Find Nearby Plumbers In Las Vegas, Nevada

Frontier Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism with consistently praised punctuality, friendly demeanor, and courteous technicians across 68 reviews. Technical expertise is well-documented with 45 mentions of skilled workmanship and problem-solving. Pricing receives solid marks (82.0) across 28 reviews, with customers frequently noting fair rates and honest recommendations that avoid unnecessary upsells. However, project completion shows the most variability (78.5), with 52 mentions revealing concerns about scheduling delays, rescheduling issues, and occasional incomplete repairs requiring callbacks. The company excels in customer service and technical knowledge but struggles with operational consistency and appointment reliability.

• SCHEDULING RELIABILITY CONCERN: Multiple reviews (2024-06-09, 2017-05-04, 2019-02-07) report significant appointment scheduling problems, including no-shows, repeated rescheduling, and difficulty reaching the company by phone. This is a material operational weakness.
• QUALITY INCONSISTENCY: Several reviews (2024-06-09, 2023-11-10, 2019-01-12, 2018-12-17) report incomplete repairs, poor workmanship, or technicians unable/unwilling to address issues. One review describes missing screws on garbage disposal installation and warped cabinets from water damage.
• FRONT DESK COMMUNICATION ISSUES: Multiple negative reviews cite rude or unhelpful front desk staff (2025-05-10, 2024-06-09, 2019-02-07), creating a disconnect between field technician quality and office operations.
• PRICING TRANSPARENCY CONCERN: One review (2013-02-06) reports unexpected $800 installation charge for water heater replacement, significantly higher than initial installation, suggesting potential pricing inconsistency.
• RECENCY PATTERN: Most recent reviews (2025) are overwhelmingly positive (5-star), while older reviews (2013-2019) contain more critical feedback. This may reflect recent business improvements or potential review selection bias.
• MINOR FAKE REVIEW RISK: Several blank reviews with 5-star ratings (2025-05-10, 2024-10-12, 2024-09-12, 2024-08-13, 2024-06-09, 2023-06-10, 2021-06-10, 2020-06-10, 2019-06-11, 2017-06-11) lack any text content, which is unusual but not conclusive evidence of manipulation.

This WW Score of 81.2 is reliable for assessing overall service quality, supported by 104 reviews with strong data across all dimensions. However, the score masks significant operational inconsistencies: while field technicians consistently deliver professional, skilled work, the company struggles with scheduling reliability and front desk communication. Customers should expect high-quality workmanship and fair pricing but should prepare for potential appointment delays and verify completion thoroughly before final payment. The score is most trustworthy for technical capability and least trustworthy for project timeline predictability.

Star 5 Plumbing demonstrates strong overall performance with a WW Score of 81.2, driven primarily by consistent professionalism and reliable project completion across a large sample of reviews. The company excels in punctuality, communication, and technical skill, with many customers praising specific technicians by name (Alex, Stan, Tom, Mike) and noting quick response times and quality workmanship. However, pricing emerges as a relative weakness, with several customers reporting unexpectedly high charges, hidden fees, or feeling overcharged compared to competitors. A significant concern is a cluster of serious negative reviews (approximately 8 one-star reviews) documenting major failures: water heater installation defects, misdiagnosis of plumbing issues, flooding damage from technician error, and warranty disputes. These critical failures, though representing a minority of reviews, substantially impact confidence in consistency and accountability.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: Two identical reviews dated 2024-09-12 and 2024-08-13 (Stan's work on multiple plumbing issues) appear to be duplicates or near-duplicates, suggesting possible review manipulation.
• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: Two identical reviews dated 2023-06-10 and 2023-03-03 (Alex's tub/shower diverter work with Daphne's reception service) are word-for-word duplicates.
• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: Two identical reviews dated 2023-11-29 and 2024-06-09 (repipe service with 'amazing customer service') are duplicates.
• EMPTY REVIEWS: Multiple reviews with ratings but no text content (5 instances) cannot be analyzed for dimension scoring.
• SERIOUS QUALITY FAILURES: Eight one-star reviews document critical issues including water heater installation defects causing shutdowns, technician-caused flooding damage, misdiagnosis of leaks, and warranty disputes. These represent systemic accountability and quality control concerns.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS: Multiple reviews (at least 5) explicitly mention unexpected charges, hidden fees, or feeling overcharged. One customer reported being quoted $270 but charged $240 without prior notice; another reported $125 diagnostic fee plus $1500+ quote for a $700 unit.
• PROFESSIONALISM INCIDENT: One review (2024-09-12) documents erratic and dangerous driving by a company work van near an elementary school, raising safety and brand reputation concerns.
• WARRANTY DISPUTES: Multiple reviews indicate warranty disputes and lack of accountability when defects occur, with customers bearing financial burden for company errors.
• RECENCY CONSIDERATION: Most reviews are from 2017-2021 (older than 12 months). Recent reviews (2025, 2024) show mixed quality with both exceptional 5-star and serious 1-star failures, suggesting inconsistency may be worsening or quality control is variable.

This WW Score of 81.2 should be treated with MODERATE-TO-HIGH caution: while the large sample size (100 reviews) and consistent positive feedback on professionalism and completion provide confidence in typical performance, the presence of duplicate reviews, a significant cluster of critical failures (water damage, misdiagnosis, warranty disputes), and unresolved pricing complaints indicate that Star 5 Plumbing's service quality is inconsistent and accountability mechanisms may be weak. Customers should expect generally professional service but should be aware of material risk of serious defects and disputes, particularly around warranty and pricing transparency.

All three reviews explicitly praise Dylan Korth's professionalism, including punctuality, communication, politeness, and responsiveness from both Dylan and his team (wife Emma handles scheduling). Pricing is consistently highlighted as fair, transparent, and competitive—with one review noting he honored his fixed quote despite unexpected supply costs. Project completion is strong across all reviews, with jobs finished on time, debris cleaned up, and follow-through demonstrated. Technical expertise is evident in his ability to diagnose and repair complex systems, install high-end fixtures, and provide honest assessments without upselling unnecessary work. However, the sample size is small (3 reviews) and all are 5-star ratings with no critical feedback, which limits confidence despite consistent positive messaging.

• Small sample size (n=3) limits statistical reliability; all reviews are 5-star with no negative feedback or balanced perspective
• One review is from August 2023 (over 1 year old); two are recent (September-October 2024)
• All reviews use similar positive language patterns ('excellent,' 'outstanding,' 'highly recommend') but appear genuine with specific details (Grohe system, water heater, fireplace controls, Emma's scheduling)
• No reviews mention any problems, delays, or dissatisfaction—absence of criticism may indicate selection bias rather than perfection

This WW Score of 89.2 should be treated with caution due to the small sample size (3 reviews) and lack of any critical feedback; while the reviews are detailed and appear authentic, a larger and more diverse review pool would be needed to confirm this score's reliability.

JLS Plumbing demonstrates strong performance across all four dimensions based on explicit customer feedback. Professionalism is the strongest area, with all five reviews praising punctuality, communication, courtesy, and responsiveness. Pricing receives consistent praise as reasonable and fair across three reviews. Project completion is well-documented with four reviews confirming timely job completion and follow-through. Technical experience is affirmed through three reviews highlighting knowledge, skill, and problem-solving ability. The WW Score of 88.3 reflects solid, reliable contractor performance.

• Review recency concern: Two of five reviews are significantly older (2015 and 2014), representing 40% of the dataset. Only three reviews are from the past 12 months (2024, 2024, 2021). Older reviews may not reflect current service standards.
• Limited sample size: Only 5 total reviews analyzed. Scores carry MODERATE confidence due to small mention counts across dimensions. Recommend collecting additional recent reviews for higher confidence.
• Generic praise pattern: Review 2 (2024-01-22) contains minimal specific detail ('smartest and most professional') compared to other reviews. However, other reviews provide substantial specifics, so no systematic fake review pattern detected.

This WW Score of 88.3 should be treated with moderate caution due to the small sample size (5 reviews) and recency skew toward older data; however, the consistency of positive feedback across all dimensions and the presence of specific, detailed examples in most reviews supports reasonable confidence in the contractor's reliability.

Sergio demonstrates strong performance across all four dimensions based on three recent reviews. Professionalism is consistently praised with mentions of prompt communication, punctuality (arriving early or on-time), friendly demeanor, and professional invoicing. Pricing is described as fair, reasonable, and respectful of budgets with no hidden charges. Project completion is solid with multiple jobs completed quickly and professionally, though one reviewer noted incomplete cleanup of old items. Experience is evident through quality workmanship, technical skill, and strong work ethics across diverse tasks (plumbing, TV installation, appliance installation).

• Sample size is small (3 reviews) — confidence is limited and score may not be fully representative
• All reviews are 5-star ratings with uniformly positive language — while not necessarily fake, the lack of any critical feedback or nuance is atypical and should be noted
• One review (2024-02-20) contains a typo ('8fair' instead of 'fair'), suggesting it may be user-generated rather than professionally written, which is consistent with authentic reviews
• Most recent review is from October 2024; oldest is from November 2023 — all within 12 months, so recency is acceptable

This WW Score of 88.3 should be treated with caution due to the small sample size (3 reviews). While all dimensions show strong performance and reviews are recent, a minimum of 5-8 reviews is recommended before making high-confidence hiring decisions. The uniformly positive feedback is encouraging but lacks the critical balance that would increase confidence.

All three reviews are recent (within past 12 months, with one from 2023) and consistently positive, highlighting strong project completion and technical skill. Professionalism is evidenced by courteous behavior and clear communication in two reviews. Pricing is mentioned favorably in two reviews as fair and competitive. The small sample size (n=3) limits confidence, but the consistency across dimensions and explicit mentions of completed work, problem-solving, and customer satisfaction support a solid mid-to-high score.

• Very small sample size (only 3 reviews) — score reliability is limited and may not represent full contractor performance
• All reviews are 5-star ratings with no critical feedback — while not necessarily fake, this perfect record warrants caution and suggests sample may not be fully representative
• One review is from March 2023 (over 1 year old); two are from March 2024 — recency is mixed

This WW Score should be treated as preliminary and indicative only; with only 3 reviews, it does not provide sufficient statistical confidence for major decisions and should be supplemented with additional customer feedback before relying heavily on this assessment.