Find Nearby Plumbers In McAllen, Texas

This contractor receives generally positive feedback on professionalism, with multiple reviewers noting punctuality, courtesy, and cleanliness, though one reviewer reported calls were never returned, which is a meaningful negative signal. Pricing feedback is mixed — one reviewer explicitly questioned whether they overpaid, one noted a reduced rate was offered, and one described prices as reasonable, yielding a conservative mid-range score. Project completion is the most concerning dimension: two reviews explicitly state services were never performed or that calls went unreturned, which significantly drags down an otherwise acceptable completion record. Experience-related feedback is limited but modestly positive, with reviewers noting quick, effective work and professional installation. The overall picture is of a contractor with a decent baseline but real reliability concerns that cannot be ignored.

• One review has 'unknown' as review text with no usable content — excluded from scoring.
• All reviews are significantly outdated: the most recent is from January 2016, and the majority are from 2009–2013. This data is over 8 years old and should be treated with very low reliability for current performance assessment.
• Two reviews explicitly report service failure: one states services were never performed (2009), and one states calls were never returned (2013). These are serious red flags that are weighted into the project completion and professionalism scores.
• Review volume is low (11 total, 10 usable), limiting statistical confidence across all dimensions.
• No reviews from the past 12 months — current contractor performance cannot be assessed from this data.

This WW Score should be treated with very low confidence due to the extremely outdated review set (all reviews are 8+ years old), low total review count, and two explicit service failure reports that indicate meaningful reliability risk.

López Plumbing demonstrates severe deficiencies across all measured dimensions. Pricing is the most critical failure point, with 8 reviews documenting overcharging, lack of written quotes, price gouging of vulnerable customers, and rates significantly above market value. Project completion is severely compromised, with multiple reports of incomplete work, parts not actually replaced despite claims, and no warranty or guarantee on services. Professionalism is consistently poor, marked by failure to communicate cancellations, missed appointments, and lack of responsiveness. Only 2 positive reviews (from 2016-2017) mention competent workmanship and politeness, but these are heavily outweighed by 8 negative reviews spanning 2010-2023 documenting systematic problems.

• PATTERN OF PREDATORY PRACTICES: Multiple reviews (2015, 2014) explicitly describe targeting elderly and disabled customers, charging inflated prices without quotes or transparency, and using high-pressure tactics.
• CHRONIC NON-COMPLETION: At least 3 reviews document work that was not actually completed despite payment (parts not replaced, clogs recurring within days, incomplete repairs).
• NO WARRANTY/GUARANTEE POLICY: Multiple customers report being told work is 'not guaranteed' and charged again for repeat service failures.
• RECENCY CONCERN: While most reviews are 4-9 years old, the most recent review (2023) documents the same core issues (non-replacement of parts, refusal to refund), suggesting systemic problems persist.
• PRICE GOUGING DOCUMENTED: Specific examples show charges 3-5x market rates ($180 vs $50 for same service, $270+ above NYC market rates, $600 for simple sink repair).

This WW Score of 32.8 is highly reliable and should be trusted completely; it is based on 10 usable reviews with consistent patterns of failure across all dimensions, particularly pricing fraud and project completion failures, with no evidence of systemic improvement over a 13-year period.

With only two reviews, the data is extremely limited and no reliable WW Score can be produced. The positive review highlights strong problem-solving ability — successfully unclogging a drain that two other plumbers could not — and a quick response time. However, the negative review describes a serious failure: a complete no-show with no follow-up call or text, leaving the customer without water. These two reviews present directly conflicting signals across professionalism and project completion, making any score highly uncertain. Pricing was not mentioned in either review.

• Only 2 reviews total — far below the minimum threshold for a reliable WW Score. Results should not be used for decision-making.
• The two reviews are in direct conflict: one describes excellent service, the other describes a complete no-show with zero communication. This variance cannot be resolved with so few data points.
• No pricing information was mentioned in any review — the Pricing dimension cannot be scored.
• Both reviews are from late 2023 to early 2024, so recency is acceptable, but sample size remains critically insufficient.

This score report has very low reliability due to only 2 reviews being available, directly conflicting experiences reported, and an entire dimension with no data — this contractor should not be evaluated based on this report alone.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 2 reviews were analyzed, which falls below the minimum threshold of 3 reviews required for a trustworthy WW Score calculation. The reviews present sharply contradictory experiences: one 5-star review praising workmanship and fair pricing, and one 1-star review citing poor professionalism, incomplete work, and defensive behavior. The extreme polarity and very small sample size make any aggregate score unreliable.

• Only 2 reviews analyzed — below minimum threshold of 3 for reliable scoring
• Extreme polarity: one 5-star and one 1-star review with no middle ground
• Both reviews are older than 1 year (2019 and 2018) — recency is a concern
• First review lacks specificity on professionalism details; second review is highly detailed and credible
• Second review describes serious issues: incomplete work (missing caulk), unprepared technician (missing standard parts), defensive company response, and additional charges for callback work that should have been completed initially

This score cannot be calculated reliably due to insufficient review volume (n=2). The contradictory nature of the two reviews and their age (both pre-2020) further undermine confidence. A minimum of 3–5 recent reviews is required before any WW Score should be trusted.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. The single review provided contains only a period (.) as text with no substantive content describing the contractor's work, professionalism, pricing, project completion, or experience. No dimensions can be scored.

• Review text is empty or non-substantive (contains only a period)
• Review is from 2015 (9+ years old) — outside typical recency window
• Only 1 review provided — minimum 3 reviews required for reliable scoring

This score cannot be calculated or trusted due to insufficient usable review data.

Only a single review exists for this contractor, dated September 2017, making it over 7 years old and of very limited reliability. The reviewer explicitly mentions honesty, professionalism, prompt arrival within an hour, and quick resolution of a difficult clogged toilet problem, which speaks positively to professionalism, experience, and project completion. Pricing is addressed directly with mentions of free estimates, no service charge, and no overtime fees, suggesting strong price transparency. However, all scores are held conservative due to the single-review basis and the age of the data.

• Only 1 review available — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• The sole review is dated 2017-09-18, making it over 7 years old. This data may not reflect current service quality.
• The review includes what appears to be a phone number embedded in the review text, which is atypical and may suggest the reviewer has a personal connection to the contractor.
• With only one review, no pattern analysis for fake review detection is possible, but the specificity of the review (messy problem, 10-minute resolution, pricing details) does lend some authenticity.

This score should be treated with very low confidence — it is based on a single review from over 7 years ago, and no meaningful pattern or trend analysis is possible.