Find Nearby Plumbers In New Braunfels, Texas

Drippin' Irrigation demonstrates consistently strong performance across all four dimensions. Professionalism is a standout strength, with 10 reviews explicitly praising punctuality, communication, responsiveness, and courteous staff (particularly Stacey and Carl). Project completion is solid with 9 mentions of timely work, follow-through on callbacks, and thorough problem-solving. Technical experience is well-documented across 8 reviews, with customers noting skilled diagnostics, quality workmanship, and knowledge of irrigation systems. Pricing receives strong marks from 5 reviews citing fair rates and good value, with one customer noting they expected higher invoices. All 11 reviews are 5-star ratings with specific, detailed praise rather than generic comments.

• All 11 reviews are 5-star ratings with no negative feedback—this is unusual and warrants caution. While reviews contain specific details (names, situations, technical descriptions) that suggest authenticity, the complete absence of any critical feedback or lower ratings is atypical for a service business.
• Review dates span 2019–2024 with a concentration in 2019–2022 (7 of 11 reviews). Only 2 reviews are from 2024, which limits recency data for current performance assessment.
• Multiple reviews mention the same staff members by name (Carl, Stacey, Ray, Greg, Marcus, Marco), which adds credibility but also suggests a small team. This is not a red flag but should be noted.

This WW Score of 89.2 is highly reliable based on consistent, detailed, and specific praise across 11 reviews with strong mention counts for all dimensions. However, the absence of any critical feedback or lower ratings introduces some caution—this score should be treated as a strong indicator of quality, but potential customers should be aware that the review sample lacks the natural variance typical of larger service businesses.

Timmons Plumbing demonstrates strong performance across all dimensions with consistently high marks for professionalism, technical expertise, and project completion. Jeremy Timmons is repeatedly praised for punctuality, responsiveness, politeness, and honest communication. Pricing is generally viewed as fair and reasonable, though one 2024 review raised concerns about lack of itemized breakdown on a $1,900 water heater installation, suggesting potential overcharging. The business shows excellent follow-through, with multiple reviews noting callbacks and post-job verification. One significant negative review from 2021 reported no-shows and poor customer service, which contrasts sharply with the overwhelming majority of positive experiences.

• One stark outlier: 1-star review (2021-07-07) reporting multiple no-shows and rude service contradicts the pattern of 20 five-star reviews. This suggests either a serious service failure at that time or a potentially fraudulent negative review. Recommend investigating this specific incident.
• Pricing dimension shows one explicit complaint (2024-03-20) about lack of itemized invoice for $1,900 water heater job, with customer feeling overcharged. This is the only negative pricing feedback among 21 reviews and warrants attention to invoicing transparency.
• Most reviews (15 of 21) are from 2022 or earlier, with only 6 reviews from the past 12 months (2024-2023). Recent data is limited, though available 2024 reviews are mixed (2 five-star, 1 two-star).
• No evidence of fake review patterns detected. Reviews contain specific details, varied language, and realistic scenarios including legitimate complaints.

This WW Score of 87.2 is highly reliable based on 21 reviews with substantial mention counts across all dimensions (9-16 mentions each). However, the single 1-star no-show incident and recent pricing transparency complaint suggest the business may have experienced service inconsistencies; scores should be interpreted as representative of typical performance rather than guaranteed outcomes. Recent data is somewhat limited (only 6 reviews in past 12 months), so current operational status should be verified before engaging.

Jason the Plumber demonstrates strong performance across all four dimensions with consistently high marks for professionalism, pricing, project completion, and technical expertise. The overwhelming majority of reviews (34 of 36) are 5-star ratings praising punctuality, courteous communication, fair pricing, quality workmanship, and reliable follow-through. Two negative reviews (1-star ratings from 2019 and 2015) cite billing disputes and missed callbacks, which moderately impact the overall score. The business shows particular strength in emergency responsiveness, weekend availability, and honest customer interactions. Most reviews are older than 12 months, with the most recent substantive feedback from 2023.

• Review age concern: 28 of 36 reviews are from 2019 or earlier; only 2 reviews from 2023. Recent performance data is limited.
• Naming inconsistency: Reviews reference 'Jason the Plumber,' 'Advantage Plumbing,' and individual technician names (David, Jeremy, Maria, Anthony). One 2023 review explicitly states 'There is no Jason, it's Advantage Plumbing,' suggesting possible business name change or rebranding.
• Two negative reviews (1-star, 2019 and 2015) break the otherwise uniform 5-star pattern. The 2019 review alleges unexpected trip charges and poor communication on multi-item jobs. The 2015 review reports no-show/no-callback after initial commitment.
• Potential review clustering: 13 consecutive 5-star reviews from 2018-2020 with highly detailed, specific narratives (not generic praise) suggests authentic customer experiences rather than fake reviews. Language varies significantly across reviews.
• One review (2016-08-12) is exceptionally long and detailed with specific technical critiques and comparisons to competitors, indicating genuine customer research and evaluation.

This WW Score of 84.2 is reliable but should be interpreted with caution regarding current performance: the HIGH confidence rating is based on substantial mention counts (20-28 per dimension), but 78% of reviews predate 2020, making recent service quality assessment difficult. The two negative reviews and business name ambiguity warrant direct verification before hiring. The score reflects strong historical performance with some documented service failures.

Copperfield Plumbing has an overwhelmingly positive review base with strong evidence across all four dimensions. Professionalism scores well but is tempered by a meaningful cluster of negative reviews citing no-shows, missed callbacks, abandoned jobs mid-project, and a billing dispute involving double-charging — these are serious reliability concerns that prevent a higher score. Pricing is generally praised as competitive and fair, though two reviews explicitly cite hidden or unexpected charges and one flags a $49 estimate fee as unusual, pulling the score below the 80s. Project completion is strong overall, with many reviewers noting same-day or next-day service and thorough follow-through, but at least three reviews describe jobs that were not completed or followed up on as promised, including one case where a technician allegedly broke a valve and left without resolution. Experience scores well, with multiple reviewers praising diagnostic accuracy, technical knowledge, and problem-solving ability across a range of plumbing tasks.

• CLUSTER OF GENERIC REVIEWS: A notable group of reviews dated 2024-06-09 contain very short, non-specific praise ('Best plumber ever!', 'It's awesome working with Nick!', 'Nick is the best plumber!', 'Great service, super fast.', 'Friendly, efficient and professional service!', 'Responsive, honest and fair local plumber!'). These lack job-specific detail and may represent solicited or incentivized reviews. Confidence in the overall score is slightly reduced as a result.
• NO-SHOW / ABANDONMENT PATTERN: At least three reviews (April 2021 no-show, March 2022 no callback, June 2024 job abandonment by Fidel) describe the company failing to show up or follow through without explanation. This is a recurring pattern that meaningfully impacts professionalism and project completion scores.
• BILLING DISPUTE: One review (August 2023) describes an attempt to double-bill for the same job and an unresolved promise to discuss the matter. A separate review (March 2023) cites charges higher than quoted. These are direct negative signals for the pricing dimension.
• BROKEN VALVE INCIDENT: One detailed 1-star review (April 2023) describes a technician breaking a valve during a repair, then demanding nearly $1,000 for the resulting damage, and leaving without resolution. This is a significant workmanship and ethics concern.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews are from 2021 through mid-2025, giving a reasonably current picture. However, several older reviews (2016-2018) were included and given reduced weight. The negative patterns (no-shows, billing issues) appear across multiple years, suggesting they are not isolated incidents.
• 3 REVIEWS HAD NO TEXT CONTENT and were excluded from dimension scoring but counted in total reviews analyzed.

This WW Score is based on a large review set (141 total) with HIGH confidence across all four dimensions; however, the presence of a cluster of suspiciously generic reviews, a recurring no-show pattern, at least one serious billing dispute, and one documented workmanship-and-ethics incident mean the score should be treated as a reasonable but cautious estimate — the contractor performs well in the majority of cases but carries documented reliability risks that prospective customers should investigate before hiring.

All Ways Plumbing earns strong marks across all four dimensions, driven by an exceptionally large and mostly positive review base spanning over a decade. Professionalism is the standout dimension, with dozens of reviewers explicitly praising responsiveness, punctuality, communication, and courteous behavior. Project completion scores well overall but is meaningfully dragged down by three serious negative reviews: one describing a code violation that caused flooding and toxic mold with the contractor refusing to remedy the work, one describing workers who failed to diagnose the actual problem and performed unnecessary work, and one describing a technician who avoided the main issue and fixed a minor one instead. Pricing is generally praised as fair and reasonable, but one reviewer reported being charged $633 for a faucet replacement with no upfront quote, and another noted pricing felt high — these pull the pricing score below the otherwise positive consensus. Experience scores well based on numerous specific mentions of technical knowledge and problem-solving, though the diagnostic failures in the negative reviews temper this score.

• SERIOUS FLAG: One reviewer (1-star, 2023-03-29) describes a code violation by 'Zachary Szabo' causing flooding, two types of toxic mold, inability to live in the home for 4+ months, and the contractor being held responsible by the State Examiners Board while refusing to remedy the work. This is a significant workmanship and accountability failure that materially impacts the project_completion and experience scores.
• INCOMPLETE WORK FLAG: Two additional reviews (2024-10-17 and 2012-01-03) describe technicians who failed to diagnose or address the actual problem, performing unnecessary or minor work instead. This is a pattern worth noting.
• NO-QUOTE FLAG: One reviewer (2021-01-21) reported being charged $633 with no upfront price quote provided, only receiving an invoice after the fact. This is a transparency concern for the pricing dimension.
• BEHAVIOR FLAG: One 1-star review (2021-05-08) describes rude and disrespectful behavior from a driver of the company van in a parking lot. While not a service quality issue, it reflects on professionalism.
• BLANK/UNUSABLE REVIEWS: Four reviews contained no text (only a rating), including two from 2016 and one from 2024. These were excluded from dimensional scoring but counted in total reviews analyzed.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of substantive reviews are from 2021–2025, which is positive for recency weighting. Reviews from 2009–2013 reference different named technicians (Jake, Daryl, Zac/Zachary) and may reflect a different era or staffing of the business. The serious code-violation complaint also references 'Zachary Szabo,' suggesting possible past association with the business.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK: LOW. The review corpus is large, spans many years, references specific technician names, job types, and situational details. No significant pattern of identical phrasing or suspiciously generic content detected. Confidence in authenticity is high.

This WW Score is based on a large, detailed, and temporally diverse review set and carries HIGH overall confidence; however, the presence of one serious unresolved code-violation complaint with documented regulatory involvement and two additional incomplete-work complaints means prospective customers should weigh these outliers carefully, particularly for complex or high-stakes plumbing projects.

Tiger Plumbing demonstrates strong overall performance across all dimensions, with particular strength in professionalism (86.5) driven by consistent praise for punctuality, communication, and courteous technicians. Project completion scores (83.5) reflect reliable follow-through and timely service, though some older reviews mention occasional scheduling delays. Experience ratings (84.0) are solid, with technicians frequently praised for knowledge and quality workmanship. Pricing (78.0) is the weakest dimension, with recurring complaints about high labor rates, unexpected charges, and price fluctuations, though many customers acknowledge fair value relative to competitors. The company shows strong consistency across recent reviews (past 12 months), with excellent communication practices including pre-arrival texts with technician photos.

• FAKE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: Multiple reviews from 2025-06-07 and 2025-06-06 contain suspiciously generic praise with minimal detail ('The team was fantastic!', 'Excellent service.', 'Great techs'). Several reviews lack substantive content or are blank, suggesting potential review padding.
• RECENCY BIAS: Approximately 40% of reviews are from past 6 months (2025), with a sharp increase in 5-star ratings in recent months. Older reviews (2006-2015) show more balanced criticism and detail.
• PRICING INCONSISTENCY: Multiple reviews (2017, 2009, 2016) report significant price variations for similar work, with some customers charged $200-400 more than rough estimates. One customer reported $650 for 5-minute faucet work.
• SERIOUS NEGATIVE INCIDENTS: Four 1-star reviews document significant failures: (1) Water heater installation without drain line hookup causing ceiling damage (2024-02-11); (2) Technician cocky and non-responsive, left customer without working shower (2021-04-13); (3) Improper gas valve work creating safety hazards (2015-11-24); (4) Multiple service failures and poor follow-up (2021-04-30). These suggest occasional systemic issues despite generally positive feedback.
• COMMUNICATION GAPS: Several older reviews (2011, 2010, 2015) report poor callback responsiveness and scheduling failures, though this appears less frequent in recent reviews.
• INCOMPLETE WORK: One review (2016-12-20, 2016-12-05) documents failure to remove old water heater and lack of follow-up despite multiple calls and promises.

This WW Score of 82.3 is reliable for recent service expectations (past 12 months) given high mention counts across all dimensions and consistent positive feedback, but should be interpreted cautiously due to suspected review padding in the most recent batch and documented serious failures in project completion and follow-up. Customers should expect strong professionalism and experience but should clarify pricing upfront and verify all work completion before final payment.