Find Nearby Plumbers In Lewisville, Texas

CR Plumbing earns strong marks across all four dimensions, with professionalism being the most consistently praised attribute — punctuality, communication, courtesy, and responsiveness are mentioned explicitly across dozens of reviews spanning multiple years. Experience and workmanship are also well-supported, with multiple reviewers citing skilled diagnosis, thorough problem-solving, and quality repairs. Project completion scores are solid but tempered by two notable negative reviews: one describing a hot water heater repair that failed within months and a warranty dispute that went unresolved, and another where a drain blockage was not cleared and a full service fee was still charged. Pricing scores are pulled down meaningfully by a 1-star review citing a $300 charge for a $30 part and a 10-minute job, a complaint about a $200 minimum charge that was not disclosed upfront, and a $250 charge for an unsuccessful drain clearing attempt — these are specific, credible pricing complaints that prevent a higher score despite many reviews praising fair or reasonable pricing.

• FAKE REVIEW RISK — MODERATE: Approximately 15-20 reviews contain no substantive detail (e.g., 'Great service', 'Amazing work', 'Good job', 'The best of the best!', blank text with 5 stars). These reviews contribute no scorable data and inflate the overall star rating without providing verifiable evidence of quality.
• UNDATED REVIEWS: Roughly 20 reviews have no date attached. These cannot be assessed for recency and were treated as lower-weight background signal. They skew heavily positive and generic.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: Two reviews from 2021-01-27 appear to be near-identical submissions describing the same shower leak experience with Clayton and Phil. Only one was counted for scoring purposes.
• EMPLOYEE REVIEW SUSPECTED: One review explicitly states 'Very proud to be working for the company and along side. With my co workers. You couldn't ask for a better company than CR Plumbing.' This appears to be a review written by an employee and was excluded from scoring.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of detailed, substantive reviews are from 2025 and 2024, which is a positive signal. The three negative reviews span 2020–2024, suggesting isolated but recurring issues with pricing transparency and warranty follow-through rather than a systemic recent decline.
• PRICING TRANSPARENCY CONCERN: Three separate reviewers across different years raised specific complaints about undisclosed fees, charges for unsuccessful work, and overpricing for minor repairs. This is a recurring pattern that warrants a conservative pricing score.

This WW Score is based on a large and diverse review set with strong recency, and is considered moderately reliable overall — the professionalism and experience scores carry HIGH confidence, but the pricing score reflects a genuine mixed signal that prospective customers should investigate before hiring.

Independent Plumbing / Pipes Plumbing has a strong overall reputation built on decades of reviews, with the majority of customers praising punctuality, courteous technicians, and responsive office staff — particularly Ruth. Pricing is generally viewed as fair and competitive, with multiple reviewers explicitly noting they compared quotes and found this company to be the better value. However, a meaningful cluster of negative reviews raises legitimate concerns: at least two reviewers describe abandoned or incomplete work, one describes being strung along for over a week without hot water, one was surprised by undisclosed minimum charges, and one describes a plumber showing up at the wrong address entirely. Project completion is the most penalized dimension because several reviews explicitly describe jobs left unfinished, no-shows, or poor follow-through — these are serious red flags that prevent a higher score. Experience scores well overall, with many reviewers praising specific technicians by name for their skill and problem-solving, though one negative review described technicians who seemed unsure about basic installation questions.

• 20 reviews contain no text at all (blank body, rating only, or 'unknown') — these were excluded from dimensional scoring as they provide no usable evidence.
• Several reviews appear to be from a very old date range (2009–2016) and may not reflect current service quality. The majority of reviews are older than 3 years, which significantly limits recency confidence.
• Only 6 reviews are dated within the past 12 months (2024–2025), making recent performance difficult to assess with high confidence.
• At least 5 reviews explicitly describe negative experiences involving incomplete work, no-shows, being strung along, wrong-address dispatch, or undisclosed charges — these are not isolated incidents and represent a recurring pattern.
• One review (2024-05-21) describes a particularly serious failure: customer left without hot water for over a week, key staff member went on vacation mid-job without resolution, and promised callbacks were never made.
• One review (2018-04-03) describes a plumber completing only 1 of 3 requested tasks, leaving without finishing, and the company billing a full trip charge with no follow-up on open items.
• One review (2016-04-30) describes hidden minimum charges not disclosed during quoting — a transparency concern relevant to the pricing dimension.
• One review (2015-07-30) describes the plumber going to the wrong address and performing work there without verifying the customer — a serious operational error.
• One review (2013-12-12) describes a technician not showing up for a scheduled appointment with excuses made, and a prior appointment also missed — a pattern of unreliability.
• Some generic 5-star reviews with no detail (e.g., 'Great service!!', 'It went well.', 'Very good job. Satisfied') may inflate the star average but were not used for dimensional scoring per scoring rules.
• One review states 'I did not use this company' yet gave 5 stars — this review was excluded as unusable data.

This WW Score is based on a large volume of reviews spanning over 15 years, giving it HIGH statistical confidence in direction, but recency is a significant concern — only 6 reviews are from the past 12 months, and the negative reviews that do exist reveal recurring operational failures (incomplete jobs, no-shows, poor follow-through) that meaningfully suppress the score and should be weighted seriously by prospective customers.

Professionalism scores well overall, with dozens of reviews praising responsiveness, punctuality, communication, and friendly technicians across multiple companies and technicians (Ryan, DJ, Gary, James, Larry, etc.). However, several negative reviews cite rude customer service, a no-show technician, and a failure to return calls, which tempers the score. Pricing is the weakest dimension: while many reviewers praise fair or competitive pricing, a meaningful cluster of negative reviews explicitly call out overcharging, lack of pricing transparency, a $320 charge for a 17-minute job, $300 for a toilet valve, and an $8,000 multi-visit failure — these are serious and specific complaints that significantly drag the pricing score down. Project completion is generally strong, with many reviews confirming same-day or next-day completion and follow-through, but notable failures include an incomplete sewer rodding job, a plumber who never returned after a partial repair, a promised drawing never delivered, and an $8,000 multi-visit case where the root problem was never diagnosed. Experience is broadly praised — technicians are frequently described as knowledgeable, skilled, and able to solve problems others could not — though a few reviews describe incorrect diagnoses, botched installs, and a technician who could not identify a collapsing pipe after multiple visits.

• 30 reviews contain no text at all — only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence per scoring rules.
• Several reviews appear to reference entirely different companies (Kelly Plumbing & Heating, Jay's Plumbing, Plumbing Pros with multiple owner names including James, Gary, Larry, Bobby, Russ, Sal). This review set appears to aggregate reviews from multiple distinct businesses, which significantly undermines the reliability of any single composite score.
• Multiple technician and owner names appear across reviews (James, Gary, Larry, Bobby, Russ, Ryan, DJ, Danny, Colin, Mario, Mike, Dean, Taylor, Jaden, Tim, Josh, Andrew, Gustavo, Andy, Sal, Rick, Abel) — strongly suggesting these are not reviews for a single contractor.
• Review dates span from 2011 to 2025, a 14-year window. Older reviews (pre-2020) may not reflect current service quality and were down-weighted in scoring.
• One review (2013) contains a serious allegation of fraud — a $2,000 deposit taken with no work performed and refusal to return funds. This is an outlier but was factored into project completion scoring.
• One review references a plumber admitting to a drinking problem as an excuse for non-performance — flagged as a serious professionalism and reliability concern.
• The pricing dimension has a notable split: many 5-star reviews praise fair pricing while multiple 1-3 star reviews cite specific dollar amounts as excessive or deceptive. This polarization reduces confidence in a single pricing score.
• Some 5-star reviews are very brief and generic (e.g., 'great.........', 'well.job was completed', 'unknown') with no specifics — possible low-effort or filler reviews, though not definitively fake.

This WW Score has LOW-TO-MODERATE reliability as a guide to any single contractor because the review corpus almost certainly aggregates feedback from multiple distinct businesses operating under similar or shared names across different geographic regions, making it impossible to attribute scores to one specific company or service team.

Matt's Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism with consistent praise for responsiveness, punctuality, and courteous behavior across 32 reviews. Project completion is solid with most jobs finished on time and thoroughly, though some concerns about follow-through on callbacks and post-job cleanup issues appear in negative reviews. Pricing is generally viewed as fair and reasonable (16 mentions), though a few customers reported high costs or unexpected charges. Experience and workmanship are well-regarded (18 mentions), with customers noting skilled problem-solving and quality work. However, multiple serious complaints about dishonesty, misdiagnosis, and poor communication in critical situations significantly impact overall trustworthiness.

• CRITICAL: Multiple reviews (2024-02-01, 2023-06-10, 2016-06-11, 2016-04-27) allege dishonesty, misdiagnosis, and refusal to cooperate with insurance claims. These are serious integrity concerns that contradict the predominantly positive rating pattern.
• COMMUNICATION INCONSISTENCY: Several reviews (2023-06-26, 2018-03-23, 2020-06-10) report difficulty reaching the company or lack of callback despite claims of 24-hour service. This contradicts the high professionalism scores from other reviews.
• EMPTY/GENERIC REVIEWS: 8 reviews contain no text or only generic praise ('unknown', blank text, 'Best plumber around!'), suggesting possible review manipulation or placeholder entries.
• DUPLICATE NEGATIVE REVIEW: The 2016-06-11 and 2016-04-27 reviews are identical word-for-word, indicating either a duplicate submission or coordinated complaint.
• RETIREMENT NOTICE (2019-12-04): One review suggests Matt was retiring, yet reviews continue through 2025. Unclear if business continued under same management or if this affects service consistency.
• QUALITY INCONSISTENCY: Stark contrast between glowing 5-star reviews praising professionalism and detailed 1-star reviews alleging incompetence and dishonesty suggests either highly variable service quality or potential fake reviews in one direction.

This WW Score of 78.2 should be treated with CAUTION despite HIGH overall confidence. While the score is based on substantial data (67 reviews), the presence of serious allegations of dishonesty, misdiagnosis, and insurance claim refusal in multiple detailed negative reviews—combined with communication inconsistencies and suspicious review patterns—suggests the predominantly positive rating may not fully reflect actual service reliability. Customers should independently verify recent service quality and request detailed written estimates before engaging.

Wave Plumbing and Bob Hauer demonstrate strong professionalism with consistent praise for punctuality, communication, attitude, and cleanliness across 9 reviews. Technical skill and experience are well-documented across 7 reviews, with customers noting quality workmanship and problem-solving ability. Pricing is favorably mentioned in 3 reviews as reasonable and fair. However, project completion shows a critical vulnerability: one recent 2024 review documents a serious installation error (untightened intake valve causing water damage) and subsequent refusal to cover floor damage, significantly lowering this dimension's score. Most reviews are older than 1 year, with only 3 from 2024 or later, limiting recency confidence.

• CRITICAL: One 1-star review (2024-02-19) documents negligence in water heater installation with property damage and refusal to remedy. This is a serious liability issue that substantially impacts project completion reliability.
• RECENCY CONCERN: 7 of 11 reviews are older than 2 years (dating to 2010-2018). Only 3 reviews from 2024 and 1 from 2022. Recent performance may differ from historical reputation.
• POTENTIAL REVIEW PATTERN: Multiple reviews use similar enthusiastic language ('top-notch,' 'highly recommend,' 'great plumber') with minimal specific technical detail, though this is mitigated by the presence of one highly detailed negative review and several with specific project descriptions.
• INCONSISTENT BUSINESS IDENTITY: Reviews reference both 'Wave Plumbing' and 'Bob Hauer Plumbing' — unclear if same entity or different contractors. This ambiguity affects reliability of aggregated scoring.

This score should be treated with caution due to the presence of a serious documented failure in 2024 involving installation negligence and property damage, combined with heavy weighting toward older reviews (pre-2022). While historical professionalism and experience ratings are strong, the recent critical incident suggests current performance may not match the overall score of 82.1.

Old Town Plumbing shows a generally positive track record across professionalism and project completion, with multiple reviewers praising courteous crews and satisfactory work. However, professionalism is meaningfully dragged down by one reviewer who reported rude phone behavior, which is a direct and specific complaint that cannot be dismissed. Pricing is the weakest dimension: one reviewer explicitly called the cost 'extremely high' for a valve change, and another was put off by a $165.50 diagnostic fee with no free estimate offered, resulting in a below-average pricing score. Experience and project completion scores are moderately positive but are based on a small review pool, limiting confidence. The most recent review is from March 2024, but the majority of reviews are from 2016–2019, meaning the current service quality is difficult to assess with confidence.

• Only 1 review is from the past 12 months (March 2024); 5 of 7 reviews are from 2016–2019 and 1 is from 2012, making recency a significant concern for current reliability.
• Total review count is very low (7 reviews). The WW Score should be treated as indicative only and not highly reliable.
• Two separate pricing complaints from different reviewers (2016 and 2018) suggest a consistent pattern of high or non-transparent pricing that prospective customers should investigate before hiring.
• One explicit rudeness complaint on a phone call (2018) is a direct professionalism flag, though it is older and may not reflect current staff or ownership.

This WW Score carries LOW overall reliability due to a very small review sample (7 total), heavy skew toward reviews that are 5–12 years old, and only one data point from the past 12 months; prospective customers should seek more current references before making a hiring decision.