Find Nearby Plumbers In Colorado Springs, Colorado

Cooper Heating and Cooling receives strong praise for technician professionalism, courtesy, punctuality, and communication across a large volume of reviews, driving a solid professionalism score. However, this is meaningfully offset by a recurring pattern of serious complaints about unprofessional conduct including no-shows, canceled appointments without notice, failure to follow through on callbacks, and at least one allegation of theft. Pricing is the weakest dimension: multiple reviewers explicitly describe sticker shock, hidden labor charges ($328/hour not disclosed upfront), inflated parts pricing, and billing disputes — with several reviewers stating they felt taken advantage of or scammed. Project completion is mixed: many installations are praised as smooth and complete, but there are notable complaints about incomplete work, failed inspections, sloppy installs, unresolved issues left for months, and systems that failed shortly after installation. Experience scores moderately well given the many reviews praising technician knowledge and problem-solving, but is tempered by several reviews describing misdiagnosis, incorrect part installation, and technically incompetent assessments.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: At least 3 reviews appear to be exact duplicates posted on different dates (e.g., the 'Had a Cooper technician to solve an issue with my AC unit' review appears on both 2025-06-08 and 2025-06-06; 'John was very courteous' appears on both dates; 'Carson was knowledgeable and efficient' appears on both dates). This is a strong indicator of review manipulation or system duplication and reduces confidence in the overall review pool.
• HIGH VOLUME OF BLANK REVIEWS: Approximately 30+ reviews contain no text whatsoever, only a 5-star rating. These provide no usable data and inflate the apparent star rating without substantive feedback. This pattern is consistent with fake or incentivized review padding.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS ARE SERIOUS AND SPECIFIC: Multiple independent reviewers cite the same undisclosed $328/hour labor charge, a $119 trip fee that was not applied to repairs as implied, and parts marked up dramatically (e.g., $12 capacitor quoted at $200+, $1,300 thermostat). These are not isolated incidents and suggest a systemic pricing transparency problem.
• PROJECT COMPLETION FAILURES DOCUMENTED: At least 5 reviews describe work that was not completed, required multiple return visits to fix errors, failed city inspections, or resulted in ongoing unresolved issues (e.g., mold growth, whole-house fan unusable for 6 months with no follow-up, system installed in January still not working by July).
• THEFT ALLEGATION: One review (2018-01-11) alleges a technician stole medication from the customer's home and that management was unresponsive and dishonest with police. While this is a single older review, it is a serious flag.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews are from 2023–2025 and are therefore recent and weighted appropriately. A small number of reviews date back to 2016–2019 and carry reduced weight in scoring.
• POSSIBLE FAKE REVIEW CONCERN: The combination of ~30 blank 5-star reviews, exact duplicate substantive reviews posted days apart, and an unusually high volume of generic single-sentence 5-star reviews with no specifics raises a moderate concern about review authenticity. Scores have been conservatively adjusted to account for this.

This WW Score is based on a large review pool (196 reviews) with high mention counts across all four dimensions, making the score statistically robust; however, reliability is moderately reduced due to confirmed duplicate reviews, a high volume of content-free 5-star ratings, and credible allegations of systemic pricing deception — consumers should weight the negative reviews heavily as they are specific, detailed, and corroborated across multiple independent reviewers.

Precision Plumbing draws a large volume of strongly positive reviews praising individual technicians by name for professionalism, punctuality, clear communication, and technical skill — these positives are consistent and span many years and locations. However, a meaningful minority of negative reviews (roughly 15–18% of substantive reviews) describe serious issues including no-shows, scheduling failures, poor communication, alleged price gouging, overcharging, warranty disputes, substandard workmanship, and in at least two cases regulatory investigations by the Nevada State Contractors Board. Pricing is the weakest dimension: while many reviewers call pricing fair or reasonable, a notable cluster of negative reviewers describe charges they considered grossly excessive (e.g., $528/hour, $750 for a $1.99 fix, $1,400 for a 20-minute job, $650 for a cartridge replacement). Project completion is moderately strong but is dragged down by multiple documented no-shows, abandoned jobs, and at least one case of work left incomplete for weeks. Experience scores well overall given the volume of praise for diagnostic skill and quality workmanship, but is tempered by a handful of reviews describing incompetent diagnosis or dangerous substandard work.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: Numerous reviews appear to be exact or near-exact duplicates posted on the same or adjacent dates (e.g., multiple identical 'Fast, affordable, friendly, and super reliable' reviews on 2018-02-22; identical 'Great family business' reviews on 2022-09-08; identical 'Will hire again' reviews on 2022-09-12; identical 'Great and quick service' and 'Excellent customer service' reviews on 2022-09-06; identical 'He did a good job and was nice to work with' reviews on 2022-10-20; identical 'Friendly service, great job' reviews on 2022-10-01; identical 'Kieth was very easy to work with' reviews on 2022-10-22; identical 'Very high quality work promp service' reviews on 2023-01-24; identical 'The young man did an expert job' reviews on 2022-12-16; identical 'Precision Plumbimg is a great Company' reviews on 2020-10-24 and 2020-10-25). This pattern strongly suggests review manipulation or system duplication and reduces confidence in the raw positive review count.
• REGULATORY FLAG: At least two reviews (dated August 2024) allege that Precision Plumbing (dba aaa Precision Plumbing, Las Vegas) was under investigation by the Nevada State Board of Contractors for substandard work, failed city inspection, a life-threatening gas leak, and deceptive practices. These are serious allegations that, if accurate, represent significant safety and integrity concerns.
• MULTI-ENTITY CONCERN: Reviews appear to reference multiple distinct businesses operating under the 'Precision Plumbing' name across different geographic markets (Las Vegas NV, Bay Area CA, Michigan, South Carolina, California Central Valley, etc.) as well as references to 'Plumbing Squad' and 'Budget Water Heaters.' Scores may reflect an aggregation of different companies rather than a single contractor, which limits the reliability of any single composite score.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS PATTERN: A recurring pattern of pricing complaints exists across multiple reviewers and years — including allegations of price gouging against elderly or disabled customers, charges not matching quotes, refusal to provide itemized receipts, and hourly rates described as $600+ per hour for simple jobs. This is not isolated and depresses the pricing score significantly.
• NO-SHOW AND SCHEDULING FAILURES: Multiple independent reviewers across different time periods describe no-shows, missed appointment windows without notification, and failure to return calls. This is a consistent pattern affecting the project completion score.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews with substantive content are from 2019 through mid-2025, with the most recent cluster from May–June 2025. Reviews from 2025 are predominantly positive and recent, which is a positive signal, but the negative regulatory and safety reviews from mid-2024 are also recent and carry significant weight.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Approximately 40–50 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, but their volume inflates the apparent star average.

This WW Score of 72.1 carries HIGH data confidence due to the large review volume, but should be interpreted cautiously given confirmed duplicate reviews suggesting possible manipulation, multi-entity ambiguity across geographic markets, serious unresolved regulatory allegations from 2024, and a consistent minority pattern of pricing, scheduling, and workmanship complaints that cannot be dismissed as outliers.

Able Plumbing has a large and long-running review base that reveals a genuinely mixed picture. On the positive side, a substantial majority of reviewers praise responsiveness, same-day availability, polite technicians, and fair pricing — with named plumbers like Rob, Nelson, Danilo, and Dwayne frequently cited for skill and professionalism. However, a meaningful minority of negative reviews — spread across multiple years and involving different customers — describe serious recurring issues: poor workmanship requiring callbacks, failure to honor guarantees, pricing disputes with no transparency, and office staff who are dismissive or unresponsive. Project completion is the most contested dimension, with multiple reviews describing jobs that leaked after completion, were abandoned, or were never followed up on. Pricing scores are dragged down by several credible accounts of inflated labor charges, undisclosed hourly rates, and parts marked up well above retail — though many other customers found pricing fair or even better than competitors.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: The review beginning 'Called for a fix to a leak behind the wall of my upstairs bathroom. Rob (owner) came out...' appears twice with different dates (2024-06-06 and 2023-11-11) and identical text. This is a likely duplicate and was counted only once for scoring purposes.
• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: The review beginning 'I called Able in off hours and left a message...' (garbage disposal / Sa's Plumbing) appears twice with different dates (2023-06-07 and 2023-01-19) and near-identical text. Counted only once for scoring purposes.
• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: The review beginning 'Nope. I was horrified to find an Able plumber without a mask...' appears twice with different dates (2021-06-07 and 2020-10-10). Counted only once for scoring purposes.
• GENERIC/CONTENT-FREE REVIEWS: Six reviews consist solely of a star rating with no text, or single-word responses ('Great', 'The absolute best.'). These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence per scoring rules.
• RECENCY NOTE: Reviews span from 2012 to 2025. The majority of substantive reviews are from 2016–2025. Negative reviews are distributed across the full date range, indicating persistent rather than isolated issues. No strong recency trend toward improvement or decline is clearly evident.
• PATTERN OF UNRESOLVED COMPLAINTS: Multiple independent reviewers across different years describe the same failure modes — jobs that leaked after completion, guarantees not honored, and office staff refusing to engage with complaints. This consistency across unrelated reviewers increases the credibility of these negative accounts.
• PRICING TRANSPARENCY CONCERN: Several credible negative reviews describe being charged without upfront quotes, parts marked up significantly above retail, and hourly rates never disclosed. This is a systemic pattern, not isolated incidents.
• ONE REVIEW (2013-04-16, 1-star) references a different listing address and contains no substantive content. It was excluded from scoring.

This WW Score is based on a large volume of reviews spanning over a decade and carries HIGH statistical confidence, but prospective customers should weigh the recurring and credible negative patterns around billing transparency, guarantee enforcement, and project follow-through alongside the genuine praise for responsiveness and technician skill.

Mark at Pro Power Rooter has a strong base of satisfied customers who consistently praise his availability, willingness to work after hours and on weekends, and general responsiveness — these are genuine differentiators in the emergency plumbing space. However, a meaningful cluster of detailed 1-star reviews (approximately 8 out of 85) describe serious recurring issues: incomplete or botched work requiring costly remediation by other companies, unprofessional language and conduct, a pattern of cash-only transactions with no receipts, and a credit card surcharge that raises transparency concerns. The negative reviews are notably specific and credible, describing structural failures, sewage spills, broken pipes, and work that had to be entirely redone. Project completion scores are tempered by multiple accounts of jobs left unfinished or made worse, and experience scores are pulled down by several detailed accounts of technical incompetence on more complex jobs such as septic lift stations and root-ball removal. Pricing receives a moderate score because while many customers praise affordability, the cash-only/no-receipt pattern, percentage surcharges for card payments, and at least two accounts of charges exceeding $700–$900 for failed work are significant red flags.

• CASH-ONLY / NO RECEIPT PATTERN: Multiple negative reviewers (and at least one positive reviewer) note that Mark does not provide receipts for cash payments, charges a 10–20% surcharge for card or check payments, and in one case explicitly stated he does not provide receipts for cash jobs. This is a significant business integrity concern and may indicate unreported income.
• REPEATED TECHNICAL FAILURES ON COMPLEX JOBS: At least 4 detailed 1-star reviews describe Mark failing to complete or actively worsening jobs involving septic lift stations, root-ball removal, and main sewer lines — with subsequent plumbers identifying and fixing the same issues quickly. This suggests skill limitations on more complex plumbing tasks.
• UNPROFESSIONAL CONDUCT DOCUMENTED: One detailed review describes Mark using profane language throughout a job, refusing to honor a guarantee, calling a customer a liar and a fraud, and blocking the customer after causing water damage. Another review describes him arriving late, stalling to maximize billable hours, and being verbally abusive.
• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: At least two reviews appear to be near-identical duplicates (the 'called after hours, within 1 hour, unclogged in 10 minutes' review appears twice with different dates; the 'Professional, knowledgeable, reasonable' sewer root review appears twice with different dates). This may indicate review manipulation or platform duplication artifacts — confidence is slightly reduced.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of positive reviews are from 2023–2025 and appear genuine with specific details. However, the negative reviews span from 2016 to 2024, suggesting the problematic behaviors are not isolated to an early period and have persisted over time.
• GENERIC LOW-DETAIL REVIEWS: Several reviews ('Awesome guy great job', 'Fast, friendly and reliable', 'Quick responses and excellent service') contain no specific detail and could inflate ratings without adding meaningful evidence. These were counted but weighted conservatively.
• NO FAKE REVIEW PATTERN CONFIRMED: While some reviews are generic, the overall corpus shows sufficient variety in language, job type, and detail level to suggest the reviews are largely authentic. The duplicate entries are flagged but may be a platform artifact rather than deliberate manipulation.

This WW Score of 72.1 is based on a large review set (85 reviews) and carries HIGH overall confidence in its directional accuracy — Mark performs well on availability and basic drain clearing but has a documented and recurring pattern of technical failures on complex jobs, unprofessional conduct, and non-transparent cash-only billing practices that meaningfully reduce his score across all four dimensions.

Allright Plumbing & Heating earns strong marks for responsiveness and same-day availability, with dozens of reviewers praising quick dispatch and friendly technicians like Travis, Hunter, and Walker. Professionalism scores are tempered by several notable failures: a no-show appointment, a driver complaint, a parking violation report, and at least one instance where a job was abandoned without resolution. Pricing is the weakest dimension — multiple reviewers explicitly called out overcharging, hidden service call fees, and a $1,200 quote described as outrageous, while others praised fair and reasonable pricing, creating a polarized picture. Project completion is mixed: the majority of jobs were finished well and on time, but there are credible accounts of work left incomplete, repeat callbacks for the same unfixed issue, and one serious multi-visit commercial failure. Experience scores are generally positive, with technicians frequently described as knowledgeable and skilled, though a few reviews describe poor workmanship and misdiagnosis.

• Two reviews contain no text — only a 5-star rating — and were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data.
• Pricing complaints are significant and recurring: at least 5 reviews explicitly cite overcharging, undisclosed fees, or refusal to provide quotes. This is a meaningful pattern, not isolated incidents.
• One review (2020) describes a pattern of repeated poor-quality work over several years, job abandonment, and a lien placed on the customer's home — a serious project completion red flag.
• One review (2018) describes a commercial job where sewer lines were left uncovered across multiple visits and work was never completed — another serious project completion concern.
• One review (2018) describes a scheduling no-show due to an internal booking error, with no resolution offered.
• One review (2021) describes the owner changing the quoted trip fee upon arrival and then never delivering an estimate after nearly 4 weeks — a professionalism and pricing concern.
• Several older negative reviews (2016–2021) describe pricing surprises and incomplete work; these are weighted less due to recency rules but are not dismissed as they reflect a recurring pattern.
• No fake review patterns detected. Reviews vary in length, detail, tone, and rating. Named technicians appear consistently across multiple independent reviews, lending authenticity.
• Review date range spans 2014–2025. Approximately 35 reviews are from 2024–2025 and carry higher weight. Older reviews (pre-2022) are present but down-weighted per recency rules.

This WW Score is based on 63 reviews spanning over a decade, with a strong concentration of recent data, and carries HIGH overall confidence — however, the recurring pricing complaints and multiple credible project completion failures meaningfully suppress the score and should be taken seriously by prospective customers.

Affordable Rooter has a strong base of loyal, satisfied customers who consistently praise friendliness, promptness, and technical competence across many reviews spanning nearly a decade. However, a meaningful cluster of negative reviews — roughly 10 out of 50 usable reviews — raises serious concerns about pricing transparency, with multiple customers explicitly stating they felt overcharged, misquoted, or billed for unauthorized services. Project completion is also mixed: several reviews cite no-shows, missed appointments with no callback, work that failed city inspection and had to be redone, and at least one case where a sewer line was not properly cleared. Experience scores are pulled down by instances of misdiagnosis and incomplete work, though many other reviewers praise the technical skill of specific technicians. The pricing dimension is the weakest area, with the company's own name 'Affordable Rooter' repeatedly cited ironically by dissatisfied customers who felt the pricing was anything but affordable.

• 7 reviews contain no text — only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence.
• Several reviews are older than 3 years (2014–2019) and may not reflect current business practices. More recent reviews (2020–2025) were weighted more heavily.
• At least 3 reviews explicitly describe no-show or non-response incidents (2015, 2022, 2023), which is a recurring pattern and a significant reliability concern.
• Multiple negative reviews describe pricing disputes, unauthorized charges, or final bills significantly higher than initial quotes — this is a consistent pattern across different years and reviewers.
• One review (2024) describes a billing harassment incident involving a collections threat for a service the customer claims was never authorized or completed.
• One review (2018) describes a job that failed city inspection and had to be entirely redone, raising code compliance concerns.
• One review (2018) describes a sewer line that was not properly cleared, with a competing plumber later confirming roots and grease remained — suggesting possible workmanship issues on drain cleaning jobs.
• No strong fake review patterns detected. Reviews vary in length, specificity, tone, and rating, and name specific technicians (Mark, Troy, Robert, Kevin, Dwayne, Steven, Joe, Justin, Stormy, Brandon). This diversity increases authenticity confidence.
• The business appears to operate across multiple locations (Colorado Springs, Lake George, Woodland Park area) — some reviews may reflect different crews or franchise-style operations, which could explain inconsistency in quality and pricing.

This WW Score is based on 50 reviews with usable content spanning 2014–2025 and carries HIGH overall confidence due to volume, but the score should be interpreted cautiously given a consistent minority pattern of serious complaints about pricing transparency, no-shows, and occasional workmanship failures that meaningfully offset the majority of positive feedback.