Find Nearby Plumbers In Lakewood, Colorado

Anthony's Plumbing earns generally positive marks across all four dimensions, with strong recurring praise for punctuality, friendly technicians, and successful completion of complex sewer jobs including pipe bursting. However, meaningful negative reviews drag scores down notably: one reviewer described a technician who failed to fix a blockage that another plumber resolved easily, left carpet stained, and pushed expensive upsells; another described a missed appointment, an incomplete toilet installation, and a messy worksite. Pricing is a mixed picture — several reviewers praised fair or lowest-bid pricing and even no-charge service calls, while two reviewers explicitly called the pricing overpriced or double what it should be. Project completion is similarly mixed, with most jobs finishing on time and as promised but at least two clear failures of follow-through. The score reflects a contractor with genuine strengths but inconsistent execution across technicians.

• All reviews are older than 12 months — the most recent review is dated 2017-09-25, meaning no reviews fall within a current 12-month window. This score reflects historical performance only and may not represent current service quality.
• One review (2016-08-08, 5-star) contains no usable data: 'They couldn't do the job because I needed electrical work done first.' A 5-star rating for an incomplete visit with no work performed is anomalous and was excluded from dimension scoring.
• Several 5-star reviews are brief and generic (e.g., 'Very professional.' with no detail; 'They were amazing in service. Their price was reasonable. They completed a large job in a day.'). While not conclusive, these low-detail reviews slightly inflate the positive signal and were weighted conservatively.
• Two strongly negative reviews (1-star, 2014 and 1-star, 2015) describe substantively different failure modes — one involving upselling and inability to fix a solvable problem, one involving missed appointments and incomplete work — suggesting inconsistency across technicians rather than a single isolated incident.
• The 2016-10-13 five-star review describing a zero-charge service call is a genuine positive data point but is an outlier and was not used to inflate pricing scores broadly.

This WW Score is based on 21 reviews spanning 2012–2017 with HIGH mention counts across all dimensions, making the score mathematically reliable, but the complete absence of recent reviews and the presence of two detailed, credible negative reviews mean this score should be treated as a historical baseline only — current service quality cannot be confirmed.

Payless Rooter demonstrates strong professionalism in the majority of reviews, with numerous technicians — particularly Jeremy, Gordon, Allen, and Kevin — praised for punctuality, politeness, and communication. However, professionalism is meaningfully dragged down by several serious complaints: missed appointments with no callbacks, aggressive management behavior, a billing dispute involving an unauthorized credit card charge, and at least one instance of a technician making sexist remarks. Pricing is the weakest dimension, with multiple reviewers citing charges that were 2–3x competitor quotes, a bait-and-switch feel on service fees, and one reviewer being charged triple the original estimate; these negatives are partially offset by a solid number of reviews praising fair and transparent pricing. Project completion is generally positive — most jobs were finished and many technicians went above and beyond — but is undermined by recurring appointment failures, one job left unresolved due to insufficient equipment, and a follow-up issue where pressure was set incorrectly after paid work. Experience scores moderately well, with many reviewers noting skilled diagnostics and effective problem-solving, though one review explicitly cited zero knowledge and experience, and another noted a technician lacked sufficient cable length to complete a standard job.

• Several reviews with no date cannot be weighted for recency; approximately 18 reviews lack timestamps, reducing confidence in trend analysis.
• A cluster of reviews from April 2022 all praise 'Jeremy' in nearly identical terms (professional, polite, on time, great job) across 5 consecutive reviews within a one-month window — this pattern warrants scrutiny for potential review padding, though individual details vary enough to avoid outright dismissal.
• One review explicitly alleges an unauthorized $675 credit card charge and identifies a possible dual-brand operation (Payless Rooter / 303 Plumbing), with management described as aggressive and threatening legal action — this is a significant integrity flag.
• One review alleges bait-and-switch pricing: no service fee advertised, then $175 charged for less than one hour of work with no parts, and the problem recurred two days later.
• One review alleges being charged 3x the original estimate with no satisfactory resolution.
• One review describes a technician making repeated sexist comments and charging double the advertised website price ($195 vs $95).
• The most recent dated review (2024-03-16) is a 1-star complaint about a 3.5-hour non-response to a plumbing emergency, suggesting possible ongoing service reliability issues as of early 2024.
• Multiple reviews across different years describe missed appointments with no contact — this is a recurring operational pattern, not an isolated incident.

This WW Score is based on a large and diverse review set (65 reviews) with HIGH mention counts across all four dimensions, making the score statistically meaningful; however, the presence of serious integrity flags, recurring appointment failures, pricing complaints, and an undated review cluster temper confidence, and the score should be treated as a realistic mid-range assessment rather than a strong endorsement.

Plumbing Tree scores strongly on professionalism and experience, with the vast majority of reviewers praising technicians like Mickey, Gilbert, Angel, Alan, and Steven for being knowledgeable, communicative, thorough, and courteous. Project completion is generally solid, with most jobs described as fully resolved, though a small number of notable failures exist including one instance where a technician left without completing the job and left a customer without water. The most significant drag on the overall WW Score is pricing, which is the single most-complained-about dimension across the review set — a large volume of reviewers across multiple years describe quotes as dramatically above market rate, with specific examples including $950+ for faucet/valve work, $4,112 for a water heater, $760 to replace a toilet gasket, and $1,500 for a basic faucet installation. The pricing complaints are not isolated incidents but form a consistent, high-volume pattern that materially undermines the company's otherwise strong service reputation.

• PRICING PATTERN WARNING: An unusually high volume of reviews (20+) explicitly describe quotes as 2x to 10x market rate across a wide range of standard jobs. This is not a matter of occasional dissatisfaction — it is a systemic and recurring complaint spanning 2022 through 2025.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: At least 6 reviews appear to be near-identical or exact duplicates submitted on different dates (e.g., the 'FAN. TAS. TIC.' review appears twice with slightly different dates; the Alan emergency review appears twice; the Gilbert sewer root review appears twice; the Fernando/Mickey multi-update review appears twice; the 'It went great. It runs on time.' review appears twice). These duplicates were counted only once per unique review for scoring purposes but inflate the raw review count.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — MODERATE: A cluster of 5-star reviews dated 2024-06-08 (approximately 15+ reviews on the same date) with varying levels of specificity raises concern about a possible review solicitation campaign or bulk submission event. While many contain specific technician names and job details, the concentration on a single date is anomalous and warrants caution.
• RECENCY NOTE: Pricing complaints are heavily concentrated in the most recent 24 months (2023–2025), suggesting a possible shift in pricing strategy or ownership/management changes. Several long-term customers explicitly note that pricing has increased significantly compared to earlier years.
• INCOMPLETE JOB FLAG: At least one review (October 2024, faucet/valve job) explicitly states the technician left without completing the work, leaving the customer without water. One additional review (2023, drain clog) describes a technician who failed to clear the line over two visits and proposed an unnecessary $4,000 repair. These represent meaningful project completion failures.
• UPSELLING CONCERN: Multiple reviews across different years describe technicians aggressively pushing additional services, whole-house inspections, and upgrades beyond the scope of the original call. While some customers found this helpful, others found it predatory and a source of distrust.
• SERVICE FEE CONTROVERSY: The $79 service/diagnostic fee is mentioned negatively in numerous reviews, particularly when customers declined work due to high quotes and were still charged. This is a recurring friction point that contributes to low-rating reviews.

This WW Score is based on a large and diverse review set spanning 2013–2025 and carries HIGH overall confidence; however, the pricing score in particular should be weighted heavily by prospective customers, as the volume and specificity of overpricing complaints is among the strongest negative signals present in this dataset.

Brad Company earns strong marks for professionalism and technical experience, with numerous reviewers praising Dave's punctuality, communication, and ability to solve problems that larger companies could not. Project completion is generally solid, highlighted by a notable instance where no charge was applied when a repair could not be completed — a mark of integrity. However, pricing is a significant drag on the overall score: three reviews from the same date in February 2019 describe an undisclosed dual-fee structure ($70 trip charge plus an $80 diagnosis fee) that customers felt was deceptive, and one older review noted fees were on the higher side. The pricing complaints are serious enough to substantially lower the pricing dimension score and pull down the overall WW Score. The business has a strong core reputation for honest, skilled work, but the fee transparency issue is a recurring and credible concern.

• DUPLICATE REVIEW ALERT: Three reviews dated 2019-02-08 describe nearly identical experiences with the same $70/$150 fee dispute. Two of the three reviews use almost word-for-word identical language. This strongly suggests either the same person submitted multiple reviews or coordinated negative reviews. These have been counted as separate mentions for pricing but treated with caution — the underlying complaint is credible and corroborated by a second distinct reviewer, so the pricing concern is retained.
• RECENCY WARNING: The majority of reviews (12 out of 16) are older than 12 months as of a 2024 reference point. Only 2 reviews are from 2023–2024. The most recent positive reviews (2023, 2024) are encouraging, but the bulk of the data is 5–11 years old and may not reflect current service quality or pricing practices.
• ADVERTISED SERVICES DISCREPANCY: One reviewer (2016) noted that Brad Company's website advertised a service the receptionist said they do not perform. This is a minor flag for business transparency and website accuracy.
• PRICING CONCERN — UNDISCLOSED FEES: Multiple independent reviewers (discounting duplicates) flagged that the $70 trip charge was presented as the total diagnostic fee, but an additional $80 diagnosis fee was charged on arrival without prior disclosure. This is a substantive and credible pattern, not an isolated complaint.

This WW Score carries HIGH overall confidence due to a sufficient volume of reviews across all four dimensions, but should be interpreted with caution given that most reviews are over 5 years old, a pricing transparency issue is corroborated by multiple reviewers, and three near-identical negative reviews on the same date suggest possible review manipulation.

Martin's Sewer demonstrates strong professionalism, pricing transparency, and technical expertise across most reviews, with consistent praise for honesty, quick response times, and superior equipment. However, one detailed 1-star review from March 2023 raises significant concerns about potential upselling tactics, lack of transparency regarding camera footage, and aggressive billing behavior that contradicts the overwhelmingly positive narrative. The reviewer's account of rapidly escalating service needs (every 4 months instead of every several years) and Martin's dismissive response suggests possible ethical issues that materially impact the overall score despite the volume of positive feedback.

• CRITICAL: One detailed negative review (2023-03-03) describes concerning patterns: charging for camera inspections without providing video, suggesting unnecessary recurring maintenance (every 6 months), and aggressive/dismissive communication ('Are you going to pay the invoice?' and 'call someone else'). This contradicts the ethical reputation claimed in other reviews.
• PATTERN CONCERN: Multiple reviews (2021, 2020, 2020, 2017) contain nearly identical narrative structure—customer was overcharged/misled by another company, Martin provided honest assessment and saved thousands. While plausible, the repetitive framing warrants caution.
• RECENCY ISSUE: 5 of 9 reviews are from 2020 or earlier (55%). The most recent negative review (2023) is more recent than most positive reviews, suggesting potential service quality decline.
• INCOMPLETE DATA: The March 2023 negative review explicitly states Martin charged for camera work but 'didn't send the video'—a transparency failure not addressed in positive reviews.

This score should be treated with MODERATE caution. While 8 of 9 reviews are highly positive with consistent themes of honesty and expertise, the detailed March 2023 negative review describing potential upselling, billing pressure, and lack of transparency introduces material doubt about whether the positive reviews reflect current practices or past reputation. The score reflects the volume of positive feedback but is significantly dampened by the credibility of the single negative account and its recency relative to older positive reviews.

Eric (Everyday Solutions) demonstrates strong performance across all dimensions, with particular strength in professionalism and technical expertise. Seven reviews explicitly praise his responsiveness, friendliness, politeness, and communication—often highlighting same-day or next-day service and willingness to help on weekends. Six reviews attest to his skill level and problem-solving ability, with clients noting he 'can fix anything' and handles complex jobs like cast iron pipe replacement with care. Pricing is consistently described as fair, reasonable, and honest across five mentions, with one detailed review contrasting his transparency favorably against corporate competitors. Project completion is solid across six mentions, with jobs finished thoroughly and callbacks honored (e.g., returning to fix a post-job leak). However, one 2019 review alleges fraud, vague invoicing, non-responsiveness, and poor work quality—a stark outlier that significantly contradicts the pattern of five earlier reviews (2014–2015) praising the same contractor. This single negative review introduces material uncertainty.

• CRITICAL DISCREPANCY: One 2019 review (1-star) alleges fraud, poor communication, and substandard work, directly contradicting six earlier 5-star reviews (2014–2015) praising the same contractor. This suggests either a dramatic change in service quality, a fake/malicious review, or a misidentified business. The 2019 review also references snow plowing and shared neighborhood drives, which may indicate a different company or division.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Five of six positive reviews are from 2014–2015 (8–9 years old). Only one positive review is from 2015, and the single negative review is from 2019. Recent performance data is limited.
• REVIEW AUTHENTICITY: The six positive reviews show consistent, specific praise (names, job types, response times) and are detailed enough to appear genuine. The 2019 negative review is also detailed but stands alone and contradicts the earlier pattern, raising questions about whether it refers to the same business or contractor.

This score should be treated with MODERATE confidence. While five detailed positive reviews from 2014–2015 paint a compelling picture of a skilled, professional, responsive plumber, the single 2019 allegation of fraud and poor service introduces significant uncertainty about current performance or whether all reviews reference the same business. The age of most positive reviews (8–9 years) further limits confidence in present-day reliability. Additional recent reviews are needed to resolve this contradiction.