Find Nearby Plumbers In Fort Collins, Colorado

A&A Plumbing has a strong base of loyal, long-term customers who consistently praise individual technicians — particularly Rosendo, Dave, Larry, Germaine, and Mike — for technical skill, problem-solving ability, and courteous demeanor, which drives a solid experience score. However, professionalism is meaningfully dragged down by a recurring and well-documented pattern of no-shows, missed appointments, unreturned calls, and poor front-office responsiveness, appearing across multiple independent reviews spanning 2013 through 2024. Pricing is the weakest dimension: while many reviewers found costs fair or reasonable, a significant minority reported feeling overcharged, encountering arbitrary flat-rate billing, or receiving quotes far above market rate — including one reviewer charged $252 for a five-minute p-trap replacement and another quoted $350 for a faucet install versus a $110 market rate. Project completion scores moderately well when technicians do show up, with most jobs completed fully and a one-year warranty honored in several cases, but the no-show and scheduling failure pattern directly undermines this dimension. The overall score reflects a contractor with genuine technical strengths but serious and persistent operational reliability problems that have cost them customers and trust over many years.

• SCHEDULING AND RESPONSIVENESS PATTERN: At least 10 independent reviews across multiple years (2013–2024) explicitly describe no-shows, missed appointments without notification, unreturned voicemails, and difficulty reaching the office. This is a systemic operational issue, not isolated incidents.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS: Multiple reviews (2016–2021) describe pricing that felt arbitrary, disproportionate to work performed, or significantly above market rate. One reviewer was charged $252 for a p-trap replacement taking under 5 minutes; another was quoted $350 for a faucet install vs. a $110 market rate; a third paid $377 total for a drain unclog and p-trap. One reviewer alleged pricing changed mid-job and felt threatened when questioning the bill.
• BLANK REVIEWS: 7 reviews contained no text whatsoever (only a star rating). These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence per scoring rules.
• GENERIC SHORT REVIEWS: Several reviews contain only 1–2 sentences with no specifics (e.g., 'Fast and reliable.', 'Very professional and polite.', 'no problems', 'unknown'). These were counted only where they clearly supported a dimension but weighted conservatively.
• POSSIBLE DUPLICATE REVIEW: The review text 'Great company and knowledgeable staff! On time, very efficient and explained every step of the process in full detail. The charges were very fair and reasonable as well. Highly recommend' appears verbatim twice (2021-07-01 and 2022-06-10) from what appear to be different submissions. This may indicate a copied or fake review and was counted only once for scoring purposes.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews are older than 12 months, with the bulk of content spanning 2010–2022. Only a handful of reviews are from the past 12 months (mid-2023 to mid-2024). The most recent negative review (2024-06-09) specifically states the contractor 'lost his touch' over the past year, suggesting possible quality decline. Recent data is limited and should be treated with caution.
• ONE REVIEW (2016-04-24) APPEARS TO DESCRIBE A DIFFERENT CONTRACTOR: The review references 'Carlos' as a 'lone proprietor' operating in the Baltimore/Baltimore County area, which is geographically inconsistent with A&A Plumbing in Sunnyvale, CA. This review may have been posted to the wrong business listing and was excluded from scoring.
• IDENTITY INCONSISTENCY: Reviews reference multiple owner names including 'Mike Fox,' 'Mike Gogos,' and 'Carlos,' and reference locations including Sunnyvale CA, Palo Alto CA, Medford MA, Somerville MA, and Baltimore MD. This suggests the review pool may aggregate listings from more than one business operating under similar names, which reduces the reliability of the aggregate score.

This WW Score carries HIGH volume confidence due to the large number of reviews, but its reliability is moderately reduced by evidence of possible cross-business review aggregation, at least one confirmed duplicate review, seven blank reviews, geographic inconsistencies across listings, and a persistent multi-year pattern of scheduling failures that suggests the score may overstate operational dependability.

Rapid Rooter has a large and broadly positive review base, with many customers praising individual technicians by name for being prompt, courteous, knowledgeable, and professional. However, a meaningful minority of reviews — roughly 20–25% — describe serious failures including no-shows, abandoned or incomplete work (unfinished concrete left for months), technicians being rude or aggressive, billing for work not performed, and at least one instance of a motor being installed incorrectly. Pricing is generally viewed as fair and transparent by most reviewers, but several customers describe being overcharged, billed for mileage unexpectedly, or charged for incomplete service. Project completion is the most concerning dimension, with multiple credible accounts of jobs left unfinished, return visits not honored, and work that failed shortly after completion. The overall picture is of a company with capable technicians and a solid track record on routine drain jobs, but inconsistent quality control and customer service that varies significantly by technician and location.

• Multiple reviews dated exactly 2024-06-09 with no specific detail (e.g., 'Amazing company very professional', 'Always goes the extra mile to help', blank text reviews with 5-star ratings) — these show hallmarks of potentially padded or low-effort reviews and were given reduced evidentiary weight.
• Three blank/empty review texts with 4–5 star ratings were excluded from substantive scoring as they provide no usable data.
• One review ('Loved their food and the family arcade') appears to be a mistaken review for a different business entirely and was disregarded.
• Two nearly identical reviews from 2022-11-28 describing the same abandoned concrete job appear to be duplicate submissions by the same customer — counted as one incident.
• Several reviews are more than 5 years old (pre-2020); while included for pattern context, they were given reduced weight relative to reviews from 2023–2025.
• A pattern of rude or dismissive office/dispatch staff is noted across multiple independent reviews spanning several years, suggesting a systemic customer service issue rather than isolated incidents.
• At least one review describes a technician refusing to complete work, one describes a snake left in a drain causing $2,000+ in damage with no accountability, and one describes an incorrectly installed motor — these are serious workmanship and liability concerns.

This WW Score is based on a large volume of reviews spanning over a decade and carries HIGH statistical confidence, but the score should be interpreted cautiously given the consistent minority of serious negative experiences involving incomplete work, unprofessional conduct, and billing disputes that suggest meaningful quality inconsistency.

Rex's Plumbing and Heating shows a strongly split profile: the majority of recent reviews (2024–2025) are overwhelmingly positive, praising named technicians like Terra, Tyler, Kevin, and Jose for punctuality, professionalism, and technical skill. However, a meaningful cluster of older negative reviews (2008–2022) raises serious concerns about overcharging, billing disputes, failure to follow through on estimates and callbacks, and in two detailed cases, alleged misconduct by Rex himself including trespassing, gender-based discrimination, and installing undersized pipe against manufacturer specifications. Pricing is the weakest dimension, with multiple independent reviewers across different years citing inflated labor charges, tripled part markups, and estimates that ballooned significantly. Project completion is moderately strong in recent reviews but undermined by older accounts of abandoned jobs, failed repairs, and no-shows. The overall score reflects a business that appears to have improved operationally in recent years but carries a documented history of serious service failures.

• 9 reviews contain no text at all — only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence.
• Several recent 5-star reviews are very brief and generic (e.g., 'Great fast service!!!', 'Terra is great!', 'She was absolutely amazing') with no specific details. While not conclusive, this pattern warrants mild fake review caution for a subset of 2025 reviews.
• Two reviews dated 2021-08-18 and 2021-08-31 appear to describe the same incident from two perspectives (husband and wife) using nearly identical language. These were counted as one unique incident for scoring purposes to avoid double-weighting.
• Multiple reviews from 2008–2022 describe Rex personally behaving in an unprofessional, aggressive, or dishonest manner. These are distinct from reviews of other technicians and suggest owner-level conduct issues that may not reflect current operations.
• Pricing complaints span from 2008 to 2024, suggesting a persistent pattern rather than isolated incidents. At least 6 independent reviewers cited overcharging, inflated parts costs, or bills far exceeding estimates.
• Two separate reviews (2024 and 2022) describe Rex or the company failing to follow up on estimates or return calls — a recurring responsiveness failure noted across multiple years.
• One review (2017) describes a failed water heater installation requiring a second company to fix, with Rex's refusing to negotiate the bill — a serious project completion and ethics flag.
• One review (2020) describes a misdiagnosis where the plumber replaced the wrong component and charged $249, with the actual leak reappearing within 2 hours — flagged as a workmanship and honesty concern.
• One review (2020) alleges a technician recommended an unnecessary $3,200 water heater replacement when a $10 part was the actual fix — flagged as a potential upselling/dishonesty pattern.
• Recency note: The majority of positive reviews are from 2024–2025 and may reflect improved staffing or operations. Negative reviews are concentrated in 2008–2022. Scores were weighted toward recent data but older negatives were not discarded as they reflect documented patterns.

This WW Score is based on a large and diverse review set spanning 15+ years, giving it HIGH statistical confidence, but the score should be interpreted cautiously given the significant gap between recent positive reviews and a well-documented history of serious complaints about pricing, follow-through, and owner conduct — prospective customers should specifically request named technicians with strong recent track records and obtain written estimates.

Advanced Sewer and Drain has a strong historical reputation built on a large volume of positive reviews praising responsiveness, honesty, fair pricing, and technical skill — particularly from the father-son team of Rich and Tyler. However, a meaningful cluster of negative reviews raises serious concerns: multiple reviewers describe incomplete work, abandoned jobs, poor communication, and at least one review alleges the technician arrived intoxicated and left a customer without water. A 2024 review also claims the business may no longer be operating under its original ownership, which introduces significant uncertainty about current service quality. Pricing is generally praised as fair and transparent, but one review alleges an attempt to overcharge a woman by recommending unnecessary excavation. The score is moderated substantially by these negative patterns, particularly around project completion and professionalism, which are the two highest-weighted dimensions.

• OWNERSHIP/CONTINUITY CONCERN: A June 2024 review states 'Advanced is no longer in business' and that callers are redirected to an unknown company with no reviews. This is a critical flag that the entity being reviewed may have changed hands or ceased operations.
• SERIOUS MISCONDUCT ALLEGATION: A 2023 review alleges the owner arrived visibly intoxicated, failed to install fixtures, shrugged and left, abandoning a customer without running water — including a recently hospitalized child in the home. This is an extreme professionalism and project completion failure.
• INCOMPLETE WORK PATTERN: Multiple negative reviews (2023, 2023, 2014) describe jobs left incomplete, sewage not cleaned up, drain ports not replaced properly, and sprinkler systems destroyed without disclosure — indicating a recurring project completion problem.
• NO-SHOW / SCHEDULING FAILURES: At least two reviews (2014, 2019) describe missed appointments, no-shows, or extreme lateness with poor communication, suggesting systemic scheduling and follow-through issues.
• POTENTIAL OVERCHARGING ALLEGATION: One review alleges an attempt to charge $2,500 to clear a main line by digging up a yard, when another company resolved it for $95. A separate review describes a $1,000-to-$1,200 price change with rude behavior when questioned.
• RECENCY CONCERN: The majority of positive reviews are dated 2018–2020 with a cluster of undated reviews all stamped '2020-06-10', suggesting a possible bulk review submission on that date. Reviews from 2022 onward are fewer and include a higher proportion of negative experiences.
• GENERIC REVIEW FLAGS: Several reviews ('Did a great job!!!', 'Saved our bacon!', blank rating with no text, 'Great service_timely and efficient!') contain no specific detail and may inflate the positive review count without adding meaningful evidence.
• TWO BLANK/EMPTY REVIEWS: Two reviews contain no text content (one 5-star, one 1-star) and were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large review volume, but the score itself should be treated with caution given credible allegations of serious misconduct, a possible change in business ownership or operations as of 2024, and a pattern of project completion failures in more recent reviews that suggest meaningful service deterioration from the company's earlier reputation.

Ace Hi Plumbing shows a genuinely split profile: a strong core of loyal, long-term customers who praise the technical skill of field technicians like Rick, Mark, Adam, Zach, and Nick, and a recurring pattern of serious complaints directed specifically at owner-level communication and billing practices. Professionalism scores are dragged down significantly by multiple independent reviews citing rude, condescending, or threatening behavior from the owners (Rick and Shawn), including billing disputes, profanity incidents, and failure to follow through on commitments. Project completion is generally solid for routine and emergency work, but several reviews document unfinished jobs, unauthorized work, and a failure to honor prior agreements. Pricing transparency is a notable weakness, with multiple reviewers citing charges higher than quoted, unexplained billing, and a refusal to itemize invoices. Experience and workmanship scores are the strongest dimension, with many reviewers specifically praising the technical competence of individual technicians across plumbing and HVAC.

• Four reviews contain no text and only a star rating (3 five-star, 1 one-star) — these were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data.
• One review (Rating: 1.0, 2024-06-09) contains only the text 'Ok so are you saying that I'm lying???' with no context — excluded from dimension scoring but noted as a possible response to a disputed review or owner reply misposted.
• Multiple reviews spanning 2014–2025 cite the same individuals (Rick and Shawn) for rude, dismissive, or threatening behavior — this is a consistent and credible pattern, not isolated incidents, and materially lowers the professionalism score.
• Billing complaints appear across at least 5 independent reviews: charges exceeding quotes, refusal to itemize, unauthorized work performed without consent, and threats of liens — this pattern is significant and lowers the pricing score.
• One review (2020-05-18) describes an incomplete repair on a sprinkler system with no resolution despite multiple follow-up attempts, and another (2019-09-05) describes a drain still overflowing after payment with no guarantee honored — these are credible project completion failures.
• One review (2020-08-09) describes a serious HVAC installation failure including a broken gas regulator and subsequent mold growth — this is a significant safety and workmanship concern specific to the HVAC side of the business.
• The majority of highly positive reviews are from repeat or long-term customers, which may reflect survivorship bias — customers who had bad experiences often do not return, so the loyal base may not represent the full customer population.
• Review dates span 2014 to 2025. Reviews from 2014–2019 include a higher proportion of negative experiences. More recent reviews (2022–2025) skew more positive, suggesting possible improvement over time, though owner-conduct complaints persist into 2021–2022.
• No fake review patterns detected — reviews are specific, name individual technicians, describe distinct job types, and include both praise and criticism with plausible detail.

This WW Score is based on 61 reviews with usable data spanning over a decade and carries HIGH overall confidence due to volume, but users should note that the score reflects a genuinely divided customer experience — technically skilled field work offset by documented and recurring owner-level communication, billing, and professionalism failures that have persisted across multiple years.

Rams Plumbing has a strong base of positive reviews praising responsiveness, punctuality, and technical competence — particularly through home warranty assignments — and many customers report completed jobs done quickly and correctly. However, pricing is a meaningful weak point: multiple independent reviewers across different years explicitly describe feeling overcharged, a reneged cash discount, and billing disputes that went unresolved for weeks, pulling the pricing dimension down significantly. Project completion is generally solid but is tempered by one notable negative review describing a plumber who identified a problem but declined to fix it, leaving the customer to resolve it themselves. Two reviews flagged the business as non-existent or a scam, though one detailed positive review from 2024 directly contradicts this and describes a real service interaction. The WW Score of 72.1 reflects a contractor with genuine skill and good service delivery in most cases, but with a recurring and credible pattern of pricing concerns that prospective customers should weigh carefully.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: Two pairs of nearly identical reviews exist — the 'DO NOT USE' billing complaint appears verbatim on 2020-06-10 and 2019-10-14, and the 'BUYER BEWARE' overcharge complaint appears nearly verbatim on 2019-06-11 and 2018-10-11. These may be the same reviewer posting twice or a copy-paste error; they were counted once each for scoring to avoid double-weighting.
• LEGITIMACY FLAGS: Two reviews (both dated 2024-06-09, both 1-star) claim the business does not exist and is a scam. However, a detailed 5-star review from 2024-10-12 describes a real, specific service interaction with the owner by name, suggesting the business is operational. The scam claims may reflect a competitor attack or confusion, but cannot be fully dismissed.
• BLANK REVIEWS: 8 reviews contained no text — only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence per scoring rules.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of substantive reviews are from 2020–2023, with only one detailed review from the past 12 months (October 2024). Several reviews date back to 2012–2017 and were given reduced weight.
• PRICING PATTERN — CREDIBLE CONCERN: At least 4 distinct reviewers (excluding duplicates) independently raised pricing concerns across multiple years (2017, 2018, 2022 x2). This is a consistent, multi-year pattern and not an isolated complaint. The pricing score of 42 reflects this seriously.
• POSSIBLE FAKE POSITIVE REVIEWS: A cluster of 5-star reviews dated exactly 2023-06-10 and 2021-06-10 share generic, brief praise with no specific job details. While not conclusive, this pattern warrants mild caution and slightly reduced confidence in the upper end of positive scores.

This WW Score is based on 40 reviews with usable content spanning 2012–2024 and carries HIGH overall confidence in its directional accuracy, though prospective customers should treat the pricing dimension with particular seriousness given its consistent, multi-year negative signal.