or unusual plumbing, and technical knowledge — though one critical review alleged the company could not read architectural drawings and installed an undersized sump pump. One review (Westmont Plumbing, 1-star) appears to reference a different company entirely and was excluded from scoring.

• One review (1-star, Westmont Plumbing) references a completely different company and was excluded from scoring as it does not appear to be about Arco Plumbing.
• Two reviews appear to be near-identical duplicates: the tankless water heater review dated 2023-06-10 and 2022-12-29 share nearly identical text, suggesting a copy-paste or system duplication — treated as one data point.
• Two reviews dated 2019-03-26 are word-for-word identical, suggesting a duplicate submission — treated as one data point.
• Approximately 13 reviews contain no text (blank or 'unknown'), providing no usable data for any dimension — these were excluded from scoring.
• One review (2001-05-06) is over 20 years old and carries negligible weight under recency rules.
• A significant portion of reviews (roughly 40+) are dated before 2022, meaning recency weighting reduces their influence on the final score.
• The 1-star sump pump review (2010-07-25) describes a serious safety failure — undersized pump installed and no callback after basement flooding — which is a meaningful flag for project completion and experience despite its age.
• The 1-star job abandonment review (2016-10-25) describes the company backing out of a $3,200 committed job and being rude — a meaningful flag for professionalism and project completion reliability.
• No strong pattern of fake reviews detected; most positive reviews include specific names, job types, and details. Generic praise reviews exist but are a minority.

This WW Score is based on a large volume of reviews spanning over a decade and carries HIGH overall confidence, though users should note that a small number of serious negative experiences — including a post-job abandonment, a sump pump failure with no follow-up, and pricing concerns — prevent a top-tier score and suggest occasional inconsistency in service delivery.

Anderson Plumbing demonstrates strong overall performance across a very large review base spanning many years and what appears to be multiple locations or franchises operating under the same name. Professionalism is the most frequently praised dimension, with dozens of reviewers citing punctuality, courteous technicians, clear communication, and clean workmanship. Project completion scores are solid but are meaningfully dragged down by a recurring pattern of no-shows, abandoned jobs, and at least one case of faulty workmanship requiring a third-party fix — these negative signals are explicit and credible. Pricing receives mixed signals: many reviewers praise fair or below-market rates, while a notable cluster of negative reviews specifically cite hidden charges, misquoted prices, and billing for invoice-writing time, reducing confidence in consistent pricing transparency. Experience scores are generally high, with many reviewers praising diagnostic accuracy and problem-solving, though a handful of reviews describe technicians who failed to identify root causes or created new problems, preventing a higher score.

• MULTI-ENTITY CONCERN: Reviews reference a very large number of different named technicians (Sam, Neil, Chris, Greg, Mark, Andrew, Justin, Francisco, Richard, Carson, Andre, Jimmy, James, Norbert, Caleb, Ryan, Wes, Dale, Zane, Pat, Craig, Gilbert, Bill, Tim, Tony, and others) across dates spanning 2004–2025. This strongly suggests these reviews aggregate multiple distinct Anderson Plumbing businesses in different cities/states rather than a single contractor. Scores should be interpreted with caution as they may not reflect any one business accurately.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK — UNDATED REVIEWS: Approximately 20+ reviews have no date (Date: None). Several of these are extremely brief and generic (e.g., 'Great work and great price!', 'I highly Recommend them and will definitely be using them again.', 'These gentlemen were the absolute best.'). These undated reviews lack specifics and may inflate positive sentiment. Confidence in undated reviews is reduced.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews with dates fall between 2020 and 2025, with a meaningful tail going back to 2004. Reviews older than 3 years (pre-2022) may not reflect current service quality and have been weighted less heavily in scoring.
• PRICING INCONSISTENCY FLAG: Multiple explicit negative reviews describe hidden charges, billing for travel/invoice time, misquoted prices, and charges significantly above initial estimates. Two reviews describe being charged $400+ more than quoted without authorization. This creates a meaningful downward pressure on the pricing score despite many positive pricing mentions.
• PROJECT COMPLETION NEGATIVES: At least 6 reviews describe explicit no-shows or abandoned work (2010, 2016, 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024). One review describes faulty installation of a p-trap that failed twice and was installed backwards. One review describes a PRV installation that broke and was never remedied. These are serious completion failures that materially reduce the project completion score.
• WORKMANSHIP NEGATIVES: At least 3 reviews describe technicians who failed to diagnose the correct problem, with a subsequent plumber identifying the real issue. One review describes a technician who created a new leak while fixing another. These reduce the experience score from what would otherwise be very high.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Approximately 20 reviews contain no text, only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring but counted in total reviews analyzed. Several blank 1-star and 2-star reviews suggest dissatisfied customers who did not elaborate.

This WW Score is based on a very large review corpus (296 reviews) with HIGH mention counts across all four dimensions, giving the score strong statistical weight; however, reliability is meaningfully reduced by the strong likelihood that these reviews represent multiple distinct businesses operating under the Anderson Plumbing name across different cities and states, by a recurring pattern of no-show and pricing complaints that are explicit and credible, and by a cluster of undated generic reviews that may artificially inflate positive sentiment.

The WW Score of 73.3 reflects mixed performance across a very small sample of reviews. Professionalism is supported by positive mentions of responsiveness and politeness (3 mentions), but one critical failure involving a missed appointment severely impacts project completion scoring (2 mentions). Experience/workmanship is rated favorably where mentioned (2 mentions), with references to quality technicians and professional service. However, the sample size is extremely limited (only 3 reviews), and the oldest reviews date back to 2016-2019, raising recency concerns. No pricing information was provided in any review.

• CRITICAL: Only 3 reviews analyzed — insufficient for reliable scoring. WW Score should be treated as preliminary only.
• RECENCY ISSUE: Two of three reviews are from 2016 and 2019 (5-8 years old). Only one review is from 2022. Current performance cannot be reliably assessed.
• SEVERE INCIDENT: One 1-star review documents a missed appointment with poor communication (no-show until 1:30 PM after 2-hour window promised). This directly contradicts claims of responsiveness in other reviews.
• CONFLICTING DATA: Reviews 1 and 2 praise responsiveness and professionalism; Review 3 documents failure on both counts. This inconsistency suggests either significant service variability or that performance has degraded over time.
• NO PRICING DATA: Dimension 'Price Friendly' cannot be scored — no reviews mention pricing, value, or affordability.

This WW Score has LIMITED reliability due to a sample size of only 3 reviews, significant age of 2 reviews (5-8 years), and conflicting evidence regarding professionalism and punctuality. The score should not be used for major decisions without additional recent reviews.