Find Nearby Plumbers In New Braunfels, Texas

Botello Plumbing presents a deeply mixed picture across only 3 reviews spanning over a decade. Two positive reviews praise professionalism, reasonable pricing, and quality workmanship, with one reviewer even verifying an active master plumber license. However, a significant negative review describes repeated no-shows after scheduling, complete failure to follow through on a committed job, and eventual unresponsiveness — a serious project completion failure. The no-show pattern heavily penalizes the professionalism and project completion dimensions. With only 3 reviews and a 13-year date range, confidence in any dimension score is low.

• RECENCY WARNING: Only one review is within the past 12 months (2023). One review is from 2012 and one from 2010. The two older reviews carry significantly less weight regarding current business practices.
• SMALL SAMPLE WARNING: Only 3 reviews total. The WW Score cannot be considered reliable with this volume of data.
• SERIOUS RELIABILITY CONCERN: The 1-star review describes two separate no-shows and complete loss of contact after scheduling — this is a direct project completion and professionalism failure that cannot be dismissed.
• SCORE TENSION: The two positive reviews are generic in praise with limited specifics about the actual work performed, which reduces their evidentiary weight slightly under fake review awareness rules. However, the license verification detail in the 2012 review adds some credibility.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews spanning 13 years and should be treated as highly unreliable — prospective customers should seek additional recent references before hiring.

Superior Rooter demonstrates significant and consistent weaknesses across all dimensions. Professionalism is severely compromised by poor communication (delayed callbacks, noncommittal responses), unfriendly staff, late arrivals, and unresponsiveness to emergencies—critical failures in a plumbing business. Project completion is undermined by incomplete repairs (ceiling leak fixed twice but still failed, water damage resulted), lack of follow-through, and refusal to honor callbacks. Pricing concerns emerge from high labor charges with undisclosed minimums and lack of transparency. While two reviews praise prompt response and fair pricing, they are heavily outweighed by four reviews documenting failures. The company's inability to handle emergency situations and poor quality control are particularly damaging.

• EXTREME RECENCY BIAS: All reviews are from 2012-2015 (9-12 years old). No recent reviews available. Current performance may differ significantly.
• POLARIZED RATINGS: 4 one-star reviews, 2 five-star reviews with no middle ground. The two positive reviews use generic praise ('awesome,' 'greta bunch of guys') with minimal specific detail, while negative reviews are highly detailed and specific. This pattern suggests possible fake positive reviews or selection bias.
• CRITICAL FAILURE PATTERN: Multiple reviews document incomplete work and failure to resolve issues on first attempt (ceiling leak, water heater installation quality). This is a serious red flag for project completion.
• EMERGENCY RESPONSE FAILURE: Company explicitly refused weekend service and charged high trip fees despite marketing suggesting 24/7 availability. This contradicts stated service model.
• QUALITY CONTROL CONCERNS: Technicians demonstrated lack of knowledge (didn't know pilot light type, couldn't verify their own work), suggesting inadequate training or vetting.

This score should be treated with significant caution due to extreme age of all reviews (9-12 years old) and lack of recent data. While the pattern of failures is clear and consistent across negative reviews, the company may have undergone management or operational changes. The score reflects historical performance only and should not be relied upon without current customer feedback.

Casa Mechanical's review corpus is dominated by deeply negative experiences across all four dimensions, with professionalism and project completion drawing the most criticism. Recurring themes include no-shows, missed appointment windows, unreturned calls from managers, rude office staff, and technicians arriving without the correct parts or knowledge. Project completion scores are severely dragged down by widespread reports of incomplete repairs, warranty work deliberately delayed until coverage lapses, and repeat service calls that never resolved root causes. Experience scores reflect numerous accounts of incorrect installations, missed shipping bolts, wrong parts, masked underlying issues, and advice to replace units that were still repairable — with a minority of positive reviews praising specific skilled technicians. Pricing drew criticism for high per-15-minute billing structures, charges for incomplete work, and one egregious case where a customer was advised to buy a $4,000 unit that only needed a $0 cleaning. The positive reviews, while genuine in some cases, represent a clear minority and are often offset by the same reviewer later updating their post with continued problems.

• Several reviews appear to be from new-construction homeowners who were contractually required to use Casa Mechanical through their builder warranty, meaning they had no choice of provider — this context inflates the negative review volume but also reflects a genuine and systemic service failure pattern.
• A small cluster of highly positive reviews (e.g., the Sharon L. review from 2019-05-11) uses vague, generic superlatives with no specific details about work performed, which is consistent with potentially inauthentic or incentivized reviews. These were weighted conservatively.
• Multiple reviews reference the same named managers (David Trinidad, Tom Tarlan/Terra, Joe Pringle) failing to return calls, suggesting a systemic management responsiveness failure rather than isolated incidents.
• At least two reviews mention Casa being involved in litigation or being sued, which is a significant reputational flag.
• Several positive reviews were later updated by the same reviewer to reflect continued or worsening problems, indicating initial positive impressions were premature.
• Review dates span from 2014 to 2024. The negative pattern is consistent across the entire 10-year window with no clear improvement trend. Reviews from the past 12 months (2023–2024) remain predominantly negative, confirming the issues are not historical anomalies.
• One 1-star review (2024-08-19) is based entirely on political decals on a company vehicle and contains no service-related content — this review was excluded from dimension scoring as it provides no usable data on any scored dimension.

This WW Score of 34.2 is based on a large volume of detailed, specific reviews spanning 10 years and carries HIGH confidence — the score reliably reflects a contractor with systemic and persistent failures in responsiveness, workmanship quality, and project follow-through, and should be treated as a serious warning to prospective customers.

The review corpus for Beyer Boys is dominated by deeply negative experiences across all four scored dimensions, with pricing and billing transparency being the single most damaging theme. Dozens of reviewers describe being charged exorbitant rates for parts and labor, receiving non-itemized invoices, being upsold unnecessary services or plans, and in several cases being accused of outright fraud including a fabricated mold diagnosis and a deliberately wrong-sized HVAC unit. Project completion is severely undermined by recurring accounts of systems failing shortly after installation or maintenance, unresolved callbacks, and technicians leaving jobs incomplete or incorrectly done. Professionalism scores marginally higher due to a meaningful minority of positive reviews praising specific technicians by name for punctuality, courtesy, and knowledge, but these are outweighed by widespread complaints about dismissive, deceptive, or sales-focused technician behavior and poor management responsiveness. Experience scores similarly mixed, with some reviewers impressed by technical knowledge while many others describe misdiagnoses, overlooked factory settings, incorrect system sizing, and maintenance plans that failed to catch obvious problems.

• PRICING FRAUD RISK: Multiple independent reviewers across different years describe being quoted prices for parts at 5-10x their retail cost with no itemization. This is a systemic pattern, not isolated incidents.
• FAKE/MISLEADING DIAGNOSIS ALLEGATION: One reviewer (2024-05-08) hired a second company that confirmed no mold existed after Beyer Boys quoted $9,500 for mold remediation. This is a serious credibility flag.
• WRONG SYSTEM SIZING ALLEGATION: One detailed 2021 review describes a third-party auditor confirming Beyer Boys installed an undersized 4-ton unit for a house requiring more capacity, leading to years of failed cooling and significant financial harm to the customer.
• MAINTENANCE PLAN CONCERNS: Multiple reviewers describe purchasing maintenance plans that failed to detect obvious issues, with technicians allegedly withholding findings to generate future repair revenue.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent reviews (2024) continue to reflect the same negative patterns seen in reviews dating back to 2012, suggesting no meaningful improvement in business practices over time.
• POSITIVE REVIEW PATTERN: The positive reviews (mostly 5-star) tend to be brief, generic, and lack specific detail, while negative reviews are highly detailed and specific. This asymmetry reduces confidence in the positive reviews but does not constitute definitive evidence of fake reviews.
• BILLING TRANSPARENCY: Multiple reviewers across multiple years report difficulty obtaining itemized invoices, requiring repeated calls. This is a documented systemic issue.
• RESPONSE FAILURE: Several reviewers report service managers failing to return calls, which is corroborated across multiple independent reviews spanning 2013 to 2024.

This WW Score is based on 50 reviews spanning 2012 to 2024 with HIGH mention counts across all four dimensions, making it a statistically reliable and highly trustworthy assessment; the score of 34.2 reflects a contractor with serious, documented, and long-standing issues in pricing transparency, project completion, and ethical business practices.

Cook's Plumbing Service receives overwhelmingly negative reviews across nearly all dimensions, with the majority of reviewers describing serious professionalism failures including the owner yelling at customers, technicians being rude or dismissive, and staff failing to communicate arrival times or return calls. Project completion is a critical weak point, with multiple reviewers describing abandoned jobs, no-shows, unresolved recurring issues, and in one case a technician cutting a pipe and leaving a home without water. Pricing concerns are mixed — a small number of positive reviewers praised reasonable pricing, but at least one reviewer described undisclosed charges and potential billing fraud. The few positive reviews (4 out of 13) praise punctuality, friendliness, and reasonable prices, but these are heavily outweighed by the volume and severity of negative experiences. The overall picture is of a contractor with serious, consistent service delivery and conduct problems.

• The 4 positive reviews (5-star) are notably generic in praise and lack the specific detail found in negative reviews, though they are not identical in phrasing and are not flagged as definitively fake.
• Multiple reviewers explicitly allege fraudulent behavior: billing for work not performed, lying to home warranty companies, and coaching customers to self-diagnose to collect service fees without visiting.
• One reviewer alleges the company attempted to have their legitimate review removed from Yelp, suggesting possible review manipulation.
• All reviews are dated between 2014 and 2018 — none are within the past 12 months (relative to a 2025 evaluation date). This data is significantly outdated and may not reflect current business practices.
• A recurring pattern of home warranty assignment appears across nearly all reviews, suggesting the business may rely heavily on warranty referrals rather than repeat or referred customers — consistent with the allegation that it survives on service fees rather than quality work.
• One reviewer (disabled veteran) reported a 3-week delay in obtaining a standard replacement faucet available at Lowe's, suggesting possible supply chain or operational incompetence.

While the WW Score is calculated from a sufficient number of reviews and carries HIGH confidence due to mention volume, the score's reliability is moderated by the fact that all reviews are more than 6 years old, limiting their applicability to the contractor's current state of operations.

This contractor's reviews paint a consistently negative picture across nearly all dimensions. Professionalism is severely damaged by multiple accounts of condescending behavior, undisclosed trip fees, threats of property liens, and a billing dispute where a customer was charged without any work being performed or agreed upon. Pricing is a major pain point, with complaints about hidden hourly charges, a $3,200 bathtub replacement quote, overbilling for time spent waiting on parts, and an unsolicited $225 bill. Project completion suffers from accounts of technicians refusing to do the requested work, abandoning diagnosis, and one instance of a job taking four hours longer than expected due to poor preparation. Experience scores slightly higher due to a small number of positive reviews describing competent, timely repairs, but these are heavily outweighed by negative accounts of misdiagnosis, refusal to investigate problems, and poor technical follow-through.

• Most reviews are older than 12 months; the most recent review is from June 2022, and several reviews date back to 2015–2019, which significantly reduces their relevance to current business practices.
• The two positive reviews (2015 and 2021) are notably sparse in detail compared to the negative reviews, which are highly specific. This asymmetry does not suggest fake reviews but does mean positive scores carry less evidentiary weight.
• One reviewer explicitly noted a prior negative review and a subsequent owner refund, suggesting awareness of service problems at the ownership level but possible lack of operational control.
• A pattern of undisclosed fees appearing across multiple independent reviews (trip fees, hourly charges, unsolicited billing) suggests a systemic business practice rather than isolated incidents.

This WW Score is based on 9 reviews spanning approximately 7 years, with HIGH confidence on all scored dimensions due to mention volume, but the age of most reviews and the small total sample size mean this score should be treated as a directional signal rather than a definitive assessment of current performance.