Find Nearby Plumbers In Killeen, Texas

This is a franchise brand with hundreds of locations, and the review pool reflects wildly inconsistent quality across different operators and technicians. Professionalism scores are dragged down significantly by a large volume of reviews describing rude, condescending, or outright hostile technicians and office staff, though many positive reviews praise specific named technicians as courteous and professional. Pricing is the most damaging dimension: an enormous number of reviews describe a bait-and-switch pattern where a low advertised rate (often $49) is used to gain entry, followed by aggressive upselling to hydro-jetting, camera inspections, and pipe replacement at prices reviewers consistently describe as two to ten times market rate. Project completion is mixed — many jobs are completed satisfactorily and quickly, but a significant minority of reviews describe incomplete work, warranty refusals, no-shows, and jobs that required a second company to actually fix the problem. Experience scores reflect genuine skill from certain technicians but are undermined by repeated accounts of misdiagnosis, fabricated damage, and work that failed within days or weeks.

• STRONG BAIT-AND-SWITCH PATTERN DETECTED: Dozens of independent reviews across multiple years and locations describe an identical pattern — low advertised price ($49 drain special) used to gain entry, followed by claims the snake cannot work and escalating upsells to hydro-jetting ($500-$1200), camera inspection, and full pipe replacement ($3,000-$15,000+). This is a systemic business practice, not isolated incidents.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — POSITIVE SIDE: A notable cluster of short, generic 5-star reviews with no detail (e.g., 'Good experience', 'Great service!', 'You guys great!', blank text with 5 stars) appear throughout the dataset, many dated in close proximity. These lack specificity and are consistent with review padding. Confidence in the positive score pool is reduced accordingly.
• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: Multiple reviews appear to be exact duplicates submitted on the same or adjacent dates (e.g., identical text for 'Many other contractors proposed to snake the sewer line', 'Very Pleased with results', 'Did a great job excellent work', 'Prompt, polite, professional', etc.). This inflates the apparent review count and may indicate manipulation.
• MULTI-LOCATION FRANCHISE ISSUE: Reviews clearly reference dozens of different geographic locations (Sacramento, Orange County, Reno, Framingham MA, Spartanburg SC, Baton Rouge, etc.) and different named technicians. This is not a single contractor — it is a franchise brand. Scores reflect the aggregate brand, not any single operator. Individual location quality varies enormously.
• SERIOUS FRAUD ALLEGATIONS: Multiple reviews allege criminal-level conduct including: charging for work not performed, fabricating damage on camera footage, partnering with restoration companies (Bolmer Restoration named repeatedly) to generate fraudulent insurance claims, opening credit cards in customers' names, placing mechanics liens on homes, and targeting elderly and vulnerable customers. One review references a revoked NV business license and cancelled contractor license.
• WARRANTY REFUSAL PATTERN: Multiple reviews describe the company refusing to honor stated warranties when problems recurred within the warranty period, often citing new reasons to charge again.
• NO-SHOW AND SCHEDULING FAILURE PATTERN: A significant number of reviews describe confirmed appointments where technicians never arrived and calls were not returned, sometimes leaving customers without water or sewage service for days.
• RECENCY NOTE: The review dataset spans from approximately 2010 to June 2025. Reviews from the past 12 months (mid-2024 to mid-2025) show a continued mix of strong positives for specific named technicians and serious negatives for pricing and scam-like upselling, suggesting the pattern has not materially changed. More recent reviews were weighted slightly higher in scoring.

This WW Score of 58.2 should be treated with MODERATE-TO-LOW trust as a hiring signal: while it accurately reflects the deeply polarized nature of this franchise brand, the score is based on a mixed pool that includes suspected fake positive reviews, duplicate submissions, and reviews from dozens of geographically distinct franchise locations — meaning the score does not reliably predict the quality of any single local operator, and the systemic pricing and upselling complaints documented across hundreds of independent reviews represent a material risk that any prospective customer should investigate carefully before engaging this company.

Nagy Plumbing presents a deeply divided picture across its review history. A significant and recurring pattern of no-shows, unanswered phones, unreturned calls, and failure to deliver quotes drags professionalism and project completion scores down substantially — these complaints span from 2017 through May 2025, indicating the problem is not isolated to a single period. On the positive side, customers who did receive service frequently praised the quality of workmanship, the skill of individual plumbers like JC, Katie, James, and Shelby, and described pricing as fair or reasonable. Pricing is mixed, however, with at least two explicit complaints of overcharging ($145 to push a reset button, and a quote $6,000 higher than competitors). The most recent reviews from 2024–2025 are predominantly negative and focused on communication and reliability failures, suggesting a possible deterioration in operational quality in recent years.

• RECENCY CONCERN: The most recent reviews (2024–2025) are overwhelmingly negative (6 of 7 substantive reviews are 1-star), focused on no-shows and communication failures. This is a significant red flag about current business reliability.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: Two reviews appear to be near-identical or exact duplicates — the 'Nagy plumbing is the BEST' review appears twice (dated 2020-06-10 and 2019-08-02), and the detailed multi-job review appears twice (dated 2020-06-10 and 2020-02-05). These may represent the same reviewer posting multiple times or a data artifact. Duplicate entries were counted only once for scoring.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Five reviews contained no text (only a star rating). These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence.
• DRIVING COMPLAINT: One 1-star review was solely about a driver going under the speed limit on a public road. This was excluded from all dimension scoring as it does not reflect plumbing service quality.
• OLDER POSITIVE REVIEWS: A large portion of the positive, detailed reviews date from 2011–2021. While valuable, they may not reflect current business operations given the sharp negative trend in 2024–2025.
• PATTERN OF SYSTEMIC COMMUNICATION FAILURE: At least 12 separate reviews explicitly describe being unable to reach the company, receiving no callbacks, or experiencing no-shows after confirmed appointments. This is a systemic operational issue, not isolated incidents.

This WW Score is based on a large review set with HIGH mention counts across all dimensions, making the score statistically reliable as a representation of the review record — however, the sharp negative trend in the most recent 12–24 months strongly suggests the score overstates current service quality, and prospective customers should weight recent reviews heavily before hiring.

This contractor exhibits severe and persistent operational failures that significantly undermine overall performance. While technical skill and workmanship quality receive moderate marks (68/100), critical deficiencies in professionalism (48/100) and project completion (45/100) dominate the review landscape. The company demonstrates a chronic pattern of no-shows, missed appointments, unresponsiveness to calls and emails, and failure to honor commitments—issues mentioned in 71 reviews. Professionalism concerns span punctuality, communication, attitude, and accountability across 68 reviews. Pricing practices are inconsistent, with some customers reporting fair rates while others describe significant overcharges and lack of transparency. The volume and consistency of negative feedback, particularly regarding follow-through and customer service, substantially outweighs positive experiences.

• CRITICAL: Severe polarization detected—approximately 50% of reviews are 5-star with generic praise, while the other 50% are 1-star with detailed, specific complaints. This suggests two distinct customer populations or potential review manipulation.
• PATTERN ALERT: Multiple reviews (15+) describe identical failure modes: no-call/no-show appointments, unresponsiveness to phone calls and emails, and refusal to honor callbacks. This is not random variation but systematic operational failure.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION: Early 2025 reviews (April-February) contain suspiciously generic language ('excellent job,' 'five-star service,' 'professional and efficient') with minimal specificity. Several reviews lack text content entirely but carry 5-star ratings. These may be artificially generated or placeholder reviews.
• COMPANY IDENTITY CONFUSION: Reviews reference multiple company names (Ready Plumber Temple TX, Daugherty Plumbing, A Protouch Plumbing, A Pro Touch Plumbing). This may indicate franchise/rebrand confusion or multiple entities being conflated. Analysis treats all as single entity per instructions.
• WARRANTY COMPANY PATTERN: Approximately 60+ reviews explicitly mention Choice Home Warranty or other warranty companies as the referral source. Negative reviews consistently cite warranty company assignment as forcing use of this contractor. This context is critical—many customers had no choice.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most recent reviews (2025, 2024) show mixed quality but include multiple 5-star generic reviews. Older reviews (2015-2019) are predominantly 1-star with detailed complaints. Temporal trend is unclear but suggests either improvement or review manipulation.
• DAMAGE/LIABILITY PATTERN: Multiple reviews (2018-2020) describe property damage (water damage, tile breakage, salt damage to landscaping) with owner refusal to take responsibility or provide refunds. This suggests potential liability exposure.
• COMMUNICATION BREAKDOWN: 40+ reviews explicitly state inability to reach the company by phone, voicemail full, no callbacks, or unresponsive to texts/emails. This is a systemic operational failure, not isolated incidents.

This WW Score of 52.3 should be treated with HIGH confidence due to the large sample size (125 reviews) and consistent patterns across dimensions, but the score itself reflects a contractor with serious operational and customer service deficiencies that substantially outweigh technical competencies. The extreme polarization between 5-star and 1-star reviews, combined with suspicious generic language in recent reviews, suggests some review data integrity concerns; however, the volume and specificity of negative feedback regarding no-shows, unresponsiveness, and incomplete work is too consistent and detailed to dismiss as fabrication. Customers should approach this contractor with extreme caution, particularly regarding appointment reliability and follow-through on callbacks.

This contractor exhibits a deeply polarized performance profile. Recent reviews (2024-2025) show consistently excellent professionalism, punctuality, and technical skill with multiple 5-star ratings praising named technicians like James, Carl, and Lewis. However, this stands in stark contrast to a large volume of older reviews (2017-2019) documenting severe systemic failures: chronic no-shows, missed appointments despite confirmed scheduling, poor communication, and unresponsive management. Project completion is severely compromised by widespread abandonment of work and failure to follow through on callbacks. Pricing concerns emerge in multiple reviews citing overcharges, hidden fees, and quotes double or triple competitors' estimates. The company appears to have undergone significant operational changes, but the historical pattern of unreliability is substantial enough to substantially lower overall confidence.

• CRITICAL: Extreme temporal polarization detected. Reviews from 2024-2025 (n=33) are overwhelmingly 5-star with consistent praise; reviews from 2017-2019 (n=50+) are predominantly 1-star with detailed complaints of no-shows, poor communication, and overcharging. This suggests either major company restructuring or potential review manipulation.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK: Recent positive reviews (2024-2025) show repetitive patterns: generic praise of named technicians, emphasis on speed/professionalism, minimal specific detail about actual work performed, and clustering on same dates (multiple 5-star reviews dated 2025-05-10). This clustering and lack of specificity raises authenticity concerns.
• SYSTEMIC FAILURE PATTERN: Older reviews document consistent operational failures across multiple years: chronic no-shows (20+ documented instances), wide appointment windows (8am-5pm) with no call-ahead notification, unresponsive dispatch, and rude/dismissive office staff. These are not isolated incidents but reflect systemic dysfunction.
• PRICING FRAUD INDICATORS: Multiple reviews document significant overcharging: quotes of $1200-$1700 for work competitors charged $200-$541; charges for permits never obtained; charges for code upgrades never performed; additional out-of-pocket charges ($1231) on warranty-covered work.
• PROJECT ABANDONMENT: Numerous reviews document incomplete work: pipes left leaking after repair, holes created in walls/ceilings not properly fixed, work left unfinished pending parts with no follow-up, and refusal to return for callbacks.
• RECENCY BIAS WARNING: The dramatic shift from 1-star to 5-star reviews between 2019 and 2024 is unusual. If recent reviews are authentic, company has fundamentally improved. If recent reviews are inflated/fake, the historical pattern of failure is the true indicator of reliability.

This WW Score should be treated with extreme caution due to the stark temporal polarization in review data. While recent 2024-2025 reviews suggest significant improvement, the volume and consistency of detailed failure documentation from 2017-2019 (no-shows, overcharging, poor communication, incomplete work) indicates serious historical systemic issues. The clustering of recent 5-star reviews with generic praise and minimal specificity raises authenticity concerns. Prospective customers should heavily weight the older, detailed negative reviews and request recent references directly, as the current score may not reflect true operational reliability.

This contractor exhibits severe inconsistency across all dimensions. While some customers report excellent service (fast response, fair pricing, professional demeanor), multiple recent reviews document critical failures: no-shows without communication, incomplete work with unreturned calls, unprofessional behavior (yelling across house), and poor technical knowledge. The company's history of changing names and being banned by a home warranty company raises serious red flags. Positive reviews are concentrated in 2017–2020, while recent reviews (2020–2024) are predominantly negative, suggesting deteriorating service quality or operational instability.

• CRITICAL: Company has changed names multiple times and been banned by home warranty company — suggests potential fraud or serious compliance issues
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most positive reviews are from 2017–2020. Recent reviews (2020–2024) are predominantly 1-star with specific complaints about no-shows, poor communication, and incomplete work
• PATTERN OF NO-SHOWS: Multiple independent reviews document failure to show up or communicate (2021-06-18, 2021-02-22, 2021-01-21)
• INCOMPLETE WORK: Review from 2020-08-02 documents unfinished sewer backup job with no follow-up communication
• SUSPICIOUS REVIEWS: Two reviews marked 'unknown' with 5-star ratings (2016-07-28, 1995-11-14) lack any detail and appear potentially fabricated. One review from 2003 is extremely old and likely not representative of current operations
• PROFESSIONALISM CONCERNS: Review from 2020-12-22 documents unprofessional behavior (yelling across house, lack of courtesy)
• QUALITY ISSUES: Review from 2022-03-25 documents shower faucet installed backward, incorrect billing, and shoddy craftsmanship after thousands of dollars spent

This score should be treated with CAUTION. While based on 18 reviews, the data is heavily skewed by very old reviews (2003, 1995) and suspicious entries, and shows a clear negative trend in recent years. The company's documented history of name changes and warranty bans, combined with multiple recent complaints about no-shows and incomplete work, suggests the current operation may be significantly worse than the overall score indicates. Recommend prioritizing recent reviews (2020–2024) when making a decision.

Alsop Plumbing presents a deeply mixed picture across all four dimensions. Professionalism is significantly dragged down by multiple accounts of a supervisor/owner named April being belligerent, accusatory, and hanging up on customers, though field plumbers were generally described as courteous and helpful. Pricing concerns are serious — one reviewer explicitly documented parts being charged at double retail price and a warranty being honored only partially, while two other reviewers praised fair pricing, creating a split record. Project completion is a major liability: the most recent review (2024) describes a slab leak appointment being repeatedly rescheduled and ultimately canceled without resolution, and a separate reviewer documented a faucet repair that failed twice within weeks; positive reviews do note completed work but lack detail. Experience scores moderately — the standout positive is a 2020 review where a master plumber honestly identified a minor issue rather than upselling a $10,000+ repair, but this is offset by documented shoddy workmanship on a faucet repair that leaked repeatedly.

• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: Two reviews (dated 2015-06-16 and 2015-05-15) contain nearly identical text from what appears to be the same customer at different points in time. The later review includes an update about continued leaking. These were treated as a single customer's experience to avoid double-counting, but both were read for context.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Only 1 of 8 reviews is from the past 12 months (2024). Three reviews are from 2021 or later, but four reviews date from 2015–2019 and carry reduced weight. The most recent review is the most negative and involves serious scheduling and communication failures.
• OWNER/SUPERVISOR CONDUCT: Multiple reviews across different years independently identify a woman named 'April' as a supervisor/owner who behaves in a hostile, accusatory, and dismissive manner toward customers. This is a consistent pattern, not an isolated incident, and materially lowers the professionalism score.
• WARRANTY VIOLATION CONCERN: One reviewer explicitly documented that a 'parts and labor' guarantee was not honored — labor was waived on a callback but parts were charged for the same defective parts used in the original repair. This is a transparency and integrity issue affecting both pricing and project completion scores.
• LOW REVIEW VOLUME: Only 8 total reviews limits statistical reliability. Scores should be interpreted cautiously.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability — the review volume is low (8 reviews), but the data is substantive, spans multiple years, and includes both detailed positive and detailed negative accounts that allow meaningful scoring across all four dimensions.