Find Nearby Plumbers In New Braunfels, Texas

Savage Plumbing demonstrates strong technical expertise and generally professional conduct, with most recent reviews (2019-2024) praising responsiveness, workmanship, and courteous service. However, the company is significantly undermined by serious pricing concerns documented in multiple reviews alleging overcharges, inflated labor fees, and lack of transparency—issues that persist across different time periods. A critical 2024 review reveals failure to follow up on incomplete work and unresponsiveness to callbacks, directly contradicting claims of exceptional responsiveness. The stark contrast between glowing recent reviews and damaging older complaints about billing practices raises reliability concerns.

• PRICING INTEGRITY ISSUE: Two detailed 1-star reviews (2017) document systematic overcharging, markup inflation (300% on water tank), inflated labor billing, and refusal to provide invoices. These are specific, detailed complaints with concrete examples, not vague criticism.
• CALLBACK FAILURE: 2024 review documents owner explicitly forgetting about customer, failing to return calls/texts over extended period despite promising follow-up. This directly contradicts professionalism claims.
• INCOMPLETE WORK: 2024 review shows job was not completed properly (broken cable, wrong cable sent), leading to repeat failure and customer abandonment.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most positive reviews are 4-7 years old (2019-2020). Recent reviews (2024, 2023) show mixed results with one severe negative. Older negative reviews (2017) suggest pattern may be recurring.
• POTENTIAL REVIEW BIAS: Positive reviews use similar generic language ('great work,' 'highly recommend,' 'professional') with minimal specific detail, while negative reviews are highly detailed and specific. This asymmetry warrants caution.

This score should be treated with MODERATE caution. While technical competence appears genuine, documented pricing violations and recent callback failures suggest systemic issues that contradict the overwhelmingly positive narrative. The WW Score of 72.8 reflects this tension, but customers should independently verify pricing practices and obtain detailed written quotes before engaging this contractor.

A&B Plumbing receives strong praise across multiple reviews for professionalism, politeness, and responsiveness, with several customers noting prompt arrival and courteous service. Pricing is consistently described as reasonable and affordable, which is a clear strength. However, project completion is meaningfully dragged down by one detailed and credible 1-star review describing a failure to diagnose or resolve a water intrusion problem across multiple visits, leaving the customer with no resolution and physical damage to their home. Experience scores are generally positive but tempered by that same review, which describes guesswork and an inability to identify the root cause of the issue. The majority of positive reviews are older than 12 months, with the most recent substantive review being the negative one from July 2021, which carries elevated recency weight.

• RECENCY CONCERN: The most recent review (July 2021) is the only 1-star review and describes a serious failure of diagnosis and project completion. All positive reviews predate it, some by 3–5 years. This pattern warrants caution.
• POTENTIAL REVIEW CLUSTERING: Several 5-star reviews from April–November 2016 and April 2017 use similarly enthusiastic but vague language ('awesome,' 'great,' 'highly recommend') with limited specific detail. This may reflect genuine satisfaction but slightly reduces confidence in those reviews.
• RECENCY GAP: No reviews exist between January 2021 and the present. The overall review activity appears to have significantly slowed, which limits confidence in current service quality.
• The negative review is notably more detailed and specific than most positive reviews, lending it higher credibility weight despite being a single data point.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability — the volume of reviews is low, most positive reviews are 3–7 years old, and the single most recent review documents a serious unresolved service failure that meaningfully offsets the otherwise positive historical record.

All three reviews speak positively to professionalism, highlighting punctuality, courteous communication, shoe covers, cleanup, and responsiveness even on a holiday weekend — a strong and consistent signal across the small sample. Project completion is also well-supported, with reviewers noting timely job completion, thorough cleanup, and follow-through on the work. Pricing is mentioned in only one review as 'very reasonable,' which limits confidence in that dimension. Experience is touched on in two reviews through references to quality workmanship and going above and beyond, but the sample is too small to score with high confidence. Overall, the scores are positive but must be treated cautiously given only three reviews are available.

• Only 3 reviews analyzed — WW Score is at the minimum threshold for calculation and should be treated as preliminary.
• All reviews are 5-star ratings. While the review content is specific and varied enough to not strongly suggest fabrication, the absence of any critical feedback warrants caution.
• All reviews are dated between 2021 and 2022 — no reviews from the past 12 months are present. Performance may not reflect current service quality.
• Pricing dimension is based on a single mention — score carries very low evidentiary weight.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews, all older than 12 months, and should be considered a low-confidence preliminary estimate that requires significantly more review data before it can be trusted as a reliable indicator of contractor quality.

All six reviews speak positively to professionalism, particularly responsiveness, punctuality, and communication — the detailed 2006 review about Arthur's persistent follow-up is the strongest individual data point in this dimension. Project completion and experience are supported by four reviews each, with reviewers noting jobs were finished well and that the plumber was knowledgeable and capable. Pricing is entirely absent from all reviews, so no score can be assigned to that dimension. The overall picture is positive but the sample size is very small and two of the six reviews are nearly 18 years old, which significantly limits reliability.

• Only 6 total reviews — sample size is too small to draw strong conclusions about consistent performance.
• Two reviews are from 2006 (approximately 18 years old) and should be weighted minimally; the remaining four are from 2024 and are more relevant.
• Several reviews use similar generic phrasing ('highly recommend', 'responsive', 'knowledgeable') with limited specific detail, which slightly raises concern about review depth, though the 2006 review provides enough specificity to suggest authenticity overall.
• No pricing information is mentioned in any review — this dimension cannot be evaluated at all.
• One review ('They took a lot of pressure off me. I was very happy with him.') is extremely vague and provides almost no usable data beyond general satisfaction.

This WW Score carries LIMITED overall reliability due to a very small review pool of only 6 reviews, two of which are nearly two decades old, and the complete absence of any pricing data.

All three reviews speak positively about Alamo Preferred Plumbing across multiple dimensions. Professionalism is consistently highlighted — reviewers note prompt communication, phone diagnostics, and treating customers respectfully rather than as a revenue source. Pricing is mentioned favorably in two reviews, with one reviewer explicitly noting the company quoted nearly one-third the price of a larger competitor. Project completion is affirmed in all three reviews, with work described as completed well and efficiently, though no reviewer describes a complex multi-phase project or callback situation. Experience is referenced across all reviews through comments about technical knowledge, problem-solving, and quality of workmanship, though specifics remain somewhat general.

• Only 3 reviews total — WW Score is at the minimum threshold for calculation and should be treated with caution.
• Two of the three reviews are from 2018, making them over 5 years old. Recency weighting significantly reduces reliability of this score for current service quality.
• All three reviews are 5-star ratings with no negative feedback of any kind. While not conclusive, this pattern warrants mild caution.
• Praise across reviews is generally positive but lacks highly specific detail (e.g., exact work performed, materials used, project timelines), which slightly reduces confidence in authenticity assessment.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews, two of which are more than 5 years old, making it a low-reliability snapshot that should not be used as a definitive measure of current service quality.

All three reviews speak positively to professionalism, highlighting kindness, honesty, frank communication, and a customer-first attitude, which drives the strongest dimension score. Project completion is supported by two reviews describing work that was finished on the spot or to the customer's satisfaction, though the sample is small. Experience is referenced in two reviews through mentions of skill, problem-solving ability, and technical know-how in diagnosing a leak. Pricing receives only one indirect mention — the word 'honest' and 'upfront' in one review — which is too thin to score with confidence, so it is scored conservatively. Overall, the picture is positive but the extremely small review pool limits reliability significantly.

• Only 3 reviews total — WW Score is at the minimum threshold for calculation and should be treated with caution.
• Two of the three reviews are dated 2021, making them over 3 years old. Only one review (2023) falls within a more recent window. Recency is a concern.
• All three reviews are 5-star ratings with no negative feedback of any kind. While the reviews do contain specific details (emergency repair, pipe leak, digging for the leak), the uniformly perfect ratings with no criticism warrants mild caution.
• Pricing dimension is based on a single indirect inference from the word 'honest' and 'upfront' — no explicit mention of cost, quotes, or value for money. Score is conservative and low-confidence.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews, two of which are over 3 years old, making it a low-reliability snapshot that should not be treated as a definitive assessment of current contractor quality.