Find Nearby Plumbers In North Las Vegas, Nevada

Hernandez Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism with consistently punctual, courteous technicians who communicate clearly and explain work thoroughly. Project completion is reliable with most jobs finished on time and follow-up callbacks honored. Technical expertise is evident across complex repairs and installations. However, pricing is a significant weakness—numerous reviews cite excessive charges, inflated quotes, surprise cost increases, and fees perceived as exploitative, particularly for diagnostic work and jobs targeting homeowners unfamiliar with plumbing. This pricing concern substantially reduces the overall WW Score despite otherwise strong performance dimensions.

• PRICING PATTERN: At least 12 reviews explicitly criticize pricing as excessive, inflated, or dishonest. Examples include: $425 leak-finder fee for 15-minute diagnosis, quotes increasing from $1000→$1500→$3600 for same job, $591 garbage disposal quote (competitor charged $300), $330 for two angle stop valves, and $20K+ total charges for work another plumber quoted at $6K. This pattern is consistent and credible, not isolated complaints.
• QUOTE INCONSISTENCY: Multiple reviews report being quoted different prices for identical work depending on circumstances (e.g., $350 quote vs. $1200 for same toilet repair; different quotes on different days). This suggests pricing may not be standardized or transparent.
• ASSESSMENT FEE CONTROVERSY: Several reviews mention $150 assessment fees that are supposedly credited but customers report confusion about whether credit applies if work is not performed, and quotes sent after payment without explanation of price changes.
• INCOMPLETE WORK: At least 3 reviews mention jobs not completed as promised or requiring callbacks to finish work (re-pipe job abandoned, P-trap not fully fixed, main drain work delayed beyond agreed timeline).
• COMMUNICATION GAPS: Multiple reviews report difficulty reaching the company by phone, missed callbacks, and poor dispatcher communication despite otherwise good technician performance.
• RECENCY NOTE: Most recent reviews (past 12 months) show continued pricing complaints and strong professionalism. Older reviews (2009-2014) are uniformly positive with no pricing complaints, suggesting pricing practices may have changed or become more aggressive over time.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK - LOW: While many reviews are positive, they contain specific details (technician names, problem descriptions, timestamps), varied writing styles, and include both 5-star and critical reviews. No obvious patterns of identical phrasing or suspiciously generic praise detected. However, the concentration of 5-star reviews in recent months (May-June 2025) with similar positive language warrants mild caution.

This WW Score of 76.8 is reliable and should be trusted. It is based on 150 reviews with strong data across all dimensions. The score accurately reflects a company with excellent professionalism and technical competence but significantly undermined by consistent, credible, and well-documented pricing concerns that affect customer value perception and overall trustworthiness. The HIGH confidence rating is justified by the volume of mentions (5+ per dimension) and the consistency of complaints across multiple review periods.

Craig's Plumbing has an overwhelmingly positive track record across a very large review base spanning over a decade, with the majority of customers praising punctuality, responsiveness, honesty, and technical skill — particularly on complex gas line and pipe work. Professionalism scores well but is tempered by a meaningful cluster of negative reviews citing rude interactions, poor communication, and failure to return calls or honor appointments, which is a recurring pattern across multiple years. Pricing is the weakest dimension: while many reviewers praise fair and competitive pricing, a notable number of negative reviews specifically allege billing disputes, bait-and-switch pricing, undisclosed hourly rates, and charges that exceeded quoted amounts — these are too numerous and specific to dismiss. Project completion is generally strong, with many reviews confirming jobs finished on time and followed up, but several reviews describe abandoned jobs, warranty disputes, and incomplete work, pulling the score down from what would otherwise be very high. Experience scores highest, with consistent praise for diagnostic skill, technical knowledge on older homes and gas systems, and quality of workmanship across a wide variety of job types.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: At least 3 pairs of near-identical or fully duplicated reviews were identified (e.g., the gas leak review from 2022-08-14 and 2023-06-07 are word-for-word identical; the odor/powder room review appears twice with slightly different dates; the sewer line Christmas Day review appears twice). This inflates the positive review count and reduces confidence in raw totals.
• SEVERAL REVIEWS CONTAIN NO USABLE TEXT: Multiple reviews consist only of 'unknown', '.', or blank text with a 5-star rating. These were excluded from scoring but inflate the total review count and skew the average star rating upward.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS ARE SPECIFIC AND RECURRING: At least 10 distinct reviews across multiple years describe billing disputes, undisclosed hourly rates, charges exceeding quotes, or perceived gouging. This is too consistent a pattern to be dismissed as isolated incidents and materially reduces the pricing score.
• RESPONSIVENESS/COMMUNICATION FAILURES ARE RECURRING: Multiple reviews across different years describe Craig or staff failing to return calls, canceling appointments without notice, or going silent after initial contact. This is a meaningful pattern that reduces the professionalism score.
• WARRANTY/CALLBACK DISPUTES: At least 2 reviews describe situations where warranty work was disputed or the company was unresponsive to warranty claims, including a gas line replacement where the company allegedly failed to return for a warranty issue and accused the customer of lying.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of the most detailed and positive reviews are from 2014–2025, giving the dataset reasonable recency. However, a significant portion of reviews predate 2020, and some negative patterns (billing disputes, no-shows) appear across the full date range, suggesting these are not isolated historical issues.
• STAR RATING INFLATION: The raw average star rating is heavily skewed by the large volume of 5-star reviews, many of which are brief or contain no substantive detail. Conservative scoring has been applied to account for this.

This WW Score is based on a very large review dataset and carries HIGH overall confidence in its directional accuracy, but users should be aware that duplicate reviews, a significant number of content-free 5-star entries, and recurring billing and communication complaints mean the true performance level is likely somewhat below what the raw star average suggests — the score of 76.4 reflects a contractor with genuine strengths in technical skill and honesty on diagnostics, but meaningful and recurring weaknesses in pricing transparency and communication reliability.

Payless Plumbing has a strong base of positive feedback spanning many years, with customers frequently praising reasonable pricing, technical competence, and courteous staff. However, two detailed negative reviews — one from 2020 describing a multi-day no-show and dismissive office staff, and one from 2012 describing chronic lateness, double-booking, incomplete work, and pressure to pay before inspection — significantly weigh down the professionalism and project completion scores. The project completion dimension is the most penalized, as the 2012 review describes a job that took three days instead of four hours, required the customer to finish work themselves, and involved repeated scheduling failures. Pricing remains the strongest dimension, with multiple reviewers across different years independently noting fair and reasonable costs without hidden charges. The most recent reviews (2024) are positive and describe completed remodels with passed inspections, which is an encouraging sign of improvement.

• RECENCY CONCERN: The majority of reviews are older than 1 year, with most dating from 2007–2020. Only three reviews are from 2022 or later, limiting confidence in current performance.
• NEGATIVE REVIEW WEIGHT: Two low-rated reviews (2.0 stars) contain substantial, specific, and credible detail describing scheduling failures, no-shows, dismissive office communication, and incomplete work. These are treated as high-credibility negative signals.
• POSSIBLE REVIEW CLUSTERING: Two 5-star reviews were posted on the same date (2024-05-21) within minutes of each other, both describing similar remodeling projects. While not conclusive, this pattern warrants mild suspicion of coordinated or prompted reviews.
• ONE REVIEW UNUSABLE: One review contained only the text 'unknown' with no usable content and was excluded from dimension scoring.
• OLDER REVIEWS: Several reviews date back to 2007–2014 and may not reflect current business practices or personnel. These were included but given reduced implicit weight in narrative interpretation.

This WW Score is based on 21 usable reviews spanning 17 years and carries moderate-to-high structural reliability due to mention volume, but consumers should note that the score is pulled down by two credible and detailed negative experiences, and that only three reviews post-date 2022, making it difficult to fully assess the contractor's current performance level.

Sentinel Plumbing (recent reviews, 2024–2025) shows a strong pattern of positive feedback around punctuality, professionalism, and fair pricing, with multiple customers citing same-day service and honest quotes. However, the review pool contains a significant number of older reviews (2011–2022) attributed to a different operator — CSI Plumbing / Dwayne Kurr — which include serious complaints about no-shows, failed repairs, poor communication, and abandoned callbacks. These negative reviews meaningfully drag down the professionalism and project completion scores. The pricing dimension scores moderately well as multiple reviewers across both eras cited competitive or fair rates. Experience scores are solid but tempered by at least two documented cases of substandard workmanship under the CSI-era reviews. Overall, the score reflects a mixed but improving picture, with recent Sentinel-branded reviews being substantially more positive than the historical record.

• MIXED ENTITY WARNING: This review set appears to contain reviews for at least two distinct business identities — 'Sentinel Plumbing' (Carlos, recent 2024–2025 reviews) and 'CSI Plumbing' (Dwayne Kurr, older 2011–2022 reviews). These may be different companies or operators. Scores are calculated across all reviews but this conflation significantly affects reliability.
• RECENCY BIAS NOTE: The majority of positive reviews are from 2024–2025 and relate to Sentinel Plumbing. The majority of negative reviews are from 2011–2022 and relate to CSI Plumbing. If this score is intended only for Sentinel Plumbing, the WW Score would be substantially higher.
• NO-SHOW PATTERN (CSI-era): Multiple reviews (2013, 2014, 2021) document repeated no-shows, ignored calls, and abandoned repair callbacks by Dwayne Kurr / CSI Plumbing. This is a serious project completion and professionalism flag.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION (MILD): Several recent 5-star Sentinel reviews are very brief and generic (e.g., 'Fix the sink quickly.', 'Carlos did a fantastic job.', blank-text 5-star entries). Four reviews had no text at all. These inflate the review count without providing usable data and may indicate padding.
• 4 reviews contained no text and were excluded from dimension scoring but counted in total reviews analyzed.
• ONE REVIEW (2024-09-18, 1-star) appears to reference a different company vehicle ('CSI Plumbing vehicle') and may not be directly relevant to Sentinel Plumbing's service quality, though it was included as it appeared in the review set.
• ONE REVIEW (2022, 2-star) references a furnace repair, which is outside standard plumbing scope and may indicate a different service category or misattributed review.

This WW Score carries moderate-to-high data volume but LOW entity reliability — the review pool mixes two distinct business identities across a 14-year span, making it unsuitable as a sole basis for hiring decisions without first confirming which reviews apply to the current operator.

Second Opinion Plumbing shows strong technical competence and professionalism in individual interactions, with many customers praising technician knowledge, punctuality, and friendliness. However, the company is significantly hampered by systemic operational failures including no-shows, poor communication, unresponsiveness to callbacks, and inconsistent follow-through on promised work. Pricing concerns emerge in multiple reviews citing overcharges, hidden fees, and aggressive upselling tactics. While recent reviews (2024-2025) trend more positive, the historical pattern of accountability issues and customer service failures creates substantial trust concerns that offset individual technician quality.

• CRITICAL: Severe operational inconsistency — 40+ reviews document no-shows, missed appointments, and failure to return calls, suggesting systemic dispatch/scheduling problems unrelated to technician quality
• CRITICAL: Multiple reviews (2017-2021) report aggressive, profane, and threatening behavior from management (specifically 'Henry' and 'Albert'), including hanging up on customers, cursing, and threats of liens
• PRICING CONCERNS: Recurring pattern of overcharging (permits charged but not pulled, inflated labor rates, upselling unnecessary work, charging for parts not installed). At least 15 reviews cite unfair pricing or hidden charges
• QUALITY CONTROL: Multiple instances of incorrect installations requiring callbacks (water heater wiring, wax rings, expansion tanks installed incorrectly), suggesting inadequate training or quality assurance
• WARRANTY ISSUES: Numerous complaints about warranty company interactions — company allegedly misrepresents work to warranty companies to deny coverage or charges customers for work warranty should cover
• RECENCY BIAS: Reviews from 2024-2025 are predominantly 5-star with minimal detail, while 2017-2021 reviews contain extensive negative detail. This pattern suggests either genuine improvement or potential review manipulation
• FAKE REVIEW RISK: Several 2024-2025 reviews are extremely brief (5-10 words) with 5-star ratings and no specifics. Multiple reviews use nearly identical phrasing ('highly recommend,' 'professional,' 'friendly'). However, volume of detailed negative reviews from earlier years suggests these are not fabricated — rather, company may have improved operations
• ACCOUNTABILITY FAILURES: Multiple reviews document company refusing to take responsibility for damage caused during service (water damage, electrical damage, carpet stains), with management denying liability and refusing callbacks

This WW Score of 72.8 should be interpreted with caution: while recent performance (2024-2025) appears substantially improved with high professionalism and experience ratings, the company's documented history of operational failures, management misconduct, and accountability avoidance (2017-2021) creates legitimate risk. The score reflects current data but does not fully capture the severity of past systemic issues. Customers should verify current service standards independently and consider requesting specific technicians with positive recent reviews, as individual technician quality varies significantly from company-level reliability.

All American Plumbing presents a deeply split profile across its review history. The most recent reviews (2024–2025, predominantly from what appears to be a San Diego-area operation) are overwhelmingly positive, with customers consistently praising named technicians like Lance, Mason, Elliott, JoJo, Justin, Ryan, and Nick for punctuality, clear communication, technical skill, and fair pricing. However, a substantial body of older reviews (2012–2021, many referencing a technician named Robert and home warranty company assignments, likely a different geographic location or franchise) describes a pattern of serious failures: no-shows, misdiagnoses, rude office staff, abandoned jobs, overcharging, and dishonest reporting to home warranty companies. Project completion is significantly dragged down by multiple reviews describing work left unfinished, problems made worse, and failure to follow through. Pricing scores are mixed — recent customers praise fair and transparent quotes, while older customers describe significant overcharging and bait-and-switch tactics. The experience dimension similarly splits between highly skilled recent technicians and incompetent or fraudulent older service calls.

• CRITICAL: The review pool appears to contain reviews for at least two distinct business entities or locations operating under the name 'All American Plumbing.' Recent reviews (2024–2025) reference San Diego-area technicians and a clearly different operational culture from older reviews (2012–2021) that repeatedly reference a technician named 'Robert' and home warranty fraud patterns. Scores should be interpreted with this bifurcation in mind.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — MODERATE: Several reviews from late 2021 (dates: 2021-12-01 to 2021-12-02) are clustered within 48 hours, are unusually generic in praise, and reference a Texas/Houston-area business context inconsistent with the San Diego reviews. One reviewer (2022-01-25) explicitly flags these as suspected fake reviews posted by California residents for a Houston business.
• 14 reviews contain no text (only a star rating) and were excluded from dimension scoring but counted in total reviews analyzed.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent 80+ reviews (2024–2025) are almost entirely 5-star and reflect a high-performing San Diego operation. The older reviews (pre-2023) contain a disproportionate number of 1-star reviews describing a pattern of fraud, rudeness, and incompetence. If evaluating only the last 12 months, scores would be substantially higher across all dimensions.
• PATTERN OF NEGATIVE REVIEWS — HOME WARRANTY CONTEXT: A large cluster of 1-star reviews specifically involves customers assigned through home warranty companies (American Home Shield, Old Republic, 2-10, First American). These reviews describe a consistent pattern of misdiagnosis, upselling, no-shows, and dishonest reporting to warranty companies. This pattern is strong enough to suggest systemic rather than isolated failures in that operational context.
• ONE REVIEW (2024-07-06, 1-star) alleges a company truck attempted to run the reviewer off the road. This is an isolated conduct allegation that cannot be scored but is flagged as a serious concern.
• ONE REVIEW (2023-06-23, 1-star) contains an allegation of spying on an elderly customer and reporting personal activities to an HOA. This is an isolated but serious allegation flagged for awareness.
• OFFICE STAFF COMPLAINTS: Multiple reviews across different years cite a receptionist named 'Jennifer' as rude, condescending, and argumentative. This is a recurring named pattern suggesting a systemic customer service issue at the office level, not isolated to field technicians.

This WW Score of 72.1 carries HIGH data confidence due to the large review volume, but should be interpreted cautiously because the review pool almost certainly spans two distinct business entities or operational eras — the recent San Diego operation (2024–2025) would score approximately 88–92 on its own, while the older review corpus (pre-2023, likely a different location) would score approximately 35–45, and consumers should research which entity they are engaging before relying on this blended score.