Find Nearby Plumbers In Las Vegas, Nevada

Price Plumbing has a strong base of satisfied customers who consistently praise responsiveness, communication, punctuality, and fair pricing across dozens of reviews spanning several years. However, a meaningful and recurring pattern of serious complaints — including multiple no-shows without notice, unfinished jobs after payment, failure to honor warranty callbacks, and at least one instance of dangerous gas work — significantly drags down the project completion and professionalism scores. The pricing dimension scores moderately well, with many reviewers noting competitive and transparent quotes, though one reviewer cited what they felt were excessive charges. Experience scores reasonably well overall, with most technicians described as skilled and knowledgeable, but a few reviews describe technicians who appeared unqualified or unfamiliar with the job at hand. The gap between the volume of positive reviews and the severity of the negative ones — particularly around reliability and follow-through — is the defining tension in this score.

• RECURRING NO-SHOW PATTERN: At least 7 distinct reviews across multiple years (2017, 2019, 2020, 2022, 2023) describe confirmed appointments where no one showed up and no communication was provided. This is a systemic reliability issue, not isolated incidents.
• UNFINISHED WORK AFTER PAYMENT: Multiple reviews (2022-03-20, 2020-01-02, 2021-04-26) describe jobs that were paid for but never completed, with the company becoming unresponsive afterward.
• WARRANTY/CALLBACK FAILURES: Several reviews (2020-07-01 x2, 2022-12-17, 2023-01-02) describe complete inability to reach the company for warranty or follow-up service, with calls going to an answering service that may not relay messages.
• SERIOUS SAFETY CONCERN: One review (2023-01-02) alleges a dangerous gas leak caused by Price Plumbing's work on a new home build, serious enough that the gas utility had to shut off service. This is a significant safety flag.
• POSSIBLE FAKE OR LOW-DETAIL REVIEWS: Several 5-star reviews (e.g., 2022-06-30, 2021-11-03, 2019-07-28 x2, 2019-07-24, 2019-07-23, 2019-07-22) contain very generic praise with no specific job details, identical tone, and some clustered within days of each other. The 2021-11-03 review references 'best plumbers in Vegas' while most reviews appear to be Hawaii-based, suggesting it may be for a different company entirely or a misplaced review.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent reviews (2023-2024) show a mixed but somewhat improved pattern compared to the 2020-2022 period, though no-show complaints still appear as recently as mid-2023.
• PAYMENT METHOD CONCERN: One review notes the company does not accept credit cards on-site and requires PayPal, and another reviewer paid cash and never received a promised receipt after multiple requests — a minor but notable transparency concern.
• MULTIPLE TECHNICIANS/SUBCONTRACTORS: Several reviews mention different named technicians (Jose, Justin, Charles, Scott, Albert, Ed) and one reviewer was explicitly told the technician sent was not actually a Price Plumbing employee but someone 'helping out.' This suggests inconsistent quality control across personnel.

This WW Score is based on a large review set (85 reviews) spanning 2016–2024 and carries HIGH statistical confidence, but consumers should weigh the score cautiously given the documented and repeated pattern of no-shows, abandoned jobs, and warranty non-response, which represent serious reliability risks that aggregate scores can obscure.

The contractor pool represented in these reviews spans multiple businesses (primarily BSR Plumbing and Blount's Septic/Plumbing), which creates some noise in the data but still yields meaningful patterns. Professionalism scores are dragged down significantly by repeated no-call/no-show incidents, failure to return calls across multiple days, and at least one instance of rude staff — these are serious, recurring complaints that cannot be dismissed. Pricing is generally favorable, with many reviewers explicitly noting competitive or below-market rates, though one review flags outright price gouging and billing for work never performed. Project completion is mixed: many jobs were finished well and on time, but there are credible accounts of abandoned inspections, incomplete work (septic left open, hole not backfilled), and a clogged drain that required a second visit after an incorrect initial service. Experience scores are bolstered by multiple reviews praising technical competence and problem-solving, but are tempered by at least one review citing poor workmanship and leaks after service.

• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: Two reviews with identical text from the same date (2020-07-29) at slightly different timestamps — one was excluded from scoring to avoid double-counting.
• MIXED BUSINESS POOL: Reviews appear to cover at least two distinct businesses (BSR Plumbing and Blount's Septic & Plumbing). Scores reflect the combined pool but may not accurately represent either business individually.
• RECENCY WARNING: A significant portion of the positive BSR Plumbing reviews cluster tightly in 2017–2018, with several posted on the same date (2018-10-10). Three 5-star reviews on the exact same day with generic praise and no specific job details raises a mild fake review concern for those entries.
• FAKE REVIEW CONCERN (MILD): Several BSR reviews use near-identical phrasing ('highly recommend,' 'on time,' 'best price,' 'no up-selling') with minimal job-specific detail. Confidence in the pricing and professionalism scores for BSR is slightly reduced as a result.
• RECENCY WARNING: The majority of reviews are from 2017–2022. Only one review is from 2022 with usable positive data. Most reviews are older than 12 months from a current 2024/2025 perspective, reducing reliability of the score as a reflection of current performance.
• SERIOUS SERVICE FAILURES NOTED: At least three reviews document no-call/no-show appointments, and one documents four unreturned calls over nine days. These are weighted heavily against professionalism and project completion scores.

This WW Score carries moderate-to-high data volume but should be treated with caution due to mixed business identities in the review pool, a cluster of potentially inflated same-day reviews, and the fact that most reviews are over two years old — current performance may differ substantially from what this score reflects.

Nevada Leak Detection receives strong praise for Matt's technical expertise, use of state-of-the-art equipment, and ability to accurately locate and resolve leaks that other companies could not find. Pricing is consistently described as fair, affordable, and significantly below competitor quotes, which is a clear standout strength. However, professionalism and project completion scores are meaningfully dragged down by a recurring and serious pattern of no-shows, missed appointments, unreturned calls, and at least one instance of abandoning an agreed contract mid-job — these complaints span multiple years and multiple reviewers, indicating a systemic reliability issue rather than isolated incidents. When Matt does show up and complete the work, customer satisfaction is very high, but the risk of non-appearance is a significant concern that cannot be ignored. The gap between the quality of completed work and the reliability of actually getting that work done is the defining tension in this contractor's review profile.

• RELIABILITY PATTERN — At least 6 separate reviews (2022-07-09, 2022-07-28, 2023-11-02 x2, 2024-09-11, 2021-01-26) explicitly describe no-shows, unreturned calls, missed time windows, or abandoned jobs. This is a consistent and recurring pattern across multiple years, not an isolated incident.
• CONTRACT ABANDONMENT — One reviewer (2024-09-11) explicitly states Matt agreed to a $450 job, did not show up, and then refused to honor the contract citing a disagreement with the customer's wife. This is a serious professionalism and project completion concern.
• ATTITUDE INCIDENT — One reviewer (2022-07-28) describes Matt leaving a job site abruptly after fewer than 5 minutes when a customer asked a clarifying question, and notes his public response to the review was also unprofessional.
• RECENCY NOTE — The no-show and reliability complaints are present in both older reviews (2021–2022) and very recent reviews (2023–2024), suggesting the issue has not been resolved over time.
• VAGUE NEGATIVE REVIEW — The 2021-09-23 review ('Totally disappointed') provides no specific detail and cannot be scored reliably; it was excluded from dimension scoring but counted in total reviews.
• POSITIVE REVIEW VOLUME — The majority of reviews are 5-star with enthusiastic language. While many contain specific details that suggest authenticity, the volume of highly positive reviews should be weighed against the documented pattern of no-shows and reliability failures.

This WW Score is based on a substantial sample of 42 reviews spanning 2019–2024 with HIGH confidence across all four dimensions; however, the score should be interpreted cautiously because a documented and recurring pattern of no-shows and unreliability means actual customer experience is highly variable — customers who successfully engage Matt report excellent outcomes, but a meaningful minority never receive service at all.

Red Carpet Plumbing has a strong base of loyal, satisfied customers who consistently praise punctuality, friendliness, and professionalism — particularly technicians Clint and Glenn. However, the review set contains a meaningful number of serious negative experiences that cannot be ignored, including a no-call no-show, last-minute appointment cancellations, rude technician behavior, and at least two credible accounts of incomplete or substandard work left unresolved. Pricing is a notable split: many reviewers call it fair and transparent, while at least two reviewers — including one corroborated by an insurance adjuster and two contractors — describe significant price gouging. Project completion is the most concerning dimension, with multiple reviews describing jobs left unfinished, recurring problems shortly after service, and a severe allegation of property damage and contractor board involvement. The score reflects a company with genuine strengths but a pattern of inconsistency that warrants caution.

• One review (2021-01-23) contains an extremely serious allegation: incomplete work, property left in disrepair, owner threatening legal action against the customer, and a contractors board complaint resulting in a permit fine. This is a high-severity flag and was weighted heavily in project completion and professionalism scoring.
• One review (2018-02-22) describes a hole left in a wall after a failed diagnostic attempt with no resolution — a clear project completion failure.
• One review (2018-05-11) describes a botched toilet seal repair, a refusal to engage in person, and no callback from the owner after a week — flagging both workmanship and follow-through.
• One review (2017-01-16) describes drains backing up again within one week of service and no answer on the advertised 24/7 emergency line — a reliability and completion concern.
• One review (2017-02-17) describes sloppy post-job cleanup, broken property (path light), and damaged irrigation as a result of the work — flagging workmanship and property care.
• One review (2020-02-27) was corroborated by an insurance adjuster and two independent contractors who agreed the pricing was approximately twice the market rate — this is a credible price gouging flag.
• One review (2022-11-28) is based solely on observed driving behavior and contains no direct service experience. It was excluded from scoring but noted as a character/conduct flag.
• One review (2021-07-08) describes a field supervisor behaving rudely and refusing to provide an estimate, then leaving without taking measurements — a professionalism flag involving management-level staff.
• Several reviews are older than 3 years (pre-2022). The most recent reviews (2023–2024) are predominantly positive, suggesting possible service improvement over time, but the older negative reviews involve serious enough allegations to remain relevant.
• No fake review patterns detected. Reviews vary in length, detail, specificity, and rating. Negative reviews include specific names, dates, and corroborating details, which increases their credibility.

This WW Score is based on 38 reviews spanning approximately 8 years with sufficient volume and detail to be considered moderately reliable, though the presence of several serious, credible negative allegations — particularly around project completion and pricing — means prospective customers should read the full review set carefully before hiring.

Orchard Plumbing receives strong praise for competitive and transparent pricing, with multiple reviewers explicitly noting they came in under competing bids, sometimes by hundreds or thousands of dollars. Technical skill and problem-solving ability are frequently highlighted, particularly for complex jobs like slab leaks, service line replacements, and recurring clogs that other companies misdiagnosed. However, professionalism and project completion scores are meaningfully dragged down by a recurring and serious pattern of no-call, no-show appointments and failure to return calls or emails — reported across at least five separate reviews spanning multiple years. This reliability gap is the most significant concern in the dataset and prevents a higher overall score. When Orchard Plumbing does show up, the quality of work and customer experience is generally excellent, but the appointment-keeping failure is a consistent and documented weakness.

• RELIABILITY CONCERN: At least 5 reviews explicitly describe no-call, no-show incidents or failure to return calls/emails (reviews dated 2019, 2021, 2021, 2024, and 2022). This is a recurring pattern across multiple years and is a significant red flag for project completion and professionalism.
• BLANK REVIEWS: 5 reviews contain no text whatsoever (only a star rating). These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence per scoring rules.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of detailed, high-quality reviews are from 2021 or earlier. Only 4 reviews are from the past 12 months (2024–2025), limiting confidence in current performance trends.
• POSSIBLE FAKE/RETALIATORY REVIEW: One review (dated 2019-06-11, 3 stars) appears to be a response by the business owner or associate to a negative reviewer ('Dango Dango'), not a genuine customer review. This was excluded from scoring.
• OLDER REVIEWS: Several reviews date back to 2006, 2010, 2012, 2013, and 2014. These were given significantly reduced weight as they may not reflect current business practices or personnel.
• GENERIC REVIEWS: A small number of reviews ('Excellent plumber!', 'Great professional and knowledgeable service', 'They are honest and fair') are very brief and lack specific detail, reducing their evidentiary value. No fake review pattern was detected beyond this.

This WW Score is based on 38 reviews spanning over 15 years with a reasonable volume of detailed accounts, giving the score moderate-to-high structural reliability, but the persistent no-show pattern and limited recent reviews (only 4 from the past 12 months) mean prospective customers should treat the professionalism and project completion scores with caution and verify current responsiveness before booking.

MCS Plumbing has a strong base of positive reviews praising skilled technicians like Jon, Steve, and Dan for professional, thorough, and timely work across a wide range of plumbing jobs. Pricing is generally viewed as fair and competitive, with multiple reviewers noting they were below or in line with other quotes. However, a recurring and significant weakness is the company's office communication — multiple independent reviewers across different years cite unreturned calls, disorganized scheduling, rude phone staff, and a dismissive owner interaction, which meaningfully drags down the professionalism score. One negative review describes a plumber who appeared unknowledgeable on-site and caused accidental damage, which tempers the otherwise strong experience scores. The mix of genuinely detailed positive and negative reviews suggests a real but inconsistent service operation.

• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: Two reviews with nearly identical text ('The people who answered phone calls rude. Both man and woman...') were submitted on different dates (2024-11-11 and 2024-11-05). These appear to be the same reviewer submitting twice. Only one instance was counted per dimension.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: Two reviews with identical text ('They came out right away. The shower cartridge had to be replaced...') were submitted on different dates (2021-06-10 and 2020-09-22). Only one instance was counted per dimension.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: Two reviews with nearly identical text praising 12 years of use and naming the same staff members (John, Rob, Steven, Dan) were submitted on different dates (2022-06-10 and 2021-09-23). These appear to be the same reviewer or copied content. Only one instance was counted.
• THIN REVIEWS PRESENT: Several 5-star reviews contain no substantive detail (e.g., '10/10 would very highly recommend.', 'Best plumbing company ever 10/10', 'What a great experience! Real Pros!'). These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence per scoring rules.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent negative reviews (2024–2025) specifically cite communication failures and rude phone staff, suggesting this may be an ongoing and worsening issue rather than a historical one. Recent negative signals were weighted more heavily.
• DRIVING BEHAVIOR REVIEW: One 1-star review (2024-04-02) is based solely on observing a company vehicle driving aggressively in traffic, not on any service experience. This was counted under professionalism only with limited weight as it reflects on company culture but not direct service delivery.

This WW Score is based on 35 reviews spanning approximately 7 years with sufficient volume for moderate-to-high reliability, but is tempered by duplicate reviews, several content-free 5-star reviews, and a consistent pattern of office communication complaints that represent a genuine and documented service weakness.