Find Nearby Plumbers In Fort Collins, Colorado

DNI receives strong praise across professionalism, timeliness, and communication from the majority of reviewers, with many specifically calling out named technicians as courteous, knowledgeable, and responsive. Project completion scores well overall, with multiple reviews confirming jobs were finished on time and to satisfaction, including same-day and next-day service. However, pricing is a notable weak point: multiple negative reviews cite hidden charges, unexpected fees, inflated parts markups, and quotes that did not match final invoices — pulling the pricing score down significantly. Experience is generally positive but is tempered by at least two serious negative reviews describing misdiagnosis, abandoned work, and unresolved repairs. The presence of 11 blank reviews (rating only, no text) reduces the usable data pool and slightly inflates the apparent star rating.

• 11 out of 49 reviews contain no text — only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence.
• Several May 2025 reviews referencing 'Dean' use suspiciously vague and enthusiastic language with minimal specifics ('greatest tech I ever seen in my life', 'saved the day', 'fixed up my account fast'). These may be low-quality or potentially inauthentic reviews and were scored conservatively.
• One review appears to be spam or unrelated content ('This is really nice. Thanks for sharing. rmpc.com') and was excluded from scoring.
• Pricing dimension has multiple explicit negative data points: hidden diagnostic fees added after verbal quotes, undisclosed shipping charges, inflated parts markups, and a $75 warehouse shipping fee. This is a recurring pattern across different reviewers and time periods.
• One serious negative review (2024-01-29) describes a prolonged misdiagnosis costing a small business $8,000, rude owner behavior, and threats of legal action — this is a significant outlier that meaningfully impacts experience and professionalism scores.
• One negative review (2018-06-28) describes a misdiagnosis, unreturned calls, no follow-through on parts ordering, and an unresolved repair after nearly $1,000 charged — impacting both project completion and experience scores.
• Several highly positive reviews are older than 5 years (2013, 2017, 2019, 2020) and were given reduced weight in scoring per recency rules. The majority of recent reviews (2025) are positive, but the negative pricing and experience patterns span multiple years.
• Review corpus spans 2013–2025. Recency weighting was applied; reviews from 2025 and late 2024 were given full weight.

This WW Score is based on a reasonably large review set with high mention counts across all four dimensions, giving it HIGH overall confidence, but the score should be interpreted with caution given recurring pricing transparency complaints, at least two serious project failure accounts, and a cluster of vague reviews that may not reflect genuine customer experiences.

Dan Cahill demonstrates strong professionalism across all reviews, with consistent praise for punctuality, courtesy, communication, and friendly demeanor. Project completion is well-documented with multiple examples of detailed work, thorough cleanup, and customer satisfaction. Pricing is described as reasonable and fair across three reviews. Technical skill and workmanship quality are evident in bathroom remodels, plumbing installations, and fixture replacements. However, the review dataset is small (5 reviews) and notably dated, with the most recent review from 2014 and the oldest from 2009, limiting confidence in current performance.

• All reviews are older than 10 years (2009–2014); no recent data available to assess current service quality or whether business practices have changed
• Small sample size (5 reviews) limits statistical reliability; scores should be treated as preliminary
• Reviews show uniformly positive language and all 5-star ratings with no critical feedback; while not necessarily fake, this lack of variance is atypical and should be noted

This WW Score should be treated with caution due to the very small sample size and significant age of all reviews; while the historical data is positive, it does not reflect current performance and should be supplemented with recent customer feedback before making a hiring decision.

Shipp's Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism across all three reviews, with consistent praise for reliability, responsiveness, and courteous communication. Project completion is notably strong, with emergency water heater installation completed efficiently and a sprinkler valve repair handled with follow-through including photo documentation. Pricing appears fair based on limited explicit mention, though one reviewer noted 'reasonable' pricing. Technical skill is evident in quick problem assessment and successful emergency repairs, though experience mentions are fewer than other dimensions.

• Only 3 reviews analyzed — sample size is small and limits statistical confidence
• Two reviews are significantly older (2016–2017), with only one from 2023; recency is limited
• Pricing dimension based on only 1 explicit mention; insufficient data for robust pricing assessment
• All reviews are 4–5 stars with no negative feedback; no critical perspective available to validate claims

This WW Score should be treated as preliminary guidance only. With only 3 reviews and limited recency, the score reflects positive sentiment but lacks the volume and diversity of feedback needed for high confidence. Additional recent reviews are strongly recommended before making a major service decision.

Bella T's Plumbing receives consistently positive feedback across all four scored dimensions, with professionalism being the most frequently and enthusiastically praised attribute — reviewers specifically highlight punctuality, courteous behavior, shoe covers, and strong communication from both Justin and Ashley. Pricing is explicitly called out as fair and affordable in multiple reviews, lending moderate confidence to that dimension. Project completion is supported by references to jobs being finished within the promised timeframe and problems being fully resolved. Workmanship quality is noted positively, particularly around hot water heater installation and water filtration systems, though technical depth in reviews is limited. Overall, the picture is positive but the small review pool and one confirmed duplicate reduce the reliability of the score.

• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The review dated 2024-04-16 and the review dated 2024-04-15 are word-for-word identical. Only one was counted as usable data. This may indicate a system submission error or an attempt to inflate review count.
• SMALL SAMPLE SIZE: Only 5 total reviews were provided (4 usable after deduplication). Scores should be treated with caution as a small number of future negative reviews could significantly alter the profile.
• ALL REVIEWS ARE 5-STAR: While not conclusive on its own, the absence of any critical or mixed feedback across all reviews warrants mild caution. However, most reviews do include specific details which reduces the likelihood of coordinated fake reviews.
• RECENCY NOTE: All reviews fall within the past 12 months (February–October 2024), which is a positive signal — the data reflects current performance.

This WW Score carries MODERATE reliability due to a small and deduplicated review pool of only 4 usable reviews; the positive signals are genuine and specific, but more reviews are needed before this score can be considered a fully confident representation of contractor performance.

Advanced Plumbing Services has a strong overall reputation built on decades of reviews, with the majority of customers praising responsiveness, professionalism, and technical skill. However, a meaningful cluster of negative reviews — spanning multiple years — cite missed appointments, no-shows, defensive callbacks, disrespectful communication, and at least one instance of work failing within days, which meaningfully suppresses scores across all dimensions. Pricing is generally viewed as fair or reasonable by most reviewers, but at least two reviews explicitly flagged costs as high or outrageous, and one 2005 review cited a quote equivalent to over $500/hour for labor. Project completion is solid in the majority of cases but is dragged down by recurring complaints about cancelled appointments, unreturned calls, and at least one instance of a job not being followed through. Experience scores highest among the dimensions, with numerous reviewers citing skilled diagnosis, problem-solving on complex jobs, and quality workmanship that other plumbers could not match.

• FAKE REVIEW CONCERN — HIGH: A cluster of 10+ reviews all dated 2020-06-10 with identical formatting, no specific details, different plumber names (Titus, Christian, Steve), and suspiciously generic one-line praise strongly suggests these are fabricated or imported from a different business listing. These reviews were included in mention counts conservatively but their scores were discounted.
• MULTI-BUSINESS CONCERN: Reviews reference multiple distinct plumber names (John, Steve, Titus, Dwight, DJ, Gabriel, Jason, Sal, Miguel Velasco) and locations (Denton TX, Chino Hills CA, Roanoke TX, Little Elm TX). This strongly suggests reviews from multiple different businesses or franchises have been aggregated under one listing, which severely undermines score reliability.
• BLANK REVIEWS: 8 reviews contained no text at all (only a star rating). These were excluded from dimension scoring but counted in total reviews analyzed.
• PLACEHOLDER TEXT: Several reviews contain only 'unknown', 'NO', or a single period as review text. These were treated as no usable data.
• RECENCY NOTE: The review set spans from 1997 to 2025. Reviews older than 3 years (pre-2022) were given reduced weight. The most recent reviews (2024-2025) are more heavily weighted and show a generally positive but not flawless picture.
• NEGATIVE PATTERN — PROJECT COMPLETION: At least 5 separate reviews across different years describe missed appointments, no-shows, cancelled bookings without notice, or jobs not followed through. This is a recurring and credible pattern, not isolated incidents.
• NEGATIVE PATTERN — PROFESSIONALISM: At least 3 reviews describe rude, defensive, or dismissive communication from staff or the owner, including one review citing a discriminatory comment toward a woman of color.
• 1997 REVIEW: One review dated 1997-06-10 with text 'NO' and a 5-star rating was excluded from all scoring as it contains no usable data and its authenticity cannot be assessed.

This WW Score should be treated with MODERATE-to-LOW trust due to strong evidence that reviews from multiple distinct businesses have been aggregated into a single profile, a suspicious cluster of likely fake reviews dated 2020-06-10, and a review history spanning nearly 30 years across geographically inconsistent locations — consumers should focus exclusively on verified recent reviews from 2023 onward when making a hiring decision.

Clearwater Plumbing demonstrates strong technical expertise and professionalism, with consistently positive feedback on punctuality, courtesy, and skilled workmanship across numerous reviews. However, the company is significantly hampered by serious pricing concerns and notable project completion failures. Multiple reviews document instances of incomplete work, abandoned projects (particularly involving David Lopez), failure to honor callbacks, and pricing disputes where customers felt overcharged or misled. While the majority of recent reviews (2023-2025) are highly positive, older reviews reveal systemic issues with accountability and follow-through that persist despite the company's established reputation since 1951.

• CRITICAL: Multiple reviews (at least 6) document David Lopez taking full payment upfront and abandoning projects entirely, never completing work or refunding customers. This represents a serious fraud/embezzlement pattern within the company.
• PRICING CONCERNS: At least 8 reviews explicitly mention overcharging, excessive labor fees for simple jobs, or pricing that was 2-3x higher than competitors for identical work. Several customers report being charged $120-$350 for work that took 10-45 minutes.
• PROJECT COMPLETION FAILURES: Multiple reviews document incomplete work, failed callbacks, no-shows for scheduled appointments, and refusal to return to fix defective work (particularly 2016-2022 timeframe).
• CUSTOMER SERVICE ISSUES: Several reviews describe rude phone staff, owner rudeness, hanging up on customers, and dismissive attitudes toward complaints. One review documents the owner swearing at a customer.
• INCONSISTENT QUALITY: Wide variance in outcomes—some technicians (Larry, Tyler, Scott, Senad, Erin) receive exceptional praise; others (David Lopez, unnamed referrals) deliver poor results or fraud.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK - MODERATE: Multiple empty reviews with 5-star ratings (at least 6 instances) and several generic praise reviews with minimal detail suggest possible review padding, though the majority of detailed reviews appear authentic.
• RECENCY BIAS: Most negative reviews cluster in 2014-2022 period. Recent reviews (2023-2025) are predominantly 5-star with specific positive details, suggesting either genuine improvement or increased review curation.

This WW Score of 78.2 should be treated with caution: while recent performance appears strong and technical expertise is well-documented, the company has a documented history of serious issues including fraud, incomplete work, and pricing disputes that persist across multiple years and customer accounts. The score reflects current trajectory but does not fully capture the severity of past failures or the risk of recurrence.