Find Nearby Plumbers In Las Vegas, Nevada

Hydro-Jetting Pros demonstrates strong technical expertise and responsiveness, with many customers praising Bryan's knowledge, quick service, and fair pricing on routine jobs. However, the company suffers from significant inconsistency: while 60+ reviews are highly positive (5-star), approximately 15 reviews document serious problems including incomplete work, overcharging, unprofessional behavior (including profanity), property damage, and failure to honor callbacks. Major red flags include allegations of bait-and-switch pricing, work not completed as promised, and hostile customer interactions. The company's professionalism score is dragged down by documented instances of rudeness, cancellations with minimal notice, and post-payment behavioral changes. Project completion concerns stem from multiple reports of unfinished work, callbacks not honored, and jobs requiring re-work by other contractors.

• CRITICAL: Pattern of serious complaints about incomplete work and overcharging on larger jobs ($675-$2490+ range), with customers reporting work not done despite payment
• CRITICAL: Multiple documented instances of unprofessional behavior including profanity toward customers, rudeness in communications, and hostile responses to negative reviews
• CRITICAL: Bait-and-switch pricing allegations—quotes given online significantly lower than prices quoted on-site; at least 3 detailed complaints of this pattern
• CRITICAL: Callback failures—multiple customers report being unable to reach company after payment or receiving hostile responses when requesting corrections
• MODERATE: Potential fake review pattern—approximately 35+ reviews use nearly identical phrasing ('highly recommend,' 'great service,' 'professional,' 'quick response') with minimal specific detail; many are 5-star with generic praise
• MODERATE: Quality inconsistency—same technician (Bryan) receives both glowing praise and serious complaints; suggests either inconsistent execution or selective reporting
• MODERATE: Property damage allegations in at least 3 reviews (flame damage to wall, scratches, broken supply lines, uncleaned work areas)
• MODERATE: Recency concern—most negative reviews cluster in early 2023 and late 2024; recent reviews (Nov 2024) include both 5-star and 1-star with serious allegations
• LIMITED: One review mentions $10 discount offered to post positive Yelp review, raising questions about review authenticity

This WW Score of 74.2 should be treated with CAUTION despite HIGH confidence in data volume. The company excels at routine, small-ticket jobs ($50-$300) with strong responsiveness and fair pricing, but demonstrates a troubling pattern of problems on larger, more complex projects. The stark polarization between positive and negative reviews, combined with documented instances of unprofessional conduct and incomplete work, suggests this company is high-risk for jobs exceeding $500. Customers should obtain detailed written quotes, verify scope in writing before work begins, and be prepared to escalate disputes. The company's willingness to engage in hostile communication with customers is a serious red flag.

Mike's Pro Handyman Service has a large and generally positive review base spanning 2016–2024, with the majority of customers praising punctuality, friendliness, responsiveness, and broad technical skill across electrical, plumbing, and general handyman tasks. However, a meaningful cluster of negative reviews (7 out of 72, roughly 10%) raises legitimate concerns across all four dimensions: multiple reviewers describe abandoned or incomplete work, failure to return calls or texts, shoddy workmanship (holes left in walls, poor drywall texture, loose wiring after installation), and aggressive payment harassment. Pricing is generally viewed as fair to reasonable, though one reviewer noted prices were 'average to average high' and another flagged a lack of transparent quoting. Project completion is the most penalized dimension, as several reviews explicitly describe jobs left unfinished, missed appointments, and failure to honor callbacks — a serious pattern for a contractor. Experience scores moderately well given the breadth of work completed successfully, but the electrical and drywall failures described in negative reviews prevent a high score.

• 7 negative reviews (ratings of 1–2 stars) explicitly describe incomplete work, abandoned jobs, no-shows, failure to return calls, and poor workmanship — these are not vague complaints and materially impact project completion and professionalism scores.
• One review (2018-06-08) describes loose and disconnected wiring after a Ring doorbell installation, which is a safety concern and a direct indicator of workmanship quality risk.
• One review (2023-05-15) describes 13 unauthorized holes knocked in walls, no cleanup, and a demand for additional payment to fix the damage — a significant professionalism and project completion failure.
• One review (2017-07-12) describes a job left incomplete since May with repeated no-shows and excuses over months, and one review (2018-04-05) states 'left one sink leaking and left another one unfinished' — both are explicit project abandonment incidents.
• One review (2022-07-22) describes 14 phone calls, 3 texts, and an email in a single morning demanding payment — flagged as a professionalism concern regardless of the underlying payment dispute.
• One review (2019-10-02) describes repeated non-responses, a missed appointment, and combative behavior on the phone — corroborating a pattern of inconsistent communication.
• Recency note: The most recent negative review is from June 2023 and the most recent positive review is from June 2024, suggesting the business is still active. The negative pattern is not isolated to older reviews.
• No fake review patterns detected. Reviews vary in length, specificity, tone, and rating. Negative reviews are detailed and credible. No suspicious clustering of identical phrasing observed.
• A significant portion of positive reviews are older than 12 months (pre-2023), which reduces their weight under recency rules. Only a handful of reviews are from 2023–2024.

This WW Score is based on 72 reviews with a high volume of usable data across all four dimensions, making it statistically reliable; however, the recurring pattern of abandoned work, non-responsiveness, and workmanship failures in negative reviews is credible and specific enough to meaningfully suppress scores, and prospective customers should weigh those accounts carefully before hiring.

One Drop Plumbing demonstrates genuine strengths in technical skill and responsiveness, with multiple reviewers praising individual technicians by name for solving problems that other plumbers could not. Pricing is generally viewed as fair or better than competitors, though one detailed negative review raises a credible concern about excessive ancillary charges beyond the quoted service fee. Project completion is the most problematic dimension: at least two reviews describe missed appointments, no-shows, poor follow-through, and a case where a faucet was damaged and the job was left incomplete. Professionalism scores are pulled down by a documented incident of unprofessional conduct by a company vehicle driver and a recurring pattern of poor front-office communication, even as field technicians are frequently praised. The score reflects a company with skilled workers but inconsistent administrative and follow-through processes.

• One review (2022-01-18, 5 stars) is suspiciously vague — 'I'm literally in shock on the outstanding service! Search no further... you are in the best of hands here! FIVE STARS!' — with zero specifics. This review provides no usable data and was excluded from dimension scoring.
• One review (2022-11-04) states the reviewer did NOT use One Drop Plumbing but still rated them 4 stars based on a phone inquiry only. This was treated as limited data for pricing/responsiveness only and not counted toward completion or experience.
• No fake review pattern detected across the remaining reviews — most contain specific details, named technicians, and varied experiences including negative ones, which increases overall credibility.
• Two reviews explicitly describe missed appointments and no-contact no-shows (2021-07-19), and one describes a technician arriving without the ordered part after a two-week wait (2022-07-20). These are significant project completion failures.
• The negative pricing review (2023-01-10, 2 stars) is detailed and credible, alleging inflated permit fees and parts charges used as leverage to extract additional payment. This materially reduces the pricing score.
• Most reviews are older than 12 months relative to a mid-2025 evaluation date. Only two reviews fall within the past 12 months (2024-01-13 and 2024-02-28), both positive but limited in detail. Recency data is thin and the score should be interpreted with that in mind.

This WW Score is based on 17 reviews with usable data spanning approximately three years, with strong mention counts across all four dimensions, yielding HIGH confidence in the score directionally — however, the low volume of recent reviews (only 2 from the past 12 months) means current performance cannot be fully verified and the score should be treated as a reasonable but not definitive indicator of present-day quality.

Moonlight Plumbing has a strong base of loyal, satisfied customers who consistently praise specific staff members like Derek, Jacob, Eddie, and office manager Rosalie/Rosalee for professionalism, punctuality, and quality workmanship. However, the review set contains a meaningful number of serious negative experiences that cannot be ignored: multiple reviewers reported no-shows without callbacks, billing disputes, work left incomplete or done incorrectly, and one reviewer alleged that the final cost was more than double the quoted estimate along with threats from the owner. Pricing is generally viewed as fair or competitive, but at least two reviewers flagged costs as high or inconsistent with the original quote. Project completion is the most concerning dimension, with several reviews describing unfinished work, incorrect installations, and failure to honor callbacks. The score reflects a company with genuine strengths but a pattern of reliability and accountability failures that meaningfully drag down overall trustworthiness.

• Multiple no-show and no-callback complaints across different years (2017, 2021, 2021), suggesting a recurring operational reliability issue rather than isolated incidents.
• One reviewer (2016) alleged the final cost was less than half the quoted estimate in the wrong direction — i.e., the final bill was more than double the quote — and claimed the owner threatened legal action if a negative review was posted. This is a serious flag.
• One reviewer (2021) reported being charged for two workers when only one was present for the full job, incorrect installation of a toilet, and no warranty or callback support — indicating potential billing integrity issues.
• One reviewer (2023) reported that the owner promised to perform the work himself but sent inexperienced workers instead, and that an unresolved issue was still charged for.
• One reviewer (2015) stated the owner was 'belittling' and that the work was not fully completed, requiring a second professional to redo it.
• Review dates span from 2010 to 2024. The majority of highly positive reviews cluster between 2018 and 2019, which may reflect a peak period of service quality. More recent reviews (2021–2024) show a more mixed picture.
• Several 5-star reviews from 2018–2019 share similar structure and praise for the same staff members (Rosalie, Jacob, Derek), which could reflect genuine loyalty but warrants mild scrutiny for possible review solicitation patterns. No definitive fake review pattern detected, but the clustering is notable.
• One review (2010) docked a star due to a gendered comment from a technician suggesting the customer get a male relative to help — a minor but noted professionalism concern.

This WW Score is based on 40 reviews spanning 14 years with high mention counts across all four dimensions, giving it strong statistical grounding, but the presence of multiple credible and specific negative reviews — including billing disputes, no-shows, incomplete work, and an allegation of owner misconduct — means the score should be treated as a realistic mid-range assessment rather than a strong endorsement.

Drain Busters demonstrates strong professionalism with punctual arrivals, courteous technicians, and responsive communication across 187 reviews. Technical expertise is solid with 142 mentions of skilled workmanship and problem-solving. However, pricing emerges as a significant weakness with 89 mentions revealing a pattern of overcharging, hidden fees, aggressive upselling, and quotes that escalate dramatically during service. Project completion shows mixed results with 156 mentions—while many jobs are finished promptly, several reviews document incomplete work, no-shows, and follow-up failures. The company's reputation is bifurcated: exceptional service from certain technicians (Troy, Joe, Aaron, Daniel, etc.) contrasts sharply with poor experiences involving overcharging and incomplete work.

• PRICING INTEGRITY CONCERN: Multiple reviews (at least 15+) document significant price escalation tactics—initial quotes of $175–$1,100 jumping to $3,500–$4,000 during service. Pattern suggests deliberate step-by-step upselling.
• INCOMPLETE WORK & NO-SHOWS: At least 8 reviews report abandoned jobs, no-call/no-show situations, or work left unfinished (e.g., 2023-05-23 main water line job with code violations; 2022-02-09 drywall repair coordination failure).
• INCONSISTENT SERVICE QUALITY: Stark contrast between highly-rated technicians (Joe, Troy, Aaron, Daniel) and problematic ones (Daryl, Alex, Spencer). Suggests inconsistent hiring/training standards.
• FOLLOW-UP FAILURES: Multiple reviews (2023-10-27, 2022-11-27) report lack of follow-up after service complaints or promised callbacks never received.
• DAMAGE LIABILITY: At least 3 reviews document property damage (2023-01-07 drain pipe damage; 2016-04-28 ceiling damage from excessive pressure) with disputed responsibility and poor resolution.
• MERGER/REBRANDING: Company merged with ICE heating/AC (noted in 2024 reviews). Possible operational disruption or confusion.
• RECENCY PATTERN: Most negative reviews cluster in 2022–2024, suggesting potential decline in service standards or increased aggressive pricing in recent years.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK - LOW: While many 5-star reviews exist, they are specific, detailed, and mention individual technician names. No obvious patterns of identical phrasing detected. However, the volume of 5-star reviews (approximately 70% of total) combined with documented pricing issues suggests possible selective review management.

This WW Score of 72.8 should be treated with CAUTION. While professionalism and experience scores are supported by high-confidence data, the pricing dimension reveals systematic overcharging and upselling that significantly undermines overall trustworthiness. The company's service quality is highly dependent on which technician is assigned; customers should specifically request experienced technicians (Joe, Troy, Aaron) and obtain detailed written estimates with firm pricing before work begins. Recent reviews (2022–2024) show deterioration compared to older reviews, suggesting declining standards. Do not rely on this company's initial quotes—obtain multiple competitive bids and verify all pricing in writing before authorizing work.

Champion Services demonstrates strong professionalism and technical expertise across most engagements, with technicians frequently praised for punctuality, politeness, and skill. However, the company is significantly hampered by persistent pricing concerns, with numerous customers reporting excessive quotes and overcharges that substantially exceed market rates. Project completion shows moderate reliability with some follow-through issues and callback problems noted. The high volume of recent positive reviews (past 12 months) is offset by a troubling pattern of pricing complaints and occasional service failures spanning multiple years.

• PRICING RED FLAG: 32 mentions of pricing issues reveal a systemic problem. Customers report quotes 2-10x higher than competitors for identical work (e.g., $500+ for simple installations, $700+ for tile work, $1000+ for HVAC maintenance). This is the single largest driver of negative sentiment.
• FAKE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: Multiple reviews show identical or near-identical phrasing praising 'Andrew' with suspiciously generic language ('wonderful person,' 'talented, professional, kind and gracious'). Two reviews dated 2025-06-09 and 2025-06-06 are nearly word-for-word duplicates. Several other reviews lack specifics and use identical praise structures. Confidence in positive reviews reduced accordingly.
• SERVICE RELIABILITY ISSUES: Multiple no-show and cancellation complaints spanning 2018-2025. Customers report being stood up 2-3 times, missed appointment windows, and lack of communication. This pattern suggests systemic dispatch/scheduling problems.
• QUALITY CONTROL VARIANCE: Wide disparity in technician quality. Some reviews praise specific technicians (Andrew, Justin, Mark, Edgar) repeatedly, while others report incompetence, unprofessionalism, and poor workmanship from different technicians at the same company.
• FOLLOW-UP FAILURES: Several customers report promised callbacks and warranty work not being honored or delayed significantly.
• RECENCY BIAS NOTED: Most recent reviews (2025) are overwhelmingly positive with suspicious similarity. Older reviews (2018-2022) contain more detailed complaints about pricing, no-shows, and quality issues. Recent positive surge may reflect review manipulation or selective posting.

This WW Score of 72.8 should be treated with CAUTION. While professionalism and experience scores are solid and based on substantial evidence, the pricing dimension reveals a critical systemic issue that significantly undermines overall trustworthiness. The company appears to have a two-tier reputation: strong technical execution by certain technicians offset by aggressive pricing practices and occasional service failures. Customers should expect high-quality work but should obtain multiple competitive quotes before engaging, as pricing appears substantially above market rates. The suspicious clustering of identical positive reviews in 2025 further reduces confidence in the overall score.