Find Nearby Plumbers In Reno, Nevada

Sierra Nevada Plumbing shows significant inconsistency across reviews spanning 2012–2024. Positive reviews praise professionalism, fair pricing, and technical expertise, particularly from recent work (2024, 2021). However, serious negative reviews document unprofessional behavior (profanity, wrong address visits), pricing deception (advertised vs. actual quotes), incomplete work (boiler malfunction, unresolved leaks), and failure to honor guarantees or return callbacks. The 2017 boiler case is especially damaging—incomplete repair, overbilling, and ignored follow-up calls. Recency slightly favors the company (2024 review is strong), but the pattern of complaints across multiple years suggests systemic issues rather than isolated incidents.

• CRITICAL: Multiple reviews document incomplete project completion and failure to honor guarantees (2017 boiler case, 2020 kitchen leak still leaking after service).
• CRITICAL: Pricing deception documented—advertised price denied upon arrival with price increase (2020); overbilling on labor hours (2017).
• CRITICAL: Unprofessional conduct including profanity directed at customer (2020 review: 'I TOLD THE MOTHERFUCKER to be here').
• CRITICAL: Failure to follow up—ignored phone calls for 2+ months regarding incomplete work (2017); no follow-up on furnace estimate emails (2020).
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most negative reviews are 4+ years old (2017, 2020), but recent 2024 review is positive. Unclear if management changes (mentioned in 2021 review) resolved systemic issues.
• INCONSISTENCY: Robert Compton is praised in older reviews (2012, 2018, 2019) but appears in negative context in 2020 review. Possible staff turnover or quality degradation.

This score should be treated with CAUTION. While recent reviews are positive, the company has a documented history of incomplete work, pricing deception, and failure to honor guarantees spanning multiple years. The MODERATE overall confidence reflects conflicting evidence: strong recent performance vs. serious unresolved complaints from 2017–2020. Recommend requesting references and written guarantees before engaging.

Walker River Mechanical shows strong technical expertise and experience (88/100), with multiple reviews praising skilled workmanship and problem-solving. However, professionalism is significantly compromised by recent severe failures in communication, scheduling, and follow-through (65/100), including three no-shows and repeated broken promises to call back. Pricing is fair and competitive (82.5/100) based on explicit mentions of reasonable rates and estimates below competitors. Project completion is inconsistent (68/100)—older reviews show excellent follow-through, but recent reviews reveal critical breakdowns in appointment reliability and responsiveness. The company appears to have experienced a notable decline in service quality within the past 2 years.

• RECENCY CONCERN: Most positive reviews are 2+ years old (2017–2022). The two most recent reviews (2023) are both 1-star with severe complaints about no-shows and communication failures, suggesting significant deterioration in service quality.
• PATTERN DETECTED: Multiple recent reviews (Aug 2023, Jul 2023, Feb 2020) describe identical failure modes: scheduled appointments not honored, staff not showing up, and broken promises to return calls. This is not isolated—it appears systemic.
• STAFF CHANGE NOTED: One reviewer explicitly states 'Sometime in the last couple of years the staff changed and their customer service went downhill,' corroborating the recency pattern.
• INCONSISTENCY: Stark contrast between older 5-star reviews praising 'Matt' and recent 1-star reviews citing communication and scheduling failures. This suggests either leadership/staff turnover or operational breakdown.

This score should be treated with caution. While the WW Score of 72.8 reflects the full dataset, the company's trajectory is sharply negative—recent reviews indicate serious operational failures that contradict the strong historical reputation, suggesting the current score may already be outdated and the company's actual reliability is likely lower than this aggregate suggests.

Chilipepper demonstrates solid technical capability and product quality (78/100 experience score), with multiple customers praising the pump's effectiveness and quiet operation. However, professionalism and customer service are significant weaknesses, with repeated complaints about unavailable phone support, unresponsive email, and poor communication during troubleshooting. Pricing concerns emerge around hidden costs (shipping fees for returns, repair charges) and product durability issues that undermine value. Project completion is hampered by reliability problems—multiple customers report bearing failures within months to a year, requiring repeated replacements and extended troubleshooting cycles.

• CRITICAL: Severe reliability issues flagged across multiple reviews. One customer replaced pump 3 times in under 1 year due to bearing failures (2017). Another customer experienced failures at 1 year, 4 years, and 4 months respectively across three units (2019). A third customer's pump failed after less than 1 year (2015). This suggests systemic product quality problems, particularly with earlier models.
• COMMUNICATION CRISIS: Multiple independent reviews (2024, 2017) report inability to reach company by phone during business hours, unresponsive emails, and owner refusing phone calls. This is a pattern, not isolated incident. One customer (2024) explicitly states owner ignored shipping label request after defective product return.
• HIDDEN COSTS: Customers report unexpected shipping charges for returns and repairs. One customer paid $260.98 refund but had to cover return shipping themselves. Another paid shipping for repair. This contradicts standard business practice and creates pricing transparency issues.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most positive reviews are from 2016-2019 (older than 5 years). Most recent reviews (2024, 2017) are highly negative, suggesting service quality has deteriorated or product reliability has worsened over time.
• PRODUCT DESIGN ISSUES: 2024 review details over-engineering of new model with unnecessary features (100-degree shutoff temperature) that don't work as advertised. Customer suggests original simpler design was superior.
• INCONSISTENT SERVICE: One 2024 review praises Dennis for attentive customer service and allowing return past 30-day window. Same person (Dennis) is accused in another 2024 review of ignoring complaints and refusing phone contact. This suggests highly variable service quality or possible different interactions.

This WW Score of 72.8 should be treated with caution. While the score reflects genuine product strengths (effective technology, reasonable pricing for category), it masks serious underlying issues: documented systemic product failures, chronic communication problems, and deteriorating service quality over time. The MODERATE overall confidence reflects conflicting evidence—strong technical performance undermined by reliability and service failures. Customers considering this company should prioritize the recent negative reviews (2024, 2017) over older positive ones, as they indicate current operational problems. The score would be significantly lower if weighted toward recent reviews only.

Aquious Tankless Solutions receives strong praise from the majority of reviewers for responsiveness, professionalism, and technical competence — particularly around tankless water heater installation and servicing. However, the review set contains several serious negative accounts that meaningfully drag down all dimensions: one reviewer reports a job left completely non-functional with property damage and credential misrepresentation, another describes a no-show appointment with no follow-up, and a third details a pricing dispute where a verbal commitment was denied. Pricing is a mixed picture — some reviewers cite competitive rates and discounts, while others flag non-itemized quotes, a card surcharge, and unexpected add-on charges. Project completion is similarly split, with most jobs described as completed well but at least two reviews indicating significant follow-through failures. The overall score reflects a business with genuine strengths but a pattern of inconsistency that prospective customers should weigh carefully.

• One review (2020-04-26, 1-star) alleges the job was never completed, property was damaged, and that the contractor misrepresented credentials — this is a serious flag that warrants independent verification.
• One review (2021-04-04, 2-star) reports a complete no-show for a scheduled appointment with no follow-up contact — a direct professionalism and reliability failure.
• One review (2023-05-26, 2-star) documents a pricing dispute where a verbal/text commitment was later denied — raises transparency and integrity concerns.
• One review (2021-08-29, 1-star) flags non-itemized quotes described as 'proprietary knowledge' and a 3% card surcharge — both are pricing transparency red flags.
• One 5-star review (2021-10-14) uses language that reads as potentially promotional or competitive in nature ('staged complaints to hurt his relatively new business'), which may indicate bias; scored but noted.
• Review dates span 2020–2023. The most recent reviews (late 2023) are generally positive, but the serious negative reviews from 2020–2023 are spread across the full period and cannot be dismissed as isolated early incidents.
• No fake review pattern detected overall, but the review set is small (13 reviews), which limits statistical reliability.

This WW Score is based on 13 reviews with usable data across all four dimensions; while mention counts are sufficient for HIGH confidence labels on each dimension, the small total sample size and the presence of multiple substantive negative reviews — including an alleged incomplete job with property damage — mean this score should be treated as a reasonable signal but not a definitive verdict, and prospective customers are advised to seek additional references and verify contractor credentials independently.

Arellano Heating & Plumbing demonstrates strong technical competence and generally positive professionalism, with multiple reviewers praising Hector and other technicians for their knowledge, friendliness, and willingness to go above and beyond — including coming out on the 4th of July and responding within hours during emergencies. However, two reviews (one rated 3-star, one rated 1-star) raise serious concerns about responsiveness and follow-through, with customers reporting being ignored after initial contact and promises not being honored. Project completion scores are pulled down meaningfully by these communication and scheduling failures, which represent a real and recurring pattern rather than isolated incidents. Pricing was mentioned positively in three reviews, with terms like 'inexpensive,' 'very reasonable,' and 'worked with us on cost,' supporting a moderately strong price-friendly score. The overall score reflects a contractor with genuine skill and loyal customers but a notable and documented weakness in scheduling responsiveness and follow-up communication.

• Two reviews explicitly describe being ignored after initial contact — one customer (2021) could not shower due to an unrepaired drain after Hector failed to respond to texts and calls; another customer (2023) gave up after repeated unanswered calls, emails, and Facebook messages. This is a recurring responsiveness pattern, not a one-off incident.
• Several reviews are older than 3 years (2013–2017 range), and the most recent negative reviews are from 2021 and 2023. Recency weighting was applied — older glowing reviews were given reduced weight relative to more recent mixed feedback.
• No suspected fake reviews detected. Reviews vary in tone, detail level, writing style, and rating, which supports authenticity. Some older 5-star reviews are brief but contain specific names and details.
• Total review count is 13, which is low. Scores carry moderate reliability overall — a small number of additional negative reviews could shift the WW Score significantly.

This WW Score carries moderate reliability — the review pool is small (13 reviews), spans over a decade with significant recency gaps, and includes two credible negative reviews that meaningfully offset an otherwise positive pattern; prospective customers should weigh the responsiveness concerns seriously before engaging this contractor.

Mike performs well on HVAC, plumbing, and electrical tasks, with multiple reviewers praising his responsiveness, punctuality, and friendly demeanor. However, a notable negative review from 2024 describes poor workmanship on painting and trim work, including broken equipment and skipped prep steps, which meaningfully drags down both project completion and experience scores. Pricing is a mixed picture — several reviewers praised his rates as reasonable or half the competition, but one reviewer explicitly called out a $190 charge for a simple float valve replacement as excessive. The most recent review (2024) is negative, and the reviewer from 2023 also noted that most good reviews are from 2020, suggesting a possible decline in recent performance that warrants caution.

• RECENCY CONCERN: The majority of positive reviews are from 2020–2021. Only 2 reviews exist from 2023 onward, and both are negative (1-star and 3-star). This pattern suggests a possible decline in service quality or consistency in recent years.
• SCOPE CREEP RISK: The 2024 negative review indicates Mike took on painting and exterior work outside his apparent core competencies (HVAC, plumbing, electrical), resulting in poor outcomes. Scores may not reflect performance across all service types.
• PRICING INCONSISTENCY: While several older reviews praise his pricing, the 2023 reviewer explicitly flagged overcharging for a basic plumbing repair. These conflicting signals reduce confidence in the pricing score.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK: LOW — Reviews vary in detail, tone, and rating, which reduces suspicion of fabrication. However, the cluster of generic 5-star reviews from 2020 with limited specifics warrants mild caution.

This WW Score carries moderate overall reliability — the volume of reviews is adequate, but the strong recency skew toward negative outcomes and the concentration of positive reviews in 2020–2021 means the score likely overstates current service quality.