Find Nearby Plumbers In Aurora, Colorado

To the T Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism across 42 reviews, with consistent praise for punctuality, communication, and courteous technicians. Project completion is solid with 28 mentions showing timely work and follow-through, though a few older reviews (2020-2021) flagged communication breakdowns during complex jobs. Experience scores well at 87.0 based on 31 mentions of skilled workmanship and problem-solving. Pricing shows moderate confidence (12 mentions) with mixed signals: most reviews praise fair pricing and value, but one recent review (May 2025) cited a $400 premium over competitors, suggesting pricing may vary by job complexity or market conditions.

• Two 1-star reviews from 2020-2021 describe serious communication failures on complex HVAC jobs with long lead times; these are older but indicate potential systemic issues under pressure.
• One recent 1-star review (May 2025) alleges overpricing ($400 above competitors); no response or context provided.
• Two reviews (May 2025, June 2025) are blank text with 5-star ratings; these provide no usable data.
• Multiple generic 5-star reviews with minimal detail (e.g., 'Awesome fast service and very friendly') reduce confidence slightly but do not suggest fakery given the volume of detailed, specific reviews.
• Recency bias noted: 35 of 60 reviews are from 2025 (past 6 months); older reviews (2010-2019) are uniformly 5-star with high detail, suggesting possible selection bias in older data.

This WW Score of 82.3 is reliable with HIGH overall confidence. The score is anchored by 42 professionalism mentions and 28 project completion mentions from recent reviews (2025), with strong corroboration from experience data. However, the pricing dimension is based on only 12 mentions with mixed signals, and two older reviews flagged serious communication issues on complex jobs, suggesting caution on large or time-sensitive projects. The company appears to perform well on routine service calls but may struggle with complex jobs or communication under pressure.

Southside Plumbing demonstrates strong overall performance with a WW Score of 82.1, driven by consistently high marks in professionalism, project completion, and technical experience. The company excels in punctuality, communication, and workmanship quality, with numerous reviews praising specific technicians like Mark, Trevor, Kyle, and Bill. However, pricing emerges as a notable weakness, with several customers reporting high costs relative to competitors, though others found value competitive. A significant concern is the presence of serious service failures documented in multiple 1-star reviews spanning 2010–2025, including incomplete work, property damage, poor follow-up, and unresponsive management—particularly involving Josh (estimator/manager) and issues with billing accuracy and accountability.

• SERIOUS PATTERN OF NEGATIVE REVIEWS: Multiple 1-star reviews (9 total) document significant failures including: broken pipes caused by technicians, property damage (drywall holes, concrete debris), incorrect installations, poor follow-up on callbacks, unresponsive management, and billing disputes. These span from 2010 to 2025, suggesting systemic issues rather than isolated incidents.
• MANAGEMENT ACCOUNTABILITY ISSUE: Josh (estimator/manager) is specifically named in multiple negative reviews for rudeness, quote inconsistencies (price increases of $2,000+), poor communication, and failure to return calls or resolve complaints. This suggests potential management quality control problems.
• PRICING INCONSISTENCY: Multiple reviews report overcharging, quote discrepancies, and high labor rates. One customer was quoted $650 for a drain cleaning that cost $2.14 in materials. Another reported a $190 charge for incomplete work and a $45 'trip charge' for a technician who arrived without proper equipment.
• FOLLOW-UP FAILURES: Several reviews document company failure to return calls, reschedule appointments, or address service failures. One customer reported waiting over a week with no response after a misdiagnosis.
• QUALITY CONTROL GAPS: Reviews document installation errors (wrong valve installed, water heater positioned over drain, gas leak not detected by company equipment, broken pipes during service), suggesting inconsistent quality despite individual technician competence.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: Multiple empty reviews (no text, only 5-star ratings) and several extremely generic praise reviews with minimal detail may inflate ratings. However, the presence of detailed negative reviews with specific dates and incidents suggests the dataset is largely authentic.
• RECENCY CONCERN: While most recent reviews (2025, 2024) are positive, serious negative reviews continue to appear as recently as March 2025, indicating ongoing issues despite company longevity.

This WW Score of 82.1 should be treated with CAUTION: while the company demonstrates strong individual technician performance and professionalism in most interactions, the persistent pattern of serious service failures, management accountability issues, and billing disputes across 15 years of reviews suggests the overall score masks significant systemic risks. Customers should request specific technicians (Mark, Trevor, Kyle, Bill) and obtain written quotes before work begins, but should be aware that follow-up issues and management responsiveness remain problematic based on documented evidence.

Denver Rooter Man demonstrates strong professionalism with consistent punctuality, courteous communication, and clean work practices across 68 mentions. Pricing is a significant strength, with 32 reviews praising fair, transparent, and affordable rates—often $75 flat fee with no hidden charges. Experience and technical skill are well-documented across 42 mentions, with customers noting knowledgeable diagnostics and effective problem-solving. However, project completion shows the most concern: while most jobs are completed successfully, 6 critical 1-star reviews document serious follow-through failures including no-shows, ghosting after booking, failure to return calls, and incomplete repairs. These failures significantly impact the overall score despite the majority of positive experiences.

• CRITICAL: Six 1-star reviews (2021-06-03, 2019-12-26, 2018-10-03, 2017-09-20, 2016-10-07, 2013-11-02) document severe project completion failures: no-shows without notice, ghosting customers after booking, failure to follow up on incomplete work, and unresponsiveness to callbacks. These are not isolated incidents but a pattern suggesting systemic follow-through issues.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most recent reviews (past 12 months, June 2024-June 2025) are overwhelmingly 5-star with minimal detail. Older reviews (2012-2020) contain more balanced feedback including critical failures. This shift may indicate either improved operations or potential review curation.
• EMPTY REVIEWS: 5 reviews contain only ratings (5.0 or 4.0) with no text, making them unusable for dimension scoring. These were excluded from analysis.
• INCONSISTENT PRICING CLAIMS: One 2013 review reports being charged $50 trip charge after being quoted $75 flat rate, contradicting the company's stated pricing model. This suggests occasional deviations from advertised pricing.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: Recent reviews (June 2025, May 2025) use similar enthusiastic language ('AWESOME', 'EXCELLENT', 'HIGHLY RECOMMEND') with minimal specific detail. However, these are balanced by older detailed reviews, so confidence is not severely reduced.

This WW Score of 82.1 is reliable for professionalism and pricing dimensions (HIGH confidence based on 68 and 32 mentions respectively), but the project completion score of 76.8 is significantly dragged down by documented no-show and ghosting incidents that represent genuine business failures. Customers should expect strong service quality when the technician arrives, but should be aware of historical follow-through and communication issues, particularly for complex jobs requiring callbacks or follow-up appointments.

Taylor Plumbing demonstrates strong overall performance with a WW Score of 82.1, driven primarily by consistent professionalism (87.3) and technical expertise (88.1) across 32 and 20 mentions respectively. Project completion scores solidly at 84.2 with 18 mentions, indicating reliable follow-through on jobs. However, pricing emerges as a notable weakness at 72.5, with 9 mentions revealing concerns about hidden charges, overtime billing practices, and lack of transparent fee disclosure. Recent reviews (2024-2025) are predominantly positive, but older reviews (2013-2018) contain specific complaints about billing practices and incomplete first-visit repairs that warrant attention.

• PRICING CONCERNS: Multiple reviews (2021, 2018, 2015) explicitly mention hidden charges, inflated overtime fees ($225/hour), travel fees not disclosed upfront, and equipment charges added to invoices without prior notification. One 2018 review specifically states fees were non-transparent.
• DUPLICATE NEGATIVE REVIEW: The store flood complaint appears twice identically (2021-12-15), suggesting either a system error or intentional resubmission, but the complaint is substantive and credible.
• INCOMPLETE WORK: Two reviews (2014, 2021) describe jobs not completed properly on first visit, requiring callbacks and additional charges, raising questions about quality control.
• EMPLOYEE REVIEWS: Multiple reviews appear to be from company employees (2020, 2019), which may introduce bias. These should be weighted with caution despite their positive nature.
• GENERIC/EMPTY REVIEWS: Several reviews contain no text or minimal text ('Great', 'Helpful', '.', 'unknown'), reducing data quality but not indicating fraud.
• OUTLIER NEGATIVE REVIEWS: Three 1-star reviews (2022, 2021, 2015) describe serious issues (document falsification claims, billing disputes, no-show, overcharging). These are credible but represent minority experience.
• RECENCY BIAS: 11 of 56 reviews are from 2024-2025 (recent), and these are almost uniformly 5-star with detailed positive feedback. Older reviews (pre-2020) show more pricing complaints, suggesting possible recent service improvements or review filtering.

This WW Score of 82.1 is reliable with HIGH overall confidence due to substantial mention counts across all dimensions (9-32 mentions per category). However, the pricing dimension should be treated with caution—while based on 9 mentions, these complaints are specific, detailed, and span multiple years, suggesting systemic billing transparency issues that may not be fully resolved. The score reflects a company with strong technical skills and professionalism but documented pricing practices that warrant clarification before engagement.

Flow-Rite Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism with consistent praise for punctuality, communication, and courteous technicians across 28 reviews. Technical expertise is well-documented with 18 mentions of skilled workmanship and problem-solving. However, pricing presents a significant concern: while many reviews praise fair pricing, three explicit negative reviews cite dramatically inflated quotes and hidden charges, creating substantial doubt about pricing consistency. Project completion shows mixed results with most jobs completed successfully, but two older reviews (2015-2016) document serious failures including incomplete work and unmet follow-up commitments. The company's acquisition by Vectra Mechanical (noted in 2024 review) may have improved operations, as recent reviews are predominantly positive.

• PRICING INCONSISTENCY: Three 1-star reviews explicitly cite excessive markups ($750 part vs $125 retail; $450 labor vs $100-350 elsewhere) and one review documents double-billing with owner allegedly refusing refund for 2+ months. This contradicts the 'fair pricing' narrative in positive reviews.
• PROJECT COMPLETION FAILURES: Two older reviews (2015-2016) document serious incomplete work: one sewer job left large dirt mounds unfilled for 3 months with owner refusing to finish; another diagnostic visit never resulted in promised estimate despite multiple follow-ups.
• COMMUNICATION BREAKDOWN: One 2015 review states company 'NEVER returns calls' and another documents failure to provide estimate after week-long delay.
• RECENCY BIAS: Most negative reviews are 7-9 years old (2015-2016, 2021). Recent reviews (2024-2025) are overwhelmingly positive, suggesting either significant operational improvement or potential review manipulation. The 2021 double-billing complaint is particularly concerning.
• SUSPICIOUS REVIEW PATTERN: One review is blank (5-star, 2025-05-10) and one contains only 'GOLD STAR!' (5-star, 2017-05-10). Multiple reviews use nearly identical phrasing ('highly recommend,' 'professional and friendly'). However, most reviews contain specific details and vary in narrative style, limiting fake review confidence.
• COMPANY TRANSITION: Acquisition by Vectra Mechanical in 2024 may explain quality shift; unclear if all technicians/practices transitioned.

This WW Score of 82.1 should be treated with CAUTION. While recent reviews (past 12 months) are consistently excellent and support a high score, three explicit pricing complaints and two documented project completion failures create legitimate doubt about consistency. The score reflects current performance based on recent data, but historical issues suggest this company has had serious operational problems. Recommend requesting detailed written quotes and checking recent references before engaging.

Lukenbuilt Plumbing demonstrates strong overall performance with particular strengths in pricing transparency and technical expertise. The majority of reviews (17 of 21) are highly positive, praising fair rates, quick response times, and knowledgeable work. However, two significant negative reviews from 2020 and 2018 reveal serious issues with follow-through on callbacks and incomplete work, which substantially impact the project completion score. The company excels at initial service delivery and customer communication but shows inconsistency in honoring commitments for return visits. Most reviews are older than 3 years, which limits recency assessment.

• Two critical negative reviews (2020-05-18 and 2018-07-08) describe failure to complete promised callbacks and return visits, directly contradicting the overwhelmingly positive narrative in other reviews. This suggests inconsistent service quality or possible staffing/management issues.
• Review dates are heavily skewed toward 2014-2017 (15 of 21 reviews). Only 3 reviews are from 2018 or later, limiting ability to assess current service quality. The two most recent negative reviews (2020 and 2018) may indicate declining performance.
• The 2020 review alleges gender-based pricing discrimination ($300 charge for bringing equipment inside without using it), which is a serious allegation not addressed in other reviews.
• No fake review patterns detected. Positive reviews contain specific details (names, job types, pricing comparisons, follow-up actions) that suggest authenticity.

This score should be treated with moderate caution. While the HIGH confidence is supported by 10+ mentions per dimension, the significant gap between overwhelmingly positive older reviews and recent negative reviews suggests the company may have experienced service quality degradation or staffing changes. The WW Score of 82.1 reflects strong fundamentals but is tempered by documented failures in project completion and follow-through on recent jobs.