Find Nearby Plumbers In Rockwall, Texas

A&D Plumbing earns strong marks across all four dimensions, driven by an exceptionally large and detailed review base spanning over a decade. Professionalism is the most frequently cited strength, with dozens of reviewers explicitly praising punctuality, communication, politeness, and responsiveness — including same-day and weekend availability with no extra charge. Pricing is consistently described as fair, reasonable, and competitive, with several reviewers noting that final bills matched or came in below estimates and that itemized quotes were provided. Project completion scores are high but are modestly tempered by three negative reviews: one citing a failed Rinnai installation that caused property damage, one alleging dishonest communication with a home warranty company, and one reporting that a callback was never returned. Experience is well-supported, with many reviewers describing skilled problem-solving, technical knowledge across diverse plumbing tasks, and quality workmanship on complex jobs including re-pipes, remodels, and emergency repairs.

• THREE NEGATIVE REVIEWS PRESENT: (1) A 1-star review dated 2020-07-26 alleges two Rinnai tankless systems were installed incorrectly, one burned out, and the ceiling was flooded causing drywall damage — a serious workmanship and liability concern. (2) A 1-star review dated 2019-04-19 alleges the technician gave conflicting information to a home warranty company, leading to a claim denial, and characterizes the company as dishonest. (3) A 1-star review dated 2014-02-09 reports that a callback was never received over a weekend, forcing the customer to use another plumber.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of highly detailed positive reviews are from 2011–2018. Reviews from 2019–2024 are fewer in number and some are less detailed. The most recent reviews (2022–2024) are generally positive but shorter and less specific, which slightly reduces confidence in current performance consistency.
• POSSIBLE ENTITY OVERLAP: Reviews reference multiple different named plumbers (Mike, JD, Doug, Abraham, Aaron, Greg, Bob, Dave Millsaps) across what appears to be a shared business name 'A&D Plumbing.' It is possible these reviews represent more than one distinct business operating under a similar name, which could affect score reliability. Scores should be interpreted with this caveat in mind.
• NO FAKE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: Despite the large volume of positive reviews, the majority contain specific job details, named individuals, unique scenarios, and varied language. The review set does not exhibit the hallmarks of coordinated fake reviews.

This WW Score is based on a large, multi-year review dataset with strong mention counts across all four dimensions and is considered HIGH confidence overall, but users should weigh the three negative reviews seriously — particularly the allegation of faulty Rinnai installation causing property damage — and note that the possible presence of multiple distinct businesses operating under the same name introduces some uncertainty about whether all reviews reflect a single contractor's current performance.

Selbe Plumbing demonstrates strong performance across all measured dimensions. Project completion is the standout strength, with all five reviews explicitly confirming jobs were finished successfully and efficiently, often same-day or swiftly. Professionalism is consistently praised with mentions of punctuality, friendliness, communication, and respectful demeanor across four reviews. Technical skill and problem-solving ability are evident in three reviews, including one where Shawn diagnosed and fixed a drainage issue that a competitor (RotorRooter) failed to resolve. Pricing feedback is limited but positive, with two reviews noting fair value and cost savings. The WW Score of 89.3 reflects reliable, quality workmanship with strong customer satisfaction.

• Small sample size (5 reviews) limits statistical confidence; recommend reassessment once 10+ reviews are available
• All reviews are recent (past 30 days) and all are 5-star ratings; while not necessarily fake, the absence of any critical feedback or lower ratings is atypical and should be monitored for pattern changes
• Pricing dimension based on only 2 mentions; insufficient data to make strong claims about value proposition
• No explicit mention of pricing transparency, quotes, or hidden charges in any review; pricing score is inferred from general 'fair value' and 'saved money' language rather than direct pricing feedback

This WW Score should be treated as a preliminary indicator only. With only 5 reviews and all recent 5-star ratings, the score reflects current customer satisfaction but lacks the volume and diversity of feedback needed for high confidence. Recommend collecting at least 10-15 additional reviews across a broader time period before making major business decisions based on this score.

Alert Drain and Sewer has a generally positive track record across the reviews analyzed, with consistent praise for responsiveness, punctuality, and polite technicians. Pricing was noted favorably in multiple reviews, with one reviewer specifically surprised by a low $92.50 bill compared to competitors. Project completion feedback was solid, with jobs described as completed quickly and effectively, including a same-day response and a two-person assist when a job ran long. However, one reviewer (3-star) explicitly stated they would not use the company again without providing detail, which introduces a cautionary note. Scores are tempered by the age of the reviews, with the most recent dating to 2017 and the majority from 2012–2015.

• All reviews are older than 6 years, with the most recent from July 2017. This data is significantly outdated and may not reflect current service quality.
• One review contains only the word 'unknown' and provides no usable data — excluded from scoring.
• One review contains only the word 'GREAT' with no supporting detail — excluded from dimension scoring.
• One 3-star review explicitly states the reviewer will not use the company again but provides no explanation, which limits the ability to assess what went wrong and introduces unresolved negative signal.
• Several reviews are very brief and generic (e.g., 'The job went well. No problems, no price hikes.'), which slightly reduces confidence in the overall picture, though no clear fake review pattern was detected.

This WW Score carries MODERATE reliability due to the small review set, the complete absence of recent reviews (all are 6+ years old), and one unexplained negative experience — prospective customers should seek more current references before hiring.

Gentry Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism with consistent punctuality, responsiveness, and courteous communication across multiple reviews. However, pricing feedback is mixed—while several customers found rates fair, one significant complaint cited high charges without guaranteed results. Project completion shows a critical weakness: one customer reported a drain clog recurred within weeks and the company refused callback service without additional payment, damaging trust. Technical skill is generally praised, but the lack of service guarantees undermines confidence in workmanship quality. The WW Score of 78.2 reflects solid professionalism offset by pricing concerns and a notable project completion failure.

• RECENCY BIAS: Four of six reviews are from 2012–2014 (8–10+ years old). Only two reviews are from 2015 and 2023. Historical data may not reflect current service standards.
• CRITICAL SERVICE FAILURE: 2015 review documents a drain clog that recurred within weeks post-service, with company refusing callback without additional charge and poor follow-up communication. This is a direct project completion failure.
• PRICING INCONSISTENCY: Reviews describe pricing as both 'fair' and 'high.' One customer explicitly objected to master plumber rates without guarantee. This suggests pricing may be a source of customer friction.
• SMALL SAMPLE SIZE: Only 6 reviews limits statistical confidence. Scores are vulnerable to individual outliers.
• GENERIC PRAISE IN OLDER REVIEWS: Three reviews from 2012–2014 contain minimal specific detail ('very friendly,' 'really good,' 'excellent job'), making them harder to validate.

This WW Score should be treated with caution due to small sample size (6 reviews), heavy skew toward outdated data (67% from 2012–2014), and one documented service failure that directly contradicts professionalism claims. The score reflects historical reputation but may not accurately represent current performance.

Enrique Rodriguez receives generally positive feedback across professionalism, pricing, and project completion, with explicit mentions of punctuality, responsiveness, standing by quoted prices, and timely work. However, the review pool is very small at only 5 reviews, and the vast majority are over 10 years old, significantly limiting the reliability of these scores. Only one review is from the past 12 months (2023), which is the most actionable data point. The single recent review is strong and specific, but one review alone cannot anchor a confident score. Experience-related commentary is sparse and mostly implied rather than explicitly detailed.

• RECENCY WARNING: 4 out of 5 reviews are more than 10 years old (2009–2013). Only 1 review is from the past 12 months (2023). Scores may not reflect current service quality.
• THIN DATA WARNING: Only 5 reviews total. WW Score should be treated as preliminary and not fully reliable.
• LOW DETAIL WARNING: Several reviews ('Great', 'The job went fine as stated above') contain almost no usable information and were excluded or minimally weighted in scoring.
• NO FAKE REVIEW PATTERNS DETECTED: Reviews vary in language, specificity, and rating, suggesting organic feedback.

This WW Score carries LOW overall reliability due to the very small number of reviews and the fact that nearly all usable data is more than a decade old; the score should be treated as a rough historical indicator only until more recent reviews are available.

This contractor shows strong technical knowledge and skill (mentioned positively in 3 reviews), and pricing appears fair based on one explicit mention. However, professionalism is significantly undermined by a critical failure in project completion: one detailed review documents incomplete work (incorrectly installed pipe), broken promises to return and fix the issue, and non-responsiveness despite warranty claims. While three reviews praise responsiveness and politeness, the severe project completion failure (unresolved callback, ignored customer) heavily weights the overall score downward. All reviews are from 2022, over 18 months old, limiting recency confidence.

• CRITICAL: One detailed 1-star review documents serious project completion failure—incorrect pipe installation, broken promises to return for repairs, and customer abandonment despite warranty. This directly contradicts positive reviews claiming reliability.
• All reviews are from 2022 (oldest is May 2022, newest is December 2022). No recent reviews available to assess current performance or whether issues were resolved.
• Limited sample size (4 reviews total). Score reliability is constrained by low mention counts across all dimensions.
• Potential inconsistency: Three reviews praise the contractor as trustworthy and knowledgeable, but one detailed review shows failure to honor callbacks and admit responsibility initially. This suggests either inconsistent service quality or a serious unresolved dispute.

This score should be treated with caution due to small sample size, age of reviews (all from 2022), and a critical unresolved project completion failure that directly contradicts positive testimonials. The WW Score of 73.3 reflects this conflict, but additional recent reviews are needed to determine if the contractor has improved or if the documented failure represents a pattern.