Find Nearby Plumbers In Boulder, Colorado

Michael's Plumbing presents a deeply polarized review profile: a strong cluster of positive reviews praising responsiveness, fair pricing, and skilled workmanship is offset by a significant number of serious negative reviews spanning multiple years. The negative reviews are not minor complaints — they include allegations of unlicensed work, no-call/no-show appointments on multiple occasions, incomplete or incorrect repairs, overcharging, failure to honor warranties, and refusal to return calls after payment. Professionalism scores are dragged down substantially by repeated patterns of missed appointments, poor communication, and in some cases outright dishonest conduct by named technicians. Pricing scores reflect a split between reviewers who found rates fair and reasonable versus those who reported being charged hundreds to thousands of dollars above market rate with no cost breakdown provided. Project completion is the most damaged dimension, with numerous reviews describing jobs left unfinished, recurring problems after supposed fixes, and abandoned callbacks. Experience scores are moderate — many reviewers praised diagnostic skill and quality workmanship, but others described trial-and-error repairs, incorrect installations, and work that had to be redone by other companies.

• MULTIPLE NO-CALL/NO-SHOW PATTERNS: At least 10 reviews across different years (2013, 2015, 2018, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023) describe missed appointments with no communication, suggesting a systemic operational problem rather than isolated incidents.
• SERIOUS WORKMANSHIP ALLEGATIONS: Multiple reviews allege incorrect installations (e.g., pressure reducing valve installed on wrong line, crossed hot/cold lines, sump pump installed incorrectly causing ongoing flooding, toilet not caulked or secured), indicating potential skill or quality control issues.
• PRICING INTEGRITY CONCERNS: At least two reviews allege deceptive pricing practices — one describes a bait-and-switch on a water heater model upgrade that was never delivered, another describes being charged $788 for a drain snake job that another plumber resolved for $100.
• UNLICENSED OPERATION ALLEGATION: One review (2019) states the city confirmed Michael's Plumbing had not pulled permits, had no inspection, and may not have had a valid business license at that time. This is a serious flag that could not be independently verified from reviews alone.
• MULTI-TECHNICIAN OPERATION: Reviews reference multiple technicians by name (Michael, Josh, John, Ryan, Jeff, Dennis, Dakota, Tyler, Anthony) suggesting this is not a solo operator despite some reviews describing it as a one-man show. Inconsistent service quality across technicians is evident.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of negative reviews are spread across 2013–2022, while the most recent reviews (2023–2024) skew more positive. However, one significant negative review exists from May 2024, so improvement cannot be confirmed as sustained.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — LOW LEVEL: A small number of reviews contain no detail whatsoever (e.g., 'Awesomeness!', 'unknown', blank text with a 5-star rating, 'Great Contractor'). These were excluded from usable data scoring but inflate the raw star average. No large-scale coordinated fake review pattern was detected.
• ABANDONED CUSTOMER COMPLAINTS: Multiple reviews describe the company stopping communication after payment was received or after negative reviews were posted, including one BBB complaint with no resolution. This pattern across multiple years is a significant trust concern.

This WW Score of 62.4 is based on a large and diverse review set spanning over a decade and carries HIGH statistical confidence in its accuracy, but prospective customers should weigh the serious and recurring negative patterns — particularly around appointment reliability, post-payment communication, and workmanship quality — before engaging this contractor, as the score reflects a genuinely mixed and risk-carrying service history.

Mesa Plumbing presents a deeply mixed picture across its review history. Recent reviews (2024–2025) skew heavily positive, with multiple customers praising named technicians like Quinn, Eric, Andrew, Cody, and Darrel for professionalism, timeliness, and quality work. However, a substantial body of older and some recent negative reviews reveals persistent and serious concerns about pricing transparency, overcharging, and hidden fees — with multiple reviewers independently describing quotes that were 3–10x what the job warranted. Project completion is a significant liability: several reviews describe abandoned work, unresolved problems after payment, no-shows, and technicians who failed to diagnose issues correctly. The experience dimension is similarly split — skilled technicians are praised individually, but others are described as incompetent or dishonest, including misdiagnoses and shoddy installations. The overall WW Score of 62.1 reflects a company with genuine talent on staff but systemic issues in pricing integrity and job follow-through that have persisted across many years.

• RECENCY BIAS RISK: Reviews from 2025 are overwhelmingly 5-star with minimal detail (many are blank or single-sentence). This pattern may reflect a managed review campaign or selective solicitation of happy customers.
• BLANK REVIEWS: 14 reviews contained no text whatsoever — only a 5-star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data.
• PRICING CONCERNS ARE SYSTEMIC AND MULTI-YEAR: At least 15 independent reviewers across 2008–2025 explicitly describe overcharging, hidden fees, bait-and-switch diagnostic pricing, or quotes far exceeding market rates. This is not isolated — it is a documented pattern.
• PROJECT COMPLETION FAILURES: Multiple reviews describe paid work that did not resolve the problem, abandoned jobs, no-shows, and technicians who stopped returning calls after payment. One reviewer paid over $3,000 for unresolved water hammer issues.
• WORKMANSHIP FAILURES ON RECORD: Reviews describe incorrectly installed clean-outs, hot water heaters installed with improper draft diverters leaking fumes for 7 years, furnace misdiagnoses, and a furnace installation that failed repeatedly.
• FAKE REVIEW PATTERN — MODERATE SUSPICION: The 2025 reviews show a high concentration of brief, generic, all-5-star reviews with no specifics, many posted on the same dates (e.g., multiple reviews on 2025-04-10, 2025-03-11, 2025-05-19). This clustering and lack of detail warrants caution.
• OLDER REVIEWS HEAVILY NEGATIVE: Reviews from 2008–2016 are predominantly 1-star with detailed complaints. The apparent improvement in recent years may reflect genuine operational changes or selective review solicitation — it is not possible to confirm which.
• NO-SHOW AND CANCELLATION PATTERN: At least 3 separate reviewers describe scheduled appointments where technicians never arrived and did not call, spanning multiple years.

This WW Score is based on a large review set (81 reviews) spanning 2005–2025, giving it HIGH statistical confidence in direction, but the score should be interpreted cautiously due to suspected review solicitation inflating recent ratings, a documented multi-year pattern of pricing complaints, and serious project completion failures that suggest the company's quality is highly technician-dependent.

Lookout Renovation shows significant inconsistency across reviews spanning 14 years. Positive reviews (2022, 2019, 2016, 2012) praise Brian's care, attention to detail, and quality workmanship, with strong professionalism and experience ratings. However, critical reviews reveal serious problems: a 7-month project delay with no compensation, poor communication (500-word unpunctuated emails), failure to follow up on quotes (45+ days), chronic lateness on appointments, and incomplete work requiring callbacks. The 2019 negative review explicitly states subpar quality and defensive responses to legitimate issues. Professionalism and project completion scores are dragged down by documented communication failures and timeline issues, while experience and pricing show strength when work is actually completed.

• RECENCY CONCERN: Most recent positive review is from January 2022; most recent negative review is from February 2019. Older reviews (2012-2008) show communication and reliability problems that may indicate systemic issues.
• PATTERN DETECTED: Multiple reviews (2015, 2008, 2012) document failure to respond to calls, missed appointments, and lack of follow-up on quotes. This suggests a chronic communication/responsiveness problem rather than isolated incidents.
• TIMELINE INCONSISTENCY: One major project (2018-2019) was delayed 7 months with no compensation and quality issues acknowledged only after customer complaints. This is a significant red flag for project completion reliability.
• CONFLICTING NARRATIVES: Positive reviews emphasize Brian's care and attention; negative reviews describe him as unprofessional communicator with poor follow-through. Both cannot be fully accurate—suggests inconsistent service delivery or selective customer experience.
• SAMPLE BIAS RISK: Only 8 reviews total; positive reviews are more detailed and recent, while negative reviews span older dates. Recent data is limited.

This WW Score of 68.2 should be treated with caution due to small sample size (8 reviews), significant inconsistency between positive and negative feedback, and documented patterns of communication and scheduling failures across multiple years. The score reflects genuine strengths in workmanship and experience when projects proceed, but serious vulnerabilities in professionalism and project completion reliability that have persisted over time.

This contractor demonstrates significant reliability and follow-through issues that severely undermine overall performance. While two reviews praise technical skill and quality workmanship, three separate reviews (spanning 2012–2021) document patterns of non-responsiveness, missed appointments, and failure to complete callbacks. Professionalism is the lowest-scoring dimension due to consistent communication failures and no-shows. Pricing appears fair when work is completed, but project completion suffers from abandonment and scheduling unreliability. The contractor's technical ability is evident, but execution and accountability are major weaknesses.

• CRITICAL: Three independent reviews across 9 years (2012, 2017, 2021) report identical failure patterns: no-shows, unreturned calls, and abandoned jobs. This is not isolated—it suggests systemic operational issues.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most negative reviews are older (2012, 2017), but the most recent review (2021) repeats the same no-show/no-callback complaint, indicating the problem persists.
• CONFIDENCE LIMITATION: Only 5 reviews total. Score reliability is moderate at best. Additional recent reviews needed for higher confidence.
• POSITIVE REVIEWS ARE DATED: The two 5-star reviews are from 2014 and 2019, both several years old. No recent positive reviews to balance current negative pattern.

This WW Score should be treated with caution due to small sample size (5 reviews), but the consistency of negative feedback across multiple years on the same issues (responsiveness, follow-through) suggests real operational problems. The score reflects genuine risk for customers.

Barday Plumbing's review set reveals a deeply mixed track record with serious recurring concerns across all dimensions. Professionalism is heavily dragged down by multiple accounts of no-shows, failure to communicate delays, a staff member yelling at a complaining customer, and plumbers arriving unprepared — offset only slightly by a few positive mentions of on-time and courteous service. Pricing is a consistent pain point, with multiple reviewers citing $140–$175/hour labor rates, inflated parts charges, and unexpected costs not included in bids. Project completion is problematic, with documented cases of incorrect installations, a frozen drain line failure two months post-install, missing rebate forms, and one complete abandonment of service — though some jobs were completed satisfactorily. Experience scores modestly higher due to one reviewer praising specialized boiler knowledge and another noting a technician honestly diagnosed a simple fix rather than upselling, but these positives are countered by installation errors and poor pre-job planning.

• RECENCY WARNING: All 8 reviews are dated between 2009 and 2016. The most recent review is from September 2016 — over 8 years ago. This score may not reflect current business performance and should be treated with significant caution.
• SMALL SAMPLE WARNING: Only 8 reviews are available. While the WW Score is calculable, the limited sample size reduces overall reliability.
• INSTALLATION FAILURE: One reviewer documented a post-installation failure (frozen drain line) for which the company attempted to bill the customer despite the plumber admitting fault — a serious project completion and professionalism concern.
• BILLING CONCERN: Multiple reviewers describe being charged for travel time, return trips due to unprepared technicians, and parts at well above retail cost — suggesting a pattern of opaque or unfair billing practices.
• NO FAKE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: Reviews vary significantly in tone, detail, rating, and specific complaint — no signs of coordinated or fabricated reviews.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability due to a small review sample of only 8 reviews, all of which are more than 8 years old, making it impossible to assess the contractor's current quality with confidence.

Sherrelwood Services shows severe inconsistency across reviews spanning 8 years. Two recent reviews (2021, 2016) document critical failures in project completion—incomplete repairs, no-shows on callbacks, and unresolved damage—paired with unprofessional communication. Two older reviews (2014, 2013) praise responsiveness and workmanship. The stark contrast suggests either significant organizational decline or highly variable service quality. Professionalism scores are dragged down by documented rudeness, condescension, and failure to honor commitments. Experience dimension shows competence when work is completed, but this is overshadowed by completion failures.

• TEMPORAL INCONSISTENCY: Positive reviews are 8-11 years old (2013-2014); negative reviews are recent (2016, 2021). This suggests possible service degradation over time.
• CRITICAL PATTERN: Multiple reviews document no-shows and abandoned callbacks—a severe red flag for reliability.
• UNPROFESSIONAL CONDUCT: Receptionist described as condescending and hanging up on customers; defensive behavior when confronted about damage.
• UNRESOLVED ISSUES: At least one customer left with unrepaired damage and no follow-up after months.
• SAMPLE SIZE: Only 4 reviews limits confidence, but consistency of recent negative feedback is concerning.

This score should be treated with caution due to small sample size, but the recent pattern of project completion failures and unprofessional conduct is consistent enough to warrant serious concern; the two positive reviews are too old to reliably reflect current service standards.