Find Nearby Plumbers In Reno, Nevada

Marraccini shows strong professionalism and technical competence, with staff frequently praised for friendliness, knowledge, and responsiveness. However, the company is severely hampered by persistent pricing complaints spanning multiple years—customers consistently report markups of 200-400% above market rates and feel overcharged for parts and labor. Project completion is mixed: while many jobs are completed successfully, several reviews document unresolved issues, delayed callbacks, and failure to diagnose problems correctly, leaving customers to hire competitors. The stark contrast between positive recent reviews (2024-2025) and negative older reviews (2012-2018) suggests either significant company changes or inconsistent service quality.

• PRICING PATTERN: Nine reviews explicitly mention overcharging, inflated labor rates, or excessive markups. This is the most consistent complaint across the entire dataset and spans from 2012 to 2015, suggesting systemic pricing practices rather than isolated incidents.
• RECENCY BIAS: Recent reviews (2024-2025) are predominantly 5-star with minimal detail, while older reviews (2012-2018) contain detailed negative experiences with specific dollar amounts and comparisons to competitors. This temporal split warrants caution—recent reviews may not reflect historical service quality issues.
• PROJECT COMPLETION CONCERNS: Multiple reviews document incomplete problem-solving (2014 sewer line diagnosis, 2018 A/C unit requiring three visits and external contractor, 2018 shower leaks unresolved for 3+ weeks). These suggest diagnostic or follow-through gaps.
• PROFESSIONALISM INCONSISTENCY: One 2023 review describes a technician being openly rude and dismissive to a customer, contradicting the 'professional staff' narrative in recent reviews. This suggests variable staff conduct.
• CALLBACK FAILURES: At least two reviews (2015, 2018) explicitly mention promised callbacks that never occurred, indicating potential customer service management issues.

This score should be treated with moderate caution. While recent reviews are uniformly positive and suggest improved professionalism, the historical pattern of pricing complaints and project completion failures is substantial and well-documented. The WW Score of 62.8 reflects genuine strengths in staff demeanor and technical knowledge, but is significantly depressed by legitimate, specific pricing grievances and documented service gaps. Customers should obtain multiple quotes and clarify all pricing before engaging this company.

Alpha Omega Mechanical shows a deeply mixed track record across all scored dimensions. Professionalism is the most frequently mentioned dimension and is severely dragged down by at least five reviews describing no-shows, missed appointments without notice, and one account of technicians mocking a customer — though several positive reviews praise specific technicians like Rodney, Gabriel, and Korey for courtesy and communication. Project completion is similarly split: multiple reviews describe excellent end-to-end delivery on complex jobs, while others document abandoned appointments, holes cut in walls, and work that required multiple return visits to resolve. Pricing received the most damaging individual review ($480 for a minor valve replacement on a Saturday), and one review described a job billed $400 over the quoted price with undisclosed cash-only payment terms and poor workmanship — pulling the pricing score down significantly despite one review noting competitive and transparent pricing. Experience scores moderately well, with several reviewers praising technical knowledge and problem-solving, but offset by accounts of a plumber spending four hours without diagnosing a simple pressure gauge issue and another company having to redo improperly installed work.

• 7 reviews contain no text at all — only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence.
• Several short reviews ('Outstanding workmanship', 'Really professional', 'Highly recommended!', 'Awesome', 'Quality service by Union Hands') are generic and lack any specific detail, raising mild concern about authenticity or usefulness. These were given minimal weight.
• Multiple no-show complaints appear across different years (2018, 2019, 2020, 2023), suggesting a systemic reliability problem rather than isolated incidents.
• The most recent reviews (2023–2024) include a no-show complaint and an extreme pricing complaint, indicating issues may still be ongoing rather than historical.
• Several reviews are more than 3 years old (2012–2020), which limits their relevance to current business performance. The 2012 review describing billing fraud and poor workmanship was included but weighted conservatively due to age.
• One review raises a concern that the business may have closed or changed ownership, which could affect the reliability of the entire review set as a reflection of a single consistent business entity.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability: the volume of reviews is sufficient and the dimension mention counts are reasonable, but the score is significantly affected by a high proportion of blank reviews, suspected generic filler reviews, a wide date range spanning over a decade, and a possible business ownership change that may mean older and newer reviews do not reflect the same company.

American Leak Detection receives strongly positive feedback for technical skill and problem-solving ability, with multiple reviewers praising specific technicians (Estephan, Nicki, Richard, Justin) for their knowledgeable and methodical approaches to leak detection. Project completion is generally positive among those who received service, with leaks successfully located and resolved. However, two reviews — both from the Northern Nevada office — describe a serious and repeated failure to return calls over multiple days and years, which significantly drags down the professionalism score. Pricing data is entirely absent from all reviews, so that dimension cannot be scored. The mixed record of excellent field work versus poor office responsiveness creates a split picture that warrants caution.

• Two reviews explicitly describe the Northern Nevada office failing to return calls — one reviewer waited from April 2012 with no callback by November 2013, and another left 4 messages over 3 days with no response. This is a serious and documented pattern of communication failure.
• The positive reviews span from 2016 to 2024, while the two negative reviews are from 2013. Recency weighting favors the positive reviews, but the negative reviews represent a documented systemic issue that may or may not have been resolved.
• No pricing information is mentioned in any review, making the Price Friendly dimension entirely unscoreable.
• The review set is very small (6 reviews), which limits statistical reliability. The WW Score should be treated as directional only.
• Some positive reviews are highly specific and name individual technicians, which increases their credibility. No fake review patterns detected.

This WW Score is based on only 6 reviews spanning a wide date range (2013–2024), and while the scoring dimensions with data are supported by reasonably specific reviews, the small sample size and decade-long time span mean this score should be treated as a rough directional indicator rather than a definitive assessment of current service quality.

Rooter Rite presents a deeply mixed picture across all four dimensions. Professionalism is the most heavily flagged area, with multiple reviews citing missed appointment windows, unanswered calls, call-forwarding during emergencies, outright lies to home warranty companies, walking off job sites without notice, and hanging up on customers — though a handful of reviews do praise George's promptness and pleasant attitude. Project completion is similarly troubled: several reviews describe jobs left incomplete, no follow-through on estimates, a plumber physically unable to perform required work, and a technician who made a shower diverter worse across multiple recall visits, while positive reviews do credit completed repairs done efficiently. Experience scores moderately, with some reviewers praising knowledgeable and skilled work and others describing poor workmanship, incorrect diagnoses, and a technician who admitted he was 'not good at' caulking. Pricing is the strongest dimension, with multiple reviewers noting reasonable rates, a below-quote charge, and pricing well below competitors — though the sample is smaller. The overall WW Score of approximately 58 reflects a contractor with genuine strengths in pricing and occasional skilled work, undermined by a consistent and serious pattern of reliability, communication, and professionalism failures.

• RECENCY WARNING: The majority of reviews are older than 12 months, with most dating from 2013–2021. Only two reviews are from the past 12 months (2024-07-08 and 2024-04-10), which limits confidence in current service quality. The most recent negative review (2024-07-08) suggests professionalism issues persist.
• PHYSICAL CAPABILITY CONCERN: The most recent review (2024-07-08) raises a serious concern that the primary technician has significant physical limitations (open back wound, inability to enter crawl spaces, difficulty bending) that may preclude him from performing standard plumbing tasks. This is a material service risk.
• PATTERN OF DISHONESTY: Multiple independent reviews across different years allege George lied — to a customer about truck availability (2021), to a home warranty company about a scheduled appointment (2023), and provided a false diagnosis about a 'rare' part (2016). This is a significant and recurring integrity flag.
• PATTERN OF ABANDONMENT/NO-FOLLOW-THROUGH: At least three reviews describe George leaving a job site without notice, failing to return calls, or never sending promised estimates. This is a consistent pattern across multiple years.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — LOW LEVEL: Several 5-star reviews from 2015–2018 are brief, generic, and lack specific detail (e.g., 'Best plumber in Reno,' 'They are the best!'). These may be authentic but warrant mild caution as they provide little verifiable detail. No strong evidence of coordinated fake reviews, but noted.
• HOME WARRANTY CONTEXT: The majority of reviews involve home warranty assignments rather than direct hires. Performance in warranty contexts may differ from direct-hire engagements, and some negative experiences may be partially attributable to warranty company constraints — though the contractor's conduct (lying, abandoning jobs, unresponsiveness) is independently attributable to Rooter Rite.

This WW Score is based on 22 reviews spanning approximately 11 years, with HIGH mention counts across all dimensions, but the score should be treated with moderate caution due to the heavy skew of reviews toward the 2013–2021 period, a documented pattern of dishonesty and job abandonment across multiple independent reviewers, and only two reviews from the past 12 months — one of which is negative and suggests ongoing issues.

This is a franchise brand with hundreds of locations, and the review pool reflects wildly inconsistent quality across different operators and technicians. Professionalism scores are dragged down significantly by a large volume of reviews describing rude, condescending, or outright hostile technicians and office staff, though many positive reviews praise specific named technicians as courteous and professional. Pricing is the most damaging dimension: an enormous number of reviews describe a bait-and-switch pattern where a low advertised rate (often $49) is used to gain entry, followed by aggressive upselling to hydro-jetting, camera inspections, and pipe replacement at prices reviewers consistently describe as two to ten times market rate. Project completion is mixed — many jobs are completed satisfactorily and quickly, but a significant minority of reviews describe incomplete work, warranty refusals, no-shows, and jobs that required a second company to actually fix the problem. Experience scores reflect genuine skill from certain technicians but are undermined by repeated accounts of misdiagnosis, fabricated damage, and work that failed within days or weeks.

• STRONG BAIT-AND-SWITCH PATTERN DETECTED: Dozens of independent reviews across multiple years and locations describe an identical pattern — low advertised price ($49 drain special) used to gain entry, followed by claims the snake cannot work and escalating upsells to hydro-jetting ($500-$1200), camera inspection, and full pipe replacement ($3,000-$15,000+). This is a systemic business practice, not isolated incidents.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — POSITIVE SIDE: A notable cluster of short, generic 5-star reviews with no detail (e.g., 'Good experience', 'Great service!', 'You guys great!', blank text with 5 stars) appear throughout the dataset, many dated in close proximity. These lack specificity and are consistent with review padding. Confidence in the positive score pool is reduced accordingly.
• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: Multiple reviews appear to be exact duplicates submitted on the same or adjacent dates (e.g., identical text for 'Many other contractors proposed to snake the sewer line', 'Very Pleased with results', 'Did a great job excellent work', 'Prompt, polite, professional', etc.). This inflates the apparent review count and may indicate manipulation.
• MULTI-LOCATION FRANCHISE ISSUE: Reviews clearly reference dozens of different geographic locations (Sacramento, Orange County, Reno, Framingham MA, Spartanburg SC, Baton Rouge, etc.) and different named technicians. This is not a single contractor — it is a franchise brand. Scores reflect the aggregate brand, not any single operator. Individual location quality varies enormously.
• SERIOUS FRAUD ALLEGATIONS: Multiple reviews allege criminal-level conduct including: charging for work not performed, fabricating damage on camera footage, partnering with restoration companies (Bolmer Restoration named repeatedly) to generate fraudulent insurance claims, opening credit cards in customers' names, placing mechanics liens on homes, and targeting elderly and vulnerable customers. One review references a revoked NV business license and cancelled contractor license.
• WARRANTY REFUSAL PATTERN: Multiple reviews describe the company refusing to honor stated warranties when problems recurred within the warranty period, often citing new reasons to charge again.
• NO-SHOW AND SCHEDULING FAILURE PATTERN: A significant number of reviews describe confirmed appointments where technicians never arrived and calls were not returned, sometimes leaving customers without water or sewage service for days.
• RECENCY NOTE: The review dataset spans from approximately 2010 to June 2025. Reviews from the past 12 months (mid-2024 to mid-2025) show a continued mix of strong positives for specific named technicians and serious negatives for pricing and scam-like upselling, suggesting the pattern has not materially changed. More recent reviews were weighted slightly higher in scoring.

This WW Score of 58.2 should be treated with MODERATE-TO-LOW trust as a hiring signal: while it accurately reflects the deeply polarized nature of this franchise brand, the score is based on a mixed pool that includes suspected fake positive reviews, duplicate submissions, and reviews from dozens of geographically distinct franchise locations — meaning the score does not reliably predict the quality of any single local operator, and the systemic pricing and upselling complaints documented across hundreds of independent reviews represent a material risk that any prospective customer should investigate carefully before engaging this company.

R&S Plumbing, Heating and Appliance has a deeply mixed review profile. Positive reviews highlight a knowledgeable, dedicated technician (Rudy) who follows through on jobs, works in difficult conditions, and charges fair prices. However, serious negative reviews describe misdiagnosis, overcharging, missed appointments, rude behavior, refusal to share part numbers, and unauthorized contact with third parties — all of which significantly drag down scores across every dimension. Professionalism is the most contested dimension, with multiple reviews explicitly citing rudeness, missed appointments, and lack of accountability alongside praise for friendliness and honesty. Project completion is similarly split, with one reviewer's furnace problem going unresolved and another describing repeated installation failures. The overall picture is of a contractor with genuine skill and loyal long-term customers but a troubling pattern of serious service failures that cannot be ignored.

• Three of the five-star reviews are notably generic or lack specific job details (e.g., 'Nice service man. Was happy with the work.'), which slightly reduces confidence in the positive signal.
• One five-star review (2015) explicitly frames itself as a rebuttal to a negative review, which may indicate motivated rather than organic feedback.
• Most reviews are dated between 2015 and 2019, with the most recent being from April 2019. No reviews from the past 12 months (relative to a 2024/2025 evaluation date) are present — the score may not reflect current service quality.
• The business was noted to be merging with Sierra Air as of the 2017 negative review, which may mean the entity being reviewed has since changed ownership or operations — scores should be interpreted with caution.
• Two detailed one-star reviews describe specific, verifiable misconduct (misdiagnosis, overcharging, missed appointments, unauthorized third-party contact), which carry significant evidentiary weight despite being outnumbered by positive reviews.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability due to a small review set, a wide date range spanning over four years with no recent reviews, and a stark polarization between detailed negative accounts and some generic positive ones — consumers should weigh the specific negative allegations heavily before hiring.