Find Nearby Plumbers In Killeen, Texas

All five reviews speak positively to BDL Plumbing's responsiveness, friendliness, and communication, driving a strong professionalism score. Pricing is explicitly praised across four reviews, including one detailed account where BDL came in at less than half a competitor's quote and reduced the bill further when the scope changed — a notable integrity signal. Project completion is well-supported: jobs were finished on the same visit, including problems a prior plumber had failed to resolve. Technical skill and problem-solving ability are highlighted in multiple reviews, particularly the dishwasher installation and the slab-leak investigation, where Larry demonstrated practical knowledge and honest assessment over upselling.

• All 5 reviews are 5-star ratings with no negative feedback of any kind — this warrants mild caution, though the reviews do contain specific names, job details, and narrative depth that reduce the likelihood of fabrication.
• Review dates span from 2018 to 2022; three of the five reviews are more than 3 years old (pre-2022), and none are within the past 12 months of a typical 2024 analysis window. Recency is limited and the contractor's current performance cannot be confirmed from this dataset.
• Only 5 total reviews are available, which is a small sample size. Scores should be treated as directionally positive but not statistically robust.

This WW Score is directionally trustworthy given the specificity and consistency of the reviews, but should be treated with moderate caution due to the small sample size of 5 reviews and the fact that all available reviews are at least 2 years old.

My Plumbing Company earns strong marks across all four dimensions based on a large and diverse review pool spanning 2012–2025. Professionalism scores are tempered by a recurring and notable pattern of complaints about rude or unprofessional administrative/office staff — specifically named individuals 'Jamie' and 'Jaime' — appearing across multiple independent reviews, which meaningfully drags down an otherwise strong field performance. Pricing receives the lowest score due to a meaningful minority of reviewers explicitly describing charges as excessive, outrageous, or unfair, including specific dollar amounts cited as unreasonable; this counterbalances the majority who praised affordability. Project completion scores well overall, with most reviewers confirming jobs were finished correctly and on time, though one detailed 2-star review documents incomplete work, poor follow-through, and disputed scope — reducing confidence in perfect execution. Experience scores are strong, with many reviewers praising technical knowledge, problem-solving, and quality of workmanship across a wide variety of job types.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: Two reviews with nearly identical text ('Don and his staff at My Plumbing Company are the most trustworthy company I have ever worked with in South Florida...') were submitted on consecutive dates (2024-03-08 and 2024-03-09) — treated as a single data point to avoid score inflation.
• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: Two reviews with identical text ('Extremely happy with my experience. From my initial call to the actual service...') appear to have been submitted on the same date — treated as a single data point.
• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: Two reviews with nearly identical text about Bill clearing a kitchen faucet cold water line blockage appear to be the same reviewer submitting twice — treated as a single data point.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Six reviews contain no text content (only a 5-star rating). These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence per Rule 1, though they are counted in total reviews analyzed.
• RECENCY NOTE: A significant portion of reviews (approximately 35%) are dated prior to 2022, some as far back as 2012. More recent reviews (2022–2025) are weighted more heavily in scoring. The business appears to have changed ownership or operational structure over time, with different staff names appearing across eras.
• BUSINESS MODEL CHANGE: The most recent review (2025-03-11) notes the company no longer offers residential service calls, which may affect the relevance of this score for future residential customers.
• STAFF INCONSISTENCY: Reviews reference a wide variety of named technicians and owners (Mike, Brandon, Bill, Don, Byron, Bryon, Tyler, Joie, Lee, Chris, Dan, Jett, Michael Young), suggesting either multiple franchise locations, business name reuse, or aggregated reviews from different entities operating under similar names. This reduces the reliability of the score as a unified company assessment.
• PRICING CONCERN: Multiple independent reviewers across different time periods explicitly describe pricing as excessive or outrageous, with specific complaints about charges of $178, $189, $279, and $800 for relatively minor jobs. This is a genuine and recurring negative signal, not an isolated complaint.
• ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF COMPLAINTS: At least 4 independent reviews specifically call out rude or unprofessional behavior from office/administrative staff (named Jamie/Jaime), representing a consistent and credible pattern that negatively impacts the professionalism score.
• ONE SUSPICIOUS REVIEW: The 1-star review from a person claiming to be the reviewer's sister (not a direct customer) and the 1-star review about a company vehicle driving erratically are noted as indirect or third-party complaints — weighted at reduced impact but not excluded, as they reflect on company conduct.

This WW Score is based on a large review pool (97 reviews) with HIGH confidence across all four dimensions, but reliability is moderately reduced by evidence of duplicate submissions, possible multi-location review aggregation under one business name, a meaningful cluster of pricing complaints, and a consistent pattern of administrative staff unprofessionalism that the field work quality alone cannot fully offset.

CM Plumbing has a strong overall reputation built on consistent responsiveness, same-day service, and friendly customer interactions across a large volume of reviews spanning over a decade. Professionalism scores well in the majority of reviews but is meaningfully dragged down by several serious negative incidents: a worker accused of peering into a bedroom window, a no-show appointment with a full voicemail box, repeated lateness, a gas leak left after a repair, a disputed and potentially dishonest diagnosis of a toilet flange, and one reviewer citing unprofessional work at an overpriced rate. Pricing is generally praised as fair and reasonable, but two reviews cite overcharging and one describes a grossly inflated estimate for unnecessary work, preventing a higher score. Project completion is solid — most jobs are described as finished same-day and efficiently — but the gas leak callback failure, the no-show, and the disputed home warranty contractor incident introduce meaningful risk. Experience scores moderately well given praise for technical competence and problem-solving, but the gas leak left after a fitting replacement and the misdiagnosed toilet flange are serious quality red flags that temper confidence.

• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: Two reviews dated 2024-07-15 (23:09 and 23:11) are word-for-word identical, praising Franklin and Samuel. This is a strong indicator of a fake or artificially boosted review. One instance was excluded from scoring.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: Two reviews attributed to Josh and his spouse about a broken attic water line (one dated 2019-12-31, one dated 2020-06-10) are nearly word-for-word identical. Likely the same reviewer posting twice or a planted review.
• SERIOUS SAFETY CONCERN: One reviewer (2020-10-05) alleges a CM Plumbing worker was caught peeping into her bedroom window. This is an unverified but serious allegation that prospective customers should be aware of.
• SAFETY CONCERN: One reviewer (2018-06-11) reports a gas leak was left after a fitting replacement, discovered 5 days later. The company's response was reportedly only 'I'm sorry.' This represents a significant workmanship and safety failure.
• DISHONEST DIAGNOSIS ALLEGATION: One reviewer (2020-06-10) reports being quoted $680 for a toilet flange replacement that turned out to be a $4 wax ring fix, suggesting a potentially fraudulent or grossly incompetent diagnosis.
• NO-SHOW / RELIABILITY FAILURE: One reviewer (2015-12-22) reports a scheduled 7am appointment where no one showed and the voicemail was full. Another reviewer (2017-03-07) reports significant lateness and a $300/hour effective labor rate.
• REVIEW SPAN WARNING: Many reviews date back to 2011–2020. While volume is high, a significant portion of reviews are older than 3 years. Recent reviews (2023–2024) are more positive and suggest possible improvement, but older negative patterns should not be dismissed.
• OVERPRICING COMPLAINT: One reviewer (2020-08-10) describes $350 for one hour of work as steep and unprofessional. Another (2017-03-07) calculated an effective rate of ~$300/hour. These are outliers but notable.
• UNVERIFIED THIRD-PARTY COMPLAINT: The lengthy 1-star review (2020-03-05) appears to be primarily a complaint about First American Home Warranty, not directly about CM Plumbing's workmanship. It was given reduced weight but noted for the allegation that a CM Plumbing technician misrepresented the cause of damage.

This WW Score is based on a high volume of reviews (62 total) spanning 13 years and carries HIGH statistical confidence in its dimensions, but prospective customers should weigh the serious qualitative flags — including a safety allegation, a confirmed gas leak callback failure, a suspected fraudulent diagnosis, and duplicate reviews — which meaningfully limit how much the numerical score alone should be trusted.

Rabroker receives strong and consistent praise across professionalism, technical skill, and project completion, with numerous reviewers specifically naming technicians and describing courteous, knowledgeable, and timely service. Project completion scores well overall, with most jobs described as fully finished and followed up on, though one long-standing complaint about incorrect zone installation and ongoing problems with a purchased unit introduces meaningful concern. Pricing is a mixed dimension: several reviewers praised fair or competitive pricing and transparency, while two reviews explicitly complained about excessive charges — one citing over $500 for a coolant refill and another alleging charges for work not performed on an elderly customer. Professionalism is similarly strong in the majority of reviews but is tempered by a phone hang-up complaint, a missed appointment window, and a rude technician report, preventing a top-tier score. The volume and specificity of reviews across multiple years provide reasonable confidence in these scores.

• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The review dated 2025-05-10 and the review dated 2024-07-07 are word-for-word identical. This is a strong indicator of a duplicated or potentially fake review. One instance was excluded from scoring to avoid double-counting.
• 15 reviews contain no text — only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable qualitative data.
• One review references a date of 'June 2071' which is clearly a typo (likely 2017 or 2019). The review content was treated as valid but the date was disregarded for recency weighting.
• PRICING CONCERN: One reviewer explicitly alleged that the company charges elderly customers for work not performed (1-star, 2024). Another complained of a $500+ charge for coolant on a Sunday call (1-star, 2018). These are serious allegations that meaningfully reduce the pricing score.
• WORKMANSHIP CONCERN: One reviewer (1-star, 2020) stated that two independent HVAC companies assessed Rabroker's original installation as poor quality, with incorrect zone assignments. This is a notable quality flag.
• RECENCY NOTE: A significant portion of detailed reviews are from 2022 and earlier. Reviews from 2024–2025 are present but fewer in number. The most recent negative review (2024) alleges elder financial exploitation, which is a serious and recent concern.
• Several 5-star reviews are very brief and generic (e.g., 'Best company ever.', 'Great, prompt service', 'Wonderful people just makes you feel so welcome...'). While not conclusively fake, these add limited evidentiary value and were weighted minimally.

This WW Score is based on a substantial volume of reviews with usable text across multiple years, giving it reasonable reliability, but it should be interpreted with caution due to the presence of serious unresolved allegations regarding overcharging and poor installation quality, a confirmed duplicate review, and a large number of content-free star-only submissions.

Colony Home demonstrates strong professionalism and technical expertise, particularly in water damage restoration and insurance claim navigation. However, the company shows significant inconsistency in project completion and pricing transparency. While many reviews praise timely completion and quality workmanship, several critical reviews document serious failures including missed deadlines, incomplete work, property damage, and unethical subcontractor practices (silica contamination, unlicensed workers). Pricing concerns emerge around hidden charges, payment collection before service completion, and disputes over fair pricing. The company excels when handling insurance-backed projects but struggles with direct customer relationships and accountability.

• CRITICAL: Multiple reviews document serious safety and legal violations including unlicensed/uninsured subcontractors, silica contamination (OSHA violation), and ongoing litigation. Two separate customers report silica poisoning from granite work by unvetted subcontractors.
• CRITICAL: Pattern of property damage with owner refusing accountability—ceiling damage from plumber, drain line damage, and multiple instances of incomplete work or damage denial.
• CRITICAL: Inconsistent payment practices—customers report being charged before work completion, charged by both insurance and customer simultaneously without resolution, and disputes over service fees.
• PATTERN: Significant discrepancy between insurance-funded projects (consistently 5-star) and direct customer work (mixed 1-5 star). Suggests company prioritizes insurance relationships over individual customer satisfaction.
• RED FLAG: Owner John Flores personally documented as 'abrasive,' refusing callbacks, denying responsibility for damage, and being difficult to reach. Multiple reviews cite poor communication from management.
• PATTERN: Repeated instances of missed deadlines and broken promises (2-3 week estimates becoming 2-3 months), particularly in mitigation-to-repair transition phases.
• CONCERN: One review appears duplicated (water damage restoration, identical lengthy narrative appears twice with same date range), suggesting possible review manipulation.
• CONCERN: Heavy clustering of 5-star reviews from June 2023 and June 2022 (insurance-related water damage cases) with similar narrative structures, though these appear legitimate given specific details and dates.
• CONCERN: Receptionist documented as extremely rude and unprofessional, yelling at customer on phone after company collected payment without resolving issue.

This WW Score of 78.2 should be treated with CAUTION despite HIGH confidence in data volume. The company demonstrates genuine expertise in insurance-backed water restoration but exhibits serious ethical and safety concerns including documented legal violations, property damage denial, and subcontractor negligence. The stark contrast between insurance-funded projects (consistently excellent) and direct customer work (highly variable with critical failures) suggests the score may overstate reliability for non-insurance work. Potential customers should independently verify licensing, insurance coverage, and subcontractor vetting before engagement, and should avoid paying before service completion.

Max's Plumbing demonstrates strong technical skill and competitive pricing, with most customers praising work quality and fair rates. However, professionalism and project completion scores are pulled down by multiple documented failures: missed appointments without notification, late arrivals, incomplete work requiring callbacks, and inconsistent communication. While the majority of reviews are highly positive (16 five-star ratings), the negative reviews reveal systemic issues with reliability and follow-through that cannot be ignored. The business excels at quick problem-solving and honest pricing but struggles with scheduling consistency and professional communication standards.

• RECENCY BIAS: 11 of 25 reviews are from 2013-2017 (8+ years old). Only 4 reviews from past 12 months. Recent data is limited.
• PATTERN OF NO-SHOWS: Multiple reviews document missed appointments without notification (2019-05-30, 2019-02-13, 2017-11-27). This is a recurring issue, not isolated.
• INCOMPLETE WORK: Review from 2013-03-03 describes abandoned job with unfinished repairs and missing follow-up despite owner contact.
• COMMUNICATION FAILURES: Several reviews cite lack of callback notifications, unprofessional phone greeting, and failure to communicate delays.
• INCONSISTENT SERVICE QUALITY: High variance between reviews suggests service quality depends heavily on which technician is assigned or circumstances of the day.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: Reviews from 2013 and 2012 are extremely generic ('It's a great little company', 'He always comes right away') with minimal detail, but this is offset by highly detailed negative reviews that appear authentic.

This score should be treated with MODERATE caution: while based on substantial data (25 reviews, 13+ mentions per dimension), the age of most reviews (68% older than 5 years) and documented pattern of scheduling/communication failures suggest the current service may differ from historical performance. Recent reviews are too few to confirm whether issues have been resolved.