Find Nearby Plumbers In Texarkana, Texas

Johnson Plumbing shows mixed performance across dimensions. Professionalism is relatively strong with timely responses and friendly service noted in multiple reviews, though some communication gaps exist. Pricing receives moderate marks—while some customers found fair value, others felt charges were high or lacked transparency. Project completion is the most concerning dimension, with critical failures including incomplete diagnosis of sewer issues, work performed without required permits, and follow-up problems requiring costly corrections by other plumbers. Experience scores reflect technical knowledge gaps, particularly in camera diagnostics and permit compliance, though some customers praised workmanship quality.

• CRITICAL: Two severe project failures (2019 and 2017 reviews) involving major misdiagnosis and incomplete work requiring expensive corrections by competitors. These are not isolated complaints but represent fundamental competency issues.
• Permit compliance issue flagged in 2019 review—owner performed water heater work without required permit and stonewalled when asked to correct it.
• Significant recency bias: Most positive reviews are 9+ years old (2011-2015), while negative reviews are more recent (2017-2019). This suggests potential decline in service quality over time.
• One review (2015) mentions owner name as 'Craig' while others reference 'Greg'—possible name inconsistency or multiple owners, creating uncertainty about service consistency.
• Review from 2015 shows customer had to persuade owner to diagnose problem properly, suggesting reluctance to investigate thoroughly.

This score should be treated with caution due to significant recency concerns (most positive reviews are 9+ years old) and documented major failures in recent years that directly contradict older praise. The MODERATE overall confidence reflects conflicting evidence: strong historical reputation undermined by serious recent competency and compliance failures that would be deal-breakers for most customers.

This contractor has a deeply mixed record. Several older reviews praise punctuality, courteous behavior, and professional communication, but the most recent review (October 2024) describes a serious failure: the contractor did not answer the phone and left the customer's system non-functional after a service visit. A 2013 review also documents a no-show with no call, which is a significant professionalism failure. The positive reviews are largely older (2008–2020), and the pattern of responsiveness and follow-through issues is concerning. Experience scores are moderate — when work was completed, customers reported competent diagnosis and problem-solving, but the no-show and unresolved service call undermine confidence in consistent delivery.

• Three reviews are marked 'unknown' with no usable content — these were excluded from scoring.
• Most positive reviews are 4–16 years old (2008–2020). The only review from the past 12 months (2024) is a 1-star complaint.
• Recency concern: The contractor's recent performance appears to have declined significantly compared to older reviews. The 2024 and 2013 reviews both document responsiveness and follow-through failures.
• No pricing information was mentioned in any review — the Pricing dimension cannot be scored.
• Some older 5-star reviews are generic and lack specific detail, which slightly reduces confidence in their authenticity, though not enough to flag as definitively fake.

This WW Score carries LIMITED overall reliability due to the small number of usable reviews, the age of most positive feedback, and a clear negative trend in the most recent data points — prospective customers should weight the 2024 and 2013 reviews heavily when making a hiring decision.

Pipe Monkeys shows a deeply mixed record across all dimensions. On the positive side, two detailed reviews praise professional conduct, punctuality, cleanliness, and quality workmanship — including a slab leak resolved on-budget and a washer installation handled with care. However, three negative reviews introduce serious concerns: one customer was flatly refused service after asking a reasonable question, another was deprioritized for not being on a monthly plan despite advertised 24/7 availability, and a third encountered a contradictory fee policy with zero follow-up communication. Pricing transparency is a notable weak point, with one reviewer explicitly flagging a hidden $85 bid fee that contradicted the company's own website. The small review pool and wide rating spread (three 5-stars, three 1-stars) make it difficult to draw confident conclusions, and the score reflects this polarization rather than a reliable average.

• Review pool is very small (6 reviews total), severely limiting statistical reliability.
• Extreme rating polarization: exactly 3 reviews rated 5-star and 3 reviews rated 1-star — no middle-ground ratings exist, which is unusual and warrants caution.
• Most reviews are dated 2020 or earlier; the most recent review is from December 2020, meaning all reviews are over 3 years old. Current performance cannot be assessed.
• One review (2017) flags a direct contradiction between the company's website policy ('no service fees') and what was communicated by phone ($85 bid fee), suggesting possible deceptive or inconsistent business practices.
• The 2020-03 review raises a concern about advertised 24/7 availability being conditional on a paid monthly plan — a potential misleading marketing claim.
• No fake review patterns detected; negative reviews contain specific, credible detail and positive reviews include concrete observations, suggesting authenticity across the board.

This WW Score should be treated with LOW trust: the sample size of 6 reviews is insufficient for confident conclusions, all reviews are more than 3 years old, and the extreme 5-star/1-star split suggests the contractor may perform inconsistently depending on customer type or circumstance.

The review set is small (4 reviews) and deeply mixed, making any score inherently uncertain. One highly detailed negative review from 2013 describes a serious pattern of scope creep, hidden charges, and an incomplete job that left a customer without a working toilet over a weekend — this heavily drags down pricing and project completion scores. A 2024 negative review explicitly questions the company's technical competence. On the positive side, one 2024 review praises a specific repair job completed successfully, and a 2020 review mentions punctuality, reasonable pricing, and a follow-up call. The positives are outweighed in severity by the negatives, particularly the detailed 2013 account, though its age (over 10 years) limits its recency weight.

• Only 4 reviews total — WW Score cannot be considered reliable at this sample size.
• The most detailed negative review (2013) is over 10 years old and may not reflect current business practices; however, it is the only review with granular pricing and project completion detail.
• The 2024 negative review is vague and lacks specifics, reducing its evidentiary weight but still noted as a recent signal of dissatisfaction.
• No fake review patterns detected — reviews vary in tone, detail, and rating, suggesting authentic submissions.
• Recency note: Only 2 of 4 reviews are from the past 12 months (2024). The 2020 and 2013 reviews are given reduced weight per recency rules.

This WW Score is based on only 4 reviews spanning over a decade and should be treated as highly preliminary — do not rely on it without seeking additional recent reviews or references.

All three reviews are severely negative with ratings of 1.0 stars. The contractor demonstrates critical failures across all dimensions: extreme delays (2-4 months), refusal to complete work, double-charging, poor communication, and dismissive customer service. One review explicitly states the plumber was the original contractor responsible for defective installations that failed repeatedly over 6 years. The company prioritizes corporate clients over residential customers and shows no accountability. With only 3 reviews and all uniformly damaging, a reliable WW Score cannot be calculated, but the evidence strongly suggests severe operational and quality problems.

• All three reviews are 1-star ratings with no positive mentions — extremely rare pattern that warrants investigation but appears genuine based on specific details (names, dates, dollar amounts, technical specifics)
• One review is from 2013 (11 years old) — significantly outdated and should carry minimal weight in current assessment
• Two recent reviews (2024 and 2023) both describe severe project abandonment, communication failures, and financial disputes — consistent pattern of serious problems
• Insufficient review volume (n=3) to calculate reliable WW Score; recommend collecting additional recent reviews before making hiring decision
• Company appears to have shifted business model toward corporate/jail clients and explicitly deprioritizes residential work per customer report

This assessment cannot produce a reliable WW Score due to insufficient review volume (n=3 minimum required). However, the uniformly catastrophic feedback across all three reviews — particularly the two recent ones describing multi-month delays, incomplete work, double-charging, and dismissive management — suggests serious operational problems that warrant extreme caution before engaging this contractor for residential work.

Both reviews speak positively across all four dimensions, but the sample size of only two reviews is insufficient to calculate a reliable WW Score. On professionalism, Gary and his team are described as collaborative, low-key, and willing to waive standard service charges — strong indicators of customer-first attitude. Pricing is noted as reasonable in one review, with one instance of no-charge consultation reinforcing transparency and fairness. Project completion appears solid, with both reviews describing multi-step jobs carried out fully and without issue. Experience is supported by references to handling heavy cast iron tub installation, correcting prior shoddy work, and diagnosing a leak accurately without unnecessary upselling.

• Only 2 reviews provided — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per scoring rules. A minimum of 3 reviews is required.
• Both reviews are dated 2020 (October 2020 and January 2020), making them over 4 years old. Recency weighting is a concern — these reviews do not reflect recent performance.
• No negative feedback or constructive criticism present in either review. While this may reflect genuine satisfaction, it limits the ability to identify any weaknesses.
• Sample size is too small to detect fake review patterns definitively, but both reviews contain specific job details and varied language, which are positive authenticity indicators.

This score report should be treated as preliminary and low-reliability due to only 2 reviews being available, both of which are over 4 years old — significantly more recent and numerous reviews would be needed before any WW Score could be trusted for decision-making.