Find Nearby Plumbers In Reno, Nevada

Joe's plumbing service demonstrates strong professionalism and project completion across multiple reviews, with customers consistently praising responsiveness, communication, and thorough workmanship. Technical expertise is evident in problem-solving and code compliance. However, pricing presents a significant concern: one recent review (2021) explicitly reports a $200 overbilling discrepancy and dishonesty, directly contradicting the 'fair pricing' claims in other reviews. Most positive reviews are older than 2 years, limiting recency validation. The WW Score of 82.1 reflects solid execution capability tempered by pricing integrity questions.

• PRICING INTEGRITY CONCERN: One 1-star review (2021-07-15) explicitly alleges $200 overbilling and dishonesty, directly contradicting positive pricing mentions. This is a material red flag that cannot be ignored.
• RECENCY ISSUE: 4 of 5 usable reviews are older than 2 years (2016-2018). Only 1 recent review (2024-04-15) provides current-period validation. Older reviews may not reflect current service standards.
• EMPTY REVIEW: One 5-star review (2016-03-15) contains only a period with no substantive content. This is flagged as potentially artificial.
• CONFLICTING NARRATIVES: Positive reviews praise 'reasonable pricing' and 'fair pricing,' but the 1-star review alleges significant overbilling. This contradiction suggests either inconsistent pricing practices or selective service quality.

This score should be treated with caution. While professionalism and completion metrics are solid, the explicit pricing fraud allegation in a recent review (2021) combined with predominantly older positive reviews (2016-2018) creates material uncertainty about current trustworthiness and pricing practices.

Professionalism is the strongest and most consistently evidenced dimension across all five reviews, with multiple reviewers explicitly praising responsiveness, communication, reliability, and attitude from named team members like Chris and Isaac. Pricing received limited but positive mentions — one reviewer called quotes competitive and another described them as reasonable and well-detailed, though only two reviews touched on this dimension. Project completion is moderately supported: two reviews confirm jobs were finished on time and one describes rapid response to an emergency, though one review was written mid-project and could not confirm final delivery. Experience is moderately evidenced through references to organized teams, effective mold remediation, and water damage mitigation, though reviews lean more toward process praise than deep technical commentary. Overall, the score reflects a genuinely positive but small and partially dated review set.

• Three of the five reviews are more than 3 years old (2017, 2019, 2020), and one is from 2017 — recency is a concern as the most current reviews are from 2023 and 2020 only. Performance consistency over time cannot be fully confirmed.
• One review (2017-11-19) was explicitly written before project completion — the reviewer stated they would update after work was done, but no follow-up review is present. This review was treated as partial data only.
• Review volume is very low (5 reviews). Scores should be treated as directional rather than definitive.
• No fake review patterns detected — reviews vary in length, detail, specificity, and writing style. Named individuals (Chris, Isaac) and specific scenarios (bear break-in, mold under purchased home) add credibility.

This WW Score carries moderate reliability due to a small review pool, significant recency gaps, and one incomplete pre-project review — it reflects a positive signal but should not be treated as a high-confidence assessment without additional recent reviews.

Squire Enterprises demonstrates strong professionalism and project completion capabilities, with multiple reviews praising punctuality, responsiveness, and follow-through on complex jobs. Technical expertise is consistently noted across reviews. However, a critical 1-star review from 2013 reveals serious pricing concerns—a customer was underquoted by $1,000 and charged an additional $250 for incomplete work, indicating potential transparency and communication issues around costs. The WW Score of 79.8 reflects solid operational performance offset by significant pricing red flags that cannot be ignored.

• PRICING CONCERN: One detailed negative review (2013) explicitly documents underquoting by ~$1,000 and hidden charges of $250. This is the only pricing-related mention and carries substantial weight despite being a single review.
• RECENCY ISSUE: 4 of 6 reviews are older than 5 years (2013, 2016, 2019, 2020). Only 1 recent review from 2024. Older reviews may not reflect current business practices.
• POSITIVE REVIEW CLUSTERING: 5 of 6 reviews are 5-star with generic praise language ('great,' 'highly recommend,' 'best in town'). While the 2024 review provides specific details, the older positive reviews lack specificity and could indicate selection bias.
• COMMUNICATION RED FLAG: The 1-star review explicitly mentions 'terrible communication between the manager and his workers,' which contradicts the professionalism scores from other reviews. This suggests inconsistency in service quality.

This score should be treated with caution. While professionalism and completion scores are supported by multiple mentions, the single but detailed negative review documenting significant pricing and communication failures, combined with the age of most positive reviews and lack of recent pricing feedback, creates meaningful uncertainty about current reliability and fair pricing practices.

AM/PM Discount Plumbing receives consistently strong praise for professionalism, with multiple reviewers highlighting Sam's friendly demeanor, responsiveness, and communication — including a follow-up call after service. Pricing is frequently cited as fair and transparent, with no hidden charges, though one reviewer felt charged unfairly for minimal work. Project completion scores are solid overall, with several complex jobs resolved successfully, but are tempered by one notable negative review where the plumber declined to fix a burst pipe and still charged a full hour at weekend rates. Experience scores reflect genuine skill — Sam is credited with solving problems two other plumbers could not — but the one-star review raises a concern about inconsistency in difficult or after-hours situations. The score is moderated by the presence of one credible negative review and the fact that most reviews are from 2014–2020, with none in the past 12 months.

• Most reviews are older than 12 months — the most recent review is from August 2020, meaning there is no recent data to confirm current service quality.
• One credible 1-star review describes being charged a full hour at weekend rates for approximately 5 minutes of work and no repair performed — this is a meaningful negative signal for both project completion and pricing.
• Several 5-star reviews use warm, generic praise with limited specifics, which warrants mild caution, though enough reviews include concrete details to suggest authenticity overall.
• Review volume is low (8 total), which limits statistical reliability of all dimension scores.

This WW Score carries moderate reliability due to a small review pool, a complete absence of reviews from the past 12 months, and one substantive negative review that meaningfully offsets the otherwise positive pattern.

Mike receives consistently positive feedback across professionalism, project completion, and technical experience, with multiple reviewers praising his friendliness, responsiveness, and ability to diagnose and resolve issues efficiently. His experience score is supported by specific mentions of handling obscure fixture manufacturers, diagnosing water pressure issues, and fixing problems without unnecessary part replacements. Pricing is mentioned positively in two reviews as 'fair,' but the limited mention count keeps that dimension's confidence low. One notable negative review from 2016 flagged an unreachable voicemail box, which raises a minor concern about communication reliability. The majority of reviews are older than 5 years, which meaningfully limits confidence in how representative this data is of current performance.

• ALL reviews are dated between 2013 and 2018 — none are within the past 12 months (relative to a 2024/2025 evaluation date). This significantly limits the reliability of the score as a reflection of current performance.
• One negative review (2016) flagged an inability to reach Mike due to a full voicemail box, suggesting a potential responsiveness issue that is not reflected in the otherwise uniformly positive reviews.
• All other 7 reviews are 5-star ratings. While the reviews contain specific details and varied language reducing the likelihood of fabrication, the uniformity of high ratings warrants mild caution.
• Small sample size of 8 reviews total limits statistical confidence across all dimensions.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability due to a small review sample, the absence of any reviews from the past several years, and one flagged communication concern — prospective customers should seek more recent references before hiring.

Eric demonstrates strong technical expertise and professionalism in most interactions, with 9 reviews explicitly praising his knowledge, courtesy, and work quality. However, a critical weakness emerges in project completion and responsiveness: two recent reviews (9/6/24 and 9/12/22) report complete failure to return calls, representing a serious service gap. Pricing is fairly represented as competitive and honest across 3 mentions. The score reflects strong capability undermined by inconsistent follow-through on initial contact, which directly impacts customer trust despite excellent work quality when jobs are undertaken.

• CRITICAL: Two separate reviews (dated 9/6/24 and 9/12/22) report complete non-responsiveness and failure to call back. This is a recurring pattern suggesting systemic communication breakdown, not isolated incidents.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most positive reviews are 2-4 years old (2020-2022). The most recent review (9/6/24) is highly negative, suggesting possible service degradation or capacity issues.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: Reviews from 2021 and 2020 contain suspiciously similar phrasing ('above and beyond,' 'extremely knowledgeable,' 'highly recommend') with excessive enthusiasm and no specific criticisms. However, the 2024 negative review and mixed timeline suggest these are likely genuine rather than fabricated.
• CAPACITY ISSUE: Multiple reviews mention Eric being 'swamped' or 'packed schedule,' which correlates with the non-callback complaints. This suggests business may be overextended.

This score should be treated with caution due to the stark contrast between work quality (consistently praised) and initial responsiveness (recently failed twice). The MODERATE overall confidence reflects strong technical data offset by a critical and recurring service failure that directly contradicts the positive historical record. Recent negative reviews suggest the score may be trending downward.