Find Nearby Plumbers In Las Vegas, Nevada

Sierra Air Conditioning & Plumbing demonstrates strong technical expertise and professionalism from individual technicians, with many reviews praising specific staff members for knowledge, friendliness, and thorough work. However, the company is severely undermined by pervasive pricing concerns—numerous customers report being quoted exorbitant prices for parts and services, with markups of 300-500% compared to market rates, and aggressive upselling tactics. Project completion is generally solid when work is performed, but pricing practices and occasional follow-up failures significantly damage overall trustworthiness. The stark contrast between positive technician-level experiences and negative corporate-level pricing strategies creates a polarized review pattern.

• CRITICAL PRICING PATTERN: 32 reviews explicitly mention excessive pricing, hidden charges, or upselling. This is the dominant complaint across the dataset. Examples include: $330 for a $5 part + 10-minute labor; $598 hard start kit (market price $45-64); $199 air filter (Home Depot $57-103); $700 for filter changes; $3,200 quoted vs. $500 actual cost elsewhere; $17,000 replacement quote vs. $1,200 repair needed.
• UPSELLING ALLEGATIONS: Multiple reviews (at least 15) describe aggressive or deceptive upselling tactics, including: misdiagnosis to justify expensive replacements, sending separate 'sales person' to pitch upgrades, pressure sales during emergencies (high heat situations), and unclear pricing disclosure (e.g., per-unit vs. total pricing confusion).
• INCONSISTENT SERVICE QUALITY: Strong positive reviews (5-star) often mention specific technicians by name (David Rosario, Fabian, Erik V., Richie Dillon, Harry, etc.), while negative reviews describe unprofessional behavior, lack of follow-up, and poor communication. This suggests quality is highly dependent on individual technician assignment.
• FOLLOW-UP FAILURES: Multiple customers report lack of callback after promised manager follow-up, delayed scheduling for promised repairs (ceiling access, filter replacement, drywall damage), and poor communication on appointment windows.
• BILLING ISSUES: One review documents double-billing on credit cards for over a year ($100/month charged instead of $25/month agreed rate) with manager non-response.
• INSTALLATION DEFECTS: Several reviews describe poor installation quality (condensation pan not installed correctly leading to mold, missing screws on AC unit, improper duct sealing with duct tape instead of mastic, damaged evaporator coils, electrical damage).
• EMERGENCY PRICING EXPLOITATION: Multiple reviews suggest Sierra exploits emergency situations (weekend AC failures in 100+ degree heat, holiday emergencies) to pressure customers into expensive replacements rather than repairs.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK - MODERATE: While most reviews appear authentic with specific details, there is a cluster of 5-star reviews with minimal detail and generic praise (e.g., 'Always great service,' 'Amazing job,' 'Excellent service') that lack specificity. However, the volume of detailed negative reviews with specific dollar amounts and technical details suggests the negative reviews are genuine.
• RECENCY BIAS: Most reviews are from 2023-2024 (past 12 months), with the most severe pricing complaints concentrated in 2024. This suggests the problem may be worsening or becoming more visible.

This WW Score of 62.8 should be trusted as a cautionary indicator: Sierra demonstrates genuine technical competence and professionalism at the technician level, but is systematically undermined by predatory pricing practices and upselling tactics that appear intentional and widespread. The HIGH confidence rating reflects the large volume of consistent, detailed complaints about pricing (32 mentions) and strong positive feedback on technician professionalism (48 mentions), but the score itself is depressed by the severity and prevalence of pricing concerns. Customers should expect quality work but should obtain multiple quotes, verify all pricing in writing before work begins, and be prepared to challenge recommendations for expensive replacements or upgrades.

Rooter Ranger presents a deeply polarized review profile. On the positive side, a large volume of customers praise individual technicians by name for being professional, friendly, knowledgeable, and prompt, and many report satisfaction with the advertised drain-clearing specials at fair prices. However, a substantial and recurring pattern of serious negative reviews significantly drags down every dimension: scheduling failures and no-shows are among the most frequently cited complaints, with dozens of customers reporting they waited hours or full days without technicians arriving or communicating. Pricing is a major liability, with numerous reviewers — including contractors and repeat customers — reporting quotes that were two to ten times higher than competitors for identical work, and several alleging outright deceptive upselling tactics. Project completion is also heavily penalized by reviews describing abandoned jobs, unresolved leaks after service, warranty refusals, and multi-day jobs that stretched into weeks. The experience dimension is mixed: while many individual technicians are praised for skill, there are credible accounts of misdiagnosis, damage caused during service, and work that had to be redone by other companies.

• FAKE REVIEW RISK — MODERATE: A significant number of reviews are blank (rating only, no text), nearly all of which are 5-star. These provide no usable data and inflate the raw star average without substantive evidence. They have been excluded from scoring.
• UPSELLING PATTERN — HIGH CONCERN: A recurring and specific pattern across many independent reviews describes supervisors or field managers arriving after initial technicians and presenting dramatically inflated quotes (ranging from $3,000 to $40,000+) for work that second-opinion plumbers completed for a fraction of the price. This pattern is too consistent and specific to dismiss.
• NO-SHOW / SCHEDULING FAILURE PATTERN — HIGH CONCERN: Dozens of reviews across multiple years and locations describe the same failure mode: confirmed appointments, no technician arrival, no proactive communication, and customers having to repeatedly call in to get updates. This is a systemic operational issue, not isolated incidents.
• WARRANTY AND FOLLOW-UP FAILURES: Multiple reviews describe the company refusing to honor stated warranties, failing to return calls after damage was caused during service, and ghosting customers who requested invoices or refunds. Several reviewers mention filing complaints with the Arizona ROC or BBB.
• RECENCY NOTE: Reviews span from 2019 to June 2025. The no-show and upselling complaints are present throughout the entire date range, indicating these are persistent structural issues rather than isolated past problems. The most recent reviews (May–June 2025) continue to show both strong positive individual technician praise and serious scheduling/communication failures.
• ETHICAL CONCERN: At least two reviews allege that technicians offered discounts in exchange for 5-star reviews before work was completed, which is a direct manipulation of the review record and reduces confidence in the overall star rating.

This WW Score of 62.4 is based on a very large review set and carries HIGH statistical confidence, but the score should be interpreted cautiously: the company's performance is highly variable depending on which technician is dispatched and whether the job is simple or complex, and the persistent patterns of no-shows, aggressive upselling, and post-service abandonment represent genuine and documented risks for any prospective customer.

YES Plumbing & Air Conditioning demonstrates strong technical competence and generally professional technician behavior, with many customers praising individual workers for friendliness, knowledge, and efficiency. However, the company is severely hampered by pervasive pricing complaints—the single most damaging factor across reviews—with customers consistently reporting charges 2-4x higher than competitors for identical work. Project completion is mixed, with some same-day installations praised but numerous scheduling cancellations, missed appointments, and follow-up failures documented. The stark contrast between positive technician-level reviews and negative business practice reviews suggests internal quality control and management accountability issues.

• CRITICAL: Extreme pricing complaints dominate negative reviews. 78 mentions of pricing issues with overwhelming consensus that charges are 'price gouging,' 'criminal,' or 'scam-like.' Examples: $488 for 1-hour RO system install; $2,900 for simple refrigerant cap replacement; $7,000 for mini-split install; $4,500+ for water heater vs. $1,500 elsewhere.
• PATTERN: Multiple reviews describe bait-and-switch tactics—technicians arrive for diagnostics, then high-pressure sales pitches for expensive replacements. Several customers report being quoted $8,000-$13,000 for work that competitors completed for $2,000-$5,000.
• PATTERN: Scheduling dysfunction documented in 15+ reviews—missed appointments, cancellations with short notice (5 hours before), no-shows, and rescheduling delays of 2+ weeks. One customer reported being canceled on same day of appointment for 'higher priority clients.'
• PATTERN: Dishonest diagnostics alleged in multiple reviews. Examples: technician left refrigerant cap off then blamed customer for leak; showed manipulated photos of 'faulty ductwork'; claimed parts discontinued when they were readily available; disconnected wires then blamed system failure.
• PATTERN: Fake review suspicion—250 reviews analyzed; approximately 120 are 2-3 sentence generic praise (e.g., 'Friendly service technician,' 'Excellent service,' 'Amazing quick and easy service') with identical phrasing repeated across multiple dates. Many lack specifics. Exact same long reviews appear twice (Carmelo Aresco review, Joosue HVAC review, David A review appear on both 6/8 and 6/6). This suggests review manipulation.
• RECENCY: Most positive reviews cluster in May-June 2025 and May 2023-2024. Negative reviews span 2021-2025 with consistent themes, indicating systemic issues, not isolated incidents.
• RED FLAG: Multiple customers report company refusing refunds despite 'No Breakdown Guarantee' and other stated warranties. One customer documented 3 calls with no callback after system failure caused by company work.
• RED FLAG: Senior citizen targeting alleged in multiple reviews—customers note company charges elderly customers higher prices and uses pressure tactics.
• MANAGEMENT ISSUE: Several reviews describe rude, dismissive office staff and managers. One customer overheard manager on speakerphone being condescending and uncaring about missed appointments.

This WW Score of 62.3 is highly reliable due to large sample size (250 reviews) and consistent patterns across dimensions, but the score masks a critical business integrity problem: while individual technicians often perform competently, the company's pricing practices, scheduling reliability, and diagnostic honesty are severely compromised, making this a high-risk vendor despite technical capability. The prevalence of fake reviews further undermines trust in the positive feedback.

This aggregated review set covers multiple distinct businesses operating under similar or shared names (Norfolk Plumbing, Rod-O-Matic, Patriot Plumbing across multiple geographic locations including Virginia, California, Florida, Missouri, and others), which severely limits the reliability of a single composite score. The positive reviews — concentrated heavily in 2024–2025 — describe prompt, professional, knowledgeable technicians and fair pricing, with many customers expressing strong loyalty and repeat use. However, a very large volume of deeply negative reviews, particularly associated with the Patriot Plumbing brand operating through home warranty companies (American Home Shield, AHS, HMS, 2-10), describe a consistent and serious pattern of alleged fraud: misdiagnosis to avoid warranty coverage, unnecessary upsell charges, cash-only payment demands, abandoned jobs, failure to return calls, rude or threatening behavior by owners and staff, and work left incomplete or made worse. The pricing dimension is particularly polarized — praised as fair and competitive by direct customers, but condemned as exploitative and deceptive by home warranty customers. Project completion scores are dragged down significantly by numerous accounts of jobs not finished, technicians leaving without completing work, and repeat visits failing to resolve issues.

• CRITICAL: These reviews appear to represent multiple distinct businesses operating under the same or similar names across different U.S. states (Virginia, California, Florida, Missouri, Ohio, and others). A single WW Score is not reliable for this dataset and should not be used to evaluate any single contractor.
• SUSPECTED FAKE OR INCENTIVIZED REVIEWS: A significant cluster of 5-star reviews with no text (rating only) are present throughout the dataset. Additionally, several reviews from the same date batches (e.g., 2025-06-07, 2025-05-26, 2025-04-10, 2023-06-10) appear to be bulk-submitted with generic praise and no specifics, suggesting possible solicited or incentivized review campaigns.
• FRAUD PATTERN DETECTED: A large and consistent pattern across dozens of negative reviews describes Patriot Plumbing (particularly the home warranty-contracted version) deliberately misdiagnosing issues, adding non-covered charges, demanding cash-only payment, and failing to complete work — consistent with a systematic scheme to extract out-of-pocket payments from home warranty customers.
• OWNER CONDUCT WARNINGS: Multiple independent reviewers describe the owner (referred to as Kirk, Steve, or Jimmy depending on location) as verbally abusive, threatening, showing up at customers' homes to demand payment, sending threatening texts, and in one case allegedly cutting a customer's water pressure line in retaliation.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent reviews (2025) skew heavily positive and appear to represent different branch locations or operators than the older negative reviews. Older reviews (2018–2023) contain the highest concentration of serious complaints. Recency weighting partially improves the score but does not eliminate the serious concerns.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The review describing Mike and Steven fixing a leak behind a shower appears verbatim twice (2024-06-09 and 2023-07-25), suggesting a copy-paste or system duplication.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The review about being without a water heater for over a month appears verbatim twice (2022-11-12), suggesting a system duplication.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The review about avoiding the company and paying $750 for modifications appears verbatim twice (2020-07-22), suggesting a system duplication.
• NON-PLUMBING REVIEWS PRESENT: Several reviews reference HVAC, electrical, and AC work (Nick's reviews from 2024-06-09), which are outside the scope of plumbing contractor evaluation and were excluded from dimension scoring.
• UNPERMITTED WORK ALLEGATION: At least one reviewer explicitly states Patriot Plumbing performed a full repipe without pulling a permit and that the matter was under investigation by the California State Contractors Board.

This WW Score of 62.1 should be treated with very low confidence as a guide to any single contractor, as the dataset aggregates reviews for multiple distinct businesses across different states and ownership structures; the score reflects a deeply divided customer base where direct-hire customers report largely positive experiences while home warranty-referred customers report a consistent and serious pattern of alleged fraud, incomplete work, and unprofessional conduct.

Rakeman Plumbing presents a deeply mixed picture across all four dimensions. On the positive side, a substantial number of reviewers praise specific technicians by name (Gene, Corky, Junior, Tommy, Mike, Mic, Robert) for being knowledgeable, efficient, courteous, and professional, and many long-term customers report consistent satisfaction over years or even decades. However, these positives are significantly offset by a persistent and recurring pattern of serious complaints: no-show appointments with wide 8am–5pm windows and no callbacks, technicians arriving unprepared without necessary parts, billing disputes involving charges far exceeding quotes or work performed, warranty repair mishandling with repeated service call charges, and rude or dismissive office staff. Pricing complaints are numerous and specific, with multiple reviewers citing overcharging, lack of transparency, refusal to honor advertised discounts, and flat-rate billing that felt exploitative. Project completion suffers from documented instances of abandoned or incomplete work, return visits required for the same issue, and in several cases damage caused during service that was not remedied without significant customer effort. The experience dimension is buoyed by genuinely skilled technicians but dragged down by accounts of technicians lacking basic tools, calling tech support mid-job, and misdiagnosing problems.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: At least two sets of reviews appear to be exact duplicates posted on different dates (May 10 and May 7, 2025 for both the 5-star 'Excellent company. Honest as can be.' review and the 1-star deposit/corruption review; and May 10 and May 7, 2025 for the tree roots/Junior review). These are likely the same reviewer posting twice or a platform artifact. Duplicate reviews were counted only once per unique review text for scoring purposes.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION: Several 5-star reviews contain no specific detail whatsoever (e.g., 'great to do business with. personnel are A++++++++++++', 'Excellent work', 'Fast and affordable', 'Great family owned business. Always high quality work!'). These generic, unverifiable reviews inflate the positive signal and were weighted minimally.
• RECENCY NOTE: The review corpus spans from approximately 2012 to 2025. A significant portion of reviews (roughly 60%) are dated 2021 or earlier, meaning they are more than 3 years old. The most recent reviews (2024–2025) include both strong positives and serious negatives, suggesting the mixed quality pattern has persisted over time without clear improvement.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Approximately 12 reviews contained no text and only a star rating (mostly 5-star). These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence per scoring rules.
• SCHEDULING/NO-SHOW PATTERN: A recurring and specific complaint across multiple independent reviews spanning multiple years involves the company's 8am–5pm scheduling window, technician no-shows, and lack of proactive communication. This is a systemic operational issue, not isolated incidents.
• BILLING INTEGRITY CONCERNS: Multiple independent reviewers across different years describe being charged more than quoted, having credit cards charged without consent or invoice, being billed for repeat visits caused by the technician's own errors, and refusal to honor advertised discounts. This pattern materially reduces the pricing and professionalism scores.
• DRIVER CONDUCT REVIEWS: Two reviews (2018 and 2020) criticize dangerous driving by company vehicles. One review (2015) also mentions driver conduct. These are not plumbing service reviews and were excluded from dimension scoring but noted as a reputational flag.
• MANAGEMENT RESPONSIVENESS ISSUES: Multiple reviewers across different years report that supervisors and owners (specifically 'Rocky' and 'Rhonda') failed to return calls, became hostile when challenged, or reversed commitments. This pattern suggests a systemic management accountability problem.

This WW Score of 62.1 is based on a large volume of detailed, specific reviews spanning over a decade and carries HIGH confidence; the score reliably reflects a contractor with genuinely skilled individual technicians undermined by systemic operational failures in scheduling, billing transparency, and management accountability.

Number One Plumbing has a deeply polarized review history spanning over a decade, with strong positive experiences in earlier years increasingly offset by serious negative experiences in more recent reviews. Professionalism is the most frequently mentioned dimension and reveals a stark split: many reviewers praise specific technicians as courteous, punctual, and communicative, while a significant number of others report rude office staff, poor communication, and unprofessional conduct both in the field and on the phone. Pricing is a consistent concern, with multiple reviewers explicitly calling out overcharging, lack of transparent estimates, price escalation mid-job, and one reviewer winning a small claims judgment against the company for deceptive pricing practices. Project completion is similarly mixed — while many jobs were completed satisfactorily, there are credible accounts of incomplete work, abandoned repairs, failed follow-through on invoices, and jobs that had to be redone within days. Technical experience scores moderately, with many positive mentions of knowledgeable technicians but also notable failures including misdiagnosis, incorrect installations, and work that caused additional damage. The recency trend is concerning: reviews from 2023 onward skew heavily negative, suggesting a possible decline in service quality.

• RECENCY CONCERN: Reviews from 2024-2025 are predominantly 1-star and describe serious issues including dishonesty, incomplete work, rude staff, and unsafe driving by company vehicle. This negative recency trend significantly weighs down confidence in current service quality.
• SERIOUS MISCONDUCT ALLEGATIONS: Multiple reviews allege fraudulent or deceptive business practices, including charging for work not performed (sewer pipe replacement), threatening an elderly customer with arrest over a payment dispute, escalating quotes mid-job, and a small claims court judgment against the company.
• OFFICE STAFF PATTERN: At least 8 separate reviews across multiple years independently cite rude, dismissive, or unhelpful office/reception staff. This is a persistent and credible pattern, not an isolated incident.
• INCOMPLETE WORK PATTERN: Multiple reviews describe jobs left unfinished, repairs that failed within days, and technicians who did not complete what was promised — including a compressor replacement that left ice on the unit and a sewer pipe job where old pipes were left in place despite being paid for.
• PRICING TRANSPARENCY ISSUES: Several reviewers report being unable to get itemized estimates, being pressured to sign work orders before estimates were provided, and experiencing significant price escalations after work began.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Several reviews contain no text (only a star rating). These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — LOW LEVEL: A small cluster of 5-star reviews dated 2024-06-08 share the same date with very brief, generic praise and no specifics. These may be artificially inflated. Confidence is not significantly reduced as the overall review volume is large, but these reviews were weighted conservatively.
• OLDER POSITIVE REVIEWS: A substantial portion of the highest-quality positive reviews date from 2010-2016. While valuable, these are more than 8 years old and may not reflect current operations.

This WW Score is based on a large review set (109 reviews) spanning 15 years and carries HIGH statistical confidence in its dimensions, but the strong negative recency trend in 2023-2025 reviews and multiple credible allegations of deceptive business practices mean prospective customers should treat the score with caution and prioritize the most recent reviews when making a hiring decision.