Find Nearby Plumbers In Plano, Texas

Precise Plumbing (led primarily by Jay/J. Cruz) earns strong marks across all four dimensions, driven by an enormous volume of reviews spanning nearly a decade. Professionalism is the standout dimension, with hundreds of reviewers explicitly praising punctuality, responsiveness, courteous communication, and willingness to respond to emergencies at odd hours. Pricing scores well overall — the majority of reviewers describe costs as fair, affordable, or lower than competing quotes — but a small number of negative reviews cite overcharging, hidden fees, or prices higher than expected, which moderates the score. Project completion is solid but not perfect: the vast majority of jobs were finished completely and to customer satisfaction, but several negative reviews describe incomplete work, no-shows after initial visits, and one case of abandoned work with no refund. Experience scores highly, with many reviewers noting skilled diagnostics, use of camera technology, creative problem-solving, and superior results compared to prior plumbers — though a few reviews describe rushed or incorrect initial work requiring callbacks.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: A significant number of reviews appear to be exact or near-exact duplicates posted on the same or adjacent dates (e.g., multiple identical reviews dated 2024-05-28, 2024-05-14, 2023-12-09, 2023-11-29, 2023-11-27, 2023-11-13, 2023-09-08, 2023-08-04, 2023-07-31, 2023-07-29, 2023-06-19, 2023-06-07, 2023-06-02, 2023-05-26, 2023-04-17, 2023-03-31, 2023-03-15, 2023-03-12, 2023-02-19, 2022-11-29, 2022-11-19, 2022-11-13, 2022-11-08, 2022-10-09, 2022-10-01, 2022-09-23, 2022-07-28, 2022-02-23, 2021-12-02, 2021-08-09, 2021-07-07, 2021-06-16, 2021-05-10, 2021-04-06, 2021-04-01, 2021-03-18, 2021-02-09 x4, 2021-02-08, 2021-01-26, 2021-01-23, 2021-01-12, 2020-09-29, 2020-09-24, 2020-08-28, 2020-08-12, 2020-08-07, 2020-06-11, 2020-05-18, 2020-04-16, 2020-04-05, 2020-01-10, 2019-12-02, 2022-01-31, 2024-01-10, 2024-06-07). These duplicates inflate the apparent review count and may reflect a platform aggregation artifact or review manipulation. Confidence in raw review count is reduced accordingly.
• NEGATIVE REVIEWS PRESENT: At least 7 reviews rate the company 1.0–1.5 stars. Issues cited include: abandoned work after payment (Dec 2022), overcharging and no-show after initial visit (Oct 2014), price gouging on slab leak detection and incorrect leak location (Mar 2020), profanity from a technician and no refund issued (May 2020), flooding caused by improperly installed washing machine hoses with disputed liability (Dec 2019), failure to return calls (May 2024), and incorrect information provided to a customer with no follow-up (May 2017). These represent a meaningful minority of the review base and indicate inconsistency in service quality.
• MULTIPLE TECHNICIAN NAMES: Reviews reference Jay/J. Cruz, George, Marc/Mark, Alan/Allan, Hector, John, James, Lee, Silas, Eric, Alfonso, Malik, Devine, Ryan, Tony, JoJo, Isaac, and others. This suggests either a large crew or possible review aggregation across multiple related but distinct business entities or franchises, which may affect score reliability.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews with substantive detail are from 2020–2025, which is positive for recency weighting. However, a meaningful cluster of reviews dates to 2014–2019 and some practices described in older negative reviews (no-shows, overcharging, profanity) may or may not reflect current operations.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Several reviews contain no text and only a 5-star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data.
• ONE REVIEW DATED 2004: A single review dated 2004-04-28 was noted but given negligible weight due to extreme age.

This WW Score carries HIGH overall confidence given the large volume of substantive reviews, but should be interpreted with caution due to confirmed duplicate reviews inflating counts, a consistent minority of serious negative experiences, and possible multi-entity review aggregation — the true score likely falls in the 80–87 range.

CPR Plumbing earns strong marks across all four dimensions, with professionalism being the most consistently praised attribute — punctuality, communication, text updates, and courteous behavior are mentioned explicitly across dozens of reviews spanning multiple years. Pricing is generally regarded as fair and transparent, with multiple reviewers specifically noting competitive rates, no surprise charges, and even no-charge service calls; however, two negative reviews (1-star and 2-star) cite significant pricing concerns including a disputed $30,000 escalation and a $450 charge for a short PVC repair, which temper the pricing score meaningfully. Project completion is strong overall, with most jobs described as fully resolved, but one notable 2-star review documents an abandoned commercial job after sheetrock was cut, and one 1-star review describes a callback situation where the owner returned money rather than completing a guaranteed repair — both of which reduce the project completion score from what would otherwise be near-perfect. Experience scores well, with reviewers frequently citing correct diagnosis on first visit, successful resolution of problems other plumbers failed to fix, and skilled handling of complex issues like slab leaks and gas line emergencies.

• Three negative reviews (1-star x2, 2-star x1) are present and carry meaningful weight: one describes a $30,000 price escalation the customer felt was unjustified, one describes a $450 charge for a minor above-ground PVC repair, and one describes an abandoned commercial job after sheetrock was unnecessarily cut — all three are specific and credible.
• One 1-star review (2015) describes a failed guaranteed repair where the owner refunded money rather than resolving the issue — this is a direct project completion failure.
• One review has no text content (only a 5-star rating, dated 2023-06-10) and was excluded from dimension scoring as it provides no usable data.
• A cluster of reviews share the exact date '2023-06-10' and '2024-06-09' with no specific timestamps, suggesting possible batch imports or platform migration artifacts rather than organic review timing. Content across these reviews is varied and specific enough to not indicate fabrication, but the date clustering is noted.
• Several older reviews (2011–2017) are more than 7 years old. While they are consistent with recent reviews in tone and content, they carry reduced weight given the recency rule. The majority of reviews from 2022 onward remain positive and consistent.
• No clear fake review pattern detected — reviews contain specific names (Chad, Chris, Tyler, Christian, Adam), specific job types, and varied detail levels. Generic praise reviews are present but are a minority.

This WW Score is based on 70 reviews spanning 2011–2025 with strong representation in recent years, all four dimensions have HIGH confidence due to abundant mentions, and the presence of three credible negative reviews with specific complaints has been factored into the scoring, making this an overall reliable and moderately conservative assessment of CPR Plumbing's performance.

Genzel Plumbing demonstrates strong overall performance across all measured dimensions. Professionalism scores highest (87.5) with consistent mentions of punctuality, courteous staff, clear communication, and responsiveness across 48 reviews. Project completion is solid (85.0) with 42 reviews confirming timely job completion and follow-through, though a few negative reviews cite poor workmanship. Experience is well-documented (88.0) with 35 mentions of skilled technicians and quality work. Pricing is the weakest dimension (78.0) with 16 mentions—while many reviews praise fair pricing, several explicitly note costs are high relative to competitors, and one detailed complaint cited a $3,600 quote that was $1,000 above a competitor's all-inclusive bid. The company shows strong consistency in recent reviews (past 12 months) but has three negative reviews from 2025 and 2023 that warrant attention.

• Three negative reviews (1-star ratings on 2025-04-10, 2023-12-26) provide specific complaints: 'Terrible work,' 'awful work causing major leaks,' and 'lack professionalism.' These are credible dissenting voices that prevent a higher overall score despite overwhelming 5-star majority.
• Pricing concern: One detailed 2023 review explicitly states Genzel quoted $3,600 for water heater replacement while a competitor quoted $2,600 for plumbing plus mold remediation, drywall, and paint. This suggests pricing may be significantly above market in some cases.
• Multiple empty/blank reviews (5 instances with 5.0 rating but no text) reduce data quality slightly but do not appear to be fake—they are likely system artifacts.
• Recency note: Majority of reviews are from 2025 (most recent 12 months), with strong consistency in positive feedback. Older reviews (2008-2014) also consistently positive, suggesting long-term reliability.
• No evidence of fake review patterns detected. Reviews contain specific technician names, detailed project descriptions, and varied language. Negative reviews are substantive and credible.

This WW Score of 82.3 is highly reliable, based on 67 reviews with strong data across all four dimensions and HIGH confidence overall. However, the score reflects a real split in customer experience: the vast majority report excellent service, but a meaningful minority (3 negative reviews) report serious quality issues. Prospective customers should expect professional, timely service with skilled technicians, but should obtain multiple quotes on pricing and verify workmanship guarantees before committing to larger projects.

Schlegel Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism with consistent praise for punctuality, responsiveness, and courteous communication across 11 reviews. Project completion is solid with 10 mentions of finished work and follow-through, including callbacks and additional support. Experience is well-documented with 7 mentions of skilled workmanship and technical knowledge. However, pricing is a notable weakness with 6 mentions, including 3 explicitly negative reviews citing high costs and feeling overcharged, which significantly tempers the overall score despite strong performance in other areas.

• RECENCY CONCERN: 10 of 16 reviews are from 2021 or earlier; only 6 reviews from 2022 onward. Most data is 2+ years old.
• PRICING VOLATILITY: Strong contradiction on pricing—9 reviews praise fair/honest pricing, but 3 reviews (2020, 2009, 2016) explicitly cite excessive costs and feeling ripped off. This suggests either inconsistent pricing practices or significant service variation.
• OUTLIER REVIEWS: Two 1-star reviews (2016, 2009) describe feeling misled and overcharged for inspection. These are older but represent serious complaints.
• GENERIC REVIEW: One review dated 2014-10-08 contains only 'unknown' as text—minimal data value.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: Multiple 5-star reviews use nearly identical phrasing ('highly recommend,' 'honest,' 'reliable,' 'family business') but this is mitigated by specific details in most reviews (names, situations, dates) that suggest authenticity.

This score should be treated with MODERATE-to-HIGH confidence for professionalism and project completion, but pricing confidence is LIMITED due to contradictory evidence and older data. The overall WW Score of 82.3 is reliable for recent work quality but may not reflect current pricing practices; customers should request detailed quotes and clarify all fees upfront given historical pricing complaints.

Water Works Plumbing demonstrates strong overall performance across all dimensions, with particular strength in professionalism (85.2) and project completion (83.5). The company excels at punctuality, communication, and technical expertise, as evidenced by numerous mentions of on-time arrivals, clear explanations, and skilled problem-solving. Pricing is fair and competitive (79.8), though some customers note occasional communication gaps around costs. Experience scores (81.3) reflect consistent quality workmanship and knowledgeable technicians. However, the presence of several negative reviews citing communication failures, incomplete work, and customer service issues prevents a higher overall score.

• NEGATIVE REVIEW CLUSTER: Multiple 1-star reviews (approximately 15-20) citing serious issues including incomplete work, poor communication, no-shows, rude staff, and billing disputes. These are not isolated incidents but represent a pattern of service failures.
• COMMUNICATION FAILURES: Several reviews mention lack of follow-up, unreturned calls, and scheduling issues. Examples include customers waiting weeks for callbacks and plumbers not showing up to appointments.
• BILLING DISPUTES: Multiple complaints about unclear pricing, hidden charges, per-hour rates not disclosed upfront, and overcharging. Some customers report being quoted one price and charged significantly more.
• INCOMPLETE WORK: Several reviews document jobs that required callbacks to fix, work left unfinished, or problems that recurred shortly after service.
• STAFF CONDUCT ISSUES: A few reviews mention unprofessional behavior including hanging up on customers, rudeness, and one incident of a technician walking off the job mid-appointment.
• RECENCY CONSIDERATION: Most recent reviews (2025) are overwhelmingly positive (5-star), while older reviews (2009-2022) show more balanced feedback with notable negative experiences. This suggests either improved service quality or potential review manipulation.
• EMPTY REVIEWS: Approximately 20 reviews contain only a 5-star rating with no text, which is unusual and may indicate fake or placeholder reviews.
• INCONSISTENT QUALITY: Wide variance in customer experiences suggests inconsistent service delivery, possibly dependent on which technician is assigned or which location serves the customer.

This WW Score of 82.1 should be treated with moderate caution. While the HIGH confidence rating reflects substantial data volume, the significant cluster of negative reviews documenting serious failures (no-shows, incomplete work, billing disputes, poor communication) indicates real service quality issues that coexist with many positive experiences. The recent surge of uniformly positive 5-star reviews without detail raises concerns about review authenticity. Prospective customers should expect generally competent work and fair pricing but should be aware of documented risks around communication, billing transparency, and follow-through on complex jobs.

Classic Plumbing demonstrates strong overall performance with a WW Score of 82.1, driven by consistently high marks in professionalism (85.2) and experience (84.6). The company excels at punctuality, courteous service, and technical competence, with numerous reviews praising specific technicians like Jeff, Omari, and Malik. Project completion is solid at 83.1, though some older reviews flag communication gaps and follow-through issues. Pricing (78.5) is the weakest dimension, with legitimate concerns about estimate charges, unexpected cost overruns, and inconsistent pricing practices, though many recent reviews praise fair pricing. The company shows improvement in recent years but carries historical baggage from pricing disputes and service failures.

• FAKE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: Two identical reviews appear verbatim on 2025-06-02 and 2025-05-30 ('Jeff was professand courteous. Repaired 2 faucets...'). This is a red flag for artificially inflated ratings.
• PRICING INCONSISTENCY: Multiple reviews (2023, 2019, 2018) report being charged for estimates ($140-$170) with promises that fees would be applied to work—promises not honored. This practice appears to have been discontinued but damaged trust.
• COST OVERRUN PATTERN: Several reviews document significant price increases between estimates and final bills (e.g., $400-$450 budgeted vs. $626.58 charged; $9,000 quote for remodel work deemed exorbitant). Some customers report being charged for failed repairs or incomplete work.
• SERVICE FAILURE HISTORY: Older reviews (2015-2019) document incomplete repairs, misdiagnosis, poor communication between office and field staff, and refusal to warranty work beyond 30 days. More recent reviews (2024-2025) show improvement but pattern suggests systemic issues were present.
• COMMUNICATION GAPS: Multiple reviews cite office staff rudeness, failure to return calls, voicemail boxes full, and poor coordination between office and technicians regarding follow-up appointments.
• RECENCY BIAS NOTED: 70% of reviews are from 2024-2025 and are overwhelmingly 5-star with minimal critical detail. Older reviews (2015-2023) are more balanced and reveal legitimate service failures. Recent positive reviews may reflect improved operations or selection bias.
• EMPTY REVIEWS: Seven reviews contain only a 5-star rating with no text, suggesting possible automated or placeholder entries.

This WW Score of 82.1 is reliable for recent service expectations (2024-2025) but should be interpreted cautiously: the company demonstrates strong technical competence and professionalism in current operations, but historical pricing practices and service failures (2015-2023) suggest customers should obtain detailed written estimates, confirm pricing terms in advance, and verify warranty terms before engaging. The HIGH overall confidence is supported by 98 mentions of professionalism and 87 of project completion, but the MODERATE confidence in pricing (42 mentions) reflects genuine concerns about cost transparency that persist despite recent improvements.