Find Nearby Plumbers In Midland, Texas

Midtown Plumbing earns strong marks for professionalism, with dozens of reviews praising punctuality, communication, friendliness, and responsiveness across multiple technicians including Jason, David, Tim, and Tracy. Experience scores are also solid, with multiple reviewers citing skilled diagnostics, problem-solving, and quality workmanship — including one notable case where Midtown correctly identified a problem three other companies missed. Project completion is generally positive, with most jobs described as fully finished and followed through, but is tempered by two notable negative reviews: one describing abandoned/sloppy sewer pipe work and one describing a scheduling failure where the company did not show up on the correct day and then canceled the rescheduled appointment. Pricing is the weakest dimension, with multiple reviewers across different years explicitly calling out high or unfair pricing — including charges of $475 for toilet rebuilds, $175 for a 10-minute valve replacement, and $400 for a running toilet repair — partially offset by reviews praising competitive or fair pricing.

• 5 reviews contain no text at all (only a 5-star rating with no written content) — these were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data.
• A large cluster of reviews share the same date of 2025-05-10 and 2025-04-10, which may reflect batch imports or review solicitation campaigns rather than organic posting. Language varies sufficiently to avoid a fake review determination, but the date clustering warrants caution.
• One review (2025-05-10, Peter) is rated 5 stars but explicitly criticizes pricing as reflecting 'corporate greed' — the star rating does not match the written sentiment on the pricing dimension, and the written content was weighted over the star rating for scoring purposes.
• The negative scheduling/cancellation review (2021-06-16) describes the owner laughing at a crying customer and canceling service as retaliation for a threatened negative review — this is a serious conduct flag that weighs against professionalism despite being a single incident.
• Several reviews are more than 3 years old (2012–2021). Per recency rules, reviews from 2025 and 2024 were weighted more heavily. Older negative pricing reviews (2016, 2017) were still counted as they reflect a consistent pattern corroborated by more recent pricing complaints.
• The review from 2021-06-29 describes sloppy sewer pipe work, exposed pipe left unreplaced, and poor communication — this is a meaningful project completion failure that was factored into the project completion score.
• The review from 2019-09-09 (2-star) describes a 3-day callback failure with no response — this negatively impacts both professionalism and project completion scores.
• The review from 2018-10-29 (2-star) describes refusal to treat no hot water as an emergency for a repeat customer — factored into professionalism and responsiveness scoring.

This WW Score is based on 55 reviews with usable content spanning 2012–2025, with strong data density across all four dimensions; the score is considered moderately reliable overall, though the pricing dimension reflects a consistent multi-year pattern of complaints that meaningfully drags the composite score, and the conduct-related flag from 2021 introduces reputational risk not fully captured by numeric scoring alone.

May Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism across multiple reviews, with consistent praise for punctuality, politeness, communication, and cleanliness. Project completion is well-supported with evidence of timely work and follow-through on callbacks. Experience is validated through mentions of skilled workmanship and technical knowledge (code compliance, fixture installation). Pricing data is limited to two mentions but both indicate fair and reasonable quotes. The company shows reliable performance across a 12-year span, though most reviews are older than 1 year.

• Review recency concern: 4 of 6 reviews are older than 3 years (2012, 2017, 2020). Only 2 reviews from 2021 onward. This limits confidence in current service quality.
• Pricing dimension based on only 2 mentions—insufficient for strong confidence in pricing practices.
• One review ('Good. Will call again.') is extremely generic with no substantive detail, reducing its analytical value.

This WW Score of 88.2 should be treated with moderate confidence due to limited recent data and small sample size; the company appears reliable and professional based on available evidence, but more current reviews would strengthen confidence in this assessment.

Professionalism scores well overall, with dozens of reviews praising responsiveness, punctuality, communication, and friendly technicians across multiple companies and technicians (Ryan, DJ, Gary, James, Larry, etc.). However, several negative reviews cite rude customer service, a no-show technician, and a failure to return calls, which tempers the score. Pricing is the weakest dimension: while many reviewers praise fair or competitive pricing, a meaningful cluster of negative reviews explicitly call out overcharging, lack of pricing transparency, a $320 charge for a 17-minute job, $300 for a toilet valve, and an $8,000 multi-visit failure — these are serious and specific complaints that significantly drag the pricing score down. Project completion is generally strong, with many reviews confirming same-day or next-day completion and follow-through, but notable failures include an incomplete sewer rodding job, a plumber who never returned after a partial repair, a promised drawing never delivered, and an $8,000 multi-visit case where the root problem was never diagnosed. Experience is broadly praised — technicians are frequently described as knowledgeable, skilled, and able to solve problems others could not — though a few reviews describe incorrect diagnoses, botched installs, and a technician who could not identify a collapsing pipe after multiple visits.

• 30 reviews contain no text at all — only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence per scoring rules.
• Several reviews appear to reference entirely different companies (Kelly Plumbing & Heating, Jay's Plumbing, Plumbing Pros with multiple owner names including James, Gary, Larry, Bobby, Russ, Sal). This review set appears to aggregate reviews from multiple distinct businesses, which significantly undermines the reliability of any single composite score.
• Multiple technician and owner names appear across reviews (James, Gary, Larry, Bobby, Russ, Ryan, DJ, Danny, Colin, Mario, Mike, Dean, Taylor, Jaden, Tim, Josh, Andrew, Gustavo, Andy, Sal, Rick, Abel) — strongly suggesting these are not reviews for a single contractor.
• Review dates span from 2011 to 2025, a 14-year window. Older reviews (pre-2020) may not reflect current service quality and were down-weighted in scoring.
• One review (2013) contains a serious allegation of fraud — a $2,000 deposit taken with no work performed and refusal to return funds. This is an outlier but was factored into project completion scoring.
• One review references a plumber admitting to a drinking problem as an excuse for non-performance — flagged as a serious professionalism and reliability concern.
• The pricing dimension has a notable split: many 5-star reviews praise fair pricing while multiple 1-3 star reviews cite specific dollar amounts as excessive or deceptive. This polarization reduces confidence in a single pricing score.
• Some 5-star reviews are very brief and generic (e.g., 'great.........', 'well.job was completed', 'unknown') with no specifics — possible low-effort or filler reviews, though not definitively fake.

This WW Score has LOW-TO-MODERATE reliability as a guide to any single contractor because the review corpus almost certainly aggregates feedback from multiple distinct businesses operating under similar or shared names across different geographic regions, making it impossible to attribute scores to one specific company or service team.

J.B. Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism and pricing practices, with multiple reviews praising punctuality, cleanliness, and fair costs. However, project completion reliability is significantly undermined by recurring issues: multiple no-shows, failure to follow up on callbacks, incomplete repairs requiring return visits, and warranty work not honored consistently. Experience and workmanship quality are generally solid when work is completed, but execution inconsistency and communication breakdowns during complex jobs lower overall confidence. The company shows capability but suffers from operational reliability problems that directly impact customer satisfaction.

• CRITICAL: Multiple reviews (at least 5) document no-shows, missed appointments, and failure to return calls—a pattern suggesting systemic scheduling/communication issues rather than isolated incidents
• CRITICAL: Several reviews describe incomplete or faulty work requiring callbacks and rework (water heater installations with leaks, burned-out tankless units, improper electrical connections, unsealed lines)
• WARRANTY CONCERNS: Review from 2014-08-08 praises warranty work, but reviews from 2012-2013 describe warranty work being refused or delayed, suggesting inconsistent warranty policy application
• CONFLICT PATTERN: One detailed 2012 review contains a lengthy defensive email from 'Brock' disputing charges and explaining technical issues—suggests customer disputes and communication friction
• RECENCY ISSUE: Most recent reviews (2024, 2019) are positive, but critical failures cluster in 2012-2014 period. Recent reviews may not reflect current operational status, or company may have improved significantly
• ONE INCOMPLETE REVIEW: Review dated 2019-03-06 is truncated mid-sentence ('When asked to speak to the younger it was...'), making full assessment impossible, but rated 1-star suggesting serious issue
• GENERIC REVIEWS: Three reviews contain only 'unknown' text with 5-star ratings (2016-02-26, 2014-08-28, 2014-06-18)—cannot assess validity; treated as unusable data

This WW Score of 78.2 should be treated with MODERATE-TO-HIGH caution: while professionalism and pricing are well-documented as strong, the project completion dimension is significantly compromised by documented patterns of no-shows, missed callbacks, and rework requirements. The company appears capable but operationally unreliable. Recent positive reviews suggest possible improvement, but the historical pattern of failures (especially 2012-2014) indicates systemic issues. Customers should verify current operational practices before engaging, particularly regarding appointment reliability and warranty follow-through.

Don's Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism and technical expertise, with consistently positive feedback on punctuality, politeness, and workmanship quality. However, pricing emerges as a significant weakness, with multiple customers reporting unexpectedly high bills, labor rate discrepancies, and lack of itemization. Project completion is generally reliable but marred by several serious incidents of no-shows, abandonment, and poor follow-through on callbacks. The company shows strong capability when work is performed, but inconsistent execution and communication undermine overall trustworthiness.

• PRICING CONCERNS: Multiple reviews (2017, 2020, 2021) report sticker shock and billing disputes. One customer was charged $960 for 6 hours of work when rates should have totaled $515. Another paid $225 for a simple toilet repair (parts ~$20). Pattern suggests inconsistent or inflated labor charges.
• SERIOUS PROJECT FAILURES: Three detailed 1-star reviews (2023, 2022, 2017) describe major failures including improper materials, shoddy workmanship, fire hazard creation, and refusal to address damage. One customer reports $7,000+ in corrective costs. These are not isolated complaints but documented incidents.
• NO-SHOW AND ABANDONMENT PATTERN: Multiple reviews (2020, 2018, 2017) report no-call/no-show appointments, failure to follow up on callbacks, and abandonment of jobs mid-process. One customer waited 2+ weeks with no communication after a $495 estimate was accepted.
• COMMUNICATION FAILURES: Several reviews cite rude staff (2019), dismissive attitude toward small jobs (2019), and refusal to provide required insurance documentation (2019). One review notes staff member argued with customer about appointment time.
• INCONSISTENT SERVICE QUALITY: Wide variance between excellent experiences and serious failures suggests inconsistent training, supervision, or technician quality. Father-son team may not maintain uniform standards across all jobs.
• RECENCY NOTE: Most negative reviews cluster in 2012-2023 period. Recent reviews (2024) are uniformly positive, but sample size is small (3 reviews). Older reviews (2004-2010) are predominantly 5-star with minimal detail, suggesting possible selection bias.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: Several very brief 5-star reviews with generic praise ('unknown' text, single-word comments) appear in 2015-2016 period. However, majority of reviews contain specific details and appear authentic.

This WW Score of 76.8 should be treated with MODERATE-TO-HIGH caution: while the company demonstrates genuine technical competence and professionalism in most interactions, the documented pricing disputes, serious project failures, and communication breakdowns indicate material risk. The score reflects a company capable of excellent work but with significant reliability and transparency issues that warrant careful vetting before engagement.

C & A Plumbing (Chris) receives overwhelmingly positive feedback across all four dimensions, with the majority of reviewers praising his professionalism, fair pricing, technical knowledge, and ability to complete jobs thoroughly. However, one highly detailed 1-star review from May 2021 raises serious and specific concerns across every dimension: alleged failure to communicate post-job, ignored emails, improper installation practices, no permit pulled, no Home Improvement Contract provided, upselling, incomplete work, and a Mechanic's Lien placed on the customer's property. This single review is credible due to its specificity and length, and it meaningfully depresses scores across all dimensions. The bulk of positive reviews are older than 12 months, with only one review from 2024, which limits recency confidence. Pricing scores remain relatively strong given consistent praise from multiple reviewers, but the 1-star review's upselling and non-disclosure allegations temper that score.

• One highly detailed 1-star review (May 2021) alleges serious misconduct: failure to respond to 5 emails, Mechanic's Lien placed on customer, no permit pulled, no legal Home Improvement Contract provided, incomplete work, upselling, and improper COVID safety practices. This review is credible due to its specificity and is weighted heavily.
• The first review (May 2024) mentions AC service, which is unrelated to plumbing and may indicate a misattributed or fake review. It is vague, generic, and lacks any plumbing-specific detail — treated with low credibility.
• The majority of reviews (17 of 19) are dated 2021 or earlier, with only one review from 2022 and one from 2024. Recency of feedback is limited and the contractor's current performance cannot be reliably assessed.
• Several positive reviews use similar generic phrasing ('honest,' 'fair prices,' 'highly recommend') with minimal specifics, which is a mild pattern consistent with either genuine satisfaction or coached reviews. No definitive fake review determination is made, but confidence is slightly reduced for those reviews.
• The 1-star reviewer explicitly states no permit was pulled for the water heater installation, which if accurate represents a potential legal and safety violation that prospective customers should investigate.

This WW Score carries moderate-to-high reliability given the volume of reviews (19) and the presence of detailed feedback across all dimensions, but is tempered by the age of most reviews, one credible and serious negative account, and one likely irrelevant or low-quality 5-star review.