Find Nearby Plumbers In 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.

All Star Plumbing earns strong marks across professionalism, project completion, and experience, with the vast majority of reviewers praising courteous, knowledgeable technicians who arrive on time and complete jobs thoroughly. Recurring technicians such as Kyle, Manny, Jerry, Anthony, Toan, Bobby, and Johnny are cited repeatedly for going above and beyond, explaining issues clearly, and leaving work areas clean. Project completion is a clear strength, with many reviews noting same-day or next-day service, jobs finished as promised, and follow-through on callbacks. Pricing is the weakest dimension: while many reviewers describe costs as fair or competitive, a meaningful minority of negative reviews cite quotes that were significantly higher than competitors, unexpected charges, or price discrepancies between phone estimates and final invoices. A small but notable cluster of negative reviews also flags instances of no-shows, poor communication, rude behavior, and at least one case of faulty workmanship with no warranty honored, which moderately suppresses the professionalism and project completion scores.

• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: Two reviews with identical text ('Great customer service he did what needed to be done. Our kitchen sink stopped up. Knew exactly what to do.') were posted two days apart (2025-06-06 and 2025-06-08) with the same 5-star rating. This is a likely fake or duplicate submission and was counted only once for scoring purposes.
• REVIEW SCOPE CONCERN: This review set appears to aggregate reviews from multiple distinct All Star Plumbing businesses across different cities and states (Fresno CA, Fairfield CA, Napa CA, Corona CA, Greensboro NC, Minneapolis MN area, Arizona, and others). These are almost certainly separate, unrelated businesses operating under the same or similar name. Scores and narratives may reflect a blended profile of multiple companies rather than a single contractor, significantly reducing the reliability of any aggregate score.
• RECENCY NOTE: Reviews span from approximately 2005 to June 2025. A substantial portion of reviews predate 2022 and reflect business conditions, staff, and ownership that may no longer be current. Recent reviews (2024-2025) are weighted more heavily in scoring but older reviews still influence the aggregate.
• NEGATIVE REVIEW PATTERN: Approximately 20-25 reviews (roughly 5-6% of the total) are 1-2 star ratings citing: price gouging or bait-and-switch pricing, no-shows or failure to return calls, rude or dismissive technicians, faulty workmanship with no warranty honored, and pressure tactics. These are distributed across the review history and are not isolated incidents.
• GENERIC PRAISE PATTERN: A significant number of short reviews (e.g., 'Great service!', 'Professional', 'Excellent and friendly service', 'Best experience') contain no specific detail and cannot be reliably scored. These were excluded from dimension scoring but counted toward total reviews analyzed.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Approximately 10 reviews contained no text (only a star rating). These were excluded from dimension scoring.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large volume of detailed reviews, but its practical reliability is MODERATE-to-LIMITED as a guide for hiring any single contractor, because the review pool almost certainly blends feedback for multiple unrelated businesses operating under the 'All Star Plumbing' name across different states and regions — consumers should verify they are reading reviews specific to their local branch before making a hiring decision.

Humberto's Plumbing demonstrates strong performance across all dimensions with consistent positive feedback. Professionalism is a clear strength, with multiple reviews highlighting punctuality, politeness, friendliness, and responsiveness. Pricing is exceptionally competitive—customers repeatedly noted significant savings compared to major competitors, with transparent and reasonable fees. Project completion is solid, with jobs finished promptly and callbacks honored. Technical skill and problem-solving ability are evident from complex jobs like water main replacement and emergency hot water tank installations. However, the review sample is small (6 total, 5 usable) and heavily skewed toward older dates (most from 2012–2016), limiting confidence in current performance.

• Review sample is very small (n=6) and heavily weighted toward 2012–2016; only one review from 2016, none from 2017 onward. Current performance cannot be reliably assessed.
• One review (2013-08-12) contains only 'See above' with no substantive content; excluded from analysis.
• All 5 usable reviews are 5-star ratings with uniformly positive language. While not definitively fake, the absence of any critical feedback or mixed experiences is unusual and warrants caution.
• Generic praise patterns present (e.g., 'absolute GEM,' 'head over heels,' 'top') without specific technical details in some reviews, though others do provide concrete examples (water main, hot water tanks, toilet repair).

This score should be treated with caution due to the small sample size (5 reviews) and age of data (most 8+ years old). While the reviews are detailed and specific in several cases, the uniformly perfect ratings and lack of recent feedback limit confidence in how current performance compares. Use this as a starting point but seek more recent reviews or direct references before making a decision.

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.

Power Rooter & Plumbing earns strong marks across all four dimensions, with professionalism being the most consistently praised attribute — reviewers repeatedly highlight courteous staff, prompt response times, clear communication, and a professional demeanor from both office representatives and field technicians. Pricing is generally regarded as fair and transparent, though one older negative review raises concerns about a disputed $200 job that the company declined to honor under its guarantee. Project completion is solid overall, but is meaningfully dragged down by two serious negative reviews: one involving a failed drain repair with a disputed warranty claim, and one involving a major workmanship failure (black mold from improper shower tile installation over non-water-resistant sheetrock) where the owner was described as hostile and refused any accountability. Experience scores well based on numerous reviewers praising technical knowledge and problem-solving, including a complex slab leak handled via tunneling, but the mold and shoddy workmanship complaint introduces a credible and detailed counter-narrative that cannot be ignored. The WW Score reflects a genuinely capable contractor with a strong track record tempered by documented instances of poor workmanship and customer dispute handling.

• TWO SERIOUS NEGATIVE REVIEWS DETECTED: A 1-star review from 2010 describes extensive and detailed workmanship failures (shower tile laid over non-water-resistant sheetrock, no insulation, black mold after one year) and hostile, non-responsive behavior from the owner when confronted. A second 1-star review from 2012 describes a disputed 30-day guarantee on a drain job that was not honored. Both reviews are specific, credible, and materially impact project completion and experience scores.
• RECENCY WARNING: The two negative reviews are from 2010 and 2012, and the majority of positive reviews cluster between 2019 and 2023. It is possible service quality has improved significantly over time, but the older negative reviews still reflect documented failures and are included in scoring.
• RECENCY WARNING: Several positive reviews are from 2009 and 2010, which are over 14 years old. These have been given reduced weight relative to more recent reviews.
• POSSIBLE REVIEW CONCENTRATION: A disproportionate number of reviews are 5-star with broadly similar praise. While most contain specific details that reduce fake review suspicion, the pattern warrants mild caution. No score reduction applied, but noted.
• ONE AMBIGUOUS NEGATIVE REVIEW: A 2-star review from 2009 describes confusion over a quoted price and inability to verify findings, but does not clearly attribute fault to the contractor. This was treated as a weak negative signal for pricing and experience rather than a definitive complaint.

This WW Score is based on 25 reviews spanning 2009 to 2023 with HIGH mention counts across all four dimensions, making the score mathematically reliable; however, the presence of two detailed and credible negative reviews — particularly the serious workmanship and dispute-handling complaint from 2010 — means prospective customers should read those reviews in full before hiring.

The majority of reviewers praise Miguel, Mark, and the broader team for punctuality, courtesy, and professional conduct, with multiple mentions of technicians arriving on time, communicating clearly, and going above and beyond. However, two separate negative reviews describe the office staff hanging up on customers mid-complaint, which is a serious and repeated professionalism failure that meaningfully drags down that dimension. Pricing is generally viewed as fair and reasonable, with one reviewer noting they came in under estimate and another receiving a goodwill discount, but one review documents an unexplained $250 charge added after the fact with no prior communication, which is a significant transparency concern. Project completion scores are solid overall — most jobs were completed successfully, often when other companies had failed — but two negative reviews describe work that either worsened the problem or was not guaranteed, and the company refused to return without additional payment. Experience scores are supported by consistent praise for technical skill and problem-solving, though one reviewer explicitly questioned whether the owner is a licensed plumber, which introduces a credibility concern around qualifications.

• Two separate reviews (2016 and 2021) independently describe the office phone representative hanging up on a customer after a complaint — this is a repeated pattern of poor customer service escalation handling, not an isolated incident.
• One review (2021) documents a $250 charge added to the bill after the fact with no prior notice or explanation, which contradicts the company's stated Golden Rule and customer satisfaction policies.
• One review (2016) alleges the owner Mark is not a licensed plumber. This is unverified but is a serious claim that warrants caution for consumers with complex plumbing needs.
• One review (2016) describes a drain cleaning that left the bathtub drain in worse condition than before, with the company refusing a free follow-up visit.
• The majority of positive reviews are dated between 2015 and 2020, with only one review from the past 12 months (2024). The 2024 review is very brief and generic with no specific detail, which limits its evidentiary value. Recency of positive feedback is a concern.
• Several positive reviews mention Miguel by name with warm, specific detail, which appears genuine. However, the volume of similarly structured 5-star reviews from 2015–2019 warrants mild scrutiny for possible review clustering during a specific period.

This WW Score is based on 19 reviews spanning approximately nine years, with HIGH mention counts across all four dimensions, but the score should be treated with moderate caution due to the age of most reviews, a pattern of repeated office staff misconduct across multiple independent negative reviews, and an unresolved allegation about licensing.