Find Nearby Plumbers In Las Vegas, Nevada

Thor Industries demonstrates strong overall performance with particular strengths in project completion and technical expertise. The company excels at same-day or rapid response, completing jobs efficiently, and delivering quality workmanship. Professionalism scores are solid but tempered by recurring communication and no-show issues documented across multiple reviews spanning 2018-2023. Pricing is generally perceived as fair and transparent, though some customers report higher-than-expected labor costs. The owner Troy and technicians Keith, Charles, and others receive consistent praise for honesty, integrity, and going above-and-beyond, but operational inconsistencies in scheduling and follow-up represent a material weakness.

• RECURRING NO-SHOW PATTERN: Multiple reviews (2018, 2019, 2023) document scheduled appointments with no-shows or no communication. This is a systemic issue affecting professionalism score.
• COMMUNICATION FAILURES: Several reviews cite poor callback responsiveness, missed scheduling confirmations, and lack of follow-up despite promises. This contradicts the company's otherwise strong reputation.
• PRICING DISPUTES: Two 1-star reviews (2021, 2023) allege price gouging on water heater installations ($1,350 and $1,000+ charges). One customer obtained same service elsewhere for less than half the price. This suggests inconsistent pricing practices.
• QUALITY CONTROL INCIDENT: One detailed 1-star review (2023) documents a tool left in toilet, property damage, and refusal to take responsibility—a serious quality and accountability failure.
• SCAM ALLEGATION: One 1-star review (2024) alleges the contractor (Aldo) charged for unnecessary parts, provided poor diagnosis, failed to resolve the issue, promised a callback and never showed, and took payment without delivering results.
• REVIEW DATE CLUSTERING: Approximately 60% of 5-star reviews are clustered on 2022-06-10 and 2021-06-10 with minimal or no text, suggesting possible bulk posting or review manipulation. This reduces confidence in the overall 5-star volume.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most detailed negative reviews are from 2023-2024 (recent), while many generic 5-star reviews are from 2015-2022. Recent pattern suggests deterioration in service consistency.
• INCONSISTENT OPERATOR QUALITY: Reviews mention multiple technicians (Troy, Keith, Charles, Matt, Manny, Frank, Beau, Aldo) with highly variable customer experiences, suggesting inconsistent training or quality control across the team.

This WW Score of 78.2 should be treated with MODERATE-TO-HIGH caution: while the company demonstrates genuine technical competence and integrity in many engagements, the recurring pattern of no-shows, communication failures, and recent pricing/quality disputes (2023-2024) indicate operational instability that contradicts the inflated 5-star average. The score reflects a company in transition with strong fundamentals undermined by execution inconsistencies; customers should verify current operational standards before engaging.

Sound Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism and technical expertise, with many customers praising specific technicians (Lilo, Bill, Noel, Sterling, Israel) for their knowledge, courtesy, and efficiency. However, the company shows significant inconsistency in project completion and follow-through, with multiple complaints about incomplete work, refusal to honor warranties, poor callbacks, and lack of accountability when previous technicians leave. Pricing feedback is mixed—some customers report fair value and transparent quotes, while others cite unexpected trip charges, inflated labor rates, and disputes over warranty coverage. The company's performance appears to have declined over time, with more recent negative reviews (2022-2024) citing management changes, staff turnover, and deteriorating service standards compared to earlier years (2015-2020).

• MANAGEMENT CHANGE IMPACT: Multiple reviews from 2023-2024 reference a new owner who fired loyal staff, suggesting organizational instability and potential service degradation.
• WARRANTY DISPUTES: Recurring pattern of warranty-related conflicts—company refuses to honor work or manufacturer warranties, shifts responsibility to customers, and lacks accountability when previous technicians are no longer employed.
• INCOMPLETE WORK: Several reviews document unfinished jobs, lack of callbacks to complete work, and refusal to return to fix problems (e.g., 2022 multi-fixture installation, 2022 sewer line location service).
• INCONSISTENT TECHNICIAN QUALITY: Stark contrast between highly-rated technicians (Lilo, Bill, Noel, Sterling) and poorly-reviewed ones; suggests inconsistent hiring/training standards.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Reviews from 2020-2024 show deteriorating satisfaction compared to 2015-2019 period, indicating declining service quality over time.
• PRICING TRANSPARENCY ISSUES: Multiple complaints about hidden charges (trip fees, service call fees not disclosed upfront), inflated labor rates, and surprise add-ons.
• COMMUNICATION FAILURES: Several reports of unanswered calls, no callbacks from technicians, and poor responsiveness to customer issues.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: Multiple 5-star reviews from 2020-06-10 with minimal or no text content (empty reviews) suggest possible review manipulation or bulk posting.

This WW Score of 78.2 should be treated with MODERATE-TO-HIGH caution. While the score is supported by substantial data (104 reviews), the company exhibits a clear bifurcation: exceptional service from select technicians in earlier years versus systemic failures in recent years (2022-2024). The score reflects a historical average that masks current deterioration. Customers considering Sound Plumbing should be aware that recent reviews indicate warranty disputes, incomplete work, and management instability. The company's reliability has declined measurably since 2020, and the overall score does not adequately reflect this negative trajectory.

Valleywide Leak Detection demonstrates strong technical expertise and professionalism, with 52 mentions of skilled workmanship and 48 mentions of professional conduct including punctuality and courteous service. However, the company shows significant inconsistency in project completion and responsiveness, with multiple reviews (at least 6) documenting failure to return calls, ghosting customers, and incomplete follow-up work. Pricing is generally perceived as fair and competitive (22 mentions), though some customers questioned value relative to work performed. The stark contrast between highly satisfied customers and those reporting communication breakdowns suggests operational inconsistency, possibly related to capacity management during busy periods.

• CRITICAL: Multiple reviews (2021-05-18, 2022-03-28, 2023-12-05, 2019-08-01, 2019-10-30) document failure to return calls, full voicemails, and ghosting after service delivery. This pattern suggests systemic communication/responsiveness issues.
• INCONSISTENCY ALERT: Same owner (Ino) receives glowing praise in majority of reviews but is also named in negative reviews for non-responsiveness and broken promises. This suggests either inconsistent service delivery or possible staff turnover issues.
• FRAUD ALLEGATIONS: Review from 2020-03-05 alleges false claims about technical capabilities (PVC line tracing), misrepresented partnerships, and pricing discrepancies. Review from 2019-10-30 explicitly calls the company a 'scam.' These are serious allegations that warrant caution.
• QUALITY VARIANCE: One 1-star review (2024-09-27) describes a major project failure (pool piping redo with leaks post-completion and refusal to return for repairs). This contradicts the company's otherwise strong completion record and suggests potential issues with larger/more complex projects.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most negative reviews cluster in 2019-2022 period. Recent reviews (2024, 2023) are predominantly 5-star, which could indicate either improved operations or potential review manipulation. The 2024-09-27 negative review is a notable exception.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: Approximately 35+ reviews contain nearly identical praise language ('highly recommend,' 'professional,' 'found the leak,' 'fair price') with minimal specific detail. While this could reflect genuine satisfaction, the volume and similarity warrant caution. However, many reviews do contain specific technical details (bucket tests, dye testing, pressure testing, specific locations) which suggests authenticity.

This WW Score of 78.2 should be treated with MODERATE-TO-HIGH caution: while the company demonstrates genuine technical expertise and professionalism in the majority of engagements, documented patterns of communication failure, unresolved callbacks, and at least one major project failure create material risk. The score reflects strong performance on technical dimensions but is significantly penalized by project completion inconsistency. Prospective customers should be aware that positive outcomes appear highly likely, but follow-up responsiveness and accountability for incomplete work represent genuine concerns based on multiple independent reports.

Elite Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism (82.5) with consistent praise for punctuality, courtesy, and responsiveness across 187 mentions. Pricing is competitive and fair (78.0) with 68 mentions highlighting reasonable costs and transparency. However, project completion shows the most concern (72.5) with 142 mentions revealing significant follow-through issues: multiple callbacks not honored, incomplete work requiring repeat visits, poor communication about scheduling, and several instances of abandoned jobs. Experience/skill is solid (80.0) across 95 mentions, with technicians generally demonstrating competence and problem-solving ability. The company's performance is inconsistent—excellent technical work undermined by administrative and follow-through failures.

• CRITICAL: Multiple reviews (15+) document severe project completion failures including abandoned jobs, non-responsive callbacks, and incomplete work requiring other contractors to finish repairs. Examples: septic tank project abandoned 6 months in, water heater installation never completed, faucet replacement never followed up on.
• COMMUNICATION BREAKDOWN: Recurring pattern of unresponsive office staff (Nicole mentioned multiple times), voicemail boxes full, no return calls, and email-only communication causing delays. At least 12 reviews cite inability to reach the company.
• INCONSISTENT QUALITY: Wide variance in service quality depending on technician assigned. Some technicians (Frank, Ryan, Salvador, Dale) consistently praised; others (Stewart, Brandon) associated with poor follow-through and unprofessional behavior.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEWS: Approximately 20 recent reviews (dated None/no date) show suspiciously identical phrasing patterns ('Salvador/Sal was professional,' 'responded immediately,' 'highly recommend') with generic praise and no specific details. These cluster at end of review list and lack dates. Confidence reduced slightly due to this pattern.
• CREDIT CARD FRAUD ALLEGATION: One review (2024-05-26) alleges unauthorized credit card processing without customer authorization—serious compliance concern.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most recent dated reviews (2025) are from Payless Plumbing/different company name. Older Elite Plumbing reviews (2003-2016) show more detailed narratives; recent undated reviews lack specificity, suggesting possible review manipulation or company rebranding.
• WARRANTY COMPANY DISPUTES: Multiple reviews (8+) document conflicts with home warranty companies, suggesting either systemic billing/coverage issues or poor coordination with warranty processes.

This WW Score of 76.8 should be treated with MODERATE-TO-HIGH caution: while professionalism and experience scores are well-supported by extensive mentions, the project completion score is significantly dragged down by documented failures in follow-through and communication. The recent cluster of undated, suspiciously similar positive reviews raises authenticity concerns. Prospective customers should prioritize requesting specific technician assignments (Frank, Ryan, Salvador, Dale show best track records) and establish clear written completion timelines with penalty clauses, as administrative follow-through appears to be the company's primary weakness despite solid technical capability.

Sin City Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism and technical expertise, with consistent praise for courteous, knowledgeable technicians and same-day responsiveness. However, the company is significantly hampered by serious pricing concerns and project completion issues. Multiple reviews document bait-and-switch pricing tactics, unexpected cost escalations mid-project, threats of liens against homeowners, and instances of no-show appointments. While individual technicians (Sam, Ura, Diego, Nate, Luis, Corky) receive high marks for skill and demeanor, systemic issues with estimates, follow-through, and billing practices create substantial trust deficits. The company's WW Score reflects strong execution on service delivery but critical failures in transparency and accountability.

• CRITICAL: Multiple documented cases of pricing deception—customers quoted one price, then charged significantly more mid-project ($1,000+ overages). At least 4 detailed reviews describe this pattern.
• CRITICAL: Documented threats to file liens against homeowners for non-payment of disputed charges. Nevada State Contractor's Board ruled against the company in at least one case, requiring them to retract lien threats and refund deposits.
• CRITICAL: No-show appointments without advance notice—at least 3 reviews document customers taking time off work and waiting full appointment windows with no call or show.
• SERIOUS: Incomplete or defective work requiring callbacks and corrections. One review documents a pressure regulator adjustment that burst underground pipes, forcing a $26,000+ re-pipe project. Another describes loose drain connections left after installation.
• SERIOUS: Inconsistent quality control. Same company praised for meticulous work in some reviews but criticized for sloppy work, poor cleanup, and damaged property in others.
• MODERATE: Pricing inconsistency—some customers report 'fair' and 'reasonable' pricing while others describe the company as 'way overpriced' and using emergency situations to inflate costs.
• MODERATE: Several reviews from 2022-2024 describe aggressive upselling and pressure tactics, contrasting with earlier reviews praising honesty.
• NOTE: Recency concern—most negative reviews cluster in 2022-2024, suggesting potential deterioration in business practices over time. Earlier reviews (2017-2021) are predominantly positive.

This WW Score should be treated with caution despite HIGH overall confidence. While the score reflects genuine strengths in technician professionalism and technical skill, it masks critical systemic failures in pricing transparency, project completion accountability, and customer protection. The company's documented history of pricing deception, lien threats, and no-shows represents material risks that numerical scoring alone cannot adequately capture. Prospective customers should obtain multiple bids, get detailed written estimates with no-change guarantees, and verify references for large projects before engaging this company.

Allstate Service Group has a large and predominantly positive review base, with the majority of customers praising responsiveness, fair pricing, and friendly technicians. However, a meaningful cluster of 1-star reviews describes serious failures including alleged fraudulent HVAC repairs with bypassed wiring that posed a fire hazard, no-call/no-show appointments, poor communication from staff, abandoned or incomplete work, and subcontracted work of poor quality. These negative reviews are specific, detailed, and credible, preventing any dimension from scoring in the high 80s or above. Pricing scores well overall because many reviewers explicitly praised competitive and transparent quotes, but the project completion score is dragged down by multiple accounts of jobs left unfinished, quality defects never remedied, and unresponsive follow-through. The experience dimension reflects a split between highly skilled individual technicians praised by name and other technicians described as unknowledgeable or unprofessional.

• Multiple 1-star reviews describe serious and specific failures: alleged use of faulty or used HVAC parts with bypassed wiring creating a fire hazard, a no-call/no-show leaving a customer with worsening water damage, a manager hanging up on a customer, and a bathroom remodel with persistent quality defects and unanswered calls.
• One review (2022-04-21) describes a significant project completion failure involving tile delays, subcontractor damage, and the company going silent — this is a high-severity flag for project completion reliability on larger jobs.
• One review (2021-12-10) describes subcontracted workers being given unsupervised access to a home and leaving debris including a beer can in a compost bin — raises concerns about vetting of subcontractors.
• Several 5-star reviews are brief and generic (e.g., 'Great price and quick service. Highly recommend', 'Unequivocally the best', 'From beginning to end they were wonderful') with no specific details. These may inflate the positive signal and were weighted conservatively.
• Review recency is generally good — the majority of reviews fall within 2022–2024, with the most serious negative reviews also being recent (2023–2024), which increases their weight in scoring.
• The 2024 HVAC review alleging fire hazard from bypassed wiring is the most severe flag in the dataset and was given significant weight in reducing the project completion and experience scores.

This WW Score is based on a large review set with good recency and carries HIGH overall confidence, but prospective customers should weigh the specific and credible negative reviews carefully — particularly for HVAC work and larger remodel projects — as they reveal meaningful inconsistency in quality and follow-through that the aggregate score alone does not fully convey.