Find Nearby Plumbers In Temple, Texas

Greenwize Plumbing shows strong technical competence and fair pricing, but professionalism and project completion are significantly undermined by recurring communication failures and follow-through issues. Multiple recent reviews (2024, 2022, 2018) document poor responsiveness, missed appointments, incomplete work requiring customer remediation, and dismissive replies ('K'). While older reviews (2016–2020) are predominantly positive, the pattern of deterioration over time and consistency of communication complaints across different customers suggest systemic issues. The contractor demonstrates skill and reasonable rates but fails consistently on accountability and customer service.

• RECENCY CONCERN: Most positive reviews are 3+ years old (2016–2020). Recent reviews (2024, 2022, 2018) are predominantly 1-star with detailed complaints about communication and follow-through.
• PATTERN DETECTED: Multiple independent reviews cite identical communication failure pattern—receiving only 'K' text responses, missed appointments without notice, and poor responsiveness to callbacks. This is not isolated incident but systemic behavior.
• INCOMPLETE WORK: Two detailed 2024 and 2022 reviews document incomplete installations requiring customer intervention or additional contractor costs (water damage, flooded cabinet, unfinished RO system).
• ACCOUNTABILITY GAP: Contractor shows reluctance to address failures (water damage response was 'K'; no follow-up on missed appointments or incomplete work).
• QUALITY VARIANCE: 2020 review documents messy worksite, inexperienced crew, and incomplete work requiring second plumber. Suggests inconsistent crew quality and supervision.

This score should be treated with MODERATE confidence. While based on 19 reviews with consistent data across dimensions, the sharp decline in review quality and recurring specific complaints in recent years (2024, 2022, 2018) suggest the contractor's service has deteriorated significantly. The WW Score reflects a business in transition from reliable (2016–2020) to unreliable (2018–2024), making current reliability questionable despite historical positive reputation.

Josue and his team receive consistently strong feedback across all four scored dimensions from a small but detailed set of reviews. Professionalism is highlighted repeatedly — reviewers cite punctuality, tidiness, clear communication, and courteous conduct. Pricing is described as competitive, reasonable, and transparent, with estimates honored. Project completion is well-supported: jobs were finished same-day or on schedule, and the team handled multi-phase projects (fence, bathrooms, electrical) through to completion. Experience is evidenced by the team's ability to diagnose complex electrical issues, advise on incorrect installations, and execute technically demanding work such as high-ceiling fixture installs and EV charger circuits. However, the total review count is only 4, which significantly limits the reliability of these scores.

• Only 4 reviews analyzed — sample size is too small to draw high-confidence conclusions about consistent performance.
• All 4 reviews are 5-star ratings with no negative feedback of any kind. While the reviews contain specific details that reduce fake-review suspicion, the uniformly perfect ratings warrant mild caution.
• All reviews are dated between August and September 2023, meaning there is no data from the past 12 months relative to a 2024/2025 evaluation window. Recency of performance cannot be confirmed.
• No negative experiences, complaints, or constructive criticism appear in any review. This may reflect genuine quality but could also reflect a curated or incomplete review set.

This WW Score is based on only 4 reviews, all from a narrow two-month window in 2023, and should be treated as a preliminary positive signal rather than a statistically reliable assessment of long-term contractor performance.

All three reviews consistently praise Aaron's professionalism, including punctuality, clear communication, patience, and a clean work ethic. Pricing is explicitly highlighted as a strength across all reviews, with multiple reviewers noting his rates are well below competitors and that estimates came in under budget. Project completion is well-supported, with one reviewer noting work was finished ahead of schedule and another describing a full multi-bathroom remodel completed to satisfaction. Experience and technical knowledge are evidenced by reviewers citing Aaron's ability to diagnose problems accurately, offer money-saving recommendations, and explain systems in detail. However, the score is tempered by the very small review pool of only three reviews, two of which are over three years old.

• Only 3 reviews total — WW Score is at the minimum threshold for calculation and should be treated with caution.
• All three reviews are 5-star ratings with no critical feedback, which is a pattern to note, though each review contains specific and distinct details that reduce fake review suspicion.
• Recency concern: All three reviews are older than 12 months (dates: 2022-11-26, 2020-09-05, 2019-11-21). The most recent review is over 2 years old. No recent performance data is available.
• The oldest review (2019) is nearly 5 years old and carries significantly reduced reliability for assessing current service quality.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews, all of which are more than 2 years old, making it a low-volume, low-recency dataset that should be treated as a preliminary positive signal rather than a definitive assessment of current contractor quality.

Pair Plumbing & Septic has a small but mixed review record. Positive reviews highlight responsiveness, prompt arrival, friendly staff, and the ability to diagnose problems others could not, suggesting genuine technical competence. However, a credible and detailed 1-star review raises serious concerns about the owner's professionalism, including allegations of self-posting fake 5-star reviews, leaving 1-star reviews on competitors' pages, and threatening legal action against customers over negative feedback. These allegations materially drag down the professionalism score and cast doubt on the authenticity of some positive reviews. With only 5 reviews spanning nearly a decade, the dataset is too small to draw reliable conclusions, and the fake review concern further undermines confidence in the positive signals.

• FAKE REVIEW CONCERN: The 1-star review explicitly alleges the owner posts fake 5-star reviews for his own business. This is a serious credibility flag that cannot be dismissed.
• COMPETITOR TARGETING ALLEGATION: The 1-star reviewer alleges the owner leaves 1-star reviews on competitor pages (A&V Plumbing, Bell Plumbing, Rubio Septic). This is a significant integrity concern.
• LEGAL THREAT BEHAVIOR: The owner allegedly threatened a customer with a lawsuit over a 3-star review, which is a major professionalism red flag.
• REVIEW VOLUME TOO LOW: Only 5 reviews across approximately 8 years (2016–2021) provides an extremely thin evidence base. Scores should be treated with caution.
• RECENCY CONCERN: The two most recent reviews are from 2020 and 2021. Three of five reviews are from 2016–2017, making the dataset largely outdated.
• GENERIC PRAISE PATTERN: Some positive reviews use broad, non-specific language ('best plumbing company we have ever used', 'A+') with limited verifiable detail, which is consistent with the fake review allegation raised by the 1-star reviewer.
• PROFESSIONALISM SCORE SUPPRESSED: Due to the credible and specific allegations in the 1-star review regarding owner conduct, the professionalism score has been conservatively reduced below what the positive reviews alone would suggest.

This WW Score should be treated with very low confidence — the dataset is critically small (5 reviews over 8 years), contains credible and specific allegations of fake review manipulation by the owner, and includes serious professionalism concerns that cannot be verified or dismissed without additional independent reviews.

Christianson AC & Plumbing shows mixed performance across all dimensions. While technicians frequently demonstrate strong technical knowledge and professionalism (72.5), the company struggles significantly with pricing transparency and fairness (62.0), with numerous complaints about unexpected charges, diagnostic fees, and overpricing. Project completion reliability is concerning (68.5), with multiple reports of incomplete work, no-shows, poor follow-through, and communication failures. Experience quality is solid (75.0) when technicians are engaged, but inconsistency across the workforce is evident. The company's responsiveness and accountability issues appear systemic, particularly regarding callbacks and manager follow-up.

• PATTERN DETECTED: Multiple reviews (8+) report no-shows, missed appointments, and poor communication regarding arrival times and follow-up callbacks. This suggests systemic scheduling/dispatch issues.
• PRICING CONCERNS: Significant pattern of complaints about unexpected charges, bait-and-switch pricing (quoted one price, charged another), diagnostic fees that seem excessive, and pressure to upsell unnecessary services. At least 15 reviews explicitly mention pricing deception or unfairness.
• WARRANTY/ACCOUNTABILITY ISSUES: Multiple customers report the company refusing warranty coverage, denying responsibility for defective work, or using technicalities to avoid service obligations (e.g., 5-year warranty cutoff, refusing to service after customer used another company).
• QUALITY INCONSISTENCY: Wide variance in technician professionalism and competence. Some reviews praise specific technicians (Pablo, David, Jeremy, Jeff) while others report rude, condescending, or incompetent service from unnamed staff.
• COMMUNICATION FAILURES: Recurring theme of unreturned calls, voicemails ignored, lack of manager callbacks, and poor coordination between dispatch and technicians.
• RECENT REVIEWS SKEW NEGATIVE: Reviews from past 12 months (2024-2025) show higher concentration of 1-star ratings compared to older reviews, suggesting potential service deterioration.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK - LOW: While many 5-star reviews are generic, they include specific technician names, detailed scenarios, and varied language patterns. No strong evidence of coordinated fake reviews, though some very brief 5-star reviews lack detail.

This WW Score of 68.2 should be trusted as moderately reliable given the large sample size (176 reviews) and consistent patterns across dimensions, but the score masks significant operational inconsistencies—the company appears capable of excellent work when properly executed but frequently fails on communication, pricing transparency, and accountability, making it a high-risk choice despite pockets of strong performance.

Bradley Plumbing presents a deeply split profile across a large review set spanning roughly 2006 to 2025. Recent reviews (2022–2025) are overwhelmingly positive, praising responsiveness, fair pricing, professionalism, and quality workmanship on water heaters, softeners, and filtration systems. However, a substantial cluster of older negative reviews (2013–2020) describes serious failures: abandoned jobs, no-shows, unreturned calls, property damage, hidden fees, and work left incomplete or done incorrectly. Project completion is the most damaged dimension, with multiple reviewers explicitly reporting that work was left unfinished or that the plumber disappeared after partial payment. Pricing scores are pulled down by complaints of undisclosed fees, overcharging, and charges for unauthorized work, despite many recent customers praising affordability. The overall score reflects a business that appears to have improved significantly in recent years but carries a meaningful historical record of serious service failures.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: At least two pairs of nearly identical reviews exist — the 'hose bib' review (2024-09-12 and 2024-09-02) and the 'water softener go-to plumber' review (2023-06-10 and 2022-08-25) appear to be exact or near-exact duplicates, possibly submitted twice or copied. These were counted once each for scoring purposes.
• MULTIPLE STAFF NAMES DETECTED: Reviews reference 'Bradley,' 'Brad,' 'Troy Bradley,' 'Greg Bradley,' 'Greg,' 'Matt,' 'Jeff,' and 'Joe' as the plumber or owner. This strongly suggests either multiple different businesses operating under the 'Bradley Plumbing' name across different states and time periods, or a single business with inconsistent branding. Reviews from 2012–2016 referencing 'North St. Paul' and 'Greg' likely represent a different business or operator than the Arizona-based 'Brad/Troy' reviews from 2019–2025. This significantly undermines the reliability of treating all reviews as one entity.
• TEMPORAL SPLIT — POSSIBLE BUSINESS CHANGE OR OWNERSHIP TRANSITION: Negative reviews are heavily concentrated in 2013–2020, while positive reviews dominate 2021–2025. This could indicate a change in ownership, operator, or business practices, or it may reflect the mixing of two distinct businesses sharing the same name.
• BLANK AND CONTENT-FREE REVIEWS: At least 8 reviews contained no text (blank, a single emoji, a period, or 'unknown'). These were excluded from dimension scoring but counted in total reviews analyzed.
• RECENCY NOTE: Reviews from the past 12 months (mid-2024 to mid-2025) are strongly positive. If this is the current Arizona-based operation, recent performance appears solid. However, the historical negative record cannot be ignored.
• NO-SHOW AND ABANDONMENT PATTERN: At least 4 separate reviewers across different time periods explicitly reported that the plumber scheduled appointments and failed to appear without notice, and at least 3 reviewers reported jobs being abandoned mid-project with no follow-up. This is a significant pattern affecting project completion scores.
• PROPERTY DAMAGE COMPLAINTS: Multiple older reviews describe property damage (scratched tub, chipped vanity, cracked tile, stained carpet, caulk mess) with no remediation offered, which materially impacts professionalism and experience scores.

This WW Score should be treated with MODERATE-to-LOW trust due to strong evidence that reviews span multiple distinct business entities or operators sharing the 'Bradley Plumbing' name across different states and time periods, the presence of duplicate reviews, a stark temporal split between negative and positive feedback, and serious historical complaints about abandoned work and property damage that cannot be dismissed even if recent performance has improved.