Find Nearby Plumbers In Aurora, Colorado

Axis Plumbing and Heating, led by Ernie, earns strong marks across all four dimensions based on a solid volume of reviews. Professionalism is the most frequently cited strength, with numerous reviewers praising responsiveness, punctuality, courtesy, and communication — including same-day and emergency response. Project completion scores well overall, with most jobs described as finished correctly and on time, but is meaningfully dragged down by one serious negative review in which a faucet replacement failed within two weeks, the contractor refused warranty coverage, left a hole in the customer's house, and then went completely unresponsive — a significant red flag. Pricing is generally viewed as fair to competitive, with one reviewer noting Axis was the best value among several estimates and another acknowledging the cost was 'expensive' but still below larger competitors. Experience scores are positive, with reviewers citing quality workmanship, problem-solving on difficult diagnoses, and thorough follow-through on complex jobs like re-plumbing a 1930s bathroom and installing tankless water heaters.

• ONE SERIOUS NEGATIVE REVIEW (2021-06-05): A customer reported a failed faucet replacement within 2 weeks, refusal to honor any warranty, abandoned work leaving a hole in the exterior wall, and complete non-responsiveness to calls and emails. This is a significant project completion and professionalism failure that materially impacts scoring.
• THIN REVIEWS — LOW DETAIL: Approximately 10 reviews contain little to no substantive content ('Good', 'good service', 'Very nice and fast', 'Ernie was great!', blank entries). These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence per scoring rules.
• POSSIBLE GENERIC PRAISE PATTERN: Several short 5-star reviews with no specifics may reflect real but low-effort feedback. No strong evidence of coordinated fake reviews, but the volume of detail-free 5-star entries slightly inflates the perceived rating average.
• RECENCY NOTE: All reviews are dated between 2020 and 2021. No reviews from 2022 or later are present. This means all data is more than 3 years old, and current service quality cannot be confirmed from this dataset.
• ONE BLANK REVIEW (2020-07-18) and one no-comment review (2020-07-10, 3.0 stars) were excluded from dimension scoring but counted in total reviews analyzed.

This WW Score carries moderate-to-high structural reliability due to sufficient review volume and broad dimension coverage, but should be interpreted cautiously given that all reviews are 3+ years old, one serious unresolved complaint exists involving abandoned work and non-responsiveness, and roughly one-third of reviews lack enough detail to contribute meaningful scoring data.

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.

Allied Services receives strong praise across most dimensions, with repeated mentions of same-day or next-day responsiveness, friendly technicians, and fair pricing that beat competitors. However, professionalism and project completion scores are meaningfully dragged down by three negative reviews: one describing a no-show appointment with a repeated excuse, one describing a complete failure to follow up after a home warranty dispatch, and one describing an initial installation that required a callback to correct. The callback situation was ultimately resolved well, but the no-show and non-responsive incidents represent genuine reliability failures that cannot be ignored. Pricing and experience scores are the strongest dimensions, with multiple reviewers independently noting reasonable or below-market costs and technically capable work even on complex or unusual systems.

• Three reviews (1-star, 2-star, and a 5-star with a callback) document reliability and follow-through failures — these are material and weigh against project completion and professionalism scores.
• The majority of reviews are dated between 2017 and 2019, with the most recent review from June 2019. All reviews are older than 4 years from a typical evaluation window, meaning current performance cannot be confirmed from this dataset.
• No reviews are available from 2020 onward — this contractor's current operational status, staffing, and service quality are unknown and this score should not be treated as reflective of present-day performance.
• Several positive reviews share similar narrative structure (home warranty referral, water heater emergency, same-day service) which could reflect genuine repeat circumstances given the contractor's apparent specialty, but warrants mild caution around pattern similarity.
• The business appears to be a very small operation (one or two technicians named Alan and Tony), which increases the risk of scheduling failures as evidenced by the 2-star and 1-star reviews.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence based on mention volume, but should be treated with caution due to the age of all reviews (2017–2019) and documented reliability failures that suggest inconsistent performance, particularly for scheduling and follow-through.

ABS Plumbing has a strong base of positive reviews praising responsiveness, technical skill, and fair pricing across a wide range of plumbing jobs including emergencies, water heaters, gas lines, and complex repairs. However, three negative reviews introduce meaningful concerns: one alleges the technician appeared unknowledgeable about water heaters and then went completely unresponsive for two days; another reports a job was abandoned after the estimate stage with no follow-through; and a third flags a failure to provide a formal itemized invoice after work was completed. These incidents directly impact the project completion and professionalism scores, pulling them below what the majority of positive reviews might otherwise suggest. Pricing feedback is generally favorable, with multiple reviewers citing fair, reasonable, or affordable costs, and one notable instance where payment was refused entirely. The bulk of reviews are older than 12 months, with the most recent substantive review from mid-2021, which limits confidence in how well these scores reflect current performance.

• RECENCY WARNING: The majority of reviews are more than 3 years old, with most clustering between 2012 and 2016. Only one review is from within the past 3 years (2021). Current performance cannot be reliably inferred from this dataset.
• ABANDONMENT FLAG: One reviewer (2012) explicitly states the contractor came for an estimate and then never followed up or provided one, effectively abandoning the job before it started. This is a direct project completion failure.
• UNRESPONSIVENESS FLAG: One reviewer (2019) reports calling two days in a row with no answer after the technician visited, and also questions the legitimacy of the business due to lack of a website. This raises concerns about communication reliability.
• INVOICE/TRANSPARENCY FLAG: One reviewer (2015) reports never receiving a requested itemized invoice despite follow-up, and the contractor's response was to point them to a Yelp post rather than provide a formal document. This is a professionalism and pricing transparency concern.
• COMPETENCY FLAG: The 2019 negative reviewer explicitly states the technician appeared unknowledgeable about water heaters, which is a direct experience/skill concern.
• One review (2013, rating 5.0) contains only the text 'unknown' and provides no usable data. It was excluded from scoring.
• One review (2012, rating 4.0) contains only 'The above statement is enough at this point...overall everything was good.' with no specific detail. It was counted toward professionalism and project completion only at minimal weight due to vagueness.
• No strong fake review patterns detected. Reviews vary in length, specificity, tone, and rating. Negative reviews are present and credible. Language is sufficiently varied across reviewers.

This WW Score carries moderate-to-high structural confidence due to the volume of reviews, but should be treated with caution given that the dataset is heavily skewed toward reviews that are 5 to 11 years old, three credible negative reviews raise specific concerns about follow-through and communication, and no recent reviews exist to confirm whether current performance matches the historical positive trend.

Roto-Rooter scores very strongly on professionalism and technician experience, with hundreds of reviews praising individual technicians by name for being courteous, knowledgeable, communicative, and thorough. Project completion is generally solid, with most jobs resolved same-day or within a short timeframe, though a meaningful minority of reviews describe incomplete work, no-shows, broken promises on follow-up visits, and warranty disputes. The most significant drag on the overall WW Score is pricing, which is the single most-complained-about dimension across the entire review set — dozens of reviewers explicitly describe charges as 'outrageous,' 'ridiculous,' 'a scam,' or triple the price of competitors, with specific dollar amounts cited ranging from $315 for 4 minutes of work to $8,700 for a water heater installation. Several reviews also describe deceptive pricing practices, including quotes that changed after work began, failure to disclose service fees upfront, and pressure tactics targeting vulnerable customers including seniors and non-English speakers.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: A significant number of reviews appear to be exact or near-exact duplicates posted on different dates (e.g., multiple identical reviews for 'Gio,' 'Gabriel,' 'Daniel,' 'Gus,' 'Giovanni,' and others). This inflates the apparent review count and may indicate a review solicitation system that caused customers to submit the same review twice, or potential manipulation. Confidence in raw review count is reduced.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Approximately 150-200 reviews contain no text and only a star rating (almost all 5-star). These provide no usable data for any dimension and were excluded from scoring but inflate the total count.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS ARE SEVERE AND SPECIFIC: Negative pricing reviews are not vague — they cite specific dollar amounts, compare to competitor prices, and describe practices such as quoting after work begins, refusing to honor coupons, and charging elderly or non-English-speaking customers without disclosure. This is a systemic pattern, not isolated incidents.
• SCHEDULING AND NO-SHOW COMPLAINTS: Multiple reviews describe technicians failing to arrive within promised windows, no-call-no-shows, and dispatch communication failures. This is a recurring pattern affecting the project completion score.
• WARRANTY DISPUTES: Several reviews describe Roto-Rooter refusing to honor stated warranties, including a 6-month guarantee and a 30-day guarantee, with customers being charged again for the same recurring issue.
• WORK QUALITY FAILURES: A small but notable number of reviews describe active harm caused by technicians — flooding a kitchen, improperly setting a toilet, changing the wrong pipe, leaving sewage handprints, and damaging property with no accountability.
• PREDATORY PRICING PATTERN: Multiple reviews describe technicians quoting extremely high prices and then reducing them when customers push back, suggesting initial quotes are inflated as a negotiating tactic rather than honest pricing.
• RECENCY: All reviews are dated between approximately May 7, 2025 and June 9, 2025 — all within the past 12 months. Recency weighting is fully applied.

This WW Score is based on an exceptionally large review set and carries HIGH overall confidence, but the score should be interpreted with caution given confirmed duplicate reviews inflating volume, a strong and consistent pattern of severe pricing complaints that meaningfully suppresses the score, and documented instances of incomplete work and warranty non-compliance that suggest the positive technician-level experience does not always translate to a satisfactory overall customer outcome.

Brad Company earns strong marks for professionalism and technical experience, with numerous reviewers praising Dave's punctuality, communication, and ability to solve problems that larger companies could not. Project completion is generally solid, highlighted by a notable instance where no charge was applied when a repair could not be completed — a mark of integrity. However, pricing is a significant drag on the overall score: three reviews from the same date in February 2019 describe an undisclosed dual-fee structure ($70 trip charge plus an $80 diagnosis fee) that customers felt was deceptive, and one older review noted fees were on the higher side. The pricing complaints are serious enough to substantially lower the pricing dimension score and pull down the overall WW Score. The business has a strong core reputation for honest, skilled work, but the fee transparency issue is a recurring and credible concern.

• DUPLICATE REVIEW ALERT: Three reviews dated 2019-02-08 describe nearly identical experiences with the same $70/$150 fee dispute. Two of the three reviews use almost word-for-word identical language. This strongly suggests either the same person submitted multiple reviews or coordinated negative reviews. These have been counted as separate mentions for pricing but treated with caution — the underlying complaint is credible and corroborated by a second distinct reviewer, so the pricing concern is retained.
• RECENCY WARNING: The majority of reviews (12 out of 16) are older than 12 months as of a 2024 reference point. Only 2 reviews are from 2023–2024. The most recent positive reviews (2023, 2024) are encouraging, but the bulk of the data is 5–11 years old and may not reflect current service quality or pricing practices.
• ADVERTISED SERVICES DISCREPANCY: One reviewer (2016) noted that Brad Company's website advertised a service the receptionist said they do not perform. This is a minor flag for business transparency and website accuracy.
• PRICING CONCERN — UNDISCLOSED FEES: Multiple independent reviewers (discounting duplicates) flagged that the $70 trip charge was presented as the total diagnostic fee, but an additional $80 diagnosis fee was charged on arrival without prior disclosure. This is a substantive and credible pattern, not an isolated complaint.

This WW Score carries HIGH overall confidence due to a sufficient volume of reviews across all four dimensions, but should be interpreted with caution given that most reviews are over 5 years old, a pricing transparency issue is corroborated by multiple reviewers, and three near-identical negative reviews on the same date suggest possible review manipulation.