Find Nearby Plumbers In San Antonio, Texas

Ajax Plumbing presents a deeply divided picture across its reviews. Positive reviews — many of which are older (2015–2020) — praise specific technicians like Adolph and Tommy for professionalism, technical skill, and reasonable pricing, and the supply store side of the business receives consistent praise for helpfulness and hard-to-find parts. However, a significant cluster of negative reviews from 2021–2024 describes rude phone staff, overcharging, shoddy workmanship (wrong fittings, leaking fixtures, ineffective repairs), and failure to honor warranty callbacks — directly undermining all four scored dimensions. The pricing dimension is particularly split: several reviewers praised value while others explicitly described being overcharged or charged for work that failed. Project completion is a serious concern, with multiple reviewers reporting unresolved issues, ignored warranty claims, and work that needed to be redone. The most recent review (2024) involves a business-to-business payment dispute, suggesting potential financial reliability issues beyond residential service.

• RECENCY CONCERN: The majority of strongly negative reviews are from 2021–2024, while most positive reviews are from 2015–2020. This suggests a possible decline in service quality over time. Recent performance should be weighted more heavily.
• WARRANTY VIOLATIONS: At least two reviews explicitly describe Ajax failing to honor stated warranty terms (30-day and 1-year), which is a serious project completion red flag.
• CUSTOMER SERVICE PATTERN: Multiple independent reviewers (2015, 2022, 2022) describe phone staff as rude, dismissive, or hanging up on customers — indicating a systemic, not isolated, customer service problem.
• WORKMANSHIP CONCERNS: At least three reviews describe technically incorrect or failed work: wrong pipe fittings on a vanity sink, toilet paper rolls used to support a sink, a shower head spraying at the ceiling, and a drain clog recurring the next day after a $750 service call.
• OVERCHARGING PATTERN: Multiple reviews describe pricing that felt exploitative, particularly during emergency situations, and one review describes a technician attempting to overcharge without a signed estimate.
• B2B PAYMENT DISPUTE: The most recent review (Feb 2024) is from a vendor/supplier alleging non-payment by Ajax, which is outside the scope of consumer plumbing reviews but raises broader business integrity concerns.
• SUPPLY STORE VS. SERVICE REVIEWS: Several high-rated reviews appear to be about the physical plumbing supply store (parts counter, retail experience) rather than plumbing service work. These inflate positive scores for dimensions like professionalism and experience in ways that may not reflect the service side of the business.
• NO SUSPECTED FAKE REVIEWS: Review language is varied and specific enough that fake review patterns were not detected. Both positive and negative reviews contain specific names, dates, and details.

This WW Score is based on 27 reviews with high mention counts across all dimensions, giving it statistical reliability, but the sharp quality decline visible in post-2021 reviews means the score likely overstates current performance — prospective customers should weight the 2021–2024 reviews most heavily when making a hiring decision.

COR Plumbing presents a deeply divided picture across its review history. Professionalism is the most heavily flagged dimension, with a substantial number of reviews explicitly citing failure to return calls, no-shows, broken appointment commitments, and rude office staff — dragging the score down significantly despite a meaningful cluster of positive reviews praising punctuality and courteous behavior. Project completion is similarly split: several reviews describe jobs left unfinished, problems not resolved, or follow-through that never materialized, while others describe thorough and timely work. Experience scores moderately, with positive reviews citing skilled diagnostics and quality workmanship, but offset by at least one review describing work that caused a fire and another where the drain issue was made worse. Pricing is the strongest dimension, with multiple reviewers explicitly noting reasonable or below-expected charges and one instance of a plumber charging less than quoted — though the sample is older. The overall WW Score of 54.3 reflects a contractor with genuine capability but a persistent and well-documented pattern of communication and reliability failures.

• RECENCY CONCERN: The majority of positive reviews are from 2011–2014. Negative reviews are more evenly distributed across all years including 2023–2024, suggesting a possible decline in service quality or reliability over time.
• COMMUNICATION FAILURE PATTERN: At least 10 separate reviews across multiple years explicitly describe the same failure mode — unreturned calls, full voicemail boxes, no-shows, and broken promises to follow up. This is a systemic issue, not isolated incidents.
• NO-SHOW PATTERN: Multiple reviews (2023, 2022, 2018) describe scheduled appointments where no one arrived and no one called, indicating a recurring reliability problem.
• INCOMPLETE WORK / FOLLOW-THROUGH FAILURES: Several reviews describe jobs that were started but not completed, problems that were made worse, or promised callbacks and reports that never materialized.
• WORKER CONDUCT CONCERN: One review (2015) describes a worker harassing a customer's fiancée, threatening illegal liens, and misrepresenting his role — a serious professionalism red flag.
• FIRE INCIDENT: One review (2016) states that work performed by COR caused a fire on the customer's property. This is a significant safety and liability concern.
• GENERIC/MINIMAL REVIEWS: Several reviews consist only of 'unknown', '.', 'Very well.', 'EXCELLENT', or similarly content-free text. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data.
• MULTIPLE STAFF NAMES: Reviews reference Ralph, Rafa/Rafael, Luis, and Cesar Rodriguez as workers or owners, suggesting either multiple employees or inconsistent branding — quality and reliability appear to vary by individual.

This WW Score is based on 62 reviews spanning approximately 12 years and carries HIGH statistical confidence in its direction, but prospective customers should weight the more recent reviews (2019–2024) heavily, as they skew strongly negative and suggest the communication and reliability issues documented in older reviews have persisted or worsened rather than been resolved.

Rushmore Plumbing shows significant inconsistency across reviews, with stark contrasts between highly satisfied and deeply dissatisfied customers. Professionalism scores moderately due to mixed reports: some praise responsiveness and courtesy, while others cite poor communication and incomplete cleanup. Pricing is a major weakness, with one detailed review documenting substantial undisclosed upcharges ($2,100 on a $5,700 bid) and lack of transparent scope documentation. Project completion is severely hampered by incomplete work, unresolved issues, and delayed callbacks on major jobs. Experience shows moderate technical capability but critical failures in planning (undetected underground rock, untested pressure systems, water line placement errors). The company appears to perform better on smaller, routine jobs but struggles significantly with complex projects.

• MAJOR RED FLAG: One detailed 2013 review documents systematic issues including hidden upcharges, incomplete work, poor planning, and billing for contractor-caused damage. This is not isolated dissatisfaction but a pattern of project mismanagement.
• RECENCY CONCERN: All reviews are from 2012-2014 (10+ years old). No recent reviews available to assess whether issues have been corrected.
• INCONSISTENCY PATTERN: Extreme polarity between 5-star reviews (minimal detail) and 1-star reviews (highly specific, documented problems). This suggests the company may perform adequately on simple jobs but fails on complex projects.
• PRICING TRANSPARENCY: Multiple mentions of undisclosed charges and bid discrepancies. One customer paid $9,100 vs. original $5,700 bid with disputed upcharges.
• PROJECT MANAGEMENT: Documented failures in communication (rock discovery not reported), quality assurance (pressure testing skipped), and scheduling (2-week delays causing downstream problems).

This score should be treated with caution due to age of reviews (10+ years) and small sample size, but the detailed nature of complaints in the negative reviews provides credible evidence of significant project management and pricing transparency issues that warrant serious consideration before engaging this contractor.

Ray Ray's Plumbing presents a deeply mixed picture across all dimensions. Professionalism scores are dragged down significantly by multiple serious complaints: a no-show appointment with confusing follow-up communication, an owner described as refusing accountability, an employee allegedly sending threatening and inappropriate texts involving minor children, and a plumber who became rude when asked for a refund on unresolved work — these incidents offset the several reviews praising friendliness and punctuality. Project completion is the most damaging dimension, with multiple reviews describing unburied pipes left above ground, failed inspections months after work was done, rough-in fixtures sloped incorrectly and leaking, and a toilet issue that was charged for but never actually fixed. Experience scores reflect the same split: a few reviewers praise skill and mastery, while detailed negative reviews describe technically deficient work including incorrect pipe slopes, misaligned fixtures, and code violations. Pricing receives a modest positive score, with one reviewer specifically noting Ray quoted a fair range and came in on the low end, though the refund dispute on unresolved work tempers this.

• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: Two reviews with nearly identical text (the rough-in complaint) were submitted on consecutive dates (2023-01-17 and 2023-01-18). These appear to be the same review posted twice, likely on different platforms. Only one instance was counted per dimension to avoid double-weighting.
• SERIOUS MISCONDUCT ALLEGATION: One reviewer (2021-05-28) alleges that a Ray Ray's employee sent text messages claiming to have photographed the reviewer's minor children inside their home. This is an extreme safety and conduct concern that significantly impacts the professionalism score.
• ACCOUNTABILITY PATTERN: Multiple negative reviews independently describe the owner refusing to accept responsibility, denying receipt of payment, and becoming hostile when customers raised concerns. This is a recurring behavioral pattern, not an isolated incident.
• CODE VIOLATION ALLEGATION: One reviewer states pipes were left above ground in violation of code and that no inspection was completed months after work was performed. This is a serious workmanship and compliance flag.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent review with substantive positive content is from March 2024, but the most detailed and severe negative reviews span 2020–2023. The single 2024 positive review is relatively brief and lacks technical detail.
• GENERIC POSITIVE REVIEWS: Several 5-star reviews ('They did a fantastic job!', 'They are really good and there are no complaints') contain no specific detail and cannot be weighted heavily per scoring rules. These were counted for mentions but scored conservatively.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability — the review volume is low (13 reviews), but the presence of multiple detailed, independently corroborating negative reviews describing specific technical failures, misconduct, and accountability issues gives meaningful signal; however, the duplicate review and several vague positive reviews reduce precision.

This review set presents a deeply polarized picture of a company operating under multiple brand names including Rapid Plumbing, Rapid Rooter, WiseWay Plumbing, and Up To Code Plumbing. A substantial cluster of recent positive reviews — many involving named technicians like Eduardo, Jonathan, Eddie, and Nathan — describe punctual, professional, and knowledgeable service, particularly for Moen Flo device installations. However, these are heavily counterbalanced by a large and detailed body of negative reviews spanning years, with consistent, credible allegations of gross overcharging, fraudulent diagnoses, predatory targeting of elderly customers, incomplete work, property damage, and aggressive upselling. Pricing is the most severely impacted dimension, with dozens of independent reviewers describing quotes 3x to 20x higher than competitors for identical work, and multiple references to an NBC News investigation into the company's fraudulent practices. Project completion is also significantly damaged by reviews describing abandoned jobs, work left incomplete, and problems recurring shortly after service. The professionalism and experience scores are modestly higher due to the genuine volume of positive recent reviews, but the weight of serious misconduct allegations prevents any dimension from scoring well.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: Numerous reviews appear to be exact duplicates posted on the same date, including multiple identical 5-star and 1-star reviews. This inflates both positive and negative review counts and suggests possible review manipulation on both sides.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — POSITIVE: A significant number of recent 5-star reviews are extremely brief, generic, or contain no text at all (rating only). Several positive reviews use near-identical phrasing across different dates and technician names, suggesting possible coordinated or incentivized posting.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — NEGATIVE: Some negative reviews also appear duplicated verbatim, which may indicate coordinated negative campaigns. However, the majority of detailed negative reviews contain specific names, dollar amounts, dates, and circumstances that lend them high credibility.
• MULTIPLE BRAND NAMES: Reviews reference at least four distinct business names — Rapid Plumbing, Rapid Rooter, WiseWay Plumbing, and Up To Code Plumbing — suggesting a franchise or rebranding structure. Scores may reflect inconsistent quality across different operators or locations operating under shared branding.
• NBC NEWS INVESTIGATION: Multiple independent reviewers reference an NBC Los Angeles I-Team investigation into this company for fraudulent practices, gross overcharging, and elder abuse. One reviewer states a victim recovered over $30,000. This is a significant credibility flag.
• ELDER TARGETING PATTERN: A statistically notable number of negative reviews — at least 25 — specifically describe elderly or disabled customers being targeted with inflated quotes, unnecessary work, or high-pressure tactics. This is a serious and recurring pattern.
• PRICING FRAUD ALLEGATIONS: Dozens of reviews describe quotes that were 3x to 20x higher than competitors for identical work, with multiple reviewers confirming via second opinions that the diagnosed problems either did not exist or were vastly overstated.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent reviews (2025) skew more positive and involve specific named technicians. Older reviews (2013–2022) are overwhelmingly negative. This may reflect genuine improvement in some service lines or locations, or may reflect a review management strategy. Caution is warranted.

This WW Score of 42.1 should be treated with HIGH caution — while the volume of reviews is large enough to produce a statistically meaningful score, the dataset is severely compromised by duplicate reviews, suspected fake positive reviews, multiple operating brand names, and a documented pattern of fraudulent business practices that fundamentally undermines trust in the company's service quality and integrity.

Reliant Plumbing presents a deeply bifurcated review profile: a large volume of brief, enthusiastic 5-star reviews praising individual technicians by name (Roman, Mack, Dominic, Zach, Daniel, etc.) coexist with a substantial and detailed body of 1-star reviews alleging systematic price gouging, fraudulent diagnoses, abandoned work, billing errors, and failure to refund. Pricing is the most consistently and severely criticized dimension, with dozens of reviewers citing quotes 3x–10x above market rate, hidden membership fees, and refusal to provide itemized invoices. Project completion is significantly undermined by multiple accounts of work failing city inspection, jobs left unfinished, and promises of refunds or callbacks that were never honored. Professionalism scores are dragged down sharply by recurring reports of inaccessible management, hostile technicians, and deceptive sales practices, even though some individual technicians received genuine praise. Experience scores reflect a mixed picture where some technicians demonstrated clear skill while others made dangerous errors such as incorrect water heater installation causing carbon monoxide leaks and misdiagnoses costing customers thousands of dollars.

• SUSPECTED FAKE OR INCENTIVIZED REVIEWS: A significant number of 5-star reviews are extremely brief (e.g., 'Thanks Arturo!', 'Zack was great!', 'Honest, Reliable and Dependable'), lack any specific detail, and follow a repetitive pattern of naming a technician and offering generic praise. One reviewer explicitly stated they were asked to leave a positive review in exchange for a discount, which directly compromises the integrity of the positive review pool.
• SYSTEMATIC PRICING FRAUD ALLEGATIONS: More than 20 independent reviewers across multiple years describe quotes that were 3x to 10x above market rate for identical or similar jobs, with multiple reviewers confirming this by obtaining competing quotes. This is not isolated — it appears to be a business model pattern.
• REFUND AND BILLING FRAUD ALLEGATIONS: At least 4 reviewers describe being charged for work not performed or being promised refunds that were never issued, including one reviewer charged $4,000 with no work done and another charged $26,519 for unnecessary work. These are serious allegations of financial misconduct.
• DANGEROUS WORKMANSHIP DOCUMENTED: At least one review describes a water heater installation that caused carbon monoxide to leak into a garage and nearly caused a house fire, with the unit also improperly set for the wrong fuel type. This represents a serious safety concern beyond mere quality issues.
• MANAGEMENT UNRESPONSIVENESS PATTERN: Across reviews spanning 2019–2025, a consistent pattern emerges of customers being unable to reach managers, being promised callbacks that never occur, and having complaints go unresolved for weeks or months. This suggests a systemic organizational failure.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews analyzed are from 2023–2025 and are therefore within the relevant recency window. The negative review pattern is consistent across all years, including the most recent reviews from mid-2025, indicating no improvement over time.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: Two reviews with nearly identical text regarding 'Ray Baker' and the leaking bathroom sink were submitted on the same date (2023-08-08), suggesting either a duplicate submission or an attempt to amplify a single complaint. These were counted as one unique mention for scoring purposes.

This WW Score of 42.1 is based on a large volume of reviews (125) with HIGH confidence across all four dimensions, and should be considered a reliable reflection of this company's overall service quality; the score is deliberately conservative given the volume, specificity, and multi-year consistency of serious negative allegations including pricing fraud, dangerous workmanship, and refund failures, which cannot be offset by the high volume of brief and likely incentivized 5-star reviews.