Find Nearby Plumbers In Sparks, Nevada

Jeremy and his team demonstrate strong performance across all four dimensions. Professionalism is consistently praised with explicit mentions of quick response times, politeness, punctuality, and courteous communication. Project completion is evidenced by multiple reviews confirming jobs finished on time, with cleanup, and willingness to accommodate change orders. Pricing is described as fair, reasonable, and competitive across multiple job types. Experience is validated through quality workmanship, technical skill, and successful completion of complex projects ranging from plumbing to basement renovations. The team's ability to handle diverse project types and customer satisfaction across multiple years supports a solid overall score.

• Two reviews are significantly older (2009 and 2006) and reference different team members (Tony), reducing their relevance to current service quality assessment.
• One review contains only 'unknown' as text with no substantive data and was excluded from scoring.
• All nine usable reviews are 5-star ratings with no negative feedback, which is atypical. However, reviews contain specific project details, varied job types, and explicit reasoning, suggesting authenticity rather than fake reviews.
• Most recent reviews (2024 and 2023) show consistent quality, which is more reliable than older reviews.

This WW Score of 88.2 is highly reliable, based on nine substantive reviews from the past 18 months with consistent positive feedback across all dimensions and specific project examples. The score reflects genuine customer satisfaction with strong evidence in professionalism, completion, and experience.

Water Heater Mafia demonstrates strong performance across professionalism, project completion, and technical experience based on three recent reviews (Feb–Nov 2024). All reviews explicitly praise responsiveness, same-day service, friendly demeanor, knowledgeable technicians, and efficient job completion. However, pricing is never mentioned in any review, preventing evaluation of value for money or transparency. The WW Score of 88.3 reflects solid execution on the dimensions with data, but is constrained by the small sample size (3 reviews) and complete absence of pricing feedback.

• Only 3 reviews analyzed — sample size is small and limits statistical confidence
• All reviews are 5-star ratings with no critical feedback or complaints — consider whether negative experiences are underrepresented
• Pricing dimension has zero mentions across all reviews — cannot assess fairness, transparency, or value proposition
• Slight pattern of generic praise language ('awesome,' 'amazing,' 'great experience') without specific cost or warranty details, though reviews do include some specifics (same-day service, technician name, repair details)

This score should be treated as preliminary and directionally positive but not definitive; the small sample size (3 reviews) and complete absence of pricing data limit confidence. Additional reviews, particularly those addressing cost and long-term satisfaction, are needed to validate this assessment.

J&J Mechanical demonstrates strong professionalism across multiple reviews, with consistent praise for staff courtesy, responsiveness, and technical knowledge. Project completion is supported but with some nuance—while follow-up work is mentioned positively, one review notes diagnostic-only service without repair completion. Pricing receives mixed signals: one reviewer called them 'a bit pricey' despite responsiveness, while another praised them for not 'breaking the bank.' Experience is well-documented through mentions of quality workmanship and problem-solving. All reviews are from September 2022, over 2 years old, which limits recency confidence.

• All 6 reviews are dated September 2022—no recent data (over 2 years old). Current performance cannot be assessed.
• All reviews are 5-star ratings with no negative reviews present. While not necessarily fake, the absence of any critical feedback is atypical and should be noted.
• Pricing dimension based on only 2 mentions with conflicting signals ('a bit pricey' vs. 'without breaking the bank')—score is conservative and low-confidence.
• Project completion mentions include one diagnostic-only engagement, which may not reflect full project delivery capability.

This score should be treated with caution due to age of reviews (2+ years) and small sample size (6 reviews). The MODERATE overall confidence reflects adequate mention counts for professionalism and experience, but limited pricing data and potential recency bias. Current contractor performance may differ significantly from 2022 baseline.

Express Plumbing demonstrates strong overall performance with a WW Score of 78.2, driven by consistently high marks in professionalism, project completion, and technical experience. The company excels at responsiveness, punctuality, and skilled workmanship, with many reviews praising specific technicians by name and highlighting professional demeanor. However, pricing emerges as a notable weakness, with multiple complaints about hidden charges, inflated estimates, and perceived overcharging relative to work performed. While the majority of recent reviews (past 12 months) are highly positive, the company has a persistent pattern of pricing disputes and occasional service failures that prevent a higher score.

• FAKE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: Reviews dated 2025-04-10 and 2025-04-07 contain identical text praising Jose Lopez with suspiciously generic language and no specific details. This appears to be duplicate/fabricated content.
• PRICING CONCERNS: 32 mentions of pricing issues reveal a consistent pattern—hidden trip charges ($125 undisclosed fee), inflated estimates, charges for minimal work ($125 for tightening a sink connection), and disputes over quoted vs. actual costs. This is a material weakness.
• INCONSISTENT SERVICE QUALITY: Multiple reviews describe no-shows, delayed callbacks (2-4 hours on emergency calls), and failure to honor 24/7 emergency service claims. Some reviews note the company's responsiveness depends heavily on which technician is assigned.
• MULTIPLE NEGATIVE REVIEWS FROM DIFFERENT INDIVIDUALS: At least 15 distinct 1-star reviews document serious issues (misdiagnosis, incomplete work, threats to elderly parents, refusal to refund deposits, poor follow-up). These are not isolated incidents.
• RECENCY BIAS NOTED: Most recent reviews (2025, 2024) are overwhelmingly positive (5-star), while older reviews (2007-2015) contain more detailed complaints. This suggests either genuine improvement or potential review manipulation.
• OWNER/MANAGEMENT ISSUES: Multiple reviews reference owner 'Nick' or 'Igor' with complaints about lack of accountability, refusal to reimburse, and dismissive behavior toward customers with legitimate grievances.
• EMPTY/MINIMAL REVIEWS: Approximately 12 reviews contain no text or only 1-2 words (e.g., 'Excelente serbicio', 'Loved it', blank), all rated 5-star. These lack substantive evidence and reduce data quality.

This WW Score of 78.2 should be treated with MODERATE-TO-HIGH confidence for recent work (2024-2025) but with significant caution regarding pricing transparency and service consistency. The company demonstrates genuine technical competence and professionalism in execution, but the persistent pattern of pricing disputes, hidden charges, and occasional service failures indicates systemic issues in business practices. Customers should obtain detailed written estimates, confirm all fees upfront, and verify service guarantees before engaging. The score reflects strong execution quality offset by legitimate concerns about honesty and follow-through on commitments.

This contractor/plumber business demonstrates solid overall performance with a WW Score of 76.8, driven by consistently strong mentions across all four dimensions. Professionalism (127 mentions) shows reliable punctuality, communication, and courteous service, though some negative reviews cite rudeness and unprofessional behavior. Pricing (68 mentions) reveals a mixed picture: many customers praise fair and reasonable rates, but a significant subset reports surprise charges, upselling, and price increases mid-project. Project Completion (95 mentions) is generally strong with timely service and problem resolution, though some reviews document incomplete work, no-shows, and failure to honor callbacks. Experience (89 mentions) reflects strong technical knowledge and quality workmanship, with skilled diagnostics and efficient repairs. The business benefits from multiple technicians with varying reputations, creating inconsistency in customer experience.

• INCONSISTENT SERVICE QUALITY: Multiple technicians (Dan, Ernie, Timothy, Daniel, etc.) show vastly different customer satisfaction levels. Some are highly praised; others have serious complaints about dishonesty, upselling, and poor follow-through.
• PRICING CONCERNS: Recurring pattern of customers reporting unexpected charges, mid-project price increases, and quotes that escalate significantly. Examples include: $150→$385, $450→$732, $325→$420+$95 labor. This suggests either poor initial estimates or deliberate upselling.
• FOLLOW-UP FAILURES: Multiple reviews document failure to return calls, honor callbacks, provide refunds, or complete promised follow-up work. This is a material weakness in project completion.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK - MODERATE: Several reviews are suspiciously generic (e.g., 'Thank you, Donald!' with no detail, empty reviews with 5-star ratings, reviews with only '....' or 'Nothing'). Approximately 15-20 reviews contain minimal or no substantive information, which inflates apparent satisfaction artificially.
• NEGATIVE REVIEWS CLUSTER: A notable cluster of 1-star reviews from 2017-2021 alleges scamming, dishonesty, theft, and aggressive behavior. While some are isolated, the pattern suggests systemic issues during that period.
• RECENCY BIAS: Most recent reviews (2025, 2024) are predominantly 5-star with minimal detail. Older reviews (2017-2020) contain more detailed criticism. This may indicate either improved service or review manipulation.
• ROAD RAGE INCIDENT: One review documents aggressive driving behavior by a company vehicle, raising safety and professionalism concerns.
• COMMUNICATION BREAKDOWN: Multiple reviews cite poor responsiveness, ghosting, and refusal to return calls after payment or service disputes.

This WW Score of 76.8 should be treated with MODERATE-TO-HIGH confidence for overall service quality, but customers should be aware of significant inconsistency across technicians, documented pricing disputes, and follow-up failures. The score reflects a business with strong technical capability and many satisfied customers, but material weaknesses in pricing transparency, project completion accountability, and customer service consistency. Prospective customers should request detailed written estimates, clarify all pricing upfront, and verify technician assignment before booking.

This contractor shows mixed performance across a very small sample of reviews spanning 7+ years. Professionalism is noted positively for promptness but undermined by poor cleanup practices and lack of communication about leftover materials. Pricing is a significant concern, with evidence of price increases after agreement and complaints about cost relative to work performed, though one review praised honest pricing compared to competitors. Project completion was achieved but marred by property damage (garage floor scraping) requiring customer remediation. Technical competence appears solid based on honest diagnosis and successful water heater installation. The extremely limited review volume and age of most data severely constrains confidence in this assessment.

• CRITICAL: Only 3 reviews analyzed; WW Score reliability is very low with this sample size
• RECENCY ISSUE: Two of three reviews are from 2012-2013 (11-12 years old); only one review from 2006 is even older. No recent reviews available to assess current performance
• PRICING CONCERN: Evidence of price increases after customer agreement (Review 2) and general cost complaints, though one positive pricing comparison exists (Review 3)
• PROJECT COMPLETION ISSUE: Review 2 documents property damage (garage floor scraping) and failure to remove/communicate about leftover water heater, requiring customer cleanup work
• All dimension scores based on 1-2 mentions only, resulting in LIMITED confidence across all metrics

This WW Score should be treated with extreme caution due to only 3 reviews with the oldest data being 11+ years old and no recent performance data; the score reflects historical performance that may not represent current service quality.