Find Nearby Plumbers In Denver, Colorado

Applewood Plumbing Heating and Electric scores well on professionalism, experience, and project completion — technicians are consistently described as friendly, knowledgeable, punctual, communicative, and thorough across hundreds of reviews spanning multiple years. However, the pricing dimension is the single most damaging factor in this report, with an enormous volume of detailed, credible negative reviews describing quotes that are 3x to 5x the going market rate, with specific dollar comparisons provided by customers who obtained competing bids. Pricing complaints are not isolated incidents — they span every service category (plumbing, HVAC, electrical) and include multiple accounts of alleged targeting of elderly and vulnerable customers. Project completion is generally positive but is modestly penalized by recurring patterns of cancelled or missed appointments, at least one documented case of faulty workmanship causing flooding, and a small number of callbacks that failed to resolve the original issue. The overall WW Score of 62.4 reflects a company with genuinely skilled and professional technicians operating under a pricing model that a large segment of customers — including many long-term repeat customers — describe as exploitative.

• SEVERE PRICING CONCERN: Dozens of detailed, independently corroborated reviews describe quotes 3x–5x above market rate across all service categories. Multiple reviewers provided specific competing bids confirming the disparity. This is not a perception issue — it is a documented and recurring pattern.
• POTENTIAL PREDATORY PRICING TARGETING VULNERABLE CUSTOMERS: Multiple reviews explicitly describe elderly, disabled, or fixed-income customers being quoted prices far above market (e.g., $12,000–$22,000 for water heaters, $20,000 for a furnace, $47,000 for sewer line replacement). Several reviewers used the phrase 'price gouging seniors.'
• DUPLICATE REVIEW FLAG: A significant number of reviews appear to be exact duplicates posted on the same or adjacent dates (e.g., identical review text posted on 2025-06-08 and 2025-06-06, 2022-12-26 posted three times, 2022-10-21 posted twice, 2023-03-22 posted twice, 2023-03-23 posted twice, 2020-04-22 posted twice, 2022-02-15 posted three times, and many others). This pattern strongly suggests review manipulation or a systematic re-submission process. Confidence in the positive review pool is reduced accordingly.
• APPOINTMENT RELIABILITY ISSUES: Multiple reviews across different time periods describe last-minute cancellations, missed appointment windows, and rescheduling failures — including at least one case where a customer missed a flight due to a return visit to fix faulty work.
• WORKMANSHIP FAILURE DOCUMENTED: At least one detailed review (March 2021) describes a plumber using the wrong tools, causing a pipe leak that flooded the basement, destroying drywall, carpet, and personal property. The customer reported Applewood's resolution offer was inadequate.
• UPSELLING COMPLAINTS: Multiple reviews describe technicians recommending unnecessary repairs or replacements (e.g., furnace replacement when furnace was fine per second opinion, garbage disposal replacement when only bottle caps needed removal, full sewer line replacement when line was functional). This pattern is consistent across service categories.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews analyzed are from 2020–2025, making the dataset reasonably current. However, the duplicate review pattern is concentrated in the most recent dates (June 2025), which inflates the apparent volume of recent positive reviews.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Approximately 30–40 reviews contained no text and only a star rating (mostly 5 stars). These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence per scoring rules.

This WW Score carries HIGH confidence given the very large review volume and strong evidence base across all four dimensions, but the score should be interpreted with caution on the pricing dimension specifically — the pricing score of 22 is based on an exceptionally large number of detailed, specific, and independently corroborated negative accounts, and the positive review pool is partially undermined by a detectable duplicate review pattern that inflates apparent satisfaction.

This aggregated review set spans multiple businesses and individual operators all operating under or associated with the 'Mr. Plumber' name across different regions and time periods, making direct comparison difficult but revealing a deeply polarized reputation. Professionalism scores are dragged down significantly by a large volume of explicit complaints about rudeness, no-shows, broken appointments, and dismissive customer service — including multiple accounts of technicians yelling at customers, slamming doors, and hanging up on home warranty representatives. Pricing is the single most-criticized dimension, with dozens of reviewers citing charges 2x to 5x higher than competitors for identical work, non-itemized invoices, and aggressive upselling tactics; a minority of reviewers — particularly those dealing with individual operators like Oscar, Jeff, and Rick — praised fair and transparent pricing. Project completion suffers from a notable pattern of abandoned jobs, failed callbacks, work left incomplete for weeks or months, and instances where problems were made worse rather than fixed. Experience scores are moderate-positive, as many positive reviews do cite skilled diagnosis and quality workmanship from specific named technicians, but are offset by multiple accounts of misdiagnosis, incorrect parts installation, and damage caused during service.

• MULTI-ENTITY CONCERN: These reviews appear to aggregate multiple distinct businesses and sole operators all using the 'Mr. Plumber' name across different U.S. regions (Georgia, New Jersey, Oklahoma, California, New York, Indiana, Tennessee, etc.). Scores reflect a blended profile and should not be applied to any single operator without filtering by location.
• SUSPECTED FAKE REVIEWS: A significant cluster of 5-star reviews — particularly those dated 2025-05-07, 2025-05-10, and 2025-05-19 with no review text — are blank ratings only and provide zero usable data. Several other 5-star reviews are near-identical in phrasing (e.g., two reviews from 2025-05-07 and 2025-05-10 are word-for-word duplicates for 'Michael'). These have been excluded from scoring but inflate the raw star average.
• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: At least two pairs of reviews are near-verbatim duplicates submitted on consecutive or same dates (the 'Michael' gas line reviews dated 2025-05-07 and 2025-05-10; the rude technician reviews dated 2023-08-09 and 2023-08-10). These were counted as single mentions.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent reviews (2025) are predominantly 5-star with minimal text, while the most detailed and substantive negative reviews span 2018–2024. The oldest reviews (2005–2013) skew positive but reflect a different era of the business. Recency weighting was applied conservatively.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Approximately 30+ reviews contained no text and only a star rating. These were excluded from all dimension scoring as they provide no evidence per Rule 1.
• IRRELEVANT REVIEW: One review (dated 2021-06-07, 5 stars) references a healthcare provider ('very helpful with my daughter and son... ADHD and learning disabilities') and is clearly posted to the wrong business. It was excluded entirely.
• PRICING PATTERN: A recurring pattern of non-itemized invoices, refusal to provide cost breakdowns, and prices dropping significantly when customers push back strongly suggests systematic price gouging practices at certain franchise or affiliate locations, particularly those associated with Coolray/Mr. Plumber in the Atlanta, GA market.
• ABANDONED WORK PATTERN: Multiple independent reviews describe technicians starting jobs, leaving for parts, and never returning — sometimes for months. This pattern appears across different named technicians and locations, suggesting a systemic operational failure rather than isolated incidents.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large review volume, but its practical reliability is MODERATE at best because the dataset aggregates multiple distinct businesses operating under the same trade name across different regions and time periods — consumers should filter reviews by their specific geographic location and verify the operator before relying on this blended score.

Plumbline Services presents a deeply split profile across hundreds of reviews spanning over a decade. Individual technicians are frequently praised for being professional, courteous, knowledgeable, and communicative — driving a moderately positive professionalism score. However, this is significantly dragged down by a persistent and well-documented pattern of no-shows, missed appointment windows, broken scheduling promises, and poor dispatcher communication, which appears across reviews from 2006 through 2025. Pricing is the single most damaging dimension: an overwhelming volume of reviewers across all time periods describe charges as exorbitant, with specific examples of markups of 300–1000% on parts and labor, and multiple credible accounts of fear-based upselling and unnecessary repair recommendations that were contradicted by second opinions. Project completion scores are moderate — many jobs are completed well, but there are notable failures including abandoned work, warranty disputes, failed inspections, and jobs that required multiple return visits to correct. Technical experience scores are moderate-positive, as many technicians demonstrate genuine skill, but this is offset by documented cases of misdiagnosis, incompetence, and technicians who appeared to deliberately withhold effort to manufacture upsell opportunities.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: A block of approximately 12–13 reviews dated 2025-06-06 through 2025-06-08 appear to be exact duplicates of reviews dated 2025-06-07 through 2025-06-08. These duplicate entries were counted only once per unique review text to avoid score inflation.
• FAKE REVIEW PATTERN SUSPECTED: A significant cluster of recent 5-star reviews (May–June 2025) are extremely brief, generic, and lack any specific detail (e.g., 'Fast and friendly and excellent', 'Very reliable and responsive', 'great service. friendly and quick response'). Several are blank text with only a 5-star rating. This pattern is consistent with solicited or incentivized reviews and reduces confidence in the positive signal from recent reviews.
• SYSTEMATIC UPSELLING PATTERN: Multiple independent reviewers across many years (2008–2025) describe nearly identical experiences of being quoted extremely high prices for unnecessary repairs, with second opinions from other companies consistently finding either no problem or a fraction of the cost. This is a significant integrity flag and not an isolated incident.
• SCHEDULING RELIABILITY IS A CHRONIC SYSTEMIC FAILURE: No-shows, last-minute cancellations, and missed appointment windows are documented in reviews from 2006, 2008, 2011, 2013, 2016, 2017, 2019, 2020, 2022, 2024, and 2025 — indicating this is not an isolated issue but an ongoing operational failure spanning the company's entire review history.
• RECENCY NOTE: Reviews span from 2005 to June 2025. The most recent 12 months (mid-2024 to mid-2025) contain a mix of highly positive brief reviews and several detailed negative reviews about pricing and scheduling. The positive cluster in May–June 2025 is treated with reduced weight due to suspected solicitation patterns.
• PRICE GOUGING ALLEGATIONS: Multiple reviewers allege charges of $570–$877 for under 30 minutes of work, $8,000+ for water heaters, $25,000–$35,000 for sewer repairs that competitors quoted at a fraction of the price, and markups of 300–900% on parts. These are not isolated complaints and represent a material risk to consumers.

This WW Score of 62.4 is based on a very large review dataset (296 reviews) and carries HIGH statistical confidence in its directional accuracy; however, consumers should weight the pricing dimension heavily as it reflects a consistent, multi-year, multi-reviewer pattern of significant overcharging and upselling that poses a material financial risk, and should independently verify any quotes before authorizing work.

Bell Plumbing and Heating presents a deeply split picture across its review history. Individual technicians — particularly Vuk, Dylan, Ben Williams, David Agosto, and others — are consistently praised for professionalism, communication, punctuality, and technical skill, which keeps the professionalism and experience scores from falling further. However, pricing is the single most damaging dimension in this dataset: dozens of reviews spanning multiple years describe charges that reviewers characterize as grossly excessive, with specific examples including $800+ for a $4 part, $900 for a 20-minute job, $2,900 for basic toilet work, and $1,000+ per hour in effective labor rates. Project completion is mixed — many jobs are completed well and on time, but there are credible accounts of abandoned work, failed repairs requiring repeat visits, misdiagnoses leading to unnecessary excavation, and a pattern of scheduling failures including no-shows and last-minute cancellations. The recency split is notable: reviews from 2025 and late 2024 skew heavily positive, while reviews from 2019–2023 contain the most severe complaints about pricing and service failures.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: At least 4 reviews appear to be exact duplicates submitted on different dates (e.g., the long multi-technician review and the Dylan/Jeremiah sump pump review each appear twice within days of each other). This inflates recent positive review counts and may indicate a review solicitation or submission error. Confidence in the recent positive cluster is slightly reduced.
• RECENCY BIAS: The majority of 5-star reviews are dated May–June 2025, while the most severe negative reviews (pricing abuse, misdiagnosis, abandoned work, scheduling failures) are concentrated in 2019–2023. This may reflect genuine improvement or a more aggressive recent review solicitation campaign — both possibilities should be considered.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS ARE SYSTEMIC AND SPECIFIC: Unlike vague dissatisfaction, the pricing complaints include specific dollar amounts, part cost comparisons, and named staff. This pattern across many independent reviewers over multiple years is a strong signal of a structural pricing issue, not isolated incidents.
• MISDIAGNOSIS AND COMPETENCE CONCERNS: Multiple reviews describe technicians recommending expensive replacements (full boiler, full furnace system, water main excavation) that turned out to be unnecessary, with correct diagnoses and cheap fixes obtained from competitors. This is a credible pattern affecting the experience score.
• INCOMPLETE WORK AND NO-SHOW PATTERN: Several reviews describe jobs left unfinished, appointments cancelled without adequate notice, and follow-up calls not returned. One review describes a job left incomplete for two weeks with only 3 hours of work per day.
• MEMBERSHIP/CONTRACT COMPLAINTS: Multiple reviews describe bait-and-switch behavior with service membership plans, including mid-term plan changes after full annual payment and misleading pricing representations during scheduling calls.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Approximately 10 reviews contained no text and only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data.
• ELDER TARGETING CONCERN: Multiple independent reviewers explicitly allege that Bell technicians targeted elderly or uninformed customers with high-pressure tactics and inflated pricing. This is a reputational risk flag.

This WW Score is based on a large and diverse review set spanning 2015–2025 and carries HIGH statistical confidence, but the score reflects a genuinely divided service record — individual technicians frequently perform well, while systemic pricing practices and occasional competence failures represent real and documented risks that prospective customers should weigh carefully.

Mighty Plumbing Heating Air and Electric presents a deeply split profile: individual technicians frequently receive praise for friendliness, punctuality, and communication, which props up the professionalism score, but this is substantially offset by a significant volume of serious complaints about management unresponsiveness, appointment cancellations, and technician pushiness. Pricing is the most consistently and severely criticized dimension, with numerous reviewers reporting quotes that were two to ten times higher than competitors for identical work, outright bait-and-switch pricing incidents, and a pattern of upselling unnecessary parts or full system replacements. Project completion is also heavily penalized by multiple accounts of incomplete work, failed callbacks, warranty disputes, installation errors causing property damage, and jobs abandoned or requiring many return visits to correct. Experience scores moderately because while many individual techs demonstrate genuine skill and problem-solving ability, there are credible accounts of misdiagnosis, incorrect installations, and technicians showing up unprepared or without proper equipment, which significantly drags the score down from what positive reviews alone would suggest.

• PRICING PATTERN — CRITICAL: An unusually high volume of reviewers (spanning 2021–2025) independently report quotes that are 2x to 10x higher than competitor prices for identical work. This is a systemic pattern, not isolated incidents, and is the single largest driver of score reduction.
• BAIT-AND-SWITCH INCIDENTS: At least two reviewers describe confirmed bait-and-switch pricing — one involving a $3,000 price increase the morning of installation after all other quotes were declined, and another involving a quote jump from $5,000 to $18,000–$20,000 after deposit was paid.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — MODERATE: One reviewer explicitly states the company pays for Google reviews. Several 5-star reviews contain no text at all (19 blank reviews with ratings only), which inflates the star average without providing verifiable content. These blank reviews were excluded from dimension scoring.
• MANAGEMENT CONDUCT — MULTIPLE COMPLAINTS: Multiple independent reviewers describe the owner or manager ('Paul', 'Mark', 'Kevin' referenced in various contexts) as unresponsive, dismissive, or actively hostile when complaints were raised. One reviewer describes a manager telling a customer that a malfunctioning furnace was 'all in her head.'
• WARRANTY AND FOLLOW-THROUGH FAILURES: Multiple reviewers describe the company refusing to honor written warranties, rebate guarantees, and service agreements after money was collected. At least two reviewers mention pursuing or threatening legal action.
• INSTALLATION QUALITY ISSUES: Credible accounts of incorrect installations causing roof leaks, wall leaks, and property damage, with the company subsequently refusing to remediate damage they caused.
• APPOINTMENT RELIABILITY: Multiple reviewers across different years describe same-day or last-minute appointment cancellations, technicians not showing up, and a policy of requiring customers to be available all day without a time window.
• RECENCY NOTE: Negative reviews are distributed across 2021–2025, indicating these are not isolated historical issues. Positive reviews are also present across the same period, suggesting the experience is highly technician-dependent.
• 19 reviews contained no text and only a star rating — these were excluded from all dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence per scoring rules.

This WW Score is based on a large review set (95 total, 76 with usable data) spanning multiple years and carries HIGH overall confidence; however, the score reflects a genuinely polarized service provider where outcomes appear heavily dependent on which technician is assigned, and prospective customers should treat the pricing and project completion scores as serious red flags warranting independent quotes and written guarantees before committing to any work.

Plumb Pros presents a deeply divided picture across its review history. Recent reviews from 2025 are overwhelmingly positive, praising named technicians for professionalism, timeliness, communication, and quality workmanship — with multiple reviewers citing competitive pricing and clean job completion. However, a substantial body of older reviews (2012–2022) documents a persistent and serious pattern of extreme price gouging, failed repairs, unethical upselling, refusal to honor warranties, and in several cases, alleged targeting of elderly and vulnerable customers. Project completion is undermined by multiple accounts of work left incomplete, problems returning shortly after service, and technicians denying responsibility for damage they caused. Pricing is the weakest dimension by far, with dozens of reviewers citing quotes 3–10x market rate for standard jobs. The overall WW Score reflects this tension: strong recent performance is offset by a long and credible record of serious ethical and quality failures.

• RECENCY SPLIT: Reviews from 2025 are almost uniformly 5-star with named technicians and specific job details — this is a positive signal. However, reviews from 2012–2022 contain a high volume of detailed, credible 1-star complaints that cannot be dismissed.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW CONCERN: Several 2025 5-star reviews are blank (no text, just a rating). These have been excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data.
• ETHICAL RED FLAG — ELDERLY TARGETING: Multiple independent reviewers (2016, 2021, 2022) allege that Plumb Pros charged elderly customers grossly inflated prices (e.g., $6,000 for a water heater, $786 for a toilet, $5,000 furnace repair). These are specific, detailed, and credible allegations.
• ETHICAL RED FLAG — SABOTAGE ALLEGATION: One reviewer (2022) credibly alleges a technician deliberately turned down a water heater thermostat after recommending replacement, leaving seniors without hot water. This is a serious allegation.
• ETHICAL RED FLAG — REFUND CHECK COERCION: One reviewer (2019) reports that a refund check included a handwritten clause requiring the customer to agree not to post negative reviews — a deceptive and potentially unlawful practice.
• PROJECT COMPLETION FAILURES: Multiple reviews document jobs that were not fixed on the first visit, problems returning immediately after service, and technicians denying responsibility for damage caused during service.
• PRICING PATTERN: Across more than a dozen reviews spanning multiple years, quotes were described as 3x to 10x market rate. This is not isolated — it reflects a systemic upsell and price-gouging business model documented consistently over time.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of positive reviews are from 2025 and may reflect a genuine improvement in operations, a change in staff, or a concerted effort to generate positive reviews. The score weights recent reviews more heavily but cannot ignore the volume and specificity of older negative reviews.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large review volume, but the score itself should be interpreted cautiously — the business shows a strong recent positive trend that is significantly undermined by a long, well-documented history of pricing abuse, incomplete work, and ethical violations that prospective customers should take seriously before hiring.