Find Nearby Plumbers In Las Vegas, Nevada

Danube Construction demonstrates strong performance across all four dimensions with consistent positive feedback from customers. Professionalism is evidenced by punctuality, clear communication, and courteous staff (9 mentions). Project completion is the strongest dimension with 10 mentions highlighting on-time delivery, comprehensive scope execution, and follow-through on callbacks. Pricing receives solid marks for affordability and value (6 mentions), though one older review noted they declined a small residential job. Experience is well-documented through complex renovation projects, technical problem-solving, and proper licensing/bonding (7 mentions). One significant negative review from 2022 citing poor communication and unfriendliness creates a notable outlier, but is substantially outweighed by 12 positive reviews. Most reviews are from 2017–2024, with strong recent activity in 2024.

• One stark negative review (1.0 rating, 2022-06-10) contrasts sharply with 12 five-star reviews; this outlier suggests either a genuine service failure or a dissatisfied customer, but does not appear to be a fake review pattern.
• Multiple reviews from 2024-06-09 (three reviews on same date) show identical formatting and generic praise structure; however, they contain distinct details (different team members named, different project types) and are consistent with a recent marketing push or review campaign rather than fabricated reviews.
• Two reviews from 2020 and earlier (2018–2020) are outside the 12-month recency window; however, they contain specific project details and align with more recent feedback, so they are retained with appropriate weighting.
• Review from 2019-07-14 is primarily about a competitor (Quality Roofing) and does not directly evaluate Danube Construction; it was counted only for the negative mention of scope refusal and is weighted conservatively.

This WW Score of 84.2 is highly reliable, based on 13 reviews with strong mention counts across all dimensions (6–10 mentions each) and recent activity concentrated in 2024. The single negative review is a legitimate outlier that slightly reduces confidence but does not invalidate the overall assessment; the preponderance of detailed, specific positive feedback from 2017–2024 supports the score.

Nevada Plumbing Authority earns strong marks across all four dimensions, with professionalism being the most consistently praised attribute — reviewers repeatedly highlight punctuality, responsiveness, friendly demeanor, and clear communication across dozens of unique reviews. Pricing is a notable strength, with multiple reviewers explicitly comparing NPA favorably against competitors and describing quotes as fair, transparent, and significantly lower than alternatives. Project completion scores well overall, supported by many accounts of jobs finished quickly and correctly, though it is tempered by two meaningful negative data points: one reviewer describes a no-show after a scheduled appointment, and a 2014 reviewer reports a missed leak diagnosis that required a second contractor to fix. Experience scores solidly, with reviewers citing skilled diagnostics, efficient workmanship, and problem-solving across a wide range of plumbing tasks including gas lines, water heaters, burst pipes, and drain issues. One pricing-related 1-star review from 2014 alleges price gouging on a remote job, which is factored into the pricing score as a credible concern.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: A significant number of reviews appear to be exact duplicates submitted on the same date with identical text and ratings. At least 20+ reviews are direct copies of other reviews in the dataset (e.g., the 'tripled my water bill' review, the 'Mr. Andrew and his partner' review, the 'Aliante area' long review, and many others each appear twice). This strongly suggests either a data ingestion error that doubled entries, or potentially coordinated review submission. Each duplicated review was counted only once in scoring.
• NEGATIVE SIGNAL — NO-SHOW: One reviewer (1-star, Nov 2023) explicitly states NPA scheduled an appointment, never showed up, and never called to cancel. This is a direct project completion failure and is weighted accordingly.
• NEGATIVE SIGNAL — MISSED DIAGNOSIS: A 2-star review (March 2014) describes a plumber incorrectly clearing a leaking toilet, requiring a second contractor to identify and fix the actual leak the next day. This reflects on experience and project completion quality.
• NEGATIVE SIGNAL — ALLEGED PRICE GOUGING: A 1-star review (July 2014) alleges the company charged $600 for a job the reviewer felt was worth far less, taking advantage of a remote property owner who could not be present. This is a credible pricing concern and is factored into the pricing score.
• TWO BLANK OR NEAR-BLANK REVIEWS: Two reviews contain only a rating (1-star, Aug 2024 and 4-star, Apr 2015) with no review text. These were excluded from dimensional scoring as they provide no usable data.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of high-volume, detailed positive reviews are from 2024–2025 and carry full recency weight. Several older reviews (2011–2016) reference a plumber named 'Shane' under what appears to be a prior business name ('A Nevada Plumbing'), suggesting possible business evolution or rebranding. These older reviews were included but given slightly reduced weight relative to recent reviews.

The WW Score carries HIGH overall confidence given the large volume of reviews with usable data, but readers should note that duplicate review entries inflate the apparent review count, at least three substantive negative experiences are documented across professionalism, project completion, and pricing dimensions, and some older reviews may reflect a different operational era of the business.

Much Better Plumbing earns strong marks across all four dimensions, with pricing being a consistent standout — numerous reviewers explicitly noted prices far below competitor quotes, transparent upfront quotes, and no hidden fees. Professionalism scores well overall, with the majority of reviewers praising punctuality, communication, and friendly technicians, though a meaningful cluster of 1-star reviews (5 reviews) specifically cite no-shows, missed appointments, and failure to return calls, which materially drags the professionalism and project completion scores down from what would otherwise be near-perfect ratings. Project completion is solid for jobs that were actually attended, with reviewers frequently noting same-day service, clean work, and follow-through, but the no-show pattern represents a real and recurring reliability risk that cannot be ignored. Experience scores well, with multiple reviewers citing skilled diagnostics, problem-solving on complex jobs, and technicians who explained their work clearly. Overall, this is a company with genuine strengths but a documented and repeated reliability problem that prospective customers should weigh carefully.

• RELIABILITY PATTERN — 5 reviews (1-star ratings dated 2019-10-14, 2021-03-20, 2023-01-06, 2023-03-08, 2023-07-05) explicitly describe no-shows, missed appointments, unanswered calls, and full voicemail boxes. This is not a one-off complaint but a recurring pattern spanning multiple years, including as recently as July 2023.
• MISDIAGNOSIS FLAG — One 2-star review (2020-09-11) describes a technician failing to identify a cracked pipe that burst the following day, causing significant water damage. This is a notable quality/experience concern even if isolated.
• RECENCY NOTE — The majority of reviews are from 2020–2024, giving reasonable recency coverage. The most recent no-show complaints are from mid-2023, suggesting the reliability issue had not been fully resolved as of that date. No reviews dated 2025 were present.
• REVIEW VOLUME SKEW — The overwhelming majority of reviews are 5-star with only 5 reviews rated 1–2 stars. While this could reflect genuine quality, the stark imbalance warrants slight caution. However, the 5-star reviews contain specific names, job details, and varied language, reducing the likelihood of systematic fake review inflation.
• NO FAKE REVIEW FLAG RAISED — Reviews are sufficiently varied in language, detail, job type, and named technicians (Daniel, Alex, Jose, Jesus, Pedro, Jesse, Isaiah) to be considered authentic. No coordinated fake review pattern detected.

This WW Score is based on 82 reviews spanning 2019–2024 with strong data across all four dimensions, making it a HIGH confidence assessment overall; however, the documented no-show pattern in multiple independent reviews introduces a meaningful caveat around reliability that the numerical score alone does not fully capture, and prospective customers should treat punctuality and follow-through as a known risk factor.

This contractor receives consistently strong marks across all four dimensions, with professionalism being the most frequently cited strength — punctuality, politeness, and responsiveness appear in the majority of reviews. Pricing is generally described as fair and reasonable, with one reviewer specifically noting a competitive quote on a large whole-house replumb and another citing a transparent $195 all-in cost. Project completion is well-supported, with most reviewers confirming jobs were finished promptly and thoroughly, though one 2-star review from 2012 noted workmen failed to clean up and left a poorly filled hole in the kitchen floor, which is a meaningful negative data point. Experience and workmanship are praised across a wide range of job types — from garbage disposals and faucet installs to full replumbs and slab leaks — suggesting genuine technical breadth. Scores are modestly conservative to account for the age of several reviews (some dating back to 2007–2012) and mild fake-review risk signals in a cluster of 2024 reviews.

• FAKE REVIEW RISK — MODERATE: Six reviews share the exact same date of 2024-06-09 and follow a nearly identical structure: short sentences, generic praise, no specific details about the contractor's name, job scope, or pricing. This pattern is consistent with bulk-submitted or templated reviews and reduces confidence in that cluster.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Several reviews date back to 2007, 2009, 2012, 2018, and 2019. While recent reviews (2024–2025) are present, a meaningful portion of the review base is over 3 years old. Older reviews were given reduced weight in scoring.
• ONE NEGATIVE REVIEW: A 2-star review from 2012 explicitly cited failure to clean up after work and inadequate repair of a hole in the kitchen floor. This is the only negative review in the dataset and was factored into the project_completion and professionalism scores.
• ONE BLANK REVIEW: One review dated 2024-06-09 contained no text — only a 5-star rating. This review was excluded from dimension scoring as it provides no usable data.

This WW Score carries moderate-to-high reliability overall — the volume of reviews is sufficient, multiple dimensions are well-evidenced, and the score is grounded in explicit reviewer statements — but confidence is tempered by a suspected cluster of generic fake reviews in June 2024 and the age of a significant portion of the review base.

Revere Mechanical earns strong marks across most dimensions, driven primarily by consistent praise for professionalism, communication, and technical competence — particularly from technician Josh Smock, who is mentioned by name in a large number of reviews. Project completion scores well overall, with multiple reviewers noting timely and thorough repairs, though one 2-star review describes a disorganized two-day water heater installation with repeated trips for missing parts, and a prior negative review (later updated to 4 stars after owner intervention) tempers the otherwise positive picture. Experience scores solidly, with several reviewers specifically noting that Revere technicians solved problems that prior plumbers could not diagnose. Pricing data is limited but leans positive, with one reviewer explicitly citing fair prices and another noting that Josh advised against unnecessary upsells — however, the low mention count keeps confidence at MODERATE for this dimension.

• Heavy concentration of reviews mentioning Josh Smock by name (approximately 10+ reviews) raises a mild pattern concern; however, the reviews contain specific, varied details about different job types and locations, reducing the likelihood of coordinated fake reviews.
• One 1-star review (2022-11-09) alleges poor quality and lack of knowledge across all staff but provides no specific details, limiting its evidentiary weight — though it cannot be dismissed.
• One 2-star review (2022-06-03) provides credible, specific negative detail about a disorganized water heater installation with missing parts and crew confusion, which is a meaningful data point against the experience and project completion dimensions.
• One review (2023-12-19, 4 stars) explicitly references a prior poor rating that was updated after owner intervention — this suggests the company may be proactive in reputation management, which is positive, but also means some negative experiences may have been resolved off-platform and not fully visible.
• Recency note: The majority of reviews (13 of 20) are dated within the past 12 months (2024), which is a positive signal for current service quality. Three reviews are from 2021–2022 and carry less weight in the scoring.

This WW Score is based on 20 reviews with a strong recency skew toward 2024, a high mention count across most dimensions, and specific credible detail in both positive and negative reviews, making it a reasonably reliable representation of current service quality — though the dominance of one technician (Josh) in the review pool means the score may not fully reflect the consistency of the broader team.

Express Home Services demonstrates strong professionalism across 287 mentions, with technicians consistently praised for punctuality, courtesy, and communication. Technical expertise is well-documented across 198 mentions, with customers noting knowledgeable staff who explain work clearly. Project completion is solid across 156 mentions, though some scheduling and follow-through issues are noted. Pricing emerges as the weakest dimension (71.0) with 68 mentions revealing significant customer concerns about overcharging, high quotes relative to competitors, and lack of transparency—a pattern that notably impacts overall trust despite strong service quality.

• PRICING CONCERNS: Multiple reviews (15+) explicitly mention overcharging, inflated quotes, or pricing significantly higher than competitors. Examples include $350 drain cleaning vs. $39 elsewhere, $1500 plumbing quote vs. $250 competitor, and $295 humidifier install vs. $120 initially quoted. This is a material trust issue.
• INSTALLATION QUALITY ISSUES: Several reviews (5+) report serious installation defects including incorrect HVAC wiring causing electrical failure, furnace not vented to outside (carbon monoxide hazard), and faulty electrical panel work. These are safety-critical failures.
• SCHEDULING & RELIABILITY: Approximately 12 reviews document no-shows, cancellations, rescheduling without notice, and failure to honor appointment times. This undermines professionalism claims despite individual technician quality.
• INCONSISTENT PRICING COMMUNICATION: At least 3 reviews report being quoted one price over phone, then charged differently on-site, or having fees added without prior disclosure.
• APPRENTICE SENT FOR JOURNEYMAN WORK: 3 reviews document apprentice electricians sent to jobs requiring journeyman-level work, with overcharging relative to qualified competitors.
• UPSELLING COMPLAINTS: Multiple reviews (4+) report aggressive upselling of maintenance plans, surge protection, and service packages, with some customers feeling pressured or manipulated.
• RECENCY BIAS NOTED: Most recent reviews (past 6 months) skew heavily positive (95%+ 5-star), while older reviews (2017-2019) show more balanced criticism. This pattern suggests possible review filtering or recent service improvements, but warrants caution in weighting recent data too heavily.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK - MODERATE: While not conclusive, the dramatic shift from mixed reviews (2017-2019) to nearly all 5-star reviews (2025) is atypical. Many recent reviews are extremely brief or generic ('Great!', 'Perfect!') with minimal detail. However, sufficient detailed reviews exist to validate core findings.

This WW Score of 82.3 is reliable for assessing technical competence and professionalism, but should be interpreted with caution regarding pricing fairness and value—the pricing dimension (71.0) reflects genuine customer concerns about overcharging and lack of transparency that are not fully captured in the overall score weighting. Customers should expect quality work but should obtain multiple quotes and clarify pricing in writing before engagement.