Find Nearby Plumbers In Fort Collins, Colorado

Star Plumbing demonstrates strong overall performance with a WW Score of 82.3, driven by consistently high marks in pricing (85.5) and experience (87.0). The company excels at fair pricing, transparent quotes, and skilled workmanship across water heater replacements and complex repairs. Professionalism (81.0) and project completion (79.0) are solid but slightly lower, reflecting occasional issues with communication delays, scheduling inconsistencies, and isolated incidents of rudeness. The vast majority of reviews (54 of 60) are 5-star ratings praising responsiveness, honesty, and quality work, though three 1-star reviews document serious failures in follow-up communication and professional conduct.

• CRITICAL: Two severe negative reviews (Jake and unnamed plumber) describe unprofessional behavior—property damage without disclosure, rudeness to customers, and failure to respond to follow-up communications. These are not isolated complaints but documented service failures.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most reviews are 3+ years old (2014–2018). Only 8 reviews are from 2023–2024, limiting confidence in current service quality. The two most recent 1-star reviews (Sept 2024 and Feb 2020) suggest ongoing issues despite historical positive reputation.
• INCONSISTENCY ALERT: Multiple reviews mention different plumber names (Mark, John/Jon, Jason, Bruce, Chris, Mike, Scott) with varying quality experiences. One 2015 review documents five cancellations and rescheduling failures over 3+ months for a single job, indicating systemic scheduling problems.
• COMMUNICATION FAILURES: Three reviews explicitly cite lack of follow-up on estimates and quotes (Feb 2020, Mar 2015), suggesting a pattern of poor administrative responsiveness despite strong field performance.
• PATTERN ANALYSIS: Positive reviews are detailed and specific (mentioning names, job types, pricing comparisons); negative reviews are equally detailed and credible. This is NOT a fake review pattern—both praise and criticism are substantive.

This WW Score of 82.3 is reliable for historical performance but should be treated with caution for current service expectations. The HIGH confidence is supported by 60 reviews with consistent mention counts across all dimensions; however, the age of most reviews (pre-2020) and recent 1-star complaints suggest the company may be experiencing quality or management changes. Customers should verify current responsiveness and professionalism before booking, particularly for non-emergency work requiring follow-up communication.

S&S Plumbing demonstrates strong overall performance with particular strengths in professionalism (86.0) and technical experience (88.0), supported by extensive positive feedback on responsiveness, punctuality, and workmanship quality. Project completion scores solidly at 84.0, with most reviews confirming timely service delivery and follow-through. Pricing emerges as the weakest dimension (74.0), with multiple explicit complaints about overcharging and inflated quotes alongside numerous positive comments about fair pricing, creating significant internal contradiction. The WW Score of 82.3 reflects reliable service delivery tempered by pricing concerns that warrant caution.

• PRICING CONTRADICTION: 16 mentions of pricing show stark polarization—many reviews praise 'reasonable' and 'fair' pricing, but three detailed negative reviews (2022-12-22, 2022-04-21, 2018-09-11) explicitly cite overcharging, inflated quotes ($6,000 vs $1,300 competitor), and billing disputes. This internal conflict reduces confidence in pricing dimension.
• EMPTY REVIEWS: 9 reviews contain no text (only 5-star ratings on dates 2025-05-19, 2025-05-10 x2, 2025-03-11, 2025-02-09 x4, 2024-08-13 x2, 2024-06-09 x2). These provide no evidence and were excluded from scoring.
• RECENCY BIAS: 38 of 55 usable reviews (69%) are from 2024-2025, with a cluster of 11 reviews on 2025-05-10 and 2025-06-03-07. Older reviews (2015-2019) are sparse. Recent data dominates the score.
• NEGATIVE REVIEW PATTERN: The three 1-star and one 2-star reviews (2022-12-22, 2022-04-21, 2018-09-11, 2018-04-05) are older (2018-2022) and detail serious issues: billing disputes, collections action, cabinet damage, faucet failure causing building damage, and overcharging. These are not generic complaints and suggest historical service quality issues, though recent reviews show improvement.
• POTENTIAL REVIEW CLUSTERING: Multiple reviews on identical dates (especially 2025-05-10, 2025-06-09, 2024-06-09) with similar generic praise ('great job', 'awesome', 'highly recommend') without specific detail could indicate coordinated posting, though content varies enough to avoid full fake review classification.

This WW Score of 82.3 is moderately reliable for recent service expectations (2024-2025 data is robust with HIGH confidence), but the pricing dimension carries significant uncertainty due to contradictory evidence, and historical billing/quality issues (2018-2022) suggest past problems that may or may not persist. Recommend treating the score as trustworthy for current professionalism and completion, but obtain detailed written quotes before engaging to mitigate pricing risk.

Evan's Plumbing demonstrates strong overall performance across all measured dimensions. Professionalism is consistently praised with 18 mentions highlighting punctuality, courtesy, responsiveness, and communication skills, though two negative reviews (1-star ratings from 2022 and 2016) document instances of rudeness and unprofessional phone conduct that temper the score. Project completion is well-documented across 16 mentions showing efficient work, follow-through on callbacks, and completion of quoted work, sometimes under budget. Technical experience is evident in 14 mentions describing skilled workmanship, problem-solving ability, and knowledge across complex plumbing systems. Pricing receives 8 mentions with customers consistently reporting fair value, transparent quotes, and work completed at or below estimates. The WW Score of 82.3 reflects a reliable, experienced contractor with strong execution, though occasional customer service lapses prevent a higher rating.

• Six reviews contain only 'unknown' or minimal text ('..', '.') with 5-star ratings from 2014-2017, suggesting possible fake or placeholder reviews. These were excluded from scoring but inflate apparent review volume.
• Two 1-star reviews (2022 and 2016) document serious professionalism issues: rude phone conduct, hanging up on customers, and unsafe driving. These are credible negative data points that significantly impact professionalism scoring.
• Review recency is heavily skewed toward older data: 23 of 31 usable reviews are from 2016 or earlier (74%). Only 4 reviews are from 2023-2024. Recent performance may differ from historical pattern.
• One 2-star review (2013) mentions lack of quote follow-up, indicating occasional communication failures.
• Multiple reviews mention the same individual 'Evan' by name, suggesting this is a small operation or sole proprietor, which may affect consistency and availability.

This score should be treated with MODERATE-TO-HIGH confidence for historical performance, but CAUTION is warranted regarding current service quality given that 74% of usable reviews predate 2017 and recent reviews (2023-2024) show mixed signals including both exceptional praise and documented rudeness. The score reflects strong technical capability and typical execution but is tempered by documented customer service failures and significant data age.

Bears Family PHC demonstrates strong professionalism with consistently praised communication, punctuality, friendliness, and cleanliness across 21 reviews. Project completion is solid with most jobs finished on time and callbacks honored, though a few diagnostic errors and delayed refunds were noted. Technical expertise is evident in problem-solving and workmanship quality. However, pricing emerges as a significant weakness, with 11 reviews citing high costs, overestimation, and concerns about value—this is the primary detractor from an otherwise strong score. Most reviews are from 2015–2018, with limited recent data.

• PRICING CONCERN: Multiple reviews (2018-07-09, 2018-08-03, 2020-04-07, 2018-07-09) explicitly criticize pricing as high, overestimated, or unfair. This is a consistent pattern and the primary weakness.
• RECENCY: 23 of 26 reviews are from 2015–2019 (older than 5 years). Only 3 reviews are from 2020–2022. Limited recent data reduces confidence in current service quality.
• DIAGNOSTIC ERROR: Review from 2016-05-02 describes a significant misdiagnosis ($8,000 estimate vs. actual $1,000 problem) and unresolved refund after several months. This is a serious service failure.
• MIXED SIGNALS ON FOLLOW-UP: One review (2019-10-25) notes appreciation for apology call but disappointment in service. Another (2016-05-02) reports unresolved refund months later. Follow-through inconsistency detected.
• POSITIVE BIAS RISK: 19 of 26 reviews are 5-star ratings. While many include specific details (names, procedures, timelines), the high proportion of perfect ratings with limited recent reviews suggests possible selection bias in review pool.

This score is moderately reliable for assessing professionalism and project completion (HIGH confidence based on 18–21 mentions), but pricing assessment carries only MODERATE confidence and should be weighted heavily as a known weakness. The lack of recent reviews (only 3 from past 4 years) means current service quality cannot be confidently assessed; scores reflect historical performance from 2015–2019 primarily.

ACE Plumbing, Heating and Air draws an overwhelmingly positive picture across a large review base, with the vast majority of customers praising specific technicians by name — particularly Aaron, Chappy, Gerry, Ryan, Manuel, Everett, Martin, Josh, and others — for being professional, knowledgeable, courteous, and responsive. Project completion scores are strong, with most reviewers confirming jobs were finished same-day or next-day, often under emergency conditions. Experience scores are elevated by repeated praise for diagnostic accuracy, technical depth, and creative problem-solving (e.g., Chappy saving a customer $8,000 by avoiding an unnecessary mini-split installation, Martin keeping a 34-year-old HVAC unit running). Pricing scores are pulled down meaningfully by a cluster of credible negative reviews citing hidden fees (credit card surcharges, travel time charges, truck fees), overcharging for simple jobs, and one reviewer being quoted $1,200 for a job another plumber did for $200. Professionalism is also modestly penalized by a recurring pattern of negative reviews citing rude staff, no-shows, failure to honor warranties, and at least one technician (Mike/Mohammad) accused of fraud and non-refund — these are serious flags that prevent a higher score despite the dominant positive signal.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: Two pairs of reviews are near-identical in wording and posted on consecutive dates (June 6-8 and June 5-7, 2025). The Aaron review and the Martin/Aaron AC review each appear twice with different dates. This is a strong indicator of review manipulation or padding and reduces confidence in the most recent review cluster.
• FAKE REVIEW CONCERN: A review posted by the company owner (Max Greenberg) praising his own technician Chappy is included in the dataset. While disclosed, this is a self-review and should carry zero weight in scoring. It has been excluded from scoring calculations.
• HIDDEN FEES / PRICING TRANSPARENCY: Multiple credible negative reviews cite undisclosed fees including a 5% credit card surcharge, a $30 travel time charge, and a $10 truck fee not disclosed at booking. One reviewer was charged $470 to auger three drains with no upfront pricing disclosure. These are material pricing integrity concerns.
• SERIOUS MISCONDUCT ALLEGATION: One review (Feb 2024) names a specific technician 'Mike (Mohammad Alzawahreh)' and alleges payment was taken via Venmo for unresolved work, refund requests were ignored, and calls were evaded. This is a fraud allegation and significantly impacts the professionalism score.
• WARRANTY VIOLATIONS: Multiple reviews across different time periods allege that ACE failed to honor stated warranties — including a lifetime water heater guarantee, a 30-day drain warranty dispute, and a callback that was never honored after a no-show emergency call.
• NO-SHOW / ABANDONMENT INCIDENTS: At least three reviews describe technicians or the company failing to show up for scheduled appointments without notice, including one emergency no-call no-show and one technician who broke drywall and left without completing the job.
• RUDE STAFF PATTERN: Multiple reviews spanning 2018–2024 describe rude, dismissive, or hostile interactions with staff — including hang-ups, refusal to let customers speak, and disrespectful treatment of elderly customers. This is a recurring pattern, not isolated incidents.
• RECENCY NOTE: The review dataset spans from 2011 to June 2025. Reviews from 2011–2018 involve different technicians and possibly different ownership/locations. The most recent 12 months (mid-2024 to mid-2025) are heavily positive and dominate the dataset, but the negative reviews from this period (hidden fees, rude manager Scott, no-show) are credible and have been weighted accordingly.
• MULTI-LOCATION AMBIGUITY: Reviews reference multiple geographic areas including Sacramento CA, Bullhead City AZ, Toledo OH, Baltimore MD, Diamond Bar CA, Evansville IN, and others. It is likely that this dataset aggregates reviews for multiple unrelated businesses operating under the 'Ace Plumbing' name. Scores should be interpreted with caution as they may not reflect a single contractor's performance.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large review volume, but its reliability as a single-contractor assessment is MODERATE at best, given strong evidence that reviews from multiple geographically distinct and likely unrelated 'Ace Plumbing' businesses have been aggregated together — consumers should verify they are reading reviews specific to their local ACE Plumbing branch before making a hiring decision.

Golden Rule Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism with consistent punctuality, courteous staff, and responsive communication across 42 mentions. Pricing is competitive and fair, with 28 reviews explicitly praising value and reasonable rates. However, project completion shows the most concern: while many jobs are completed successfully, there are 4 significant negative reviews (2022, 2021, 2017, 2015) documenting incomplete work, warranty disputes, no-shows, and follow-up failures that materially impact this dimension. Experience and technical skill are well-regarded across 26 mentions, with plumbers praised for knowledge and problem-solving. The company's 10+ year track record is strong, but recent years (2024-2025) show predominantly positive reviews while older negative reviews (2013-2022) suggest historical service inconsistencies.

• CRITICAL: Four detailed negative reviews document serious project completion failures: (1) 2022 unclogging job left incomplete after 9 hours, owner refused warranty service and demanded additional $150 fee; (2) 2021 drain unclogging failed twice within weeks, missed appointment, cancelled without follow-up; (3) 2017 unnecessary upselling and high estimates, failed to resolve noise issue; (4) 2015 multiple no-shows with unprofessional owner response. These are not generic complaints but specific documented failures.
• PATTERN ALERT: Multiple reviews from 2013-2015 mention communication failures (3 instances of promised callbacks never received, 1 instance of no-shows). This suggests historical operational issues, though recent reviews (2024-2025) show improvement.
• RECENCY BIAS NOTED: 58 of 92 reviews are from 2024-2025 (63%), creating potential skew toward recent positive sentiment. Older reviews (2010-2017) contain more critical detail and documented failures.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK - MODERATE: 10 reviews contain only generic praise with no specifics ('Great Service', 'Great job', empty text fields with 5-star ratings). However, majority of reviews (72) contain specific details, names, and concrete examples, reducing overall fake review concern.
• INCOMPLETE DATA: 10 reviews have empty or minimal text ('unknown', '.', blank fields) but are rated 5-star. These reduce data quality but do not constitute clear fake patterns.
• PRICING INCONSISTENCY: One 2012 review notes $60 service fee felt expensive despite quality work; one 2017 review rejected estimate as 'very high'; one 2011 review chose Golden Rule for 'low estimate' over competitors. Suggests pricing may vary significantly by job type or estimator.

This WW Score of 82.1 is reliable with HIGH overall confidence due to 82 usable reviews with specific data across all four dimensions. However, the score masks a material risk: project completion (76.5) is significantly lower than other dimensions due to documented failures in work follow-through and warranty disputes. The company demonstrates strong professionalism and pricing, but customers should be aware of historical completion issues (2013-2022) and request clear written guarantees before engaging. Recent reviews (2024-2025) suggest improvement, but the pattern of incomplete work and communication failures warrants caution on complex or multi-phase projects.