Find Nearby Plumbers In San Antonio, Texas

This contractor's review profile is dominated by serious, recurring complaints across all four scored dimensions. Professionalism is severely damaged by repeated no-shows, failure to return calls, argumentative technicians, and at least two reviews describing outright threatening or hostile behavior from staff and management. Pricing is the single most damaging dimension: dozens of reviewers explicitly describe being overcharged by multiples of what competitors charged, hidden fees, lack of itemized invoices, and a consistent pattern of targeting elderly customers with grossly inflated quotes. Project completion is undermined by multiple accounts of work left unfinished, problems recurring shortly after service, a technician leaving mid-job, and a charged-but-uncompleted pin-point leak test. Positive reviews do exist and describe timely, skilled service, but they are heavily outnumbered by detailed negative accounts and show patterns consistent with potential inauthenticity.

• SUSPECTED FAKE REVIEWS: A cluster of 5-star reviews dated 2024-06-09 share nearly identical phrasing ('First time customer', 'excellent job', 'will recommend to friends and family'), lack specific details, and appear to have been submitted on the same date. These are consistent with solicited or fabricated reviews. One reviewer explicitly calls out a fake review in the review set, stating a family member's account was used without consent.
• REVIEW SOLICITATION CONCERN: One reviewer (rated 5 stars, 2024-06-09) explicitly asks 'What kind of business asks how you got their info, and then asks you for your phone and do their own review?' — strongly suggesting the company solicits reviews directly from customers in a potentially manipulative way.
• ELDERLY TARGETING PATTERN: Multiple independent reviews (2021, 2020, 2024) describe the company charging elderly customers grossly inflated prices — including $3,200 for a water heater, $3,500 for a coupling, and $597 for a 1-hour disposal install — constituting a serious and repeated ethical concern.
• NO-SHOW AND CALLBACK FAILURE PATTERN: At least 10 separate reviews across multiple years describe the company failing to show up for scheduled appointments or failing to return promised calls, indicating a systemic operational failure rather than isolated incidents.
• INVOICE AND TRANSPARENCY FAILURE: Multiple reviewers report being refused itemized invoices after requesting them, and one review describes a company representative threatening to forge a customer's signature on an invoice.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent reviews (2024–2025) continue to show the same negative patterns seen in reviews dating back to 2016, suggesting no meaningful improvement in operations over nearly a decade. Positive reviews are present in recent dates but are disproportionately generic and clustered.
• INCOMPLETE/BLANK REVIEWS: Several reviews contain no text (only a star rating) and were excluded from dimension scoring but counted in total reviews analyzed.

This WW Score is based on 72 reviews spanning 2016–2025 with HIGH confidence across all four dimensions, but should be interpreted cautiously due to strong evidence of fake or solicited 5-star reviews inflating the positive signal — the true performance of this contractor is likely worse than even this low score reflects.

This contractor's review set is small, old, and deeply mixed, making any score inherently low-confidence. Professionalism is significantly dragged down by a documented no-show with a dismissive text response and a separate incident of a staff member allegedly throwing an object at an elderly cyclist — both serious red flags. Pricing received a harsh warning about undisclosed rates reaching $400/hour with no upfront estimate, which heavily penalizes the price-friendly dimension. The two positive reviews that mention completed work and quality are encouraging but are from 2012 and 2014, making them over a decade old and of minimal relevance to current performance. The one recent positive review (2021) does mention professionalism, responsiveness, and fair pricing, which prevents the score from bottoming out entirely.

• RECENCY WARNING: The majority of positive reviews are from 2012 and 2014 — over 10 years old. These carry very low weight in assessing current contractor quality.
• CONDUCT FLAG: One review alleges a staff member threw an object at an elderly cyclist from a company vehicle. While unrelated to plumbing service, this is a serious behavioral concern that reflects on company culture and professionalism.
• NO-SHOW FLAG: One review documents a confirmed no-show with a dismissive response ('I lose one job but I have 80 waiting'), indicating poor customer prioritization and unreliable scheduling.
• PRICING FLAG: One review explicitly warns of undisclosed rates of approximately $400/hour for basic work with no upfront estimate provided.
• GENERIC REVIEW FLAG: The 2012 review ('service was just unbelievable') contains no specific details and reads as potentially generic or inauthentic. Treat with caution.
• LOW SAMPLE SIZE: Only 6 reviews total across a 12-year span. This is insufficient to draw reliable conclusions about consistent contractor behavior.

This WW Score should be treated as LOW RELIABILITY — it is based on only 6 reviews spanning 12 years, with the most recent credible negative reviews significantly outweighing sparse and largely outdated positive feedback.

The three reviews present a sharply divided picture of Newsome Systems. One recent 5-star review praises communication, punctuality, friendliness, and pricing, but it is generic in nature and lacks specific detail. The remaining two reviews raise serious concerns: one describes a crew that left without explanation after charging a large bill for an unresolved sprinkler issue, and a long-term customer describes a phone representative as arrogant, rude, and dismissive, with technicians hinting at being pressured to overbill. The negative reviews significantly drag down professionalism, pricing, and project completion scores, and the mixed signals on technician skill level limit confidence in the experience dimension.

• Only 3 reviews total — WW Score is statistically unreliable and should be treated with caution.
• The sole 5-star review (2024-02-21) is notably generic, covering multiple dimensions with no specific details about the job performed, which raises mild concern about authenticity.
• Two of the three reviews are older than 12 months (one from 2021, one from 2017); only one review falls within the past 12 months. Recency weighting heavily favors the single positive review, which may not reflect current service quality.
• The 2017 review describes a pattern of potential overbilling pressure on technicians, which is a serious ethical flag even if the review is dated.
• The 2021 review explicitly describes an incomplete job (sprinkler system still not working) and a crew leaving without communicating — a direct project completion failure.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews spanning 7 years, with significant negative signals in 2 of 3 reviews and a single recent positive review that lacks specificity, making the overall score LOW reliability and insufficient to draw confident conclusions about current service quality.

Jon Wayne Service Company receives a critically low WW Score of 28.4, driven by severe deficiencies across all four dimensions. The company exhibits pervasive professionalism failures including chronic no-shows, missed appointment windows, rude staff, and poor communication. Pricing is a major complaint with systematic overcharging, aggressive upselling tactics, deceptive sales practices, and quotes 2-3x higher than competitors. Project completion is severely compromised by incomplete work, system failures post-installation, and failure to honor service commitments. While individual technicians occasionally demonstrate competence, the company culture prioritizes commission-based sales over genuine repair and customer care. The overwhelming majority of recent reviews (2020-2024) document consistent patterns of customer exploitation.

• SYSTEMIC FRAUD PATTERN: 68 of 80 reviews (85%) are 1-2 stars with detailed allegations of deceptive practices, bait-and-switch tactics, and overcharging. This is not random dissatisfaction but a documented business model.
• COMMISSION-BASED SALES MODEL: Multiple reviews explicitly state technicians are paid on commission, creating perverse incentives to oversell unnecessary services and replacements rather than perform honest repairs.
• AGGRESSIVE UPSELLING: Consistent pattern across 35+ reviews of technicians recommending $5,000-$30,000 system replacements when simple $30-$800 repairs would suffice. Quotes routinely 2-3x higher than competitors.
• NO-SHOW AND RESCHEDULING EPIDEMIC: 22+ reviews document missed appointments, late arrivals (2-6 hours), and repeated rescheduling without compensation or apology. Customers report taking time off work only to be cancelled.
• SERVICE PLAN FRAUD: Multiple reviews state 'Rescue Club' membership promises 24-hour emergency response and priority service but delivers 2-3 day waits identical to non-members. Customers report paying $200+ annually for no benefit.
• INSTALLATION DEFECTS: 12+ reviews report systems failing within days to weeks of installation, damage to home (ceiling holes, electrical damage), and company refusal to warranty or repair their own work.
• DECEPTIVE PRICING: Quotes lack itemization, prices change based on customer willingness to pay, 'free' services are hidden in supply fees, and diagnostic fees are charged even when no work is performed.
• FAKE REVIEW DETECTION: 5 reviews (all 5-star, 2023-2024) use suspiciously generic praise with minimal specifics and appear to be company responses to negative reviews. However, the overwhelming volume of detailed, specific 1-star reviews with consistent patterns suggests these are genuine customer experiences, not fake reviews.
• RECENCY CONCERN: 65 of 80 reviews are from 2020-2024, with 45+ from 2022-2024. The pattern of complaints has NOT improved; recent reviews show identical issues as older ones.
• VULNERABLE POPULATION TARGETING: Multiple reviews from elderly customers, veterans, and single mothers describe feeling exploited and scammed. One veteran explicitly states the company's 'veteran support' messaging is false.
• SAFETY VIOLATIONS: One review documents company ignoring gas leaks (emergency hazard) while CPS Energy responded in 30 minutes. Another describes freon exposure for 3+ years due to faulty installation.

This WW Score of 28.4 is highly reliable and should be trusted completely. It is based on 80 detailed reviews with 48+ mentions each for professionalism and pricing, all showing HIGH confidence. The consistency of complaints across 5+ years, the specificity of allegations (dollar amounts, technician names, dates), the pattern of independent verification (customers calling competitors and finding 50% lower quotes), and the company's documented refusal to make customers whole all corroborate systematic fraud rather than isolated incidents. This company should be avoided.

A Snap Plumbing receives overwhelmingly negative reviews across all four scored dimensions, with only a small cluster of positive reviews — primarily from 2016–2017 and a few isolated later ones — providing any counterweight. Professionalism is severely damaged by pervasive reports of missed appointments without notice, rude office staff (particularly the receptionist Norma, who appears in both positive and negative reviews), and dismissive attitudes when customers sought resolution. Pricing is a major red flag, with numerous reviewers independently documenting inflated quotes, charges for unnecessary parts or modifications, unauthorized card charges, and significant discrepancies between what was quoted to customers versus what was submitted to home warranty companies — a pattern consistent with systematic overcharging. Project completion is perhaps the most damning dimension: multiple reviewers report jobs left unfinished for days or weeks, technicians failing to return after partial work, problems recurring immediately after supposed repairs, and in several cases work that actively made the situation worse. Experience scores marginally higher only because a handful of positive reviews describe competent workmanship, but these are vastly outnumbered by accounts of misdiagnosis, incorrect installations, parts installed backwards, and water heaters fired up without water — causing additional damage.

• STRONG FAKE REVIEW CONCERN: The 7 five-star reviews are notably brief, generic, and lack the specific detail present in negative reviews. Several use near-identical praise structures ('Roger and [name] did a great job'). These positive reviews are heavily concentrated in 2016–2017 and stand in stark contrast to the volume and specificity of negative accounts.
• SYSTEMATIC FRAUD PATTERN: Multiple independent reviewers describe the same scheme — inflating quotes to home warranty companies beyond what was quoted to customers, charging for unnecessary modifications, and pressuring customers to pay out-of-pocket to bypass warranty processes. This is not isolated poor service; it appears to be a business practice.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent reviews (2020–2024) are almost exclusively 1-star. The positive reviews are predominantly from 2016–2017, suggesting any quality that may have existed has significantly deteriorated or was never representative.
• REPEAT OFFENDER PATTERN: The same individuals — Roger (owner/technician) and Norma (office manager/dispatcher) — are named repeatedly across both positive and negative reviews spanning nearly a decade, indicating these are not isolated employee issues but reflect leadership-level conduct.
• NO-SHOW PATTERN: At least 8 separate reviews describe the company failing to appear during scheduled windows without calling, representing a systemic reliability failure rather than occasional scheduling errors.
• WORKMANSHIP DAMAGE: At least 3 reviews describe the company causing additional damage to the customer's property (burned heating elements, shorted breakers, incorrectly installed valves causing leaks) and then refusing to take responsibility or return to fix the damage they caused.

This WW Score of 24.1 is based on HIGH confidence across all four dimensions due to the large volume of reviews (38 total) with consistent, specific, and independently corroborated negative experiences — it should be treated as a reliable and accurate reflection of this contractor's service quality.

The review set is dominated by serious negative experiences, particularly around professionalism and project completion. Three of the five reviews describe significant failures: a technician who left without completing an inspection, a company that went silent for days during an active plumbing emergency, and a one-word unprofessionalism complaint. The two positive reviews — one praising honesty and fair pricing, one praising technical knowledge — are both old (2012 and 2015) and carry reduced weight due to recency rules. Project completion is especially damning, with multiple accounts of abandoned or unresolved work, and one instance where the company allegedly fabricated a reason to refuse a callback job.

• RECENCY WARNING: All reviews are from 2012–2017. No reviews exist from the past several years. This score reflects potentially outdated performance and should not be treated as representative of current operations.
• FAKE REVIEW CONCERN: The two 5-star reviews are vague or generic in parts and are significantly older than the negative reviews. They cannot be weighted heavily given the lack of corroborating recent positive data.
• INTEGRITY FLAG: One review explicitly describes the company fabricating a customer complaint (claiming the customer told them to leave the property) to avoid honoring a warranty callback. This is a serious credibility and ethics concern.
• LOW REVIEW VOLUME: Only 5 reviews total. Scores are based on very limited data and should be treated with caution.

This WW Score has LOW reliability due to a very small review sample, all reviews being over 6 years old, and a pattern of serious misconduct allegations that significantly outweigh the limited positive feedback available.