Find Nearby Plumbers In New Braunfels, Texas

Canyon Lake Plumbing has a small but generally positive review base, with reviewers noting competent workmanship, code-compliant installations, and knowledgeable technicians who educated customers on their plumbing issues. Project completion was consistently mentioned positively, with jobs described as finished as contracted and repairs holding up over time. Professionalism was noted in terms of responsiveness and thoroughness, such as ensuring the floor was dry before cleaning up after a toilet repair. However, one reviewer explicitly flagged pricing as high, which tempers the pricing dimension score. The overall score is constrained significantly by the very small number of reviews and the extreme age of nearly all of them.

• CRITICAL RECENCY WARNING: All reviews are between 7 and 17 years old (2006–2010), with the exception of one review from 2017 that contains no usable text. None of the reviews are from the past 12 months, and none are from the past 6+ years with usable content. This score should not be considered representative of current service quality.
• One review (2017-10-26) contains only a period as its text and provides no usable data — excluded from scoring.
• Total usable review count is only 5, which is extremely low. The WW Score is calculated but should be treated with very low reliability.
• Several reviews from 2006 use similarly enthusiastic and somewhat generic language, which may warrant mild fake review scrutiny, though specificity in some reviews (mineral buildup advice, 45-minute repair, floor drying) reduces this concern.

This WW Score has very low reliability due to an extremely small sample size of 5 usable reviews, all of which are between 7 and 17 years old, making it impossible to assess the contractor's current quality of work.

Mr. Rooter of San Marcos shows generally positive professionalism across multiple reviews, with technicians described as courteous, on time, and responsive — including a same-weekend turnaround on a water heater call. Project completion is mostly solid, with jobs finished and follow-through honored, though one customer chose not to proceed with repairs after diagnosis. The single pricing mention is a significant negative, with one reviewer explicitly feeling overcharged due to a flat-rate 'book' pricing model rather than time-and-materials billing. Experience scores are moderate, with competent diagnostics and workmanship noted but no standout technical complexity described.

• Only 5 reviews total — WW Score should be treated as preliminary and low-reliability.
• One review (2020) is over 4 years old and carries reduced weight in this assessment.
• The misleading website claim (trenchless plumbing advertised but not offered) is a transparency concern that may affect trust.
• Pricing data is based on a single review — the LOW score in that dimension is directionally meaningful but statistically weak.
• No fake review patterns detected — reviews vary in tone, detail level, and rating, suggesting authenticity.

This WW Score is based on only 5 reviews spanning multiple years, making it LOW reliability — more reviews are needed before this score can be considered a dependable representation of contractor quality.

Prince Plumbing has a deeply mixed record across all four dimensions. Professionalism is the most frequently mentioned dimension and shows a clear split: many customers praise punctuality, friendliness, and communication, while a meaningful minority describe rudeness, no-shows, and dismissive behavior toward elderly or vulnerable customers. Pricing is the most consistently negative dimension, with multiple detailed complaints about excessive charges, unexplained fees, and quotes significantly above market rate — though a handful of reviewers found pricing fair or reasonable. Project completion is also mixed: most jobs appear to get done, but there are notable failures including a leak that was never fixed after two visits, a dishwasher left improperly reinstalled, and a job abandoned due to a technician arriving 90 minutes late. Experience scores moderately well, with many reviewers praising skill and knowledge, though at least two reviews describe work that had to be redone by another plumber.

• SUSPECTED REVIEW CLUSTERING: A large group of 5-star reviews were posted on the same date (2024-06-09) with no review text or very generic praise. These are likely fake or solicited reviews and have been treated with reduced evidentiary weight.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: Two reviews with nearly identical text about a sink leak and $200 charge appear to be the same reviewer posting twice (2015-03-10). Only counted once for scoring purposes.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: Two reviews with identical text about a morning plumbing emergency and reasonable pricing appear to be duplicates (2018-07-23 and 2019-06-11). Only counted once for scoring purposes.
• RECENCY NOTE: A significant portion of detailed, credible reviews date from 2007–2022. The most recent negative reviews (2024–2025) include a senior customer alleging exploitation and a customer alleging price gouging on a routine repair, which are serious and recent concerns.
• 8 reviews contained no text at all (blank or placeholder entries such as 'unknown', '.', 'See above') and were excluded from dimension scoring.
• PRICING CONCERN: Multiple independent reviewers across different years describe itemized charges that appear inflated — including $85 tool usage fees, $45 equipment charges for wrenches, and quotes 2x–3x above what competitors charged for identical work. This is a consistent and credible pattern.

This WW Score is based on a large review set spanning over 15 years and carries HIGH overall confidence, but the score should be interpreted cautiously given the presence of suspected fake clustered reviews, duplicate submissions, and a persistent multi-year pattern of pricing complaints that meaningfully drags down trustworthiness.

Parker and Sons presents a deeply mixed record across all four dimensions. On the positive side, multiple reviews from 2013–2015 praise punctuality, friendliness, technical knowledge, and fair pricing — with specific technicians like Anthony, JW, and Ian receiving strong individual commendations. However, a significant cluster of negative reviews describes serious failures: no-shows without notice, canceled appointments, improper diagnostic testing, deceptive upselling practices, and unresponsive phone lines. The professionalism score is dragged down substantially by repeated appointment failures and a hostile interaction described in the 2017 review. Pricing scores reflect a split between customers who felt value was fair and others who felt they were charged for incomplete or fraudulent work. The most recent reviews skew negative, which is a meaningful concern for current reliability.

• RECENCY CONCERN: The most recent reviews (2016–2021) are predominantly 1-star and describe serious issues including no-shows, improper testing, deceptive billing, and unresponsive communication. The positive reviews are largely from 2013–2015 and may not reflect current business practices.
• DECEPTIVE PRACTICES FLAG: Two separate reviews (2016 and 2017) describe what appear to be improperly conducted static line tests used to generate inflated repair quotes. A third review (2019) corroborates this pattern with an independent plumber confirming no leak existed. This is a significant pattern of concern.
• RESPONSIVENESS FAILURE: One review (2016) describes being unable to reach the company for two weeks, with voicemail boxes full and no return calls — suggesting possible operational or staffing issues during that period.
• APPOINTMENT RELIABILITY: At least three separate reviews describe no-shows or last-minute cancellations with no proactive communication, spanning 2015 to 2021, suggesting this is a recurring and unresolved issue.
• POSITIVE REVIEW CLUSTERING: The positive reviews are heavily concentrated in 2013–2015 and share somewhat generic praise. While not conclusively fake, the contrast with the more detailed and specific negative reviews from later years warrants caution.

This WW Score is based on 22 reviews with broad dimensional coverage, giving it HIGH statistical confidence in the data collected; however, the strong negative trend in more recent reviews and documented patterns of deceptive diagnostics and appointment failures mean the score likely overstates current service quality, and prospective customers should weight the post-2016 reviews most heavily.

This contractor has a mixed but skewed record. The majority of positive reviews are older than five years (many from 2011–2014), describing courteous, timely, and reasonably priced work from Terry and his team. However, two serious negative reviews — one involving a failed pipe repair under a toilet that was never corrected, and another involving an unauthorized credit card charge, unreturned calls, and work that had to be redone by another plumber — significantly drag down the project completion and professionalism scores. The most recent substantive review (2023) is generically positive with no specifics, raising mild authenticity concerns. Three reviews contain no text ('unknown'), providing no usable data. Overall, the score reflects a contractor who may have performed adequately in earlier years but has documented failures in follow-through, billing integrity, and workmanship quality.

• Three reviews contain only the word 'unknown' with no review text — these were excluded from scoring as they provide no usable data.
• The 2023 review is generic and lacks any specific detail, which is consistent with a potentially inauthentic or incentivized review pattern.
• The majority of positive reviews are from 2011–2014, making them 9–12+ years old. Recency weighting significantly reduces their reliability as indicators of current service quality.
• Only one review is from the past 12 months (2023), and it is vague. The most recent detailed reviews include two serious complaints (2017, 2019) involving billing fraud, abandoned work, and substandard materials.
• The 2017 negative review alleges use of incorrect parts (sprinkler parts on a well system) and an unauthorized credit card charge that was never reimbursed — this is a significant red flag for both experience and professionalism.
• The 2019 negative review describes a pipe failure under a toilet affecting elderly residents, with no callback or remediation — a serious project completion failure.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability: while mention counts are sufficient for statistical confidence in each dimension, the heavy skew toward very old positive reviews and the presence of two serious, specific negative complaints in more recent years means the score likely overstates current service quality.

LPI demonstrates strong technical expertise and competitive pricing based on positive feedback from two detailed reviews praising skill, honesty, and follow-through on complex installations. However, a critical 2018 review documents a serious failure in responsiveness and callback accountability—a technician made an adjustment that failed to resolve the issue, and the company did not return the customer's follow-up call. This unresolved service failure significantly impacts the overall score. The company shows inconsistent professionalism: excellent in direct customer interaction and technical execution, but poor in communication and accountability when problems arise. All reviews are older than 5 years, limiting recency confidence.

• Critical service failure documented in 2018 review: customer reported unresolved issue and company failed to return callback—this is a major red flag for project completion and professionalism
• All three reviews are 6+ years old (2015–2018); no recent data available to assess current performance or whether issues have been corrected
• Small sample size (n=3) limits statistical reliability; scores should be treated as preliminary indicators only

This score should be treated with caution due to limited sample size, age of reviews, and a documented service failure that was not resolved; the score reflects mixed performance with strong technical capability but concerning accountability gaps.