Find Nearby Plumbers In Houston, Texas

The review corpus spans multiple businesses operating under similar or overlapping names (All Around Plumbing, All Counties Plumbing, John's Plumbing), which significantly complicates scoring reliability. Professionalism scores moderately well overall — the majority of reviews praise punctuality, courtesy, and communication — but is substantially dragged down by a recurring and serious pattern of no-shows: multiple independent reviewers across different time periods report technicians failing to appear for scheduled appointments without notice, which is a critical professionalism failure. Pricing is mixed: many reviewers cite fair or reasonable pricing, but several credible negative reviews describe hidden charges, quotes that ballooned dramatically, and one reviewer alleging a $350 estimate fee followed by a quote more than double competitors. Project completion is the most concerning dimension — multiple reviews describe jobs started but never finished, deposits taken with no return, warranty claims ignored for months, and at least one case of a technician causing additional damage and abandoning the site. Experience scores highest among the four dimensions, with many reviewers praising diagnostic skill, technical knowledge, and quality workmanship, though offset by at least two reviews describing incorrect or substandard work requiring remediation.

• MULTIPLE BUSINESS IDENTITY ISSUE: Reviews appear to span at least three distinct businesses — 'All Around Plumbing', 'All Counties Plumbing', and 'John's Plumbing' — with different owners (Karel, Lindell, Philip, Yohendry). Scores may conflate unrelated companies, reducing reliability.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — MODERATE: A significant cluster of reviews dated 2024-06-09 and 2025-05-10 share identical dates with no specific detail, generic praise, and no job description. Several blank reviews (rating only, no text) are present throughout. These patterns are consistent with review padding.
• REPEATED NO-SHOW PATTERN: At least 6 independent reviewers across different years (2020, 2023, 2025) explicitly report technicians failing to appear for scheduled appointments without notification. This is a systemic reliability concern, not isolated incidents.
• ABANDONED WORK / PAYMENT FRAUD PATTERN: Multiple reviews (2020, 2024) describe contractors taking deposits or full payment and never returning to complete work. One review describes a contractor digging a hole, breaking a pipe, and disappearing. One review describes being billed for a job the company never attended.
• WARRANTY DISHONORING: At least one detailed review (2025-01-10) describes All Counties Plumbing refusing to honor a 3-year warranty after 1 year, ignoring calls for 2 months.
• BILLING MISCONDUCT: One detailed 2015 review describes the company attempting to collect a prior owner's debt by changing the name on an invoice, then hanging up on the customer when disputed. Owner never followed up.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent reviews (2025) are predominantly positive, but the negative reviews are distributed across all time periods including 2025, suggesting ongoing issues rather than historical problems that have been resolved.
• 35 reviews contain no text (rating only) and were excluded from dimension scoring but counted in total reviews analyzed.
• SCORE CONFIDENCE CAVEAT: Despite HIGH confidence labels (driven by mention volume), the mixed-entity nature of this review set and the presence of suspected padded reviews mean the WW Score should be interpreted with caution.

This WW Score carries LIMITED practical reliability due to the likely commingling of reviews from multiple distinct businesses, a credible pattern of fake or padded reviews inflating positive sentiment, and serious recurring negative patterns (no-shows, abandoned jobs, billing disputes) that suggest systemic operational failures at one or more of the entities represented in this review set.

This contractor has a large and broadly positive review base, with many customers praising responsiveness, friendliness, and fair pricing across dozens of detailed accounts. However, a meaningful cluster of negative reviews — spanning multiple years and multiple locations — describes serious recurring issues including unresolved work, misdiagnosis, overcharging, combative technician behavior, abandoned jobs, and failure to return calls. The negative reviews are specific, credible, and detailed enough to materially reduce scores across all four dimensions. Pricing in particular is mixed: while many customers praise value, several describe being charged significantly more than quoted or paying for work that failed to fix the problem. Project completion is similarly dragged down by multiple accounts of jobs left incomplete, recurring leaks after service, and technicians leaving without resolving the issue.

• DUPLICATE REVIEW ALERT: At least 8 reviews appear to be near-identical duplicates posted on different dates (e.g., the 'Monthy arrived promptly' review, the 'Monte beat the other guys price by several thousand' review, the 'Once again, an impressive job' review, the 'Needed a plumber to help me get some pipes unclogged' review, the 'Superb Service At A Reasonable Price' review, the 'We had A Better Plumbing Company out to our house' review, and the 'Having a Home Inspection business' review each appear twice with different dates). This is a strong indicator of review manipulation or platform aggregation artifacts and significantly reduces confidence in the positive review pool.
• MULTI-ENTITY CONCERN: Reviews reference multiple distinct business names (A Better Plumbing, A-Better Plumbing LLC, A&E Plumbing) and multiple owner/operator names (Monte, Roland, Eric, Jeff, Billy, James Dolph) across different geographic markets (Las Vegas NV, Pearland TX, St. George UT, Houston TX). It is likely these reviews represent more than one business, which undermines the reliability of aggregate scoring.
• FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: A large number of 5-star reviews contain generic praise with no job-specific detail (e.g., 'Great professional work and people. Thanks', 'Always courteous and reliable. These are my go-to plumbers!', 'Used this company several times. Awesome service!'). Several reviews are entirely blank with only a star rating. These patterns are consistent with inflated review profiles.
• RECENCY NOTE: Reviews span from 2007 to 2025. A significant portion of reviews predate 2022 and should be weighted lower. The most recent negative reviews (2024–2025) describe serious competency and professionalism failures, which are particularly concerning as indicators of current service quality.
• NEGATIVE REVIEW CREDIBILITY: Multiple 1-star reviews are highly specific, include named technicians, describe sequential failures, and reference financial harm. These are assessed as credible and are weighted accordingly in scoring.
• RESPONSIVENESS FAILURES: At least 7 separate reviews across different time periods describe the company failing to return calls or respond to messages, which is a consistent and recurring operational weakness.

This WW Score should be treated with LOW-TO-MODERATE trust due to confirmed duplicate reviews, likely multi-entity review aggregation across different geographic markets and business names, a pattern of generic 5-star reviews with no verifiable detail, and a credible cluster of serious negative reviews describing competency failures, overcharging, and incomplete work.

Perez Plumbing has a large and predominantly positive review base, with many customers praising responsiveness, fair pricing, and skilled workmanship across a wide range of jobs including water heater replacements, leak repairs, and pipe work. However, a meaningful minority of negative reviews — roughly 20-25% of substantive reviews — raise serious concerns including incomplete work left undiscovered for extended periods, alleged overcharging, rude office staff, no-show appointments, and at least one claim of $45,000 in uninsured damage. Professionalism scores are pulled down significantly by recurring complaints about the front-office/scheduling staff being rude or dismissive, and by multiple no-show or late-arrival incidents. Pricing scores are mixed: while many customers praise fair and competitive rates, several credible negative reviews describe charges that appear excessive or inconsistent with the work performed. Project completion is generally strong but is meaningfully penalized by the disconnected kitchen drain incident, the incomplete pipe replacement allegation, and the irrigation meter job that left the lawn torn up for weeks.

• Approximately 25 reviews contain no text — only a star rating. These blank reviews (mostly 5-star) cannot be scored and inflate the apparent rating without providing usable evidence.
• Several reviews appear to reference entirely different companies or locations (e.g., HVAC furnace work, A/C capacitor repair, tire change assistance, construction across the street) suggesting this review pool may aggregate reviews for multiple businesses sharing the 'Perez Plumbing' name or that some reviews were misdirected. These were excluded from scoring where clearly irrelevant.
• A pattern of very short, generic 5-star reviews with no specifics (e.g., 'Love their service!', 'Very good', 'Good', 'All went well', 'unknown') raises moderate fake review concern. These were treated as low-weight evidence.
• One 1-star review references a 'Marcos' and 'Damon' as owner — names not mentioned in other reviews — suggesting possible review bleed from a different Perez Plumbing entity.
• One review references dangerous driving behavior and another references road conduct — these are not plumbing service reviews and were excluded from scoring.
• A review dated 2005 describes workers with poor English proficiency and a 3-hour delay returning with an invoice — this and other pre-2015 reviews were given minimal weight due to age.
• The 1-star review alleging a disconnected kitchen drain left draining into a crawl space for an extended period is a serious workmanship and integrity flag that was weighted heavily in project completion scoring.
• At least two credible reviews allege billing for work not performed or for excessive amounts relative to time on site, which is a significant pricing integrity concern.
• Recency note: The majority of detailed, substantive reviews are from 2024-2025, which is positive for recency weighting. However, negative reviews are also well-represented in this recent window.

This WW Score is based on a large review volume with HIGH confidence across all four dimensions, but should be interpreted cautiously given the serious nature of several negative reviews, the presence of numerous blank reviews inflating star averages, and evidence suggesting this pool may include reviews for more than one business operating under the Perez Plumbing name.

Able Plumbing has a large and long-running review base that reveals a genuinely mixed picture. On the positive side, a substantial majority of reviewers praise responsiveness, same-day availability, polite technicians, and fair pricing — with named plumbers like Rob, Nelson, Danilo, and Dwayne frequently cited for skill and professionalism. However, a meaningful minority of negative reviews — spread across multiple years and involving different customers — describe serious recurring issues: poor workmanship requiring callbacks, failure to honor guarantees, pricing disputes with no transparency, and office staff who are dismissive or unresponsive. Project completion is the most contested dimension, with multiple reviews describing jobs that leaked after completion, were abandoned, or were never followed up on. Pricing scores are dragged down by several credible accounts of inflated labor charges, undisclosed hourly rates, and parts marked up well above retail — though many other customers found pricing fair or even better than competitors.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: The review beginning 'Called for a fix to a leak behind the wall of my upstairs bathroom. Rob (owner) came out...' appears twice with different dates (2024-06-06 and 2023-11-11) and identical text. This is a likely duplicate and was counted only once for scoring purposes.
• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: The review beginning 'I called Able in off hours and left a message...' (garbage disposal / Sa's Plumbing) appears twice with different dates (2023-06-07 and 2023-01-19) and near-identical text. Counted only once for scoring purposes.
• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: The review beginning 'Nope. I was horrified to find an Able plumber without a mask...' appears twice with different dates (2021-06-07 and 2020-10-10). Counted only once for scoring purposes.
• GENERIC/CONTENT-FREE REVIEWS: Six reviews consist solely of a star rating with no text, or single-word responses ('Great', 'The absolute best.'). These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence per scoring rules.
• RECENCY NOTE: Reviews span from 2012 to 2025. The majority of substantive reviews are from 2016–2025. Negative reviews are distributed across the full date range, indicating persistent rather than isolated issues. No strong recency trend toward improvement or decline is clearly evident.
• PATTERN OF UNRESOLVED COMPLAINTS: Multiple independent reviewers across different years describe the same failure modes — jobs that leaked after completion, guarantees not honored, and office staff refusing to engage with complaints. This consistency across unrelated reviewers increases the credibility of these negative accounts.
• PRICING TRANSPARENCY CONCERN: Several credible negative reviews describe being charged without upfront quotes, parts marked up significantly above retail, and hourly rates never disclosed. This is a systemic pattern, not isolated incidents.
• ONE REVIEW (2013-04-16, 1-star) references a different listing address and contains no substantive content. It was excluded from scoring.

This WW Score is based on a large volume of reviews spanning over a decade and carries HIGH statistical confidence, but prospective customers should weigh the recurring and credible negative patterns around billing transparency, guarantee enforcement, and project follow-through alongside the genuine praise for responsiveness and technician skill.

Mercy Plumbing has a large and long-running review history showing genuine strengths in responsiveness and same-day service, with many customers praising prompt arrival and technical competence on standard jobs. However, professionalism is significantly dragged down by a recurring and credible pattern of rude, threatening, and dismissive behavior from the owner across multiple independent reviews spanning several years — including alleged threats of legal action, harassing texts to customers, and hanging up on clients. Pricing is the weakest dimension: numerous reviewers across different years explicitly describe charges as high, inconsistent, or deceptive, with multiple customers reporting quotes far above market rate and at least one confirmed instance of a price being changed on arrival. Project completion scores moderately well — most jobs were finished — but there are notable failures including a botched whole-home filtration install, a toilet installed backwards requiring a return visit with additional charges, and at least two no-show appointments. Experience scores reasonably well for routine plumbing tasks but is undermined by the filtration system failure and one diagnostic miss flagged by a second plumber.

• OWNER CONDUCT WARNING: Multiple independent reviews across 2017–2025 describe the owner as rude, dismissive, or threatening. At least two reviews mention threatening texts or legal threats sent to customers after negative reviews. One review documents a staff member sending harassing texts to a customer. These are serious professionalism red flags that meaningfully lower the professionalism score.
• PRICING INCONSISTENCY: At least 10 reviews across multiple years explicitly describe pricing as high, inconsistent, or deceptive. One reviewer was quoted one price and charged another. One reviewer paid $1,500+ for ~2 hours of work with a vague invoice and no breakdown provided. Another was charged $250 for an unfixed sink. These are not isolated complaints.
• PROJECT QUALITY CONCERN: One 1-star review (2025) describes a whole-home filtration system installed incorrectly, including a pressurized carbon filter that exploded and stained a wall. A second plumber and water softening expert confirmed the installation was faulty. This is a significant workmanship failure on a complex job.
• NO-SHOW / RELIABILITY PATTERN: At least two reviews describe scheduled appointments where no one showed up and no proactive communication was made. One reviewer took time off work and was hung up on when raising the issue.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Approximately 10 reviews contain no text — only a 5-star rating. These provide no usable data and were excluded from dimension scoring. Their presence slightly inflates the raw star average without contributing evidence.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews with substantive content are from 2025 and 2024, which is positive for recency weighting. However, the negative behavioral patterns (rude owner, pricing complaints) are consistent across the full 2013–2025 timeline, suggesting these are structural issues rather than isolated incidents.
• POSSIBLE REVIEW PADDING: Several reviews from February 2025 share the same date (2025-02-09) and are very brief or blank. While not conclusive, the clustering of same-day 5-star reviews with minimal detail warrants mild suspicion of padding. Confidence is not reduced to LIMITED due to the large overall review volume, but this pattern is noted.

This WW Score of 72.1 is based on a large, multi-year review set with HIGH confidence across all four dimensions; however, the score should be interpreted cautiously because recurring, credible complaints about owner conduct and pricing transparency represent systemic issues — not outliers — and prospective customers should read the critical reviews carefully before hiring.

Mission A/C and Plumbing receives strong and consistent praise for individual technician professionalism, courtesy, punctuality, and communication across a large volume of reviews spanning nearly a decade, which anchors the professionalism score at a moderate-high level. However, pricing is the single most damaging dimension in this dataset: a substantial and recurring pattern of complaints about overcharging, lack of price transparency, inflated parts costs, and quotes far exceeding competitors drags the pricing score down significantly — this is not an isolated concern but a systemic one flagged across many independent reviewers. Project completion is mixed: many jobs are completed well and on time, but there are multiple credible accounts of incomplete work, unresolved recurring failures (particularly with AC installations), property damage left unaddressed, and poor follow-through on callbacks and complaints. Experience scores moderately well due to frequent mentions of knowledgeable technicians, but is tempered by several reviews describing misdiagnosis, incorrect installations, and technicians who appeared to lack expertise on specific systems (e.g., mini-splits, complex duct issues). The overall WW Score of 72.1 reflects a company with genuine service strengths at the technician level but meaningful and well-documented weaknesses in pricing integrity and quality assurance on complex or long-term projects.

• PRICING CONCERN — HIGH SEVERITY: Overcharging is the most frequently cited complaint across the review set. Multiple independent reviewers report quotes 2x–3x higher than competitors for identical work (capacitors, drain unclogging, condenser fan motors, water heaters). This is a systemic pattern, not isolated incidents.
• PROJECT COMPLETION FAILURES: At least 4 reviews describe AC systems installed by Mission that failed repeatedly within 1–3 years, with root causes attributed to improper installation. One reviewer documents 3 years of recurring failures on a $6k+ system. Another describes $750 spent with no resolution and holes left in sheetrock.
• PROPERTY DAMAGE INCIDENT: One reviewer (2025-03-18, updated 2025-06-08) describes severe floor damage caused by a Mission AC team that was initially denied and disputed by management before eventually being resolved. This reflects a pattern of poor accountability at the management level.
• CUSTOMER SERVICE FAILURES: Multiple reviews cite unresponsive management, rude representatives, failure to return calls, and dismissive responses to legitimate complaints (e.g., 'Where are the receipts,' 'This is above my pay grade,' 'Find someone else').
• SCHEDULING MISCONDUCT: One review (2019-09-12) describes a deeply troubling incident involving a cancelled appointment, a 'do not service' list, and an employee reportedly fired for scheduling appointments with coupon customers. This raises ethical concerns about business practices.
• BLANK REVIEWS: 9 reviews contained no text — only a 5-star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence. Their presence slightly inflates the raw star average and warrants caution.
• POTENTIAL RATING INFLATION: The blank 5-star reviews and several very brief generic positive reviews ('Outstanding Service!!', 'Great experience!') with no specifics are consistent with patterns sometimes seen in review padding. Confidence is not reduced due to the large volume of detailed reviews, but this is noted.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of negative reviews are concentrated between 2018–2023, with 2025 reviews being predominantly positive. This may indicate genuine improvement, but the 2025 floor damage incident and the hard-sell complaint (2024-07-29) suggest issues have not been fully resolved.
• UPSELLING PATTERN: Multiple reviewers across different years describe technicians pushing unnecessary replacements, inflating scope of work, or recommending repairs that competing companies deemed unnecessary. This is a recurring and credible pattern.

This WW Score is based on a large and diverse review set (109 reviews) spanning approximately 10 years, with strong data across all four dimensions, yielding HIGH confidence — however, consumers should weight the pricing and project completion concerns heavily, as these are supported by numerous detailed, specific, and independently corroborating accounts that meaningfully offset the strong professionalism scores.