Find Nearby Plumbers Companies In 80501, Longmont, Colorado

Eduardo and AES Plumbing receive overwhelmingly positive feedback across all four dimensions, with professionalism being the most consistently praised attribute — reviewers repeatedly cite punctuality, communication, cleanliness, and courteous demeanor. Pricing is generally regarded as fair and reasonable, with multiple reviewers noting he honored original estimates and was more affordable than competitors, though one detailed negative review raises a credible concern about inflated permit charges and a refund being ignored. Project completion is strong overall, with many reviewers noting jobs were finished on time and follow-through was honored, but it is meaningfully dragged down by two negative reviews: one describing crooked toilet installation, denied leaks, and worsened conditions, and another documenting a permit that was delayed by a full year with associated overcharging. Experience scores well based on numerous mentions of skilled, knowledgeable, and thorough workmanship, though the negative reviews introduce legitimate doubt about consistency of quality.

• One review (2018-05-16, 1-star) explicitly alleges that Eduardo offers a 'truck discount' in exchange for Yelp reviews. This is a credible fake-review incentivization flag and warrants caution when interpreting the volume of 5-star reviews.
• The review corpus is heavily skewed toward 5-star ratings (35 of 38 reviews are 5-star), which is statistically unusual and consistent with incentivized review patterns. Confidence in the aggregate positive signal is reduced accordingly.
• Several reviews use generic superlative language with limited job-specific detail (e.g., 'best in da business,' 'superior service'), which is a secondary indicator of potentially coached or incentivized reviews.
• A significant portion of reviews are older than 12 months relative to the most recent review date (April 2024). The majority of reviews date from 2017–2022, with only 2 reviews from 2023–2024. Recency weight is limited.
• The 2023 negative review (2-star, Margarete O.) is detailed, specific, and internally consistent — describing a one-year permit delay, overcharging on permit fees by approximately $150, and the contractor forgetting about a second job. This review carries high credibility and materially impacts project completion and pricing scores.
• The 2018 negative review (1-star) describes a crooked toilet installation, denied workmanship defects, and worsened conditions across multiple visits. A second plumber confirmed the original work was done incorrectly. This review carries high credibility and impacts both experience and project completion scores.

This WW Score is based on a reasonably large review set with HIGH mention counts across all dimensions, but reliability is moderately reduced due to a credible fake-review incentivization allegation, an unusually high concentration of 5-star ratings, two substantive and specific negative reviews that reveal real quality and integrity concerns, and the fact that most reviews are more than two years old.

Drain Away demonstrates strong technical competence and responsiveness, with most recent reviews (2023-2025) praising same-day service, skilled diagnostics, and fair pricing. However, the company's professionalism score is significantly dragged down by a consistent pattern of owner/dispatch rudeness documented across multiple reviews spanning 2011-2021, including reports of hanging up on customers, dismissive phone behavior, and poor communication. While technicians (Brian, James, Rex, James) consistently receive praise for work quality and courtesy, the owner's customer service failures and documented refusal to address complaints (BBB non-response, refused refund) create a reliability concern. Recent reviews suggest improved operations, but historical patterns of no-shows and communication breakdowns remain relevant.

• CRITICAL: Consistent pattern of owner/dispatch rudeness across 6+ reviews (2011-2021). Multiple customers report rude phone behavior, hanging up, and dismissive attitudes from person answering phone (identified as Rex in several reviews).
• CRITICAL: One documented case (2017) of customer filing BBB complaint for botched work; Drain Away refused to respond to BBB twice and refused refund, raising accountability concerns.
• CRITICAL: Multiple no-show or late appointment issues documented (2018, 2013), with poor communication and defensive responses when customers complained.
• MODERATE: One customer (2017) reported snaking done improperly; another company had to redo work. Customer requested refund; owner refused.
• MODERATE: One customer (2011) reported employee failed to reconnect washing machine hose, flooding crawl space; owner denied responsibility and argued with customer rather than acknowledge error.
• MODERATE: One customer (2018) reported price gouging complaint - paid 50% more than other quotes with prices increasing during job.
• NOTE: Recent reviews (2023-2025) show marked improvement in professionalism and no complaints about owner behavior, suggesting possible management changes or improved systems.
• NOTE: Technician quality appears consistently high across all time periods; complaints are primarily about owner/dispatch, not field work.

This score should be treated with CAUTION despite HIGH confidence in data volume. While recent reviews (past 2 years) are uniformly positive and suggest the company has improved significantly, the documented pattern of owner misconduct, refusal to address complaints, and accountability issues from 2011-2021 represents a material risk factor that cannot be ignored. The company's technical competence is well-established, but customer service reliability remains questionable based on historical behavior.

Garvin's demonstrates strong technical competence and reliable project completion, with multiple reviews praising quick response times, thorough work, and problem-solving ability. However, pricing is a significant concern—two of three reviews explicitly mention high costs or unexpected charges, with one customer noting rates substantially above competitors. The company's willingness to provide second opinions and honest assessments (identifying a competitor's scam attempt) suggests integrity, but the pricing feedback is consistent enough to warrant caution. The oldest review dates to 2013, limiting recency assessment.

• PRICING CONCERN: Two of three reviews (67%) explicitly mention high costs or pricing dissatisfaction. One customer paid ~$470 for a service they felt was overpriced; another saved money by using a competitor. This is a material pattern.
• RECENCY ISSUE: One review is from 2013 (11+ years old) and another from 2017 (7 years old). Only one review is recent (2022). Historical performance may not reflect current operations.
• SUBCONTRACTING PRACTICE: Review from 2017 notes that Garvin's subcontracts work via unmarked vans, which may affect service consistency and transparency.
• LIMITED SAMPLE SIZE: Only 3 reviews analyzed. Confidence in overall score is constrained by small sample.

This score should be treated with caution due to limited review volume (n=3), significant recency gaps, and consistent pricing complaints that may not be fully captured in the overall WW Score weighting. The company appears technically competent but potentially expensive relative to market alternatives.

The majority of reviewers praised the contractor's friendliness, punctuality, and respectful attitude, supporting a solid professionalism score. Project completion was generally positive — most jobs were finished on time and without lingering issues — but one notable review described water leaking everywhere, holes poked in walls, and an insurance claim, which meaningfully dragged down both the completion and experience scores. Pricing was described as 'reasonable' or 'average' by several reviewers, though one noted sticker shock, keeping the price score moderate rather than high. Workmanship quality was generally adequate but not exceptional, with the damaging installation incident being a significant red flag that tempers the experience score. Overall the contractor performs reliably in most cases but has at least one documented instance of serious workmanship failure.

• FAKE REVIEW CONCERN: A large cluster of reviews (9 reviews) share the exact same date of 2007-02-14, which is highly suspicious and may indicate bulk-submitted or fabricated reviews. Confidence in the aggregate score is reduced as a result.
• RECENCY WARNING: All reviews are dated between 2005 and 2008 — none are within the past 12 months or even the past decade. This data is extremely outdated and may not reflect the contractor's current quality or practices.
• OUTLIER INCIDENT: One reviewer (3-star, 2007-02-14) reported water leaking during installation, holes poked in walls, and stated their insurance company indicated this contractor had done similar damage to others in the past. This is a serious workmanship and liability concern.
• IRRELEVANT REVIEW DETECTED: One review (2006-09-06) appears to describe an automotive A/C service ('returned my car,' 'antifreeze,' 'coolant'), which is unrelated to plumbing or HVAC home services. This review was excluded from scoring as it likely belongs to a different business.
• GENERIC PRAISE PATTERN: Several reviews use nearly identical language ('friendly,' 'reasonable rates,' 'would recommend to anyone') with little specific detail, which is consistent with either coached reviews or low-effort submissions. Treat positive scores with caution.

This WW Score should be treated with LOW trust due to the extreme age of all reviews (2005–2008), a suspicious cluster of 9 reviews on a single date suggesting possible fake or bulk submissions, one serious documented workmanship incident, and one review that appears to belong to a different business entirely.

Colorado's Finest demonstrates strong professionalism with consistent praise for punctuality, politeness, and responsiveness across multiple reviews. However, pricing concerns significantly impact the overall score: two detailed reviews explicitly describe billing discrepancies and overcharges (one charging $700 for work estimated at $500 with incomplete work, another charging $500 for a leak repair with inconsistent explanations). Project completion is solid with timely work and follow-through on callbacks, though one review expresses concern about seal quality and potential future leaks. Technical skill is evident in diagnostic ability and efficient work, but the pricing issues and one quality concern temper confidence in overall reliability.

• PRICING RED FLAG: Two 1-star reviews (2020 and 2018) explicitly detail billing disputes and overcharges. The 2018 review describes being charged $700 for work estimated at $500, with incomplete sealing work. The 2020 review describes inconsistent explanations for charges and dishonesty regarding what was actually done.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most reviews are from 2017-2018 (4 of 7 reviews). Only 2 reviews are from 2020 or later, limiting ability to assess current performance. The most recent negative review is from 2020.
• QUALITY CONCERN: One review expresses uncertainty about whether refrigerant was properly sealed, raising questions about workmanship durability.
• POSITIVE REVIEW PATTERN: The 5-star reviews are detailed and specific with named technicians (Jordan, Cody), which increases credibility. The 1-star reviews are also detailed with specific dollar amounts and problems, suggesting genuine complaints rather than fake reviews.

This score should be treated with caution due to serious pricing and honesty concerns documented in two detailed negative reviews, combined with limited recent data (only 2 reviews from 2020 onward). While professionalism and project completion scores are solid, the pricing dimension is significantly dragged down by explicit evidence of overcharges and billing discrepancies, making this company's trustworthiness questionable despite positive recent testimonials.

Service Experts demonstrates strong professionalism and technical expertise, with technicians consistently praised for punctuality, friendliness, and knowledge. However, the company is severely hampered by pervasive pricing concerns—customers repeatedly report markups of 300-800% on parts, diagnostic fees that seem excessive, and aggressive upselling tactics. Project completion is mixed, with many reports of incomplete work, multiple callbacks, and scheduling failures. The company's Advantage Program lease model is particularly controversial, with numerous complaints about predatory terms and hidden costs. While individual technicians often perform well, systemic issues with sales practices, pricing transparency, and follow-through significantly undermine customer satisfaction.

• STRONG PATTERN OF PRICING COMPLAINTS: Approximately 287 reviews explicitly mention overpricing, with customers reporting parts marked up 300-800% above retail, diagnostic fees of $99-$175 for simple issues, and labor rates of $150-$300+ per hour. This is the single most consistent complaint across the entire review set.
• PREDATORY ADVANTAGE PROGRAM: Multiple reviews describe the lease-based Advantage Program as a scam, with customers paying $140-$300/month for 7-10 years, totaling $12,000-$36,000 for equipment worth $5,000-$8,000. Customers report being misled about ownership, early termination penalties of 50-94% of original cost, and liens placed on homes without clear disclosure.
• AGGRESSIVE UPSELLING AND SALES TACTICS: Approximately 180+ reviews describe high-pressure sales tactics, including sending salesmen without customer consent, recommending unnecessary replacements, and using fear tactics about system failure. Technicians appear incentivized by commission to recommend expensive upgrades.
• INCONSISTENT QUALITY AND MULTIPLE CALLBACKS: Approximately 120+ reviews report technicians returning multiple times to fix the same issue, incomplete work, incorrect diagnoses, and poor workmanship. Some customers report 3-6 visits for single problems.
• SCHEDULING AND NO-SHOW ISSUES: Approximately 95+ reviews report missed appointments, no-shows without notification, late arrivals, and poor communication about delays. Several customers report waiting 4+ hours with no contact.
• DISHONEST DIAGNOSTICS: Approximately 85+ reviews describe technicians making false diagnoses (claiming units need replacement when only minor repairs needed), deliberately breaking equipment during service, or misidentifying problems. Multiple customers report getting second opinions that contradicted Service Experts' diagnosis.
• POOR CUSTOMER SERVICE AND UNRESPONSIVE MANAGEMENT: Approximately 110+ reviews report difficulty reaching management, unanswered callbacks, refusal to honor warranties or service agreements, and dismissive treatment of complaints.
• ADVANTAGE PROGRAM HIDDEN TERMS: Multiple reviews describe discovering liens on homes, inability to refinance, non-transferable leases, and surprise charges after signing. Customers report being told one thing verbally and finding different terms in fine print.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: Approximately 40-50 reviews from June 2025 and June 2006 contain nearly identical phrasing ('Hays/Hayes was on time, professional, friendly...', 'Ali came over...genuine, efficient, knowledgeable...'), suggesting possible review manipulation. These appear clustered by date.
• INSTALLATION DEFECTS: Multiple reviews report incorrect installations, wrong equipment sizes, improper wiring, missing permits, failed inspections, and equipment that failed within days of installation.
• MAINTENANCE CONTRACT FAILURES: Approximately 60+ reviews describe maintenance contracts that were not honored, services not performed despite payment, and inability to use contracted services within specified timeframes.

This WW Score of 62.3 should be treated with HIGH confidence due to the large sample size (1,000 reviews) and consistent patterns across multiple dimensions. However, the score masks a deeply problematic company: while technicians are often professional and knowledgeable, systemic issues with pricing, sales practices, and contract terms create significant customer harm. The pricing dimension (38.2) is particularly reliable and represents the company's most serious weakness. Potential customers should be aware that low individual technician ratings are frequently contradicted by complaints about company-level practices, hidden fees, and aggressive sales tactics. The presence of potential fake reviews in specific date clusters slightly reduces confidence in the overall rating distribution, but does not materially affect the validity of the core findings about pricing and sales practices, which are corroborated across hundreds of independent reviews.