Find Nearby Plumbers In Richardson, Texas

Plumb Quick / Matthew's team earns consistently strong marks across all four dimensions, with professionalism being the most frequently praised attribute — reviewers repeatedly highlight punctuality, communication, responsiveness, and courteous behavior. Pricing is noted as reasonable or fair by multiple reviewers, with one reviewer contextualizing plumbing costs generally rather than criticizing this company specifically, which supports a solid but not exceptional pricing score. Project completion is well-supported: reviewers describe jobs being finished same-day or next-day, follow-through on complex multi-task visits, and honoring commitments even under extreme demand (e.g., the 2021 freeze). Experience and technical skill are affirmed by specific examples including honest diagnosis, permit handling, and fixing work left undone by other plumbers. One negative review concerns an employee's aggressive driving behavior and does not relate to plumbing service quality, but it is noted as a professionalism flag.

• One 1-star review (2021-12-17) describes dangerous aggressive driving by an employee in the community — this is a professionalism concern unrelated to plumbing work quality but reflects on company conduct and was factored into the professionalism score.
• Several reviews use similarly enthusiastic language ('highly recommend', 'amazing', 'great service') but most include specific job details or named individuals, reducing fake review concern. No strong fake review pattern detected.
• Recency note: 5 of 13 reviews are from 2022 or earlier, and 3 reviews date to 2018–2020. The most recent review is from October 2024. The score is weighted toward more recent reviews where possible, but the review base spans 6+ years.
• Review from 2023-07-24 does not explicitly praise this company's pricing — the reviewer contextualizes plumbing costs generally. This was not counted as a direct pricing endorsement for scoring purposes.

This WW Score is based on 13 reviews spanning 2018–2024 with usable data across all four dimensions and HIGH confidence on every dimension, making it a reasonably reliable assessment, though a larger and more recent review base would further strengthen confidence.

DFW PipePros/Dried Piper demonstrates strong overall performance driven primarily by exceptional professionalism across 68 reviews, with consistent praise for politeness, punctuality, communication, and respectful demeanor. Project completion is solid (85/100 across 52 mentions) with most jobs finished promptly and follow-through honored, though a few isolated incidents of no-shows and unresolved callbacks slightly reduce confidence. Experience scores well (87/100) with demonstrated technical knowledge and problem-solving ability. Pricing presents the weakest dimension (78/100) with mixed feedback—many reviews praise fair and reasonable rates, but several older reviews (2021-2022) cite aggressive pricing ($500+/hour for roof-access clogs, $3,000 pipe replacement recommendations that proved unnecessary), creating legitimate concern about value consistency.

• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: Reviews dated 2025-06-07, 2025-06-05, 2025-06-04, 2025-06-03, 2025-06-02, and 2025-05-26 show suspiciously repetitive phrasing ('very polite,' 'professional,' 'efficient,' 'friendly,' 'knowledgeable') with nearly identical structure and all 5-star ratings. These 20+ recent reviews lack specificity about actual problems solved and use generic praise language. This clustering suggests possible review manipulation or incentivized reviews.
• RECENCY BIAS: Approximately 50% of reviews are from June 2025 (very recent, potentially inflated), while older reviews (2017-2022) contain more critical detail and occasional negative feedback. The company's recent review profile is significantly more positive than its historical record.
• PRICING INCONSISTENCY: Multiple reviews from 2021-2022 report aggressive upselling and high hourly rates ($500+/hour), while recent reviews praise 'reasonable' pricing. This suggests either a significant business practice change or selective positive review generation in recent months.
• RESPONSIVENESS FAILURES: Three 1-star reviews (2021-06-17, 2019-04-12, 2018-02-12) document complete unresponsiveness, no-shows, and failure to follow up on paid diagnostic fees. These are serious service failures that contradict the 'highly responsive' narrative in recent reviews.
• CALLBACK ISSUES: One 2-star review (2021-09-12) documents owner Brian promising a callback for major work that never materialized, and questionable diagnosis of $3,000 pipe replacement that proved unnecessary 8 months later.

This WW Score of 84.2 should be treated with MODERATE-TO-HIGH caution: while professionalism and experience dimensions are well-supported by 68+ and 35+ mentions respectively, the recent review clustering (50+ reviews in June 2025 with repetitive language) suggests potential review manipulation that artificially inflates the overall score. Historical reviews (2017-2022) reveal genuine service failures (no-shows, unresponsiveness, aggressive upselling) that are absent from recent reviews, indicating either significant business improvement or selective positive review generation. The pricing dimension (78/100) reflects legitimate historical concerns about value that may not be fully captured in recent reviews. Prospective customers should weight older, detailed reviews more heavily and request recent client references before committing to major work.

Astro/Pirate Plumbing receives overwhelmingly positive feedback across all four dimensions, with professionalism being the most frequently praised attribute — punctuality, communication, friendliness, and respectful conduct are cited in the vast majority of reviews. Pricing is generally regarded as fair and competitive, with multiple reviewers explicitly noting they compared quotes and found this company to be the best value; however, one credible review alleges a bait-and-switch from $425 to $700, which tempers the pricing score. Project completion is strong overall, with numerous accounts of jobs finished same-day or next-day and technicians going above and beyond, but a cluster of negative reviews — including allegations of abandoned work, unresolved installations, and failure to respond to complaints — prevents a higher score. Experience scores well due to repeated praise for technicians solving problems that other companies could not, though one negative review explicitly questioned whether a technician was even a certified plumber, introducing a note of caution.

• 11 reviews contained no text — only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence.
• One review (2024-07-03) appears to be a near-duplicate of the 2025-05-10 review from the same reviewer (Brenda Marzan) and was treated as a single data point to avoid double-counting.
• One review (2024-07-12) contains what appears to be a copy-paste of a Google Maps UI/page content rather than an original review narrative. It was excluded from scoring.
• Several 5-star reviews are very brief and generic (e.g., 'Great customer service quality work', 'reliable and fast service', 'Very good. Prompt arrival'). While not conclusively fake, they lack specifics and were weighted conservatively.
• A meaningful cluster of 1-star reviews (7 reviews) raises legitimate concerns: allegations include lying to home warranty companies to deny claims, refusing to fix incorrectly installed work, a technician spending more time on the phone than working, failure to return calls, and rude office staff. These are specific, detailed, and credible complaints that meaningfully reduce scores in project completion and professionalism.
• The bait-and-switch pricing complaint (2017) is old but specific and credible — a quote of $425 that became $700 at the door. This was factored into the pricing score.
• The company has operated under at least two names — Pirate Plumbing and Astro Plumbing — which may affect continuity of service quality assessments. Reviews span both eras.
• Several reviews reference home warranty work (AHS, Old Republic), and negative reviews disproportionately involve home warranty interactions, suggesting potential friction in that specific service channel rather than across all work.
• The oldest reviews (2012, 2017, 2021) were given reduced weight given the recency rule. The bulk of scoring is driven by 2022–2025 reviews.

This WW Score is based on a large and diverse review set spanning multiple years and carries HIGH overall confidence, but prospective customers should weigh the credible negative reviews seriously — particularly allegations of dishonest warranty reporting, unresolved installation errors, and inconsistent responsiveness — which suggest the experience may vary significantly depending on the technician assigned and whether a home warranty is involved.

Zoom Drain demonstrates strong professionalism and technical expertise across most engagements, with technicians consistently praised for friendliness, punctuality, and knowledge. Project completion is generally reliable with same-day or next-day service frequently delivered. However, pricing emerges as a significant concern, with multiple customers reporting substantially inflated quotes ($638 vs. $200 for drain snaking; $800 for incomplete root ball removal) and accusations of upselling tactics. Scheduling reliability is also problematic, with documented cases of missed appointments and poor communication. These issues prevent a higher overall score despite strong individual technician performance.

• PRICING INTEGRITY CONCERN: Three explicit complaints about overcharging and deceptive practices (quotes 3-4x market rate, incomplete work to justify upselling, alleged side-job solicitation). This pattern suggests systemic pricing or sales practices issues.
• SCHEDULING SYSTEM FAILURE: One detailed 1-star review documents repeated scheduling failures across multiple days with poor communication and no-shows. Another 1-star review shows no-call/no-show for booked appointment.
• QUALITY CONTROL INCONSISTENCY: One customer paid $800 for root ball removal that was incomplete; second company removed entire root ball, suggesting first service was inadequate or deliberately incomplete.
• NOISE/CONDUCT COMPLAINT: One 1-star review documents extremely loud late-night service (11pm) with no effort to minimize noise disturbance to neighbors.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: Multiple empty reviews (no text, only 5-star ratings) and several generic 5-star reviews with minimal detail (e.g., 'All good no problems', 'Zoom did great job!!') suggest possible review padding, though not conclusive.
• RECENCY BIAS: Majority of reviews are from 2025 (past 6 months); older reviews (2020-2022) are uniformly positive with more detail, while recent reviews show more critical incidents. This may indicate recent operational decline or increased review authenticity.
• CONFLICTING EVIDENCE: Strong positive reviews from named technicians (John, Tyler, MJ, Antonio, Ryan C., Lawrence, Gerald, James) contrast sharply with systemic complaints about scheduling, pricing, and quality control, suggesting individual technician quality does not translate to company-wide reliability.

This score should be treated with CAUTION. While professionalism and experience scores are HIGH confidence, the pricing dimension is severely limited (only 7 mentions) and reveals serious integrity concerns that may not be fully captured in the overall score. The company demonstrates excellent individual technician performance but appears to have systemic issues with scheduling, pricing transparency, and quality assurance that create significant risk for customers. Recommend requesting detailed written quotes and verifying work completion before payment.

Elite Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism (82.5) with consistent praise for punctuality, courtesy, and responsiveness across 187 mentions. Pricing is competitive and fair (78.0) with 68 mentions highlighting reasonable costs and transparency. However, project completion shows the most concern (72.5) with 142 mentions revealing significant follow-through issues: multiple callbacks not honored, incomplete work requiring repeat visits, poor communication about scheduling, and several instances of abandoned jobs. Experience/skill is solid (80.0) across 95 mentions, with technicians generally demonstrating competence and problem-solving ability. The company's performance is inconsistent—excellent technical work undermined by administrative and follow-through failures.

• CRITICAL: Multiple reviews (15+) document severe project completion failures including abandoned jobs, non-responsive callbacks, and incomplete work requiring other contractors to finish repairs. Examples: septic tank project abandoned 6 months in, water heater installation never completed, faucet replacement never followed up on.
• COMMUNICATION BREAKDOWN: Recurring pattern of unresponsive office staff (Nicole mentioned multiple times), voicemail boxes full, no return calls, and email-only communication causing delays. At least 12 reviews cite inability to reach the company.
• INCONSISTENT QUALITY: Wide variance in service quality depending on technician assigned. Some technicians (Frank, Ryan, Salvador, Dale) consistently praised; others (Stewart, Brandon) associated with poor follow-through and unprofessional behavior.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEWS: Approximately 20 recent reviews (dated None/no date) show suspiciously identical phrasing patterns ('Salvador/Sal was professional,' 'responded immediately,' 'highly recommend') with generic praise and no specific details. These cluster at end of review list and lack dates. Confidence reduced slightly due to this pattern.
• CREDIT CARD FRAUD ALLEGATION: One review (2024-05-26) alleges unauthorized credit card processing without customer authorization—serious compliance concern.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most recent dated reviews (2025) are from Payless Plumbing/different company name. Older Elite Plumbing reviews (2003-2016) show more detailed narratives; recent undated reviews lack specificity, suggesting possible review manipulation or company rebranding.
• WARRANTY COMPANY DISPUTES: Multiple reviews (8+) document conflicts with home warranty companies, suggesting either systemic billing/coverage issues or poor coordination with warranty processes.

This WW Score of 76.8 should be treated with MODERATE-TO-HIGH caution: while professionalism and experience scores are well-supported by extensive mentions, the project completion score is significantly dragged down by documented failures in follow-through and communication. The recent cluster of undated, suspiciously similar positive reviews raises authenticity concerns. Prospective customers should prioritize requesting specific technician assignments (Frank, Ryan, Salvador, Dale show best track records) and establish clear written completion timelines with penalty clauses, as administrative follow-through appears to be the company's primary weakness despite solid technical capability.

Richardson Plumbing has a strong base of loyal, repeat customers who consistently praise John and David for responsiveness, technical knowledge, and transparent pricing across many years of reviews. However, a meaningful cluster of negative reviews — spanning multiple years — describes serious issues including incomplete work, property damage left unaddressed, rude communication from staff, failure to diagnose problems correctly, and unprofessional conduct by employees. The project completion dimension is notably dragged down by multiple reviews describing jobs that were not properly finished or required a second company to resolve. Pricing is generally viewed as fair by satisfied customers, but several negative reviewers felt they were overcharged for poor or incomplete work. The breadth of both praise and criticism across a large review set produces a moderate overall score that reflects genuine inconsistency in service delivery.

• 8 reviews contain no text — only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence.
• One negative review (2015-07-23) appears to describe a plumbing supply store retail transaction rather than a plumbing service call and may not be directly relevant to contractor service quality.
• One negative review (2016-09-09) references 'Earthwise' having bought out Richardson Plumbing and answering the phone as Richardson — this may reflect a different business entity and should be treated with caution.
• Two reviews reference 'Dave' or 'David' rather than 'John' as the plumber, suggesting either multiple technicians or possible review aggregation across related but distinct service providers.
• Several 5-star reviews are brief and generic (e.g., 'Great customer service would recommend them', 'Fast and efficient', 'Great plumber, an expert in his field') with no specific detail, which slightly reduces confidence in the positive score cluster.
• The majority of reviews are older than 12 months; only 2 reviews are from the past 12 months (2025-05-10 and 2025-02-09). Recency weighting favors those two recent reviews, both of which are strongly positive, but the bulk of the scoring evidence is from 2017–2022.
• Multiple distinct negative themes appear across unrelated reviewers and time periods: abandoned or incomplete work, property damage not remedied, rude phone staff, employees charging for smoke breaks, and failure to diagnose problems — this pattern is credible and not consistent with isolated incidents.

This WW Score is based on a substantial review set with HIGH mention counts across all four dimensions, making it statistically reliable, but the score should be interpreted cautiously given documented recurring service failures and the age of most reviews.