Find Nearby Plumbers In Las Vegas, Nevada

Patrick demonstrates strong professionalism with consistent praise for communication, responsiveness, politeness, and punctuality across 18 reviews. Project completion is reliable with 16 mentions of timely work, problem-solving, and follow-through, though one significant negative review (1-star, Oct 28) documents a serious failure to honor commitments and poor communication during the quoting phase. Pricing is generally viewed favorably (7 mentions) as fair and competitive. Technical skill and workmanship quality are well-documented across 12 reviews. The single 1-star review from October 28, 2024 substantially impacts the overall score, as it describes a month-long communication breakdown and failure to deliver on promises—a critical project completion failure that contradicts the otherwise positive pattern.

• CRITICAL: One detailed 1-star review (2024-10-28) documents serious professionalism and project completion failures—month-long communication issues, changing story, failure to honor commitment. This is a substantive negative that cannot be dismissed and significantly impacts confidence in reliability.
• Pattern of 5-star reviews is notably high (23 of 26 reviews are 5-star), which is statistically unusual. However, reviews contain specific details (drywall repair, ring camera installation, door frame reset, trim work, etc.) and vary in length and phrasing, suggesting authenticity rather than fake reviews.
• Two reviews from 2023 (older than 12 months); most reviews (24 of 26) are from 2024, providing good recency.
• One review uses plural 'they' instead of 'Patrick' (2023-06-01 and 2023-05-24), suggesting possible team involvement or inconsistent naming, but does not affect scoring.
• The October 28, 2024 negative review directly contradicts the positive reviews from October 28 and October 23, 2024, indicating inconsistent service delivery or potential reliability issues.

This score should be treated with MODERATE-TO-HIGH caution. While 25 of 26 reviews are positive and specific, the single detailed 1-star review documenting a serious failure to honor commitments and month-long communication breakdown is a material red flag that suggests Patrick's service quality is inconsistent. The WW Score of 82.3 reflects strong average performance, but potential customers should be aware that project completion and communication failures are possible, particularly during the quoting and scheduling phase.

Guaranteed Plumbing demonstrates strong overall performance across all four dimensions, with particularly high marks for professionalism (85.2) and project completion (83.5). The company benefits from extensive positive feedback regarding punctuality, communication, and technical competence. Pricing is generally perceived as fair and reasonable, though some customers report occasional discrepancies between quoted and final invoices. The company shows consistent ability to complete jobs thoroughly and on time, with strong follow-up service. However, a notable minority of negative reviews (approximately 8% of total) reveal serious issues including upfront payment demands, no-shows, incomplete work, and poor responsiveness to complaints, primarily associated with certain technicians or locations.

• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: Multiple reviews from 2025-05-10 and 2025-04-10 show suspiciously similar phrasing ('Las Vegas Plumbing' mentioned repeatedly in generic service descriptions with minimal specific detail), suggesting possible review manipulation or bot-generated content. These reviews lack the natural variation and specific customer context found in authentic reviews.
• QUALITY INCONSISTENCY: Significant variance in service quality appears tied to specific technicians. Reviews mentioning 'Robert' contain disproportionately high negative feedback regarding upfront payment demands, no-shows, and poor warranty service. Other technicians (Marcus, Patrick, Johnny, Gary) consistently receive praise.
• UPFRONT PAYMENT CONTROVERSY: Multiple 1-star reviews (2020-06-10, 2020-06-10, 2021-12-08) specifically cite demands for $59-$100 upfront diagnostic fees before service, with customers reporting this as a red flag and potential scam indicator. This practice appears to have generated significant customer dissatisfaction.
• GEOGRAPHIC/OPERATIONAL INCONSISTENCY: Reviews suggest the company may operate under multiple names or have multiple locations (references to 'Guaranteed Plumbing,' 'Las Vegas Plumbing,' 'Robert's Plumbing,' 'High Desert Plumbing'). One 2017-07-05 review explicitly warns that an unlicensed operator was misrepresenting affiliation with 'High Desert Plumbing.'
• COMMUNICATION FAILURES: Multiple reviews from 2013-2019 document failure to follow up on quotes, return phone calls, or honor promised callbacks, suggesting systemic office management issues during certain periods.
• PRICING DISPUTES: Several reviews (2015-06-04, 2023-06-10, 2019-09-11) report significant discrepancies between quoted prices and final invoices, with some customers charged $100-$250 more than initially quoted.

This WW Score of 82.1 is reliable for understanding the company's general performance trajectory, but should be interpreted with caution: the high proportion of 5-star reviews (approximately 85% of total) combined with suspicious clustering of identical phrasing in recent reviews suggests potential review manipulation that may inflate the score. The negative reviews, while fewer in number, reveal consistent patterns of serious issues (upfront fees, no-shows, incomplete work, poor follow-up) that disproportionately affect certain customer segments. Prospective customers should weight recent positive reviews skeptically and specifically inquire about the technician assigned, upfront payment policies, and warranty terms before committing.

Drew's Plumbing demonstrates strong overall performance across all four dimensions, with particular strength in professionalism (86.5) and experience (84.3). The company excels at punctuality, communication, and technical knowledge, with extensive evidence of honest, reliable service. Pricing is fair and competitive (81.2), though some customers report higher-than-expected charges in isolated cases. Project completion (79.8) is generally solid, though a meaningful minority of reviews cite follow-up issues, missed appointments, or incomplete callbacks that slightly lower this score. The WW Score of 82.1 reflects a trustworthy contractor with proven track record, though not without occasional service lapses.

• PATTERN DETECTED: Multiple reviews (approximately 15-20) mention the same owner names (Drew, Abraham, Jason, Jeff) inconsistently across different time periods and locations, suggesting either multiple locations, name variations, or potential data quality issues. This creates minor ambiguity about whether all reviews reference the same business entity.
• NEGATIVE OUTLIERS: 13 one-star reviews document serious issues including: no-shows/missed appointments (3 reviews), intoxicated technician (2 reviews), overcharging/billing disputes (4 reviews), property damage without proper disclosure (2 reviews), and non-responsive management (2 reviews). These are not isolated complaints but represent a consistent minority pattern.
• RECENCY BIAS: Approximately 40% of reviews are from 2024-2025 (recent), while 60% span 2013-2023. Recent reviews skew more positive (mostly 5-star), while older reviews contain more critical feedback. This may reflect either improved service quality or review selection bias.
• FOLLOW-UP FAILURES: At least 5 reviews explicitly mention issues with callbacks, return visits not completed, or problems recurring shortly after service. This suggests occasional gaps in project completion follow-through.
• PRICING INCONSISTENCY: While most reviews praise fair pricing, 4-5 reviews cite unexpectedly high charges ($385 for simple faucet replacement, $950 for incomplete sewer work, $700 for camera work without delivery). This suggests pricing transparency may vary by technician or job type.
• COMMUNICATION GAPS: Several reviews (2018-2022 period) report difficulty reaching the company by phone, full voicemails, and unanswered calls, though this appears less frequent in recent reviews.

This WW Score of 82.1 is reliable and should be trusted as a fair assessment. The score is based on 176 reviews with high confidence across all dimensions, providing robust data. However, the presence of a consistent minority of serious negative reviews (13 one-stars documenting no-shows, intoxication, overcharging, and property damage) indicates this contractor, while generally strong, carries meaningful risk in specific scenarios—particularly around appointment reliability and pricing transparency. Prospective customers should expect good service in most cases but should verify appointment confirmations and obtain detailed written estimates before proceeding.

Hips Plumbing demonstrates strong overall performance with a WW Score of 82.1, driven primarily by exceptional professionalism (87.5) and solid project completion (85.0). The company excels at punctuality, communication, and technical skill, with technicians consistently praised for courtesy, efficiency, and knowledge. However, pricing emerges as a notable weakness (73.0), with multiple customers citing high costs relative to competitors, though most acknowledge quality justifies the premium. The company shows strong experience and workmanship across complex projects. Recent reviews (past 12 months) are predominantly positive, though a critical June 2025 review regarding a gas leak incident and subsequent service failures reveals potential gaps in emergency response prioritization and accountability.

• PRICING CONCERN: Multiple reviews (2024-01-17, 2024-02-08, 2023-11-01, 2024-10-15) explicitly criticize high pricing and upselling tactics. One customer reported $2,000 for basic water heater installation; another reported $600 for routine maintenance (salt bags). This pattern suggests pricing may not align with market rates despite quality work.
• CRITICAL SERVICE FAILURE (June 2025): One detailed review documents a serious gas leak incident post-service where initial response was dismissive and delayed. While ultimately resolved, the initial handling (refusing to acknowledge the problem, delaying emergency response) represents a significant professional lapse in safety-critical situations.
• QUALITY CONTROL INCONSISTENCY: June 2025 review also reports water heater service that left customer without hot water the following day, requiring a callback. This suggests occasional quality issues in complex installations.
• DRYWALL DAMAGE COMPLAINT (June 2024): Customer reported poor drywall cutting technique during PEX installation, resulting in $3,000+ in additional repair costs. Inspector noted 'shoddy work.' This indicates potential gaps in workmanship on complex projects involving wall penetration.
• UPSELLING PATTERN: Multiple reviews (2024-10-15, 2023-09-21) mention aggressive upselling of unnecessary upgrades or misdiagnosis to justify expensive replacements. One customer was quoted $6,000+ by Hips for a problem that cost $0 to fix.
• APPOINTMENT SYSTEM ISSUES (2023-10-17): Customer reported appointment disappeared from system despite phone confirmation, with no follow-up communication.
• RECENCY NOTE: Most reviews are from 2024-2025 (past 12 months), providing strong current data. However, the June 2025 gas leak incident is very recent and suggests ongoing operational challenges despite generally positive historical performance.

This WW Score of 82.1 is reliable for assessing overall professionalism and project completion quality, supported by 98 and 89 mentions respectively across recent reviews. However, the pricing dimension (73.0) should be weighted heavily in decision-making, as it reflects a consistent pattern of above-market costs. The June 2025 critical incident involving delayed emergency response to a gas leak raises concerns about consistency in high-stakes situations and suggests the score may overstate reliability for emergency services. Customers seeking quality work should expect to pay a premium; those prioritizing cost-effectiveness should seek alternatives.

Dignity Plumbing demonstrates strong overall performance with particular strengths in professionalism, experience, and project completion. Technicians consistently receive praise for punctuality, communication, friendliness, and technical knowledge across 68+ mentions of professional conduct. Project completion is reliable with 52 mentions of timely, thorough work and follow-through. However, pricing emerges as a notable weakness with only 18 mentions but significant negative sentiment: multiple customers report unexpected high charges, lack of transparent upfront pricing, and feeling overcharged relative to work performed. The company's pricing practices create friction despite otherwise excellent service quality.

• PRICING CONCERN: Multiple reviews (at least 4) explicitly criticize pricing transparency and perceived overcharging. One customer paid $302 for lubing an O-ring after a $99 diagnostic fee. Another paid $600+ for simple fixture replacements. A third paid $95 diagnostic fee for a quote that could have been provided over phone. This pattern suggests inconsistent or aggressive pricing practices that contradict the 'fair pricing' claims in positive reviews.
• NEGATIVE OUTLIER REVIEWS: Three 1-star reviews (2024-08-06, 2022-03-21, 2021-09-04) describe serious service failures: negligent workmanship (rag left in pipes, improper wax ring installation), unprofessional behavior (technician didn't introduce himself, seemed annoyed, pressured for 5-star review), and alleged bias/discrimination in diagnostic reporting. These are substantive complaints, not just pricing disputes.
• RECENCY BIAS: Approximately 40% of reviews are from 2022 or earlier (3+ years old). Recent reviews (past 12 months) show continued high ratings but also include the 2024 pricing complaint and 2024 workmanship complaint, suggesting issues persist.
• EMPTY REVIEWS: 5 reviews contain no text (only 5-star ratings on 2025-05-10, 2025-04-10 x2, 2025-02-09, 2024-12-11). While not necessarily fake, they provide no substantive data.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: Multiple reviews use nearly identical phrasing ('above and beyond,' 'highly recommend,' 'professional and friendly,' 'explained everything') and many lack specific details about actual work performed. However, the presence of detailed negative reviews and specific technical complaints suggests the dataset is largely authentic, not artificially inflated.
• INCONSISTENT SERVICE QUALITY: While most reviews praise specific technicians (Antonio, Rocky, Scott, Jonathan, etc.), the negative reviews suggest quality varies significantly by technician or situation. The 2024 workmanship failure (rag in pipes) and the 2022 diagnostic failure (technician refused to properly assess toilets) indicate quality control gaps.

This WW Score of 82.1 is reliable for assessing professionalism and technical competence (HIGH confidence based on 68+ and 55+ mentions respectively), but the pricing dimension (71.0, MODERATE confidence, 18 mentions) significantly drags down the overall score and reflects genuine customer dissatisfaction that should not be ignored; prospective customers should specifically request transparent, itemized quotes before service and clarify all fees upfront, as pricing practices appear to be the primary source of customer friction despite strong technical execution.

Plumbing Kings earns strong marks across all four dimensions, driven by a large volume of detailed, specific reviews praising responsiveness, same-day service, honest assessments, and skilled technicians — particularly Tyler, Jordan, and Steven. Professionalism scores are high but tempered by a notable no-show incident, one review alleging the owner responded to negative feedback in an inflammatory and retaliatory manner, and a serious allegation that a technician caused a house fire during a slab leak repair that resulted in court-ordered damages. Pricing scores are meaningfully reduced by multiple explicit complaints about high costs ($300+ to snake a drain, $428 for faucet hookups, $200/hr labor rates) and one complaint about a non-refundable estimate fee policy, even though many other reviewers found pricing fair or competitive. Project completion is strong overall, but one reviewer reported repeated failed appointments and unfinished repairs requiring a second plumber, and the house fire incident represents a catastrophic project failure. Experience scores well given the volume of reviews citing technical skill, correct diagnoses, and quality workmanship, including a city inspector praising the work.

• SERIOUS SAFETY INCIDENT: Two separate reviews (both dated 2022-11-17) allege that technician Tyler caused a house fire during a slab leak repair. The owner reportedly denied responsibility, refused to cooperate with the insurance company, sent a bill demanding payment after the fire, and ultimately paid damages only after being taken to court. This is a significant red flag for project completion and professionalism.
• OWNER RETALIATION PATTERN: Multiple negative reviewers explicitly describe the owner (Steven) responding to their reviews with inflammatory, retaliatory, or allegedly libelous public statements. One such response was removed by Yelp. This pattern is corroborated by at least three independent negative reviewers and materially reduces confidence in professionalism scores.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS: At least 4-5 reviews explicitly flag high or surprising costs, including $300+ to snake a drain, $200/hr labor, $428 for faucet installation, and a non-refundable $49-$75 estimate fee. These are substantive pricing concerns that reduce the price-friendly score.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: Two reviews with nearly identical text ('Really appreciate that the owner takes a personal interest in every job...') were submitted on consecutive dates (2023-06-14 and 2023-06-15). These appear to be the same review posted twice and were counted as one data point.
• CLUSTER OF GENERIC REVIEWS: A group of reviews dated 2024-06-08 and 2023-06-09 contain very short, generic praise with minimal specifics ('Great service and reasonable price', 'Amazing service! Reliable, Honest, Professional!', 'Excellent work. Very responsive!'). While not conclusive, this clustering pattern warrants mild caution and these reviews were given reduced weight.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews span 2022-2025, with the most recent dated May 2025. The review base is reasonably current. The house fire incident dates to late 2022 and no similar safety incidents appear in more recent reviews.
• NO-SHOW INCIDENT: One reviewer (2023-08-16) reported a confirmed appointment where the technician failed to arrive or communicate, citing this as unprofessional. This is a single incident but relevant to the professionalism score.
• INCOMPLETE REPAIRS: One reviewer (2024-05-01, 1-star) reported having to repeatedly reschedule appointments for repairs that were not completed as promised, and ultimately hired another plumber to finish the work. This negatively impacts the project completion score.

This WW Score is based on a large and diverse review set (109 reviews) with HIGH confidence across all dimensions; however, the score should be interpreted with caution due to verified serious incidents including a court-adjudicated house fire caused by a technician, a documented pattern of owner retaliation against negative reviewers, and a cluster of suspiciously generic reviews that may inflate the overall rating.