Find Nearby Plumbers In Las Vegas, Nevada

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.

Pure Plumbing & Air demonstrates strong professionalism and technical experience across a very large review base, with the overwhelming majority of customers praising punctuality, communication, friendliness, and technician knowledge. Project completion scores well overall, with most jobs finished same-day or next-day, though a meaningful minority of reviews describe failed repairs requiring callbacks, abandoned guarantees, and at least one instance of suspected unpermitted work. Pricing is the weakest dimension by a significant margin: multiple reviewers across many years explicitly describe charges as outrageous, far above competitor quotes, or not reflective of value — including a $6,882 water heater replacement, a $2,200 hydro-jet that failed within 24 hours, and a $1,144 motor replacement for a part costing under $200. While the company clearly delivers excellent service in many cases, the pricing complaints are too numerous and specific to ignore, and several negative reviews describe upselling pressure, misdiagnosis, and warranty disputes that meaningfully drag down the project completion and pricing scores.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: At least two reviews appear to be exact word-for-word duplicates posted on consecutive dates (Karen Y. Henderson NV / Mike S review posted 2025-06-08 and 2025-06-06; Alexander bathroom leak review posted 2025-06-08 and 2025-06-06; Chris thorough review posted 2025-06-07 and 2025-06-05; Excellent Job prompt review posted 2025-06-07 and 2025-06-05; David water filtration review posted 2025-06-07 and 2025-06-05). This is a strong indicator of review manipulation or platform duplication artifacts. Confidence in the most recent cluster of reviews is reduced.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS ARE SIGNIFICANT AND SPECIFIC: Multiple reviewers across different years cite prices as far above market rate — $6,882 for a water heater, $2,200 for hydro-jetting that failed, $1,144 for a $200 part, $600 for a toilet part costing $120, $1,438 for three faucets, $800 for a job the customer felt was overpriced. These are not vague complaints but itemized, specific, and credible.
• PROJECT COMPLETION FAILURES NOTED: At least one review describes a two-year hydro-jetting guarantee that was not honored. Another describes a repair that failed within 24 hours and led to a flooded home. A third describes a water heater replacement that may have been unnecessary. A fourth describes a gas leak repair that missed three additional leaks found by a competitor for less money.
• UNPERMITTED WORK ALLEGATION: One detailed 3-star review from 2021 alleges Pure Plumbing performs work without pulling permits first, then submits after-the-fact drawings — a practice the reviewer describes as illegal and potentially exposing homeowners to fines.
• UPSELLING COMPLAINTS: Multiple reviews across different years describe technicians recommending unnecessary or overpriced services, including a $2,800 power wash that was not needed, a $3,300 ductwork tune-up, and pressure to purchase services the customer declined.
• NO-SHOW INCIDENT: One review (2025-06-04) describes a technician never arriving within a 4-hour window, with no communication, causing the customer to take a day off work unnecessarily.
• HR HARASSMENT ALLEGATION: One review (2024-07-01) describes the head of HR accusing a potential customer of writing a negative Google review, with the accusation described as fabricated and harassing. The company's response was reportedly inadequate.
• WARRANTY DISPUTE: One review (2023-07-10) describes Pure Plumbing refusing to honor a water heater warranty, with the reviewer also noting the price paid was thousands above market rate.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews are from 2024-2025 and carry full recency weight. A substantial number of older reviews (2016-2021) are also present and generally positive, suggesting the company has maintained a long operational history but with recurring pricing and completion concerns throughout.
• GENERIC/THIN REVIEWS: A notable number of reviews contain no substantive text (rating only, or single generic sentences like 'Excellent service' or 'A true professional') and were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence for any specific dimension.

This WW Score is based on a very large review set (225 reviews) spanning approximately 9 years, giving it HIGH statistical confidence in direction and pattern, but the score should be interpreted with caution on pricing and project completion due to a consistent and credible pattern of overcharging complaints, at least two confirmed duplicate reviews suggesting possible manipulation, and several serious service failure accounts that are detailed and specific enough to be credible.

This review set spans two clearly distinct eras and likely two different operators under the 'Quality Handyman Services' name: a modern-era 'Brian' (2022–2024) with overwhelmingly positive reviews, and a historical 'Steve Lee' (2011–2015) with a significantly mixed record including multiple serious complaints about no-shows, abandoned work, unreturned calls, and poor workmanship. Brian's reviews are consistently strong across all dimensions — punctual, friendly, reasonably priced, and skilled across a wide variety of tasks. Steve Lee's record, by contrast, includes at least 12 reviews citing no-shows, failure to return calls, incomplete or shoddy work, and broken promises to return and fix problems. The blended scores reflect this bifurcation: professionalism and project completion are pulled down meaningfully by the Steve-era failures, while pricing and experience remain moderately strong across both eras. Consumers should be aware that the business appears to have changed hands or operators, and the modern Brian-era record (2022–2024) is substantially more reliable than the historical record.

• CRITICAL: Two distinct operators detected — 'Brian' (2022–2024) and 'Steve Lee' (2011–2015). These appear to be different individuals operating under the same business name. Scores are blended but should not be treated as reflecting a single consistent operator.
• Steve Lee era (2011–2015) contains at least 12 negative reviews citing: repeated no-shows, failure to return calls after promising to fix work, abandoned jobs, shoddy workmanship, and in one case a suspected theft. This is a serious pattern of unreliability.
• Brian era (2022–2024) contains 75+ reviews that are uniformly 5-star with no negative reviews whatsoever. While Brian's reviews appear genuine due to specific job details, the complete absence of any negative feedback across 75+ reviews warrants mild fake-review scrutiny.
• Several Brian-era reviews use somewhat similar phrasing ('highly recommend,' 'will definitely use again,' 'go-to guy') but most include specific job details, mitigating fake-review concern.
• Recency note: The vast majority of reviews from 2022–2024 are for Brian and are strongly positive. The Steve Lee reviews are all 8–11+ years old. If evaluating current service quality only, the WW Score for Brian alone would be substantially higher (estimated 88–92 range).
• One review (2015-05-27) describes Steve Lee failing to reimburse a customer for a botched garbage disposal installation where the dishwasher plug was not opened — a basic plumbing error.
• Multiple Steve-era reviews describe a pattern of Steve promising to return to fix problems and then going completely silent — a recurring and serious reliability failure.
• Two reviews reference a different named worker ('Ray/Steve' in one 2015 review and 'Dave' in a 2013 review), suggesting the business has historically used multiple contractors under the same brand name, making quality consistency unreliable in that era.

The overall WW Score of 79.4 should be interpreted with significant caution as it blends two very different operational eras; for current service (Brian, 2022–2024), confidence is HIGH and the implied score would be approximately 88–92, while the historical Steve Lee record (2011–2015) would score considerably lower and reflects a pattern of serious reliability failures that should not be ignored.

Rock Solid Home Repair earns strong marks across all four dimensions, with professionalism and experience being consistent highlights throughout dozens of reviews spanning multiple years. Technicians — particularly Scott, Ricardo, and Steve — are repeatedly praised for punctuality, friendliness, attention to detail, and technical skill across a wide variety of project types. Pricing is frequently described as fair, reasonable, and transparent, with multiple reviewers noting competitive quotes and no surprise charges. However, project completion is the weakest dimension: three separate reviews (1-star ratings) describe abandoned or incomplete work, one involving a half-demolished wall with money kept, one involving a subfloor left unleveled, and one involving a declined multi-stage job with allegations of bullying to remove the review. These are serious, credible completion failures that meaningfully drag down the project completion score. The overall picture is a company with genuine strengths but a documented pattern of walking away from complex or multi-visit jobs.

• THREE credible 1-star reviews describe incomplete or abandoned work: (1) owner allegedly kept full payment after half-demolishing a wall and refusing to finish; (2) subfloor left unleveled by 1 inch on a second bathroom renovation; (3) owner declined a multi-stage closet job and allegedly attempted to pressure reviewer into removing their review. These are not isolated incidents and represent a meaningful pattern.
• One 1-star review alleges technicians were unfamiliar with Thermador appliances and admitted it was their first time installing them, resulting in a botched install requiring a redo.
• Owner response behavior flagged: two separate negative reviewers independently allege the owner contacted them post-review to pressure removal. This is a reputational and integrity concern.
• Recency note: The majority of reviews with negative outcomes cluster in 2020 and 2023. Most glowing reviews span 2017–2024. The business has a long positive track record but negative incidents are not isolated to a single period.
• No strong fake review indicators detected. Reviews contain specific names, job descriptions, and varied language. However, the volume of 5-star reviews with no criticism whatsoever (roughly 43 out of 47) warrants mild caution — the ratio of perfect scores to critical scores is unusually high.
• Several older reviews (2017–2019) are beyond 5 years old and were given reduced weight in scoring relative to more recent reviews.

This WW Score is based on 47 reviews with strong mention counts across all four dimensions, giving it HIGH overall confidence; however, the score should be interpreted with caution given documented patterns of job abandonment and alleged owner intimidation of reviewers, which suggest the true project completion risk may be higher than the score alone conveys.

805 Plumbing receives consistently strong praise across all four dimensions, with the majority of reviewers highlighting Danny's punctuality, responsiveness, friendly attitude, and fair pricing. Multiple reviews specifically call out transparent and competitive quotes, cleanup after jobs, and same-day or next-day availability, which supports solid scores across professionalism, pricing, and project completion. However, one detailed 1-star review from July 2019 is a significant outlier, describing multiple instances of defective workmanship across several job types, incomplete work, overcharging, and aggressive behavior when asked for a license number — this materially drags down scores for project completion and experience. The negative review is specific, credible, and serious enough that it cannot be dismissed, particularly given the licensing concern raised. Most positive reviews are genuine in tone with job-specific detail, though the volume of 5-star reviews with no negative feedback outside of one review warrants mild caution.

• One 1-star review (2019-07-27) describes serious workmanship failures across multiple job types including a gas line, water softener drain, bathroom valves installed backwards, and incomplete shower drains — all reportedly requiring correction by a licensed plumber. This is a high-severity flag.
• The same 1-star review raises a licensing concern: the contractor allegedly screamed at the customer when asked to provide a license number. This is a significant red flag that should be independently verified before hiring.
• The 1-star review was posted one day after a generic 5-star review (2019-07-26) with no job-specific detail ('Amazing fast service! Super responsive... very fair with the pricing!!'). The timing and vagueness of that 5-star review raises suspicion it may have been posted in response to or anticipation of the negative review.
• The overall review pool is heavily skewed toward 5-star ratings (17 of 18 reviews). While many contain job-specific detail suggesting authenticity, the absence of any 2, 3, or 4-star reviews across the full history is a mild fake-review pattern indicator.
• Several reviews are older than 3 years (2019–2021), and the most serious negative review is from 2019. More recent reviews (2022–2024) are positive, but the sample size for recent work is limited to 6 reviews, reducing confidence in current performance trends.
• Recency note: Only 6 of 18 reviews are from the past 24 months (2022–2024). The majority of the review base is 3–5 years old, which limits confidence in assessing current service quality.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to mention volume across all dimensions, but should be treated with caution given one credible and detailed negative review describing serious workmanship failures, an unresolved licensing concern, and a review pool that is heavily skewed toward 5-star ratings with limited recent data.

J.R. Services demonstrates strong performance across all dimensions with consistent positive feedback. Professionalism is the strongest area, with five reviews explicitly praising responsiveness, communication, punctuality, and attitude. Pricing receives solid marks across three reviews citing reasonable and fair costs. Project completion is well-supported by four reviews confirming timely work and follow-through on commitments. Experience is validated by three reviews highlighting quality workmanship and attention to detail. However, the overall confidence is moderated by the small sample size and recency concerns.

• Only 5 of 7 reviews contain usable data; two reviews are too old (2014-2015) or lack content to be reliable
• All usable reviews are 5-star ratings with uniformly positive language, which raises minor concerns about review authenticity, though specific details are present in most reviews
• Most reviews are from 2023; only one review is from 2024, suggesting limited recent activity data
• Sample size is small (5 usable reviews); scores should be treated as preliminary and updated as more recent reviews accumulate

This WW Score should be treated as preliminary due to the small sample size of only 5 usable reviews and the age of most data (primarily 2023). The score is reliable for directional guidance but should be re-evaluated once 10+ recent reviews are available.