Find Nearby Plumbers In San Angelo, Texas

The contractor shows strong pricing and experience ratings based on two highly positive reviews spanning over 10 years of customer loyalty, with explicit praise for reasonable rates and quality plumbing work. However, a severe 1-star review from 2014 describing a 24-hour water outage significantly impacts project completion confidence, suggesting a critical service failure. All scores are based on limited mentions (2 per dimension), and the oldest positive reviews date to 2012, making recency a concern. The stark contrast between the two 5-star reviews and the 1-star review creates substantial uncertainty about consistency and reliability.

• RECENCY CONCERN: Two positive reviews are from 2012 (11+ years old); only one negative review from 2014 (10 years old). No recent reviews provided.
• EXTREME RATING VARIANCE: One 1-star review describing catastrophic service failure (24-hour water outage) contradicts two 5-star reviews with no explanation or context for the failure.
• LIMITED DATA: Only 3 reviews total; all dimension scores based on 2 mentions each, resulting in LIMITED confidence across all dimensions.
• PROJECT COMPLETION RED FLAG: The 1-star review explicitly indicates a major service failure, which directly contradicts the positive reviews' claims of 'no problems' and 'no regrets.' This unresolved contradiction significantly undermines project completion scoring.

This WW Score should be treated with caution due to very limited review volume (3 total), age of data (oldest positive reviews from 2012), and an unresolved contradiction between two 5-star reviews claiming perfect service and one 1-star review describing a severe failure; additional recent reviews are needed to establish reliable confidence in this contractor's current performance.

Wright Plumbing demonstrates solid technical competence and generally professional conduct, with most recent reviews (2024) being highly positive. However, significant pricing concerns emerge across multiple reviews, with customers reporting quotes exceeded by 40% and service calls charged at premium rates for simple tasks. Project completion is generally reliable, though one 2017 review flagged an unusually lengthy drain unclog. The company shows responsiveness and owner accountability (Chris apologized for a poor service experience), but inconsistent pricing transparency and at least one documented service failure substantially impact overall trustworthiness.

• PRICING RED FLAG: Multiple reviews (2020, 2020, 2018) report significant overcharges or unexpectedly high fees. One customer was charged $423 for work quoted at $300 (40% overage). Another paid $250 for a simple hot water heater changeout. A third paid $139 for a service call that failed to diagnose a simple valve issue.
• SERVICE QUALITY INCONSISTENCY: One detailed 2020 review describes a plumber who failed to check a simple water supply valve, charged $139 for the failed service, then argued with the customer for 20 minutes that the failure was the customer's fault. Owner Chris did apologize and refund, but damage to trust was substantial.
• RECENCY BIAS: Most recent reviews (2024, 2024, 2024, 2024, 2024) are uniformly 5-star with generic praise. Older reviews (2020, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017, 2017, 2014) show more critical detail and lower ratings. Recent reviews lack specificity and may reflect selection bias.
• GENERIC PRAISE PATTERN: Several 2024 reviews use vague language ('great job guys', 'responsive, friendly and professional') without specific examples, which limits confidence in their reliability.
• SKILL VARIANCE: One 2017 review criticized a plumber for taking 4 hours to unclog a kitchen sink (normally 2 hours max), suggesting inconsistent technician quality.

This score should be treated with MODERATE confidence. While recent reviews are positive, historical pricing complaints and documented service failures create legitimate concerns about consistency and transparency. The company appears to have improved recently, but customers should obtain detailed written quotes and clarify pricing terms before engaging services.

Two positive reviews explicitly praise Willie's professionalism (friendly, professional, competent, called ahead to confirm), pricing (affordable, low hourly rate), and experience (fast service, competent work). However, the sample size is extremely small (only 2 usable reviews), and both positive reviews are from 2015–2016, making them 8–9 years old. One review from 2016 describes dangerous and unprofessional driving behavior by a company vehicle, which severely damages the professionalism dimension but was excluded from scoring as it does not reflect service quality. The WW Score is calculated conservatively given limited and dated data.

• Only 2 usable reviews; sample size is too small for reliable scoring
• Both positive reviews are from 2015–2016 (8–9 years old); no recent data available
• One 1-star review describes reckless driving by company vehicle (September 2016), suggesting potential professionalism issues not reflected in service reviews
• Positive reviews lack specific detail about actual plumbing work completed; praise is generic
• No data on project completion, timeliness of callbacks, or follow-through on jobs

This WW Score should be treated with extreme caution due to insufficient sample size (only 2 usable reviews) and age of data (8–9 years old). The score does not reflect current business practices and cannot be considered reliable for decision-making.

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.

Plumbing By Rick shows a mixed but analyzable track record across all four dimensions. Professionalism scores moderately — many reviewers praise polite, courteous, and friendly technicians, but this is significantly dragged down by serious incidents including a plumber entering an unauthorized bathroom and breaking a fixture, technicians making inappropriate comments about female clients, and a rescheduling on the day of a confirmed appointment. Pricing is the weakest dimension: while several reviewers note competitive quotes and beating competitor prices, there are multiple credible complaints about billing exceeding quoted amounts, undisclosed fees (helper labor, driving/shopping time, convenience fees), and a disputed $100 appliance removal charge — these are not minor gripes but detailed, specific billing grievances. Project completion is middling — most jobs appear to get done, but there are notable failures including a job left unresolved after billing nearly $300, a team that had to return the next day due to missing materials, and a rescheduling that cost a customer a day off work. Experience scores the highest, with multiple reviewers noting knowledgeable, skilled, and efficient technicians who solved complex or long-standing plumbing problems effectively.

• BILLING TRANSPARENCY CONCERN: Two separate reviews (2024-07-24 and 2021-07-15) describe detailed, specific billing disputes involving charges that exceeded quoted prices or were never disclosed upfront. These are credible and specific complaints, not vague dissatisfaction.
• SERIOUS MISCONDUCT ALLEGATION: The 2022-05-31 review contains an explicit allegation that technicians made inappropriate sexual comments about female clients in their homes. This is a significant red flag for any household considering this contractor. This review was not flagged as fake — it contains specific, contextual detail.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent review is from July 2024. Several positive reviews are from 2017–2019 (more than 5 years old) and carry reduced weight. The two most recent reviews (2024 and 2023) are mixed — one positive, one negative billing complaint.
• NO SUSPECTED FAKE REVIEWS: Review language varies meaningfully across entries, ratings range from 1 to 5 stars, and negative reviews contain specific operational details. No patterns of coordinated fake reviews detected.
• PATTERN NOTE: Rescheduling issues appear in at least two reviews (2023-01-07 and 2021-07-15), suggesting a possible recurring reliability issue rather than isolated incidents.

This WW Score is based on 14 reviews spanning 2017–2024 with all four dimensions having sufficient mentions for HIGH confidence ratings; however, the presence of serious misconduct allegations, multiple specific billing disputes, and a spread of review dates means the score should be treated as a genuine reflection of an inconsistent service provider rather than a definitive endorsement or condemnation.

Lone Star Contracting shows strong professionalism and technical expertise, with many customers praising courteous staff, responsiveness, and quality workmanship. However, the company is significantly hampered by serious project completion issues—multiple reviews document substantial delays (4-week projects extending to 10 weeks), incomplete follow-up on promised repairs, and poor communication from office staff. Pricing is a major concern, with numerous customers reporting unexpected change orders, upcharges for standard work, and final bills 30-50% above original estimates. The company's willingness to stand behind work is questioned in several detailed complaints. Recent reviews (2021) show improvement, but the bulk of evidence spans 2012-2018 with persistent structural problems.

• FAKE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: Five reviews contain only 'unknown' text with 5-star ratings (2016-02-04, 2016-06-28, 2015-02-19, 2015-01-28, 2014-12-18) and two reviews contain only '.' or single word responses (2015-07-02, 2014-03-30). These appear to be placeholder or fraudulent entries. Confidence reduced accordingly.
• SEVERE RECENCY BIAS: 85% of reviews are from 2012-2015 (9+ years old). Only 2 reviews from 2018 or later. Historical data may not reflect current operations.
• CONTRADICTORY COMPANY IDENTITY: Reviews reference both 'Lone Star Plumbing' (negative 2018 reviews about slab leaks) and 'Lone Star Contracting' (mostly positive remodeling reviews). These may be different entities or divisions, creating data contamination.
• PATTERN OF SCOPE CREEP COMPLAINTS: Multiple detailed reviews (2014-04-02, 2013-11-30, 2012-11-09) document systematic strategy of quoting low then charging extensive change orders for standard work (steam generator 220V requirement, out-of-plumb walls, soldering for tub fixtures). This suggests intentional business practice, not isolated incidents.
• UNRESOLVED DAMAGE CLAIMS: 2014-04-02 review documents major deck construction failure and electrical issues with company refusing to repair at no charge, customer threatening small claims court. 2018-02-06 review documents 14 months of ignored repair promises with documented proof.
• COMMUNICATION BREAKDOWN: Multiple reviews cite unreachable office staff (Linda never answers phone), difficulty scheduling, only business hours availability, slow billing, and language barrier issues with Spanish-only workers and limited English-speaking management.

This WW Score should be treated with MODERATE confidence due to significant data quality issues: 5 fake/placeholder reviews inflate the dataset, 85% of reviews predate 2016 limiting current relevance, and potential company identity confusion between plumbing and contracting divisions. The score reflects historical performance (2012-2015) more than current operations. The pattern of complaints about change orders and incomplete follow-up appears systematic rather than isolated, suggesting structural business practice issues. Recent 2021 review shows improvement but is insufficient to override historical pattern.