Find Nearby Plumbers In San Antonio, Texas

A&A Plumbing, Heating & Cooling earns strong marks for professionalism, with the overwhelming majority of reviewers praising courteous, uniformed, punctual technicians who communicate proactively — including pre-arrival texts with technician photos. Project completion is also solid, with most jobs described as finished same-day or within the promised timeframe, though a notable whole-house replumb review and a water softener repair review document incomplete or substandard workmanship requiring callbacks. Experience scores well overall, with many reviewers citing knowledgeable diagnostics and skilled execution, but is tempered by a handful of reviews describing misdiagnosis, inability to perform basic repairs, or apprentice-level work on complex jobs. Pricing is the clearest weak point: multiple independent reviewers across different years describe feeling significantly overcharged, cite flat-rate pricing that does not reflect actual labor or materials, and note a lack of itemized receipts — with one documented case of a tankless water heater installation billed at nearly triple the market rate for parts plus labor.

• PRICING CONCERN: Multiple unrelated reviewers across different years (2016, 2019, 2020, 2022, 2023) independently describe feeling overcharged or report prices significantly above market rate. This is a consistent and credible pattern, not isolated complaints.
• TRANSPARENCY CONCERN: At least two reviewers explicitly state the company does not provide itemized receipts or hourly rate breakdowns, and one reviewer reports being asked to sign financial documents on an iPad before receiving an estimate.
• WORKMANSHIP CONCERN: One detailed 1-star review of a whole-house replumb documents extensive quality issues including cigarette butts left on property, unsecured fittings, missing insulation, backwards connections, and a scratched refrigerator — suggesting quality may vary significantly by crew.
• UPSELLING CONCERN: Multiple reviewers across different years describe technicians steering them toward large-scale repairs or replacements when simpler fixes were available. One reviewer fixed a running toilet themselves in 15 minutes after A&A quoted thousands in excavation work.
• THEFT ALLEGATION: One review (2018) alleges a wedding ring went missing after technicians visited. This is unverified but noted as a serious flag.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK — LOW TO MODERATE: The 2025 and late 2024 reviews are heavily concentrated with 5-star ratings, many naming specific technicians with brief praise and no detail. While some may be genuine, the volume and uniformity of short 5-star reviews warrants mild caution. Two reviews from June 2025 contain no text at all (rating only) and were excluded from dimension scoring.
• RECENCY NOTE: Reviews span 2011–2025. The most recent 12 months (mid-2024 to mid-2025) are dominated by positive reviews. Negative reviews are more evenly distributed across the full timeline. Older negative reviews (2016–2023) carry meaningful signal about persistent pricing and upselling practices.

This WW Score is based on a large and diverse review set spanning over a decade, giving it HIGH statistical confidence, but the score should be interpreted with caution on pricing — the 58 pricing score reflects a genuine and recurring pattern of customer dissatisfaction that prospective customers should investigate before committing to large jobs.

Omega Plumbing earns strong marks across professionalism, project completion, and experience, with dozens of reviewers praising courteous, knowledgeable technicians who communicate clearly and follow through on jobs. Specific technicians — including John, Colin, Bill, Jonathan, David, Brandon, Chris, Albert, and Keith — are repeatedly named for quality work, punctuality, and going above and beyond. However, pricing is a meaningful drag on the overall score: multiple reviewers across different time periods explicitly complained about high costs, lack of transparent quoting, unexpected charges, and in one case alleged price gouging during a weather emergency. There are also isolated but serious concerns about an owner responding rudely to billing disputes and one incident of a technician failing to resolve a problem while still charging a service fee. The volume and consistency of positive reviews across multiple years provides high confidence in the core service quality, but the recurring pricing complaints prevent a top-tier score.

• 9 reviews contained no text (rating only) and were excluded from dimension scoring — these blank reviews inflate the raw review count without contributing usable data.
• Multiple pricing complaints span different years (2021, 2023, 2024) and involve different customers, suggesting a systemic pattern of high or opaque pricing rather than isolated incidents.
• One review (2021-09-01) alleges the owner sent multiple rude and personally insulting emails to a customer disputing a bill — a serious professionalism concern at the ownership level that is not reflected in technician-level scores.
• One review (2021-02-18) explicitly alleges price gouging during the Texas winter storm emergency, charging over $1,100 effective hourly rate for a 15-minute job.
• One review (2023-05-12) alleges a charge of over $1,100 with no detailed invoice provided and no callback after multiple requests — raises transparency and billing integrity concerns.
• One review (2025-04-10) describes a technician who failed to diagnose the problem, charged $150, and was dismissive — another company fixed the issue shortly after.
• One review (2021-09-20) alleges the company takes deposits and abandons jobs to start other work — this is a serious project completion concern but comes from a single reviewer with no corroboration.
• One review (2025-05-19) is about a company vehicle driving dangerously — not directly relevant to service quality but reflects on company culture and public conduct.
• The oldest review (2006) was noted but given negligible weight given its age. Reviews from 2017–2020 were given reduced weight relative to 2024–2025 reviews.
• No strong fake review patterns detected — reviews vary in length, specificity, named technicians, and include genuine negatives, which supports authenticity.

This WW Score is based on a large, diverse, and multi-year review set with high mention counts across all four dimensions, making it statistically reliable — however, the recurring pricing and billing transparency complaints are credible and consistent enough to warrant caution, and prospective customers should request detailed written quotes before authorizing work.

Basin Plumbing earns strong marks for professionalism and experience, with dozens of reviewers explicitly praising courteous, knowledgeable technicians who communicated clearly and arrived on time. Project completion is generally solid — most jobs were finished promptly and thoroughly — but is tempered by three notable failures: a technician who abandoned a job mid-task without notice, a no-show for a scheduled water heater replacement, and a missed appointment with poor follow-up communication. Pricing is the weakest dimension: while several reviewers praised affordability and transparent quotes, two reviews explicitly cited price gouging or a job that ran far over the quoted estimate, pulling this score down considerably. The overall picture is of a capable, well-regarded company with a strong track record but meaningful and recurring service reliability gaps that prevent a top-tier score.

• 12 reviews contain no text at all (blank body with only a star rating) and cannot be scored on any dimension — these were excluded from dimension scoring but counted in total reviews analyzed.
• Several reviews use generic single-sentence praise ('Great service, fast and efficient!', 'Super response & Great service', 'He's fantastic.', 'Fantastic!') with no specific details. While not conclusive of fake reviews, these add limited analytical value and were weighted conservatively.
• Two reviews dated 2025-10-12 appear to be near-duplicate accounts of the same service call by Jose (same leak, same refrigerator valve, same travel from San Antonio to Austin). These were counted as two mentions but treated as a single data point for scoring weight purposes to avoid artificial inflation.
• Pricing dimension has a significant negative signal: one reviewer documented a job quoted at 2-3 hours at $180/hr that ran to 7.5 hours and $1,400+ (settled at $1,164), and another paid $80 for an estimate they described as price gouging. One negative review also called the company 'outrageously priced.' These are serious and specific complaints that substantially reduce the pricing score.
• Project completion has three explicit failure reviews: (1) technician left a clog job without notice citing liability, (2) no-show for a scheduled water heater replacement with no callback, (3) missed appointment with poor communication and no apology. These are weighted heavily as they represent complete service failures.
• The majority of reviews are older than 12 months (many from 2015–2022). Reviews from the past 12 months (mid-2024 to mid-2025) are present and largely positive, but the bulk of the review base is historical. Recency weighting was applied where dates were available.
• One 1-star review (2025-02-09) criticizes the owner who answers the phone as requiring 'a lesson in customer satisfaction' — this is a professionalism signal from the office/management level, not just field technicians.

This WW Score is based on a large review set (107 total, 95 with usable data) spanning approximately 10 years, giving it HIGH overall confidence, though users should note that a handful of serious negative reviews regarding no-shows, job abandonment, and pricing overruns represent real and recurring risks that the score reflects but cannot fully capture in a single number.

210 Plumber earns strong marks across all four dimensions, with professionalism and experience being consistent highlights throughout the review history. The vast majority of customers praised punctuality, clear communication, and the team's willingness to explain work in detail — with Steve, Russell, and Oscar named repeatedly as standout technicians. Project completion scores well overall, bolstered by same-day service, callback honoring, and a notable instance of remedying a faulty shower faucet installation without hassle or surcharge; however, one serious no-show complaint and one pricing dispute involving escalating quotes after arrival meaningfully drag this dimension down. Pricing is the weakest dimension: while many reviewers praised fair and reasonable costs, three negative reviews specifically cite a $350 toilet labor charge as excessive, a bait-and-switch pricing pattern that escalated from $189 to $675, and general sticker shock — these are serious concerns that prevent a higher score. The score is tempered conservatively to reflect these credible negative outliers against an otherwise strong positive record.

• PRICING CONCERN: One reviewer (2018) describes a detailed and credible bait-and-switch pattern — quoted $189, charged $312 for partial work, then quoted $300, then $675 for completion. This is a serious integrity flag and was weighted heavily in the pricing score.
• PRICING CONCERN: A 2025 reviewer rated 1 star citing $350 for toilet installation labor only as excessive. This aligns with a 2024 reviewer who noted they 'sometimes gripe about the prices' even while recommending the company.
• PROFESSIONALISM FLAG: One 2024 reviewer reported a no-show during the appointment window with no proactive communication, and disputed the company's claim that they called. The company's public response was described as 'patronizing.' This is a credible and specific complaint.
• PROFESSIONALISM FLAG: One 2016 review (Angie's List) describes the owner Russell hanging up on a customer after being pressed for a timeline commitment, following a week of no follow-up. While older, this is a specific and credible account.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews with substantive detail are from 2023–2025, which is favorable. Several reviews from 2015–2017 were included but given reduced weight due to age.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Two reviews contained no text (only a 5-star rating, dated 2025-04-10 and 2024-06-09). These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data.
• GENERIC REVIEW FLAG: A small number of reviews contain very brief, non-specific praise ('Great guys who really care about doing great work,' 'Great experience very helpful,' 'Steve was great!'). These were counted for overall sentiment but not scored against specific dimensions due to lack of detail.
• NO FAKE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: While many reviews are positive, they contain specific names, job types, and situational details that indicate authentic experiences. No coordinated fake review pattern was identified.

This WW Score is based on 70 reviews spanning 2015–2025, with a strong concentration of detailed recent reviews, yielding HIGH confidence across all four dimensions; however, the score should be interpreted with caution on pricing and professionalism due to multiple credible and specific negative accounts that suggest occasional but non-trivial lapses in consistency.

Mauldin Plumbing demonstrates strong performance across all four dimensions based on available reviews. Professionalism is consistently praised with mentions of timely response, punctuality, and professional demeanor across all four reviews. Pricing receives strong marks for reasonableness and transparency, mentioned in three reviews with no complaints about hidden charges. Project completion is evidenced by successful resolution of complex plumbing issues and customer satisfaction with follow-through. Experience is highlighted through references to board certifications, technical knowledge, and precise workmanship. However, the overall confidence is MODERATE due to the limited sample size of only 4 reviews and concerning patterns in review language.

• FAKE REVIEW ALERT: Suspicious patterns detected across reviews. Two reviews from 2019 (Feb 4 and Feb 6) use nearly identical hyperbolic language ('absolutely love', 'never call anyone other than', excessive exclamation marks) with no specific details about actual work performed. These appear potentially fabricated or incentivized.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Two of four reviews are from 2019 (4-5 years old), one from 2022 (2 years old), and only one from 2023. Most data is older than 12 months, limiting current reliability.
• SMALL SAMPLE SIZE: Only 4 total reviews analyzed. Statistically insufficient for high-confidence scoring. Recommend collecting additional independent reviews before making major decisions.
• LACK OF NEGATIVE FEEDBACK: All reviews are 5-star with no critical comments. This uniformity, combined with generic praise language in some reviews, suggests potential selection bias or review manipulation.

This WW Score should be treated with caution. While the available reviews are positive, the small sample size (4 reviews), age of most data (2019-2022), and suspicious patterns in review language (repetitive hyperbolic phrasing, lack of specificity in two reviews) significantly limit confidence in the overall score. Additional recent, detailed reviews from independent sources are needed to validate this assessment.

Mike's Plumbing earns strong marks across all four dimensions, driven by an overwhelming volume of positive reviews praising punctuality, communication, friendly technicians, and quality workmanship across a wide range of jobs. Professionalism is the most frequently cited strength, with dozens of reviewers specifically calling out on-time arrivals, courteous staff, clean work habits, and responsive office personnel. Pricing scores moderately well — the majority of reviewers describe fair, competitive, or below-estimate final costs, but a meaningful minority of negative reviews cite unexpectedly high charges, undisclosed labor rates, and a significant bait-and-switch pricing complaint that cannot be ignored. Project completion is strong overall, with most jobs described as fully resolved in a timely manner, though several reviews flag recurring issues, abandoned callbacks, and at least one instance of a new leak appearing within 24 hours of service. Experience scores well, with many reviewers praising skilled diagnosis, creative problem-solving, and technical knowledge, though a handful of negative reviews describe technicians who could not resolve the issue or required senior intervention.

• Two reviews (dated 2024-10-29 and 2024-11-08) are nearly word-for-word identical in content, both complaining about a $310/hour charge for a water heater troubleshooting visit that yielded no resolution. This may represent the same reviewer posting twice or a coordinated negative review effort — treat with moderate caution but the underlying complaint is plausible and consistent with other pricing concerns.
• Two reviews (dated 2025-06-06 and 2025-06-04) are exact duplicates of a detailed positive review about a kitchen sink replumb job. This is a strong indicator of a fake or duplicate review submission and reduces confidence in the most recent positive review cluster.
• Two reviews (dated 2024-10-09 and 2024-10-03) are near-identical positive reviews about the same sewer line incident involving Cody. This may be a duplicate submission by the same reviewer.
• Two reviews (dated 2022-09-07 and 2022-09-04) are near-identical positive reviews about a whole-house generator gas piping re-do. Likely duplicate submissions.
• Two reviews (dated 2008-07-11) are exact duplicates of a positive review. Likely a duplicate submission.
• Multiple reviews contain no text and only a star rating (5 stars). These provide no usable data for any dimension and were excluded from dimension scoring.
• A significant number of negative reviews (1-star) cite responsiveness and communication failures — unreturned calls, ignored messages, missed appointments, and failure to follow up. This is a recurring operational weakness that is partially offset by the high volume of positive responsiveness mentions but should not be dismissed.
• The review corpus spans from approximately 2008 to 2025. Reviews older than 2022 carry reduced weight per recency rules. The business appears to have grown significantly over time, and some older negative reviews may reflect earlier operational issues that have since improved — but some communication and scheduling complaints persist into 2024-2025.
• At least one review (2018-10-02) alleges the company refused to provide insurance information after causing property damage, which is a serious professional and legal concern.
• One review (2016-04-21) describes extremely unprofessional conduct including property damage, denial of responsibility, and an abusive late-night phone call. This is an outlier but a serious one.

This WW Score is based on a very large review corpus (281 reviews) spanning over 15 years, giving it HIGH statistical confidence in direction and relative dimension ranking, but the score should be interpreted with caution due to confirmed duplicate/fake positive reviews, a recurring pattern of communication and scheduling failures in negative reviews, and several serious pricing transparency complaints that suggest inconsistent customer experiences depending on the job type and technician assigned.