Find Nearby Plumbers In Midland, Texas

Priority Plumbing has a deeply mixed record across all four dimensions. On the positive side, many reviewers praise specific technicians (Doug, Paul, Rey, Steve, Chuck) for punctuality, friendliness, technical skill, and quality workmanship — particularly on water softener and filter installations. However, a significant cluster of negative reviews — spanning multiple years — describes no-shows, broken property that was not disclosed or repaired, overcharging, incomplete work requiring a second plumber, and outright rude or dismissive behavior from ownership. Pricing is similarly split: several reviewers call it fair or even a bargain, while others describe feeling overcharged or encountering opaque pricing. Project completion is the most concerning dimension, with multiple reviews describing abandoned jobs, wrong pipe placement, unresolved callbacks, and work that caused downstream damage. The score reflects this genuine tension between a capable crew on good days and a pattern of serious service failures on bad ones.

• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The review by 'Doug and Betty were great to work with...' (SpringWell install) appears twice with identical text on 2024-05-14, once with a timestamp and once without. Only one instance was counted for scoring.
• NEAR-DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The 2024-03-15 review about a Springwell water softener and carbon monoxide leak is nearly identical in language to the 2024-06-09 review. These may represent the same reviewer submitting twice or a copied review. Treated as one unique data point for scoring.
• REVIEW 'SAME AS ABOVE' (2011-10-03) and 'unknown' (2016-01-22) contain no usable content and were excluded from dimension scoring.
• SPAN OF REVIEWS IS VERY WIDE: Reviews range from 2007 to 2024. Reviews older than 2022 (approximately 35+ reviews) were given reduced weight, as they may not reflect current business practices, staffing, or ownership.
• SERIOUS NEGATIVE INCIDENTS NOTED: At least one review describes $100,000 in property damage attributed to the company's work, with the company denying responsibility (2019). Another describes employees breaking property and concealing it with silicone (2015). Another describes the owner cursing at customers (2013). These are high-severity flags that meaningfully suppress the project completion and professionalism scores.
• NO-SHOW AND ABANDONMENT PATTERN: Multiple reviews across different years (2016, 2023, 2019, 2013) describe the company failing to show up for scheduled appointments or failing to follow through on estimates, suggesting a recurring reliability issue.
• MOST RECENT REVIEWS (2024) ARE PREDOMINANTLY POSITIVE AND SPECIFIC: The 2024 reviews appear genuine with specific technician names, job details, and varied language. No fake review pattern detected in recent reviews.
• OLDER NEGATIVE REVIEWS MAY REFLECT DIFFERENT STAFF OR OWNERSHIP: Several negative reviews reference 'Paul' as owner, while recent positive reviews reference 'Doug' as owner, suggesting possible ownership or staffing changes over time. This context was noted but scores were not adjusted speculatively.

This WW Score is based on 60 reviews spanning 17 years with high mention counts across all dimensions, giving it statistical breadth, but the wide time range, duplicate entries, and several high-severity negative incidents (property damage, no-shows, disputed workmanship) introduce meaningful uncertainty — the score should be treated as a fair average that masks significant variance in customer outcomes.

Bosworth demonstrates strong technical expertise and generally professional service delivery, with many customers praising technician knowledge and courteous behavior. However, the company is significantly hampered by persistent pricing concerns—numerous reviews explicitly cite overcharging, inflated labor rates, and poor value for money. Project completion shows mixed results with recurring complaints about scheduling delays, no-shows, and slow response times, though many jobs are ultimately completed satisfactorily. The company's willingness to stand behind work and provide same-day emergency service in some cases is offset by documented instances of poor follow-through on callbacks and unresponsive management.

• PRICING PATTERN: Systematic overcharging complaints across multiple service types (disposals, water heaters, labor rates, parts markups). Multiple customers report being charged 2-3x market rates for identical products/services.
• NO-SHOW PATTERN: Recurring complaints about missed appointments, delayed callbacks, and failure to show up despite confirmed scheduling. At least 8 distinct reviews document this issue across different time periods.
• FAKE REVIEW CONCERN: Approximately 30+ reviews contain only generic 5-star ratings with minimal or no text ('unknown', '.', 'and M', 'see above'). These appear clustered around 2014-2016 and lack specificity. Confidence reduced slightly due to this pattern.
• RECENCY BIAS: Most detailed negative reviews are from 2019-2024 (recent), while many generic 5-star reviews are from 2014-2016 (older). Recent reviews show deterioration in service quality and responsiveness.
• DISCRIMINATION ALLEGATION: One 2024 review alleges the company requires credit card/checking account information upfront from Black and Brown citizens in specific neighborhoods before providing estimates—a serious compliance concern.
• SAFETY INCIDENT: 2021 review documents a major gas leak caused by improper installation that endangered occupants; company initially refused to correct the problem at no charge.
• MANAGEMENT RESPONSIVENESS: Multiple reviews note that frontline staff and technicians are professional, but management is unresponsive, unhelpful, or dismissive when issues arise.

This WW Score of 68.2 is reliable and should be trusted, as it is based on 176 reviews with substantial data across all four dimensions. However, the score masks a critical weakness: while Bosworth excels in technical skill and professionalism, systematic overpricing and scheduling failures significantly undermine overall value and reliability. Customers should expect quality work but should obtain multiple quotes and confirm scheduling carefully before committing.

City Plumbing shows a deeply polarized customer base with significant operational and ethical concerns. While individual technicians (Mike, Rocky, Gabriel, Joe) frequently receive praise for professionalism and technical skill, the company suffers from severe systemic failures in project completion, follow-through, and pricing transparency. A substantial portion of negative reviews cite incomplete work, no-shows, failure to return calls, and aggressive upselling tactics—particularly when dealing with home warranty customers. Pricing complaints are frequent and severe, with customers reporting charges 5-10x higher than competitors for identical work. The company's overall WW Score of 62.8 reflects strong individual technician performance undermined by organizational dysfunction.

• CRITICAL: Pattern of incomplete project completion—numerous reviews report multiple visits required for single jobs, abandoned work, and failure to honor commitments. This is the single largest driver of low scores.
• CRITICAL: Systematic pricing abuse, particularly targeting home warranty customers. Multiple reviews document quotes of $2,500–$9,500 for work completed by competitors for $95–$500. This suggests predatory pricing strategy.
• CRITICAL: Severe communication failures—dozens of reviews cite no-shows without notice, failure to return calls for weeks, and broken promises to follow up. This is endemic across multiple locations and time periods.
• HIGH CONCERN: Potential fraud indicators. Multiple customers report technicians misdiagnosing problems, recommending unnecessary work, or charging for work not performed. Several reviews mention filing complaints with BBB and home warranty companies.
• HIGH CONCERN: Bait-and-switch tactics documented in multiple reviews—technicians recommend expensive solutions (e.g., full toilet replacement vs. $30 part; $2,500 pipe replacement vs. $95 fix) without proper troubleshooting.
• MODERATE CONCERN: Quality control issues—defective installations (gas line leak, improper water heater installation), property damage (broken cabinets, damaged carpets), and lack of accountability when problems occur.
• MODERATE CONCERN: Inconsistent service quality across locations and technicians. While some technicians (Mike, Rocky, Gabriel) are consistently praised, others (James, Daniel, Jorge) appear in multiple negative reviews for poor diagnosis and unprofessional behavior.
• MODERATE CONCERN: Home warranty customer targeting—disproportionate number of negative reviews involve AHS, First American, and other warranty companies. Company appears to prioritize warranty claims for quick payment over customer satisfaction.
• LIMITED CONCERN: Some reviews appear to be from different business entities (HVAC services, tree removal) mixed with plumbing reviews, suggesting possible data aggregation issues or multi-service company confusion.
• RECENCY NOTE: Most recent reviews (2024–2025) show continued pattern of no-shows, incomplete work, and communication failures, indicating systemic issues persist despite apparent awareness.

This WW Score should be treated with caution despite HIGH overall confidence. The score reflects a company with strong individual technician performance (particularly Mike and Rocky) severely undermined by organizational dysfunction. The HIGH confidence is based on large mention counts (78+ for project completion, 89 for professionalism), but the extreme polarization of reviews (many 5-star vs. many 1-star with detailed complaints) suggests the company's reliability depends heavily on which technician is assigned and whether the customer is a warranty claim or direct customer. Customers should expect significant risk of incomplete work, communication failures, and overcharging, particularly through home warranty channels. The company's own responses to negative reviews often blame customers, which further reduces trustworthiness.

Randy's Rooter presents a deeply polarized profile across its review history. On the positive side, many customers praise prompt response times, polite technicians, reasonable pricing, and effective same-day service — with Randy himself frequently cited as a standout. However, a substantial and recurring pattern of serious complaints significantly drags down all dimensions: the office staff (particularly identified as Irene) is repeatedly described as rude and dismissive across multiple independent reviews spanning several years, technicians have been accused of causing damage and refusing to return without additional charges, and warranty/callback disputes are a consistent theme. Project completion is notably compromised by multiple accounts of work not being fixed correctly the first time, refusal to honor callbacks, and at least one instance of a job being abandoned mid-project. Pricing scores moderately well due to several positive mentions of competitive quotes, but is undermined by complaints about billing for non-work and hourly charges during off-site errands. The experience dimension is mixed, with skilled technicians praised in some reviews and serious workmanship failures — including a destroyed water heater and a broken pipe caused by ignoring customer instructions — documented in others.

• Multiple reviews contain no text and only a star rating (5 blank 5-star reviews, 2 blank 1-star reviews) — these were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data.
• Several reviews are older than 3 years (pre-2022), including some of the most detailed negative reviews; these were given reduced weight but still noted as they describe systemic issues with named staff members.
• A recurring named individual ('Irene') is cited negatively across multiple independent reviews spanning 2018–2023, suggesting a persistent and systemic office staff problem rather than isolated incidents.
• One review (2021-01-13) praises the owner for wearing a mask at a convenience store — this is not plumbing-related feedback and was excluded from all dimension scoring.
• No strong fake review pattern detected, though some 5-star reviews are very brief and generic ('Great service', 'Excellent service', 'great job'). These were counted only where they could contribute to a dimension but treated conservatively.
• The 1-star review from 2025-06-02 contains no specific detail beyond suggesting competitors are better — it was noted for sentiment but not scored on any dimension due to lack of specifics.
• Availability/scheduling complaints (e.g., too busy for months) were noted but not scored under project completion as the work was never initiated.

This WW Score is based on a substantial volume of reviews (57 total, 52 with usable data) spanning over a decade, giving it HIGH overall confidence, but prospective customers should weigh the consistent and independently corroborated complaints about office staff conduct, callback refusals, and workmanship failures heavily alongside the genuine positive experiences reported by other customers.

Ellis and Sons demonstrates strong professionalism and project completion capability based on positive feedback about responsiveness, respectful demeanor, and timely work. However, pricing is a significant concern, with one detailed complaint about water heater installation charges ($1,668 + $65) being substantially higher than market rates and competitor pricing, which the reviewer characterizes as price gouging. Two positive reviews praise fair pricing and competitive rates, creating a direct contradiction. The small sample size (3 reviews) and conflicting pricing signals limit overall confidence in the score.

• CRITICAL: Severe pricing contradiction — two reviews praise competitive/fair pricing while one detailed complaint alleges significant price gouging ($1,668 for water heater installation vs. $500-580 market rate). This suggests inconsistent pricing practices or selective service pricing.
• Limited sample size (3 reviews) reduces reliability of scoring.
• One negative review is detailed and specific with concrete pricing evidence; two positive reviews lack pricing detail, making it difficult to assess which pricing pattern is typical.
• No data on technical experience/skill level mentioned in any review.

This score should be treated with caution due to small sample size and conflicting pricing evidence that suggests either inconsistent pricing practices or significant variation in how customers are charged for similar services.

Midtown Plumbing presents a deeply divided picture across its reviews. Positive reviews highlight responsive, on-time technicians who are professional and skilled, with specific praise for individuals like Jose, Dennis, and Steven. However, negative reviews are severe and credible, describing abandoned jobs, double-billing for incomplete work, a no-show technician, a post-repair leak, and an owner allegedly using racial slurs and threatening property liens. Pricing concerns are significant, with multiple reviewers describing bids that ballooned or charges levied for work never completed. The volume and specificity of negative experiences across multiple years substantially drag all dimension scores downward.

• Multiple reviews describe the same pattern of incomplete work followed by demands for full or inflated payment — this is a serious and recurring operational concern, not an isolated incident.
• One review (2017) alleges the owner used a racial slur during a customer complaint call — this is an extreme professionalism flag that heavily penalizes the professionalism score.
• One review (2023) describes work being cut and abandoned with the company still billing for incomplete service — the most recent review is a 1-star complaint, which is weighted more heavily under recency rules.
• Several 5-star reviews lack specific detail (e.g., 'did a great job,' 'amazing job') and some are from 2019 or earlier, reducing their relative weight under recency rules.
• The review spread is heavily polarized: 5 reviews are 1-star and 5 are 5-star with almost no middle ground, which may indicate that neutral customers are not leaving reviews, skewing the dataset.
• Most reviews are older than 12 months; only one review (August 2023) falls within the past 12 months and it is a 1-star complaint — this is a significant recency flag.

This WW Score is based on 10 reviews with usable data across all four dimensions and carries HIGH overall confidence in its directional accuracy, but the score should be interpreted cautiously given the extreme polarization of reviews, the severity of misconduct allegations, and the fact that the most recent review is a serious complaint.