Find Nearby Plumbers In Las Vegas, Nevada

Redline Plumbing scores strongly across all four dimensions, driven by a large volume of detailed, specific reviews spanning multiple years. Professionalism is the most frequently mentioned dimension and scores well overall, but is meaningfully penalized by two substantive negative reviews: one describing a technician (Ray) behaving in a condescending and discriminatory manner toward a renter, and another describing a pattern of the company refusing to take responsibility for damage caused during jobs. Pricing is consistently described as fair, reasonable, and transparent, with multiple reviewers noting quotes were honored and one reviewer explicitly praising the owner for not inflating a job to a two-person charge. Project completion scores highly, with the vast majority of reviews confirming jobs were finished same-day or next-day, on time, and to satisfaction, though the one negative review about an improperly reinstalled dishwasher and an unacknowledged damaged A/C duct introduces a modest penalty. Experience is well-supported, with reviewers frequently citing specific technical tasks completed skillfully, problem-solving under difficult conditions, and plumbers offering proactive maintenance advice.

• Two substantive 1-star reviews are present and were fully weighted. One describes a technician (Ray) making discriminatory remarks toward a renter and behaving in an intimidating manner. The second describes a pattern of the company refusing accountability for collateral damage caused during jobs (damaged dishwasher reinstallation, stepped-on A/C duct). These are credible, detailed, and specific complaints that meaningfully affect the professionalism and project_completion scores.
• A mild concentration of reviews praising specific technicians by name (Josh, Javi, Ray, Kurt, Cade) with detailed job descriptions reduces fake review concern — these reviews appear genuine and varied.
• Several reviews are older than 12 months (dating back to 2020–2022). While these were included in scoring, the most recent reviews (2023–2024) are consistent in tone and quality, suggesting no significant decline in service. Recency weighting does not materially change the outcome.
• No pattern of identical phrasing or suspiciously generic praise detected. Review language is varied and specific. Fake review risk assessed as LOW.

This WW Score is based on 43 reviews with strong mention counts across all four dimensions, including two credible negative reviews that were fully incorporated, making this score highly reliable as a representation of Redline Plumbing's overall service quality.

Repipe Express earns strong scores across all four dimensions, driven by a large volume of detailed, specific reviews spanning 2015–2024. Professionalism is the most frequently cited strength, with dozens of reviewers praising punctuality, communication, courteous crews, and attention to cleanliness details such as shoe covers and wall patching. Project completion scores are high, with numerous reviewers explicitly noting jobs finished in one to three days as promised, including complex whole-house repipes. Experience is well-supported by specific technical callouts including slab leak resolution, pipe relining, PEX repiping, and creative problem-solving under challenging conditions. Pricing is consistently described as fair, competitive, and transparent, though two 1-star reviews introduce meaningful negative signals around reliability and responsiveness that prevent a top-tier score.

• Two 1-star reviews raise legitimate concerns: one describes a no-show appointment with a customer left without water for three days and given a dismissive response (2016); another reports being turned away for a small job with no on-site quote offered (2019). These are credible negative signals and are factored into scoring.
• A cluster of 9 reviews posted within a 10-day window in February 2024 (Feb 7–28) warrants mild scrutiny. While the reviews vary in detail and writing style, the concentration is unusual and slightly inflates recent review volume. No score reduction applied but noted for transparency.
• Several reviews focus heavily on a single technician named Edwin, with highly effusive and detailed praise. These appear genuine given the specificity of project details described, but the concentration on one individual means scores may not fully reflect the broader team's consistency.
• Three reviews are dated 2015–2016 and one is from 2018, making them 6–9 years old. Per recency rules, these carry reduced weight. The majority of reviews (20+) are from 2024 or within the past few years, so overall recency is acceptable.
• One review (2016) references 'Plumbing Upgrades, Inc' rather than Repipe Express by name, suggesting it may have been written for a related or predecessor entity. This review was included but treated with reduced weight.

This WW Score is based on 33 reviews with strong mention counts across all four dimensions and a healthy mix of recent and older data, making it a moderately reliable representation of contractor performance, tempered slightly by two credible negative reviews and a suspicious February 2024 review cluster.

Jason receives overwhelmingly positive feedback across all four dimensions, with professionalism being the most frequently cited strength — reviewers consistently highlight his punctuality, responsiveness, communication, and respectful attitude. Pricing is noted favorably in roughly a third of reviews, with multiple customers describing his quotes as fair, reasonable, and transparent with no haggling. Project completion is well-supported, with numerous reviewers describing jobs finished on time, within scope, and to a high standard — including one large renovation completed in under a month. Experience is evidenced by the breadth and variety of tasks completed successfully, from plumbing and drywall to barn doors, closet builds, and electrical work. The single 1-star review, citing a failure to follow through on scheduling communication, is a notable outlier and has been factored into the professionalism and project completion scores conservatively.

• One 1-star review (2019-01-30) describes Jason agreeing to an appointment via text and then going silent — this is a direct contradiction of the responsiveness and reliability praised in nearly all other reviews and has been weighted accordingly.
• All other 32 reviews are 5-star ratings with no 2, 3, or 4-star reviews present. This near-perfect rating distribution warrants mild scrutiny, though the reviews themselves contain specific job details, named tasks, and varied writing styles that reduce the likelihood of coordinated fake reviews.
• Several reviews are generic in praise (e.g., 'he's definitely gonna be my go to guy' with no specifics) and have been given lower evidentiary weight in scoring.
• All reviews date from 2018 to mid-2020. No reviews from the past 12 months (relative to mid-2025) are present. This is a significant recency gap — the score reflects historical performance only and current service quality cannot be confirmed.
• One review (2018-11-27) notes the reviewer is 'waiting for estimate' and has not yet received completed work — this review was excluded from project completion scoring as no work was performed.

The WW Score carries HIGH statistical confidence based on mention volume across all dimensions, but should be treated with caution due to the complete absence of reviews from 2021 onward and a near-total lack of rating diversity, which together limit the score's ability to reflect Jason's current service quality.

All six reviews consistently praise professionalism, with specific mentions of punctuality, honest communication, and courteous attitude across every review. Pricing is highlighted favorably in five of six reviews, with multiple reviewers explicitly noting competitive or reasonable rates and transparent cost communication before work began. Project completion is well-supported, with reviewers describing jobs finished efficiently, often within an hour, and with follow-through on communication throughout. Experience is reflected in references to knowledgeable diagnostics, correct first-time fixes, and quality installations across multiple job types. The overall picture is consistently positive, though all reviews are from 2015–2017, meaning recency is a concern and current performance cannot be confirmed.

• ALL REVIEWS ARE OLDER THAN 7 YEARS: Every review dates from 2015 to 2017. No recent reviews are present. Current quality, pricing, and reliability cannot be assessed from this data. The WW Score reflects historical performance only.
• POTENTIAL RECENCY BIAS: With no reviews from the past 12 months (or even the past several years), this score should be treated with caution. Business quality may have changed significantly.
• MILD UNIFORMITY CONCERN: All six reviews are 5-star ratings with no negative or mixed feedback. While each review contains specific details that reduce fake review suspicion, the complete absence of any criticism across all reviews warrants mild caution. No score reduction applied due to sufficient specificity, but noted.

The WW Score carries HIGH dimensional confidence based on mention volume, but overall trustworthiness is significantly limited by the fact that all reviews are 7 or more years old, making this score a poor indicator of the contractor's current performance.

Serv-All Water Conditioning demonstrates strong performance across all four dimensions, with particularly high marks for professionalism and technical expertise. The company excels in punctuality, communication, and technician courtesy, with extensive evidence of knowledgeable staff who educate customers and go beyond basic service requirements. Project completion is consistently reliable with same-day installations frequently mentioned and follow-through on callbacks. Pricing is generally perceived as fair and competitive, though a small subset of reviews flag concerns about service call fees and repair costs relative to expectations. The 87.2 WW Score reflects a mature, well-established service provider with strong operational consistency.

• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: Multiple reviews (approximately 8-10) share nearly identical phrasing and structure, particularly reviews dated 2025-06-08, 2025-06-06, and 2025-05-30, with repetitive language about 'excellent people and service,' 'fast, friendly and professional,' and identical praise for named technicians. This clustering of identical language within a short date range warrants caution.
• EMPTY REVIEWS: 11 reviews contain only a 5.0 rating with no text content, making them unusable for scoring but inflating the total review count.
• NEGATIVE OUTLIERS: Three reviews (ratings 1.0 and 2.0) describe serious installation issues including plumbing code violations, leaks, and disputes over responsibility. These represent genuine service failures but are statistically rare (1.2% of total reviews).
• PRICING CONCERNS: While most reviews praise pricing, a subset (3-4 reviews) report unexpected charges, high repair costs ($300 for minor PVC work), and discrepancies between quoted and actual prices. One review explicitly mentions 'bait and switch' pricing.
• RECENCY BIAS: Approximately 40% of reviews are from 2025 (past 6 months), with a notable clustering in May-June 2025. Older reviews (2014-2018) show consistent quality but represent a smaller proportion of recent feedback.

This WW Score of 87.2 is highly reliable given the large sample size (260 usable reviews) and consistent patterns across all dimensions with HIGH confidence ratings. However, the suspected clustering of identical-language reviews in the most recent period (2025) and the presence of genuine service failures in a small minority of cases suggest treating this score as representative of typical performance while acknowledging that individual experiences may vary, particularly around installation complexity and pricing transparency.

Impact Plumbing demonstrates strong overall performance across all four dimensions, with particularly high marks for professionalism (89.5) driven by consistent praise for punctuality, communication, friendliness, and responsiveness across 127 reviews. Project completion scores (85.5) reflect reliable job finishing and follow-through, though a small number of delayed callbacks and incomplete work issues slightly temper this score. Pricing (84.0) is consistently described as fair and competitive, with multiple reviews highlighting honest cost-saving recommendations. Experience (88.0) is well-documented through 82 mentions of skilled technicians, quality workmanship, and effective problem-solving. The WW Score of 87.2 reflects a trustworthy contractor with high confidence based on substantial review volume.

• Three negative reviews (1-star ratings on 2024-03-07, 2022-06-26, 2018-01-25 and one 2-star on 2020-04-21) indicate occasional serious issues: gas line pressure check failure causing major drywall damage, owner reliability/communication problems on large jobs, no-show for scheduled work, and delayed callback on leak follow-up. These are material concerns despite overall positive trend.
• One 3-star review (2023-05-11) documents a 4-week delay on a simple faucet replacement job with multiple plumber handoffs and poor follow-up, though owner Joe eventually resolved it. Suggests potential issues with job prioritization and communication on smaller repairs.
• Recency analysis: 104 of 150 reviews (69%) are from past 12 months (2024), indicating strong recent performance. Negative reviews are older (2018-2022) or from early 2024, suggesting possible improvement over time or isolated incidents.
• No evidence of fake reviews detected. Reviews show specific details, varied language, named technicians, and realistic problem descriptions. Praise is substantiated with concrete examples.

This WW Score of 87.2 is highly reliable given the large sample size (150 reviews) with strong recent data (69% from past 12 months) and consistent positive feedback across all dimensions. However, the three 1-star reviews documenting serious failures (gas line safety, owner reliability, no-shows) and one 3-star review of significant delays warrant caution on complex or large jobs—recommend confirming job prioritization and follow-up protocols before booking.