Find Nearby Plumbers In Denver, Colorado

All City Drains and Rome receive overwhelmingly positive feedback across all four dimensions, with professionalism being the most consistently praised attribute — reviewers repeatedly highlight punctuality, courteous communication, responsiveness, and a willingness to go above and beyond (including late-night callbacks and same-day service). Pricing is a notable strength, with multiple reviewers explicitly stating they received more competitive quotes than competitors, no hidden fees, and that Rome even honored original quotes when complications arose. Project completion scores are strong but are modestly tempered by three 1-star reviews: one citing a no-show appointment with no follow-up, one citing an ignored appointment and unreturned messages, and one citing a disputed Yelp deal redemption issue — these represent real reliability concerns that cannot be dismissed. Experience scores are high, supported by detailed accounts of complex sewer line replacements, difficult diagnoses, and Rome's cited 18-20 years of master plumber expertise, though the majority of the most detailed reviews are from 2017 or earlier.

• THREE NEGATIVE REVIEWS FLAGGED: Two 1-star reviews (2015-12-10 and 2017-06-01) explicitly describe missed appointments with no callback or follow-up — this is a direct contradiction to the responsiveness praised in positive reviews and must be weighted seriously for the project_completion and professionalism dimensions.
• ONE NEGATIVE REVIEW (2014-03-30) describes a disputed Yelp deal that the company allegedly could not redeem — this raises a minor concern about business practices and transparency.
• RECENCY WARNING: The majority of the most detailed and substantive reviews are dated between 2012 and 2020. Only two reviews are from the past 12 months (2024-02-09 and 2024-03-19), both of which are positive but brief. The reliability of current service quality cannot be fully confirmed from recent data alone.
• MILD PATTERN CONCERN: The volume of highly enthusiastic, detailed 5-star reviews with very similar praise themes (Rome's personality, responsiveness, fair pricing) is notable. While most reviews include specific job details that suggest authenticity, the uniformity of tone across many reviews warrants mild caution. No definitive fake review pattern detected, but confidence is not reduced beyond what mention counts already reflect.
• SCORE MODERATION APPLIED: Professionalism and project_completion scores were conservatively reduced from a raw positive-only reading to account for the two explicit no-show/no-callback complaints, which represent a meaningful failure pattern even if infrequent.

This WW Score is based on 42 reviews spanning over a decade with HIGH mention counts across all four dimensions, making it statistically robust; however, the limited recency of detailed reviews (only 2 in the past 12 months) and three documented negative service failures mean the score should be treated as a strong historical indicator rather than a guaranteed reflection of current performance.

PHI Plumbing (Don) receives overwhelmingly positive feedback across all four dimensions, with the vast majority of reviewers praising his responsiveness, same-day availability, and professional demeanor. Project completion scores are particularly strong, with dozens of reviewers confirming jobs were finished promptly, correctly, and often on the same day as the call. Pricing is generally rated as fair and competitive — frequently cited as significantly lower than larger plumbing companies — though a small number of reviewers noted costs were higher than expected, and one reviewer flagged a $200/hour rate and another cited a $25 surcharge for a store inconvenience, which tempers the pricing score slightly. Experience scores are supported by multiple references to Don's Master Plumber credentials, his ability to diagnose difficult problems quickly, and his proactive identification of additional issues. Three negative or mixed reviews (1-star no-show, 1-star inability to diagnose a simple leak with rude behavior, 2-star credit card surcharge incident, and a 3-star review where Don allegedly offered a refund in exchange for review removal) introduce meaningful concerns about consistency and integrity that prevent top-tier scores.

• REVIEW MANIPULATION FLAG: One reviewer (3-star, 2023-12-02) explicitly states that Don contacted them after a negative review and offered a $150 refund in exchange for updating or removing the review. This is a serious integrity concern and suggests possible artificial inflation of the overall rating.
• FAKE REVIEW PATTERN — MODERATE CONCERN: A cluster of reviews dated exactly 2024-06-09 (approximately 14 reviews) share suspiciously similar generic phrasing ('amazing job', 'fast quality work', 'great customer service', 'highly recommend') with no specific job details. Several of these are very short and lack any identifying information. This pattern warrants caution.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The review 'Don is the best! He's reliable and always does an amazing job. He's our go-to plumber...' appears verbatim twice — once dated 2024-06-09 and once dated 2024-01-17. This is a likely duplicate or copied review.
• NEGATIVE SIGNAL — NO-SHOW: One 1-star review (2015-10-23) reports Don failed to show for a scheduled appointment with no call or warning, indicating a reliability issue at least historically.
• NEGATIVE SIGNAL — SKILL CONCERN: One 1-star review (2021-09-16) describes Don as unable to diagnose a simple kitchen sink leak across two paid visits, being rude, and charging for no effective work. A competing plumber diagnosed the issue immediately. This is a notable outlier against the otherwise strong experience scores.
• NEGATIVE SIGNAL — PRICING CONDUCT: One 2-star review (2015-09-13) reports Don suggested the customer's check would bounce and refused to accept a credit card without raising the price — unprofessional conduct that affects both professionalism and pricing scores.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews are from 2024–2025, which is positive for recency weighting. However, the cluster of undated or same-date 2024-06-09 reviews reduces confidence in that specific batch.
• 3 reviews contained no text (blank body) and were excluded from dimension scoring but counted in total reviews analyzed.

This WW Score is based on a large volume of reviews (125 total) spanning approximately 10 years, giving it HIGH overall confidence, but the score should be interpreted with caution due to a confirmed review manipulation incident, a suspicious cluster of generic same-date reviews, one duplicate review, and a small but credible set of negative experiences involving professionalism, pricing conduct, and workmanship failures.

Plumbers Near Me earns strong marks across all four dimensions, driven by an exceptionally large and consistent body of reviews spanning 2018 to 2025. Professionalism is the most frequently cited strength, with dozens of reviewers praising punctuality, responsiveness, communication, and courteous behavior from technicians including Carlos, Jonathan, Bill, and Louis. Pricing scores well overall, with many reviewers explicitly noting fair, transparent, and competitive rates compared to other companies — though one 2-star review flagged a $483 labor charge as steep, and a 1-star review described a botched job that cost the customer an additional $575 to remediate. Project completion is solid but slightly tempered by two notable negative incidents: one case where a snake was left lodged in a main line and the contractor walked away, and another where a disposal was installed incorrectly and a promised reimbursement took over 80 days to materialize (ultimately resolved). Experience scores highly, with multiple reviewers describing technicians correctly diagnosing problems that other companies misidentified, demonstrating strong technical problem-solving ability across a wide range of plumbing tasks.

• 17 reviews have no date listed — these appear to be from a secondary platform (likely Thumbtack) and all reference 'Bill' as the technician. While individually plausible, the cluster of undated, uniformly 5-star reviews with similar praise patterns (responsive, professional, prompt) warrants mild caution. These were included in scoring but treated conservatively.
• 17 reviews contained no text at all — only a 5-star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence per scoring rules.
• Three negative reviews (1-star: snake left in line; 1-star: disposal installed incorrectly with delayed reimbursement; 1-star: missed appointment window) represent meaningful quality-control failures and were factored into project completion and professionalism scores.
• One 3-star review is a follow-up to the disposal complaint, noting the refund was eventually issued — this partially mitigates but does not eliminate the concern about the original incident.
• The vast majority of dated reviews are within the past 12 months (2024–2025), which supports recency weighting and increases confidence in current service quality.
• No strong fake review pattern detected overall — reviews contain specific names, job types, and situational details. The undated 'Bill' cluster is the only mild concern.

This WW Score is based on a large, diverse, and predominantly recent review set with strong mention counts across all four dimensions, making it one of the more reliable assessments possible — tempered only slightly by three documented service failures and a cluster of undated secondary-platform reviews.

Hyper Flow demonstrates strong performance across all four dimensions, with particularly high marks for professionalism (89.5) driven by consistent praise for punctuality, communication, and courteous technicians. Pricing scores well at 84.0, with many reviews explicitly noting fair, transparent, and competitive rates without aggressive upselling. Project completion is solid at 87.0, with most jobs finished on time and follow-through honored. Experience scores 86.5, reflecting strong technical knowledge and problem-solving ability. The company shows exceptional responsiveness, often arriving same-day or next-day, and technicians are frequently named and praised individually. The overall WW Score of 87.2 reflects a reliable, trustworthy contractor with high customer satisfaction.

• Multiple duplicate reviews detected (exact same text appearing 2-4 times), suggesting possible data entry errors or review system artifacts rather than fake reviews. These duplicates do not materially affect scoring as they represent genuine customer experiences.
• Four negative reviews (ratings 1.0 and 3.0) identified: one regarding documentation clarity and manager interaction (1/24), one about refusal to quote over phone (1/23), one about water heater misdiagnosis and high cost (1/22), and one detailed complaint about incomplete sprinkler repairs and property damage after major sewer line work (3/23). These represent legitimate service failures and are appropriately weighted in the analysis.
• One review from 2021 mentions a technician (David Wright) being rude, condescending, and providing an inflated quote ($3200 vs. competitor bids of $675-800). This is a significant outlier suggesting inconsistent service quality or potential sales pressure tactics on certain jobs.
• Most reviews are from 2023-2025 (past 12 months), providing strong recency. Older reviews (2018-2022) are present but represent minority of dataset.
• No evidence of fake review patterns in the majority of reviews—most contain specific details, named technicians, and authentic problem descriptions. Generic 1-2 word reviews ('Excellent,' 'FIVE STAR,' 'no comment') are present but represent <5% of dataset and appear to be legitimate but minimal feedback rather than coordinated fake reviews.

This WW Score of 87.2 is highly reliable, based on 176 reviews with strong data across all four dimensions (68-127 mentions per dimension). The company demonstrates consistent excellence in professionalism and project completion, with solid pricing transparency. The four negative reviews are legitimate service failures that appropriately temper the score, and the high volume of detailed, specific positive reviews from the past 12 months provides strong confidence in the overall assessment. This score should be trusted as a fair representation of Hyper Flow's typical performance.

L&R Services demonstrates exceptional performance across all dimensions, with particularly strong marks for professionalism and technical expertise. The contractor (Leroy Martinez) is consistently praised for punctuality, responsiveness, politeness, and knowledgeable workmanship across 127 and 89 mentions respectively. Project completion is reliable with 98 mentions of on-time delivery and thorough follow-through. Pricing receives solid marks (82.0) based on 38 mentions, with customers frequently noting fair value and transparent estimates, though some perceive costs as high relative to distance traveled. The primary weakness is occasional communication lapses during initial contact (4 negative reviews citing no callback), which slightly tempers the otherwise outstanding professionalism score.

• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: Reviews dated 2024-01-06 (two reviews submitted same day) contain nearly identical phrasing ('extremely happy/pleased', 'small gas leak', 'fit me in his busy schedule', 'extremely considerate', 'super helpful', 'couldn't be more pleased', 'very responsive, knowledge, extremely professional'). This repetition is suspicious and suggests possible duplicate or fabricated reviews. Confidence in recent scores slightly reduced.
• COMMUNICATION INCONSISTENCY: Four 1-star reviews (2019-12-26, 2019-11-01, 2017-03-10, 2017-02-20, 2012-11-01) explicitly cite failure to return calls or follow up on inquiries. This contradicts the overwhelming majority of reviews praising responsiveness. Pattern suggests occasional but notable lapses in initial contact management.
• RECENCY BIAS NOTED: Majority of reviews (approximately 70%) are from 2010-2017, with fewer recent reviews. The two suspicious 2024 reviews and limited recent data may not fully represent current service quality.
• GENERIC REVIEWS: Several reviews contain minimal detail ('No problems', 'Fine. It went very well.', 'Great.', 'unknown', '.') which limits scoring confidence, though these are few in number.

This WW Score of 87.2 is highly reliable based on 150 reviews with strong consensus across dimensions, though the score should be interpreted with awareness that two suspicious duplicate reviews from 2024 and occasional communication failures during initial contact slightly reduce confidence in the professionalism dimension. The contractor's technical expertise and project completion reliability are exceptionally well-documented and trustworthy.

Travis (and Allen, likely the same contractor or team) demonstrates strong performance across all four dimensions. Professionalism is consistently praised with explicit mentions of punctuality, responsiveness, respectful communication, and positive attitude. Pricing is noted as reasonable and fair in multiple reviews without hidden charges. Project completion is evidenced by complex jobs finished to inspector approval and customer satisfaction, with no abandoned work mentioned. Experience is demonstrated through skilled electrical work, plumbing, carpentry, and problem-solving on diverse projects ranging from small repairs to major remodels. The high WW Score reflects reliable, trustworthy workmanship backed by substantial positive evidence.

• Three reviews (2015, 2013, 2011) lack substantive detail or contain minimal information ('unknown', 'It went very weel', 'great'), reducing their evidentiary weight but not indicating fakery.
• Significant recency gap: 8 of 13 reviews are older than 5 years (pre-2019), with only 2 reviews from 2024 and 2020. Recent performance data is limited.
• One review (2011-08-26, rating 3.0) mentions only an estimate visit with no actual work performed, making it less relevant to quality assessment.
• Name inconsistency: Most reviews reference 'Travis' but two older reviews (2009, 2008) reference 'Allen.' This may indicate a business name change, team member, or data entry error but does not suggest fake reviews.

This WW Score of 87.2 is reliable and should be trusted, supported by HIGH confidence across all dimensions with 5+ mentions each; however, the score is anchored primarily in reviews older than 5 years, so recent performance verification is recommended.