Find Nearby Plumbers In Reno, Nevada

Vargas and Sons Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism across all three reviews, with consistent praise for punctuality, courtesy, and friendly demeanor. Project completion is solid, with same-day service and quick resolution of issues explicitly mentioned in all reviews. Pricing appears fair based on two mentions of competitive rates and good value, though limited detail on pricing practices. Technical skill and knowledge are evident but mentioned in only two reviews. The small sample size (3 reviews) and uniformly positive ratings warrant moderate confidence in this score.

• Sample size is very small (n=3) — score reliability is limited and may not represent full customer experience spectrum
• All reviews are 5-star ratings with no negative feedback — while not necessarily fake, this lacks the natural variance typical of larger review sets
• Two reviews mention the same father-son team dynamic and family business aspect, suggesting possible overlap or similar customer base
• Reviews are from July-August 2023 (approximately 1.5+ years old) — recency is limited and does not reflect current service quality

This WW Score should be treated with caution due to the very small sample size and lack of recent reviews; while the available data is positive and consistent, a minimum of 8-10 recent reviews would be needed to establish reliable confidence in this contractor's overall performance.

Both reviews explicitly praise the contractor's professionalism (promptness, cleanliness, courtesy, responsiveness), fair pricing relative to competitors, and technical expertise in problem-solving. The second review particularly highlights superior diagnostic skills and thorough work compared to a national competitor. All four dimensions are mentioned across the two reviews, but the limited sample size (only 2 reviews) constrains confidence. The contractor demonstrates strong performance across all measured areas, with particular strength in experience and project completion.

• Only 2 reviews analyzed — sample size is very small and limits statistical reliability
• Both reviews are 5-star ratings with no negative feedback — consider whether additional reviews exist
• Review dates are older (2021 and 2022) — no recent data from past 12 months to assess current performance
• Second review contains extensive detail and specificity (positive indicator of authenticity), but first review is more generic in praise

This WW Score should be treated with caution due to the very small sample size of only 2 reviews. While both reviews are detailed and positive, a minimum of 5-8 reviews is recommended to establish reliable confidence in contractor performance.

Angel and Ocean Breeze receive overwhelmingly positive feedback across all four dimensions, with the majority of reviewers praising responsiveness, punctuality, fair pricing, and skilled workmanship across a wide variety of tasks. Professionalism scores are tempered by two no-show complaints (1-star reviews from April and August 2021) and one serious misconduct allegation involving illegal dumping, trespassing, and unauthorized entry into a client's garage — all of which meaningfully drag down the professionalism and project completion scores. Project completion is also slightly penalized by the ghost/no-show pattern and a note that Angel occasionally leaves small tasks unfinished. Pricing and experience scores remain relatively strong, as the vast majority of reviewers who mentioned these dimensions reported satisfaction with value and quality of work.

• SERIOUS MISCONDUCT FLAG: One reviewer (2-star, 2021-03-20) alleges Angel and his brother-in-law illegally dumped toxic waste including used motor oil in the client's driveway and yard, entered the client's garage without permission, and that authorities issued citations and community service orders. This is a significant red flag that materially impacts trustworthiness and professionalism scores.
• NO-SHOW PATTERN: Two separate 1-star reviews (2021-04-04 and 2021-08-25) report Angel failing to show up for scheduled appointments without any communication. This is a recurring reliability concern.
• RECENCY NOTE: The two no-show complaints and the misconduct allegation are all from 2021. Reviews from 2022–2023 are predominantly positive with no similar complaints, suggesting possible improvement over time, but the misconduct allegation remains serious regardless of recency.
• POSSIBLE FAKE REVIEW CONCERN: Several reviews from late 2019 (2019-08-30, 2019-10-03, 2019-10-04) use unusually effusive, all-caps language with near-identical praise structures and no specific job details. These may be inflated or solicited reviews and have been weighted conservatively.
• CASH-ONLY PAYMENT: One reviewer noted Ocean Breeze only accepts cash, which may be a concern for some customers regarding accountability and documentation.
• OLDER REVIEWS: Approximately 14 of 36 reviews are from 2021 or earlier (more than 2 years old). More recent 2022–2023 reviews are generally positive and have been weighted more heavily in scoring.

This WW Score is based on a reasonably large sample of 36 reviews with HIGH confidence across all dimensions, but should be interpreted cautiously due to a verified-pattern of no-shows, a serious unresolved misconduct allegation from 2021, and several suspiciously generic 5-star reviews that may inflate the overall picture.

Art's Plumbing scores well across all four dimensions, with professionalism being the strongest area — punctuality, responsiveness, and courteous communication are mentioned repeatedly across many reviews spanning multiple years. Pricing is generally praised as fair or better than competitors, though one negative review from 2010 explicitly cited extravagant pricing and substandard work requiring a redo, which meaningfully tempers the pricing and project completion scores. Project completion is solid overall, with most reviewers confirming jobs were finished cleanly and correctly, but the 2010 complaint about improper installation and a required return visit introduces a notable blemish. Experience scores well given multiple reviewers praised diagnostic skill and technical competence, though the 2010 negative review raised questions about licensing and workmanship quality that cannot be ignored.

• 5 reviews contain only placeholder text ('unknown', '.', or 'Very well.') with no usable content — these were excluded from scoring but all carried 5-star ratings, which slightly inflates the raw star average.
• A disproportionate number of reviews are 5-star with minimal detail, particularly in the 2012–2015 range. While not conclusive, this pattern warrants mild caution regarding authenticity of some older reviews.
• The majority of reviews (approximately 20 of 29) are older than 12 months, and most substantive reviews are from 2013–2019. Only 3 reviews are from the past 12 months (2023–2024), limiting confidence in how current performance reflects historical patterns.
• One 2-star review from 2010 explicitly cited overcharging, improper installation, uncertainty about licensing, and a required redo by another contractor. This is the only negative review and was weighted accordingly in pricing and project completion scores.
• Recency note: The most recent reviews (2023–2024) are positive and specific, which is a good signal, but the sample size for recent work is small (3 reviews).

This WW Score is based on a moderately sized review set with good dimensional coverage, but reliability is somewhat reduced by the age of most reviews, several content-free placeholder reviews, and a concentration of generic 5-star ratings in older years — the score should be treated as a reasonable but not definitive indicator of current service quality.

Professionalism scores well overall, with dozens of reviews praising responsiveness, punctuality, communication, and friendly technicians across multiple companies and technicians (Ryan, DJ, Gary, James, Larry, etc.). However, several negative reviews cite rude customer service, a no-show technician, and a failure to return calls, which tempers the score. Pricing is the weakest dimension: while many reviewers praise fair or competitive pricing, a meaningful cluster of negative reviews explicitly call out overcharging, lack of pricing transparency, a $320 charge for a 17-minute job, $300 for a toilet valve, and an $8,000 multi-visit failure — these are serious and specific complaints that significantly drag the pricing score down. Project completion is generally strong, with many reviews confirming same-day or next-day completion and follow-through, but notable failures include an incomplete sewer rodding job, a plumber who never returned after a partial repair, a promised drawing never delivered, and an $8,000 multi-visit case where the root problem was never diagnosed. Experience is broadly praised — technicians are frequently described as knowledgeable, skilled, and able to solve problems others could not — though a few reviews describe incorrect diagnoses, botched installs, and a technician who could not identify a collapsing pipe after multiple visits.

• 30 reviews contain no text at all — only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence per scoring rules.
• Several reviews appear to reference entirely different companies (Kelly Plumbing & Heating, Jay's Plumbing, Plumbing Pros with multiple owner names including James, Gary, Larry, Bobby, Russ, Sal). This review set appears to aggregate reviews from multiple distinct businesses, which significantly undermines the reliability of any single composite score.
• Multiple technician and owner names appear across reviews (James, Gary, Larry, Bobby, Russ, Ryan, DJ, Danny, Colin, Mario, Mike, Dean, Taylor, Jaden, Tim, Josh, Andrew, Gustavo, Andy, Sal, Rick, Abel) — strongly suggesting these are not reviews for a single contractor.
• Review dates span from 2011 to 2025, a 14-year window. Older reviews (pre-2020) may not reflect current service quality and were down-weighted in scoring.
• One review (2013) contains a serious allegation of fraud — a $2,000 deposit taken with no work performed and refusal to return funds. This is an outlier but was factored into project completion scoring.
• One review references a plumber admitting to a drinking problem as an excuse for non-performance — flagged as a serious professionalism and reliability concern.
• The pricing dimension has a notable split: many 5-star reviews praise fair pricing while multiple 1-3 star reviews cite specific dollar amounts as excessive or deceptive. This polarization reduces confidence in a single pricing score.
• Some 5-star reviews are very brief and generic (e.g., 'great.........', 'well.job was completed', 'unknown') with no specifics — possible low-effort or filler reviews, though not definitively fake.

This WW Score has LOW-TO-MODERATE reliability as a guide to any single contractor because the review corpus almost certainly aggregates feedback from multiple distinct businesses operating under similar or shared names across different geographic regions, making it impossible to attribute scores to one specific company or service team.

Precision Plumbing & Heating earns strong marks for professionalism and experience across a large volume of reviews spanning over a decade, with consistent praise for punctuality, communication, courteous technicians, and technical competence on complex systems like tankless water heaters and boilers. However, a meaningful cluster of negative reviews — roughly 12 to 14 out of 125 — raises legitimate concerns across all dimensions. Pricing is the weakest dimension, with multiple reviewers citing unexpected charges, undisclosed trip fees, camera fees, and bills significantly exceeding estimates, pulling the score down considerably from what the majority of positive reviews would otherwise suggest. Project completion also carries a notable penalty due to several credible accounts of incomplete or substandard work, a no-show appointment, a multi-day job that dragged on incorrectly, and at least one instance where the company refused to return to address a warranty issue. The experience dimension is solid overall but is tempered by a handful of reviews describing technicians who lacked knowledge for specific jobs or performed work that failed inspection.

• 7 reviews contain no text at all (only a star rating), including 6 five-star and 1 four-star blank entries — these were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data.
• 3 reviews are labeled 'unknown' with no text content and were excluded from scoring.
• Two reviews (2024-09-12 and 2024-08-13) appear to be near-identical duplicates: 'We love Precision Plumbing and have been using them for years! Mark, Trish, Brandon, and the whole team are excellent. They are responsive, reliable, and reasonable. Never an upsell, always quality work. Highly recommended!' — possible duplicate submission or fake review; treated as a single data point.
• A significant number of reviews (approximately 40+) are dated prior to 2022, meaning they are more than 3 years old. The business may have changed ownership, staff, or service quality over time. Recent reviews (2024–2025) are more heavily weighted.
• Negative reviews show a recurring pattern of billing disputes, unexpected charges, and poor responsiveness to complaints — this is a consistent theme across multiple independent reviewers spanning different years, lending credibility to these concerns.
• One negative review (2023-09-26) describes a detailed and specific billing and service dispute with Rinnai warranty work, corroborated by a similar complaint (2023-09-25) from a different reviewer in the same time period — this pattern warrants attention.
• Some reviews reference different geographic locations (Carson City, Reno, Sparks) suggesting this aggregated review set may span multiple franchise or affiliated locations, which could affect score reliability for any single location.

This WW Score is based on a large review set (125 reviews) with HIGH mention counts across all four dimensions, making the score statistically robust; however, the presence of credible negative reviews describing billing disputes, incomplete work, and no-shows — combined with possible geographic mixing of locations and a significant portion of reviews older than 3 years — means prospective customers should treat this score as a moderate-confidence indicator and carefully review recent negative feedback before hiring.