Find Nearby Plumbers In San Marcos, Texas

S&D Plumbing's WW Score is severely dragged down by an overwhelming and consistent pattern of pricing complaints spanning the full review history from 2010 to 2024. Pricing is the single most-mentioned dimension across all reviews, with dozens of customers independently reporting charges they describe as 2x to 10x what competitors quoted for identical work — covering everything from simple faucet installs to water heater replacements and leak detection. Project completion is also significantly impaired, with multiple reviews documenting misdiagnosis, incomplete repairs, abandoned jobs, property damage left unaddressed, and a pattern of failed follow-through by management. Professionalism scores modestly above the midpoint because many individual technicians are praised for courtesy and punctuality, but this is offset by repeated complaints about appointment cancellations, no-shows, rude office staff, and management that refuses to return calls. Experience scores similarly mixed — some technicians are praised as highly skilled and honest, while others are documented misdiagnosing problems, using broken equipment, or recommending unnecessary major repairs that second-opinion plumbers quickly disproved.

• PRICING PATTERN — CRITICAL: Pricing complaints are the single most dominant theme across the entire review corpus, spanning 2010–2024 with no improvement trend. Dozens of reviewers independently report being quoted 2x–10x competitor prices for identical work. This is not isolated; it is systemic.
• MISDIAGNOSIS PATTERN: Multiple reviews document technicians recommending expensive unnecessary repairs (full water heater replacements, slab tunneling, full line replacements) that second-opinion plumbers resolved for a fraction of the cost or found unnecessary entirely. This pattern appears across many years and multiple technicians.
• PROJECT ABANDONMENT / INCOMPLETE WORK: Several reviews describe jobs left incomplete, property damage (floor tiles, driveway, rock garden) caused during work and never remediated despite repeated promises, and a jet hose left stuck in a pipe.
• MANAGEMENT UNRESPONSIVENESS: A recurring complaint across many reviews is that managers and owners refuse to return calls, ignore written complaints, and fail to honor verbal and written commitments to resolve disputes.
• APPOINTMENT RELIABILITY: Multiple reviews document repeated last-minute cancellations and no-shows, sometimes 3–4 times for the same customer, with no apology offered.
• SUBSCRIPTION UPSELL PRESSURE: The VIP/membership program is frequently cited as a pressure tactic used at the point of service, and several reviewers report the membership did not deliver promised benefits or discounts.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK — MODERATE: The positive reviews tend to be highly specific with named technicians and detailed job descriptions, which reduces fake review suspicion for the positives. However, the stark bimodal distribution (most reviews are either 1-star or 5-star with very few in between) is a flag worth noting. The positive reviews may reflect genuinely good individual technicians rather than consistent company-level quality.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent reviews (2023–2024) continue to show the same pricing and misdiagnosis complaints as reviews from 2010–2016, indicating no meaningful improvement over time. The negative patterns are not historical artifacts.

This WW Score is based on 100 reviews spanning 14 years with HIGH confidence across all four dimensions, and the score of 42.1 should be treated as a reliable and conservative reflection of the contractor's actual customer experience — the pricing and project completion concerns are so consistently documented across independent reviewers over such a long time period that they represent structural business practices rather than isolated incidents.

This contractor has a very small and mixed review set that makes reliable scoring difficult. Professionalism is the most-mentioned dimension and is dragged down significantly by a 1-star review describing rude, dismissive behavior from management and a disputed charge after an initial promise of no-cost assessment. The two positive reviews praise communication, knowledge, and quality of work, but the serious negative experience cannot be ignored. Pricing received a low score due to the explicit complaint about unexpected charges and lack of transparency, which directly contradicts the positive framing in the first review. With only 3 reviews spanning over three years, no dimension reaches HIGH confidence and the overall WW Score should be treated with significant caution.

• Only 3 reviews total — this is the minimum threshold for calculation; results are highly unreliable and should not be used as a definitive assessment.
• Review date range spans 2020–2023; the most recent review is from March 2023, meaning all reviews are older than 12 months and may not reflect current business practices.
• The 1-star review contains a specific, credible complaint about deceptive pricing practices and unprofessional management behavior — this is a significant red flag that warrants extra weight despite being a single review.
• The 5-star review from 2020 is generic with no specific details about the job type, technician name, or outcome, which slightly reduces its evidentiary value.
• No reviews mention project completion in explicit detail (e.g., job finished on time, callbacks honored); scores in that dimension are inferred from partial context only.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews with mixed signals and should be considered highly unreliable — significantly more reviews are needed before this score can be trusted for decision-making.

This contractor shows severe inconsistency across reviews. While two reviews praise quick response, punctuality, and workmanship quality, a detailed 1-star review documents a critical failure: defective work (water leak), broken warranty promise, no-show appointment, and complete communication breakdown. The contractor's own tagline ('Done Right First Time, Every Time') directly contradicts the documented failure. The oldest positive review (2015) is 9 years old and lacks detail. The recent negative review (2023) is specific, credible, and corroborated by third-party plumber feedback. This pattern suggests serious reliability and follow-through problems that outweigh isolated positive experiences.

• CRITICAL: One detailed, recent (2023) 1-star review documents warranty breach, no-show appointment, and communication refusal—directly contradicting contractor's stated business promise. This is not a minor complaint but systemic failure.
• RECENCY ISSUE: One positive review is from 2015 (9 years old) and lacks specificity. Only one recent positive review (2024) exists versus one detailed recent negative review (2023).
• THIRD-PARTY CORROBORATION: Reviewer states another plumber confirmed this is a 'common issue' with this contractor—pattern of getting paid and not returning. This suggests systemic problem, not isolated incident.
• PROFESSIONALISM CONTRADICTION: Contractor's logo states 'Done Right First Time, Every Time' but documented failure shows incomplete work, defective installation, and refusal to honor warranty or communicate. This is a major red flag.
• PROJECT COMPLETION FAILURE: Warranty work was promised, appointment was scheduled and confirmed, but contractor was a no-show and refused further communication. This is abandonment of paid work.

This score should be treated with caution due to only 3 reviews, but the detailed negative review with third-party corroboration and documented warranty breach is highly credible and suggests serious systemic issues with follow-through and professionalism that likely outweigh the positive experiences.

Rocha Plumbing has a deeply mixed and largely concerning review record across 6 reviews spanning 2014 to 2024. Professionalism is the most heavily flagged dimension, with multiple reviews citing rude phone manner, repeated no-shows, failure to communicate delays, and a refusal to honor post-job concerns after a $12K sewer repair. Pricing received mixed signals — one reviewer praised reasonable pricing while another reported a bait-and-switch quote increase on the day of service. Project completion is a significant concern, with one reviewer describing a trench forming two months after a sewer line repair and two others describing complete no-shows. Experience scores modestly higher, as a small number of reviewers noted the work held up and problems were resolved, but this is offset by the sewer line failure and lack of follow-through.

• Most reviews are older than 12 months; only one review (2024) falls within the past 12 months, limiting recency reliability.
• The 2024 review is positive and the most recent, but it is brief and lacks specific detail, which limits its evidentiary weight.
• No suspected fake review patterns detected; reviews vary in tone, detail, and rating, suggesting authentic submissions.
• The 1-star review from 2023 describes a $12K job with post-completion structural failure and contractor refusal to remedy — this is a serious workmanship and accountability red flag.
• Two separate reviews (2014, 2014-2015 era) describe scheduling failures and no-shows, suggesting a possible systemic reliability issue, though these are older reviews.

This WW Score is based on only 6 reviews with moderate confidence; while the pattern of negative feedback is consistent enough to be credible, the small sample size and age of most reviews mean this score should be treated as a directional signal rather than a definitive assessment.

Acker Plumbing & HVAC receives overwhelmingly negative reviews across nearly all dimensions, with professionalism being the most critically damaged area. The majority of reviewers describe repeated no-shows, failure to communicate delays, rude and dismissive behavior toward customers, and an apparent inability to maintain basic scheduling records — with multiple reviewers noting Frank had no recollection of who they were across multiple contacts. Project completion is severely undermined by abandoned jobs, unresolved issues requiring second contractors, and at least two documented cases of faulty workmanship (incorrect cartridge installation, plastic faucet installation) that required correction by other plumbers. Pricing concerns include a $60 diagnostic fee that customers felt was exploitative given the minimal work performed and the frequency of warranty claim denials. A small cluster of positive reviews — primarily involving Frank personally attending jobs on weekends or holidays — prevents the scores from reaching the floor, but these are heavily outweighed by the volume and specificity of negative accounts.

• The majority of reviews are dated 2016–2018, making all data more than 5 years old. Current performance may differ significantly and this score should be treated with caution for present-day hiring decisions.
• The 5-star positive reviews are notably sparse in detail compared to the highly specific negative reviews. Two positive reviews (2014 and 2015) are the oldest in the dataset and may not reflect current service quality.
• Multiple negative reviews describe near-identical patterns: no-show appointments, Frank having no record of the customer, rude phone behavior, and warranty claim denials. This consistency across independent reviewers strongly corroborates the negative pattern rather than suggesting fake reviews — however, the positive reviews are generic enough to warrant mild scrutiny.
• At least two reviews explicitly document faulty workmanship corrected by subsequent contractors (wrong cartridge part from Home Depot; plastic faucet installation), indicating a pattern of substandard technical execution.
• Several reviewers note Frank yelling at customers on the phone, including at least one instance directed at a customer's spouse. This is a serious and recurring professionalism concern.
• No reviews are present from 2019 or later. The WW Score cannot reflect any potential improvement or decline in service quality after 2018.

This WW Score is based on 18 reviews with strong mention coverage across all four dimensions, yielding HIGH confidence in the score's direction — however, all reviews are dated 2014–2018, meaning this score reflects historical performance only and should not be used as a definitive indicator of current service quality.

BTB's review set is deeply divided: two strongly positive reviews praise Bobby's punctuality, clean workmanship, reasonable pricing, and problem-solving ability, while two highly detailed negative reviews describe serious failures including abandoned work, broken copper pipes, unauthorized credit card charges, poor communication, and substandard workmanship left by untrained staff. The negative reviews are notably specific and credible, describing concrete incidents rather than vague dissatisfaction, which significantly drags down all four dimensions. Project completion is the most damaged dimension, with two reviewers explicitly stating work was left unfinished or done poorly. Professionalism scores are similarly suppressed by documented dishonesty, financial misconduct, and confrontational behavior described in the 1-star reviews. The two positive reviews are older (2020 and 2023) and the two negative reviews span 2019, making recency weighting inconclusive across the set.

• The two 5-star reviews use specific details and appear genuine, but they stand in stark contrast to two highly detailed 1-star reviews describing serious misconduct including unauthorized credit card use, abandoned projects, and property damage.
• The 1-star review from 2019-10-07 is exceptionally detailed and credible, describing financial fraud (use of client's credit card for personal items totaling $531), broken infrastructure (copper pipes), incomplete tile work, and hostile behavior from the contractor and his wife.
• The 1-star review from 2019-01-11 corroborates a pattern of leaving job sites to work on other projects and delegating to untrained workers, suggesting this may be a recurring behavioral issue.
• Review dates span from 2019 to 2023, a wide range. The most recent review (2023) is positive, but the sample size is too small to determine whether conduct has genuinely improved.
• With only 4 total reviews, confidence in all scores is inherently limited. The WW Score should be treated as directional only and not definitive.

This WW Score is based on only 4 reviews spanning multiple years and should be treated with significant caution — the small sample size and extreme polarization between reviews (two 5-star, two 1-star) make it impossible to draw reliable conclusions about consistent contractor quality.