Find Nearby Plumbers In Castle Rock, Colorado

Ace Plumbing & Rooter earns strong marks across professionalism and technical experience, with the vast majority of reviewers praising courteous, knowledgeable technicians who communicate clearly and arrive promptly. Project completion is generally solid, with many reviews noting jobs finished same-day or within tight windows, though a meaningful cluster of negative reviews — spanning multiple years — describes missed appointments, abandoned or incomplete work, and jobs left in worse condition than found. Pricing is the weakest dimension: while many customers describe fair or competitive pricing, a notable number of reviews explicitly flag high labor rates, surprise charges, lack of itemized invoices, and instances where quotes felt inflated or misleading. The score is tempered by a consistent pattern of no-show and scheduling failure complaints that appear across multiple years, indicating a systemic rather than isolated issue.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: Seven reviews dated 2025-06-01 and 2025-05-30 are exact word-for-word duplicates of each other (e.g., the 'From start to finish' review, 'The technician was very knowledgeable', 'Armando was amazing', 'Prompt professional service', 'Sean is the best', 'Fast, friendly and efficient' reviews all appear twice). These duplicates were counted only once per unique text for scoring purposes but their presence is a red flag for review manipulation or platform duplication errors.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Approximately 15 reviews contain no text and only a 5-star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence per scoring rules.
• SCHEDULING AND NO-SHOW PATTERN: Multiple reviews across different years (2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2024) describe technicians failing to show up for scheduled appointments, sometimes repeatedly, without notification. This is a recurring systemic issue that meaningfully impacts the project completion and professionalism scores.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS ARE RECURRING: Multiple reviews across the full date range explicitly call out high or opaque pricing — including a $825 drain snake minimum charge, a $385 faucet installation quote for 30-40 minutes of work, and a $6,500 water heater replacement estimate that a second plumber resolved for far less. These are not isolated incidents.
• WORK QUALITY FAILURES: Several 1-star reviews describe jobs left incomplete, new problems introduced by technicians (e.g., knocking pipes after valve work, flooded apartment from uncapped drain pipe, wrong faucet installed, broken water dispenser), and aggressive or unprofessional manager behavior. These are weighted against the large volume of positive completion reviews.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews are from 2024-2025 and carry full recency weight. Reviews from 2012-2018 are present in significant volume but are deprioritized in scoring. The no-show and scheduling complaints appear in both older and more recent reviews, suggesting the issue has not been fully resolved.
• ONE REVIEW REFERENCES 'ATLAS' PLUMBING: One review (2012-09-02) appears to reference a different company ('Atlas plumbing') in the body text, suggesting it may have been submitted to the wrong business profile. This review was excluded from scoring.

This WW Score is based on a very large review set (296 total, 271 usable) spanning over a decade, giving it HIGH statistical confidence, but the score should be interpreted with caution due to confirmed duplicate reviews, a recurring pattern of scheduling failures and incomplete work in negative reviews, and multiple explicit pricing complaints that suggest inconsistent value delivery depending on the technician and job type assigned.

The overwhelming majority of reviews praise professionalism, punctuality, communication, and friendly demeanor across multiple named technicians including Troy, Adam, Tim, Aaron, Matt, and others, driving a strong but not perfect professionalism score. Pricing receives a moderately positive score — many reviewers explicitly call out fair, reasonable, or competitive pricing and instances where the company saved customers money, but a meaningful cluster of negative reviews cite overcharging, inflated estimates, and refusal to negotiate, which meaningfully pulls the score down. Project completion scores well overall, with most jobs described as completed correctly and on time, but several serious negative reviews describe abandoned work, misdiagnosed problems, warranty disputes, and jobs left incomplete with no follow-up, preventing a top-tier score. Experience is generally rated highly, with many reviewers noting skilled diagnostics, technical knowledge, and quality workmanship, though a handful of reviews describe poor installations, code violations, and misdiagnoses that temper the score. The WW Score of 79.4 reflects a company with a strong positive track record but a non-trivial pattern of serious complaints that prospective customers should weigh carefully.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: The review 'Excellent service!!! The faucet water control handle broke off...' appears twice with dates 2025-06-02 and 2025-05-30 — identical text, likely a duplicate submission or copy-paste fake review.
• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: The review 'I reached out for a couple of repairs I needed and was provided with upfront estimates...' appears twice with dates 2024-08-10 and 2024-07-09 — identical text.
• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: The review 'The only plumber I use (and you should use)...' appears twice with dates 2024-06-06 and 2021-06-30 — identical text.
• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: The review 'I found my plumber for life. This company is very honest...' appears twice with dates 2024-06-06 and 2023-08-06 — identical text.
• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: The review 'I use and recommend Mike The Plumber every time...' appears in near-identical form twice (2025-05-07 and 2024-06-06) with only minor wording differences, suggesting coordinated or recycled review content.
• SUSPICIOUS REVIEW CLUSTER: A large block of reviews all dated exactly 2024-06-06 00:00:00 with no specific timestamps suggests possible bulk import or artificial review injection rather than organic posting.
• SUSPICIOUS REVIEW CLUSTER: A large block of reviews all dated exactly 2023-06-07 00:00:00 with no specific timestamps raises the same concern.
• SUSPICIOUS REVIEW CLUSTER: A large block of reviews all dated exactly 2023-08-07 00:00:00 with no specific timestamps raises the same concern.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Multiple reviews contain no text and only a 5-star rating (at least 8 identified). These provide no usable data and inflate the star average without substantive feedback.
• MULTI-ENTITY CONCERN: Several reviews reference '1st Home and Commercial Services' and HVAC work, which appears to be a different company entirely from Mike the Plumber / Mike & Sons Plumbing LLC. These reviews may have been incorrectly attributed and were excluded from scoring where clearly unrelated.
• SERIOUS NEGATIVE PATTERN: Multiple 1-star reviews describe incomplete work, misdiagnosis, warranty refusal, unapproved charges, no-shows, and unresponsive owners after payment. These are not isolated incidents and span multiple years (2012–2025), suggesting a recurring pattern of post-payment service failure.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS: Several reviewers explicitly describe estimates they considered grossly inflated (e.g., $2,984 vs $400 from a competitor; $6,500 vs $2,500; $1,500/hr equivalent charges), which materially impacts the pricing dimension score.
• OWNER CONDUCT COMPLAINTS: Multiple reviews describe the owner (Mike) as unresponsive after payment, dismissive of complaints, and in one case verbally abusive. This is a notable flag for customer service reliability.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews with specific timestamps are from 2023–2025, providing reasonably current data. However, the bulk-dated clusters (2023-06-07, 2023-08-07, 2024-06-06) make it difficult to assess true recency distribution with confidence.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large volume of reviews, but should be interpreted with caution given confirmed duplicate reviews, suspicious bulk-dated review clusters, blank rating-only submissions, and a consistent pattern of serious post-payment complaints spanning multiple years — prospective customers are strongly advised to read negative reviews in full before hiring.

Nytech earns strong marks across most dimensions, with the majority of reviewers praising polite, punctual, and communicative technicians by name — a consistent signal of genuine service quality. Project completion scores well overall, with most jobs described as finished correctly and on time, though a handful of reviews cite delays waiting for parts, a no-show appointment, and at least one case of a post-job depression forming after a sewer trench backfill. Pricing is the weakest dimension: while many customers describe fair or reasonable pricing, multiple credible negative reviews allege significant markups, scare tactics, and quotes that were dramatically higher than competitors — one reviewer documented paying $8,400 elsewhere for better equipment versus a $15,000–$16,000 Nytech quote, and another found a competitor fixed the same issue for $287 versus Nytech's $750 quote. Experience scores moderately well, with many reviewers praising technical knowledge and thoroughness, but offset by negative reviews alleging incomplete diagnostics, unnecessary repair recommendations, and one instance of a furnace not being properly cleaned during a paid inspection. The score reflects a company with genuine strengths in service delivery but meaningful and credible concerns around pricing transparency and occasional lapses in workmanship integrity.

• PRICING CONCERN — HIGH SEVERITY: Multiple independent, detailed negative reviews (2016, 2020) allege dramatically inflated quotes compared to competitors, with one reviewer documenting a $15,000–$16,000 quote versus a competitor's $8,400 for superior equipment, and another paying $287 elsewhere versus Nytech's $750 quote. These are specific, credible, and corroborated by a third review alleging scare tactics on a furnace inspection.
• SCARE TACTICS ALLEGATION: Two separate reviews (2016 and 2016) allege technicians used fear-based sales tactics — one involving a furnace falsely claimed to be unsafe, later contradicted by a second-opinion home inspector who said the furnace had 5–7 years of life remaining and was one of the best available.
• PROFESSIONALISM INCONSISTENCY: At least three reviews cite unprofessional behavior from office/admin staff specifically — one describing a no-show with blame-shifting behavior, one citing a confrontational office staff member when requesting a quote, and one citing an unresponsive employee (Carly Gettings). Technician-level professionalism is generally rated much higher than office staff.
• RECENCY NOTE: The review set spans 2011–2024. Approximately 35 of 63 reviews are from 2022 or earlier, meaning a significant portion of the data is more than 2 years old. The most recent reviews (2023–2024) are predominantly positive, but the sample size for the most recent 12 months is small (approximately 6 reviews).
• NO FAKE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: Reviews vary meaningfully in length, detail, tone, and rating. Named technicians differ across reviews. Negative reviews are specific and credible. No significant fake review pattern identified.
• INCOMPLETE JOB FLAG: One review (2023) notes a significant ground depression forming after a 14-foot sewer trench backfill, suggesting a potential compaction issue. The reviewer expressed confidence it would be corrected but no follow-up confirmation is available in the dataset.

This WW Score is based on a large, diverse, and multi-year review set with HIGH confidence across all four dimensions, but the pricing score in particular should be weighted carefully given multiple specific, credible, and independently corroborated allegations of inflated quotes and high-pressure sales tactics that meaningfully offset the otherwise strong service reputation.

David demonstrates strong technical expertise and problem-solving ability, as evidenced by his methodical diagnosis of water heater issues and willingness to explore multiple repair options before recommending replacement. His professionalism is reflected in his non-pushy sales approach and personable demeanor. All three reviews confirm successful project completion with satisfied outcomes. However, the dataset is small (3 reviews), with limited explicit mentions of pricing transparency and professionalism details, and reviews span from 2010 to 2016, limiting recency validation.

• Very small sample size (3 reviews) limits statistical reliability
• Reviews are dated: oldest from 2010, most recent from 2016 — no recent data within past 12 months
• Second review ('Great.') is extremely generic with no specific details — cannot be used to validate any dimension
• Pricing dimension based on only 1 mention (non-pushy sales approach) — insufficient evidence for confident pricing assessment
• No explicit mention of punctuality, communication responsiveness, or timeline adherence in any review

This WW Score should be treated with caution due to the very small sample size, age of reviews, and lack of recent customer feedback; while the available evidence is positive, it is insufficient to make a highly confident assessment of current service quality.

All five reviews speak positively to professionalism, with explicit mentions of promptness, responsiveness, politeness, and follow-through — including a Christmas Eve emergency response and multiple return visits to resolve a complex drainage issue. Project completion is strongly supported across reviews, with jobs seen through to resolution even when initial attempts failed, and one reviewer noting the team also resolved additional plumbing problems beyond the original scope. Experience is well-evidenced by technically sound problem-solving, such as identifying an undersized drain line and installing a lift pump as a creative solution, as well as clearing a drain that a competitor had proposed as an expensive project. Pricing is mentioned favorably in three reviews, with one reviewer specifically calling the service 'affordable' and another highlighting a billing concern that was resolved immediately and fairly by the owner, suggesting transparent and customer-first pricing practices.

• All 5 reviews are 5-star ratings, which warrants mild caution, though the reviews contain specific details, varied scenarios, and distinct writing styles that reduce the likelihood of fabrication.
• Review volume is very low (5 reviews total), which limits statistical reliability of all scores regardless of confidence labels.
• Three of the five reviews are older than 12 months (dated 2021, 2022, and 2023), with only one review from the past 12 months (October 2024). Recency weighting is limited; recent performance may differ from historical patterns.
• No negative feedback or constructive criticism appears in any review, which is notable but may reflect genuine customer satisfaction given the specificity of the accounts provided.

This WW Score carries moderate overall reliability due to the small review sample (5 reviews), the skew toward older reviews, and the absence of any critical feedback — while the specificity and variety of the reviews reduce fake review concerns, consumers should seek additional recent reviews before making a final hiring decision.

This contractor has a large and generally positive review base, with many customers praising individual technicians by name for being professional, courteous, punctual, and communicative — driving a solid but not exceptional professionalism score. However, pricing is the single most damaging dimension: a substantial and recurring pattern of complaints describes charges that reviewers found to be 2x to 4x higher than competitors, with multiple allegations of upselling, inflated quotes for simple jobs, and in several cases outright misrepresentation of problems to justify expensive repairs. Project completion scores moderately well, with most jobs described as finished correctly and on time, but notable failures include an abandoned job, a missed permit that was never delivered after nearly a year, a bathroom remodel with persistent errors, and at least one no-show. Experience scores reasonably well given the volume of praise for skilled diagnostics and quality workmanship, but is tempered by several reviews describing technicians who misdiagnosed problems, lacked knowledge of specific equipment, or performed work incorrectly requiring correction.

• SPAM REVIEWS DETECTED: Two identical reviews from 'Harrieth' (dated 2025-05-07 and 2025-05-09) are clearly solicitation spam, not genuine customer reviews. These were excluded from scoring.
• EMPLOYMENT INQUIRY DETECTED: One review (2024-10-09) is a job inquiry ('how about employment? am a plumber'), not a customer review. Excluded from scoring.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Approximately 29 reviews contain no text — only a star rating (all 5 stars). These provide no usable dimensional data and were excluded from dimension scoring. Their volume and uniformity slightly raises concern about review authenticity, though they may reflect platform behavior.
• PRICING CONCERN — SYSTEMIC PATTERN: At least 15 independent reviews across multiple years describe pricing as significantly above market rate, with specific dollar comparisons provided. This is not isolated dissatisfaction — it is a consistent, documented pattern. Pricing score reflects this heavily.
• UPSELLING AND MISDIAGNOSIS ALLEGATIONS: Multiple reviews (2022-12-20, 2022-12-25, 2023-10-09, 2021-09-08, 2021-06-06) allege that technicians fabricated or exaggerated problems — including false water pressure readings and a non-existent foundation leak — to justify expensive repairs. One reviewer had a second company confirm no leak existed after paying for excavation based on this company's diagnosis.
• ELDER TARGETING ALLEGATION: One review (2021-07-21) explicitly alleges that an elderly customer was pressured into $2,400 of unnecessary work, describing the conduct as bordering on elder abuse.
• LEGAL THREAT ALLEGATION: One review (2022-03-12) states the owner threatened to sue the reviewer for slander after a negative review was posted.
• PERMIT FAILURE: One review (2024-10-09) documents that a permit promised at time of service was never delivered after nearly one year and multiple follow-up calls.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews are from 2024–2025 and are within the past 12 months, lending strong recency weight. Negative pricing and upselling complaints span from 2020 through 2025, indicating these are not historical anomalies but ongoing concerns.
• MULTI-BRAND CONFUSION: Reviews reference at least three company names — 'A Better Plumber,' 'Absolute Plumbing,' and 'Absolute Plumbing, Electrical, Heating & Air' — suggesting acquisition or rebranding. One review explicitly notes the acquisition. Scores reflect the combined entity as presented.

This WW Score is based on a large review set with HIGH confidence across all four dimensions, but should be interpreted cautiously given documented systemic pricing complaints, multiple credible upselling and misdiagnosis allegations, and a meaningful volume of blank reviews that inflate the apparent star rating without providing verifiable service data.