Find Nearby Plumbers In Reno, Nevada

Nevada Heating and Cooling demonstrates strong professionalism across 42 mentions, with consistent praise for punctuality, courtesy, communication, and responsiveness. Technical expertise is well-documented across 28 mentions, with technicians frequently praised for knowledge and thorough explanations. Project completion is solid across 18 mentions, with jobs finished on time and follow-through honored. Pricing receives moderate support from 8 mentions, with customers noting fair and competitive rates, though one 2025 review (3-star) criticized misleading marketing of 'free' services that were actually pre-paid reminders. The single 1-star review from 2025 raises serious concerns about diagnostic integrity—the customer was quoted $10k+ for an A/C replacement two years ago, but a different technician later identified the actual problem as a simple capacitor replacement. This suggests potential systemic issues with initial diagnostics or sales pressure, though recent reviews (2025) show improved service quality.

• CRITICAL: One 1-star review (2025-06-09) alleges misdiagnosis and potential sales pressure—customer was quoted $10k+ for full A/C replacement when actual problem was a $50 capacitor. This contradicts the overwhelmingly positive recent reviews and suggests either isolated bad actor or systemic diagnostic/sales practices issue.
• SUSPICIOUS PATTERN: Multiple reviews from 2025-06-07 and 2025-06-06 use nearly identical phrasing ('kind, courteous and polite,' 'very professional,' 'knowledgeable,' 'answered all my questions'). One review (2025-06-07) contains four separate service reports with identical language structure, suggesting possible template-based or fabricated reviews.
• RECENCY BIAS: 45 of 56 reviews (80%) are from May-June 2025, with only 11 reviews older than 1 year. Heavy clustering in recent dates raises questions about review authenticity and may not reflect long-term consistency.
• MARKETING COMPLAINT: 3-star review (2025-05-10) criticizes deceptive marketing—'free' service offers are actually reminders of pre-paid services, with the word 'complimentary' used misleadingly. This suggests potential customer service or transparency issues.
• MIXED CONTRACTOR QUALITY: Reviews mention 30+ different technicians by name. While most are praised individually, the 1-star review suggests quality control inconsistency or that some technicians may prioritize sales over honest diagnosis.

This WW Score of 82.1 should be treated with CAUTION. While recent reviews (2025) show consistently high professionalism and technical skill, the suspicious clustering of identical phrasing, the critical 1-star diagnostic fraud allegation, and the 80% recency concentration suggest the review dataset may be partially fabricated or curated. The score reflects current service quality but does not account for the serious diagnostic integrity concern raised in the 1-star review, which, if accurate, represents a fundamental breach of trust. Recommend independent verification before engaging this contractor for major HVAC work.

Mackinaw Plumbing demonstrates strong overall performance with a WW Score of 82.1, driven by consistently high marks in professionalism (85.3) and experience (86.5). The company excels at responsiveness, emergency service availability, and technical competence, with numerous reviews praising Terry's quick response times and quality workmanship. Pricing is fair and transparent (83.8), though project completion shows the lowest score (79.2) due to documented instances of missed appointments, communication lapses, and billing disputes. The stark contrast between 31 five-star reviews and 5 one-star reviews suggests either highly variable service quality or potential customer-specific issues; however, the one-star reviews contain specific, credible allegations (missed appointments, billing discrepancies, permit violations) that cannot be dismissed as fake.

• POLARIZED REVIEW DISTRIBUTION: 31 five-star reviews vs. 5 one-star reviews with minimal middle ratings suggests inconsistent service delivery or customer-specific issues rather than fake reviews.
• CREDIBLE NEGATIVE ALLEGATIONS: One-star reviews contain specific, detailed complaints (permit fraud, billing for unperformed work with surveillance camera evidence, missed appointments 3 of 4 times, price increases after material delivery) that appear substantive and not generic.
• PROJECT COMPLETION CONCERNS: Multiple reviews document communication failures, missed appointment commitments (3 of 4 no-shows), and follow-through issues, which directly impact the project completion score.
• RECENCY BIAS: Most reviews are from 2020-2025 (recent), but several critical negative reviews are from 2020-2022. Recent reviews (2025, 2024) are predominantly positive, suggesting possible service improvements or selective review posting.
• POTENTIAL SELECTION BIAS: Positive reviews often mention friend recommendations or repeat customers, while negative reviews appear to be from one-time customers with unresolved disputes, suggesting different customer segments may experience different service levels.

This WW Score of 82.1 should be treated with MODERATE-TO-HIGH caution: while the HIGH confidence is justified by substantial mention counts across all dimensions, the deeply polarized review distribution and credible allegations of billing fraud, permit violations, and systematic communication failures indicate that actual service quality may be highly variable depending on job type and customer circumstances. Prospective customers should request references for similar project types and clarify communication protocols and billing terms in writing before engagement.

J&M Plumbing demonstrates strong overall performance with a WW Score of 82.1, driven by consistently high marks across all four dimensions. Professionalism (85.0) is well-supported by 24 mentions highlighting punctuality, responsiveness, politeness, and communication. Pricing (84.0) receives strong validation across 13 mentions emphasizing fair rates and value. Experience (87.0) is reinforced by 16 mentions of skilled workmanship and problem-solving ability. However, Project Completion (78.0) is the weakest dimension, with 18 mentions revealing two significant failures: one customer was left with a flooded basement after incomplete diagnostic work, and another experienced a no-show appointment with no callback. These serious incidents substantially lower confidence in follow-through reliability despite numerous positive completion reports.

• CRITICAL: Two severe project completion failures documented. Review from 2021-09-16 describes flooded basement left unresolved and incomplete diagnostic work; review from 2023-04-03 reports no-show appointment with no communication. These are not minor issues and directly contradict the majority positive narrative.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Majority of reviews (24 of 37) are older than 2 years, with only 4 reviews from 2024. Most recent negative reviews (2023-08-28 and 2023-04-03) suggest ongoing professionalism issues. Recent 2024 reviews are uniformly positive, but sample size is small.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: Multiple empty review text fields (3 reviews with 5.0 ratings but no text) and several reviews with generic praise lacking specifics. However, most reviews contain sufficient detail to be credible.
• STAFF CONSISTENCY ISSUE: Reviews reference multiple staff members (Jamie, Jaime, John, Jason, Jeremy, Jose, Mike, Jamey) suggesting either high turnover or multiple locations/franchises. Quality and professionalism appear inconsistent across different staff members.
• UNPROFESSIONAL CONDUCT: 2024-08-28 review documents owner sending hostile text message to customer ('You're a very inconsiderate old lady...'), which is a serious red flag for company culture and owner judgment.

This WW Score of 82.1 should be treated with MODERATE-to-HIGH caution. While the majority of reviews are positive and detailed, the presence of two documented project completion failures (flooded basement, no-show with no callback), an owner's documented hostile communication, and heavy weighting toward older reviews (65% over 2 years old) suggest the score may overstate current reliability. The company demonstrates strong technical skill and pricing fairness, but follow-through and professionalism consistency are genuine concerns that warrant direct verification before engaging for major projects.

Comfort Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism with consistent praise for punctuality, communication, and courteous staff across 28 reviews. Experience scores are solid at 87.0 based on 22 mentions of skilled workmanship and technical knowledge. Pricing is competitive at 84.0 across 13 mentions, with customers noting fair rates and transparency. However, project completion scores are notably lower at 76.5, driven primarily by one detailed 1-star review (July 2024) describing significant failures in scheduling, communication follow-through, and installation quality (incorrectly installed recirculation pump with multiple failed callback attempts). This recent negative review substantially impacts the completion dimension despite 25 other positive mentions. The company excels in responsiveness and skill but shows vulnerability in execution consistency and accountability.

• CRITICAL: One recent 1-star review (July 2024) describes severe project completion failures including disorganization, poor communication, missed callbacks, and installation defects. This is the only negative review in the dataset and directly contradicts the overwhelmingly positive pattern.
• RECENCY CONCERN: The negative review is from July 2024 (most recent), while most positive reviews are 2-4 years old. Only 3 reviews are from 2024. This suggests a potential recent decline in service quality or a single problematic project.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: 24 of 34 reviews are 5-star ratings with generic praise language ('highly recommend,' 'top notch,' 'great work'). While individually credible with specific details, the concentration of 5-star reviews with similar phrasing is notable. However, reviews contain sufficient specific details (names, project types, dates) to suggest authenticity rather than fabrication.
• CONFIDENCE CAVEAT: Project completion score of 76.5 is heavily influenced by one detailed negative review. If that single review is anomalous, the true score may be higher. Conversely, if it represents a systemic issue, the positive reviews may not reflect current performance.

This WW Score of 82.1 should be treated with caution due to the recent 1-star review contradicting the historical pattern; the score reflects strong historical performance but may not accurately represent current service quality. The HIGH confidence label is based on mention volume, but the recency and severity of the July 2024 negative review warrant close attention to whether this represents a temporary issue or emerging trend.

Don Weston Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism with consistently praised responsiveness, communication, and personable demeanor across 19 reviews. Technical expertise and problem-solving ability are well-documented across 11 reviews, with customers noting knowledge, quality workmanship, and willingness to educate clients. Project completion shows solid performance (16 mentions) but is tempered by two serious failures: a drywall puncture left unrepaired with no callback response, and a customer left without notification that work was complete. Pricing is fairly represented as reasonable and transparent across 6 mentions. The WW Score of 82.1 reflects strong overall capability undermined by occasional lapses in follow-through and accountability.

• Two critical project completion failures: (1) Drywall damage during drain installation not repaired, customer had to fix it themselves with no response to callback requests (2022-12-26); (2) Customer not notified work was complete, unprofessional departure (2022-01-07). These are serious red flags for reliability.
• Mask/PPE refusal and bandana substitution (2022-01-07) suggests inconsistent professionalism standards and potential disregard for customer health preferences.
• One review from 2017-11-01 reports no response to website inquiry for 5 days, indicating inconsistent communication responsiveness.
• Most reviews (17 of 24) are older than 2 years; only 4 reviews from past 12 months. Recent performance data is limited.
• No fake review patterns detected; reviews contain specific details, varied language, and include both positive and negative experiences with concrete examples.

This score should be trusted with moderate-to-high confidence for general professionalism and expertise, but customers should be aware of documented project completion failures and communication lapses that suggest inconsistent accountability, particularly regarding callbacks and job closure communication.

Jackrabbit Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism with consistent praise for responsiveness, punctuality, and courteous technicians (particularly Scott). Pricing is generally perceived as fair and reasonable, though two negative reviews highlight concerns about labor billing practices and travel charges that warrant caution. Project completion is solid overall, with most jobs finished promptly and to satisfaction, though one critical review from 2017 revealed a significant diagnostic failure on a septic system issue. Technical expertise is evident across most reviews, with skilled problem-solving and proper equipment use noted frequently.

• Two strongly negative reviews (1.0 stars) from 2018 and 2017 indicate serious issues: one involved excessive labor charges for a straightforward gas line connection, and another involved failure to diagnose a septic tank problem despite two service visits, requiring a third-party company to resolve it. These suggest inconsistent quality or technician competency.
• One review from 2016 mentions lack of responsiveness (no callback for 18+ hours during emergency), contradicting the company's otherwise strong communication reputation.
• Pricing concerns appear in multiple reviews: one customer was charged $97.50 for a 3-mile travel fee at weekend rates; another was billed over $700 for work that should have cost ~$100. This suggests potential billing inconsistencies or lack of transparency.
• Most reviews are older than 3 years (15 of 22 reviews predate 2019). Only 3 reviews are from 2023-2021. Recency is limited, and company practices may have changed.
• High concentration of 5-star reviews (17 of 22) with some generic praise language ('BEST!!', 'Amazing!') could suggest selection bias, though detailed specifics in many reviews mitigate fake review concerns.

This score should be treated with moderate caution: while the company demonstrates strong professionalism and technical capability based on high-confidence data, the presence of two serious service failures, billing inconsistencies, and the age of most reviews (pre-2019) suggest the score may not fully reflect current performance. Recent customer experience data is limited.