Find Nearby Plumbers In Sherman, Texas

Murley Plumbing shows a mixed but analyzable track record across all four dimensions. Professionalism scores moderately well, with multiple reviewers praising courteous, friendly, and prompt technicians — but this is offset by at least one serious complaint of a hostile, condescending interaction with Mr. Murley himself. Pricing is the weakest dimension: multiple reviewers explicitly flagged high hourly rates, a $900 bill with no prior estimate, and one case where a competitor completed the same job for $975 versus Murley's $7,500 estimate — these are significant red flags that drag the pricing score down substantially. Project completion is generally positive, with most jobs described as finished and follow-through honored, though one reviewer noted a plumber making four supply store trips for a job that took twice as long as expected. Experience is mixed: several reviewers praised skilled, knowledgeable work, while one reviewer described a plumber unable to diagnose a pipe leak and quoting an extremely wide 4–8 hour range, with a competitor resolving the same issue in 4 hours for a fraction of the cost.

• Three reviews contain only a period '.' or 'NA'/'N/A' as the review text with no substantive content — these were excluded from scoring as they provide no usable data.
• Two reviews dated 2017-01-09 are identical in content (single period) and rating (5.0), suggesting possible duplicate or placeholder entries.
• The majority of reviews are older than 12 months relative to the most recent review date (2024-01-22); only 1 review is from the past 12 months, limiting recency confidence.
• Pricing complaints span multiple years (2015, 2018, 2024), suggesting a persistent pattern of high or non-transparent pricing rather than isolated incidents.
• The $7,500 estimate versus a competitor's $975 final cost (2018 review) is an extreme outlier that significantly impacts pricing score reliability and raises concerns about estimate integrity.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability: while enough substantive reviews exist to score all four dimensions with HIGH mention counts, the heavy skew of reviews older than 2 years, the presence of several content-free placeholder reviews, and a wide variance in reviewer experiences — particularly around pricing and professionalism — mean this score should be interpreted cautiously and weighted toward the more recent negative pricing feedback.

Dusty Underwood Plumbing exhibits significant inconsistency across customer experiences. While technical expertise and professionalism are evident in positive reviews (particularly septic installations and skilled crew members like Josh Wallace), the company struggles severely with pricing transparency, project completion follow-through, and communication. Multiple customers report being quoted one price and charged substantially more (50% overages documented), incomplete work, no-shows, and poor responsiveness to callbacks. Negative reviews consistently cite aggressive upselling tactics, hidden fees, and dismissive customer service responses. The company's willingness to refund overcharges only after escalation suggests systemic pricing issues rather than isolated incidents. Positive reviews, while enthusiastic, are predominantly older (2018-2020) and may not reflect current operational practices.

• CRITICAL: Systematic pricing discrepancies documented across multiple independent reviews (2024, 2023, 2022, 2021). Customers report 50% quote overages, undisclosed hourly rates, and surprise charges—pattern suggests intentional practice rather than error.
• CRITICAL: Multiple no-show and communication failures documented (2022, 2021). Customers report zero follow-up, no apologies, and lack of responsiveness to callbacks.
• CRITICAL: Incomplete project delivery pattern. Gas line inspection failed and company refused to return for pressure test (2021). Septic work took months with poor communication (2019). Suggests systemic project management issues.
• MODERATE: Aggressive customer service responses documented. Owner/staff member 'Stefanie' reportedly blasted customer via text for questioning overcharge; owner dismissive about service cancellation (2022). Threatening behavior regarding chargebacks and lien threats (2023).
• MODERATE: Positive reviews heavily skewed to 2018-2020 period. Recent reviews (2024, 2023, 2022, 2021) are predominantly 1-2 stars. This temporal pattern suggests service quality decline or changing business practices.
• MODERATE: Inconsistent service quality by crew. Some crews (Josh Wallace team) receive high praise for professionalism and quality control. Other crews criticized for unprofessional behavior (vaping, cell phone use, lack of attention to detail).
• LIMITED: One positive review (2019) explicitly notes checking other review sites for corroboration, suggesting awareness of mixed online reputation.

This WW Score of 62.8 should be treated with caution but is directionally accurate. The score reflects genuine polarization: exceptional technical work on some projects undermined by systematic pricing deception, poor project management, and inconsistent customer service. The HIGH confidence in individual dimensions is supported by 7-11 mentions each, but the overall MODERATE confidence reflects the stark contradiction between positive and negative experiences and the concerning temporal trend toward negative reviews in recent years. Customers considering this company should prioritize obtaining detailed written quotes with explicit scope limitations and should be prepared to escalate billing disputes.

H&R Plumbing shows significant inconsistency across reviews spanning 2011–2014. Positive reviews praise attentiveness, communication, fair pricing, and diagnostic skill; however, negative reviews document serious failures in project completion (incomplete work, poor cleanup), workmanship quality (multiple leaks, sloppy installation), and transparency (unexpected charges despite bid assurances). The two lowest-rated reviews (2.0 stars) describe incomplete toilet replacement, inadequate cleanup, and structural damage requiring drywall repair. This pattern suggests either inconsistent execution or deteriorating service quality over time. The WW Score reflects the drag of critical failures in completion and experience dimensions, which carry the highest combined weight (55%).

• RECENCY CONCERN: All reviews are 10+ years old (2011–2014). No recent data available to assess current service quality or whether issues have been resolved.
• CONFLICTING EVIDENCE: Stark contrast between 5-star reviews (praising service) and 2-star reviews (documenting serious failures). This suggests either highly variable execution or different crews/time periods.
• QUALITY DEFECTS: Review from 2012 explicitly documents multiple pipe leaks and poor installation quality—a critical technical failure for a plumber.
• INCOMPLETE WORK: Review from 2011 documents abandoned work (toilet removed but not replaced) and inadequate cleanup, both serious project completion failures.
• HIDDEN CHARGES: Review from 2012 reports unexpected extra charges despite bid assurances, indicating transparency issues.

This score should be treated with caution due to the small sample size (4 reviews), age of data (10+ years), and conflicting evidence suggesting either inconsistent service quality or significant changes over time; current performance may differ substantially from these historical reviews.

Allen's Plumbing and HVAC presents a deeply mixed record across all four dimensions. Professionalism is the most frequently discussed dimension and reveals a stark split: many customers praise individual technicians as courteous, knowledgeable, and timely, while a significant and recurring cluster of negative reviews describes chronic no-shows, broken promises, and poor communication from the office — a pattern that spans from 2012 through mid-2025, suggesting a systemic rather than isolated issue. Pricing drew consistent complaints about lack of transparency, unexpected charges, and billing for time not actually worked, with only a minority of reviewers calling pricing fair or reasonable. Project completion is the most damaging dimension: multiple reviews describe jobs left incomplete, customers ghosted for weeks, work that made problems worse, and at least two cases where the company allegedly caused new damage (a ruined HVAC unit, a busted pipe) and refused to accept responsibility. Experience scores moderately — skilled technicians are frequently praised by name, but the same body of reviews contains examples of poor workmanship and incomplete diagnostics, preventing a high score.

• Seven reviews contain no text at all — only a star rating (5 reviews with 5 stars, 2 with 1 star dated 2024-06-09 and 2024-06-09). These blank reviews provide no usable data and were excluded from dimension scoring.
• One review is marked 'unknown' with a 1-star rating and no text — excluded from scoring.
• A cluster of 5-star reviews dated exactly 2024-06-09 with no text or minimal text raises a mild fake review concern. These may be solicited ratings without genuine content.
• Two reviews (2024-02-19 and 2024-02-19) appear to be near-duplicate submissions from the same customer describing the same incident — counted as one unique incident for scoring purposes.
• Two reviews (2024-03-03 and 2024-03-04) appear to be from two different family members describing the same HVAC damage incident involving an elderly mother — treated as two separate reviewer accounts but describing one event.
• Several older reviews (2012–2014) are more than 10 years old and were given reduced weight. The most recent 12 months (mid-2024 to mid-2025) show continued mixed patterns consistent with older reviews, suggesting no meaningful improvement over time.
• The recurring nature of scheduling failures, ghosting, and no-show complaints spanning 2012 to 2025 suggests a structural operational problem rather than isolated incidents.

This WW Score is based on a large review set with HIGH mention counts across all four dimensions and spans over a decade of customer feedback, making it a reliable representation of this contractor's overall performance — the score of approximately 59 should be treated as a genuine reflection of a company with capable individual technicians but persistent systemic failures in scheduling, communication, pricing transparency, and job follow-through.

Hutchins Plumbing & Heating shows a deeply polarized customer base with a WW Score of 58.3, indicating significant reliability concerns. While recent positive reviews (2023-2024) praise professionalism, technical competence, and responsiveness, a substantial body of older reviews (2013-2021) document serious issues with pricing transparency, overcharging, incomplete work, and safety failures. Pricing emerges as the weakest dimension (38.0), with consistent complaints about inflated estimates, hidden fees, and charges significantly higher than competitors. Project completion (68.0) and professionalism (62.0) are hampered by reports of incomplete diagnostics, refusal to honor callbacks, and unprepared technicians. The company's experience level (72.0) is mixed—some reviews highlight excellent problem-solving, while others describe negligent installations that created fire hazards and required costly remediation by other contractors.

• CRITICAL SAFETY ISSUE: One 2020 review documents two fires caused by improper electrical installation of HVAC unit, with owner refusing service and customer forced to litigation. Multiple follow-up reviews cite similar installation problems from Hutchins.
• STRONG RECENCY BIAS: Positive reviews cluster in 2023-2024 (recent), while negative reviews span 2013-2021 (older). This suggests either significant company improvement or potential reputation management. Recommend caution interpreting recent scores.
• PRICING PATTERN: 11 of 15 pricing mentions are explicitly negative, citing overcharges, hidden fees, refusal to provide detailed quotes, and prices 2-4x higher than competitors. This is not isolated—it is systemic.
• INCOMPLETE WORK: Multiple reviews document technicians arriving unprepared, refusing to complete jobs, or requiring customers to hire additional contractors to finish work.
• CALLBACK FAILURES: Several reviews report promised callbacks or manager visits that never occurred, and refusal to honor warranty obligations.
• NO FAKE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: Reviews show genuine variation in detail, specificity, and emotional tone. Positive and negative reviews both contain credible specifics (names, dates, dollar amounts, technical details).

This WW Score of 58.3 should be treated with HIGH confidence due to substantial data (25 reviews, 11-16 mentions per dimension), but the score masks a critical temporal divide: recent reviews (2023-2024) are substantially more positive than historical reviews (2013-2021), suggesting either genuine company improvement or potential selection bias in recent feedback. The consistent, detailed complaints about pricing and safety across multiple years warrant serious consideration before engaging this contractor, particularly for high-value or safety-critical work.

Bill's Plumbing presents a deeply mixed picture across all dimensions. Professionalism is the most heavily documented dimension and is significantly dragged down by multiple credible complaints of no-shows, failure to return calls, rude behavior, and abandoning customers mid-job — including a 2024 review and a 2023 review that are recent and damaging. Project completion is similarly troubled, with several reviews describing incomplete repairs, return visits that never happened, and work that failed within days. On the positive side, a meaningful cluster of older reviews (2013–2019) describe prompt, courteous, and skilled service, and pricing is generally described as fair or affordable by those who mention it. However, the volume and specificity of negative reviews — particularly around responsiveness and follow-through — prevent any dimension from scoring above 70.

• 12 reviews consist of only '.' or 'unknown' with a 5-star rating and zero substantive content — these are likely fake or placeholder reviews and have been excluded from dimension scoring but counted in total reviews analyzed.
• Several 5-star reviews from 2017 and 2016 are suspiciously generic ('It went very well.', 'Outstanding', 'Pretty good') with no detail — treated as low-signal and given minimal weight.
• One review (2017-06-10) mentions servicing air conditioners and furnaces, which appears to be a review for a different business entirely — this was excluded from dimension scoring.
• The most recent substantive reviews (2024, 2023) are both 1-star and describe serious failures in responsiveness and project completion, suggesting a possible decline in service quality over time.
• Recency warning: The majority of positive, detailed reviews are from 2013–2019. Reviews from 2020 onward skew heavily negative, which is a significant concern for current service reliability.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability — the mention counts are sufficient to generate scores, but the heavy presence of content-free placeholder reviews, the recency of serious negative complaints, and the apparent decline in service quality over time mean prospective customers should weight the most recent 1-star reviews heavily when making a hiring decision.