Find Nearby Plumbers In San Antonio, Texas

All three reviews speak positively to professionalism, highlighting responsiveness, punctuality, friendliness, and willingness to accommodate scheduling needs including weekends and early morning calls. Pricing is touched on in two reviews, with one reviewer noting the company seemed genuinely focused on solutions rather than overcharging, and another mentioning no extra charge for additional work, suggesting fair and transparent pricing. Project completion is referenced in two reviews, with jobs described as completed quickly and correctly, including fixing two outdoor faucets and a vacuum breaker in under an hour. Experience is implied in two reviews through descriptions of competent, knowledgeable work, though specifics are limited. The overall picture is positive but the very small sample size of only three reviews, all dated between 2021 and 2022, significantly limits reliability.

• Only 3 reviews analyzed — sample size is too small to draw strong conclusions about consistent performance.
• All reviews are dated between May 2021 and December 2022, meaning no reviews from the past 12 months are present. Current performance cannot be assessed.
• All three reviews are 5-star ratings with no critical feedback, which warrants mild caution, though the reviews do contain specific details (names, job types, timeframes) that reduce the likelihood of fabrication.
• One review (2021-05-14) includes a phone number embedded in the review text, which is an unusual pattern sometimes associated with promotional or solicited reviews.

This WW Score should be treated with low confidence due to the minimal review count of only 3 and the absence of any reviews within the past 12 months, making it insufficient to reliably represent the contractor's current or consistent performance.

Steve receives consistent praise across all three reviews for fair pricing, completing jobs properly the first time, and delivering reasonable value without superfluous charges. Professionalism scores are tempered by an explicit mention of punctuality issues — one reviewer noted he typically arrives about 30 minutes late — which prevents a higher score in that dimension despite otherwise courteous and communicative behavior. Project completion is a clear strength, with multiple reviewers independently noting he finishes what he starts, cleans up, and stands behind his work. Experience is positively referenced but only across two reviews, keeping confidence limited. Overall, the picture is consistently positive but the review base is very small and one review dates back to 2011.

• Only 3 reviews total — WW Score should be treated as preliminary and low confidence overall.
• One review dates to 2011 (over 13 years old) and carries significantly reduced weight under recency rules.
• The 2011 review references a labor rate of $75/hour which may no longer reflect current pricing practices.
• No fake review patterns detected — reviews vary in detail, tone, and specificity, suggesting authenticity.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews spanning 13 years and should be considered a low-confidence preliminary estimate — significantly more recent reviews are needed before this score can be trusted as representative.

All four reviews consistently praise Jose Chavez's professionalism, responsiveness, and willingness to communicate clearly with customers, driving a strong professionalism score. Pricing is mentioned positively in three reviews, with explicit references to fair and non-gouging rates. Project completion evidence is thinner — only two reviews hint at work being completed satisfactorily, and none describe complex or multi-day jobs, limiting confidence in that dimension. Experience is supported by three reviews noting quality workmanship and technical explanation, though the jobs described appear relatively straightforward. Overall, the picture is positive but the small review pool and older review dates significantly limit reliability.

• Only 4 reviews total — WW Score cannot be considered statistically reliable and should be treated as indicative only.
• All reviews are 4–5 stars with no critical feedback, which is a mild flag; however, reviews do contain specific details (sprinkler troubleshooting, leak diagnosis, pricing comparisons) that reduce the likelihood of fabrication.
• Recency concern: The most recent review is from July 2021, meaning all reviews are more than 3 years old as of 2024. No recent performance data is available, and the contractor's current quality cannot be confirmed from this dataset.
• One review (2018) is over 6 years old and carries significantly reduced weight in scoring.
• Project completion dimension is weakly supported — no review explicitly confirms a job was fully completed to specification without issues; inferences were made conservatively.

This WW Score is based on only 4 reviews, all of which are at least 3 years old, making it LOW reliability — the score reflects a historically positive but temporally outdated and statistically thin sample that should not be used as a sole basis for hiring decisions.

Sergio receives consistently positive feedback across all four reviews, with mentions of flexibility, reliability, attention to detail, and same-day availability pointing to solid professionalism and project completion. Two reviews explicitly mention affordability or reasonable pricing, supporting a modest but positive pricing score. Workmanship is referenced across three reviews covering fence installation, gate building, bathtub repair, and dishwasher repair, suggesting a reasonable breadth of skill. However, with only 4 total reviews and limited specificity in most of them, all scores are held conservatively and confidence remains low-to-moderate across the board.

• Very small sample size of only 4 reviews — WW Score should be treated as preliminary and not fully reliable.
• All 4 reviews are 5-star ratings with no critical feedback, which is statistically unusual and warrants caution.
• Reviews are somewhat generic in praise (e.g., 'great job', 'good service', 'reliable') with limited specific detail, which slightly raises concern about authenticity.
• One review (2023-05-11) is older than 12 months relative to the most recent review date; the remaining three are from May 2024 and are considered current.
• No negative or mixed feedback present — absence of criticism does not confirm quality and has not been used to inflate scores.

This WW Score is based on only 4 reviews with limited specificity and should be considered a low-confidence preliminary rating until a larger and more detailed review sample is available.

Rittimann Plumbing shows a generally positive track record in professionalism, with multiple reviewers praising punctuality, courtesy, and responsiveness — including during a demanding weather emergency. However, one significant negative review raises a serious concern about diagnostic competence, where a master plumber failed to identify a known issue ('sewer burp') and suggested an expensive and unnecessary repair, resulting in a near-$300 charge for no resolution. Project completion is mostly positive, with one reviewer noting the company returned to finish work and another confirming a job was completed promptly, but the failed diagnosis case represents an incomplete and unsatisfactory outcome. Pricing data is extremely thin, with only one mention — and that mention is strongly negative, describing the experience as a 'rip off.' Overall confidence in this score is limited due to the small review pool and the span of dates ranging from 2019 to 2023.

• Very small review pool (5 reviews) — WW Score should be treated as preliminary and not fully reliable.
• Reviews span approximately 4 years (2019–2023), with only 1 review from the past 12 months (2023). Most data is dated and may not reflect current service quality.
• The negative review (1-star, 2021) is highly specific and credible — it describes a named plumbing condition ('sewer burp'), a detailed failed diagnostic process, and a specific dollar amount charged. This review carries significant weight despite being a single data point.
• No fake review patterns detected — reviews vary in tone, detail level, and rating, which suggests authenticity.

This WW Score is based on only 5 reviews spanning multiple years and should be considered a low-confidence preliminary assessment; prospective customers are strongly advised to seek additional recent references before hiring.

Three of four reviewers describe positive experiences with Casanova Plumbing, praising punctuality, professionalism, and fair pricing. One standout review noted the company resolved a shower valve issue that two other established plumbers could not fix, suggesting solid technical capability. However, one 2-star review from late 2023 explicitly flags unresponsiveness to a website service request, which is a meaningful professionalism concern and drags the professionalism score down. Pricing was consistently praised across three reviews, lending moderate confidence to that dimension. The overall score is tempered by the very small review pool and the presence of one negative responsiveness complaint.

• Very small review pool (only 4 reviews) — WW Score should be treated as preliminary and low-reliability.
• One review (2023-12-04) explicitly reports no response to a website service request, indicating a potential responsiveness gap.
• One positive review is dated 2020-08-08, which is over 4 years old and carries significantly reduced weight under recency rules.
• No suspected fake reviews detected — reviews contain specific details, varied language, and include a negative review, which adds authenticity.
• With only 4 total reviews, confidence factors are capped well below 1.0 for all dimensions, limiting score reliability.

This WW Score is based on only 4 reviews spanning multiple years, including one negative responsiveness complaint and one review over 4 years old, making it LOW reliability — seek additional data points before drawing firm conclusions.