Provider profile
QD Restoration - Water Fire Mold
Provider snapshot
What this listing says
San Antonio homeowners dealing with water damage that has led to mold, especially if you need a single company to handle extraction, drying, and remediation across a multi-city Texas service area.
Best for
- San Antonio homeowners with water damage that has triggered mold growth, who want one company to handle the full job from extraction through rebuild.
- Commercial property managers needing 24/7 emergency water mitigation across the San Antonio metro or central Texas corridor.
- Homeowners whose plumber or insurance adjuster has recommended a restoration company and want a high-volume, reviewed option to compare against.
- Buyers who need both mold testing and remediation handled quickly, but who understand they should get an independent test to verify the scope.
About this company
QD Restoration is a San Antonio-based restoration company that handles water damage, fire damage, mold remediation, biohazard cleanup, antimicrobial fogging, and air duct cleaning. They're a full-service operation: they do the inspection, the tearout, the drying, the mold removal, and the rebuild. That means you can run one company from start to finish, but it also means the same company telling you what's wrong is the one billing you to fix it.
Their mold process includes moisture meters and infrared cameras for detection, containment barriers, air filtration during removal, dehumidification afterward, and post-remediation testing. They also list asbestos sampling and removal, pressure washing, deep cleaning, and pack-out services. Nothing here is unusual for a restoration company this size — the differentiator is breadth, not specialization.
Family-owned, started in San Antonio in 2016. They've grown to cover four Texas metro areas: San Antonio, Houston, Austin, and Temple, with dedicated landing pages for dozens of suburbs. That's a wide geographic footprint for a company headquartered on Schertz Road in northeast San Antonio.
4.8 stars across 494 Google reviews is a strong number. The volume suggests steady work across residential and commercial jobs. Most reviewers mention fast response times and crews that explain what they're doing on-site.
Services
Service area
Headquartered at 5430 Schertz Rd in San Antonio, TX. They list four Texas metro hubs: San Antonio (including Alamo Heights, Boerne, Schertz, New Braunfels, and about a dozen other suburbs), Houston (Katy, Sugar Land, The Woodlands, and surrounding cities), Austin (Round Rock, Cedar Park, Georgetown, and surrounding cities), and Temple (Killeen, Belton, and surrounding towns). That covers a geographic span of roughly 250 miles. Confirm availability and response time for locations outside the San Antonio metro.
Review consensus
Field crews get the strongest praise. Rene and Francisco are the most frequently named pair — reviewers describe them explaining each step, protecting furniture, and finishing tearout work quickly. John Ibarra shows up in multiple reviews for being respectful and taking time to answer questions. Charlie appears on nearly every crew roster and is consistently praised. David draws similar marks for communication and workmanship. Sal is referenced as a project manager who helps with insurance navigation and decision-making. Several reviewers note same-day or after-hours response, and repeat customers confirm consistent service across multiple jobs.
5 found across 494 total reviews at 4.8★. Pricing disputes are the most concrete complaints. One reviewer with three prior mitigation jobs at the same property documented a bill of $8,271 for work a different company had done for $1,850 eight months earlier. Another reviewer alleges equipment was left running longer than necessary to inflate charges, and that insurance was billed for work not performed — the owner's response disputes this but doesn't address specifics. A third reviewer describes costs changing after work began and an inability to reach the owner. A separate reviewer reports Francisco missed a scheduled appointment without notice, and that Sal failed to contact the insurance adjuster as promised, leaving moisture sitting under flooring for a week. The owner's response claims they did notify insurance and blames the insurer for the delay. One reviewer alleges the company left a senior citizen's bathroom in worse condition than they found it. Two reviews from what appears to be the same customer describe Lacee in the billing office sending a final notice before any prior contact and then continuing to demand payment after a cashier's check was already collected by Sal.
The split between field work and office operations is striking. Nearly every positive review names specific technicians and praises their on-site conduct. Nearly every negative review describes problems with pricing, billing, insurance coordination, or management communication — things that happen after the crew leaves. The owner responds to about 43% of negative reviews, and the responses range from substantive (disputing Sara's billing claims with some detail) to completely off-topic (responding to Stephanie's billing complaint with praise for a prior shower job). This inconsistency suggests reputation management is reactive rather than systematic.
Rene (field technician — consistently praised for communication, speed, and professionalism across many reviews). Francisco/Franco (field technician — praised in many positive reviews; one negative review names him for missing a scheduled appointment). David (field technician — praised for demolition work, communication, and patience). John/John Ibarra (field technician — praised for respectfulness, honesty, and customer care). Charlie (field technician — praised across many reviews as reliable crew member). Sal (project manager — praised for insurance help and decision support; named in billing dispute as the person who collected payments). Anthony (field technician — praised for speed and professionalism). Imeri/Imari (field technician — praised for quick action and professionalism). Seth (field technician — praised once for fast flood response). Ramon (field technician — praised once). Julius (field technician — praised for being kind and explanatory). Jared (field technician — praised once). Andrew (field technician — praised once). Lacee (billing office — named in two negative reviews for aggressive collection practices and sending final notices without prior contact).
The crews are the strength here — ask for Rene, John, or David if you can. But protect yourself on the money side: get a written, itemized estimate before work starts, confirm your insurance company's pricing acceptance in advance, and keep written records of every payment. If Sal is your project manager, pin down insurance communication timelines in writing.
Keep in mind
- They do both mold testing and mold remediation. That's a conflict of interest — the company identifying your mold problem profits from the size of the fix. Consider getting an independent mold test before signing a remediation contract.
- Multiple reviewers report pricing that exceeded what their insurance company would cover, leaving them responsible for the balance. One reviewer documented a bill more than three times what a competitor charged for similar water mitigation work at the same property. Get a written estimate and confirm with your insurer before work begins.
- Their billing office has drawn complaints. Two reviews from the same customer describe receiving a final notice without prior contact and continued collection after payment was made. Ask for written confirmation when you submit payments.
- They claim service across San Antonio, Houston, Austin, and Temple — four major metros spread across hundreds of miles. Confirm crew availability and response time for your specific location before committing.
- Several negative reviewers describe communication breakdowns between staff managing the same job, including missed insurance calls and conflicting information about costs. Establish a single point of contact and get commitments in writing.