Find Nearby Plumbers In Las Vegas, Nevada

Szeto Plumbing and Handyman demonstrates strong overall performance across all dimensions. Professionalism is a standout strength, with 98 mentions highlighting exceptional responsiveness, punctuality, courteous behavior, and clear communication. Project completion is consistently reliable with 105 mentions showing jobs finished on time, callbacks honored, and thorough follow-through. Pricing receives strong marks (84.0) with 62 mentions emphasizing fair quotes, competitive rates, and transparent pricing. Experience is well-documented with 78 mentions confirming skilled workmanship, problem-solving ability, and technical knowledge. However, three negative reviews (ratings 1.0, 2.0, and 1.0) reveal serious concerns: one incident of no-show with poor communication, one case of unlicensed work causing significant property damage ($3000+), and one instance of incomplete work and refusal to take responsibility. These outliers prevent a higher score despite overwhelming positive feedback.

• Three significantly negative reviews (1.0, 2.0, 1.0 ratings) indicate serious issues: (1) No-show on scheduled job with failure to communicate service area limitation until day-of; (2) Unlicensed plumber caused pipe damage during drain snaking, refused responsibility, and quoted inflated repair costs; (3) Incomplete shower fixture work with refusal to explain or complete job. These are not minor complaints but represent potential liability and trust issues.
• The 2.0-star review from 2023-02-18 is particularly detailed and credible, describing unlicensed status, damage caused by improper technique, and refusal to stand behind work—contrasting sharply with licensed competitors who offered better pricing and warranties.
• The 1.0-star review from 2022-09-09 describes destroyed shower fixtures and abandonment of work with no explanation, suggesting possible pattern of incomplete projects.
• Recency note: Most reviews are from 2023-2024 (recent), but the most serious negative reviews are from 2023 and 2022, indicating these are not isolated old incidents.
• No evidence of fake reviews detected. Reviews show specific details, varied language, and authentic problem descriptions. Positive reviews cite specific names (Rick, Han, Chen, Merick, George, etc.) and detailed work descriptions.

This WW Score of 87.2 should be interpreted with caution: while the overwhelming majority of reviews (124 of 127) are highly positive and consistently praise responsiveness, fair pricing, and quality work, the three serious negative reviews reveal critical vulnerabilities in service reliability, licensing/credentials, and accountability that could result in significant financial or property damage. Customers should verify licensing status and obtain written guarantees before engaging for complex plumbing work, particularly those involving potential structural risk.

702 PlumbAIR earns strong marks across professionalism and project completion, with the overwhelming majority of reviewers praising prompt responses, courteous technicians, punctual arrivals, and jobs completed same-day or next-day. Technical experience is consistently highlighted — multiple reviewers specifically called out technicians for correctly diagnosing problems that prior plumbers had missed or worsened, and for completing complex multi-day jobs cleanly. Pricing is the most contested dimension: while many reviewers describe costs as fair or reasonable, a meaningful cluster of reviews — including a 1-star, a 2-star, and a 3-star — explicitly flag prices as high or even potentially predatory (notably the $7,000 HVAC repair quote that a competitor resolved for $350). The pricing score is therefore conservatively reduced to reflect genuine mixed sentiment rather than defaulting to the positive majority. One scheduling failure resulting in three consecutive reschedules also moderately impacts the professionalism score.

• PRICING CONCERN — One reviewer (1-star, Sep 2024) reports being quoted $7,000 in repairs or $13,500 for a full HVAC replacement; a competing company resolved the issue with a $350 capacitor replacement. This is a serious red flag for potential upselling or misdiagnosis in HVAC work specifically.
• PRICING CONCERN — A long-term customer (2-star, Jan 2024) reports two quotes they consider extremely high: $1,607 for non-frozen shower cartridge replacements using warranty-supplied parts, and $1,300 labor-only for a warranty-covered water heater valve. This pattern suggests pricing inconsistency.
• PRICING CONCERN — One reviewer (3-star, Dec 2023) paid $2,400 for a 50-gallon water heater replacement (unit valued at ~$750) under emergency conditions with no ability to negotiate.
• SCHEDULING FAILURE — One reviewer (1-star, Sep 2024) had their appointment rescheduled three separate times, with last-minute calls at the end of each appointment window. This is an isolated but notable professionalism failure.
• MINOR WORKMANSHIP COMPLAINT — One reviewer (1-star, Jul 2024) noted a technician spent 15 minutes on a repair, charged $250, and did not replace the toilet tank lid — a small but telling detail about finish quality.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK — LOW. The review set is large and varied, includes named technicians, specific job details, dollar amounts, and critically includes negative reviews. No significant fake review pattern detected. Confidence in authenticity is high.
• RECENCY — All 85 reviews fall within approximately the past 18 months (July 2023 to November 2024), with the large majority within the past 12 months. Recency weighting is favorable and no significant quality drift is detected, though the pricing complaints are concentrated in late 2023 to mid-2024.

This WW Score is based on 85 reviews with strong recency, high mention counts across all four dimensions, and a mix of positive and critical feedback — making it one of the more reliable assessments possible; however, the recurring pricing complaints and one serious HVAC misdiagnosis allegation introduce enough uncertainty that prospective customers should obtain competing quotes for large HVAC jobs specifically.

Zoom Drain demonstrates strong overall performance across all dimensions, with professionalism as the standout strength (91.0). The company excels in punctuality, communication, and customer service, with technicians consistently praised for friendliness, respect for customer property, and responsiveness. Project completion is solid (84.0), with most jobs finished on time and to customer satisfaction, though one significant negative review involving a $2,000 failed diagnosis impacts this score. Pricing is competitive and transparent (82.0), with customers frequently noting fair rates and free quotes. Experience is well-supported (88.0), with multiple mentions of skilled technicians like JJ Warren (25+ years) who demonstrate strong technical knowledge and problem-solving ability. The single 1-star review from August 2024 regarding an undiagnosed motor failure is a material concern that prevents a higher overall score.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: Multiple identical or near-identical reviews appear in the dataset (e.g., the Courtney/JJ/Jack same-day Sunday review appears 3 times; the Mandy/Cesar camera scope review appears 3 times; the Jack owner/same-day leak repair appears 2 times; the gnat/smelly sink review appears 2 times). This suggests either data duplication in the source or potential review manipulation. Confidence reduced slightly due to this pattern.
• ONE SIGNIFICANT NEGATIVE REVIEW: A 1-star review from August 2024 alleges a $2,000 service failure where the company failed to diagnose a motor issue, promised a fix that did not materialize, and was difficult to contact afterward. This is a serious project completion and follow-through failure that materially impacts the score. The same review also contains a positive update about a different service, suggesting the company has both strengths and critical weaknesses.
• RECENCY BIAS: Approximately 70% of reviews are from the past 12 months (June 2024 onward), with a concentration in recent months (June-September 2025). Older reviews are sparse. This weighting favors recent positive experiences.
• GENERIC PRAISE PATTERN: Many reviews use similar phrasing ('highly recommend,' 'amazing,' 'professional,' 'friendly') without specific technical details. While not necessarily fake, this limits depth of evidence for some claims.
• MISSING DATES: Approximately 20 reviews lack date information, making recency assessment incomplete for that subset.

This WW Score of 87.2 is reliable with HIGH overall confidence due to strong mention counts across all dimensions and consistent positive feedback from dated reviews spanning the past 12 months. However, the score should be interpreted with awareness of one material negative review alleging service failure and follow-up issues, plus detected duplicate reviews in the dataset that suggest data quality concerns. The company demonstrates genuine strengths in professionalism and responsiveness but carries execution risk on complex diagnostic work.

Uncle E's Plumbing demonstrates strong overall performance across all dimensions. Professionalism is a clear strength, with 38 mentions highlighting punctuality, courteous staff, clean uniforms, and responsive communication. Project completion is solid with 28 mentions confirming jobs finished on time and to satisfaction, though one notable 2024 review flagged incomplete work without upfront disclosure. Pricing shows moderate confidence (18 mentions) with most reviews praising fair rates, though one 2-star review criticized pricing as more than double competitors' quotes. Experience is well-supported (26 mentions) with consistent praise for technical knowledge, problem-solving, and quality workmanship across diverse plumbing tasks.

• One significant negative review (3.0 rating, 2024-11-06) describes incomplete work—a faucet replacement left with rags stuffed in wall openings pending handyman stucco work, with no upfront disclosure. This directly contradicts the strong project completion narrative and suggests potential communication gaps on scope.
• One pricing outlier (2.0 rating, no date) claims pricing was more than double competitors, contradicting the 'fair price' consensus. This suggests pricing may vary significantly by job type or customer perception.
• Multiple reviews lack dates (approximately 18 reviews), limiting recency assessment. However, dated reviews span 2024-06-2025, indicating recent activity.
• High concentration of 5-star reviews (44 of 51) with some generic phrasing ('Great service all the way around', 'They are honest and they handle their business') raises minor concern about review authenticity, though most reviews contain specific details and named technicians (Elvis, Darrel, Mike, Juan, B) that suggest legitimacy.
• Technician names appear frequently (Darrel, Elvis, Mike), suggesting consistent staffing and accountability, which mitigates fake review concerns.

This WW Score of 87.2 is reliable and should be trusted, supported by 51 reviews with strong mention counts across all dimensions and HIGH confidence in professionalism and experience. However, the incomplete work incident and pricing variance warrant caution—customers should confirm scope of work upfront and obtain multiple quotes to validate pricing claims.

Vegas Built Services demonstrates strong performance across all measured dimensions, with particularly consistent praise for professionalism (24 mentions) and reliable project completion (18 mentions). Technician Carlos is repeatedly cited for punctuality, courtesy, responsiveness, and technical competence. The company excels at same-day or next-day service and completes jobs efficiently. Pricing data is limited (2 mentions) but both references are positive, noting payment plan options. One minor operational suggestion about service stickers was noted but did not impact overall satisfaction.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: Multiple identical or near-identical reviews appear in the dataset (e.g., 'Amazingly responsive and professional' appears twice on 2024-07-11; water heater review appears twice on 2024-07-07; 'Quick response and professional service' appears twice on 2024-07-06; sticker feedback appears twice on 2024-07-03; polite servicemen appears twice on 2024-06-17; Carlos payment plan review appears twice on 2024-06-11; water heater quit review appears twice on 2024-06-11). This suggests possible review platform duplication or data entry errors rather than fake reviews, but reduces effective sample size.
• PRICING DATA SEVERELY LIMITED: Only 2 reviews mention pricing/value. One positive mention of payment plans, one neutral suggestion about service documentation. Insufficient data to confidently assess pricing dimension.
• ALL REVIEWS ARE 5-STAR OR 4-STAR: 27 five-star reviews and 2 four-star reviews. While not inherently suspicious given the positive feedback is detailed and specific, the uniformly high ratings warrant noting. The 4-star reviews are constructive (service sticker suggestion) rather than complaints.
• RECENCY BIAS: All reviews are from 2024 (February through October), providing current data but no historical perspective on consistency over time.

This WW Score of 87.2 is highly reliable for professionalism and project completion dimensions (based on 24 and 18 detailed mentions respectively), but the pricing score should be treated with caution due to only 2 mentions. The presence of duplicate reviews in the dataset slightly reduces confidence in the total review count but does not materially affect dimension scoring since duplicates were counted only once per dimension. Overall, the score reflects a contractor with consistently strong execution and customer service.

LV Supreme Plumbing demonstrates strong performance across all dimensions, with particular strength in professionalism and pricing. The company excels at responsiveness, punctuality, and fair pricing practices, with multiple reviews highlighting competitive quotes and same-day service. However, one significant 1-star review from December 2021 documents incomplete work on a 5-sink plumbing installation, poor follow-up, and alleged water damage, which materially impacts the project completion score. The remaining 19 reviews are consistently positive with detailed, specific praise, suggesting the negative review represents an outlier rather than systemic failure. Most reviews are from 2021-2022, with limited recent data from 2023.

• One highly negative review (1-star, 2021-12-13) describes incomplete work, poor attitude, unresponsiveness, and water damage on a multi-sink installation project. This contrasts sharply with 19 other 5-star reviews and suggests either a significant service failure or a customer dispute. This review materially affects project completion confidence.
• Review dates are predominantly from 2021-2022 (18 of 20 reviews). Only 1 review from 2023 is present. Recency of data is limited; current performance may differ from historical performance.
• 19 of 20 reviews are 5-star ratings with positive language. While reviews contain specific details (names, project types, pricing comparisons) suggesting authenticity, the concentration of perfect ratings warrants noting that negative experiences may be underrepresented in this dataset.

This WW Score of 87.2 is reliable with HIGH overall confidence due to substantial mention counts across all dimensions (12-17 mentions each) and detailed, specific review content. However, the score should be interpreted with awareness that one serious service failure is documented, and the dataset lacks recent reviews (only 1 from 2023), so current performance may differ from the 2021-2022 baseline represented here.