Find Nearby Plumbers In Las Vegas, Nevada

The majority of reviews praise punctuality, friendliness, and responsiveness, driving a solid but not exceptional professionalism score. However, a meaningful cluster of negative reviews — including a no-call no-show, rude behavior by a technician named Scott, an appointment cancellation without notice, and a plumber who insulted a customer's wife — meaningfully depresses the professionalism dimension. Pricing is mixed: many reviewers cite fair or below-market rates, but several explicitly describe being overcharged, quoted worst-case-scenario prices and billed in full, or charged for unnecessary work, pulling the pricing score down. Project completion is similarly split — most jobs are described as completed well, but there are notable failures including a job left out of code, a repair that failed the next day with no warranty honored, a no-show after payment, and a leak that recurred due to improper sealing. Experience scores moderately well given many reviewers cite knowledgeable, skilled technicians, but is tempered by reviews describing poor workmanship, incorrect installations, and dishonest diagnoses.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: The review 'On time, communicative, super friendly, good job done quickly' (5-star) appears on both 2025-06-08 and 2025-06-05 with identical text. The review 'Plumb perfect Replaced our maniblock...' appears on both 2025-06-06 and 2025-06-03 with identical text. The review 'Great job at a very reasonable price...' appears on both 2025-06-06 and 2025-06-03 with identical text. These three pairs of duplicates are likely fake or artificially inflated reviews and have been treated as single reviews for scoring purposes.
• MULTI-ENTITY CONCERN: Reviews reference multiple distinct business names including 'Plumb Crazy LLC', 'Plumb Perfect', and reference technicians across very different geographic markets (Utah, Virginia/Maryland, California/Nevada). This review set likely aggregates reviews for multiple separate businesses operating under similar names, which significantly undermines the reliability of any composite score.
• RECENCY IMBALANCE: A substantial portion of reviews date from 2009 to 2019, with the most recent cluster from 2025. Older reviews may not reflect current ownership, staffing, or service quality. The negative reviews from 2021–2024 (rude owner Scott, no-show, rude behavior in home) are more recent and carry elevated weight.
• NEGATIVE REVIEW PATTERN: Multiple 1-star reviews describe serious issues — a plumber refusing to wear a mask and being antagonistic, a technician insulting a customer's wife, a job installed out of city code, refusal to honor warranty on defective work, and a no-call no-show. These are not isolated incidents and span multiple years and apparent business entities.
• SCORE INFLATION RISK: The large volume of brief, generic 5-star reviews (e.g., 'Great service.', 'It went well.', 'unknown', blank reviews) with no substantive detail inflates the apparent rating. These reviews were excluded from dimension scoring but contribute to the raw review count.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large review volume, but its trustworthiness as a guide to a single contractor is MODERATE at best, given strong evidence that reviews span multiple distinct businesses operating under similar names, the presence of confirmed duplicate (likely fake) reviews, and a recurring pattern of serious negative experiences that should not be dismissed.

This contractor has a large and broadly positive review base, with many customers praising responsiveness, friendliness, and fair pricing across dozens of detailed accounts. However, a meaningful cluster of negative reviews — spanning multiple years and multiple locations — describes serious recurring issues including unresolved work, misdiagnosis, overcharging, combative technician behavior, abandoned jobs, and failure to return calls. The negative reviews are specific, credible, and detailed enough to materially reduce scores across all four dimensions. Pricing in particular is mixed: while many customers praise value, several describe being charged significantly more than quoted or paying for work that failed to fix the problem. Project completion is similarly dragged down by multiple accounts of jobs left incomplete, recurring leaks after service, and technicians leaving without resolving the issue.

• DUPLICATE REVIEW ALERT: At least 8 reviews appear to be near-identical duplicates posted on different dates (e.g., the 'Monthy arrived promptly' review, the 'Monte beat the other guys price by several thousand' review, the 'Once again, an impressive job' review, the 'Needed a plumber to help me get some pipes unclogged' review, the 'Superb Service At A Reasonable Price' review, the 'We had A Better Plumbing Company out to our house' review, and the 'Having a Home Inspection business' review each appear twice with different dates). This is a strong indicator of review manipulation or platform aggregation artifacts and significantly reduces confidence in the positive review pool.
• MULTI-ENTITY CONCERN: Reviews reference multiple distinct business names (A Better Plumbing, A-Better Plumbing LLC, A&E Plumbing) and multiple owner/operator names (Monte, Roland, Eric, Jeff, Billy, James Dolph) across different geographic markets (Las Vegas NV, Pearland TX, St. George UT, Houston TX). It is likely these reviews represent more than one business, which undermines the reliability of aggregate scoring.
• FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: A large number of 5-star reviews contain generic praise with no job-specific detail (e.g., 'Great professional work and people. Thanks', 'Always courteous and reliable. These are my go-to plumbers!', 'Used this company several times. Awesome service!'). Several reviews are entirely blank with only a star rating. These patterns are consistent with inflated review profiles.
• RECENCY NOTE: Reviews span from 2007 to 2025. A significant portion of reviews predate 2022 and should be weighted lower. The most recent negative reviews (2024–2025) describe serious competency and professionalism failures, which are particularly concerning as indicators of current service quality.
• NEGATIVE REVIEW CREDIBILITY: Multiple 1-star reviews are highly specific, include named technicians, describe sequential failures, and reference financial harm. These are assessed as credible and are weighted accordingly in scoring.
• RESPONSIVENESS FAILURES: At least 7 separate reviews across different time periods describe the company failing to return calls or respond to messages, which is a consistent and recurring operational weakness.

This WW Score should be treated with LOW-TO-MODERATE trust due to confirmed duplicate reviews, likely multi-entity review aggregation across different geographic markets and business names, a pattern of generic 5-star reviews with no verifiable detail, and a credible cluster of serious negative reviews describing competency failures, overcharging, and incomplete work.

American Brothers Plumbing has a large and mixed review base spanning several years. Professionalism scores moderately well overall — the majority of reviewers praise individual technicians (Michael, Ruben, Matt, Chris, David) for friendliness, punctuality, and communication — but this is significantly dragged down by a recurring and serious pattern of the company failing to follow up, not returning calls, not delivering promised quotes, and abandoning jobs mid-stream. Pricing is the weakest dimension: multiple credible, detailed reviews describe significant price gouging, charges for services not rendered (notably a $300 inspection fee never fulfilled), and quotes 2–3x higher than competitors, with several reviewers explicitly warning others. Project completion is also a concern — there are multiple documented cases of incomplete work, jobs left unfinished, failed repairs that were never corrected, and a particularly serious case of a water line replacement where a required city inspection was never scheduled but was charged for and covered up for months. Experience scores reasonably well when work is actually completed, with many reviewers praising technical skill and problem-solving, but is undermined by instances of sloppy installations causing subsequent water damage and failed repairs.

• SERIOUS ACCOUNTABILITY PATTERN: Multiple independent reviews (2019–2025) document the company failing to return calls after jobs, not delivering promised quotes, and abandoning incomplete work. This is a systemic issue, not isolated incidents.
• INSPECTION FRAUD CONCERN: One detailed 2025 review (3-star, May 2025) credibly describes the company charging ~$300 for a city inspection that was never scheduled, covering the excavation before any inspector arrived, providing false assurances for months, and then going silent. This is a significant integrity flag.
• PRICE GOUGING PATTERN: At least 6–8 independent reviews across multiple years describe being quoted prices 2–4x higher than competitors for identical work. One reviewer was quoted $27,000 for a job completed by another licensed contractor for $9,000. Another was quoted $1,000 for a soldering job done elsewhere for $300.
• INCOMPLETE WORK PATTERN: Multiple reviews describe technicians completing only part of an agreed scope (e.g., 2 of 6 items), leaving without notice, or performing repairs that failed immediately and then becoming unreachable.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — MODERATE: A cluster of reviews dated exactly '2023-06-09 00:00:00' and '2022-06-09 00:00:00' with identical timestamps and very generic praise ('Best plumbing company in Nevada', 'Just peachy. Perfect install.', 'Great! Professional and timely') with no specifics are suspicious. Two reviews appear to be near-identical duplicates (the 'I have used American Brothers a number of times' review appears twice with nearly identical text). Confidence in the positive review pool is slightly reduced.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The review beginning 'I have used American Brothers a number of times for different needs. They are responsive and reliable...' appears to be posted twice with nearly identical content (April 2023 and June 2023). This inflates positive review counts.
• RECENCY NOTE: The two most recent reviews (May 2025) are both negative (1-star and 3-star), describing unresolved leaks and the inspection fraud issue. The most recent positive reviews are from late 2024. The trend in 2025 is negative.
• TWO BLANK REVIEWS with only a rating and no text were excluded from dimension scoring but counted in total reviews analyzed.

This WW Score is based on a large review sample (125 reviews) and carries HIGH statistical confidence in its directional accuracy, but consumers should weight the negative reviews heavily as they are consistently more detailed, specific, and credible than many of the generic positive reviews, and the recurring patterns of non-responsiveness, incomplete work, and pricing complaints represent genuine systemic risks.

Best Air Conditioning and Plumbing receives consistently strong marks for professionalism and technical experience, with the vast majority of reviewers praising named technicians for punctuality, friendliness, clear communication, and thoroughness. However, pricing is a serious and recurring concern — multiple independent reviewers across different years explicitly describe quotes as dramatically higher than competitors, with specific examples including a $4,000 water heater install, a $7,000 unnecessary service quote, $20K ductwork later deemed overpriced, and plumbing quotes 2–6x higher than alternatives. Project completion is generally solid, with most jobs described as finished correctly and on time, but there are notable failures including a no-show appointment, an unresolved callback, a misdiagnosis, and a duct job missing critical components. The pricing dimension is the single largest drag on the WW Score and represents a genuine, well-documented pattern rather than isolated complaints.

• PRICING CONCERN — HIGH SEVERITY: At least 10 reviews explicitly cite pricing as excessive, with specific dollar amounts that were independently verified as 2x to 6x market rate. This is a consistent, multi-year pattern and not isolated incidents.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — MODERATE: The cluster of 15+ reviews all dated 2025-05-09 mentioning 'Julio' are highly suspicious. They share repetitive phrasing ('knowledgeable,' 'professional,' 'cleaned up'), are all 5-star, and several read as templated. These reviews were scored conservatively and flagged.
• MISDIAGNOSIS INCIDENT: One reviewer documented that Best Air recommended a $9,000 tub surround replacement when the actual issue was a leaking faucet costing under $250 to fix. A separate reviewer documented a $7,000 quote for a service two other parties deemed completely unnecessary.
• ABANDONED SERVICE / NO CALLBACK: One reviewer reported calling daily for multiple days after a diagnosis with no return call and no repair completed. A separate reviewer reported a no-show for a scheduled appointment window with no communication.
• WIRE TAMPERING ALLEGATION: One reviewer alleged that a technician switched wires on their HVAC system and then recommended a full $8,000 replacement. A second company confirmed the wires had been switched and the unit was functional.
• UPSELLING PATTERN: Multiple reviews describe technicians recommending unnecessary additional services or replacements beyond the reported issue, including water softeners, ball valves, and full system replacements on units that were repairable.
• RECENCY NOTE: Reviews span from 2021 to June 2025. The majority of negative pricing and misconduct reviews are concentrated in 2023–2024, suggesting the pattern may be worsening over time. Most positive reviews are recent (2025) but the Julio cluster raises authenticity concerns.
• TWO BLANK REVIEWS (no text, only 5-star ratings) were excluded from dimension scoring as they contain no usable data.

The WW Score of 72.1 is considered moderately reliable given the high volume of reviews, but should be interpreted with caution — the professionalism and experience scores reflect genuine customer satisfaction, while the pricing score reflects a well-documented and serious pattern of overcharging that prospective customers should independently verify before engaging this company.

The plumbing reviews for 24/7 Plumbing & Rooter show a strong base of satisfied customers who consistently praise prompt response times, friendly technicians, and fair pricing — particularly for emergency and after-hours calls. However, a meaningful cluster of negative reviews describes repeated no-shows, missed appointments without communication, and at least one serious allegation of unprofessional conduct including a police report. Project completion is the most penalized dimension, as multiple reviewers explicitly describe technicians failing to return, not honoring warranties, and leaving jobs incomplete. Professionalism scores are pulled down by documented instances of rude owner responses to complaints and failure to communicate delays. The score reflects a contractor with genuine strengths in responsiveness and value but a notable and recurring reliability problem that cannot be ignored.

• MIXED REVIEW SET WARNING: A significant number of reviews (approximately 40 of the 115 total) are from a restaurant or diner called '24 Diner' and are entirely unrelated to plumbing or contracting work. These reviews were excluded from all dimension scoring as they contain no relevant contractor data.
• NO-SHOW PATTERN FLAGGED: At least 5 separate reviews explicitly describe the company failing to show up for scheduled appointments without adequate notice (reviews dated 2016-01-22, 2017-09-10, 2019-09-04, 2022-04-03, 2022-11-08). This is a recurring and credible pattern that materially reduces the project completion score.
• WARRANTY BREACH FLAGGED: One reviewer (2016-11-23) explicitly states the company failed to honor a documented 30-day warranty and stopped responding to calls, which is a serious project completion failure.
• SERIOUS CONDUCT ALLEGATION: One reviewer (2020-06-17) alleges a technician entered the home aggressively and a police report was filed. While unverified, this is a significant flag that cannot be dismissed.
• OWNER RESPONSE CONDUCT FLAG: One detailed review (2022-04-03) documents the business owner publicly calling a customer review a 'joke' and accusing the customer of lying, which is corroborated by the reviewer uploading phone records. This reflects poorly on professionalism at the management level.
• MANAGEMENT COMPLAINT (2020-09-25): A lengthy, detailed review describes upper management accusing a customer of manipulation when raising legitimate complaints about a 17-man-hour water heater installation, wall damage, and an unannounced visit to a tenant's property. The reviewer praised the junior technicians but gave 1 star due to management conduct.
• RECENCY NOTE: The plumbing reviews span from 2015 to 2024. Reviews from 2015-2019 are outside the 12-month recency window and were weighted less heavily. The most recent plumbing reviews (2023-2024) are predominantly positive, which is a moderately encouraging trend, but the no-show and reliability issues appear across multiple years including as recently as 2022.
• FAKE REVIEW SCREENING: No strong fake review patterns detected among the plumbing reviews. Most positive reviews include specific technician names, job descriptions, and contextual details. Generic praise reviews exist but are not dominant enough to trigger a fake review flag.

This WW Score is based on a HIGH volume of plumbing-specific reviews with strong mention counts across all four dimensions, making it statistically reliable; however, the score should be interpreted with caution given the documented and recurring pattern of no-shows, a warranty breach, and serious management conduct complaints that represent real service risk for prospective customers.

BC Plumbing / Plumbing Pros has a large volume of positive reviews praising individual technicians — particularly Larry, Tyler, and Kurt — for professionalism, responsiveness, and fair pricing. However, a meaningful cluster of negative reviews describes serious issues including abandoned or incomplete work, shoddy workmanship, rude behavior (specifically attributed to Larry in multiple recent reviews), significant project delays, and unresolved billing disputes. The pricing dimension is mixed: many reviewers praise affordability and transparency, but at least two reviews cite being overcharged or receiving prices far above competitors. Project completion is the most concerning dimension, with multiple reviews describing work left unfinished, problems made worse, or follow-through failures. The overall score reflects a company with genuine strengths but recurring, documented service failures that cannot be dismissed.

• DUPLICATE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: Numerous reviews appear to be exact or near-exact duplicates posted on the same date (e.g., 'Kurt was great! Went above and beyond' x2, 'Fast service at a great price' x2, 'We finally found an honest plumber who charges a fair price' x2, 'Kurt was prompt and very helpful' x2, 'They went above and beyond for our bakery' x2, 'Great customer service and the work was done the same day' x2, 'Kurt is an honest professional' x2, 'very nice people' x2, 'Great customer service, fast service' x2, 'They were very nice, and did the work fast and clean' x2, 'Competent and fair' x2, 'Work was well done. Service very prompt.' x2, 'Very excellent Company, Kurt took his time' x2, 'Use of apprenticeship program' x4, 'Iâ  m glad to see this company uses the apprenticeship program' x4). These duplicates appear to be artificially inflating review counts and are likely fake or platform-duplicated entries. Confidence in the positive signal from these reviews is significantly reduced.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Several of the most detailed negative reviews are recent (2024–2025), including complaints about Larry being rude and patronizing (Oct 2024), a project delayed over a month (Jan 2025), and poor after-sales service (Aug 2024). This suggests service quality may have declined in recent years.
• SPECIFIC TECHNICIAN VARIANCE: Larry receives both the highest praise (older reviews) and the most serious complaints (newer reviews), suggesting possible inconsistency over time or reviewer-specific experiences. Tyler receives consistently positive recent reviews.
• ONE BLANK REVIEW (5-star, June 2024) was excluded from scoring as it contains no usable content.
• ONE REVIEW (5-star, June 2016) appears to describe negative behavior ('don't answer phones', 'try to sneak behind warranty company') yet carries a 5-star rating — this is likely a misclick or data error and was scored as negative for relevant dimensions.
• OLDER NEGATIVE REVIEWS (2010, 2011, 2013) describe serious workmanship failures, incomplete jobs, and billing disputes. While aged, they establish a pattern that is echoed in more recent complaints.

This WW Score is based on a high volume of reviews but is materially undermined by a significant number of confirmed duplicate reviews that inflate positive signals, a pattern of serious and specific negative reviews spanning multiple years including recent ones, and documented inconsistency between individual technicians — the score should be treated as a moderate-confidence estimate and prospective customers are advised to verify recent references independently.