Find Nearby Plumbers In Henderson, Nevada

Mechanical Express presents a deeply divided picture across its review history. Technicians — particularly Cameron and Bill — are repeatedly praised for skill, efficiency, and professionalism, driving positive scores in experience and individual professionalism. However, the office management, specifically Tammy/Tammie, is cited in multiple independent reviews as rude, unresponsive, and unprofessional, significantly dragging down the professionalism dimension. Project completion is the most damaged dimension: at least two detailed, credible reviews describe jobs being abandoned mid-work, systems being damaged and left unrepaired, and the company going non-responsive for weeks or months. Pricing is generally viewed favorably by those who received completed work, with several reviewers noting competitive quotes and no hidden fees. The overall score reflects a company with genuine technical talent undermined by serious operational and customer service failures.

• FAKE REVIEW CONCERN: Several 5-star reviews from 2025 (April–June) are extremely brief and generic (e.g., 'Great company did an awesome job.', 'Great company. I had ac work done. Everyone was amazing.') with no specific details, technician names, or job descriptions. These may be solicited or inauthentic reviews.
• SOLICITED REVIEW CONFIRMED: One reviewer (1-star, 2024-11-03) explicitly states they were asked by owner Tammy to post a positive review in exchange for job completion — and that the 5-star review they previously posted was not based on completed work. This directly undermines the credibility of some 5-star reviews.
• ABANDONED WORK PATTERN: At least two detailed reviews (2024-11-03 and 2021-05-11) describe jobs being started and then abandoned without resolution, with the company going non-responsive afterward. This is a serious and recurring pattern.
• OWNER/OFFICE CONDUCT: Multiple independent reviews (2022-06-28, 2021-07-14, 2019-06-17) specifically call out Tammy/Tammie for rude, argumentative, or unprofessional behavior. This is a consistent pattern across different years and reviewers.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent negative review is from November 2024 and is highly detailed and credible. The cluster of brief 5-star reviews in early 2025 should be treated with skepticism given the confirmed solicitation pattern.
• ONE BLANK REVIEW: One review (2025-04-10) contained no text, only a 5-star rating. This was excluded from dimension scoring as it provides no usable data.
• REVIEW SPAN: Reviews span from 2018 to 2025. Older positive reviews (2018–2020) appear more detailed and credible. The ratio of negative to positive reviews and the severity of negative incidents warrants a conservative overall score.

This WW Score is based on 24 reviews with usable content spanning 7 years and carries HIGH data confidence by volume, but the score should be interpreted cautiously due to confirmed review solicitation, a pattern of abandoned work, and repeated office-level professionalism failures that suggest meaningful operational risk.

C&B Plumbing presents a deeply mixed record across all four dimensions. Positive reviews consistently praise owner Rick Garcia and technicians Mark and Juan for professionalism, responsiveness, and courteous service, with several long-term customers expressing strong loyalty. However, a significant cluster of negative reviews — spanning multiple years — describes serious failures including ignored communications, botched diagnoses, abandoned or incomplete jobs, and alleged dishonesty with both customers and home warranty companies. Project completion is the most damaged dimension, with multiple reviewers describing work that made problems worse, jobs left unfinished, and follow-up failures lasting weeks or months. Pricing feedback is mixed: some reviewers found pricing reasonable or even excellent, while at least one noted charges were significantly above market. The review base spans 2012–2024, meaning older reviews carry reduced weight, but negative patterns persist across the full timeline.

• One review (2016-06-11) is rated 5.0 stars but contains entirely negative content describing billing fraud, poor communication, and substituting cheaper parts — this is almost certainly a data entry or platform error and was treated as a 1-star negative review for scoring purposes.
• One review (2024-06-09) has no text content and a 5-star rating — this was excluded from scoring as it contains no usable data.
• Several 5-star reviews from 2019 and earlier use somewhat generic praise language, though most include specific technician names and details, reducing fake review concern.
• A notable number of reviews (roughly 8 out of 28) involve home warranty dispatch (HSA, Old Republic, American Home Shield), which may skew negative experiences due to warranty scope disputes rather than pure contractor fault — however, allegations of dishonesty and negligence in those reviews were still weighted in scoring.
• Most reviews are older than 12 months; only 2 reviews are from the past 12 months (2024), limiting confidence in current performance. The most recent review (2024-08-13) is a 1-star complaint about poor after-sales service and no follow-up.

This WW Score is based on 27 reviews with usable data spanning 2012–2024 and carries HIGH confidence in its directional accuracy, but users should note that the majority of reviews are more than two years old and only two recent data points exist, meaning current performance may differ significantly from this historical average.

This is a franchise brand with hundreds of locations, and the review pool reflects wildly inconsistent quality across different operators and technicians. Professionalism scores are dragged down significantly by a large volume of reviews describing rude, condescending, or outright hostile technicians and office staff, though many positive reviews praise specific named technicians as courteous and professional. Pricing is the most damaging dimension: an enormous number of reviews describe a bait-and-switch pattern where a low advertised rate (often $49) is used to gain entry, followed by aggressive upselling to hydro-jetting, camera inspections, and pipe replacement at prices reviewers consistently describe as two to ten times market rate. Project completion is mixed — many jobs are completed satisfactorily and quickly, but a significant minority of reviews describe incomplete work, warranty refusals, no-shows, and jobs that required a second company to actually fix the problem. Experience scores reflect genuine skill from certain technicians but are undermined by repeated accounts of misdiagnosis, fabricated damage, and work that failed within days or weeks.

• STRONG BAIT-AND-SWITCH PATTERN DETECTED: Dozens of independent reviews across multiple years and locations describe an identical pattern — low advertised price ($49 drain special) used to gain entry, followed by claims the snake cannot work and escalating upsells to hydro-jetting ($500-$1200), camera inspection, and full pipe replacement ($3,000-$15,000+). This is a systemic business practice, not isolated incidents.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — POSITIVE SIDE: A notable cluster of short, generic 5-star reviews with no detail (e.g., 'Good experience', 'Great service!', 'You guys great!', blank text with 5 stars) appear throughout the dataset, many dated in close proximity. These lack specificity and are consistent with review padding. Confidence in the positive score pool is reduced accordingly.
• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: Multiple reviews appear to be exact duplicates submitted on the same or adjacent dates (e.g., identical text for 'Many other contractors proposed to snake the sewer line', 'Very Pleased with results', 'Did a great job excellent work', 'Prompt, polite, professional', etc.). This inflates the apparent review count and may indicate manipulation.
• MULTI-LOCATION FRANCHISE ISSUE: Reviews clearly reference dozens of different geographic locations (Sacramento, Orange County, Reno, Framingham MA, Spartanburg SC, Baton Rouge, etc.) and different named technicians. This is not a single contractor — it is a franchise brand. Scores reflect the aggregate brand, not any single operator. Individual location quality varies enormously.
• SERIOUS FRAUD ALLEGATIONS: Multiple reviews allege criminal-level conduct including: charging for work not performed, fabricating damage on camera footage, partnering with restoration companies (Bolmer Restoration named repeatedly) to generate fraudulent insurance claims, opening credit cards in customers' names, placing mechanics liens on homes, and targeting elderly and vulnerable customers. One review references a revoked NV business license and cancelled contractor license.
• WARRANTY REFUSAL PATTERN: Multiple reviews describe the company refusing to honor stated warranties when problems recurred within the warranty period, often citing new reasons to charge again.
• NO-SHOW AND SCHEDULING FAILURE PATTERN: A significant number of reviews describe confirmed appointments where technicians never arrived and calls were not returned, sometimes leaving customers without water or sewage service for days.
• RECENCY NOTE: The review dataset spans from approximately 2010 to June 2025. Reviews from the past 12 months (mid-2024 to mid-2025) show a continued mix of strong positives for specific named technicians and serious negatives for pricing and scam-like upselling, suggesting the pattern has not materially changed. More recent reviews were weighted slightly higher in scoring.

This WW Score of 58.2 should be treated with MODERATE-TO-LOW trust as a hiring signal: while it accurately reflects the deeply polarized nature of this franchise brand, the score is based on a mixed pool that includes suspected fake positive reviews, duplicate submissions, and reviews from dozens of geographically distinct franchise locations — meaning the score does not reliably predict the quality of any single local operator, and the systemic pricing and upselling complaints documented across hundreds of independent reviews represent a material risk that any prospective customer should investigate carefully before engaging this company.

Butter Plumbing presents a deeply divided picture across 52 reviews spanning 2013–2024. Positive reviews consistently praise specific technicians by name — Carlos, Ura, Brandon, Rocky, Jeremy, Mark, Raffi — for punctuality, clear communication, and quality workmanship, which lifts professionalism and experience scores above a failing threshold. However, pricing is the single most damaging dimension: a large volume of reviewers explicitly describe the $65–$69 non-refundable service call fee, inflated repair quotes, refusal to provide phone estimates, and charges perceived as exploitative — particularly toward elderly customers — driving the pricing score to a very low 28. Project completion is mixed: many jobs were finished well and callbacks were honored, but several reviews describe failed repairs, abandoned diagnoses, warranty disputes, and one instance of a botched tankless water heater installation causing water damage. The owner Shawn Butter is mentioned by name in both glowing and deeply negative contexts, including allegations of rudeness, phone harassment, and blocking customers, which significantly weighs down the professionalism score.

• PRICING CONCERN: The $65–$69 non-refundable service call fee is mentioned negatively in at least 10 reviews across multiple years, suggesting a persistent structural pricing complaint rather than isolated incidents.
• OWNER CONDUCT: Multiple reviews across different years (2013, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2022, 2023) specifically name owner Shawn Butter in negative contexts including rudeness, phone harassment, threatening behavior, blocking customer numbers, and warranty denial. This is a significant and recurring pattern.
• ELDERLY EXPLOITATION ALLEGATION: One review (2022) explicitly alleges price gouging of elderly customers (80s) for a garbage disposal replacement exceeding $500 with no itemized receipt, and states intent to report to the BBB.
• WARRANTY DISPUTES: At least two reviews describe the company refusing to honor labor warranties or denying previously quoted prices, including one case where the owner acknowledged on speakerphone that the original technician was incompetent.
• WORKMANSHIP FAILURE: One detailed review (2019) describes a tankless water heater installation with improper drain line routing causing ceiling and wall water damage, lines routed incorrectly, and the unit placed on the wrong wall — and the company charged for the return visit to fix their own error.
• DIAGNOSIS FAILURES: Two reviews describe technicians unable to diagnose problems (pool heater, fireplace), with customers later resolving issues cheaply or for free through other means after paying Butter's service call fees.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent reviews (2024) include both a strong positive (Carlos, multi-week job) and a strong negative (garbage disposal repair lasting less than a day, price tripling on replacement quote). The pattern of mixed reviews is consistent across the full 11-year span.
• NO FAKE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: Reviews vary significantly in length, detail, writing style, and sentiment. Positive reviews name specific technicians with job-specific details. Negative reviews cite specific dollar amounts and incidents. No coordinated fake review pattern identified.
• SCORE RELIABILITY NOTE: The high volume of reviews (52) and the consistency of both positive and negative themes across many years gives this score HIGH confidence, but the wide variance in customer experience means individual outcomes may differ substantially from the aggregate score.

This WW Score of 54.1 is based on 52 reviews spanning 11 years and carries HIGH confidence due to volume and consistency of themes; however, the extreme polarization of experiences — excellent outcomes with specific technicians versus serious pricing, warranty, and owner-conduct complaints — means prospective customers should treat this score as a warning to proceed with caution, obtain all quotes in writing, and verify technician assignment before committing.

Benjamin Franklin Plumbing's review set is deeply polarized: a cluster of positive reviews from 2016–2018 praising individual technicians like Devon, Mike, George, and Joe for professionalism and skill, contrasted sharply with a sustained wave of highly negative reviews from 2019–2024 describing overcharging, failed repairs, abandoned jobs, unresponsive management, and outright deceptive practices. Pricing is the weakest dimension, with multiple reviewers citing charges dramatically above market rate — including an $800 leak search done free elsewhere, a $9,500 job completed by a competitor for $2,600, and $1,250 for a minor pipe repair. Project completion is severely damaged by repeated accounts of work left unfinished, repairs failing within days, and promised refunds never delivered. Professionalism scores reflect a split between genuinely praised individual technicians and a pattern of no-call no-shows, unresponsive supervisors, and one account of a technician stealing a warranty sticker. The more recent reviews (2019–2024) are predominantly 1-star and carry greater weight under recency rules, pulling all scores downward significantly.

• RECENCY CONCERN: The majority of 5-star reviews are dated 2016–2018, while nearly all reviews from 2019–2024 are 1-star. This suggests a significant and sustained decline in service quality over time. Recent reviews are weighted more heavily per scoring rules.
• PATTERN WARNING: Several positive reviews from 2016–2018 mention specific named technicians (Devon, Mike, George) in glowing but somewhat formulaic terms. While not conclusively fake, the concentration of praise around individual names with limited operational detail warrants mild caution.
• MANAGEMENT FAILURE PATTERN: Multiple independent reviewers (2019–2024) describe the same failure mode — promised refunds or callbacks from supervisors that never materialize. This is a systemic pattern, not isolated incidents.
• PRICING ABUSE FLAG: At least four reviews independently describe being charged prices 3–5x above market rate for comparable work, with one reviewer documenting a competitor completing the same job for $2,600 vs. Benjamin Franklin's $9,500 quote.
• ABANDONED WORK FLAG: At least two reviews describe jobs paid in full but left incomplete, with no follow-through from the company.
• EMPLOYEE MISCONDUCT FLAG: One review alleges a technician stole a warranty sticker to void a customer's warranty, and another describes a technician soliciting personal side-work and charging under the table — both serious integrity concerns.

This WW Score is based on 34 reviews with strong dimensional coverage across all four categories, yielding HIGH confidence in the score's direction; however, the stark quality split between older positive reviews and recent negative reviews means the score likely overstates current service quality, and prospective customers should treat the 2019–2024 negative reviews as the more reliable signal.

Accurate Leak Detection has a deeply polarized review profile spanning roughly a decade, with a significant volume of serious complaints that substantially drag down every dimension. Professionalism is the weakest area: repeated no-shows, last-minute cancellations, rude office staff (Linda), and dismissive owner behavior are documented across at least 12 separate reviews, making this a systemic pattern rather than isolated incidents. Project completion is similarly troubled, with multiple reviews describing abandoned jobs mid-project, unresolved leaks after payment, failure to follow through on estimates, and work left in worse condition than found. Pricing drew mixed signals — some customers praised fair or honest billing, while others described bait-and-switch quotes, charges for failed diagnoses, and prices that were nearly double competitors. Experience scores modestly higher because a meaningful subset of positive reviews do credit specific technicians (Dave, Nelson, Wayne, Jordan, Rick) with genuine skill and problem-solving ability, but this is offset by documented misdiagnoses, sloppy workmanship, and at least one case where a technician caused significant additional damage (cracked pool plaster, broken O-ring installation).

• Two reviews (2020-09-10 and 2020-08-25) are nearly word-for-word identical in content and appear to be duplicate submissions from the same customer about the same incident — only one was counted for scoring purposes to avoid double-weighting.
• Two reviews contain only 'unknown' or a single period as text and no usable content — these were excluded from dimension scoring.
• The review dated 2016-08-20 references 'Advanced Leak Detection' and technicians named Nelson and Phil, which may be a misattributed review for a different company; it was included cautiously but flagged.
• Several 5-star reviews are very brief and generic (e.g., 'Very well. Smart, experienced pro found and fixed problems.' and 'Determined leak was in the mainline but could not identify specific location.' rated 5 stars) with no specific detail, raising mild concern about authenticity, though not enough to constitute a clear fake review pattern.
• The majority of reviews are older than 12 months (most predate 2023), with only 3 reviews from 2023. The most recent reviews (2023) still include serious complaints, suggesting problems have not been resolved over time.
• A recurring pattern of no-shows and last-minute cancellations is documented across at least 8 separate reviews spanning 2016–2022, indicating a persistent operational failure rather than isolated incidents.
• At least one reviewer mentions intent to sue the company for damages caused by their work (pool plaster destruction), and another describes being told to 'go fly a kite' when seeking remedy — these are serious conduct flags.

This WW Score is based on a large and diverse review set spanning multiple years and carries HIGH statistical confidence, but the score should be interpreted as a genuine warning signal — the volume and consistency of complaints about no-shows, abandoned work, rude staff, and failed repairs across many independent reviewers represents a credible and serious pattern of service failure.