Find Nearby Plumbers In North Las Vegas, Nevada

Excel Plumbing demonstrates strong overall performance with a WW Score of 82.3, driven by consistently high marks in professionalism (85.2), experience/skill (86.4), and project completion (84.6). The company excels at punctuality, communication, technical knowledge, and work quality, with numerous reviews praising specific technicians like Luke, Yuri, Bob, and Kevin. However, pricing emerges as a notable weakness (72.1), with recurring complaints about high costs, unexpected charges, and perceived overpricing relative to the work performed. While most recent reviews (past 12 months) are highly positive, older reviews reveal persistent pricing concerns and occasional service failures that have not been fully resolved.

• PRICING CONCERNS: Multiple reviews (spanning 2014-2025) report unexpectedly high quotes, hidden charges, and perceived overpricing. Examples include $450 for 20 minutes of drain work, $250 for a simple faucet replacement, $500 for toilet flange/wax ring, and significant quote increases after initial estimates. This pattern suggests systemic pricing transparency issues.
• FAKE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: Reviews dated 2025-06-05 through 2025-06-08 include 3 empty reviews with 5-star ratings and 2 identical reviews with identical phrasing ('I spoke with Lori, who was very friendly and helpful. She got back to me within minutes, fantastic response time. The overall experience was excellent, and the price I was quoted felt great. Highly recommend!') dated 2025-06-07 and 2025-06-05. This suggests potential review manipulation or duplicate submissions.
• SERVICE FAILURES: Several reviews document incomplete work, follow-up failures, and quality issues. Examples include: ejector pump not resealed/reconnected properly (2024-06-15), sewage left on floor after drain cleaning (2023-08-17), sump line misdiagnosis leaving customer worse off (2022-05-04), and multiple instances of plumbers not following up on promised estimates (2020-07-25, 2016-08-08).
• INCONSISTENT QUALITY: While many reviews praise specific technicians, others report poor workmanship from different technicians at the same company, suggesting inconsistent quality control or training standards.
• RECENCY BIAS: The majority of highly positive reviews are from the past 6 months (2025), while older reviews (2014-2022) contain more critical feedback about pricing and service quality. This temporal distribution warrants caution in interpreting the overall score.

This WW Score of 82.3 is reliable for assessing professionalism and technical competence, which are consistently praised across 187+ mentions, but should be interpreted cautiously regarding pricing fairness—the 72.1 pricing score reflects genuine and recurring customer concerns documented across a decade of reviews, and potential review manipulation in recent submissions reduces confidence in the most recent data.

Classic Plumbing demonstrates strong overall performance with a WW Score of 82.1, driven by consistently high marks in professionalism (85.2) and experience (84.6). The company excels at punctuality, courteous service, and technical competence, with numerous reviews praising specific technicians like Jeff, Omari, and Malik. Project completion is solid at 83.1, though some older reviews flag communication gaps and follow-through issues. Pricing (78.5) is the weakest dimension, with legitimate concerns about estimate charges, unexpected cost overruns, and inconsistent pricing practices, though many recent reviews praise fair pricing. The company shows improvement in recent years but carries historical baggage from pricing disputes and service failures.

• FAKE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: Two identical reviews appear verbatim on 2025-06-02 and 2025-05-30 ('Jeff was professand courteous. Repaired 2 faucets...'). This is a red flag for artificially inflated ratings.
• PRICING INCONSISTENCY: Multiple reviews (2023, 2019, 2018) report being charged for estimates ($140-$170) with promises that fees would be applied to work—promises not honored. This practice appears to have been discontinued but damaged trust.
• COST OVERRUN PATTERN: Several reviews document significant price increases between estimates and final bills (e.g., $400-$450 budgeted vs. $626.58 charged; $9,000 quote for remodel work deemed exorbitant). Some customers report being charged for failed repairs or incomplete work.
• SERVICE FAILURE HISTORY: Older reviews (2015-2019) document incomplete repairs, misdiagnosis, poor communication between office and field staff, and refusal to warranty work beyond 30 days. More recent reviews (2024-2025) show improvement but pattern suggests systemic issues were present.
• COMMUNICATION GAPS: Multiple reviews cite office staff rudeness, failure to return calls, voicemail boxes full, and poor coordination between office and technicians regarding follow-up appointments.
• RECENCY BIAS NOTED: 70% of reviews are from 2024-2025 and are overwhelmingly 5-star with minimal critical detail. Older reviews (2015-2023) are more balanced and reveal legitimate service failures. Recent positive reviews may reflect improved operations or selection bias.
• EMPTY REVIEWS: Seven reviews contain only a 5-star rating with no text, suggesting possible automated or placeholder entries.

This WW Score of 82.1 is reliable for recent service expectations (2024-2025) but should be interpreted cautiously: the company demonstrates strong technical competence and professionalism in current operations, but historical pricing practices and service failures (2015-2023) suggest customers should obtain detailed written estimates, confirm pricing terms in advance, and verify warranty terms before engaging. The HIGH overall confidence is supported by 98 mentions of professionalism and 87 of project completion, but the MODERATE confidence in pricing (42 mentions) reflects genuine concerns about cost transparency that persist despite recent improvements.

Discount Drain Cleaning demonstrates strong professionalism with consistently punctual, courteous, and responsive service across 89 reviews. Technical expertise and problem-solving ability are well-documented across 52 reviews, with technicians frequently praised for diagnostic accuracy and efficient work. Project completion is solid with 68 mentions showing jobs finished on time and callbacks honored. However, pricing emerges as a significant weakness with 32 mentions revealing a pattern of quote discrepancies, hidden fees, and price increases after initial estimates—several customers report being quoted one price over the phone only to be charged substantially more upon completion. This pricing inconsistency substantially lowers the overall score despite otherwise excellent service quality.

• PRICING INTEGRITY CONCERN: Multiple reviews (at least 6 detailed complaints) document significant discrepancies between quoted prices and final charges. Examples include: quoted $150 charged $350, quoted $75 charged $300-$700, quoted $150 charged $550, and undisclosed $175 service fees. This pattern suggests systemic pricing communication failures or deliberate bait-and-switch tactics.
• NEGATIVE REVIEW PATTERN: 8 one-star reviews (2024-2019) describe serious issues including no-shows, incomplete work, abusive employee behavior (Josiah), refusal to honor guarantees, and aggressive collection of trip fees. These are detailed, specific complaints with dates and names—not generic criticism.
• EMPLOYEE CONDUCT ISSUE: One 2022 review documents severely unprofessional behavior by employee 'Josiah' including refusal to complete work, profanity, political rants, and threatening physical confrontation. Owner 'Mike' allegedly did not return calls to resolve.
• RECENCY CONSIDERATION: Most positive reviews cluster in 2024-2025 (recent), while serious negative reviews span 2019-2023. Recent reviews show improved consistency, but pricing complaints persist into 2024.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK - MODERATE: 3 reviews contain no text (empty body), and several recent 5-star reviews use nearly identical phrasing ('Prompt and professional,' 'Awesome! Prompt and Professional!') with minimal detail. However, majority of reviews contain specific details, names, and circumstances that appear authentic.

This WW Score of 81.2 should be trusted with caution: while professionalism and technical expertise are genuinely strong (HIGH confidence), the pricing dimension is severely compromised by documented discrepancies and hidden fees that directly contradict stated values. Customers should obtain written quotes and clarify all fees before service to mitigate risk. The company's recent performance (2024-2025) appears improved, but the historical pattern of pricing disputes is substantial enough to warrant skepticism about long-term reliability on cost transparency.

This contractor demonstrates strong performance across all dimensions with consistent positive feedback. Professionalism and project completion are particularly well-documented, with multiple reviews praising punctuality, responsiveness, communication, and thorough work. Pricing is noted as fair and reasonable in several reviews with no hidden charges reported. Technical expertise is evident from descriptions of complex septic diagnostics and repairs. However, the overall confidence is moderated by significant data quality issues: two reviews contain no usable text (one is just a period, one says 'unknown'), and most reviews are older than 12 months, with only one from 2024.

• Two reviews (2016-01-20 and 2015-04-02) contain no substantive content ('.' and 'unknown'), reducing usable data from 8 to 6 reviews
• Six of eight reviews are older than 5 years (2015 or earlier), with only one review from the past 12 months (2024-03-01). Recent performance data is extremely limited
• All reviews are 5-star ratings with no negative feedback, which is statistically unusual and may indicate selection bias or incomplete review dataset
• Review from 2007 is 17 years old and should carry minimal weight in assessing current service quality

This score should be treated with caution due to severe recency bias (only 1 of 6 usable reviews from past 12 months) and potential selection bias (all 5-star ratings). While the available data is positive and specific, the age of most reviews and lack of recent critical feedback limit confidence in current performance reliability.

TechCool demonstrates strong professionalism with responsive communication, punctual arrivals, and courteous technicians across most engagements. Pricing is consistently praised as fair and competitive, with transparent quotes and no hidden charges. However, project completion shows meaningful weakness: multiple reviews document incomplete repairs, callbacks not honored, no-shows, and recurring issues requiring multiple service visits. Technical experience is solid with skilled diagnostics and workmanship, but execution gaps undermine overall reliability. The company excels at initial response and customer service but struggles with follow-through and permanent problem resolution.

• FAKE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: 22 reviews from 2025-05-10 and 2022-06-10 contain minimal or no text content (empty or single-word praise like 'Excelente', 'Muy bien servicio'). These appear artificially generated or placeholder reviews with suspiciously identical timestamps and generic 5-star ratings. Confidence reduced accordingly.
• SIGNIFICANT QUALITY VARIANCE: 18 one-star reviews document serious issues including incomplete repairs (AC leaking after service, toilet leak recurring), no-shows with no communication, technician dishonesty about diagnoses, and poor follow-up. This contradicts the predominantly positive reviews and suggests inconsistent service quality or technician-dependent performance.
• PROJECT COMPLETION CONCERNS: Multiple reviews explicitly state problems were not permanently fixed on first visit, requiring 2-4 additional service calls. Examples include AC compressor replacement failing days later, drain pipe clearing recurring within weeks, and water heater issues requiring multiple visits.
• COMMUNICATION FAILURES: Several reviews cite no-call no-shows, failure to call before arriving (violating customer agreements), rude phone staff, and unavailable management when complaints escalated.
• RECENCY NOTE: Most detailed negative reviews are from 2017-2022. Recent reviews (2025, late 2024) are predominantly positive but include the suspicious empty/minimal-text entries. This temporal pattern suggests either improved operations or review manipulation.

This WW Score of 78.2 should be treated with caution: while based on substantial data (125 reviews, 68+ mentions per dimension), the presence of 22 suspicious low-effort reviews and a stark contrast between glowing testimonials and detailed complaints about incomplete work suggests the score may overstate reliability. The company excels at responsiveness and initial customer interaction but has documented weaknesses in permanent problem resolution and follow-through, making it moderately trustworthy for emergency response but less reliable for complex or warranty-dependent work.

Vegas Drain Masters demonstrates strong professionalism with consistent praise for punctuality, communication, and courteous behavior across 28 reviews. Project completion is solid with 24 mentions of successful job resolution and follow-through, though two negative reviews (2023-04-21 and 2022-12-29) describe incomplete work and alleged dishonesty. Experience scores well at 82.0 based on 20 mentions of technical skill and problem-solving ability. Pricing presents the weakest dimension at 72.0—while many reviews praise fair pricing and value, two detailed negative reviews allege significant overcharging ($1,675 vs. $300 quote; $100 video fee not refunded), creating material doubt about pricing consistency and transparency.

• Two highly detailed 1-star reviews (2023-04-21, 2022-12-29) allege dishonesty, overcharging, and incomplete work. These are substantive complaints with specific dollar amounts and technical details, not generic criticism. They directly contradict the overwhelmingly positive narrative and warrant serious consideration.
• Pricing dimension shows polarization: positive reviews mention 'fair,' 'affordable,' 'reasonable' pricing, but negative reviews cite alleged gouging and quotes 5-6x higher than competitors. This suggests either inconsistent pricing practices or selective service quality.
• One negative review (2023-04-21) claims the technician was not a licensed plumber and used incorrect equipment that could have damaged cast iron pipes—a serious professional credibility issue.
• Majority of reviews (30 of 35) are 5-star with enthusiastic language. While many include specific details (response times, equipment used, follow-up visits), the concentration of perfect ratings is notable. However, the two 1-star reviews are equally detailed and substantive, suggesting genuine polarization rather than fake reviews.
• Most reviews are from 2021-2023; only 3 reviews from 2024 or later. Recency is moderate.
• Duplicate review detected: Reviews dated 2022-09-07 and 2022-09-04 contain identical text ('Great communication, showed up to my condo quick...'). This suggests either a data entry error or potential review manipulation.

This score should be treated with caution. While professionalism and project completion are well-supported by 24-28 mentions with HIGH confidence, the pricing dimension is undermined by two detailed, substantive negative reviews alleging significant overcharging and dishonesty. The overall WW Score of 78.2 reflects strong operational performance but material concerns about pricing transparency and ethical practices. Prospective customers should request detailed written quotes and verify licensing before engaging this company.