Find Nearby Plumbers In New Braunfels, Texas

Greenshire Handyman (AJ) demonstrates strong professionalism across all five reviews, with consistent mentions of punctuality, responsiveness, communication, and courteous demeanor. Project completion is reliably documented with all jobs finished as expected and customer satisfaction confirmed. Technical skill and problem-solving ability are evident in handling manufacturing issues and complex installations. Pricing feedback is limited to two mentions but both characterize costs as fair and reasonable. The overall WW Score of 89.3 reflects high performance across core dimensions, though the small sample size (5 reviews) and limited pricing data warrant moderate confidence.

• All five reviews are 5-star ratings with no critical feedback or complaints—this uniformity is atypical and suggests possible selection bias or that only satisfied customers reviewed.
• Review dates span September 2023 back to September 2022 (12-month window), which is acceptable recency.
• Pricing dimension is mentioned in only 2 of 5 reviews; score is conservative but based on limited explicit evidence.
• Small sample size (n=5) limits statistical reliability; recommend collecting additional reviews before making high-stakes decisions.

This score should be treated as a positive indicator but with caution due to the small sample size, absence of any negative feedback, and limited pricing data; additional reviews would significantly strengthen confidence in the overall assessment.

Todd demonstrates strong professionalism across all four reviews, with consistent mentions of punctuality, scheduling responsiveness, and courteous communication. Project completion is well-supported with evidence of timely repairs and thorough follow-through. Experience is evidenced by quality workmanship and problem-solving ability. Pricing receives positive mention in 2 reviews as reasonable and fair. However, the sample size is small (4 reviews) and three reviews are significantly older than 12 months, limiting confidence in the overall assessment.

• Only 4 total reviews analyzed — small sample size limits statistical reliability
• Three of four reviews are older than 12 months (2015, 2018, 2021), with only one recent review from 2024
• All reviews are 5-star ratings with no negative feedback — while not necessarily fake, the absence of any critical detail or constructive criticism is atypical and should be noted
• Pricing dimension based on only 2 mentions, limiting confidence in that score

This score should be treated with caution due to the small sample size (4 reviews) and age of most data. The recent 2024 review provides some current validation, but a larger and more recent review pool would be needed to establish high confidence in this contractor's current performance.

JMD Plumbing demonstrates strong performance across all measured dimensions. Professionalism is a clear strength, with consistent praise for responsiveness, respectful conduct, communication, and owner involvement. Project completion is solid, with work described as timely and thorough. Pricing appears fair and transparent, though only two reviews explicitly address cost. Technical skill and workmanship quality are evident from descriptions of expert work and problem-solving. However, the sample size is small (4 usable reviews) and most reviews are significantly dated (2013–2021), limiting confidence in current performance.

• All 5 reviews are 5-star ratings with no critical feedback — this uniformity warrants caution, though reviews contain specific details that suggest authenticity rather than fabrication
• Most reviews are older than 3 years (2013, 2014, 2016, 2018); only 1 review from 2021 provides recent data
• One review marked 'unknown' with no text — excluded from analysis
• Small sample size (4 usable reviews) limits statistical reliability

This score should be treated with moderate caution due to small sample size and age of most reviews; while the available data is positive and specific, current performance cannot be confidently assessed without more recent feedback.

Kevin demonstrates strong professionalism across all three reviews, with consistent mentions of punctuality, responsiveness, politeness, and friendly demeanor. Project completion is solid, with evidence of timely scheduling, efficient work, and proper follow-through on repairs. Pricing is described as reasonable and fair in two reviews. Technical skill and experience are evident from his ability to diagnose and fix prior contractor errors and handle complex installations. However, the sample size is small (n=3) and one review dates to 2006, limiting confidence in the overall assessment.

• Only 3 reviews analyzed — sample size is very small and limits statistical reliability
• One review is from 2006 (18+ years old) and may not reflect current service standards
• All reviews are 5-star ratings with no negative feedback — while not necessarily fake, the absence of any critical detail or balanced perspective is atypical and should be noted
• Limited mentions across all dimensions (2–3 per dimension) means scores are based on minimal evidence

This WW Score should be treated with caution due to the very small sample size (3 reviews) and age of one review. While the available evidence is positive, a score of 88.2 with MODERATE confidence is less reliable than scores based on 10+ recent reviews. Additional recent reviews are needed to validate this assessment.

Swain Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism with consistent punctuality and responsive communication in planned work scenarios (4 mentions). Project completion is reliable for scheduled jobs, with work finished on time and to customer satisfaction (4 mentions). Technical expertise is evident across multiple job types including toilet installation, kitchen plumbing, hose bib replacement, and water softener installation (3 mentions). Pricing is perceived as fair and competitive (2 mentions). However, the contractor shows a notable weakness in emergency responsiveness—one reviewer explicitly noted difficulty reaching him after hours for urgent issues, which limits overall reliability for time-sensitive situations.

• Review recency concern: 3 of 5 reviews are from 2019-2020 (3-5 years old); only 2 reviews from 2022-2023. Older reviews may not reflect current service levels.
• Limited emergency/after-hours responsiveness: One recent review (2023) explicitly documented poor response to evening emergency call, contradicting the 'fast response time' claim in older reviews. This suggests a potential service gap.
• Small sample size (5 reviews) limits statistical confidence. Recommend collecting additional recent reviews before making high-confidence decisions.

This score should be treated with caution due to small sample size (5 reviews) and significant recency skew toward older reviews. The score reflects strong performance for planned work but reveals a documented weakness in emergency responsiveness that was not apparent in older reviews.

Anytime Plumbing demonstrates strong overall performance across a very large review base spanning roughly 2006 to 2025, with professionalism and experience being the most consistently praised dimensions. The vast majority of reviewers highlight prompt response times, courteous technicians, clear communication, and technically competent work — with named technicians like Amer, Jerry, Miguel, Sam, Brian, Tom, and Victor repeatedly earning individual praise. However, a meaningful minority of negative reviews (approximately 20 out of 231) reveal recurring concerns that meaningfully suppress scores: pricing complaints appear in multiple reviews citing overcharging, upselling, and bills that felt disproportionate to the work performed; project completion is dinged by several credible accounts of abandoned jobs, no-call/no-shows, unresolved callbacks, and at least two serious allegations of incomplete or damaging work left unaddressed. Responsiveness failures — including multiple reviews citing no return calls, sometimes over days or weeks — are a notable pattern that contradicts the company's 'Anytime' branding and pulls the professionalism score below what the majority-positive reviews would otherwise support. Pricing receives the lowest score due to a consistent thread of customers feeling overcharged or upsold, even among otherwise satisfied reviewers.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: The review from 'Jerry came to take care of an old and leaky shower cartridge...' (Rating 5.0) appears verbatim on both 2025-06-02 and 2025-05-30. Similarly, 'The plumber arrived quickly, explained everything clearly...' (Rating 5.0) appears verbatim on both 2025-06-02 and 2025-05-30. These are likely duplicate submissions and were counted only once each for scoring purposes.
• POSSIBLE FAKE/PADDED REVIEWS: A cluster of reviews dated 2020-06-07 (approximately 10 reviews) share suspiciously similar generic phrasing ('Amer and his team', 'Amer and crew', 'Amer and his guys') with no specific job details, all rated 5 stars. These may be solicited or padded reviews and were weighted conservatively.
• RECENCY NOTE: Reviews span from 2006 to 2025. A significant portion of reviews (roughly 40%) are older than 3 years. The most recent 12 months (mid-2024 to mid-2025) show continued strong positive sentiment but also include fresh negative reviews about responsiveness and pricing, suggesting the pattern of mixed performance is ongoing rather than historical.
• NO-CALLBACK PATTERN: At least 7 distinct reviews across multiple years (2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2023) explicitly cite failure to return calls or follow up on appointments. This is a recurring operational weakness.
• UPSELLING COMPLAINTS: At least 4 reviews explicitly mention feeling upsold or pressured into unnecessary additional services, which is a meaningful signal for the pricing dimension.
• SERIOUS UNRESOLVED COMPLAINTS: At least two reviews describe significant property damage or failed repairs (hole left in bathroom wall, garbage disposal knockout plug not removed causing floor damage) with no apparent resolution from the company. One review describes a plumber allegedly staging a clog. These are serious credibility concerns even if they represent a minority of reviews.
• BLANK/EMPTY REVIEWS: Several reviews contain no text (only a rating). These were excluded from dimensional scoring as they provide no usable data.
• GEOGRAPHIC SCOPE NOTE: Reviews appear to reference multiple service areas including Santa Cruz CA, New Jersey, Virginia, and North Dakota, suggesting this profile may aggregate reviews for multiple businesses operating under similar names. Scores should be interpreted with this caveat in mind.

This WW Score is based on a large and diverse review dataset (231 reviews) with HIGH statistical confidence across all four dimensions, but should be interpreted with caution due to confirmed duplicate reviews, a cluster of suspected padded reviews, a persistent no-callback pattern across many years, and several serious unresolved complaints about workmanship and billing — the true score for an individual customer's experience may vary significantly depending on which technician is assigned and the nature of the job.