Find Nearby Plumbers In Killeen, Texas

JL Phelps & Associates demonstrates strong technical expertise and generally professional conduct, with 18 reviews explicitly praising responsiveness, communication, and knowledgeable staff. However, the company is significantly undermined by serious project completion failures documented in 5 one-star reviews spanning 2013–2020, including incomplete work, non-responsive follow-up, missed appointments, and customer disputes over service delivery. Pricing practices are controversial, with multiple complaints about undisclosed $69 service fees contradicting advertised free estimates, and one customer reporting $16,000 in work requiring redo. The WW Score reflects this polarization: strong marks for professionalism and experience are offset by material concerns about reliability and pricing transparency.

• CRITICAL: Five 1-star reviews document serious project completion failures including abandoned work, missed appointments, non-responsive callbacks, and customer disputes. These span 2013–2020 and represent 17% of total reviews.
• PRICING CONTROVERSY: Multiple reviews (2020, 2018) report that company advertises 'free no-obligation estimates' on website but charges $69 service fees in practice. One customer explicitly called this 'shady business practices based on lies.'
• QUALITY CONTROL INCONSISTENCY: One 2017 review claims $16,000 in replumbing work required extensive redo by another plumber. Another 2014 review documents poor workmanship (damaged toilet horn, incorrect venting assessment).
• RECENCY BIAS: Most positive reviews are from 2015–2025 (recent), while negative reviews cluster in 2013–2020 (older). However, two negative reviews from 2020 and 2018 suggest ongoing issues.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: Three reviews from 2018-06-11 use nearly identical phrasing ('great people,' 'professional,' 'highly recommend') with minimal specificity. One review includes Spanish translation that appears auto-generated with errors, suggesting possible review manipulation.
• STAFF INCONSISTENCY: Reviews mention multiple technicians (Mike, Josh, Michael Vice, Alma) with highly variable customer experiences, suggesting inconsistent quality control or training.

This score should be treated with MODERATE confidence due to significant polarization in the data: strong recent positive reviews conflict with documented project completion failures and pricing disputes spanning multiple years. The WW Score of 72.8 reflects a company with genuine technical competence but material reliability and transparency concerns that warrant caution.

Hunt Plumbing demonstrates strong technical skill and problem-solving ability, evidenced by successful drain clearing and water line restoration work. However, the score is significantly dragged down by a critical project completion failure: incomplete diagnostic work on a basement smell issue, improper smoke testing that allegedly caused damage, and a water heater installation that failed within 18 months, resulting in $1,400 in additional costs to the customer. Professionalism is mixed—punctuality and responsiveness are praised, but the owner's refusal to take responsibility for poor workmanship undermines trust. The business appears to have declined since a key employee (Peter) departed.

• RECENCY CONCERN: Three of five reviews are from 2022 or earlier (one from 2018). Only two reviews from 2024 and 2022. Most data is 2+ years old, limiting current reliability.
• QUALITY VARIANCE: Stark contrast between 5-star reviews praising speed/skill and a 1-star review documenting repeated failures and financial harm. This suggests inconsistent service quality or possible deterioration over time.
• CRITICAL FAILURE DOCUMENTED: The 1-star review details specific, quantifiable failures (improper smoke test, water heater leak within 18 months, $1,400 in damages) with follow-up verification. This is not a vague complaint and significantly impacts project completion and experience scores.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: The first three 5-star reviews use similar enthusiastic language ('Phenomenal,' 'highly recommend,' 'just the best') with minimal specific technical detail. However, the 1-star review's specificity and the 2018 review's brevity suggest these are likely genuine, not coordinated fake reviews.
• STAFF TURNOVER: Explicit mention that service quality declined after key employee 'Peter' left, suggesting dependency on individual personnel rather than consistent systems.

This score should be treated with caution due to limited review volume (5 total), significant recency gaps (most data 2+ years old), and high variance in outcomes. The documented project completion failures and financial harm to a customer are credible concerns that outweigh positive reviews, but the small sample size and age of data prevent high confidence in the overall assessment.

All three reviews consistently praise Chris for being prompt, professional, and polite, supporting a solid professionalism score. Project completion is well-supported across all reviews, with multiple varied tasks described as completed successfully and efficiently. Experience scores moderately well given the breadth of work described — light fixtures, TV mounting, plumbing installs, dimmer switches, and appliance repair — though no reviewer goes into deep technical detail about workmanship quality. Pricing is entirely absent from all reviews, so that dimension cannot be scored. The overall score is tempered by the very small review pool of only three reviews, two of which are over three years old.

• Only 3 reviews total — this is the minimum threshold for a WW Score calculation; results should be treated with caution.
• Two of three reviews are older than 3 years (2019 and 2020); only one review is recent (2023). Recency weighting is limited.
• All reviews are 5-star with broadly positive language and no critical feedback. While not conclusively fake, the lack of any nuance or constructive detail warrants mild skepticism.
• Pricing dimension has zero mentions across all reviews — this dimension is entirely excluded from the WW Score calculation.
• Review from 2020-08-29 is somewhat generic in phrasing ('Incredible service! Everything went smoothly.') with limited specifics beyond a task list, which slightly reduces confidence in that review's signal quality.

This WW Score carries LIMITED reliability due to a very small sample size of only 3 reviews, a lack of recent feedback beyond one 2023 review, and the complete absence of any pricing data — consumers should seek additional reviews before making a hiring decision.

Two of the three reviews contain substantive, usable detail about Coryell Plumbing's service. Professionalism scores well based on described quick response times (within 30 minutes), pleasant demeanor, and a plumber who took time to educate the customer — hallmarks of strong customer-facing behavior. Project completion is supported by two accounts of jobs being finished promptly and correctly, including a follow-up visit the next day to complete additional work. Experience is reflected in the technical competence described — proper tool selection, pipe replacement, and knowledge shared about backflow preventers. Pricing was not mentioned in any review, so that dimension is excluded entirely from scoring.

• Review 1 (2020-06-06) is from a family member of employees, not a paying customer. This review carries significant bias and was excluded from dimension scoring as it contains no usable service data.
• All three reviews are older than 12 months (oldest from 2018, most recent from 2020). No recent reviews are available, which limits the reliability of this score as a reflection of current service quality.
• Only 3 total reviews were analyzed. While the WW Score has been calculated, the sample size is very small and results should be interpreted with caution.
• No pricing information was mentioned in any review. The Price Friendly dimension could not be scored.

This WW Score is based on a very small sample of only 2 usable reviews, all dated between 2018 and 2019, making it a LOW-reliability snapshot that should not be treated as a confident assessment of current service quality.

Patrick Perry receives consistently positive feedback across all four dimensions, with particular strength in professionalism — multiple reviewers note punctuality, good communication, and a courteous attitude. Experience and workmanship are praised in detail by at least one reviewer who describes complex multi-trade work including flooring, bathroom remodeling, and kitchen renovation. Project completion appears solid, with one reviewer describing thorough, above-and-beyond effort such as removing multiple flooring layers rather than overlaying. Pricing is the one area with a mild flag — one reviewer explicitly noted the price felt 'a wee bit high,' which tempers an otherwise positive pricing picture. However, the review base is very small (5 reviews) and all reviews are more than 10 years old, which significantly limits confidence in how representative this score is today.

• All 5 reviews are dated between 2011 and 2013 — all are more than 10 years old. This score may not reflect current performance.
• Small sample size of only 5 reviews limits statistical reliability across all dimensions.
• One reviewer explicitly flagged pricing as slightly high, which has been factored into the pricing score.
• Two reviews (2012-12-28 and 2012-12-20) are very brief and generic with no specific detail, reducing their evidentiary value. No fake review pattern detected, but these two reviews contribute minimal usable data.

This WW Score should be treated with caution — it is based on only 5 reviews, all of which are over a decade old, making it a poor indicator of the contractor's current quality, pricing, or availability.

Pro Tech Plumbing shows solid technical competence, with multiple reviewers noting that Gilbert diagnosed and resolved problems that other plumbers could not. Project completion is generally positive, though one detailed review describes a multi-visit resolution involving a worker who left debris and caused a new hissing issue before the job was fully resolved — this meaningfully tempers the completion score. Professionalism is mixed: Gilbert himself is consistently described as friendly and communicative, but a technician named Mario was explicitly called unprofessional and left a hazardous worksite with young children present. Pricing received limited but positive mentions, with one reviewer calling it 'very fair' and another citing a specific estimate of $475. The overall picture is of a capable small operation with some inconsistency in field staff quality and job closure.

• Only 6 reviews total — WW Score should be treated as preliminary and low-reliability.
• Review dates span from 2015 to 2024, with 4 of 6 reviews older than 12 months and 3 reviews older than 5 years. Recent performance is represented by only one review (2024).
• One review (2017, rating 4.0) documents a multi-callback situation, an unprofessional technician, and a new issue introduced during repair — this is a meaningful quality signal that was weighted accordingly.
• No fake review patterns detected — reviews contain specific names, job details, and varied sentiment, suggesting authenticity.

This WW Score is based on only 6 reviews spanning nearly a decade, with limited recent data, and should be considered a low-confidence preliminary assessment rather than a definitive measure of current contractor quality.