Find Nearby Plumbers In Killeen, Texas

AZ Plumbing's reviews paint a deeply troubled picture across nearly every dimension. Professionalism is the most-mentioned dimension and is dominated by complaints of no-shows, rude office staff, hanging up on customers, and dismissive attitudes — with only a small minority of reviewers praising polite or friendly technicians. Project completion is similarly poor, with repeated accounts of missed appointments spanning days or weeks, incomplete work (e.g., a toilet mounted incorrectly with no callback, a water heater 'fixed' that still had no hot water), and billing for jobs never finished. Experience scores slightly higher because some reviewers acknowledged that when technicians did show up and engage, they occasionally demonstrated competence — but misdiagnoses and incomplete repairs drag this score down significantly. Pricing received limited but negative attention, with one reviewer specifically calling out a lack of itemized invoicing and a charge of nearly $200 for a $18 part and under 5 minutes of labor.

• 14 reviews contain no text — only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence. Several of these blank reviews are 5-star ratings, which inflates the raw star average without contributing meaningful data.
• Two reviews appear to be exact duplicates (same text, same rating, different dates: the 'Jennifer' / rude manager review from 2024-06-09 and 2023-06-29). This may indicate a copy-paste submission or a fake review pattern and has been counted only once for scoring purposes.
• A cluster of blank 5-star reviews with no text, combined with a pattern of highly detailed 1-star reviews, suggests possible artificial inflation of the star rating. Confidence in positive signals is reduced accordingly.
• The majority of substantive positive reviews are from 2022 or earlier, with some dating back to 2016–2019. The most recent reviews (2024–2025) skew heavily negative, suggesting a possible decline in service quality over time. Recency weighting further depresses the score.
• Several reviews explicitly reference being assigned this company through a home warranty or property management company rather than choosing them voluntarily, which may concentrate dissatisfied customers who had no alternative.

This WW Score is based on 35 reviews with usable textual content across a HIGH volume of mentions for the two most heavily weighted dimensions, making the score statistically reliable — however, the strong recency trend toward negative reviews and suspected artificial inflation via blank 5-star ratings means the true current service quality is likely at or below this already low score.

This contractor's review profile is overwhelmingly negative across all four scored dimensions, with 43 of 50 reviews awarding 1 star. Professionalism is the most heavily criticized dimension, with dozens of reviewers explicitly describing rude office staff, repeated no-call no-shows, appointments cancelled without notice, and customers being hung up on — including by individuals identifying themselves as managers or owners. Project completion is nearly as damning, with numerous accounts of abandoned jobs, technicians leaving without finishing work, failing to return for follow-up visits, and work orders being closed out incorrectly. Pricing drew consistent complaints of significant markups on parts, fabricated code requirements used to inflate bills, and charges for permits that were never pulled. Experience scores marginally higher only because a small number of positive reviews praised specific technicians by name, and a handful of negative reviews acknowledged that individual plumbers were competent even while condemning the company overall. The seven positive reviews (all 4–5 stars) are insufficient to meaningfully offset the volume and specificity of negative feedback.

• FAKE REVIEW CONCERN — MODERATE: The seven positive reviews are notably brief, generic, and lack the operational detail present in negative reviews. Phrases like 'top of the line,' 'very professional,' and 'highly recommend' appear without specifics. These reviews cannot be confirmed as inauthentic, but their contrast with the overwhelming negative pattern warrants caution.
• RECENCY WARNING: All reviews date from 2013 to 2018. The most recent review is from December 2018, meaning no data exists from the past several years. Current performance cannot be assessed from this dataset.
• PATTERN FLAG: Multiple reviewers independently report the same specific operational failure — a 10-minute callback window policy that results in appointment cancellation — suggesting a systemic and deliberate company policy rather than isolated incidents.
• PATTERN FLAG: Multiple reviewers report being hung up on by office staff, including by individuals claiming to be managers or owners. This pattern appears across reviews spanning 2013 to 2018, indicating a persistent cultural problem rather than individual employee behavior.
• PATTERN FLAG: Several reviewers report being overcharged for parts and permits, with one reviewer providing detailed price comparisons showing markups of 300–700% on individual components. A separate reviewer reports being charged for a permit the city had no record of being pulled.
• PATTERN FLAG: At least three reviewers note this was their first-ever written review, suggesting the experience was severe enough to motivate first-time reviewers — a signal that negative sentiment may be underrepresented rather than overstated.
• NOTE: One reviewer states that their home warranty company conducted an audit of this contractor and terminated the partnership following investigation. This is a significant third-party red flag.

This WW Score of 28.4 is based on 50 reviews with HIGH mention counts across all four dimensions and should be considered a reliable and conservative reflection of this contractor's documented performance during the 2013–2018 period, though the absence of any reviews after December 2018 means current performance remains unknown.

This contractor receives a critically low WW Score driven by severe professionalism failures documented across multiple reviews, including rudeness, dismissive behavior toward clients, and disrespect to neighbors. Project completion is severely compromised by incomplete work (unstruck doors, nail holes, debris left behind) and failure to honor warranty and callback commitments. Pricing concerns are evident in one review citing high labor charges for limited hours and inflated material markups. The single positive review from 2022 praising responsiveness and knowledge is substantially outweighed by two recent negative reviews (2024 and 2020) detailing unprofessional conduct and poor workmanship. The contractor's use of false BBB credentials further undermines trustworthiness.

• CRITICAL: Contractor displays false BBB membership credentials on vehicle—explicitly stated as unethical misrepresentation per BBR website verification
• PATTERN: Multiple reviews cite unprofessional behavior (rudeness, dismissiveness, disrespect to neighbors and clients)
• INCOMPLETE WORK: Review 1 documents three doors with sticking issues, missing strike plates, nail gun holes in wallpapered panels, and debris left in client's home
• WARRANTY VIOLATION: Contractor advertised 5-year warranty but refused callbacks for defects; client reports contractor immediately sought new work despite claimed 6-week commitment
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most recent review (2024-03-04) is highly detailed and damaging; positive review is from 2022 (nearly 2 years old); middle review from 2020 also negative
• LABOR BILLING DISCREPANCY: Contractor advertises 7am-8pm availability but worked only 10am-4pm on this job while charging premium labor rates
• VULNERABLE CLIENT: Review 1 involves elderly (71), disabled client who was unable to physically remove debris left by contractor—raises ethical concerns about client selection

This score should be treated with caution due to only 3 total reviews, but the consistency of negative findings across two independent recent reviews (2024 and 2020), combined with documented evidence of false credentials and incomplete work, suggests genuine and serious performance issues. The single positive review is substantially older and does not offset the severity of documented failures.

All three reviews are highly positive and mention professionalism, project completion, and experience. Two reviews explicitly address pricing as reasonable or fair. However, the sample size is critically small (n=3), and all reviews are 5-star ratings with limited specific detail about work quality or challenges overcome. The oldest review dates to 2016, creating a significant recency gap. While the contractor demonstrates strong performance across all dimensions, the limited review volume and lack of critical feedback prevent reliable scoring.

• INSUFFICIENT DATA: Only 3 reviews analyzed. WW Score cannot be calculated reliably with fewer than 3 reviews per guidelines, though exactly 3 reviews meet the minimum threshold.
• RECENCY CONCERN: One review is from 2016 (8+ years old), one from 2022 (2 years old), and one from 2023 (recent). Historical data may not reflect current service quality.
• LACK OF CRITICAL DETAIL: All reviews are 5-star with generic praise ('one of the best', 'very good'). No reviews mention challenges, delays, or areas for improvement, which is atypical for a large sample and suggests limited critical feedback.
• SMALL SAMPLE BIAS: With only 3 reviews, a single negative review would dramatically shift scores. Current data is not statistically robust.

This score should be treated with extreme caution due to the very small sample size (n=3) and absence of any critical or negative feedback. The contractor may be excellent, but these three reviews alone cannot reliably establish a trustworthy WW Score. Additional reviews are essential before making high-confidence recommendations.

Only two reviews are available, making any scoring highly unreliable. The 1-star review from November 2021 raises serious concerns about honesty and integrity, with the reviewer alleging deception and threatening escalation to the BBB, media contacts, and other review platforms — though no specific technical or workmanship details are provided. The 5-star review from September 2020 praises responsiveness, pricing, and efficiency, but is brief and lacks specific detail about the work performed. The stark contrast between these two reviews — one extremely negative, one extremely positive — with no middle ground makes it impossible to draw confident conclusions about this contractor's overall quality.

• Only 2 reviews total — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold rules (fewer than 3 reviews).
• The 1-star review alleges dishonesty and misrepresentation by the contractor, including disputed claims about the age of appliances. This is a serious integrity flag that warrants caution.
• The 1-star reviewer states they are a firefighter and veteran and explicitly plans to escalate to the BBB, HomeAdvisor, and CBS News — suggesting a high-confidence, motivated complainant rather than a casual negative review.
• The 5-star review is brief and somewhat generic, lacking specific job details. While not conclusively fake, it cannot be weighted heavily.
• Both reviews are from 2020–2021, meaning all data is over 3 years old. No recent reviews are available to assess current performance.
• Project Completion and Experience dimensions returned NO DATA — neither review explicitly addressed workmanship quality or job completion status.
• The extreme polarity (1-star vs 5-star) with only 2 data points makes scoring highly speculative and should not be used for hiring decisions.

This WW Score report has very low reliability due to an insufficient number of reviews (only 2), significant age of all available data (3+ years old), and a serious unresolved integrity complaint that cannot be verified or contextualized without additional reviews.

Both available reviews are strongly negative, painting a concerning picture of this contractor's professionalism and pricing practices. The first review alleges unethical billing — specifically charging a full hour for a 10-minute job — which directly impacts the pricing dimension. The second review describes rude, dismissive phone behavior including abruptly hanging up on a customer and canceling a scheduled appointment without reasonable accommodation, severely impacting the professionalism score. No reviews mention project completion quality or technical experience, so those dimensions cannot be scored. With only two reviews total, the WW Score cannot be reliably calculated.

• Only 2 reviews available — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Both reviews are 1-star and describe distinctly negative experiences; no positive reviews exist to balance the assessment.
• The most recent review is from August 2022, which is over 2 years old. The other review is from 2015, making both reviews potentially outdated.
• Pricing concern flagged: one reviewer explicitly alleges being charged a full hour of labor for a 10-minute job, suggesting possible unethical billing practices.
• Professionalism concern flagged: one reviewer describes staff abruptly hanging up on a customer and canceling a pre-scheduled appointment without reasonable resolution.

This score report has very low reliability due to an insufficient number of reviews (only 2), significant age of the data (oldest review from 2015, most recent from 2022), and the complete absence of data for two of the four scoring dimensions.