Find Nearby Plumbers In Texarkana, Texas

Taylor Plumbing demonstrates strong overall performance with a WW Score of 82.1, driven primarily by consistent professionalism (87.3) and technical expertise (88.1) across 32 and 20 mentions respectively. Project completion scores solidly at 84.2 with 18 mentions, indicating reliable follow-through on jobs. However, pricing emerges as a notable weakness at 72.5, with 9 mentions revealing concerns about hidden charges, overtime billing practices, and lack of transparent fee disclosure. Recent reviews (2024-2025) are predominantly positive, but older reviews (2013-2018) contain specific complaints about billing practices and incomplete first-visit repairs that warrant attention.

• PRICING CONCERNS: Multiple reviews (2021, 2018, 2015) explicitly mention hidden charges, inflated overtime fees ($225/hour), travel fees not disclosed upfront, and equipment charges added to invoices without prior notification. One 2018 review specifically states fees were non-transparent.
• DUPLICATE NEGATIVE REVIEW: The store flood complaint appears twice identically (2021-12-15), suggesting either a system error or intentional resubmission, but the complaint is substantive and credible.
• INCOMPLETE WORK: Two reviews (2014, 2021) describe jobs not completed properly on first visit, requiring callbacks and additional charges, raising questions about quality control.
• EMPLOYEE REVIEWS: Multiple reviews appear to be from company employees (2020, 2019), which may introduce bias. These should be weighted with caution despite their positive nature.
• GENERIC/EMPTY REVIEWS: Several reviews contain no text or minimal text ('Great', 'Helpful', '.', 'unknown'), reducing data quality but not indicating fraud.
• OUTLIER NEGATIVE REVIEWS: Three 1-star reviews (2022, 2021, 2015) describe serious issues (document falsification claims, billing disputes, no-show, overcharging). These are credible but represent minority experience.
• RECENCY BIAS: 11 of 56 reviews are from 2024-2025 (recent), and these are almost uniformly 5-star with detailed positive feedback. Older reviews (pre-2020) show more pricing complaints, suggesting possible recent service improvements or review filtering.

This WW Score of 82.1 is reliable with HIGH overall confidence due to substantial mention counts across all dimensions (9-32 mentions per category). However, the pricing dimension should be treated with caution—while based on 9 mentions, these complaints are specific, detailed, and span multiple years, suggesting systemic billing transparency issues that may not be fully resolved. The score reflects a company with strong technical skills and professionalism but documented pricing practices that warrant clarification before engagement.

5 Star Plumbing earns strong marks for professionalism and responsiveness, with the overwhelming majority of reviewers praising punctuality, courteous technicians, clear communication, and respectful behavior in the home such as wearing shoe covers. Project completion scores well overall, as most jobs were finished same-day or next-day, but is tempered by a meaningful cluster of negative reviews describing abandoned work, unreturned calls, incomplete repairs, and at least one serious multi-day emergency failure over a holiday weekend. Experience scores solidly, with many reviewers specifically praising named technicians for accurate diagnosis, skilled repairs, and honest assessments that saved customers money — though a handful of reviews describe inexperienced or incompetent work. Pricing is the weakest dimension: while many customers found costs fair and transparent, a notable number of reviews explicitly flagged overcharging, prices significantly higher than competitors, undisclosed fees, and at least one case where a manager had to intervene to correct an inflated charge. The spread between glowing and critical reviews across all dimensions prevents a top-tier score.

• 15 reviews contain no text at all — only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence.
• Several reviews from 2025-06-01 and 2025-06-07 share the same date stamp with minimal or no text, which may indicate bulk submission or review solicitation. Confidence in the most recent review cluster is slightly reduced.
• One 1-star review (2023-01-26) alleges the company also operates under the name 'Underbudget Plumbing' and describes it as a shady husband-and-wife operation. This could not be verified from other reviews but is flagged as a potential identity concern.
• One 5-star review (2020-06-08) explicitly states the reviewer is leaving 5 stars only to protect the company's rating despite being dissatisfied — this review was scored on its content, not its star rating, and reflects a pricing complaint.
• Multiple negative reviews describe serious failures: abandoned emergency jobs, work left incomplete, tools and caps left behind, a flooded senior citizen left without water for days, and a $12,000 sewer job that allegedly caused ongoing damage. These are not isolated incidents and meaningfully suppress the project completion and experience scores.
• Review corpus spans from 2010 to 2025. Reviews older than 2022 were given reduced weight as they may reflect a different team, ownership era, or service area. The majority of scoreable data comes from 2023–2025.
• Some technician names (Eze, Adam, Amir, Edris, Christian) appear repeatedly with strong praise, while others (Jason, Khalil in one instance, Fernando in one instance) appear in negative reviews. Quality appears technician-dependent, which is a reliability risk.

This WW Score is based on a large and diverse review set spanning multiple years and carries HIGH statistical confidence, but the presence of recurring serious complaints about incomplete work, pricing disputes, and abandoned jobs means the score should be interpreted as an average across an inconsistent service experience rather than a reliable floor of quality.

Mike's Plumbing earns strong marks across all four dimensions, driven by an overwhelming volume of positive reviews praising punctuality, communication, friendly technicians, and quality workmanship across a wide range of jobs. Professionalism is the most frequently cited strength, with dozens of reviewers specifically calling out on-time arrivals, courteous staff, clean work habits, and responsive office personnel. Pricing scores moderately well — the majority of reviewers describe fair, competitive, or below-estimate final costs, but a meaningful minority of negative reviews cite unexpectedly high charges, undisclosed labor rates, and a significant bait-and-switch pricing complaint that cannot be ignored. Project completion is strong overall, with most jobs described as fully resolved in a timely manner, though several reviews flag recurring issues, abandoned callbacks, and at least one instance of a new leak appearing within 24 hours of service. Experience scores well, with many reviewers praising skilled diagnosis, creative problem-solving, and technical knowledge, though a handful of negative reviews describe technicians who could not resolve the issue or required senior intervention.

• Two reviews (dated 2024-10-29 and 2024-11-08) are nearly word-for-word identical in content, both complaining about a $310/hour charge for a water heater troubleshooting visit that yielded no resolution. This may represent the same reviewer posting twice or a coordinated negative review effort — treat with moderate caution but the underlying complaint is plausible and consistent with other pricing concerns.
• Two reviews (dated 2025-06-06 and 2025-06-04) are exact duplicates of a detailed positive review about a kitchen sink replumb job. This is a strong indicator of a fake or duplicate review submission and reduces confidence in the most recent positive review cluster.
• Two reviews (dated 2024-10-09 and 2024-10-03) are near-identical positive reviews about the same sewer line incident involving Cody. This may be a duplicate submission by the same reviewer.
• Two reviews (dated 2022-09-07 and 2022-09-04) are near-identical positive reviews about a whole-house generator gas piping re-do. Likely duplicate submissions.
• Two reviews (dated 2008-07-11) are exact duplicates of a positive review. Likely a duplicate submission.
• Multiple reviews contain no text and only a star rating (5 stars). These provide no usable data for any dimension and were excluded from dimension scoring.
• A significant number of negative reviews (1-star) cite responsiveness and communication failures — unreturned calls, ignored messages, missed appointments, and failure to follow up. This is a recurring operational weakness that is partially offset by the high volume of positive responsiveness mentions but should not be dismissed.
• The review corpus spans from approximately 2008 to 2025. Reviews older than 2022 carry reduced weight per recency rules. The business appears to have grown significantly over time, and some older negative reviews may reflect earlier operational issues that have since improved — but some communication and scheduling complaints persist into 2024-2025.
• At least one review (2018-10-02) alleges the company refused to provide insurance information after causing property damage, which is a serious professional and legal concern.
• One review (2016-04-21) describes extremely unprofessional conduct including property damage, denial of responsibility, and an abusive late-night phone call. This is an outlier but a serious one.

This WW Score is based on a very large review corpus (281 reviews) spanning over 15 years, giving it HIGH statistical confidence in direction and relative dimension ranking, but the score should be interpreted with caution due to confirmed duplicate/fake positive reviews, a recurring pattern of communication and scheduling failures in negative reviews, and several serious pricing transparency complaints that suggest inconsistent customer experiences depending on the job type and technician assigned.

Plumbing Specialties earns strong marks for professionalism, with the overwhelming majority of substantive reviews praising punctuality, courtesy, cleanliness, and responsiveness — including a notable instance of responding to a text after 9:30pm on a Saturday. Project completion scores are solid, with many reviewers confirming jobs were finished on time and within or under estimated hours, though one review describes a post-installation leak and another describes a basement water damage situation that was not remediated. Pricing is the weakest dimension: while many customers praised fair or competitive pricing, there are explicit complaints about a $280 shutoff charge being excessive, an after-hours bill of $451 described as 'ridiculous,' and one reviewer noting the final price came in higher than expected — these negative data points meaningfully drag the pricing score down. Experience scores are generally positive, with reviewers citing knowledgeable technicians and quality workmanship, but one instance of a technician incorrectly advising a customer they did not need a shutoff valve (when they did) introduces a credibility concern. The overall score is tempered by the heavy duplication of reviews, which inflates apparent volume without adding independent evidence.

• SEVERE DUPLICATION DETECTED: The vast majority of reviews appear in near-identical or exact duplicate pairs (same text, same date, same rating). This pattern strongly suggests platform data ingestion errors or possible review manipulation. The true number of independent reviewer opinions is likely less than half the total review count.
• FAKE/DUPLICATE REVIEW PATTERN: Multiple reviews share identical wording and identical dates (e.g., 'They were prompt and very professional' appears twice on 2022-05-17; 'Plumbing Specialties was fast, easy to work with...' appears twice on 2023-09-11; 'Job was performed very well...' appears three times on 2020-09-16; 'Very professional. Timely. Great customer service.' appears four times on 2020-08-06). Confidence in raw review count is reduced accordingly.
• BLANK/NEAR-BLANK REVIEWS: Several reviews contain only a period ('.', '..') or are completely empty, yet carry 5-star ratings. These provide no usable data and inflate the star average without substance.
• RATING ANOMALY: A number of reviews dated 2010–2013 carry a rating of 0.0, which appears to be a data artifact (likely unrated or unscored entries on the source platform) rather than genuine 0-star ratings. These were treated as unrated but the review text was still analyzed for content.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews are older than 12 months relative to a 2024 analysis date. Only a small handful of reviews (2022–2023) are within the past 1–2 years, limiting confidence in how current the contractor's performance level is.
• NEGATIVE SIGNALS: At least two distinct negative experiences are documented — one involving overpricing for a shutoff valve and incorrect technical advice, and one involving a post-installation leak causing basement water damage with no remediation offered. These are meaningful quality signals despite being outnumbered by positive reviews.

This WW Score carries moderate-to-high confidence in directional quality (the contractor appears generally professional and competent) but should be interpreted cautiously due to pervasive review duplication that artificially inflates review volume, a concentration of reviews older than 2 years, and a small but notable cluster of negative experiences related to pricing transparency and workmanship errors.

Generator Supercenter demonstrates strong technical expertise and professionalism from individual technicians (particularly Sergio/Serge), with consistently positive feedback on workmanship and customer service responsiveness. However, the company is significantly hampered by systemic communication failures, project delays, and permitting issues that have frustrated multiple customers. Pricing is competitive but concerns exist around transparency and unexpected costs. Project completion suffers from inconsistent follow-through, missed appointments, and poor coordination between departments, despite ultimately delivering functional installations.

• FAKE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: Multiple reviews from 2024-06-09 (at least 15 reviews) contain nearly identical phrasing praising 'Sergio/Serge' with suspiciously generic language and no specific details. This cluster suggests coordinated positive reviews and reduces confidence in the professionalism score.
• SYSTEMIC COMMUNICATION ISSUES: At least 6 reviews explicitly cite poor communication, missed callbacks, last-minute scheduling, and lack of transparency about project status and payment timelines. This is a recurring structural problem, not isolated incidents.
• PERMITTING AND PROJECT DELAYS: Multiple reviews (2023, 2020, 2014) report significant delays ranging from 65+ days beyond estimate to projects stalled for months due to permitting issues. One customer waited 9 months with no permit progress.
• INCOMPLETE WORK AND CALLBACKS: Several reviews mention abandoned work, incomplete installations (monitoring devices, carbon monoxide detectors not installed), and customers being charged before work completion.
• RECENCY BIAS: Most recent reviews (2025, 2024) are heavily weighted toward 5-star ratings with minimal detail, while detailed negative reviews are older (2020-2023). Recent positive reviews lack specificity compared to older, more detailed reviews.
• INCONSISTENT SERVICE QUALITY: Stark contrast between individual technician performance (Sergio consistently praised) and company-level operations (scheduling, communication, permitting failures).
• PAYMENT CONFUSION: Multiple customers report confusion about payment schedules, unexpected invoices, and unclear billing between Costco and the company.

This WW Score of 76.8 should be treated with MODERATE-TO-HIGH caution: while the score reflects genuine strengths in technical expertise and individual technician performance, it is significantly undermined by a cluster of suspicious 5-star reviews from June 2024 that appear coordinated, and by consistent, detailed complaints about systemic operational failures (communication, scheduling, permitting, project management) that are not adequately reflected in the overall score due to the high volume of generic positive reviews. The company excels at technical execution but fails at project management and customer communication.

C&J Plumbing has a strong historical track record across most dimensions, with many reviewers praising punctuality, reasonable pricing, and solid technical skill — including multiple instances where the plumber solved problems that other plumbers could not. However, the score is meaningfully dragged down by recurring responsiveness failures: at least three reviews explicitly cite unreturned calls or no-shows, including a 2022 update where a promised callback never materialized. Project completion is also penalized by one review noting a recurring issue that went unresolved, and another citing slow and poor work. Pricing is generally viewed favorably, with multiple reviewers noting competitive or below-market rates. The overall picture is of a capable but inconsistently reliable contractor whose communication and follow-through have been a persistent weak point across multiple years.

• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The review 'He did an excellent job. He did what we wanted and the price was reasonable...' appears verbatim on both 2012-06-06 and 2009-11-18. This is a likely duplicate entry and was counted only once for scoring purposes.
• RECENCY WARNING: The vast majority of reviews are older than 1 year. Only one review (2022-10-07) is within the past 3 years, and it is a negative update about a failed callback. The most recent data point is unfavorable, which warrants caution about current service quality.
• REVIEW SPAN WARNING: Reviews span from 1999 to 2022 — over 23 years. Business quality, ownership, and staffing may have changed significantly over this period. Older reviews (pre-2010) should be weighted with caution.
• VAGUE/UNUSABLE REVIEWS: Several reviews ('unknown', 'slowly and badly', 'Fine, Fast and Thorough', 'excellent work, up to date, affable and efficient') provide minimal detail and were scored conservatively or excluded from specific dimension counts.
• RESPONSIVENESS PATTERN: At least 3 separate reviews across different years (2008, 2022, and 2002) explicitly cite failure to return calls or follow through on commitments. This is a consistent and recurring negative pattern, not an isolated incident.

This WW Score is based on a moderately large review set but should be treated with caution due to the extreme age of most reviews, a confirmed duplicate entry, and a clear recurring pattern of communication failures that persists into the most recent available review from 2022.