Find Nearby Plumbers In Broomfield, Colorado

Big Apple Plumbing presents a deeply mixed picture across all four dimensions. Professionalism is significantly dragged down by a recurring and serious pattern of owner misconduct — multiple independent reviewers describe the owner (Jason) screaming, using profanities, threatening customers, bullying, and sending hostile follow-up messages; this is not isolated and cannot be dismissed. Pricing is the weakest dimension: a large volume of reviewers across multiple years explicitly describe fees as outrageous, hidden, or 2–3x market rate, with several customers finding the same work done for 50–70% less elsewhere; the dispatch/diagnostic fee structure is a consistent source of complaint and distrust. Project completion scores moderately — when work is actually performed, most reviewers report it was completed correctly and on time, though several incidents of incomplete work, failed repairs, and abandoned jobs (including one mid-emergency) pull the score down. Experience scores highest among the dimensions, with many reviewers praising specific technicians (Gabriel, Disraeli, Jacob, Cody, Alex) for skill, diagnostics, and quality workmanship — however, at least one serious incident of gross technical incompetence (snake sent up a vent instead of a cleanout) offsets this.

• SUSPECTED FAKE REVIEW CLUSTER: A large block of reviews dated 2025-04-09 (approximately 20 reviews on the same date) and another cluster dated 2025-06-01 through 2025-06-06 show highly generic, templated language with no specific details, no named technicians, no addresses, and near-identical sentence structures (e.g., 'Highly recommend their [service name]', 'The work was completed on time', 'Professional and knowledgeable'). These are consistent with review padding and should be treated with significant skepticism. Confidence in the positive signal from these reviews is LOW.
• OWNER CONDUCT — SERIOUS FLAG: At least 8 independent reviewers across different years (2019–2025) describe the owner Jason as rude, dismissive, threatening, screaming, using profanities, or sending hostile messages after negative interactions. This is a consistent behavioral pattern, not isolated incidents, and materially impacts the professionalism score.
• HIDDEN/SURPRISE FEES — RECURRING COMPLAINT: Across at least 12 reviews spanning 2019–2025, customers describe being surprised by dispatch fees, diagnostic fees, or total pricing that was not disclosed upfront. Multiple reviewers found identical or similar work completed by competitors for 50–70% less. This is a systemic pricing transparency issue.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent reviews (2025) are heavily dominated by the suspected fake review cluster. The most credible and detailed reviews span 2019–2024. Scores are weighted toward the detailed, specific reviews rather than the generic 2025 cluster.
• ONE BLANK REVIEW (Rating: 5.0, Date: 2025-05-18) contained no text and was excluded from dimension scoring but counted in total reviews analyzed.
• TECHNICIAN QUALITY VARIANCE: There is a notable split between highly praised individual technicians (Gabriel, Disraeli, Jacob, Cody, Alex) and at least one incident of a clearly unqualified technician (mainline clog/vent snake incident). The company's quality appears inconsistent depending on which technician is dispatched.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large review volume, but the score itself should be interpreted cautiously given the suspected fake review padding in 2025, the recurring owner misconduct pattern, and the systemic pricing complaints — the true customer experience is likely more polarized than a single score can convey.

The most recent and detailed review (2018) is a significant negative data point, describing abandoned work, refusal to warranty repairs, and poor availability — dragging down professionalism and project completion scores considerably. The older positive reviews (2008–2017) paint a more favorable picture of punctuality, reasonable pricing, and good workmanship, but these are largely 7–16 years old and carry reduced weight under recency rules. Pricing is mixed: one reviewer praised a downward price revision and reasonable rates, while another noted a trip charge increase and questioned value when work was left incomplete. Project completion is the most concerning dimension, with explicit evidence of unfinished jobs and a refusal to honor warranty work in the most recent review. Overall, the contractor's track record appears to have declined over time based on available data.

• RECENCY WARNING: The most recent review (2018) is itself over 6 years old. All reviews are between 6 and 16 years old. This score reflects an outdated picture of contractor performance and should be treated with significant caution.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Three of the five positive reviews date from 2008–2009, making them 15–16 years old. These are given reduced weight due to age.
• NEGATIVE PATTERN: The most recent review explicitly documents unfinished work at two separate properties, a refusal to warranty completed repairs, and a significant gap in availability (3 weeks). This is a material red flag for project completion and professionalism.
• SMALL SAMPLE WARNING: Only 5 reviews total. The WW Score is based on very limited data and should not be considered statistically reliable.
• POSSIBLE GENERIC PRAISE: Two of the older 5-star reviews (2008) are brief and lack specific detail, which slightly reduces their evidentiary weight, though they are not flagged as definitively fake.

This WW Score carries LOW reliability due to a very small review sample (5 reviews), all of which are outdated (2008–2018), and a meaningful negative review in the most recent period that directly contradicts the older positive feedback.

Both reviews are highly positive and mention multiple dimensions of service quality. Review 1 (2022) explicitly praises professionalism (no diagnostic fee, communicative, follow-up, cleanup), project completion (handled non-standard situation, worked with other contractors), and experience (quality workmanship). Review 2 (2018) emphasizes commitment-keeping and job quality. However, with only 2 reviews total, the sample size is insufficient to calculate a reliable WW Score. The mention counts are too low (1–2 per dimension) to establish confidence in any individual score.

• INSUFFICIENT DATA: Only 2 reviews provided. Minimum 3 reviews required for reliable WW Score calculation.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Review 2 is from January 2018 (6+ years old). Only 1 recent review (2022) is available.
• SAMPLE SIZE: With n=2, all dimension scores carry LIMITED confidence. Results are not statistically reliable.
• POTENTIAL BIAS: Both reviews are 5-star with enthusiastic language. No negative or neutral reviews present to balance assessment. Cannot rule out selection bias.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. With only 2 reviews and limited recency, this analysis cannot support a trustworthy overall score. Collect at least 3–5 additional recent reviews before relying on any scoring.

Only two reviews exist, and one is explicitly written by an employee of Pro-Craft, making it unreliable as an independent customer assessment. The single genuine customer review from 2014 is over 10 years old and provides only brief, generic feedback about speed and pricing being consistent with market rates. Professionalism receives a conservative score based on the employee review's claims of honesty and consistency, but these cannot be weighted heavily given the source. Project completion and experience dimensions have no usable data whatsoever, making any meaningful scoring impossible.

• EMPLOYEE REVIEW DETECTED: The first review is explicitly written by an employee (Dave Matz, H.V.A.C. Specialist) of Pro-Craft. This is not an independent customer review and should not be treated as one. It has been flagged and its contribution to scoring is heavily discounted.
• INSUFFICIENT REVIEW COUNT: Only 2 reviews total, with only 1 being a genuine customer review. The WW Score cannot be calculated reliably with fewer than 3 reviews.
• EXTREME RECENCY ISSUE: The only genuine customer review is from March 2014 — over 10 years old. This data is severely outdated and may not reflect current service quality in any way.
• MISSING DIMENSION DATA: Project completion and experience dimensions have zero mentions across all reviews, making it impossible to assess these critical areas.
• GENERIC PRAISE WARNING: The employee review uses broad, non-specific language ('honest, professional, consistent, best company') with no concrete examples, which is consistent with low-credibility review patterns.

This WW Score report has extremely low reliability due to only one genuine customer review being available, that review being over a decade old, and the second review being written by a company employee rather than an independent customer.

Insufficient data — only 2 reviews analyzed. Both reviews are positive and mention professionalism (punctuality, pleasant demeanor), project completion (quick diagnosis and repair, record time completion), and experience (excellent work, licensed plumber). One review mentions affordable pricing. However, with only 2 reviews total, all confidence levels are LIMITED, and the WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per methodology requirements (minimum 3 reviews needed).

• Only 2 reviews available — below minimum threshold of 3 for reliable WW Score calculation
• One review is from 2020 (4+ years old); only one review from past 12 months
• Both reviews are 5-star with generic positive language; limited specific detail about work scope or challenges
• Sample size too small to detect patterns or validate consistency

This analysis cannot produce a trustworthy WW Score due to insufficient review volume (n=2). Collect at least 3 additional reviews before relying on any scoring.

Only a single review was available for analysis, which is insufficient to produce a reliable WW Score. The one review explicitly describes a serious failure in communication and responsiveness — the contractor read a text message but did not return contact over three days, prompting the customer to vow not to use them again. This directly and negatively impacts the Professionalism dimension. No information was provided regarding pricing, project completion, or technical experience, so those dimensions cannot be scored. The reviewer did note prior satisfactory experiences, suggesting this may be an isolated incident, but one data point is not enough to draw firm conclusions.

• Only 1 review analyzed — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• No data available for Pricing, Project Completion, or Experience dimensions.
• The single review is a 1-star complaint focused solely on non-responsiveness; it does not reflect the contractor's technical ability or pricing practices.
• Reviewer mentions prior positive experiences with this contractor, which may indicate a recent decline in service quality or an isolated incident — impossible to determine from one review alone.

This score report is based on a single review and should be considered highly unreliable; no meaningful conclusions about this contractor's overall quality can be drawn until substantially more review data is available.