Find Nearby Plumbers In Midland, Texas

Superior Plumbing demonstrates strong technical expertise and professionalism in execution, with technicians consistently praised for knowledge, punctuality, and courteous behavior. However, the company is significantly undermined by widespread pricing concerns—numerous customers report excessive charges, hidden fees (dispatch/service charges not applied to work), and quotes that are double or triple competitor rates. Project completion is generally solid with good follow-through, though some customers report callback issues and unresolved problems. The disparity between positive service quality reviews and negative pricing/billing reviews creates a polarized customer experience.

• PRICING PATTERN: Extremely high volume of complaints (60+ reviews) about overcharging, excessive dispatch fees ($62-$89 not credited to work), and quotes significantly above market rates. This is the dominant negative theme across the dataset.
• FAKE REVIEW DETECTION: Approximately 40-50 reviews from June 2025 show identical or near-identical phrasing (e.g., multiple reviews with 'Tyler D.', 'Seth', 'Andrew' using nearly word-for-word descriptions). These appear clustered in a 2-week period and lack specificity. Confidence in recent 5-star reviews is reduced.
• RECENCY BIAS: Most recent reviews (June 2025) are overwhelmingly 5-star with suspicious similarity. Reviews from 2019-2024 show much more balanced distribution with significant 1-star complaints. Recent data may not be representative.
• MANAGEMENT/CUSTOMER SERVICE: Multiple reviews cite rude office staff, managers who hang up on customers, refusal to honor warranties, and poor callback responsiveness. This suggests systemic customer service issues beyond individual technician performance.
• DISPATCH FEE CONTROVERSY: Repeated complaint that $62-$89 dispatch fee is charged in addition to work costs, not credited toward the job—this practice is explicitly called out as deceptive in 15+ reviews.
• WARRANTY DISPUTES: Several customers report company refusing to honor stated warranties or charging full price for warranty work, creating trust issues.

This WW Score of 72.8 should be interpreted with caution: while technician professionalism and experience are genuinely strong (HIGH confidence), the pricing dimension is severely problematic and represents a major value concern that significantly drags down the overall score. The recent cluster of identical 5-star reviews suggests potential review manipulation, reducing confidence in the most recent data. Customers should expect quality work but should obtain detailed written estimates upfront and verify pricing with competitors before committing, as overcharging complaints are pervasive and credible across multiple years.

Roto-Rooter receives consistently strong marks for professionalism and responsiveness from individual technicians, with hundreds of reviews praising courteous, knowledgeable, and prompt service. However, pricing is the single most damaging dimension across this dataset, with an enormous volume of reviews describing charges as excessive, deceptive, or wildly inconsistent — including numerous accounts of bait-and-switch quoting, undisclosed fees, and charges for incomplete work. Project completion is significantly dragged down by a substantial minority of reviews describing failed repairs, no-shows, abandoned jobs, warranty disputes, and work that made problems worse. Experience scores moderately well overall, as many technicians are praised for skill and problem-solving, but this is offset by recurring accounts of misdiagnosis, wrong equipment, and upselling unnecessary services. The aggregate picture is a company with capable individual technicians but systemic issues around pricing transparency, scheduling reliability, and quality control.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: Multiple reviews appear to be exact or near-exact duplicates (e.g., two identical reviews from 'Paul arrived same day...', two identical 'Zach is the man...', two identical 'Based solely off customer service...', two identical 'Easy to schedule and a quick service...', two identical 'Great service. Would highly recommend!', two identical 'Efficient and effective...', two identical 'Excellent with Armando...', two identical 'Very prompt and helpful! Anthony...', two identical 'My name is Antoinette...'). These duplicates inflate positive scores and have been treated conservatively.
• FAKE REVIEW PATTERNS: A large cluster of reviews dated 1996-2001 consist of single-line responses ('NO', 'NOT REALLY', 'ON TIME AND DID THE WORK') with no detail, all rated 5 stars. These appear to be placeholder or fabricated entries and were excluded from scoring.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Approximately 100+ reviews contain no text content but carry 5-star ratings. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data, but their presence inflates the raw star average.
• EXTREME RATING POLARIZATION: The dataset shows a pronounced bimodal distribution — a very large number of 5-star reviews with minimal detail alongside a substantial volume of detailed 1-star reviews describing serious failures. This pattern is consistent with either review manipulation on the positive end or a company with highly inconsistent service quality.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS ARE SYSTEMIC: Pricing complaints are not isolated incidents — they span multiple years, multiple geographic locations, and multiple service types. Charges ranging from $200-$900 for simple drain snaking (15-30 minutes of work) are documented repeatedly. This is a structural business practice issue, not individual technician behavior.
• NO-SHOW AND SCHEDULING FAILURES: A significant number of reviews describe confirmed appointments where technicians never arrived and no communication was provided. This is a recurring operational failure across multiple franchise locations.
• MULTI-FRANCHISE DATASET: Reviews appear to span dozens of different Roto-Rooter franchise locations across the United States. Scores reflect the brand aggregate, not any single location. Individual location quality varies significantly.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews with substantive content are dated between 2020-2025, which is within the relevant scoring window. Older reviews (pre-2015) were given reduced weight.

This WW Score of 72.4 is based on a very large dataset (1,456 reviews) and carries HIGH statistical confidence in its directional accuracy, but should be interpreted as a brand-level aggregate across many franchise locations — individual location quality varies substantially, and the systemic pricing and scheduling issues documented here may not apply equally to all franchises.

Goode Plumbing demonstrates strong technical competence and professionalism, with technicians consistently praised for knowledge, punctuality, and courteous behavior. Project completion rates are solid, with most jobs finished as promised and follow-up service honored. However, pricing emerges as a significant weakness, with numerous customers reporting costs 2-4x higher than competitors for identical work, flat-rate structures that lack transparency, and aggressive upselling tactics. While the company excels at responsiveness and work quality, the persistent pricing complaints across all time periods substantially depress the overall score.

• PRICING PATTERN: Systematic overcharging documented across 140+ reviews. Customers consistently report quotes 50-300% above market rates. Examples: $832 for cartridge replacement (customer did it for $170), $1,700 for ejector pump (online cost ~$360), $967 for frost-proof faucet (part cost <$100).
• TRANSPARENCY ISSUE: Flat-rate pricing model prevents customers from understanding cost breakdown. Company explicitly states 'we do not itemize invoices.' Multiple reviews cite $60 diagnostic fees that are not waived as promised, and surprise charges after estimates.
• SALES PRESSURE: Multiple reviews describe aggressive upselling, high-pressure tactics, and recommendations for unnecessary work. Water heater case where technician pushed $3,000+ tankless system that was inappropriate for customer's setup (confirmed by second opinion).
• DEPOSIT/CANCELLATION PENALTIES: Several customers report $250-$1,000 cancellation fees and non-refundable deposits, with poor communication about terms. One customer charged 10% cancellation penalty ($1,000) despite canceling within 16 hours.
• COMMUNICATION FAILURES: Recurring pattern of unreturned calls, missed appointments without notice, and poor follow-up on promised estimates. One customer called 14 days in a row with no callback regarding warranty claim.
• INCONSISTENT SERVICE QUALITY: While many reviews praise individual technicians, others describe incomplete work, incorrect diagnoses, and jobs that required expensive rework by competitors. One customer paid $1,700 for shower rebuild that damaged the fixture; another paid $1,400 for work that solved nothing.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK - MODERATE: Approximately 35-40% of reviews are 5-star with minimal detail ('Great service!' 'Excellent!' 'Got the job done!'). However, the volume of detailed negative reviews with specific pricing examples and the consistency of complaints across years suggests authentic mixed sentiment rather than review manipulation.
• RECENCY: Reviews span 2014-2025. Pricing complaints are consistent across entire period, suggesting systemic business model rather than temporary issue. Recent reviews (2025) show same patterns as 2017-2020 reviews.

This WW Score of 72.3 is highly reliable given 500 reviews with detailed data across all dimensions. The score accurately reflects a company with genuine technical expertise and professional service delivery undermined by a business model centered on high pricing and aggressive sales tactics. Customers consistently receive quality work but at costs significantly above market rates, with limited transparency and occasional warranty/follow-up issues. The HIGH confidence is warranted by the large sample size and consistency of patterns, though prospective customers should expect to pay premium prices and should obtain multiple quotes before committing.

American Leak Detection receives consistently strong praise for individual technician professionalism, punctuality, communication, and attitude — the majority of positive reviews highlight friendly, courteous, and knowledgeable technicians by name. However, a substantial and recurring pattern of negative reviews significantly drags down the pricing and project completion dimensions: numerous customers report being charged hundreds to over a thousand dollars for failed or inaccurate leak detection, incorrect leak location markings that led to costly unnecessary excavation, and refusal to honor warranties or return without additional charges. The experience dimension is mixed — while many technicians demonstrate impressive diagnostic skill, a meaningful minority of reviews describe technicians who failed to find leaks that competitors located quickly, used outdated methods, or caused property damage. Pricing complaints are pervasive, with customers frequently describing the service as overpriced relative to results delivered, and several noting hidden or unexpected charges. The overall score reflects a company with genuinely skilled and professional staff in many locations, undermined by serious and repeated failures in leak detection accuracy, warranty follow-through, and pricing transparency.

• DUPLICATE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: Multiple reviews from June 2025 (dates 2025-06-04 through 2025-06-09) contain identical or near-identical text repeated across different dates — e.g., 'On time got the job done' appears twice, 'Chris got right to work and diagnosed the points of the leak quickly' appears twice, 'Very professional and thorough' appears twice, 'Pool kept going down way too fast...' appears twice, 'Etienne Hogue from American Leak Detection is a master of his trade...' appears twice, 'Matt was very thorough and friendly...' appears twice, 'I'm so impressed with the work performed by Casey...' appears twice, 'Appreciate the detectives who found the source of my ceiling leak...' appears twice, 'Matt was great. Arrived on time...' appears twice, 'Christian Lopez did a fantastic job...' appears twice. These are highly suspicious and likely fake or artificially inflated reviews. Confidence in the most recent review cluster is reduced accordingly.
• FRANCHISE INCONSISTENCY: This appears to be a national franchise with many independently operated regional offices. Review quality, technician skill, and customer service vary dramatically by location. Scores reflect the aggregate across all branches and may not represent any single local office accurately.
• RECURRING COMPLAINT PATTERN — FAILED DETECTION: A statistically significant number of negative reviews (estimated 60+ reviews) describe the same failure mode: ALD charges full price for leak detection but fails to locate the leak, marks the wrong location leading to costly unnecessary excavation by plumbers, and then refuses to refund or return without additional charges. This is not isolated to one branch.
• RECURRING COMPLAINT PATTERN — WARRANTY REFUSAL: Multiple reviews across different locations and years describe ALD refusing to honor stated warranties, citing expired 30-day windows, claiming a 'different leak' was found, or demanding additional payment to return after failed repairs.
• RECURRING COMPLAINT PATTERN — PRICING OPACITY: Multiple reviews describe being charged full rates ($300–$795+) for very short visits (10–30 minutes), being charged when no leak was found, and not being informed of pricing structure upfront. One review notes a contractor's license listed as 'inactive' with no liability insurance as of late 2022.
• PROPERTY DAMAGE COMPLAINTS: Several reviews describe technicians causing property damage (holes in walls, broken pipes, damaged flooring, dirty linens used as mops) with the company refusing to take responsibility.
• BLANK REVIEWS EXCLUDED FROM SCORING: Approximately 88 reviews contained no text and only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring but counted in total reviews analyzed.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent reviews (May–June 2025) are heavily dominated by 5-star ratings, many of which are duplicates or very brief. The longer, more detailed negative reviews span 2012–2025 and represent a consistent longitudinal pattern of service failures.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large volume of reviews, but the score itself should be interpreted cautiously — the aggregate masks extreme variance between regional franchise offices, a documented pattern of fake or duplicated recent reviews inflates the positive signal, and the recurring nature of serious complaints about failed detection, warranty refusal, and pricing practices suggests systemic issues that a blended score cannot fully capture.

BC Plumbing / Plumbing Pros has a large volume of positive reviews praising individual technicians — particularly Larry, Tyler, and Kurt — for professionalism, responsiveness, and fair pricing. However, a meaningful cluster of negative reviews describes serious issues including abandoned or incomplete work, shoddy workmanship, rude behavior (specifically attributed to Larry in multiple recent reviews), significant project delays, and unresolved billing disputes. The pricing dimension is mixed: many reviewers praise affordability and transparency, but at least two reviews cite being overcharged or receiving prices far above competitors. Project completion is the most concerning dimension, with multiple reviews describing work left unfinished, problems made worse, or follow-through failures. The overall score reflects a company with genuine strengths but recurring, documented service failures that cannot be dismissed.

• DUPLICATE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: Numerous reviews appear to be exact or near-exact duplicates posted on the same date (e.g., 'Kurt was great! Went above and beyond' x2, 'Fast service at a great price' x2, 'We finally found an honest plumber who charges a fair price' x2, 'Kurt was prompt and very helpful' x2, 'They went above and beyond for our bakery' x2, 'Great customer service and the work was done the same day' x2, 'Kurt is an honest professional' x2, 'very nice people' x2, 'Great customer service, fast service' x2, 'They were very nice, and did the work fast and clean' x2, 'Competent and fair' x2, 'Work was well done. Service very prompt.' x2, 'Very excellent Company, Kurt took his time' x2, 'Use of apprenticeship program' x4, 'Iâ  m glad to see this company uses the apprenticeship program' x4). These duplicates appear to be artificially inflating review counts and are likely fake or platform-duplicated entries. Confidence in the positive signal from these reviews is significantly reduced.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Several of the most detailed negative reviews are recent (2024–2025), including complaints about Larry being rude and patronizing (Oct 2024), a project delayed over a month (Jan 2025), and poor after-sales service (Aug 2024). This suggests service quality may have declined in recent years.
• SPECIFIC TECHNICIAN VARIANCE: Larry receives both the highest praise (older reviews) and the most serious complaints (newer reviews), suggesting possible inconsistency over time or reviewer-specific experiences. Tyler receives consistently positive recent reviews.
• ONE BLANK REVIEW (5-star, June 2024) was excluded from scoring as it contains no usable content.
• ONE REVIEW (5-star, June 2016) appears to describe negative behavior ('don't answer phones', 'try to sneak behind warranty company') yet carries a 5-star rating — this is likely a misclick or data error and was scored as negative for relevant dimensions.
• OLDER NEGATIVE REVIEWS (2010, 2011, 2013) describe serious workmanship failures, incomplete jobs, and billing disputes. While aged, they establish a pattern that is echoed in more recent complaints.

This WW Score is based on a high volume of reviews but is materially undermined by a significant number of confirmed duplicate reviews that inflate positive signals, a pattern of serious and specific negative reviews spanning multiple years including recent ones, and documented inconsistency between individual technicians — the score should be treated as a moderate-confidence estimate and prospective customers are advised to verify recent references independently.

D&D receives strong praise for individual technician professionalism, punctuality, and courteous communication across a large number of reviews, which drives a solid but not exceptional professionalism score. However, recurring negative reviews citing hidden or surprise charges, billing disputes, and perceived price gouging significantly drag down the pricing dimension, which is the weakest area of the business. Project completion is mixed: many jobs are described as quick and thorough, but several reviews describe incomplete work, callbacks not honored, parts delays with no communication, and at least one case of work that caused additional damage. Experience scores moderately well due to multiple mentions of skilled, knowledgeable technicians solving complex problems, but is tempered by reviews describing misdiagnosis, unnecessary work recommendations, and a failed repair within one month. The overall WW Score reflects a company with genuine strengths in field technician quality but meaningful and documented weaknesses in pricing transparency and job follow-through.

• 8 reviews in the dataset contain no review text whatsoever — only a star rating (all 5 stars). These blank reviews provide no usable qualitative data and were excluded from dimension scoring. Their clustering around the same dates (2025-05-10 and 2025-01-10) raises a mild concern about authenticity.
• Several reviews use very generic praise ('Great service', 'Great company to deal with', 'Great customer service') with no specifics. While not conclusive, these low-detail 5-star reviews slightly inflate the perceived rating and were given minimal weight in scoring.
• Multiple negative reviews (2018, 2019, 2021, 2022) describe billing irregularities including: attempted overcharging for hours not worked (GPS dispute), undisclosed helper fees, parts marked up 3-4x market price without prior disclosure, and a failed repair with a refusal to honor the callback without an additional service charge. These are serious and specific complaints.
• One review (2023) describes a $21,000 quote for a job that another company resolved for $175, suggesting a possible pattern of recommending unnecessary work. This is a significant red flag.
• One review (2021) describes technicians allegedly causing additional damage (debris in main line causing whole-house backup) and then charging the customer for the return visit to fix it.
• Recency note: The majority of detailed negative reviews are from 2018–2022, while most recent reviews (2025) skew positive. This may indicate genuine improvement, but the older negative reviews are specific and credible enough to be retained in scoring. Reviews older than 12 months were weighted conservatively.
• One review (2025-05-26, 1-star) describes a phone representative hanging up on a customer mid-call, indicating a possible ongoing front-office customer service issue consistent with the 2025-03-11 detailed complaint about office staff attitude.

This WW Score is based on a substantial volume of reviews (63 total, 55 with usable data) spanning multiple years, with strong mention counts across all four dimensions, making the score statistically reliable — however, the presence of credible and specific negative reviews about billing practices, incomplete work, and office conduct means consumers should treat the score as a realistic mid-range assessment rather than a blanket endorsement.