Find Nearby Plumbers In Reno, Nevada

Service Pump demonstrates strong professionalism with consistent responsiveness, clear communication, and positive customer interactions across 13 reviews. Project completion shows solid execution but is tempered by two significant failures (one irrigation pump left in pieces after a year, one customer unable to reach the company for months), reducing confidence despite many successful projects. Pricing is fair and transparent across five mentions. Technical expertise is evident with skilled diagnostics and problem-solving. The company's long operational history and family business continuity reinforce experience credibility.

• Two severe negative reviews (1-star ratings from 2022 and 2021) describe complete service failures: one customer waited a year with a non-functional $345 repair, another could not reach the company despite repeated calls. These are not minor complaints but represent fundamental business failures.
• Recency concern: Most reviews are 3+ years old (2012-2020). Only 2 reviews from 2024 and 2022. Recent data is limited, making current operational status uncertain.
• Inconsistency pattern: Multiple 5-star reviews praise responsiveness and follow-up, yet two 1-star reviews explicitly state the company never returns calls. This suggests either inconsistent service quality or possible operational changes over time.
• The two negative reviews are detailed and specific (not generic), reducing likelihood of fake reviews but increasing concern about reliability variability.

This WW Score of 82.1 should be treated with moderate caution: while the majority of reviews (15 of 17) are highly positive and detailed, two severe failures involving non-completion and non-responsiveness significantly undermine confidence in consistency. The age of most reviews (3-12 years old) means current service quality may differ. The score reflects historical performance well but may not accurately predict current reliability.

Thiel Plumbing demonstrates strong technical expertise and exceptional pricing transparency, with multiple reviews praising honest quotes significantly below competitors and masterful problem-solving. Professionalism is generally high with responsive communication and courteous service, though two critical 1-star reviews from 2016 and 2018 document serious failures in follow-through and responsiveness that substantially lower this dimension's score. Project completion shows solid execution when work is performed, but the no-show incidents and delayed callbacks represent significant reliability gaps. The WW Score of 82.1 reflects a contractor with genuine skill and integrity but inconsistent execution on commitment and availability.

• Two 1-star reviews (2016 and 2018) document severe professionalism failures: no-show with no callback for 4 days, and complete non-response to Friday morning call. These are not isolated complaints but documented service failures that contradict the overwhelmingly positive narrative.
• Fourteen of 17 reviews are 5-star ratings with highly positive language, creating a potential selection bias. However, the two 1-star reviews provide specific, detailed negative incidents that appear credible and not fake.
• All reviews are older than 4 years (most from 2013-2017, with only one from 2018 and one from 2020). Recent service quality cannot be reliably assessed from this dataset.
• The contractor appears to be very busy according to one review ('really busy'), which may explain some responsiveness issues, but this does not excuse the documented no-show incident.

This score should be treated with moderate caution: while the HIGH confidence reflects substantial positive evidence across multiple dimensions, the two documented service failures (no-show, non-responsiveness) are serious enough to warrant verification of current business practices, and the age of most reviews (4+ years old) means current reliability cannot be confirmed.

Davis Plumbing demonstrates strong overall performance with a WW Score of 81.2, driven primarily by excellent professionalism (84.5) and technical expertise (85.0). The company excels at punctuality, communication, and skilled workmanship, with many customers praising individual technicians by name and expressing high satisfaction. However, pricing emerges as a notable weakness (72.0), with recurring complaints about high costs, unexpected charges, and parts markups. Project completion scores (79.5) reflect mixed experiences—while most jobs are finished successfully, there are documented cases of incomplete work, no-shows, and follow-up issues. The company's responsiveness and quality craftsmanship are genuine strengths, but pricing transparency and consistency in follow-through remain areas of concern.

• PRICING CONCERNS: Multiple reviews (15+) explicitly criticize high costs, unexpected charges, and inflated parts pricing. Several customers report being charged significantly more than quoted or discovering hidden fees after work completion.
• FOLLOW-UP AND ACCOUNTABILITY ISSUES: Documented cases of incomplete work, missed appointments, no-shows despite confirmations, and difficulty reaching the company for warranty/follow-up work. At least 12 reviews mention scheduling failures or communication breakdowns.
• INCONSISTENT SERVICE QUALITY: While many reviews praise specific technicians, there is notable variation in professionalism and work quality depending on which crew is assigned. Some crews are described as hostile or dismissive.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW PATTERNS: Approximately 40-50 reviews from June 9, 2024 show near-identical phrasing, structure, and timing. Many are extremely generic praise with minimal specific details (e.g., 'Excellent service,' 'Great work,' 'Professional'). This cluster warrants skepticism regarding authenticity.
• SERIOUS QUALITY FAILURES: Multiple reviews document significant defects—wrong water heater size installed, shower installed without drain, sewer pipe installed incorrectly, water leaks caused by poor installation. At least 5 reviews describe costly damage or rework required.
• CUSTOMER SERVICE HOSTILITY: Several reviews report rude, dismissive, or aggressive behavior from owner/staff, including hanging up on customers, refusing to cooperate with warranty companies, and defensive responses to legitimate complaints.
• RECENCY BIAS: The bulk of 5-star reviews cluster in June 2024 and earlier 2024 dates, while serious negative reviews span 2013-2025, suggesting potential review manipulation or recent reputation management efforts.

This WW Score of 81.2 should be treated with MODERATE-TO-HIGH caution: while the company demonstrates genuine technical competence and professionalism in many cases, the prevalence of pricing complaints, documented service failures, and suspicious review clustering significantly undermines confidence in the overall rating. Customers should obtain detailed written quotes, verify pricing in advance, and be prepared for potential cost overruns. The company's inconsistent follow-through on warranty and callback commitments is a material concern.

Ira Hansen and Sons Plumbing demonstrates strong overall performance with a WW Score of 81.2. The company excels in professionalism (86.5), with extensive evidence of punctuality, courteous technicians, and responsive communication across 142 reviews. Project completion is solid at 84.0 with 118 mentions showing jobs finished on time and follow-through honored. Experience scores 83.5 based on 97 mentions of skilled workmanship and technical knowledge. However, pricing emerges as a notable weakness at 71.0 across 58 mentions, with recurring complaints about high labor rates, lack of itemized invoices, and charges perceived as excessive relative to parts costs. Recent reviews (past 12 months) are predominantly positive, but older reviews reveal persistent pricing concerns and occasional service failures.

• PRICING PATTERN: Multiple reviews (2009-2023) cite excessive charges, lack of itemized invoices, and labor rates double or triple competitors. This is a systemic issue, not isolated incidents.
• INVOICE TRANSPARENCY: Several customers report difficulty obtaining itemized breakdowns of parts vs. labor, with company allegedly refusing to provide this detail.
• SERVICE FAILURES: 12 one-star reviews document incomplete work, no-shows, warranty disputes, and refusal to honor callbacks. Examples include incomplete drain cleaning (stopped at 50 ft instead of 60 ft), failed toilet installations causing water damage, and steam shower installation errors.
• INCONSISTENT QUALITY: Wide variance in technician performance and office responsiveness. Some reviews praise exceptional service; others report unprofessional behavior and poor follow-up.
• RECENT IMPROVEMENT: Reviews from June 2025 show consistently high ratings (5.0) with detailed positive feedback, suggesting possible recent operational improvements or selection bias in recent reviews.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK - LIMITED: Several reviews contain only ratings with no text (empty reviews marked 5.0), and a cluster of highly detailed 5-star reviews from June 2025 with similar phrasing patterns ('professional,' 'on time,' 'great job'). However, most reviews contain sufficient specificity to appear genuine.
• RECENCY BIAS: 40+ reviews from June 2025 alone (all 5.0 stars) vs. mixed historical data. This concentration warrants caution in interpreting current score.

This WW Score of 81.2 is reliable for understanding the company's overall trajectory, but should be interpreted with caution: recent reviews (past 6 months) are overwhelmingly positive and may not reflect historical pricing and service consistency issues documented in 2009-2023 reviews. Customers should prioritize obtaining itemized quotes and clarifying warranty terms before engaging services, as pricing disputes and incomplete work are documented concerns despite strong professionalism ratings.

Watters Plumbing demonstrates strong overall performance with a WW Score of 81.2, driven by consistently high marks in professionalism, experience, and project completion. The company excels in punctuality, communication, and technical skill, with numerous customers praising specific technicians (Dylan, Cletus, Al, Brian, Jared) for their knowledge and courteous demeanor. However, pricing emerges as a notable weakness, with multiple customers citing high costs, unexpected charges, and payment disputes. Several significant negative reviews document serious issues including poor craftsmanship in new construction, unresponsive management, and miscommunication about pricing terms. While the majority of recent reviews (2024-2025) are highly positive, older reviews reveal persistent quality control and customer service inconsistencies.

• PRICING CONCERNS: Multiple reviews (2024-2025) report overpricing, unexpected charges, and aggressive payment collection practices. One customer reported a $1,500 quote vs. competitor's $1,300 for identical work. Payment disputes and down-payment demands appear in at least 3 reviews.
• QUALITY CONTROL INCONSISTENCY: Significant disparity between positive and negative reviews suggests inconsistent workmanship. A 5-year construction review (2024-06-09) documents multiple defects: missing insulation, failed backfill, exposed tubing, failed sump pump, failed lift station pump, and improper drain installation. Another construction review (2018-12-18) reports under-cabinet leaks, slow drains, and refusal to address issues.
• RESPONSIVENESS ISSUES: Multiple reviews document poor follow-up and communication failures. One 2018 review reports 2-month delay with no callback after initial consultation. Another 2020 review reports cancellation miscommunication and emergency service denial due to staff hunting.
• MANAGEMENT RESPONSIVENESS: Several reviews indicate owner/management does not return calls or follow up on complaints, particularly regarding estimate delays and service issues.
• EMPTY/MINIMAL REVIEWS: 4 reviews contain no text (only ratings of 5.0 or 4.0), reducing data quality slightly.
• RECENCY BIAS NOTED: Most recent reviews (2024-2025) are overwhelmingly positive (5-star), while older reviews (2008-2020) show more balanced criticism. This may reflect improved operations or selection bias in recent review submissions.
• TECHNICIAN VARIABILITY: Reviews frequently praise specific technicians by name (Dylan, Cletus, Al, Brian, Jared, Phil, Rod) while criticizing unnamed technicians, suggesting significant performance variation across staff.

This WW Score of 81.2 is reliable for recent work (2024-2025) where professionalism and experience are consistently strong, but customers should be cautious about pricing expectations and should obtain detailed written quotes with clear payment terms before committing. The company's track record on complex projects and new construction work shows quality control concerns that warrant careful vetting and detailed contracts.

Service Engineering demonstrates strong professionalism across all five reviews, with consistent praise for quick response times, friendly demeanor, communication, and customer support. Project completion is well-documented with timely service delivery and problem resolution. Experience is evidenced by technical knowledge and diagnostic ability mentioned in multiple reviews. Pricing appears fair and affordable based on limited mentions, though transparent quote data is absent. The contractor shows reliable follow-through and customer-centric service.

• All five reviews are 5-star ratings with no negative feedback—this uniformity warrants caution, though reviews contain specific details (names, situations, timeframes) that suggest authenticity rather than fabrication
• Review dates span 2020–2022; most reviews are 2+ years old, limiting recency data for current service quality assessment
• Pricing dimension based on only 2 mentions; insufficient data to confidently assess value proposition
• Small sample size (5 reviews) limits statistical reliability; recommend collecting additional recent reviews before making high-confidence business decisions

This WW Score of 88.3 is moderately reliable for professionalism and project completion, but should be treated cautiously due to the small sample size, age of reviews, and absence of any critical feedback that would validate the uniformly positive ratings.