Find Nearby Plumbers In Aurora, Colorado

Robert (Safe, Clean and Green) demonstrates exceptional performance across all four dimensions. Professionalism is a standout strength, with 82 reviews explicitly praising punctuality, communication, responsiveness, and courteous demeanor. Project completion is consistently reliable, with 71 reviews confirming jobs finished thoroughly, callbacks honored, and follow-through on commitments. Technical expertise is evident in 79 reviews highlighting knowledgeable problem-solving and quality workmanship. Pricing receives strong marks from 28 reviews citing fair, competitive, and transparent quotes with no hidden charges. The WW Score of 92.3 reflects a highly trustworthy contractor with strong execution across all service dimensions.

• All 87 reviews are 5-star ratings with no negative feedback or variance. This uniformity is statistically unusual and warrants caution.
• One review (2021-08-20) mentions car bumper repair, which is inconsistent with sprinkler/irrigation services. This appears to be a misclassified or fake review and was excluded from analysis.
• The overwhelming majority of reviews (75+ out of 87) use nearly identical positive language patterns: 'knowledgeable,' 'thorough,' 'professional,' 'friendly,' 'fair pricing,' 'walked me through,' and 'highly recommend.' While these terms are appropriate for the service, the repetitive phrasing across so many reviews suggests possible review manipulation or template-based submissions.
• No reviews contain any criticism, complaints, or constructive feedback. Real contractor portfolios typically include at least some mixed sentiment.
• Review dates span 2017–2024 with heavy concentration in 2018–2019 (60+ reviews), suggesting potential historical review accumulation rather than recent ongoing feedback.

While Robert's WW Score of 92.3 is exceptionally high and supported by substantial mention counts across all dimensions, the uniformity of 5-star ratings, repetitive language patterns, and absence of any negative feedback raise concerns about review authenticity. The score should be treated as a strong indicator of quality, but potential review manipulation means this score may overstate actual performance. Recommend requesting recent references or conducting independent verification before committing to major work.

B&P Plumbing, and Charles in particular, receives overwhelmingly positive feedback across nearly every dimension analyzed. Professionalism is the most consistently praised attribute, with reviewers repeatedly citing punctuality, responsiveness (including on a holiday weekend), courtesy, and clear communication across 16 of 17 reviews. Project completion scores are also very strong, with multiple reviewers noting jobs were finished thoroughly, on time, and with extra care — including going above and beyond to fix unrelated issues at no charge. Experience and workmanship are frequently highlighted, with Charles described as a master plumber who handles tricky installations skillfully and leaves work in excellent condition. Pricing received fewer explicit mentions but was described positively when raised, with reviewers noting fair and low costs relative to competitors.

• All 17 reviews are 5-star ratings with no negative or mixed feedback whatsoever — this is statistically unusual and warrants mild caution.
• However, most reviews contain specific, detailed, and varied narratives (names, dates, job descriptions, personal anecdotes) which significantly reduces the likelihood of fabricated reviews.
• Several reviews are older than 12 months (some dating back to 2016–2022) and may not fully reflect current service quality; the most recent reviews (2023–2024) remain consistent in tone and quality.
• The business appears to specialize heavily in water heater replacement via home warranty referrals — the review pool may not reflect performance across a broader range of plumbing services.
• One review (Cia R., 2023) and one review (Bill, 2021) are brief and generic with limited detail, contributing minimally to scoring confidence.

This WW Score is based on 17 reviews with strong narrative detail and consistent patterns across multiple dimensions, making it moderately reliable — though the absence of any negative feedback and the narrow service scope (primarily water heater replacements) suggest the score should be interpreted with slight caution when evaluating the contractor for broader plumbing work.

Royalty Plumbing has an overwhelmingly positive review base across a large volume of reviews spanning over a decade, with consistent praise for professionalism, punctuality, communication, and technical skill. Pricing is frequently cited as fair, reasonable, or best-in-market, with multiple reviewers explicitly noting they compared quotes and chose Royalty as the lowest or most transparent bidder. Project completion scores are strong, with numerous reviews confirming jobs were finished on time, on budget, and with thorough cleanup — including one standout review of a sewer line replacement completed within 48 hours with landscaping restored perfectly. However, five negative reviews (1–2 star ratings) introduce meaningful deductions: one describes unauthorized work and a forced charge, one cites a no-call/no-show, one describes being blown off after a referral fell through, one reports a rude office manager and a warranty dispute over a faulty installation, and one describes unprofessional phone conduct. These are not isolated to a single era and span multiple years, preventing a top-tier score.

• Two reviews contain no text — only a 5-star rating with no content (dated 2021-06-10 and 2021-06-10). These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data.
• A cluster of reviews dated exactly 2021-06-10 and 2022-06-10 with no specific timestamps may indicate batch-imported or backdated reviews. Language across these is varied enough to not suggest fabrication, but the identical dates warrant mild caution.
• One review (2022-08-22) is a 1-star complaint about a rude office staff member (Kristen) with no plumbing work performed — this was counted under professionalism as a negative data point.
• One review (2022-01-11) describes unauthorized work performed without a quote and a forced charge of $125 — this is a significant professionalism and pricing concern and was weighted accordingly.
• One review (2023-04-20) describes a warranty dispute, a faulty installation by a former employee, and a rude manager response — this is a notable negative signal for both project completion and professionalism.
• One review (2014-08-25) describes a no-call/no-show by Leon — this is an older data point but relevant to reliability history.
• One review (2017-11-13) describes Leon as unprofessional over the phone, resulting in the customer requesting a different contractor — another older but relevant negative signal.
• One review (2022-04-30) describes being referred to a granite company that refused the job, followed by no callback from Royalty — a project abandonment/follow-through failure weighted against project completion.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews are from 2020 onward, with strong recent activity through mid-2025. Older reviews (2013–2017) are present but carry reduced weight per scoring rules. Recent reviews remain consistently positive with only isolated negatives.
• No strong evidence of fake reviews detected. Reviews are specific, name individual technicians, describe distinct job types, and vary in writing style and detail level. The volume and specificity support authenticity.

This WW Score is based on 125 reviews spanning over a decade, with strong recency and high mention counts across all four dimensions, making it one of the more reliable assessments possible — however, the presence of five credible negative reviews (including a no-show, unauthorized charges, a warranty dispute, and reported rudeness) prevents a top-tier score and should be considered by prospective customers.

Bob (Integrity Electric & Home Improvement Services) demonstrates strong performance across all four dimensions. Professionalism is consistently praised with on-time arrivals, clear communication, and willingness to help beyond scope. Pricing is repeatedly described as reasonable, straightforward, and fair, with discounts offered for larger projects. Project completion is reliable with jobs finished in timely manner and no abandoned work mentioned. Experience is evident through technical knowledge in electrical work, problem-solving ability, and willingness to tackle diverse tasks from electrical to carpentry to drywall. The primary limitation is review recency—most reviews are 4+ years old, with only one from 2024.

• Review recency concern: 6 of 7 reviews are from 2018-2022; only 1 review from 2024. Current service quality cannot be fully assessed.
• Limited recent data: The 2024 review mentions work took longer than anticipated, which may indicate scheduling or efficiency changes not reflected in older reviews.
• All reviews are positive (4-5 stars): No negative feedback available to balance assessment. This is not necessarily suspicious but limits ability to identify weaknesses.

This WW Score of 87.3 is reliable based on consistent positive feedback across all dimensions with adequate mention counts, but should be treated with caution due to the age of most reviews and lack of recent performance data to confirm current service levels remain consistent.

Green Plumbing Solutions demonstrates strong performance across all four dimensions. Professionalism is the standout strength, with 48 mentions emphasizing punctuality, responsiveness, courtesy, and communication. Project completion is consistently praised with 41 mentions of timely work, same-day service, and follow-through on callbacks. Pricing receives solid marks (82.0) across 32 mentions, with customers repeatedly noting fair, transparent, and reasonable rates compared to competitors. Experience is well-documented with 35 mentions of skilled workmanship, technical knowledge, and problem-solving ability. The company shows particular strength in emergency response and customer care. Two negative reviews (1-star ratings from 2022 and 2021) cite delayed quotes and overpricing, but these are substantially outweighed by 62 positive reviews with consistent, specific praise.

• Three reviews contain no text (blank review text with 5.0 ratings on 2020-06-10 and 2017-09-05), suggesting possible data entry errors or placeholder entries. These were excluded from scoring.
• One review (2022-06-10) is a 1-star with no text, making it impossible to determine the cause of dissatisfaction.
• Duplicate review detected: The review beginning 'These guys are great. Ryan came on time...' appears twice (2021-06-10 and 2019-11-20), suggesting possible copy-paste or system duplication.
• Another duplicate detected: The review 'Would recommend James Riley/Green Plumbing in a heart beat!' appears twice (2017-06-11 and 2016-09-09), indicating potential data duplication.
• The review 'Our water heater went out. They replaced it the same day we called!' appears twice consecutively (2019-06-11), suggesting duplication.
• Most reviews are from 2017-2021 (older than 12 months from current date). Only 4 reviews are from 2024, and 6 from 2022. This limits recency weighting but does not invalidate the overall assessment.
• Despite the high volume of 5-star reviews, they are not suspiciously generic—most contain specific details about service, pricing comparisons, and named technicians (James, Ryan, Ernie), reducing fake review risk.

This WW Score of 87.2 is highly reliable, based on 64 usable reviews with strong mention counts across all dimensions (32-48 mentions each). The consistency of specific, detailed praise across multiple years and technicians, combined with transparent acknowledgment of two legitimate negative reviews, supports confidence in this assessment. However, the age of most reviews (pre-2022) and the presence of data duplication suggest caution when extrapolating current service quality; recent reviews (2024) maintain the high standard, but a larger recent sample would strengthen confidence further.

Reign of Fire has a strong and well-documented track record across all four dimensions, with the majority of reviews from the past 12 months being highly positive. Professionalism is consistently praised — punctuality, communication, cleanliness, and friendly crews are mentioned repeatedly across dozens of reviews. Project completion scores are solid but tempered by a notable 1-star review describing failed inspections, unrepaired drywall, and an incomplete permit process, as well as a 3-star review citing unresolved post-install concerns and aggressive review solicitation. Pricing is generally described as fair and transparent, with one reviewer explicitly noting the estimate matched the final price, though one older review called the work 'extremely expensive.' Experience and workmanship quality are frequently praised, including a city inspector independently vouching for the quality of their work, though a 2-star review from 2019 cited inadequate installation quality discovered years later.

• Several reviews are extremely brief and generic (e.g., 'Very pleased!', 'Great to work with!', 'Fire pit came out great!!') with no specific details — these provide limited scoring signal and may reflect review solicitation rather than organic feedback.
• One review explicitly calls out aggressive review solicitation: 'Very quick and persistent to request you write a review, not so quick and persistent to ensure their customers are happy.' This raises a mild concern about review authenticity for the most generic entries.
• One blank review (5-star, no text, 2025-05-10) was excluded from scoring as it contains no usable data.
• Three negative reviews (1-star, 1-star, 2-star) exist but all are from 2019 or earlier. The most serious — describing failed inspections twice, unrepaired drywall, dirty worksite, and no final permit — is a significant red flag for project completion, though it is over 5 years old and recent reviews do not echo these issues.
• A 2019 1-star review describes complete inability to reach the company by phone, email, or web form — a serious responsiveness failure, though no recent reviews corroborate this pattern.
• The vast majority of reviews are 5-star with only 3 negative reviews across the full history. While this could reflect genuine quality, combined with the generic review patterns and solicitation flag, confidence in the upper end of scores is modestly reduced.
• Many reviews are older than 1 year (dating back to 2013–2022). Recency weighting was applied — scores are primarily driven by the large volume of 2024–2025 reviews, but older negative reviews were not discarded as they contain substantive detail.

This WW Score is moderately reliable — the high volume of recent, detailed positive reviews provides strong signal, but the presence of credible negative reviews describing serious project completion failures, combined with patterns of generic reviews and confirmed review solicitation, warrants caution before treating the score as a ceiling rather than a reasonable central estimate.