Find Nearby Plumbers In Grand Junction, Colorado

Altitude receives consistently strong praise across all five reviews for professionalism, with multiple reviewers explicitly noting friendliness, courtesy, and responsiveness — including same-day or next-day availability in urgent situations. Project completion is well-supported, with all five reviews describing jobs that were seen through to resolution in a timely manner. Experience is evidenced by four reviews referencing competent diagnosis and repair across diverse systems including water heaters, AC, and an uncommon swamp cooler. Pricing is mentioned positively in only two reviews, so while the signal is good, confidence in that dimension remains limited.

• All 5 reviews are 5-star ratings with no negative feedback whatsoever — this warrants mild caution, though the reviews do contain specific details (named technician 'Paul', specific equipment types, specific timeframes) that reduce the likelihood of fabrication.
• All reviews are dated between 2017 and 2018 — none are within the past 12 months. This score may not reflect current service quality and should be treated with caution for recency.
• Sample size is very small (5 reviews). While the WW Score can be calculated, it carries limited statistical reliability.

This score is based on only 5 reviews, all more than 5 years old, which significantly limits its reliability as a current indicator of contractor performance — treat with caution until more recent reviews are available.

This contractor demonstrates strong professionalism across all three reviews, with consistent praise for friendly, honest, and knowledgeable service. Project completion is reliable, with jobs finished on time and follow-through honored (scheduling callbacks, free haul-away). Pricing is described as fair and competitive relative to quality delivered. Technical expertise is evident in HVAC and plumbing work, though the sample size is small and reviews span 5+ years, limiting confidence in current performance consistency.

• Only 3 reviews analyzed; score reliability is limited by small sample size
• Reviews are dated 2017–2022, with two reviews older than 5 years; recency is a concern for assessing current service standards
• No negative reviews present; absence of critical feedback may indicate selection bias or limited review volume rather than perfect service

This WW Score should be treated as indicative rather than definitive due to the small number of reviews and age of most data; additional recent reviews would significantly strengthen confidence in this assessment.

Professionalism is the most frequently praised dimension across this large review set, with dozens of customers explicitly citing courteous, punctual, and communicative technicians by name (Willie, Parker, Rafael, Kevin, Michael, Humberto, Jim, Russ, and others). Project completion scores well overall — the majority of reviewers confirm jobs were finished same-day or within the scheduled visit — but is tempered by one credible complaint of a job declared fixed that was not, a BBB complaint filed, and one no-show/no-call incident. Experience is consistently praised, with many reviewers noting skilled diagnosis, problem-solving in difficult conditions, and quality workmanship. Pricing is the weakest dimension: while many reviewers call pricing reasonable or affordable, there are multiple credible negative reviews citing charges of $500–$800 for relatively minor repairs, lack of price transparency, and billing for time not worked — these are specific, detailed complaints that meaningfully drag the pricing score down.

• FAKE REVIEW CONCERN: A significant number of reviews (approximately 35+) contain no text at all — only a 5-star rating labeled 'unknown' or blank. These provide zero usable data and inflate the raw star average without contributing evidence. They were excluded from scoring.
• FAKE REVIEW CONCERN: Several reviews are extremely brief and generic (e.g., 'Very trustworthy and reliable.', 'Very professional and curtious', 'Great service & very professional manner.') with no specifics. While not conclusive, the volume of such reviews warrants caution.
• MULTI-ENTITY CONCERN: Reviews appear to reference multiple distinct businesses operating under similar names — 'Preferred Plumbing', 'My Plumber / MyPlumber Inc.', and possibly others. Technician names span a very wide range (Willie, Parker, Rafael Sr/Jr, Kevin, Humberto, Ryan, Dennis, Tom, Michael, Jim, Russ, Don, Barry, Freddie, Collin, Chaz, Fred Garcia, etc.), suggesting this may be an aggregated profile across multiple companies or franchises. Scores should be interpreted with this caveat in mind.
• SERIOUS NEGATIVE FLAG: One 1-star review (Oct 2024) contains an extremely serious allegation — sexual harassment, refusal to leave the premises, attempted theft, and property damage. This review is highly specific in detail and geography. If credible, it represents a significant safety concern. It was factored into professionalism and project completion scoring.
• NEGATIVE FLAG: One 1-star review (Jul 2023) alleges the company lied about completing a repair, took payment, refused to refund, and did not respond to a BBB complaint. This is a credible, specific complaint that directly impacts project completion scoring.
• NEGATIVE FLAG: Multiple pricing complaints are specific and credible — $500 charged for a running toilet with alleged time inflation (Oct 2024), $800 for a faucet/valve repair with no price breakdown (Sep 2021), $175 for aerator cleaning plus $49 service call for an unresolved issue (May 2023), and a former employee review alleging the company does 'shitty work' and takes shortcuts (Mar 2019). These are not vague complaints and were weighted accordingly.
• NEGATIVE FLAG: One 1-star review (Aug 2015) describes a no-show with no proactive communication — the customer had to call to get an update and was still stood up. This negatively impacts professionalism scoring.
• RECENCY NOTE: A substantial portion of reviews (roughly 60+) are older than 5 years, with some dating back to 2003–2012. More recent reviews (2024–2025) are given higher weight. The most recent negative reviews (2023–2024) are particularly significant as they reflect current business practices.
• RECENCY NOTE: Reviews with no date were treated as lower weight due to inability to assess recency.

This WW Score is based on a large volume of reviews (155 total, ~120 with usable text) spanning over 20 years, providing HIGH statistical confidence in the directional scores, but reliability is meaningfully reduced by: the likely aggregation of multiple distinct business entities under one profile, a non-trivial cluster of credible negative reviews on pricing and project completion, a serious unverified harassment allegation, and a large number of blank or content-free 5-star submissions that suggest possible review padding.

Robert's Plumbing earns strong marks across all four dimensions, with professionalism being the most frequently cited positive trait — punctuality, responsiveness, and courteous communication appear in the large majority of reviews. Pricing is generally regarded as fair and transparent, with multiple reviewers explicitly noting competitive flat-rate quotes and no surprise charges, though one detailed negative review raises concerns about billing for travel time and disputed charges. Project completion is the most nuanced dimension: the overwhelming majority of jobs were finished satisfactorily, but a handful of reviews describe incomplete work, misleading scope estimates (notably the sump pump incident), and one account of a technician leaving without performing a required safety test on gas lines. Experience scores well overall, with reviewers frequently praising technical knowledge, problem-solving ability, and willingness to educate customers, though the serious safety-related complaint from 2018 and the theft/damage allegation from 2023 temper confidence in this area. The score reflects a contractor with a genuinely strong track record over many years, modestly penalized for a consistent minority of negative experiences that are too specific and detailed to dismiss.

• SERIOUS SAFETY CONCERN (2018): One reviewer explicitly states that a technician left without performing a required gas line test after the inspector departed, failed to disclose a potentially lethal boiler venting condition, and left with a broken thermocouple and leaking circulation pump. This is a significant red flag for safety and professional integrity.
• SERIOUS ALLEGATION (2023): One reviewer claims a worker named 'Jimmy Bob' stole a sink and caused toilet and water quality damage. The review is written in an unusual, somewhat implausible style and lacks corroborating detail, but it cannot be dismissed outright. Confidence in this review's literal accuracy is low; however, it is included as a flag.
• INCOMPLETE WORK / SCOPE DISPUTE (2011): A detailed 1-star review describes incomplete drywall patching, a sump pump installation that did not meet the customer's stated need, condescending behavior, and a charge of $1,300 for work the reviewer valued at $800. This review is highly specific and credible.
• BILLING DISPUTE (2013): A 4-star reviewer noted being charged for over an hour of travel time to a nearby Home Depot and an attempt to charge for a callback to fix a leaking pipe the contractor had installed. The contractor dropped the callback charge only after the customer objected.
• RECENCY WARNING: The majority of reviews (approximately 40 of 52) are older than 5 years, and only 2 reviews are from the past 12 months (2024 and 2023). The most recent positive review (2024) is strong, but the overall score is heavily influenced by older data. Current performance may differ.
• TWO UNUSABLE REVIEWS EXCLUDED FROM SCORING: 'Did not use this company' (2011, 1-star) and 'unknown' (2014, 5-star) contain no actionable information and were excluded from dimension scoring.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: Two reviews dated 2007-05-18 and 2007-05-22 describe an almost identical water heater replacement experience with the same details (Rob and Keith, $300 flat quote, ~1 hour completion, free disposal). These appear to be the same job reviewed twice, possibly by two members of the same household. Both were counted but flagged as potentially duplicative; this slightly inflates positive pricing and professionalism signals.
• NO FAKE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: Despite the high proportion of 5-star reviews, the majority contain specific job details, named individuals, and varied language. The positive review corpus does not exhibit the hallmarks of coordinated fake reviews.

This WW Score is based on a large and largely credible review set spanning 18 years, with HIGH confidence across all dimensions due to mention volume; however, the score should be interpreted cautiously given the recency of the data, two serious safety and conduct allegations, and the fact that only 2 reviews are from the past 12 months.

Roto-Rooter receives consistently strong marks for professionalism and responsiveness from individual technicians, with hundreds of reviews praising courteous, knowledgeable, and prompt service. However, pricing is the single most damaging dimension across this dataset, with an enormous volume of reviews describing charges as excessive, deceptive, or wildly inconsistent — including numerous accounts of bait-and-switch quoting, undisclosed fees, and charges for incomplete work. Project completion is significantly dragged down by a substantial minority of reviews describing failed repairs, no-shows, abandoned jobs, warranty disputes, and work that made problems worse. Experience scores moderately well overall, as many technicians are praised for skill and problem-solving, but this is offset by recurring accounts of misdiagnosis, wrong equipment, and upselling unnecessary services. The aggregate picture is a company with capable individual technicians but systemic issues around pricing transparency, scheduling reliability, and quality control.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: Multiple reviews appear to be exact or near-exact duplicates (e.g., two identical reviews from 'Paul arrived same day...', two identical 'Zach is the man...', two identical 'Based solely off customer service...', two identical 'Easy to schedule and a quick service...', two identical 'Great service. Would highly recommend!', two identical 'Efficient and effective...', two identical 'Excellent with Armando...', two identical 'Very prompt and helpful! Anthony...', two identical 'My name is Antoinette...'). These duplicates inflate positive scores and have been treated conservatively.
• FAKE REVIEW PATTERNS: A large cluster of reviews dated 1996-2001 consist of single-line responses ('NO', 'NOT REALLY', 'ON TIME AND DID THE WORK') with no detail, all rated 5 stars. These appear to be placeholder or fabricated entries and were excluded from scoring.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Approximately 100+ reviews contain no text content but carry 5-star ratings. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data, but their presence inflates the raw star average.
• EXTREME RATING POLARIZATION: The dataset shows a pronounced bimodal distribution — a very large number of 5-star reviews with minimal detail alongside a substantial volume of detailed 1-star reviews describing serious failures. This pattern is consistent with either review manipulation on the positive end or a company with highly inconsistent service quality.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS ARE SYSTEMIC: Pricing complaints are not isolated incidents — they span multiple years, multiple geographic locations, and multiple service types. Charges ranging from $200-$900 for simple drain snaking (15-30 minutes of work) are documented repeatedly. This is a structural business practice issue, not individual technician behavior.
• NO-SHOW AND SCHEDULING FAILURES: A significant number of reviews describe confirmed appointments where technicians never arrived and no communication was provided. This is a recurring operational failure across multiple franchise locations.
• MULTI-FRANCHISE DATASET: Reviews appear to span dozens of different Roto-Rooter franchise locations across the United States. Scores reflect the brand aggregate, not any single location. Individual location quality varies significantly.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews with substantive content are dated between 2020-2025, which is within the relevant scoring window. Older reviews (pre-2015) were given reduced weight.

This WW Score of 72.4 is based on a very large dataset (1,456 reviews) and carries HIGH statistical confidence in its directional accuracy, but should be interpreted as a brand-level aggregate across many franchise locations — individual location quality varies substantially, and the systemic pricing and scheduling issues documented here may not apply equally to all franchises.

D&D Plumbing demonstrates strong individual technician performance — Albert, Johnny, Kyle, Juan, Scott, and Jerry are repeatedly praised for professionalism, technical knowledge, and responsiveness — but the company is significantly dragged down by a persistent and well-documented pattern of failing to return calls and deliver estimates, which directly harms both professionalism and project completion scores. Pricing is a mixed picture: several reviewers praised fair or low pricing, while multiple others reported surprise charges (travel time billed as labor, undisclosed fees, and one egregious case where a $6,700 replacement was recommended for what turned out to be a $40 loose fuse fix). Project completion is hurt by at least three credible accounts of work failing shortly after completion with poor warranty follow-through, and multiple reviews citing abandoned estimates or no-call-no-shows. Experience scores are buoyed by genuinely impressive technical work on complex radiant/hydronic and solar systems, but undermined by at least two cases of misdiagnosis or incomplete investigation.

• 14 reviews contain no text at all (only a star rating) — these were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence.
• 3 reviews contain only punctuation or single words ('unknown', '.', '............') and were treated as no usable data.
• Recurring pattern of no-callback complaints across multiple years (2013, 2016, 2017, 2021, 2023, 2024, 2025) — this is a systemic issue, not isolated incidents.
• One review (2020-07-07) alleges D&D quoted $6,700 for a repair that an electrician fixed for $40 by tightening a loose fuse. D&D refused to itemize parts and labor. This is a serious credibility and pricing integrity concern.
• One review (2017-03-03) describes $1,500 in repairs that failed within two days, with D&D demanding additional after-hours charges to return and fix their own work — corroborated by a similar complaint in 2021.
• One review (2017-05-09) describes technician-caused damage to hardwood floors during a remodel, with D&D refusing to compensate and the VP dismissing the damage.
• Some older 5-star reviews (2016–2017) with no text may inflate perceived volume of positive sentiment — they carry no scoring weight here.
• The duplicate review (Scott fixing bathtub faucet, Friday 8pm) appears verbatim in both 2022 and 2023 — this is a likely copy-paste duplicate and was counted only once.
• No fake review pattern detected among text-bearing reviews — specific names, dates, and job details are present throughout, suggesting authentic reviews overall.
• A significant portion of reviews are older than 3 years. Recent reviews (2024–2025) show the no-callback issue persists, suggesting it has not been resolved.

This WW Score is based on a large review set with high mention counts across all dimensions, making it statistically reliable — however, the score should be interpreted cautiously given documented patterns of no-callbacks, warranty disputes, and at least one serious pricing integrity concern that suggest operational inconsistencies beyond what the aggregate score alone conveys.