Find Nearby Plumbers In Reno, Nevada

Reno Plumbing Doctor earns strong marks across all four dimensions, driven by a large volume of detailed, positive reviews praising responsiveness, same-day or next-day service, and technically skilled work on complex jobs including slab re-routes, tankless water heater installs, and full re-pipes. Professionalism scores are tempered by a meaningful cluster of negative reviews citing a rude technician, a no-show appointment, a disputed lien filing, and at least one instance where the owner allegedly identified a problem but did not disclose it to the customer before proceeding with an unnecessary replacement. Pricing scores are the lowest of the four dimensions because while many reviewers praise fair and transparent pricing — including a published price sheet and free estimates — several negative reviewers explicitly allege overcharging, itemized nickel-and-diming, and a post-dated check deposited early against contract terms. Project completion is solid overall, with the majority of reviewers confirming jobs were finished promptly and correctly, but is reduced by a recurring pattern of callbacks needed after initial work failed (e.g., toilet backup recurring within three days, leaking faucet not acknowledged). Experience scores are the highest, supported by numerous detailed accounts of Mark and his team solving problems that other plumbers could not, honoring warranties, and demonstrating deep technical knowledge across a wide range of plumbing scenarios.

• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: Two reviews dated 2022-11-18 are word-for-word identical ('If I could give 100+ Stars I would!!!...'), suggesting either a system duplication or a submitted duplicate — one was excluded from scoring.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: Two reviews are nearly identical regarding overcharging by Mark (one dated 2021-06-10, one dated 2020-07-22), with nearly identical language about a $2,000 bill and charging $185 for trim and $100 for a 3-dollar part. These may be the same reviewer posting twice or a coordinated negative post — both were counted but flagged.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: Two reviews about saving thousands on a sewer/water main job (dated 2021-06-10 and 2021-03-29) are nearly word-for-word identical — likely the same reviewer posting twice. Counted once for scoring.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: Two reviews about a post-dated check being deposited early and a rude installer (dated 2020-06-10 and 2019-06-26) are nearly identical — likely the same reviewer posting twice. Counted once for scoring.
• SUSPICIOUS GENERIC REVIEWS: Several reviews contain no specific detail (e.g., 'He came out quickly, did the job and was great.', 'I completely trust Mark and his group.', 'Totally great people...they know what they are doing...and at a good price', 'Fantastic service fair pricing.') — these were given reduced weight in scoring.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Four reviews contain no text (only a star rating of 5.0). These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data.
• MISATTRIBUTED REVIEW: One review (dated 2023-10-10) explicitly references Roto-Rooter, not Reno Plumbing Doctor. This review appears to have been posted to the wrong business and was excluded from all scoring.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews span 2017–2025, with a strong concentration in 2021–2025. A small number of reviews date to 2011–2016 and were given reduced weight. The most recent negative reviews (2021–2023) are particularly relevant as they reflect current business practices.
• NEGATIVE PATTERN — HONESTY/ETHICS: Multiple independent negative reviewers (not duplicates) allege the owner identified a root cause but proceeded with or recommended unnecessary work, including one detailed 1-star review from 2022 alleging the owner knew a new water heater was not needed but did not disclose this before installation, and a 2021 review alleging a $5,000 upsell that a second plumber confirmed was unnecessary.
• NEGATIVE PATTERN — CALLBACKS AND INCOMPLETE FIXES: At least two independent reviews describe work that failed shortly after completion requiring a return visit, with one reviewer stating the company refused to honor the callback without additional charge.
• OVERALL FAKE REVIEW RISK: LOW-MODERATE. The majority of positive reviews contain specific names, job descriptions, and contextual detail consistent with genuine experiences. However, the presence of several generic, detail-free 5-star reviews and exact duplicates warrants mild caution.

This WW Score is based on a large and diverse review set (116 usable reviews spanning 2011–2025) and carries HIGH overall confidence; however, consumers should weigh the recurring independent complaints about pricing transparency, unnecessary upselling, and post-completion failures before making a hiring decision.

Comstock Plumbing has a strong and well-documented track record across a large review base spanning over a decade, with the majority of customers praising punctuality, courteous technicians, responsive scheduling, and fair pricing. Professionalism scores are tempered by a meaningful cluster of negative reviews citing no-shows, cancelled appointments without notice, failure to return calls, and at least one instance of rude owner behavior during a dispute. Project completion is similarly mixed: while most jobs are described as completed efficiently and correctly, several reviews document incomplete work, a warranty repair that caused flooding with no follow-up, a broken fixture left unrepaired, and a customer who had to hire a second plumber to finish a job Comstock left incomplete. Pricing is generally praised as reasonable and competitive, but two reviews explicitly cite overcharging — one describing a $549 charge for 40 minutes of work and another referencing $900 with no problem resolved. Experience scores are buoyed by consistent praise for technical knowledge and problem-solving, though one review explicitly calls out a lack of skill compared to competitors.

• 9 reviews contain no text content — only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data.
• Two reviews appear to be near-identical duplicates: the 'Within less than two hours' Jeff review appears verbatim in both a 2021 and 2020 entry. This may indicate a copied or reposted review and has been counted only once per dimension.
• The 'Sheryl commode' review (2023) is highly informal and humorous in tone with no specific service details. It was treated as a low-signal positive review and given minimal weight.
• A significant portion of reviews (approximately 30+) are dated 2024-06-09 with identical timestamps, suggesting a possible bulk import or data migration artifact rather than organic review dates. Confidence in recency weighting for this cluster is reduced.
• Most negative reviews cite systemic issues: no-shows, unreturned calls, incomplete work, and billing disputes. These are not isolated incidents and represent a recurring pattern across multiple years (2013, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2024), which prevents the score from reaching the high 80s or 90s despite the volume of positive reviews.
• No suspected coordinated fake review campaign detected, but the volume of generic short positive reviews (e.g., 'Great company', 'Great customer support', 'Great people and service') with no specifics slightly inflates the positive signal. These were scored conservatively.

This WW Score is based on a large and diverse review set spanning over a decade and carries HIGH overall confidence, but consumers should weigh the recurring negative patterns around scheduling reliability, job completion follow-through, and billing transparency before engaging this contractor.

RAM Plumbing earns strong marks for professionalism and experience, with dozens of reviews praising punctuality, courteous technicians, clear communication, and technical knowledge across a wide range of plumbing jobs. Project completion is generally positive, with multiple reviewers noting thorough follow-through and even above-scope work at no extra charge, but it is meaningfully dragged down by several credible negative reviews describing unresolved problems, poor callback behavior, and at least one instance of substandard workmanship (cheap plastic flange that failed post-repair). Pricing is the weakest dimension: while many reviewers call pricing fair or reasonable, there are multiple specific and detailed complaints about overcharging, inconsistent quotes, and a customer feeling outright ripped off with charges exceeding $1,300 for work they disputed. The review pool spans from 2005 to 2025, meaning a significant portion of reviews are quite old and may not reflect current business practices, though recent 2025 reviews are predominantly positive.

• 12 reviews contain no text at all — only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence.
• A large cluster of reviews (many dated 2025-05-10 and 2025-04-10) share identical posting dates, which may indicate batch submissions or solicited reviews. Language varies enough to avoid a fake review flag, but the clustering warrants caution.
• Several reviews are extremely old (2005–2013) and may not reflect current business quality, staffing, or pricing practices. Recency weighting was applied — older reviews were given reduced influence.
• Three credible 1-star reviews with specific, detailed complaints about pricing overcharges, failed repairs, no callbacks, and employee misconduct (lit cigarette thrown at a child) meaningfully reduce confidence in pricing and project completion scores.
• One review (2022) describes a serious employee conduct incident involving a company vehicle — throwing lit cigarettes at a child. This is a professionalism flag unrelated to plumbing quality but relevant to overall company vetting.
• One review (2019) describes a billing dispute where the customer was charged for a problem that was not fixed, and then received a second invoice marked past due while on vacation — suggesting possible billing process issues.
• One review (2019) describes a toilet flange replaced with cheap plastic that failed, followed by no response to multiple complaint calls — a significant project completion and customer service failure.
• One review (2016) describes a promised refund from the owner that was never delivered after a month of follow-up — a credible accountability concern.
• One review (2013) describes RAM's workers breaking an additional pipe during a repair and then charging the customer for it, followed by a small claims threat — a serious conduct and billing concern.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large volume of reviews, but consumers should weigh it carefully given the meaningful minority of detailed, credible negative reviews spanning pricing disputes, unresolved repairs, and poor complaint follow-up — issues that the volume of positive reviews can statistically obscure.

Aspen Plumbing earns strong marks for professionalism, with numerous reviewers across many years citing courteous, prompt, and communicative technicians by name. Pricing is generally viewed as fair and reasonable, with a few reviewers noting pleasant surprises at final costs being lower than expected, though one notable complaint about a confusing quote that was later doubled drags the score down. Project completion is the weakest dimension: there are multiple serious complaints about work not being completed correctly on the first visit — including a clog that was not cleared, a shower that leaked after 4-5 visits, and a situation where work was not warranted and a lien was filed before the bill was even sent. Experience scores moderately well, with many reviewers praising technical knowledge and problem-solving, but offset by accounts of poor workmanship requiring repeat visits and one instance of a newly hired technician doing substandard patch work. The overall picture is a company with a solid base of loyal, satisfied customers but a meaningful minority of serious service failures that cannot be ignored.

• 25 of 71 reviews contain no text at all — only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence.
• Several reviews use the word 'unknown' as the entire review body and were treated as no usable data.
• A cluster of blank 5-star reviews posted on the same dates (e.g., multiple on 2025-06-02, 2025-05-26, 2025-04-10) raises a mild concern about review padding or solicited ratings without genuine feedback. Confidence is not reduced significantly given the volume of detailed reviews, but this pattern is noted.
• One review (2024-01-13) describes a Mechanic's Lien being filed before the customer even received their bill — a serious business practice concern that goes beyond typical service quality.
• One detailed 1-star review (2016-01-27) describes property damage (broken bed), concealed drywall cutting with duct tape, and a dismissive owner response. The owner's alleged social media conduct was also flagged by the reviewer.
• One review (2022-09-17) describes paying a large bill for work that failed within one month and a manager explicitly refusing to warranty any of the work.
• Several older reviews (2013–2019) reference a specific owner/plumber named Kim or Keith doing personal work, suggesting the business may have changed significantly in staffing and scale over time. Older reviews may not reflect current service quality.
• Most negative reviews are concentrated in the 2016–2025 range and describe systemic issues (no warranty on clogs, repeat failures, billing disputes), suggesting these are not isolated incidents.

This WW Score is based on a substantial volume of reviews spanning over a decade, with enough detailed textual evidence across all four dimensions to produce a moderately reliable score, though the high proportion of blank reviews and a recurring pattern of serious project completion failures mean the score should be interpreted cautiously — particularly for complex or multi-visit jobs.

Omega Plumbing receives overwhelmingly positive feedback across professionalism, responsiveness, and project completion, with many reviewers praising same-day or next-day service, courteous technicians, and thorough follow-through on jobs. Pricing is a notable mixed point — several reviewers explicitly called out prices as reasonable or fair, while at least two reviews flagged Omega as more expensive than competitors, and one reviewer noted they went elsewhere due to a $200–$250 higher quote. Project completion is generally strong, but is meaningfully dragged down by two serious negative reviews: one alleging technicians diagnosed a sewer issue without using any tools and misrepresented findings to a warranty company, and another calling the company out for lacking experience on complex jobs and failing to follow through on an estimate. The one very old review (2006) flagging improper pipe materials also introduces a minor workmanship concern, though it is heavily discounted due to age.

• TWO SERIOUS NEGATIVE REVIEWS: One reviewer (2022-05-08) alleges technicians fabricated a diagnosis of root damage without inspecting the drain, potentially to inflate a warranty claim — this is a significant integrity concern. Another reviewer (2024-02-25) alleges the company lacks experience for complex jobs and has poor professional ethics.
• ESTIMATE FOLLOW-THROUGH FAILURE: One reviewer (2023-11-12) reported never receiving a promised estimate after multiple follow-up calls, and described the office staff as dismissive — a clear professionalism and project-initiation failure.
• PRICING INCONSISTENCY: Multiple reviews praise fair pricing, but at least two explicitly note Omega quoted significantly higher than competitors. Pricing confidence is tempered by this contradiction.
• ONE BLANK REVIEW: A 1-star review dated 2025-03-11 contained no text. It was counted in total reviews but excluded from dimension scoring as it provides no usable data.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews are from 2022–2025 and are considered current. One review dated 2006 was heavily discounted in scoring due to extreme age.
• MILD GENERIC PRAISE PATTERN: Several 5-star reviews use broadly positive but non-specific language (e.g., 'best plumbers in all of Reno' with no detail). These were scored conservatively but not flagged as definitively fake due to the presence of specific names, dates, and job descriptions in most other reviews.
• IMPROPER MATERIALS FLAG (2006): One reviewer noted a subsequent contractor found Omega had used improper pipe materials. This is discounted heavily due to age but noted as a historical workmanship concern.

This WW Score is based on a substantial volume of reviews (40 total) spanning multiple years, with strong mention counts across all four dimensions, making the score moderately reliable — however, the presence of two credible and detailed negative reviews alleging dishonesty and incompetence, combined with pricing inconsistencies, means consumers should treat this score as a cautiously positive signal rather than a strong endorsement for complex or high-stakes plumbing work.

Root-O-Matic has a strong base of positive reviews praising honesty, integrity, technical skill, and responsiveness across many years of service. The professionalism score is tempered by two credible negative reviews: one describing a missed appointment, poor follow-through on a toilet installation, and unresolved billing disputes (2014), and another alleging an abandoned AC installation (2018). Pricing is generally praised as fair and competitive, but one negative review alleges overcharging for a simple repair with suspicious billing practices, which meaningfully reduces the pricing score. Project completion is largely positive — multiple reviewers describe jobs finished on time and thoroughly — but the 2014 toilet installation review documents a clear failure to complete work correctly and follow through on callbacks, which cannot be ignored. Experience scores highest, with multiple reviewers specifically noting superior equipment, accurate diagnostics, and skilled problem-solving that saved customers from unnecessary costly repairs.

• 4 reviews contain no text — only a 5-star rating. These have been excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence.
• The 2018 negative review (abandoned AC installation) references work outside typical plumbing scope (air conditioning condenser). It is possible this review is misdirected or refers to a different contractor, as noted by a 2015 reviewer who suggested some negative reviews may be for a different company. However, it cannot be confirmed and has been included with reduced weight.
• The 2014 negative reviews (overcharging and toilet installation failure) are detailed, specific, and credible. They are older than 10 years but are substantive enough to meaningfully affect scoring.
• Several positive reviews use similar language ('honest,' 'integrity,' 'fair') but appear across different years and describe distinct job types, so this is not flagged as fake — it likely reflects genuine brand reputation. No strong fake review pattern detected.
• A significant portion of reviews are older than 3 years (many from 2013–2021). Recent reviews (2024–2025) are more positive and detailed, suggesting possible service improvement over time, but older negative reviews still inform the score.

This WW Score is based on 29 reviews with usable content spanning 2010–2025, including multiple credible negative reviews; the score carries HIGH overall confidence but should be interpreted with awareness that a few serious complaints about billing, follow-through, and abandoned work exist in the historical record.