Find Nearby Plumbers In Las Vegas, Nevada

All Leak Detection scores well on professionalism, with the majority of reviewers praising friendly, communicative, and responsive technicians — particularly Nelson, Mike, and Robert. However, pricing is a significant drag on the overall score: multiple reviewers explicitly flagged excessive charges, hidden fees (spa testing billed separately without prior disclosure), and a $3,550 bill for a single pipe repair that one customer estimated involved under $500 in materials. Project completion is mixed — several jobs were resolved successfully and efficiently, but at least two reviews describe the company failing to find an active leak that was later discovered by other means, and one review notes the company is not currently offering residential leak detection at all. Experience scores moderately well given the number of successful diagnoses, but the failure cases — including missing an irrigation drip system leak after a $350 service call — prevent a higher score. Overall, the business shows genuine strengths in responsiveness and honesty in some cases, but meaningful and specific complaints about pricing transparency and incomplete diagnostics hold the score down.

• One review (2022-03-28) states the company is not performing residential leak detection at this time — this may indicate a service scope change that makes some positive reviews less relevant to current customers.
• One review (Active Plumbing, 2019-05-22) appears to reference a completely different company ('Active Plumbing,' owner Eddie and son Chris) and likely does not belong to this contractor's profile. It was excluded from scoring.
• Several 5-star reviews are generic in praise and light on specifics (e.g., 'amazing service,' 'great guy'), which slightly raises fake review concern, though most do include named technicians and specific job details — risk is LOW but noted.
• Most reviews are older than 12 months relative to a 2024 analysis date; only one review (2024-03-06) is recent. The majority of reviews date from 2018–2020, reducing confidence in current service quality.
• Pricing dimension shows a clear split: some reviewers praised fair or discounted pricing while others described excessive and non-transparent billing. This polarization suppresses the pricing score significantly.

This WW Score is based on 19 usable reviews spanning 2018–2024, with strong mention counts across all dimensions, but reliability is moderately reduced by the age of most reviews, one likely misattributed review, and a meaningful minority of detailed negative experiences that reveal real service and pricing inconsistencies.

Sentinel Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism with consistently praised responsiveness, punctuality, and courteous behavior across 38 mentions. However, the WW Score is significantly impacted by serious project completion issues documented in multiple detailed negative reviews from 2013-2014, including incomplete work, improper installations, failure to follow up on cleanup, and warranty disputes. Pricing is generally viewed favorably (79.4) with many customers citing reasonable rates and fair quotes, though some older reviews mention price escalation during jobs. Experience scores reflect solid technical capability in routine work, but critical failures in complex sewer line replacements and finishing work undermine overall confidence. The company shows a stark divide between recent positive reviews (2025, mostly undated) and documented failures in 2013-2014.

• TEMPORAL ANOMALY: 16 recent reviews (2025 and undated) are uniformly 5-star with minimal detail, contrasting sharply with detailed 2013-2014 reviews. This pattern suggests possible review manipulation or service quality changes.
• CRITICAL FAILURES: Multiple detailed 1-star reviews from 2013-2014 document severe project completion failures including improper PVC connections, inadequate concrete work, failure to obtain permits, and incomplete cleanup. One customer paid $6,000+ for work later found to be defective.
• FOLLOW-UP FAILURES: Several reviews explicitly mention failure to return for promised cleanup and follow-up work, indicating systemic project completion issues.
• INCONSISTENT QUALITY: Stark contrast between routine service calls (highly rated) and complex sewer/foundation work (multiple failures), suggesting capability gaps in complex projects.
• RECENCY BIAS RISK: Recent undated reviews lack specificity and dates, making verification impossible. Older detailed reviews provide more credible evidence of actual performance issues.

This WW Score should be treated with caution due to conflicting evidence: recent reviews are uniformly positive but lack detail and verification, while older detailed reviews document serious failures in project completion and workmanship. The score reflects a weighted average that penalizes the documented completion failures, but the true current reliability of Sentinel Plumbing cannot be fully assessed without clarification of whether service quality has genuinely improved or whether recent reviews represent a different service tier.

Manny demonstrates strong pricing practices and technical competence, with multiple reviews praising fair quotes, honest dealings, and quality workmanship. However, professionalism is significantly undermined by a major 2015 project failure involving non-completion, poor communication with subcontractors, and abandoned work—a critical incident that heavily impacts the overall score. Punctuality is inconsistent: several reviews note on-time or rapid arrival, but others document substantial delays without communication. Project completion shows mixed results: most jobs are finished successfully, but the 2015 incident reveals serious capacity and follow-through issues. The 2017 review suggests potential scope creep concerns (minimal diagnostic work charged at $40).

• MAJOR RED FLAG: 2015 review documents severe project failure—non-completion of paid work, contractor payment issues, debris left on property, endless delays, and poor communication. This is a critical incident that cannot be ignored despite positive reviews.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most reviews are from 2013–2015 (8 of 12 reviews older than 8 years). Only 2 reviews from 2017 and 1 from 2016. Limited recent data to assess current service quality.
• PUNCTUALITY INCONSISTENCY: Multiple mentions of delays without communication (1.5 hours late in 2014, late arrival in 2015 MLK Day job). Contradicts claims of 'same day' or 'within 35 mins' in other reviews.
• CAPACITY CONCERNS: 2015 review explicitly states 'does not have capacity for large jobs' and relies on part-time contractors. This suggests structural business limitations.
• PRICING TRANSPARENCY ISSUE: 2014 review shows bait-and-switch on service fee (promised free estimate, charged $50 after late arrival). Though refunded, this reflects poor initial communication.
• 2017 REVIEW SUGGESTS SCOPE CREEP: Customer paid $40 for 5-minute diagnostic advice, felt it was not worth the cost. Raises questions about value proposition for minor calls.

This score should be treated with caution due to age of data (most reviews 8+ years old), a documented major project failure in 2015 that contradicts the predominantly positive ratings, and inconsistent professionalism patterns. The WW Score of 78.2 reflects strong pricing and technical ability but is significantly dragged down by serious project completion and professionalism failures. Recent performance is unclear; current reliability cannot be confidently assessed.

Southwest Repair demonstrates strong professionalism and technical expertise, with multiple reviews praising knowledgeable staff, friendly demeanor, and quick response times. Pricing is perceived as fair and competitive. However, project completion reliability is significantly undermined by two serious incidents: a no-show appointment and poor phone responsiveness that prevented callback scheduling. The company excels at emergency work and same-day service but struggles with follow-through on routine callbacks and appointment accountability. Recent reviews (2024) are positive, but older reviews (2017–2020) reveal persistent communication and scheduling issues.

• RECENCY CONCERN: 6 of 10 reviews are from 2017–2018 (6+ years old). Only 1 review from past 12 months. Recent data is limited.
• PROJECT COMPLETION RED FLAG: Review from 2018-02-21 (1-star) documents a no-show appointment and poor phone training. Review from 2020-08-13 (3-star) documents inability to reach company by phone after multiple attempts. These are serious accountability failures.
• PATTERN DETECTED: Multiple reviews mention 'same day' service and 'quick' completion, which is positive, but the two negative reviews specifically cite scheduling/communication failures, suggesting inconsistency in operational reliability.
• CONFIDENCE LIMITATION: Only 1 review from the past 12 months limits ability to assess current performance. Score may not reflect present-day operations.

This WW Score should be treated with caution due to limited recent data (only 1 review in past 12 months) and documented communication/scheduling failures in the review history. The score reflects historical performance with a mix of excellent emergency response and poor appointment accountability. Current reliability is uncertain.

Got Plumbing demonstrates strong technical expertise and generally fair pricing, but is significantly hampered by inconsistent professionalism and serious project completion failures. While many reviews praise workmanship quality and reasonable costs, a substantial cluster of negative reviews document no-shows, poor communication, lack of follow-through on callbacks, and unprofessional behavior from technicians and office staff. The company shows capability to deliver excellent service (evidenced by 5-star reviews praising speed, cleanliness, and knowledge), but reliability is unreliable—some customers receive same-day service while others wait days or weeks without callbacks. This inconsistency is the primary driver of the moderate WW Score.

• CRITICAL: Multiple reviews document no-shows and failure to follow up on scheduled appointments (reviews from 2023-03-27, 2023-02-03, 2021-10-05, 2020-01-21, 2019-12-07, 2019-09-02). This is a systemic issue, not isolated incidents.
• CRITICAL: Documented case of incomplete work and non-follow-through (2020-12-23 review): customer paid $100 for garbage disposal installation that failed, purchased replacement unit, but technician never returned to complete the job despite multiple contact attempts over 3+ days.
• CRITICAL: Unprofessional behavior documented: technician shut off customer's water without notification (2020-11-04), showed no concern or compassion for the situation created.
• CRITICAL: Poor communication from office staff (receptionist 'Stephanie' documented as giving false promises of callbacks in 2020-01-21 review; similar pattern in 2019-09-02 review).
• PATTERN: Reviews from 2019-2023 show recurring complaints about scheduling, communication, and follow-through. More recent reviews (2024, late 2023) show some improvement but negative pattern persists.
• RECENCY NOTE: Most reviews are 3+ years old (2016-2020). Only 3 reviews from 2024-2023. Limited recent data to assess if company has improved.
• INCONSISTENCY: Same company receives both 5-star reviews praising professionalism and 1-star reviews documenting severe unprofessionalism. This suggests either highly variable technician quality or inconsistent office management.

This WW Score should be treated with MODERATE confidence. While the score is based on 40 reviews with substantial data across all dimensions, the company exhibits extreme inconsistency—delivering excellent service to some customers while failing catastrophically with others. The presence of multiple documented no-shows, incomplete work, and communication failures indicates systemic operational issues that are not offset by positive experiences. Prospective customers should be aware that while Got Plumbing has demonstrated technical capability, the risk of poor service delivery and follow-through is material. The score reflects this volatility rather than reliable mediocrity.

Valley One Maintenance demonstrates strong technical expertise and workmanship, with multiple reviews praising skill, efficiency, and problem-solving ability. However, professionalism is significantly undermined by serious communication failures, missed appointments without timely notification, and documented instances of rude staff behavior. Project completion shows inconsistency, with some jobs completed thoroughly while others involved multiple cancellations and follow-up failures. The company's attempt to pressure a customer into removing a negative review raises additional ethical concerns. While technicians like Andrew, Chris, and Francisco receive consistent praise for friendliness and competence, systemic operational issues at the management level create substantial risk.

• CRITICAL: Review from 2024-09-06 documents severe professionalism failures including lack of appointment confirmation, pressure on anxious renter, contradictory statements from staff, and owner attempting to coerce review removal via gift cards and dinner offers. This is a major red flag for business ethics.
• PATTERN: Multiple reviews (2024-09-06 and 2022-11-17) document missed appointments, failure to call customers about cancellations, and rude staff responses. This suggests systemic scheduling/communication problems.
• INCONSISTENCY: Strong positive reviews (mostly 5-star) contrast sharply with two detailed 1-star reviews describing serious failures. The positive reviews lack specificity about pricing or project completion timelines, while negative reviews provide extensive detail.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most positive reviews are from 2023 or earlier. The most recent detailed review (2024-09-06) is highly negative, suggesting possible service degradation.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: Several 5-star reviews use similar generic phrasing ('friendly,' 'professional,' 'would recommend') with minimal specific detail about the actual work performed or timeline.

This score should be treated with caution. While technical competence appears genuine based on consistent praise for workmanship, the documented professionalism and project completion failures—particularly the 2024 incident involving coercion to remove reviews—represent serious operational and ethical concerns that significantly undermine confidence in overall service reliability.