Find Nearby Plumbers In San Antonio, Texas

Air Today receives genuinely mixed feedback across all dimensions, making a moderate score appropriate. Professionalism is the most contested dimension: multiple reviewers praise punctuality, courteous techs, and responsive office staff, but two 1-star reviews specifically call out rude phone staff and a technician who appeared more interested in upselling than diagnosing. Pricing is a significant concern — one reviewer was blindsided by a $1,485 charge after being told a repair was under warranty and free, and another flagged a $285 capacitor replacement as excessive, while positive reviewers praised fair pricing and free assessments. Project completion is similarly split, with loyal repeat customers reporting same-day service and thorough follow-through, contrasted against a technician who had to redo drain work mid-visit and a serious allegation of a technician attempting to obscure a charge on a tablet. Experience scores moderately, with several reviewers praising knowledgeable and thorough technicians, but offset by one review alleging a tech made a factually incorrect claim about aluminum and copper rusting, undermining technical credibility.

• BILLING INTEGRITY CONCERN: One reviewer (2022-11-03) explicitly alleges they were handed a tablet to sign without the charge amount being disclosed, after previously being told the repair was covered under warranty at $0. This is a serious red flag and was weighted heavily against pricing and professionalism scores.
• TECHNICAL CREDIBILITY CONCERN: One reviewer (2019-06-04) alleges a technician claimed aluminum and copper coils were 'rusty' — a factually impossible claim — suggesting either dishonesty or significant knowledge gaps in at least one technician.
• STAFF INCONSISTENCY: Multiple reviews praise specific technicians (Irelynn, Izzie, Manny) by name, while one review specifically calls out office staff member Jessica for being rude. This suggests quality is highly dependent on which staff member a customer encounters.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent reviews are from 2023. Several negative reviews date from 2019–2022. The 2023 reviews are more positive, which may indicate improvement, but the serious billing allegation is from late 2022 and cannot be dismissed.
• REVIEW VOLUME: Only 11 reviews total. While all dimensions have usable data, the small sample size limits the reliability of any score. Confidence factors are applied per the formula, but real-world confidence in these scores is moderate at best.
• NO FAKE REVIEW PATTERNS DETECTED: Reviews vary in tone, detail, rating, and specificity. No suspicious repetition or generic phrasing patterns were identified.

This WW Score of 62.1 should be treated with caution — while all four dimensions have usable data and the review set is genuine, the total of only 11 reviews combined with serious unresolved allegations around billing transparency and technician conduct means this score may not fully represent the contractor's current or consistent quality.

Pulliam Plumbing shows a mixed track record across reviews. Professionalism is significantly dragged down by a serious boundary violation — a plumber entering a customer's home uninvited on two occasions — compounded by the owner's failure to respond to the complaint; positive marks for communication and friendliness in other reviews partially offset this but cannot erase it. Pricing is a notable weak point, with one detailed and credible review describing significant overcharging, markups on parts, and opaque billing practices, alongside a second reviewer calling them overpriced. Project completion scores moderately well, as most jobs described were finished same-day or promptly, though one reviewer reported being ignored on a callback attempt. Technical experience appears solid in the reviews that address it, with correct diagnoses and successful repairs noted across multiple jobs.

• The 2024-10-13 review describes a plumber entering the customer's home uninvited twice and the owner failing to respond to a formal complaint — this is a serious professionalism and safety concern that heavily penalizes the professionalism score.
• The 2024-08-23 review contains specific, verifiable pricing details (part cost, labor time, billed amounts) that strongly suggest overcharging and lack of transparency. This is the most detailed negative pricing review and is treated as high-credibility.
• The 2022-07-01 review mentions a callback that was never returned, which is a project completion and responsiveness concern.
• Three of the four positive reviews (2021, 2022, 2023) are older than 12 months and two are older than 2 years. The most recent reviews (2024) are both negative. This recency pattern is a meaningful warning sign of declining service quality.
• No fake review patterns detected. Reviews vary in tone, detail level, and rating, which supports authenticity.

This WW Score is based on 7 reviews with moderate overall data density; the score carries reasonable reliability but should be interpreted cautiously given that the two most recent reviews are both significantly negative, suggesting a possible decline in service standards since 2023.

Joseph personally receives strong praise across two reviews for his honesty, technical knowledge, fair pricing, and friendly demeanor, which drives positive scores in professionalism, pricing, and experience. However, the negative 1-star review from 2021 describes a significant scheduling and communication failure — the company failed to verify service area before booking, causing a family with children to go without water longer than necessary — which meaningfully drags down the professionalism and project completion scores. Project completion is scored conservatively because the negative review represents an outright failure to complete any service at all, and the positive reviews, while encouraging, are limited in number. With only 3 reviews spanning 2019 to 2024, the dataset is too small to draw firm conclusions about consistent performance.

• Only 3 reviews total — dataset is too small for high-confidence scoring. Results should be treated as preliminary.
• The most recent positive review (2024) is within the past 12 months and carries the most weight, but the 2019 review is over 5 years old and may not reflect current performance.
• The 1-star review (2021) describes a serious operational failure: the company scheduled an appointment without confirming service area, then rescheduled twice before canceling, leaving a household without water. This is a meaningful negative signal for reliability and communication.
• No fake review patterns detected — reviews vary in tone, detail level, and rating, suggesting authentic feedback.

This WW Score carries LOW reliability due to only 3 reviews across a 5-year span; the score directionally favors Joseph's personal work quality but cannot reliably represent the company's overall consistency or current operational standards.

Abbott Plumbing has a mixed but small review record. Two positive reviews highlight responsive service, reasonable pricing, and knowledgeable staff, while one serious 1-star review warns of dishonest business practices and taking advantage of customers — a significant red flag that meaningfully drags down professionalism and trust scores. The positive reviews are largely generic in nature, lacking specific detail about the work performed, which limits confidence in their reliability. Additionally, two of the four reviews are more than three years old, with one dating back to 2016, reducing their relevance to current performance. Given the small sample size and the presence of a credible misconduct warning, all scores are treated conservatively.

• SERIOUS MISCONDUCT FLAG: One reviewer explicitly warns that the contractor will take advantage of customers if given the opportunity, citing personal experience. This is a credible integrity concern that cannot be dismissed.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Two of four reviews are older than 3 years (2020 and 2016), and one dates back 7+ years. These may not reflect current business practices.
• LOW REVIEW VOLUME: Only 4 reviews total. This is insufficient to establish reliable patterns across any dimension. All scores carry LOW confidence.
• GENERIC PRAISE PATTERN: The positive reviews contain limited specifics about the actual work performed, which reduces their evidentiary weight and raises mild concern about authenticity.

This WW Score should be treated with significant caution — the extremely small review sample, the presence of a credible dishonesty warning, and the age of most positive reviews make this score a poor predictor of current contractor quality.

This contractor has a small and mixed review base spanning nearly 15 years, making it difficult to draw reliable conclusions. Three of four reviews are positive, praising friendliness, knowledge, and reasonable pricing, but one strongly negative review raises serious concerns about overpricing, use of substandard materials, and failure to complete work properly — serious enough that the customer had to hire another plumber to fix the job. Pricing is the most contested dimension, with both praise for affordability and a sharp complaint about outlandish charges, pulling that score down significantly. Project completion is flagged as a concern due to the explicit report of incomplete or defective work requiring a follow-up contractor. The recency of the data is also a concern, as three of the four reviews are from 2016 or earlier, with only one review from 2022.

• RECENCY WARNING: Three of four reviews are from 2016 or earlier (one from 2010, one from 2014, one from 2016). Only one review is from the past 5 years (2022). This score should not be considered representative of current performance.
• SERIOUS COMPLAINT: One reviewer explicitly states they had to hire a master plumber to fix work this contractor was paid to complete, and alleges use of outdated/leftover materials with no warranty at inflated prices. This is a significant project completion and quality red flag.
• LOW REVIEW VOLUME: Only 4 reviews total. This is above the minimum threshold of 3 but barely sufficient for reliable scoring. All confidence levels are reduced accordingly.
• MIXED PRICING SIGNALS: Reviews are contradictory on pricing — some call it economical and reasonable, while one calls it outlandish. Score reflects this conflict conservatively.
• NO FAKE REVIEW PATTERNS DETECTED: Reviews vary in tone, detail, rating, and date, suggesting authentic submissions.

This WW Score carries LOW overall reliability due to the very small review sample (4 reviews), the age of most reviews (3 of 4 are over 7 years old), and a directly contradictory negative review that raises unresolved concerns about workmanship and pricing integrity.

ABC Plumbing has a small and mixed review record. Two positive reviews highlight responsive communication, timely service, quality materials, and good cleanup, suggesting reasonable professionalism and competence. However, a negative review raises a serious concern about billing transparency — the customer was charged for 2.5 hours when only 1 hour and 10 minutes of work was performed, with the contractor citing drive time without prior disclosure. This pricing complaint significantly drags down the pricing dimension and tempers confidence across all dimensions. The overall score reflects a contractor with apparent capability but a documented transparency problem that prospective customers should weigh carefully.

• RECENCY WARNING: One of the three reviews dates from 2013 and one from 2020. Only one review is within the past 12 months (2024). The score is heavily influenced by older data and may not reflect current performance.
• BILLING TRANSPARENCY CONCERN: The 2013 review explicitly describes being charged for time not worked, with drive time added without apparent upfront disclosure. This is a concrete, specific complaint — not vague dissatisfaction — and was weighted accordingly.
• LOW REVIEW VOLUME: Only 3 reviews total. The WW Score should be treated as highly provisional. A single additional negative review could substantially change the score.

This score is based on only 3 reviews spanning over a decade, with limited recency, and should be considered low-confidence — prospective customers are strongly advised to seek additional references before hiring.