Find Nearby Plumbers In Greeley, Colorado

Plumbing Solutions has a large and broadly positive review base, with the majority of customers praising responsiveness, punctuality, and technician knowledge across many named individuals including Jacob, Otto, Ed, Andres, Brian, and others. However, a meaningful minority of negative reviews — spanning the full date range of the dataset — consistently cite serious concerns: significantly inflated pricing (multiple reviewers report quotes 2–10x higher than competitors), failure to follow up or return calls, incomplete or failed repairs requiring callbacks, and in several cases rude or threatening behavior from owners or staff. The pricing dimension is the weakest, dragged down by numerous credible, specific complaints about overcharging for simple jobs and lack of pricing transparency. Project completion scores moderately well overall but is tempered by documented cases of abandoned work, unresolved permits, and repairs that failed within days or weeks. Professionalism scores reflect a split picture: many technicians are praised warmly, but office and owner conduct generates a recurring pattern of serious complaints.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: Multiple reviews appear to be exact or near-exact duplicates posted on the same or adjacent dates (e.g., two identical reviews for 'Jake was excellent' on 2025-06-02, two identical reviews for 'Matt installed a new kitchen sink disposal' on 2025-05-19, two identical reviews for 'Enrique was exceptionally helpful' on 2025-05-19, two identical reviews for 'I am a contractor remodeling a bathroom' on 2025-06-02, two identical reviews for 'Another excellent experience with Plumbing Solutions' on 2025-06-03, two identical reviews for 'I never met him' on 2025-05-26, two identical reviews for 'Very Professional, answered questions when asked' on 2025-05-26, two identical reviews for 'Otto Maldonado and his crew' on 2025-10-28, two identical reviews for 'Otto with PLUMBING SOLUTIONS' on 2025-06-23, two identical reviews for 'Highly recommend Plumbing Solutions. Jacob is punctual' on different dates). This pattern of duplicated 5-star reviews is a strong indicator of review manipulation or platform aggregation artifacts and reduces confidence in the positive review pool.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Approximately 20+ reviews contain no text and only a 5-star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data but inflate the apparent star average.
• PRICING CONCERNS — CREDIBLE AND SPECIFIC: Multiple independent reviewers across different years and locations cite specific dollar amounts that appear grossly inflated compared to competitor quotes: $1,200 estimate for a garbage disposal and snake vs. $100 actual fix; $1,500+ estimate for a P-trap vs. $300–400 actual; $670 for a toilet reset with no new toilet; $520 for a $10 part and 15 minutes of work; $3,500 tankless water heater at 2x+ retail markup; $1,045 for 4 feet of pipe. These are not vague complaints — they are specific, detailed, and corroborated across many reviewers.
• OWNER/MANAGEMENT CONDUCT: Multiple reviews across different years describe the owner or management as rude, threatening, or dismissive when complaints were raised. One reviewer describes being shouted at and threatened with a lien; another describes the owner threatening to 'come settle it in person'; another describes being told 'stop the dramatics and pay the bill.' This is a recurring pattern, not an isolated incident.
• FOLLOW-UP AND COMMUNICATION FAILURES: A recurring theme in negative reviews is failure to return calls, respond to messages, or follow through on scheduled appointments. This spans from 2012 through 2025, suggesting a systemic issue rather than isolated incidents.
• INCOMPLETE OR FAILED REPAIRS: Several reviews document repairs that failed within days or weeks, with the company then refusing to honor warranties or return to fix the issue without additional charges. One reviewer documents a $1,300 repair that did not fix the problem, followed by a demand for $435 more.
• RECENCY NOTE: The dataset spans from 2005 to June 2025. Reviews from 2025 and 2024 are given higher weight. Negative patterns (pricing, communication failures, incomplete work) appear consistently across all time periods, suggesting these are not historical issues that have been resolved.
• AGGREGATION NOTE: This review set appears to aggregate reviews from multiple platforms and possibly multiple business entities operating under the 'Plumbing Solutions' name across different geographic regions (references to Smyrna, Dedham MA, Wichita, Nashville, Chicago, California, etc.). Scores should be interpreted with caution as they may reflect more than one business.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large review volume, but the score itself should be treated with caution given confirmed duplicate reviews, strong evidence of pricing manipulation complaints, recurring owner conduct issues, and the likelihood that this dataset aggregates reviews from multiple distinct business entities operating under the same or similar name.

Roto-Rooter receives consistently strong praise for technician professionalism, friendliness, and communication, with hundreds of reviews citing courteous, knowledgeable, and prompt service. However, pricing is a major and recurring pain point: dozens of reviewers explicitly describe charges as excessive, shocking, or outright predatory, with specific complaints ranging from $400+ for a single drain snake to $1,600+ for incomplete work, significantly dragging down the pricing dimension. Project completion is mixed — the majority of jobs are completed successfully and often same-day, but a meaningful minority of reviews describe incomplete work, no-shows, failed repairs requiring follow-up by other companies, and jobs left in worse condition than found. Technician skill and experience scores well overall, but is undermined by a notable subset of reviews describing misdiagnosis, incompetent repairs, and technicians who appeared uncertain or unqualified for the task at hand.

• PRICING CONCERN: Pricing is the single most negatively reviewed dimension. Dozens of reviews across multiple years and locations explicitly cite charges of $400–$1,600+ for basic drain cleaning or simple repairs as excessive, with multiple reviewers stating they found the same work done for 50–75% less elsewhere.
• PROJECT COMPLETION FAILURES: A significant number of reviews describe jobs that were not completed, required multiple return visits, or were left in worse condition. Several reviews describe technicians abandoning jobs mid-work, failing to reconnect appliances, or leaving hazardous conditions.
• NO-SHOW AND SCHEDULING FAILURES: A recurring pattern of no-shows, missed appointment windows without notification, and poor dispatcher communication appears across multiple years and locations. This is a systemic operational issue.
• MISDIAGNOSIS PATTERN: Multiple reviews describe technicians recommending expensive repairs (e.g., $3,000–$10,000 excavations) that were later found unnecessary by other plumbers who resolved the issue quickly and cheaply.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK — MODERATE: A cluster of reviews dated 2025-06-07 and 2025-06-02 share very similar short-form praise structures (e.g., 'Justin was awesome', 'Great Job Mo!', 'Justin saved our lives today!') with minimal detail. Several appear to be from the same franchise location and may reflect solicited or incentivized reviews. Confidence in the high-end scores is slightly reduced as a result.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Approximately 60–70 reviews contain no text and only a star rating (mostly 5-star). These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews with substantive text are from 2024–2025 and are within the past 12 months. Older reviews (2013–2020) show similar patterns of both praise and complaints, suggesting these issues are long-standing and not improving significantly over time.
• GEOGRAPHIC VARIANCE: Reviews appear to span many different Roto-Rooter franchise locations across the US. Scores reflect aggregate performance across all locations, which may mask significant variation between individual franchises.

This WW Score is based on a very large review set (600+ reviews) with HIGH confidence across all four dimensions, making the aggregate score statistically robust; however, the score should be interpreted cautiously because it aggregates performance across many distinct franchise locations, and individual location quality varies dramatically — some franchises consistently earn 5-star praise while others generate repeated complaints about pricing, no-shows, and incomplete work.

Phillips Plumbing & Mechanical has a strong base of loyal, satisfied customers who consistently praise technician friendliness, responsiveness in emergencies, and technical competence — particularly from named technicians like Bernie, Serge, and Scott. However, pricing is the single most damaging dimension in this dataset: a substantial and recurring pattern of complaints about hidden fees, bait-and-switch dispatch charges, and prices perceived as far above market rate significantly drags down the overall score. Project completion is generally solid, but is undermined by multiple credible reports of no-shows, missed appointments without notice, failure to follow up with estimates, and at least one case of an installation error that required a return visit at additional cost to the customer. Professionalism scores moderately well due to the volume of positive interactions, but is offset by several serious complaints about rude office staff, unresponsive management, and technicians who behaved unprofessionally when challenged. The experience dimension is the strongest performer, with many reviewers noting skilled, knowledgeable technicians who solved complex problems effectively.

• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: Two reviews from different dates (2024-10-12 and 2024-09-25) are word-for-word identical — 'Phillips plumbing always delivers the most professional service...' This is a strong indicator of a fake or artificially boosted review. Confidence in positive signals is slightly reduced.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: Two reviews dated 2014-01-11 are nearly word-for-word identical, suggesting copy-paste submission. One may be a legitimate repost but both were counted as one unique mention.
• 23 reviews contain no text — only a star rating (all 5-star). These blank reviews provide no usable data and were excluded from dimension scoring. Their presence in volume may indicate review padding.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS ARE SYSTEMIC AND SPAN THE FULL REVIEW HISTORY (2006–2025): Multiple independent reviewers across many years describe the same pattern — low dispatch fee quoted on the phone, higher diagnostic fee charged on arrival, then high task-based pricing. This is not isolated; it appears to be a deliberate business model that many customers find deceptive.
• RESPONSIVENESS FAILURES ARE RECURRING: At least 8 separate reviews describe being promised a callback or estimate that never arrived, or appointments that were canceled last-minute or missed entirely with no proactive communication. This is a significant operational weakness.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of detailed, substantive reviews span 2012–2025. Reviews from 2006 are minimal and generic. Recent reviews (2024–2025) show continued mixed signals — strong positive experiences alongside pricing and no-show complaints — suggesting the issues are ongoing rather than historical.
• ONE REVIEW (2024-06-09, 2-star) describes a pump installed in 2023 that was a 7-year-old 2015 model, with pipes installed incorrectly recycling water back into the well. This is a serious workmanship and ethics concern that was not resolved when the customer called.

This WW Score is based on a large review set (130 reviews) spanning nearly two decades, giving it HIGH statistical confidence; however, the score should be interpreted with caution given the systemic and recurring pricing complaints, confirmed duplicate/fake reviews, and a meaningful volume of no-show and follow-up failures that suggest operational inconsistency rather than isolated incidents.

Paladin Plumbing receives strong praise across multiple dimensions from satisfied long-term customers, with reviewers consistently highlighting punctuality, professionalism, meticulous workmanship, and fair pricing. However, two separate 1-star reviews — one from 2016 and one from 2013 — describe the same critical failure pattern: scheduled appointments that were never kept and no follow-up communication, which meaningfully drags down both professionalism and project completion scores. Pricing feedback is notably positive, with multiple reviewers citing costs well below competitors and no hidden charges. The experience dimension is well-supported, with reviewers describing effective problem-solving, quality installations, and going above and beyond the original scope of work. The no-show incidents represent a serious reliability concern that cannot be dismissed, particularly since one reviewer was a 10-year customer.

• Three reviews contain only the text 'unknown' with no usable content — these were excluded from dimension scoring but their ratings (4.0, 5.0, 5.0) were noted.
• One review rated 2.0 also contains only 'unknown' text — excluded from dimension scoring.
• Two separate reviews (2013 and 2016) describe the contractor scheduling appointments and then failing to show up or call back. This is a recurring pattern of reliability failure, not an isolated incident.
• Most reviews are older than 5 years, with only one review from within the past 5 years (2018). The recency of data is poor and the score may not reflect current service quality.
• No reviews are from the past 12 months, which significantly limits confidence in the current state of the business.
• Some positive reviews use similar language ('meticulous,' 'professional,' 'will call again') but appear sufficiently distinct and specific to not warrant a fake review flag. No fake review pattern detected.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability due to a reasonable volume of detailed reviews, but is substantially undermined by the age of the data (most reviews are 6–13 years old), three unusable 'unknown' reviews, and two documented no-show incidents that reveal a recurring professionalism and reliability risk.

Only two of the four reviews contain usable content; the remaining two are blank or contain only a period and are disregarded. The two substantive reviews suggest reasonable professionalism — Mitchell's Plumbing communicated proactively, followed up persistently with a tenant over five days, and was responsive where other companies were not. Pricing is mentioned only once, with the word 'affordable,' which is positive but thin evidence. Project completion is supported by both usable reviews, indicating jobs were finished and follow-through was demonstrated. Experience is touched on lightly in one review describing corrective work on an improperly installed tankless water heater, described as 'beautiful work,' but this is a single data point. All scores are conservative due to the very low mention counts.

• Two of four reviews contain no usable text ('unknown' and '.') and were excluded from scoring — this reduces the reliability of the overall score significantly.
• All reviews carry a 5-star rating, including the two blank ones, which may suggest rating inflation or incomplete review submissions.
• All reviews are dated 2016–2018, meaning every review is more than 5 years old. There is no recent data to reflect current service quality.
• With only 2 reviews containing usable data, this score should be treated as highly preliminary and not representative of consistent performance.

This WW Score carries very low reliability due to only 2 usable reviews, all data being over 5 years old, and 2 blank reviews inflating the star rating — prospective customers should seek additional recent references before making a hiring decision.

Atlas Plumbing & Heating has a mixed but generally positive record across the reviews analyzed. Professionalism scores were boosted by strong praise for punctuality, communication, and courteous behavior in the two most recent and detailed reviews (2024), but significantly dragged down by a 2021 complaint about being unreachable and a 2015 incident where an appointment was cancelled without notification — a serious lapse in customer communication. Project completion is similarly mixed: most reviewers describe work being finished well, but the cancelled appointment with no follow-through and the 2021 contact failure introduce meaningful doubt. Pricing and experience are rated positively across the reviews that mention them, with one reviewer noting a fair policy of not charging for repeat issues. However, the majority of reviews are very old (pre-2020), and only two reviews from the past 12 months provide reliable, current data.

• RECENCY WARNING: Six of eight reviews are from 2015 or earlier, with one from 2021 and only two from the past 12 months (2024). The business's current operational quality cannot be reliably inferred from the older reviews.
• CONTACT/AVAILABILITY CONCERN: A 2021 reviewer reported being unable to reach the business by phone and questioned whether it was still operating. This is a significant reliability flag.
• APPOINTMENT CANCELLATION: A 2015 review describes a cancelled appointment with no notification and no explanation, indicating a past failure in customer communication and follow-through.
• GENERIC REVIEWS: Two reviews ('Great! Great guy!' and the all-caps 2005 review) contain no specific detail and contribute minimal usable data. These were excluded from dimension scoring due to lack of actionable content.
• SMALL SAMPLE SIZE: Only 8 reviews total, with only 2 recent ones. The WW Score should be treated with caution and is not statistically robust.

This WW Score carries LOW overall reliability due to a very small review sample, a majority of reviews being over 8 years old, documented concerns about business reachability, and only two reviews from the past 12 months providing current evidence of service quality.