Find Nearby Plumbers In Denver, Colorado

Precision Plumbing & Heating scores well on professionalism and experience, with a large volume of reviews consistently praising technician punctuality, courtesy, communication, and technical skill across many named employees over many years. Project completion is generally solid, with most jobs described as finished correctly, though a meaningful minority of reviews cite abandoned work, repeat visits required, incorrect diagnoses, and post-installation follow-through failures including missing paperwork and unreturned calls. The company's most significant and consistent weakness — documented across well over 100 reviews spanning more than a decade — is pricing, with dozens of customers independently reporting markups of 200–500% on parts, labor rates described as $450–$800 per hour, and quotes that were two to four times higher than competitors for identical work. Appointment cancellations and scheduling failures are a recurring secondary complaint, appearing in at least 20 reviews, which suppresses both the professionalism and project completion scores. The overall WW Score of 72.1 reflects a company with genuinely skilled and courteous technicians operating within a pricing and scheduling structure that a substantial portion of customers describe as predatory or unreliable.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: At least 8 reviews appear to be exact or near-exact duplicates posted on consecutive dates (June 6–8 and May 5–7, 2025), including identical text for the Ian/Jay AC maintenance review, the Justin water heater review, the Manny review, and the Devon review. This is a strong indicator of review manipulation or system error. These duplicates were counted once each for scoring purposes.
• FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: A cluster of 2025 reviews (approximately 40+ entries dated June and May 2025) are overwhelmingly 5-star with short, generic, or blank text. Several are completely empty (no review text, only a 5-star rating). This pattern is consistent with review padding or incentivized reviews and reduces confidence in the recent positive cluster.
• BLANK REVIEWS: At least 8 reviews contain no text whatsoever, only a 5-star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS ARE EXTENSIVE AND SPECIFIC: Over 40 distinct reviews across 2006–2025 cite specific dollar amounts and comparisons to competitors, independently arriving at similar conclusions about 200–500% markups on parts and labor rates of $450–$800/hour. This is not a pattern of isolated dissatisfaction — it is a systemic and well-documented pricing concern.
• APPOINTMENT CANCELLATION PATTERN: At least 15–20 reviews across multiple years describe last-minute appointment cancellations, no-shows, or technicians failing to call ahead. Several reviewers describe taking time off work and being stood up. This is a recurring operational failure.
• RECENCY NOTE: The bulk of detailed, substantive positive reviews are from 2013–2022. The 2025 reviews are disproportionately short, generic, or duplicated. Reviews from 2018–2024 contain the highest concentration of negative pricing and scheduling complaints. Scores are weighted toward the full corpus given the volume, but the recent positive cluster should be treated with skepticism.
• UPSELLING CONCERNS: Multiple independent reviews across different years describe technicians recommending unnecessary replacements, inflated diagnoses, or high-pressure upselling. At least 6 reviews describe getting a second opinion that revealed the original Precision diagnosis or quote was significantly overstated.
• DRIVER CONDUCT: Two unrelated reviews (2022 and 2023) describe dangerous or aggressive driving by Precision company vehicles. While not directly relevant to service quality, this was noted as a flag on company culture and management oversight.

This WW Score is based on a very large review corpus (295 reviews) spanning approximately 2005–2025 and carries HIGH overall confidence for the professionalism, pricing, project completion, and experience dimensions; however, the pricing score in particular should be treated as highly reliable given the extraordinary volume and specificity of independent corroborating complaints, and the recent 5-star cluster should be discounted due to strong indicators of duplicate and potentially manipulated reviews.

Pristine Plumbing scores strongly on professionalism and experience, with the vast majority of reviewers praising technicians as friendly, knowledgeable, punctual, and communicative — these dimensions are supported by an exceptionally large number of mentions and carry HIGH confidence. Project completion is generally positive, with most jobs described as finished same-day or within the agreed timeframe, though a meaningful minority of reviews cite callbacks needed, incomplete fixes, or abandoned follow-through (including a notable re-pipe with multiple call-backs, a water heater fix that failed initially, and a missed appointment). The pricing dimension is the most damaging factor in the score: a substantial and consistent pattern of negative reviews explicitly describes price gouging, charges far above competitor quotes, and labor rates that reviewers found indefensible — with multiple 1-star reviews citing specific dollar amounts that were two to five times competitor pricing. This pricing concern is not isolated and spans multiple years and multiple technicians, significantly dragging the overall WW Score down from what would otherwise be a high-performing contractor profile.

• PRICING CONCERN — HIGH SEVERITY: A significant and consistent pattern of price gouging complaints exists across multiple years and multiple technicians. Specific examples include: $1,600 charged for a 1.5-hour drain job, $1,249 quoted vs. $476 accepted from competitors for the same job, $858 for a $125 garbage disposal replacement taking 7 minutes, $900 for a valve replacement, $1,350 quoted for a toilet installation vs. $185-$275 from competitors, $2,800 quoted for a camera inspection vs. $199 from a competitor, and $8,500 estimated to fix their own installation error. This is not a fringe complaint — it appears in at least 15+ distinct reviews.
• PROJECT COMPLETION CONCERN — MODERATE: Several reviews describe work that required multiple callbacks to fix correctly, including a re-pipe job with at least 4 callback visits and no final crawlspace inspection, a water heater fix that failed immediately after the tech left, a shower temperature issue that was not resolved after a $340 repair, and a backflow device incorrectly installed that the company then quoted $8,500 to fix.
• CUSTOMER SERVICE FAILURES — MODERATE: Multiple reviews describe rude or dismissive behavior from office staff, including a woman yelling at a customer and hanging up, a technician (Nick) yelling at a tile contractor, and a manager refusing to take responsibility for a pricing dispute. These are not isolated incidents.
• MISSED APPOINTMENTS — MODERATE: At least 3 reviews describe technicians or the company failing to show up for scheduled appointments without adequate notice, including one reviewer who took a day off work for a no-show.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — LOW-MODERATE: Approximately 38 reviews in the dataset contain no review text at all (rating only, all 5-star). These blank reviews provide no usable data and inflate the raw star rating without contributing evidence. They have been excluded from scoring. Additionally, a cluster of 5-star reviews dated 2025-05-25 (4 reviews on the same day) and 2025-06-07 (4 reviews on the same day, 3 with no text) show suspicious clustering patterns. Confidence has not been reduced for the scored dimensions as the substantive reviews are numerous and detailed, but the blank reviews are flagged.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The review describing 'SIX different quotes ranging from $793 to $1,357' for an AirBnb leak repair appears to be submitted twice (2022-06-28 with two different timestamps). Only counted once in scoring.
• RECENCY NOTE: Reviews span from approximately 2017 to June 2025. The majority of reviews with substantive content are from 2020 onward. Pricing complaints are present across all years including the most recent 12 months (2024-2025), indicating this is not a historical issue that has been resolved.

This WW Score is based on an exceptionally large review dataset (265 total, 227 with usable data) spanning multiple years, giving HIGH statistical confidence in all four dimensions; however, the pricing score in particular should be weighted heavily by prospective customers, as the negative pricing feedback is specific, detailed, and consistent across many independent reviewers — consumers should obtain competing quotes before committing to any work with this company.

Rooter Guy demonstrates strong professionalism and technical competence across the majority of recent reviews, with named technicians like Aaron, Valentin, Gordon, Chris, Gary, and Eric consistently praised for friendliness, punctuality, and thoroughness. However, pricing is a significant and recurring concern — multiple independent reviewers across different time periods describe charges that were substantially higher than competitors or higher than quoted ranges, dragging the pricing dimension down considerably. Project completion is generally solid, with most jobs finished promptly and correctly, but there are notable exceptions including abandoned callbacks, work left incomplete or done incorrectly, and at least two cases where faulty installations required a second plumber to fix. The negative reviews, while a minority, are specific, credible, and span multiple years, indicating these are not isolated incidents but recurring operational weaknesses.

• DUPLICATE REVIEW ALERT: At least 5 reviews appear to be exact duplicates posted on consecutive or near-consecutive dates (e.g., 'Great service from Mark helping resolve our water heater valve and sink issues' appears on 2025-06-09 and 2025-06-06; 'Very professional quality workmanship glad to have them back again. thanks Chris and Valentin' appears on 2025-06-08 and 2025-06-05; 'Valentin came in and did a great job super nice, super professional' appears on 2025-06-08 and 2025-06-05; 'Gary was great. Not only fixed my issue...' appears on 2025-06-07 and 2025-06-04; 'Aaron was awesome! Very knowledgeable...' appears on 2025-06-07 and 2025-06-04). These are likely fake or artificially inflated reviews and have been discounted in scoring.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS ARE SIGNIFICANT AND RECURRING: Multiple reviewers across different years (2018, 2019, 2021, 2023, and undated) independently describe pricing as far above market rate — one cited a quote 6x higher than listed rates, another described a $5,000 water heater quote vs $2,000 from Home Depot, another described charges triple competitors, and another was quoted $700 for minor faucet work. This is a consistent pattern, not outliers.
• CALLBACK AND RESPONSIVENESS FAILURES: At least three reviews describe being unable to reach the company after work was completed — one left 7 voicemails with no response, one reported a no-show appointment with no proactive communication, and one reported a promised refund that was never delivered. This suggests systemic issues with post-service follow-through.
• WORKMANSHIP FAILURES DOCUMENTED: At least two reviews describe specific installation errors — outdoor faucets installed backwards causing them to explode in winter, a toilet lever installed upside down, a faucet installed crooked, and a dishwasher leak caused by a plumber-installed line. These are not vague complaints but specific, credible technical failures.
• CONDUCT COMPLAINT: One review (2018) describes a technician behaving inappropriately toward a pregnant woman and leaving a mess in the customer's bathroom. While this is a single older review, it is specific and serious.
• RECENCY NOTE: The bulk of 5-star reviews are from 2025 and late 2024, which is positive for recency weighting. However, the duplicate review pattern in June 2025 raises authenticity concerns about the most recent cluster of reviews. Negative reviews span 2018–2025, suggesting persistent issues rather than historical problems that have been resolved.
• OVERALL FAKE REVIEW RISK: MODERATE-HIGH for the June 2025 cluster specifically. The confirmed duplicate reviews with identical text posted days apart are a strong indicator of review manipulation. Confidence in the professionalism score has been conservatively adjusted to account for this inflation.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large volume of reviews, but the score itself should be interpreted cautiously given confirmed duplicate reviews inflating recent ratings, a persistent and multi-source pattern of pricing complaints, and documented instances of poor workmanship and failed callbacks that suggest the contractor's quality is inconsistent depending on which technician is assigned.

Planet Plumbing has a strong base of loyal, repeat customers who consistently praise individual technicians by name for professionalism, friendliness, and responsiveness — including weekend and emergency availability without surcharges. However, a meaningful minority of negative reviews (roughly 15–18% of the total) raise serious concerns across all four dimensions: multiple reviewers allege dishonest or inflated pricing, at least two describe being quoted thousands of dollars for work that turned out to be unnecessary or trivially fixable, and several describe incomplete or substandard workmanship requiring return visits or third-party correction. Management responsiveness and customer service handling of complaints is a recurring weak point, with multiple reviewers noting that managers failed to return calls or refused to accept responsibility for errors. The score reflects a company with genuine strengths in field-level service but notable and recurring failures in pricing transparency, quality consistency, and complaint resolution.

• Three reviews contain no substantive text (one blank, one 'unknown', one single period) and were excluded from dimension scoring — these may be placeholder or fake entries inflating the star average.
• One review ('Honest company', 5 stars, no detail) is too generic to be scored and may be inauthentic.
• Pricing concerns are significant and recurring: at least 6 separate reviewers explicitly describe being quoted prices far above market rate or being charged more than quoted, including a $10,000 sewer line quote for a minor root issue, an $800 quote for an $8 part, a $2,400 estimate for a problem the customer fixed in 2 hours, and a $700 quote for a job quoted at $150–$200 by phone.
• At least 3 reviews describe work that was left incomplete, done incorrectly, or required a second company to fix — including a toilet that rocked and leaked after reseating, a tankless water heater install described as 'mid-level DIY quality', and a gas leak missed entirely that was found in 5 minutes by a utility technician.
• One review alleges sexual harassment by a technician named Kyle (2017). This is a serious conduct flag even given its age.
• One review alleges property damage (broken door) with the company subsequently refusing to honor their verbal commitment to repair it.
• Several older negative reviews (2011–2018) describe owner/management non-responsiveness and refusal to accept responsibility — a pattern that also appears in more recent reviews (2024–2025), suggesting this is a systemic issue rather than isolated incidents.
• Recency note: The majority of reviews span 2019–2025, with a strong cluster in 2024–2025. Negative reviews are distributed across the full date range, indicating persistent rather than improving issues. More weight was given to post-2023 reviews.

This WW Score is based on a large and diverse review set (125 reviews) spanning over a decade, giving it HIGH statistical confidence, but the score should be interpreted cautiously given a consistent pattern of serious pricing and workmanship complaints that suggest meaningful quality inconsistency depending on which technician is assigned.

Pipe It Up has a large and generally positive review base, with many customers praising individual technicians — particularly Juan, Paul, Henry, Victor, and Rashad — for being knowledgeable, courteous, and responsive. Professionalism scores are meaningfully dragged down by a cluster of serious negative reviews describing no-call no-shows, forgotten appointments, unprofessional technician conduct, and failure to respond after causing damage. Project completion is the most concerning dimension: multiple reviews describe jobs left incomplete for weeks or months, a civil lawsuit over flood damage caused by faulty work, a dangerous water heater installation in a modular home, and a leak caused by a faucet/disposal replacement that went unaddressed for days. Pricing is generally viewed as fair to reasonable, with several reviewers explicitly noting competitive or transparent quotes, though one reviewer flagged the cost as high and one noted no upfront quote was provided. Experience scores are solid for routine jobs but are tempered by documented cases of incompetent workmanship and a technician who performed flooring work far outside his skill set.

• SERIOUS LEGAL FLAG: One reviewer (2024-08-19) states that owner Rashad Gordon lost a civil lawsuit for thousands of dollars in flood damage caused by a technician, and that he failed to appear in court multiple times. This is a significant red flag for accountability and business integrity.
• PROJECT ABANDONMENT: One review (2023-06-10, 1-star) describes a corporate plumbing job that exceeded 90 days with no completion and no communication. Another review (2021-05-18, 1-star) describes a repair left incorrect for over a month with repeated missed appointments. Another (2021-05-03, 1-star) describes a toilet repair with a 3-week wait for a part and a no-show on the scheduled fix day.
• DAMAGE CAUSED AND UNADDRESSED: A 2021 review (1-star) describes water damage to a finished basement caused by a faucet/disposal installation, with no emergency response despite advertised 24/7 service and no return calls afterward.
• DANGEROUS INSTALLATION: A 2018 review (1-star) alleges that a water heater meant for a traditional home was installed in a modular home, blocking the carbon monoxide vent — a potentially life-threatening error.
• UNPROFESSIONAL CONDUCT: A detailed 2023 review (2-star) documents a technician arriving late with no apology, wearing no identifying uniform, disappearing for 20 minutes without explanation, never providing a quote, and then sending an invoice marked 'OVERDUE' while calling the customer daily for payment.
• FAKE REVIEW CONCERN — MODERATE: A cluster of 8 reviews all dated exactly 2023-06-10 with no timestamps, several with no review text (just a star rating), and several with very generic praise and no specifics. This pattern is consistent with bulk-submitted or incentivized reviews. Confidence is not reduced to LOW DATA since there is ample other genuine review content, but these reviews were weighted minimally.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most serious negative reviews span 2018–2024, indicating these are not isolated historical incidents. Positive reviews also continue through 2025, suggesting the company has improved in some areas but has not fully resolved accountability issues.
• 8 reviews contained no text — only a star rating — and were excluded from dimension scoring but counted in total reviews analyzed.
• SCOPE CREEP CONCERN: One reviewer noted a technician attempted flooring work he was clearly unqualified to perform, resulting in costly remediation. This suggests the company may occasionally accept work outside its competency.

This WW Score of 72.1 is based on a large review set with HIGH confidence across all dimensions, but should be interpreted cautiously given documented legal action, multiple instances of project abandonment, at least one dangerous installation, and a pattern of poor accountability when things go wrong — the score reflects a company capable of excellent routine work but with a meaningful and recurring failure mode in complex jobs and post-service follow-through.

Aurora Plumbing Company has a long history of positive reviews praising individual technicians — particularly Jason, Mike, Steven, Charlie, Lance, and others — for punctuality, professionalism, and technical competence. However, the review set contains a meaningful cluster of serious complaints covering no-shows, missed appointments without notification, price gouging, hidden fees, and in one case alleged theft, which significantly drag down the professionalism and pricing dimensions. The pricing dimension is the weakest area, with multiple reviewers across different years citing charges they felt were excessive or non-transparent, including a $500 charge for 30 minutes of work and $420 per hose bib. Project completion scores moderately well overall, but is undermined by the February 2025 no-show incident and a 2014 billing dispute where the heater failed shortly after service. The most recent reviews (2024–2025) show a mixed picture, with strong individual technician performance alongside a troubling pattern of scheduling failures that may reflect a change in ownership noted by one reviewer.

• SUSPECTED FAKE OR COORDINATED REVIEWS: A large cluster of reviews dated 2024-10-12 and 2024-11-11 share nearly identical phrasing — 'came out today,' 'very professional,' 'very efficient,' 'cleaned up after themselves,' 'thank you Aurora Plumbing' — and almost all reference the same technician (Jason, often paired with Charlie). This pattern is highly consistent with coordinated or incentivized reviewing. Confidence in these specific reviews is reduced.
• OWNERSHIP CHANGE FLAG: One reviewer (Feb 2025) explicitly states the company was recently purchased and that service quality has declined. This may explain the sharp contrast between older glowing reviews and recent scheduling failures.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Several high-scoring reviews date from 2006–2015 and reflect a different operational era (likely under original owner Mike Weiss). These older reviews inflate the overall positive picture and should be weighted less heavily.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS SPAN MULTIPLE YEARS: Overcharging complaints appear in 2014, 2015, 2017, 2020, 2021, and 2024, suggesting a systemic and persistent pricing transparency issue rather than isolated incidents.
• SERIOUS MISCONDUCT ALLEGATION: One reviewer (2020) alleged a technician removed new faucet components (stoppers) without permission and lied about it, and also violated Covid safety protocols. This is an unresolved allegation but materially relevant to trust.
• NO-SHOW PATTERN: At least two reviews (Feb 2025 and Jul 2023) describe complete no-shows with no proactive communication from the company, indicating a recurring scheduling reliability problem.
• TWO REVIEWS MARKED 'unknown' WITH NO TEXT: These were excluded from scoring as they contain no usable data.

The WW Score of 72.1 should be treated with moderate caution: while the volume of reviews is high and overall confidence is technically HIGH, a significant subset of positive reviews shows strong indicators of coordination or inauthenticity, persistent pricing complaints span nearly a decade, and recent operational issues suggest a possible decline in service quality following a reported ownership change.