Find Nearby Plumbers In Commerce City, Colorado

Bravery Plumbing receives consistently strong praise for professionalism, with nearly every reviewer explicitly calling out Avery and Ray as professional, communicative, and responsive — including one reviewer noting a response on a holiday. Project completion scores are high, with multiple reviewers confirming jobs were finished cleanly, on time, and with follow-through on minor post-installation issues. Experience is well-supported by references to technical knowledge, proper diagnosis, tankless water heater installations, and problem-solving in a complex older home. Pricing data is limited to just two reviews, one of which explicitly praised Bravery for being significantly cheaper than larger competitors, yielding a solid but low-confidence pricing score. Overall, the scores are credible but tempered by a significant duplicate review problem that reduces the effective independent review count.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: At least 4 pairs of near-identical or exact duplicate reviews were found (two reviews from 2024-07-10 with identical text, two from 2024-06-30 with identical text, two from 2024-05-29 with identical tankless water heater text, and two from 2024-05-28 with identical text each for two separate reviews). This is a strong signal of review manipulation or platform duplication errors.
• After deduplication, the effective unique review count drops from 16 to approximately 10, which meaningfully reduces confidence in all dimension scores.
• ALL reviews are 5-star ratings with no negative or mixed feedback whatsoever. While the reviews contain specific details (names, job types, locations), the universal perfect rating pattern warrants caution.
• One review (2024-09-28) is extremely brief with no substantive detail: 'Great job! Fast! Considerate! Informative!' — this provides minimal usable scoring data.
• Confidence labels have been assigned based on unique mention counts after accounting for duplicates. Dimension scores reflect this conservative adjustment.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability due to confirmed duplicate reviews inflating the apparent review count, a complete absence of any critical or mixed feedback, and a limited pricing data set — consumers should treat this score as a positive signal but seek additional independent verification before hiring.

Thomas and EDB Plumbing demonstrate strong professionalism with consistent praise for punctuality, politeness, responsiveness, and communication across 11 reviews. Experience is well-documented with 5 mentions highlighting technical skill and problem-solving ability. Project completion shows solid performance in 8 reviews, though one significant negative review (2.0 stars) involving undisclosed scope changes and wall damage substantially impacts this dimension. Pricing receives positive mentions in 3 reviews citing fair value, but limited data constrains confidence. The overall WW Score of 82.3 reflects reliable service delivery tempered by one serious project management failure.

• FAKE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: 13 of 15 reviews are 5-star ratings with generic praise and minimal specifics. Phrases like 'The whole experience was great!' and 'Was a great experience!' appear verbatim. Repetitive use of 'awesome,' 'professional,' and 'recommend' suggests potential review manipulation or template-based submissions.
• CRITICAL INCIDENT: Review dated None (undated) describes major scope creep—contractor removed 1/3 of living room wall without client authorization or disclosure, leaving client with unexpected drywall/paint costs. This represents a serious breach of communication and project management despite otherwise positive reviews.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Only 1 review has a confirmed date (2022-08-24). 14 reviews lack dates, making it impossible to assess recency bias or whether issues have been resolved. This significantly limits reliability assessment.
• CONFIDENCE REDUCTION: The combination of suspected fake reviews, one serious negative incident, and lack of date transparency warrants conservative scoring and reduced overall confidence despite high mention counts.

This score should be treated with caution. While mention counts suggest HIGH confidence in individual dimensions, the suspected pattern of fake reviews, one documented major project failure, and inability to verify recency of most reviews substantially undermine trustworthiness. The 82.3 score likely overstates actual reliability; potential customers should heavily weight the wall removal incident and request detailed written scope agreements before engaging.

Hector Frias demonstrates strong professionalism with consistent punctuality, clear communication, and pleasant demeanor across nearly all reviews. His technical expertise and workmanship quality are well-documented and highly praised. However, project completion is tempered by one significant 2020 incident where he failed to properly reinstall a wastewater cap after removing it, creating a sanitary hazard and refusing to remedy it without additional charge. Pricing is generally perceived as fair and transparent, though limited mentions prevent full confidence. The 2020 negative review is detailed and credible, suggesting this was not an isolated communication failure but a genuine follow-through gap.

• One detailed negative review (2020-11-15) describes a serious project completion failure involving improper reinstallation of a wastewater cap, creating a sanitary hazard. This is a material concern that significantly impacts the project completion score.
• Most reviews are from 2019-2021; only one review is from 2021 or later. Recency of data is limited.
• Five of seven reviews are 5-star ratings with generally positive language, but the single 2-star review is highly specific and credible with detailed narrative, not generic criticism.

This WW Score of 82.1 should be treated with moderate caution. While professionalism and experience scores are well-supported by multiple mentions, the project completion score is significantly dragged down by one credible, detailed failure incident involving a sanitary issue. The score reflects genuine strengths in communication and technical skill, but also a documented gap in follow-through and accountability on complex jobs.

The majority of reviews praise professionalism, friendliness, and responsiveness across multiple service calls, supporting a reasonable professionalism score. However, one credible 1-star review raises a significant pricing concern — a customer was charged $550 for a job another plumber quoted at $215, and the contractor refused to provide an itemized receipt, which meaningfully drags down the pricing dimension. Project completion and experience scores are moderately positive, with reviewers citing clean work, timely service, and successful repairs across a range of plumbing jobs. The driving-behavior review (1-star, 2014) was excluded from scoring as it contains no usable data about plumbing services. Recency is a concern — several positive reviews are from 2018 and 2019, with only two from 2022, limiting confidence in current performance.

• PRICING CONCERN: One reviewer credibly documented being charged $550 for a job quoted at $215 elsewhere — a 155% markup — and the contractor refused to provide an itemized receipt. This is a substantive red flag, not a vague complaint.
• RECENCY WARNING: Only 2 of 7 reviews are from the past 12 months relative to the most recent review date (2022). Three reviews are from 2018–2019 and one is from 2014. Current performance cannot be reliably inferred from older reviews.
• NON-SERVICE REVIEW: The 1-star review from 2014 (Phil L.) describes a road rage/driving incident and contains zero information about plumbing services. It was excluded from all dimension scoring but noted as a minor character flag.
• LOW REVIEW VOLUME: Only 7 total reviews across what appears to be multiple years of operation. This limits statistical reliability across all dimensions.

This WW Score carries moderate reliability — the pricing dimension is pulled down by a specific and credible overcharging complaint, the review volume is low, and several positive reviews are more than 3 years old, making it difficult to assess current service quality with high confidence.

Project completion is the strongest dimension, with all three reviews confirming timely work and immediate problem resolution. Professionalism shows mixed signals: two reviews praise quick response and service quality, but one explicitly criticizes failure to provide receipts after repeated requests. Pricing data is extremely limited, based on only one complaint about lack of documentation. Experience is supported by two reviews noting quick diagnosis and effective repairs. The overall score is conservative due to the small sample size (3 reviews) and significant recency issues—two reviews are from 2016–2017, limiting current relevance.

• Only 3 reviews analyzed—insufficient volume for high-confidence scoring
• Two of three reviews are from 2016–2017 (6–7 years old); only one review from 2022 provides current data
• Professionalism dimension undermined by explicit complaint about failure to provide receipts despite repeated requests—suggests potential administrative/communication weakness
• Pricing dimension based on single mention; cannot reliably assess fair pricing practices

This WW Score should be treated with caution due to very limited review volume and significant age of most data; the score reflects available evidence but cannot be considered reliable for decision-making without additional recent reviews.

ASAP has a clearly split reputation across its review history. Several loyal, long-term customers praise Bill and Lisa for professionalism, competitive pricing, technical knowledge, and going above and beyond — including follow-up calls and saving customers significant money. However, two credible 1-star reviews raise serious concerns: one describes a technician recommending an unnecessary full toilet replacement for a simple DIY-fixable part, suggesting either incompetence or predatory upselling toward a disabled customer; another describes a faucet aerator being reassembled incorrectly, requiring the customer to fix it themselves after the technician left. These negative reviews directly undermine scores across all four dimensions and cannot be dismissed. The mixed record, combined with the age of most positive reviews (2012–2015), limits confidence in the current state of service quality.

• RECENCY WARNING: All 7 reviews are from 2012–2019. The most recent review is from May 2019. No reviews from the past 5+ years are present. Current service quality cannot be reliably assessed from this data.
• COMPETENCE CONCERN: One 1-star review (2015) describes a technician recommending a full toilet replacement for a broken internal part that the customer fixed themselves in under 5 minutes after a brief internet search. This is a significant red flag for either technical incompetence or deliberate upselling.
• WORKMANSHIP FAILURE: One 1-star review (2019) describes a faucet aerator being reassembled incorrectly after a simple cleaning, causing water to spray in all directions. The customer had to look up the correct method online and fix it themselves. This directly impacts the Experience and Project Completion scores.
• HARASSMENT ALLEGATION: The 2019 1-star reviewer explicitly states the contractor contacted them repeatedly and used name-calling and insults in an attempt to pressure a better review. This is a serious professionalism and ethics concern.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: The cluster of 5-star reviews from 2012–2014 use enthusiastic, effusive language with some generic phrasing. However, they do include specific details (scoping lines, saving $10K, water heater rebate coupon) which reduces — but does not eliminate — concern. Treated as likely genuine but noted.
• LOW REVIEW VOLUME: Only 7 total reviews span over 7 years. This is insufficient volume to draw strong conclusions about consistent service quality.

This WW Score carries MODERATE reliability at best — the small review volume, the age of all reviews, and the presence of two detailed and credible negative reviews (including a harassment allegation) introduce meaningful uncertainty that prevents a high-confidence assessment of this contractor's current quality.