Find Nearby Plumbers In Centennial, Colorado

Barnes Plumbing has a solid base of positive feedback across multiple dimensions, with many reviewers praising punctuality, politeness, and honest pricing. However, recurring complaints about communication failures — unreturned calls, full voicemail boxes, and lack of follow-through — meaningfully drag down professionalism and project completion scores. One reviewer noted sloppy workmanship and an unexpected charge for bringing a family member on-site, which tempers the experience score. Pricing is generally viewed favorably, with hourly billing and estimates that closely match final charges, but the pattern of responsiveness issues is a consistent and credible concern across multiple independent reviews. The majority of reviews are from 2011–2019, with only one review from the past three years, which limits confidence in how the business currently operates.

• 5 reviews contain only 'unknown' as text and provide no usable data — these were excluded from dimension scoring.
• 2 reviews contain only a period or are otherwise blank and were excluded from scoring.
• The majority of reviews (19 of 22) are older than 3 years, and 20 of 22 are older than 1 year. Current performance cannot be reliably assessed from this data.
• Multiple independent reviewers (2016 and 2016) specifically flagged unreturned calls and a full voicemail box, suggesting a systemic responsiveness problem rather than isolated incidents.
• One reviewer (2011) alleged sloppy work and an undisclosed extra charge for bringing a family member — this is a transparency and workmanship concern.
• One reviewer (2016) noted the technician arrived without the required refrigerant, suggesting possible preparedness issues for HVAC-related work.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability due to the high volume of blank or content-free reviews, the age of most usable reviews (predominantly 2011–2019), and credible recurring complaints about communication and follow-through that offset otherwise positive feedback.

NextGen Plumbing has a mixed but generally positive track record across its reviews. Professionalism scores are dragged down significantly by two serious negative reviews: one describing the owner abandoning a job mid-project and removing purchased equipment from a customer's property, and another accusing the company of being a marketing front that refuses to give estimates. On the positive side, multiple reviewers praise responsiveness, punctuality, and courteous service, including a notable instance of referring a customer to a competitor when unavailable. Project completion is similarly mixed — the majority of jobs appear to have been finished satisfactorily, but the 2021 new-construction review describes a contract cancellation and incomplete work, which is a significant red flag. Pricing is generally viewed as fair and transparent, with one reviewer explicitly noting the job came in exactly as quoted, though the 2019 negative review raises concerns about fee transparency. Experience ratings are mostly positive, with several reviewers citing technical knowledge and quality workmanship, offset by the 2021 review describing poor pipe placement decisions and non-compliance with customer specifications.

• One review (2021-12-03) describes a serious professional misconduct incident: the contractor allegedly removed customer-purchased equipment (garbage disposal and hot water tank) from the property after a dispute and abandoned the job mid-contract. This is a significant red flag.
• One review (2019-03-31) accuses the company of being a marketing operation rather than a legitimate plumbing service, and of refusing to provide estimates for straightforward jobs. This could indicate a business model concern.
• Several positive reviews are brief and lack specific detail (e.g., 'Did exactly what I needed done. Highly recommend. Matt is very knowledgeable. I was impressed'). While not conclusively fake, these generic reviews carry lower evidentiary weight.
• Multiple reviewers reference different owner/technician names (Marc, Harrison, Matt, Dave, Alberto, Alex), which may indicate staff turnover or inconsistency in who performs the work — quality may vary by technician.
• The majority of reviews (9 out of 11) are dated 2019–2021, with only one review from 2023. The score should be interpreted with caution as recent performance data is very limited.
• Recency warning: Only 1 review is from the past 12 months relative to the most recent review date (2023). The bulk of the review history is 2–4 years old, reducing confidence in current service quality.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability — while there are enough reviews to calculate a score, the presence of two substantive negative reviews describing serious conduct issues, the age of most reviews, and the limited recent data mean this score should be treated as a cautious baseline rather than a definitive assessment of current service quality.

Only three reviews exist for this contractor, two of which contain usable detail. The single detailed positive review from 2012 describes a courteous, punctual plumber who completed a kitchen and bathroom remodel to the customer's satisfaction at reasonable pricing. A second review from 2013 notes the plumber arrived promptly despite initial scheduling uncertainty, suggesting reasonable responsiveness. However, a one-star review from 2016 with no detail ('Horrible') introduces a meaningful negative signal that cannot be ignored, and its recency relative to the positive reviews makes it the most recent data point available. All reviews are over seven years old, severely limiting their reliability for assessing current performance.

• All reviews are significantly outdated — the most recent review is from 2016, and the positive reviews are from 2012 and 2013. These scores should not be treated as reflective of current contractor quality.
• The 1-star review ('Horrible') provides no detail, making it impossible to determine which dimensions were affected. It has been treated as a general negative signal across all dimensions.
• Extremely low review volume (3 total) means the WW Score is statistically unreliable. A single additional negative review would substantially change the score.
• The two positive reviews are highly specific to a single job type (remodel) and a single reviewer interaction style, limiting generalizability.

This WW Score carries very low reliability due to only three reviews, all of which are more than seven years old, with one unexplained 1-star rating — prospective customers should seek more current references before making a hiring decision.

This contractor's review profile is heavily dominated by negative experiences, particularly from mid-2017 onward following what multiple reviewers describe as a change in ownership. Professionalism scores are severely dragged down by repeated complaints of no-shows, unreturned calls, rude office staff, and outright avoidance of customers. Project completion is the most damaged dimension, with numerous reviews describing abandoned work, incomplete installs, broken equipment left unfixed, and refusal to honor warranties or service agreements. Experience scores are mixed: a small cluster of early positive reviews praise skilled, knowledgeable technicians, but later reviews describe mis-wiring, incorrect parts installed, faulty workmanship, and technicians who had to look up schematics on their phones mid-job. Pricing received a moderate score because a handful of early reviews praised fair and transparent quotes, though later reviews suggest promises made at quoting were not honored in delivery.

• OWNERSHIP CHANGE PATTERN: Multiple reviewers explicitly note the company changed ownership (from CJ to Rod), and the negative reviews cluster almost entirely after this transition. The positive reviews are predominantly from 2015–2017 under prior ownership, making the score split highly time-dependent.
• RECENCY CONCERN: The majority of reviews are from 2018 or older. No reviews from the past 12 months (relative to the most recent review date of December 2018) are available. This data is now significantly aged and may not reflect current operations.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: Two reviews dated 2018-05-25 are nearly word-for-word identical (same customer, same experience). These have been counted as one unique incident for scoring purposes to avoid double-weighting.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW RISK — LOW: The positive reviews (5-star) are specific and detailed with named technicians and described scenarios, reducing the likelihood they are fabricated. However, all 5-star reviews predate the ownership change, suggesting the positive reputation may belong to a prior business entity.
• SERIOUS MISCONDUCT FLAGS: Reviews allege bounced employee paychecks, declined vendor credit cards, refusal to honor written service agreements, installation of wrong equipment, and a technician leaving a home with a known carbon monoxide leak without informing the homeowner — these are significant safety and legal concerns.

This WW Score is based on 19 reviews with strong mention counts across all four dimensions, yielding HIGH confidence in the score's direction, but users should note that the contractor appears to have undergone an ownership change that fundamentally altered service quality, meaning the score reflects a blended history of two effectively different business operations.

The reviews for Confidence Plumbing paint an overwhelmingly negative picture across nearly every dimension. Professionalism is severely damaged by multiple documented no-shows without notice, a plumber who verbally abused a homeowner with profanity, dismissive phone staff, and a pattern of failed appointment scheduling across multiple reviewers. Project completion is critically low, with repeated instances of work not being completed, no-shows on emergency calls, and a systemic pattern of substandard installations (improper P-trap gaskets, non-code-compliant drain pipe installations on tankless water heaters) affecting multiple homes on entire streets. Experience scores are poor, with documented code violations, improper installations discovered years later causing property damage, and a master plumber who denied fault without even inspecting the work. Pricing received a limited-data score reflecting one reviewer's frustration with a $105 diagnostic-only fee that yielded no repair, which was perceived as deceptive. The sole positive review praises material choices (copper tubing, ABS for sewer) but lacks specifics and stands in stark contrast to the overwhelming volume of detailed negative accounts.

• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: Two reviews dated 2020-02-13 are nearly identical in content and wording, differing only by a period at the end. These appear to be the same reviewer submitting twice, or a data duplication. Only one was weighted in scoring.
• SINGLE OUTLIER POSITIVE REVIEW: The one 5-star review (2022-03-15) is generic, lacks specific detail about a personal service experience, and reads more like a promotional endorsement than an authentic customer account. It was treated with reduced confidence.
• SYSTEMIC INSTALLATION FAILURES: Multiple independent reviewers report the same class of defect (improper installations in new-build homes by Richmond American Homes), suggesting a systemic quality control failure rather than isolated incidents.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent negative review is from 2022, and the oldest is from 2012. The pattern of complaints is consistent across a 10-year span, indicating persistent and unresolved operational issues rather than a temporary decline.
• CONTRACTOR CONTEXT: This company appears to operate primarily as a subcontractor for home builders (Richmond American Homes), meaning most customers have no choice in selecting them. This context is relevant — many reviewers explicitly note they are 'stuck' using this company.

This WW Score is based on 9 reviews spanning 10 years with strong consistency in complaint types, yielding HIGH confidence that the score accurately reflects the contractor's poor performance; the score should be trusted as a reliable indicator of significant risk.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 2 reviews were analyzed, which falls below the minimum threshold of 3 reviews required for a trustworthy WW Score calculation. While both reviews are positive and mention professionalism, project completion, and experience favorably, the sample size is too small to produce a statistically meaningful composite score. All dimension scores are based on LIMITED mention counts (1–2 reviews each), which significantly constrains confidence in any aggregate metric.

• Sample size critically low: only 2 reviews analyzed. WW Score cannot be reliably calculated.
• Significant recency gap: Review 1 is from October 2023 (recent), but Review 2 is from May 2017 (6+ years old). Recent review carries much more weight.
• Review 2 is extremely brief and generic ('on time and knew what he was doing'). Lacks specific detail about the work performed.
• Both reviews are 5-star ratings with no critical feedback or balanced perspective. No negative or neutral reviews present to validate claims.
• Review 1 contains personal commentary about Doug's family life and character, which, while positive, is not directly relevant to plumbing service quality assessment.

This analysis cannot produce a reliable WW Score due to insufficient review volume (n=2, minimum required=3). Any composite score derived from these reviews would be statistically meaningless. Individual dimension scores are provided for reference only and should not be used for decision-making. Collect at least 3–5 additional reviews before relying on a WW Score.