Find Nearby Plumbers In Northglenn, Colorado

Fortitude HVAC demonstrates exceptional performance across all four dimensions. Professionalism is consistently praised with mentions of punctuality, friendliness, responsiveness, and courteous behavior in all 12 reviews. Project completion is strong, with 11 reviews explicitly confirming timely work, efficient service, and follow-through on commitments. Experience is well-documented across 10 reviews, highlighting technical expertise, problem-solving ability, and honest recommendations without unnecessary upsells. Pricing receives strong marks in 5 reviews, with customers noting fair and competitive rates compared to alternatives.

• All 12 reviews are 5-star ratings with no negative feedback or critical comments—this is statistically unusual and warrants caution
• Most reviews (10 of 12) are from 2020, with only 2 reviews from 2023 and 2020 respectively; recent performance data is limited
• Repetitive positive phrasing across reviews (e.g., 'friendly,' 'professional,' 'quick,' 'would recommend') suggests possible review curation or selection bias
• No reviews mention any problems, delays, callbacks, or service issues—absence of any critical feedback reduces confidence in authenticity
• The consistency and uniformity of praise, while positive, does not align with typical real-world review distributions

While the WW Score of 92.3 is strong and supported by explicit mentions across all dimensions, the uniformity of 5-star ratings, lack of any critical feedback, and age of most reviews (3+ years old) suggest this score should be treated with moderate caution; recent independent verification would strengthen confidence in current performance.

This aggregated review set spans many years and appears to represent multiple businesses operating under similar or identical names (Royal Flush Plumbing, Pro Plumbing Service, and others), which significantly complicates scoring reliability. The majority of reviews are strongly positive, praising punctuality, communication, professionalism, and technical skill — with many customers citing same-day or emergency responsiveness as a standout quality. However, a meaningful minority of negative reviews (roughly 15-20% of substantive reviews) describe serious issues including no-shows, missed appointments without notification, overcharging without upfront disclosure, incomplete or defective work, and poor customer service when complaints were raised. Pricing is the weakest dimension, with multiple reviewers across different time periods describing charges they felt were excessive, non-transparent, or inconsistent with quoted amounts. Project completion scores are dragged down by recurring complaints about abandoned work, callbacks not honored, and jobs requiring multiple return visits to fix errors.

• MULTI-ENTITY CONCERN: Reviews reference multiple distinct business names including 'Royal Flush Plumbing,' 'Pro Plumbing Service,' and references to individual owner-operators (Jarrod, Steve, Ben, Doug, Ted, Jose, etc.) across different geographic markets (Atlanta GA, Philadelphia PA, Providence RI, Las Vegas NV, Hollister CA, Cleveland OH, Oregon City OR, and others). This dataset almost certainly aggregates reviews from multiple unrelated businesses, severely limiting the reliability of any single composite score.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION: A significant number of reviews contain zero substantive detail — only a star rating or a single generic phrase like 'Great service!' or 'Amazing!' with no specifics. Approximately 60-80 reviews fall into this category. Several clusters of reviews share identical or near-identical dates (e.g., dozens of reviews dated 2025-05-10, 2025-04-10, 2025-03-11, 2025-02-09, 2025-01-10) which is statistically anomalous and suggests possible review manipulation or bulk import artifacts.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: At least one review (Ted and his crew sewer line replacement) appears to be posted twice with identical text and nearly identical dates (2024-07-18). Additionally, two reviews from 2021-09-24 are near-identical complaints about overcharging for a kitchen faucet installation.
• RECENCY NOTE: The dataset spans from approximately 2003 to June 2025. Reviews older than 12 months (pre-June 2024) should be weighted less heavily. The most recent reviews (2025) are predominantly positive, but the volume of blank or generic 5-star reviews in recent months raises authenticity concerns.
• PRICING TRANSPARENCY PATTERN: Multiple independent negative reviews across different years and locations describe a consistent pattern of pricing not disclosed upfront, charges significantly exceeding verbal quotes, and management being unresponsive or dismissive when customers raised billing concerns. This is a recurring structural issue, not isolated incidents.
• NO-SHOW / SCHEDULING PATTERN: A recurring theme across negative reviews spanning 2008 to 2022 involves technicians failing to appear within scheduled windows, no calls to notify customers, and rescheduled appointments also being missed. This pattern appears in enough reviews to be considered a systemic reliability concern rather than isolated incidents.
• WORK QUALITY FAILURES: Several detailed negative reviews describe defective workmanship including broken components attributed to technician error, incomplete jobs, and refusal to return to fix mistakes under warranty. These are high-severity complaints that meaningfully reduce the project completion score.

This WW Score carries LIMITED-to-MODERATE reliability for any single business decision due to strong evidence that the review dataset aggregates multiple unrelated businesses across different markets, combined with a statistically anomalous clustering of blank and generic 5-star reviews that suggests possible review inflation; the score is best interpreted as a broad industry-level benchmark rather than a precise assessment of any one contractor.

Borrego Mechanical has two positive reviews highlighting thorough estimates, timely scheduling, tidy workmanship, and reasonable pricing, which paint a generally favorable picture of the business. However, a 1-star review describing reckless driving by a company vehicle in a residential neighborhood with children present is a meaningful professionalism concern that cannot be ignored, pulling that dimension's score down significantly. Project completion and experience scores are modestly positive based on two reviews mentioning a successful furnace/AC installation and a water heater replacement, but confidence is low given the small sample. Pricing received a favorable mention in one review describing costs as 'extremely reasonable,' though this is based on a single data point. Overall, the score should be treated with caution due to the very small number of reviews and the age of most data.

• Only 3 reviews total — WW Score reliability is very low and should not be used as a definitive assessment.
• The most recent review (2022) is a 1-star complaint about dangerous driving behavior in a company vehicle, which is a direct professionalism and safety concern.
• Two of the three positive reviews are from 2018 and 2021 — both are older than 1 year relative to a typical current evaluation window, reducing their recency weight.
• The positive reviews are specific and detailed enough to appear genuine, but the extremely small sample size prevents any meaningful pattern analysis for fake review detection.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews, all older than one year, and should be considered highly unreliable — significantly more recent review data is needed before this score can be trusted for decision-making.

Benjamin Franklin Plumbing of Denver presents a deeply split profile: a large cohort of recent (2024–2025) reviews praise individual technicians — Leroy, Cristi, Danny, Andrew, Ilija, Daniel, and others — for punctuality, courtesy, clear communication, and solid workmanship, driving moderately positive professionalism and experience scores. However, pricing is the single most damaging dimension across the entire review history, with dozens of reviewers across multiple years explicitly describing charges as grossly inflated, inconsistent, or deceptive — including hidden fees, bait-and-switch quotes, and estimates two to four times higher than competitors. Project completion is mixed: many jobs are reported as finished well, but a meaningful number of reviews describe incomplete work, failed callbacks, warranty disputes, and at least one case where a drain was left more clogged than before. The overall WW Score of 62.4 reflects genuine technical competence from individual technicians offset severely by a systemic and persistent pricing and business-practice problem that spans the full review history from 2010 to 2025.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: At least two reviews ('Joel and his crew did a mighty fine job...', 'Very respectful and knowledgeable.', 'Mike & Johnathan were very professional...', 'Leroy was prompt, courteous...') appear verbatim on multiple dates in June 2025. This is a strong indicator of review manipulation or platform duplication. Confidence in the most recent review cluster is reduced.
• FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: A significant number of 5-star reviews from 2025 contain zero text (rating only). These blank reviews inflate the star average without providing any usable signal and may be artificially padding the rating.
• RECENCY BIAS RISK: The bulk of detailed positive reviews are clustered in 2025 and late 2024, while the majority of detailed negative reviews span 2011–2022. The business may have genuinely improved, or the recent positive reviews may reflect a managed reputation campaign — the duplicate review flag above supports the latter concern.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS ARE SYSTEMIC AND PERSISTENT: Overcharging complaints appear in reviews from 2010, 2011, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2024, and 2025 — spanning the entire review history. This is not an isolated issue but a documented pattern of the business model.
• UPSELLING AND PRESSURE TACTICS: Multiple independent reviewers across different years describe aggressive upselling of VIP memberships, unnecessary replacements, and high-pressure sales tactics during service calls.
• INCOMPLETE WORK AND CALLBACK FAILURES: Several reviews describe jobs left unfinished, leaks not fixed, warranty work ignored, and no return calls from management — indicating a project completion reliability concern beyond isolated incidents.
• EXTREME TECHNICIAN CONDUCT: One review (2020) describes a technician verbally abusing and threatening a customer. While isolated, this is a serious professionalism flag.
• HIDDEN FEES AND BAIT-AND-SWITCH: Multiple reviewers describe being quoted one price by phone and charged significantly more on arrival, or being charged a service/trip fee without prior disclosure.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large volume of reviews, but the score itself should be interpreted cautiously given confirmed duplicate reviews, a high volume of blank 5-star entries, and a persistent multi-year pattern of pricing and business-practice complaints that structurally suppresses trustworthiness despite genuine positive technician-level performance.

The reviews paint a consistently negative picture of Complete Plumbing Services across nearly all dimensions. Professionalism is severely undermined by a technician smoking on a client's roof, a no-call/no-show incident, an owner who was unreachable for weeks despite promises, and a failure to issue a promised refund for months. Project completion is a major failure point, with multiple reviews describing incomplete or ineffective work — including a swamp cooler left full of moss after being billed for service, a drain that was billed as cleaned but showed no evidence of work, and a repair that stretched across four visits over a week. Pricing concerns are significant, with one reviewer detailing what appears to be a highly inflated refrigerant charge and trip fee for under five minutes of non-work, and another never receiving a promised refund check. The one positive review (4 stars, 2016) describes a responsive owner during an emergency, which provides a small counterweight but is insufficient to offset the volume and severity of the negative accounts.

• Three of four reviews are dated 2014–2017, making all reviews more than 6 years old. This score should not be treated as reflective of current service quality without more recent data.
• Only one positive review exists and it is generic in praise with limited specifics beyond 'very good experience' — it cannot meaningfully offset three detailed negative accounts.
• Multiple reviews describe the same pattern: promises made by the owner (refunds, corrections, callbacks) that are never fulfilled, suggesting a systemic issue with follow-through at the ownership level.
• The pricing review describes potential deceptive billing practices (inflated refrigerant cost, trip charge applied contrary to stated policy) — this warrants serious caution for prospective customers.
• With only 4 total reviews, confidence in all dimension scores is LOW to MODERATE. The WW Score should be treated as directional only and not statistically reliable.

This WW Score is based on only 4 reviews, all of which are over 6 years old, making it a LOW-reliability signal — the score directionally reflects serious service failures but cannot be considered a current or statistically robust assessment of this contractor.

With only two reviews, data is extremely limited and no reliable WW Score can be calculated. The first review is strongly positive, praising Paul's friendliness, responsiveness, speed, and ability to coordinate a full restoration for a sewage backup before Christmas. The second review is a direct complaint: the plumber declined to perform a simple flapper repair and instead pushed a full toilet replacement at $610, leaving the customer's problem unresolved. This unresolved job significantly drags down project completion and experience scores. Pricing is mixed — one reviewer found the quote fair, while the other found the replacement-only approach unreasonably expensive for the scope of work needed. Professionalism scores moderately as the positive review highlights strong communication and attitude, but the second reviewer's experience suggests a lack of flexibility or willingness to address a straightforward repair.

• Only 2 reviews total — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Both reviews are from late 2021, meaning all data is over 1 year old. Current performance may differ significantly.
• Review 2 explicitly describes an unresolved job: plumber refused to repair a leaky toilet flapper and only offered full replacement at $610, leaving the customer without a fix.
• Small sample size means a single negative review has outsized impact — scores should be interpreted with extreme caution.

This score report is based on only 2 reviews from 2021 and should not be considered a reliable indicator of this contractor's overall quality or current performance.