Find Nearby Plumbers In Arvada, Colorado

Midwest Plumbing has a generally positive track record across all four dimensions, with consistent praise for responsiveness, professionalism, and fair pricing spanning many years of reviews. Professionalism scores well overall but is tempered by one explicit complaint about a technician arriving in an unacceptably dirty state and a separate serious complaint about a failed installation where the company initially refused to accept responsibility, only resolving the issue after threats of legal action. Project completion is similarly solid but is meaningfully dragged down by that same 2005 complaint involving repeated sewage overflows caused by poor workmanship and a prolonged refusal to fix the root cause. Pricing and experience dimensions are supported by multiple positive mentions including coming in under estimate, competitive pricing, and skilled problem-solving such as avoiding a costly $15K sewer replacement by correctly diagnosing roots rather than a break. The score is moderated by the age of the review pool — the majority of reviews are more than 5 years old, with only 2 reviews from the past 12 months.

• RECENCY WARNING: Only 2 reviews are from the past 12 months (2023). The majority of reviews span 2003–2020, with a heavy cluster in 2009–2017. The WW Score reflects a long historical average and may not represent current service quality.
• TWO REVIEWS CONTAIN NO USABLE TEXT: The reviews dated 2016-01-22 ('unknown') and 2014-06-05 ('..') were excluded from dimension scoring as they contain no actionable information.
• SERIOUS COMPLAINT FLAG: The 2005 review describes a defective installation causing repeated sewage overflows, initial denial of responsibility, and resolution only after threats of legal action. This is a significant workmanship and accountability failure that meaningfully impacts project completion and professionalism scores.
• MINOR PROFESSIONALISM COMPLAINT: One reviewer (2013-10-15) explicitly noted a technician arrived in an extremely dirty and unprofessional appearance, which is a direct negative mention against professionalism.
• PAYMENT TRANSPARENCY ISSUE: One reviewer (2012-10-31) was not informed prior to job completion that the company does not accept credit cards, which is a transparency/communication failure relevant to both professionalism and pricing.
• NO FAKE REVIEW PATTERNS DETECTED: Reviews vary in length, detail, rating, and date. Negative reviews are present. No suspicious identical phrasing was identified.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability — the dimension scores are each supported by multiple mentions giving HIGH confidence per dimension, but the score should be interpreted cautiously given that most reviews are over 5 years old, only 2 reviews are from the past 12 months, and at least one serious unresolved workmanship complaint exists in the historical record.

High Water demonstrates inconsistent performance across dimensions. Professionalism scores reasonably well (72) with multiple mentions of punctuality, courtesy, and responsiveness, though several reviews cite communication failures and lack of follow-up. Pricing is a significant weakness (52), with multiple complaints about unexpected charges, padded invoices, and failure to honor quoted amounts. Project completion is problematic (65), with documented cases of incomplete work, abandoned projects, and failure to correct mistakes. Experience shows mixed results (68)—while some reviews praise quality workmanship, others describe serious technical errors including improper installations, flooding damage, and structural damage to customer property. The company's performance appears highly variable depending on which team member is assigned.

• RECENCY CONCERN: 6 of 10 reviews are older than 4 years (2013-2016). Only 2 reviews from 2019-2020. Recent performance data is limited.
• PATTERN OF SERIOUS ERRORS: Multiple reviews document significant mistakes—broken fixtures, improper installations, flooding damage, cabinet destruction—suggesting quality control issues.
• PRICING DISPUTES: Two detailed reviews (2016-12-15, 2016-02-16) describe substantial billing discrepancies and failure to honor quoted prices. One project quoted at $1600 billed at $2300.
• COMMUNICATION FAILURES: Three reviews explicitly mention failure to return calls, no-shows without notice, and lack of follow-up on damage.
• CONFLICTING NARRATIVE: Company description claims 'honest and fair with good communication' but multiple detailed reviews directly contradict this.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: The five 5-star reviews (2020, 2019, 2018, 2016, 2015) are notably generic in some cases and lack specificity about problems or trade-offs, while the 1-star reviews are extremely detailed and specific. However, the 5-star reviews do contain some specific details (furnace replacement, water heater vent, bathroom remodel), so this is not conclusive.

This score should be treated with MODERATE caution. While based on 10 reviews with reasonable mention counts, the data is heavily weighted toward reviews older than 4 years, and there is a stark contrast between glowing 5-star reviews and detailed 1-star reviews describing serious errors and billing disputes. The company's recent performance (2019-2020) appears better, but insufficient recent data limits confidence. Potential customers should request detailed written contracts and be aware of documented issues with cost overruns and quality control.

Victory Plumbing shows a deeply polarized performance profile. Recent reviews (2025) are overwhelmingly positive, praising technicians like Cliff and Lee for professionalism, expertise, and customer care. However, this is heavily offset by a substantial body of negative historical reviews spanning 2011–2024 documenting systemic issues: installation defects, failure to complete work, unresponsive follow-up, and poor customer service from front-desk staff (particularly Kimberly). Project completion is the weakest dimension, with numerous reports of incomplete repairs, multiple failed visits, and warranty disputes. Professionalism shows strength in field technician behavior but severe weakness in phone/administrative staff. The company appears to have undergone recent operational improvements, but the historical pattern of broken promises and installation errors remains a significant trust concern.

• RECENCY BIAS ALERT: 13 of 15 most recent reviews (2025 and late 2024) are 5-star with highly positive language. This sharp reversal from years of 1-star reviews suggests either genuine recent improvement OR potential review manipulation. Recommend caution.
• FAKE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: Multiple recent 5-star reviews (June 2025) use nearly identical phrasing ('above and beyond,' 'professional,' 'cleaned up,' 'explained thoroughly'). Three empty/blank reviews with 5-star ratings (June 2024, June 2009) are suspicious.
• SYSTEMIC CUSTOMER SERVICE FAILURE: 8+ reviews explicitly name 'Kimberly' (front desk) as rude, unprofessional, and dismissive. This is a documented pattern, not isolated incidents.
• INSTALLATION QUALITY CONCERNS: Multiple reviews document defective installations by Victory (wrong piping, improper water heater setup, tub not leveled, drain issues) that required costly repairs or multiple return visits.
• WARRANTY DISPUTES: Recurring theme across 2011–2024 reviews: Victory refuses to honor warranty claims, blames other contractors, or claims work is 'not their responsibility' despite being original installer.
• EMERGENCY SERVICE FAILURES: Multiple reports of refusal to respond to emergency calls (gas leak, no hot water, water damage) or extreme delays (5+ days for gas leak).
• INCOMPLETE WORK: At least 6 reviews document jobs left unfinished, parts left in boxes, or work abandoned mid-project.
• DRIVER/SAFETY INCIDENTS: 3 reviews report dangerous driving behavior (crosswalk near children, road rage, pulling out without looking). These are separate from plumbing service quality but reflect company culture.

This WW Score should be treated with CAUTION. The recent surge in 5-star reviews conflicts sharply with 13+ years of documented systemic failures, and the linguistic similarity of recent reviews raises authenticity concerns. The HIGH confidence in Project Completion (32 mentions) is driven largely by negative historical data; if recent reviews are genuine, the true score may be higher. Conversely, if recent reviews are inflated, the score understates risk. Recommend requesting references from customers served in the past 6 months and verifying warranty/follow-up practices before engaging this company.

D&D has a mixed track record across a small and largely outdated review set. Long-term customers speak positively about their knowledge and reliability, but a significant 1-star review from 2014 describes incomplete work, slow performance, and high pricing — which meaningfully drags down scores in project completion and pricing. Punctuality and follow-through were praised in one review but directly contradicted in another, creating genuine uncertainty. With only 4 reviews spanning over a decade, confidence in any dimension is limited and the WW Score should be interpreted cautiously.

• Only 4 reviews available — this is a very small sample and the WW Score has low statistical reliability.
• Three of the four reviews are older than 10 years (2011, 2013, 2014), making them largely irrelevant to current performance. Only one review (2023) is recent.
• The single recent review (2023) is brief and lacks specific detail, limiting its usefulness for scoring.
• The 1-star review explicitly describes abandoned/incomplete work and overpricing — this is a serious flag for project completion and pricing dimensions.
• No fake review patterns detected; reviews vary in tone, rating, and detail.

This WW Score has LOW reliability due to an extremely small review pool, three of four reviews being over a decade old, and a direct conflict between positive and negative accounts of project completion — prospective customers should seek more current references before hiring.

Scott demonstrates strong technical plumbing skills and occasionally offers fair pricing, but professionalism and project completion are significantly undermined by serious behavioral issues. Multiple reviews document refusal to follow reasonable health protocols, dismissive treatment of repeat customers, and poor communication. While some customers praise his work quality and willingness to waive trip fees, the pattern of unprofessional conduct—particularly refusing a job due to COVID mask requirements and penalizing a customer for not committing immediately—raises substantial concerns about reliability and customer respect. The inconsistency between positive technical feedback and negative interpersonal experiences creates a mixed but ultimately concerning profile.

• CRITICAL: Review from 2022-01-12 documents refusal to wear mask during COVID pandemic for immunocompromised customer—serious health/safety and professionalism red flag
• CRITICAL: Review from 2017-08-03 documents punitive behavior toward repeat customer, claiming they 'cost him money' by not committing to work immediately and refusing the job—indicates poor customer relations and potential unreliability
• PRICING CONCERN: Review from 2017-10-02 documents $377 charge for one-hour faucet reinstallation with no materials—customer explicitly states this is 'beyond ridiculous' and indicates overpricing relative to market
• RECENCY ISSUE: 4 of 6 reviews are from 2017 or earlier (66% older than 5+ years); only 2 reviews from 2021-2022, limiting ability to assess current behavior
• VAGUE NEGATIVE: Review from 2017-02-01 provides no specific details ('Horrible customer service') and cannot be reliably scored on individual dimensions
• INCONSISTENCY: Strong positive reviews on technical skill and pricing fairness (5-star ratings) directly contradict negative reviews on same dimensions, suggesting either significant behavior changes over time or highly variable customer experiences

This score should be treated with caution due to limited recent data (only 2 reviews from past 3 years), significant inconsistency in customer experiences, and serious documented behavioral issues that raise questions about current reliability and professionalism regardless of technical competence.

Metro Mechanical's review record is deeply mixed and spans over a decade, with serious recurring complaints that significantly drag down all four dimensions. Professionalism is the most heavily penalized dimension: multiple reviews describe rudeness, failure to call ahead when running late, not answering phones, not returning messages, and outright hanging up on customers — with only a handful of positive experiences describing courteous and timely staff. Project completion is similarly troubled, with multiple reviews describing abandoned jobs, missed appointments, unresolved issues after multiple visits, and customers left without heat or AC for extended periods; positive completions do exist but are outnumbered. Experience scores reflect a pattern of misdiagnosis, incorrect repairs, and technicians who admitted uncertainty, though a few reviews do credit specific techs with skilled and efficient work. Pricing receives a moderate score as some customers found rates reasonable and transparent, but at least one review describes paying for a misdiagnosis with no resolution, undermining value perception.

• RECENCY CONCERN: The most recent negative review is from December 2023 and describes the same core behavioral issues (not answering phone, rudeness, abandoning jobs) seen in reviews dating back to 2013, suggesting these are persistent and unresolved problems rather than isolated incidents.
• SPLIT ENTITY RISK: Reviews reference multiple named technicians (Eric, Pat, Mike, Jason, Dave) and two distinct operational styles — some reviews describe a highly professional team-based operation while others describe a solo or poorly managed operation. It is possible these reviews cover different business periods, ownership structures, or personnel, which may distort aggregate scoring.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Several positive reviews are from 2011–2016 and may not reflect current service quality. The most recent positive reviews (2020, 2023) are outnumbered by negative ones in the same period.
• NO FAKE REVIEW FLAG: No strong patterns of fake reviews detected. Reviews vary in length, detail, specificity, and rating, and negative reviews contain specific named individuals and incident details consistent with genuine experiences.

This WW Score is based on 17 reviews with high mention counts across all dimensions, giving it statistical confidence in its direction, but the score should be interpreted cautiously given the wide variance in reviewer experiences and the possibility that reviews span different operational periods or personnel within the same business name.