Find Nearby Plumbers In Parker, Colorado

SG Electric demonstrates strong project completion and technical expertise, with multiple reviews praising fast, efficient work and quality craftsmanship. However, professionalism is undermined by a significant responsiveness failure (unanswered calls) and mixed pricing feedback—while many customers praise affordability, two detailed reviews explicitly criticize overpricing and upselling tactics. The company shows inconsistency: excellent service in most cases contrasts sharply with complaints about unnecessary charges and poor follow-through on minor tasks. Recency is a concern, as most positive reviews are 6+ years old, while recent negative reviews (2023, 2017) highlight pricing and attitude issues.

• RECENCY CONCERN: 8 of 13 reviews are older than 6 years (pre-2017). Only 2 reviews from 2023 and 2021. Historical positive reviews may not reflect current service standards.
• PRICING INCONSISTENCY: Strong contradiction between reviews praising 'affordable' and 'cheaper than competitors' versus detailed complaints of overpricing, upselling, and unwillingness to perform minor tasks without additional charges. This suggests either inconsistent pricing practices or selective service based on job size.
• RESPONSIVENESS RED FLAG: One review (2014) documents complete failure to respond to phone calls and voicemail—a critical professionalism failure.
• POTENTIAL UPSELLING PATTERN: Review from 2017 explicitly accuses owner of 'looking for ways to show you other problems to get more money' and refusing to complete minor $2 tasks without payment. Another electrician completed the same work for $45 vs. quoted $60+.
• POSSIBLE SELECTION BIAS: Older reviews (2016-2017) are uniformly 5-star with detailed praise; newer reviews (2023, 2021) include critical feedback. This temporal pattern warrants caution.

This score should be treated with MODERATE caution. While the company demonstrates genuine technical competence and often delivers on time, the pricing dimension is genuinely contested, responsiveness has failed in documented cases, and most positive reviews are 6+ years old. The WW Score of 78.2 reflects real strengths in execution but is tempered by legitimate concerns about pricing transparency, upselling, and consistency. Recent customers should request detailed written quotes and verify references from the past 12 months.

Drain Wizard demonstrates strong technical expertise and generally responsive service, with many customers praising quick response times and skilled problem-solving. However, the company is significantly hampered by serious professionalism and reliability issues, including no-shows, poor follow-up communication, and documented instances of theft and property damage without adequate resolution. Pricing concerns are also evident, with multiple customers reporting unexpected charges and quotes not honored. While recent reviews (2018-2024) show improvement in service quality, older reviews reveal systemic management and accountability problems under previous ownership that damaged trust.

• CRITICAL: Multiple severe incidents documented including alleged theft of firearm (2019), property damage without resolution (2016), and no-show appointments with no communication (2020, 2022). These suggest serious liability and management issues.
• OWNERSHIP/MANAGEMENT CHANGE: Reviews from 2015-2016 describe owner 'Chuck Harrison' as unprofessional and dismissive. Later reviews (2018+) show improvement, suggesting possible ownership or management transition. This creates two distinct company profiles in the data.
• PRICING INCONSISTENCY: Multiple customers report being quoted one price and charged significantly more (2020: quoted $188, charged $368; 2013: quoted $220, charged $275). Pattern suggests systematic billing practices issues.
• COMMUNICATION FAILURES: Documented instances of technicians leaving without explanation (2022), no callback after serious incidents (2019 theft), and failure to follow up on promised callbacks (2015).
• RECENCY BIAS: Most negative reviews are from 2015-2016 and 2020-2022. Reviews from 2018-2019 and 2023-2024 are predominantly positive, suggesting either genuine improvement or potential selection bias in recent reviews.
• INCONSISTENT QUALITY: Wide variance in customer experience suggests inconsistent technician training, supervision, or accountability across the company.

This WW Score should be treated with CAUTION. While recent reviews (past 2 years) are predominantly positive and suggest improved operations, the company's documented history of serious incidents (theft, property damage, no-shows, billing disputes, and poor management response) creates significant trust concerns. The score reflects current performance but does not fully capture the reputational and liability risks evident in historical data. Customers should verify current ownership/management and request written quotes with explicit terms before engaging services.

All In One Heating and Air Conditioning presents a deeply mixed picture across all four dimensions. Professionalism scores are dragged down significantly by multiple reviews describing ignored calls, a no-show appointment with no notice, aggressive driving behavior by a company van, and an owner who repeatedly failed to follow through on commitments — despite several positive reviews praising responsiveness and courtesy. Project completion is a serious concern: at least three reviews describe work that was never properly finished, a unit that never functioned correctly after installation, and a technician who canceled a job without informing the customer. Pricing received one strong positive mention (half the price of competitors) but one detailed negative review alleged the customer was overcharged by approximately $1,200 for a lower-end unit, creating a conflicted picture. Experience scores reflect genuine technical competence in several cases — correct diagnoses, successful repairs, and warranty-honored callbacks — but are undermined by at least two instances of poor workmanship and an incorrect part installation that worsened a problem. The volume of detailed, specific negative reviews prevents any dimension from scoring above 65.

• Several reviews are older than 5 years (2012–2014 range), and the most recent reviews are from 2021. The business may have changed significantly in either direction; older negative reviews may not reflect current operations, but they cannot be dismissed given their specificity.
• One 5-star review (2014) uses highly generic, repetitive language ('great company, great employees, great services') with no specific details — this review shows possible fake review characteristics and was weighted minimally.
• The 1-star review from 2016 about aggressive driving behavior in a company van does not directly address service quality and was treated as a professionalism signal only, not a project completion or experience signal.
• The owner (Chris) is named directly in multiple negative reviews for failing to return calls, overpromising, and not honoring a reimbursement commitment — this is a pattern, not an isolated incident, and weighs heavily on professionalism and project completion scores.
• Most reviews with usable data are from 2017 or earlier. Only 3 reviews are from the past 4 years (2018–2021). Recency weighting was applied, giving more influence to the 2021 and 2018 reviews, but the overall dataset skews older.

This WW Score is based on 12 reviews spanning nearly a decade, with sufficient mention counts across all dimensions to produce HIGH confidence labels, but the wide date range and significant volume of detailed negative reviews mean the score should be treated as a genuine reflection of inconsistent service quality rather than a statistical anomaly.

The reviews paint a deeply inconsistent picture of Professional Home Services. Professionalism scores moderately due to frequent mentions of punctuality and politeness, but is dragged down by multiple accounts of late arrivals, failure to follow up, and poor communication about materials and scope. Project completion is the weakest dimension, with several reviews describing unfinished work, jobs requiring redoing, paint left on ceilings, walls not properly prepared, and at least one instance of the contractor simply not calling back after a complaint. Experience scores are similarly low, with multiple reviewers explicitly stating the contractor lacked professional-level skills, arrived without proper tools, and failed to follow basic trade practices such as sanding, priming, and using drop cloths. Pricing receives a slightly more favorable score, as a handful of reviews praised affordability and cost-consciousness, though this is offset by concerns about value given the quality of work delivered.

• 5 of 18 reviews contain only the word 'unknown' as review text and provide no usable qualitative data — these were excluded from dimension scoring.
• The two most glowing 5-star reviews (2012 and 2013) are over 10 years old and use highly generic, marketing-style language with no specific project details, raising suspicion of potentially non-authentic reviews. These were given reduced weight.
• A clear pattern exists: positive reviews tend to be vague and generic, while negative reviews are highly detailed and specific — this asymmetry further reduces confidence in the positive reviews.
• All reviews are older than 7 years (most recent is November 2016), meaning there is NO data from the past 12 months. This score should not be used to assess current service quality.
• One reviewer explicitly stated the contractor 'never called back' after a complaint, and another described the work as an 'absolute disaster' requiring complete redoing — these are serious red flags for project completion and professionalism.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability due to a reasonable number of detailed reviews, but is significantly limited by the age of all reviews (none within the past 7+ years), the presence of 5 uninformative 'unknown' entries, and suspected non-authentic generic positive reviews — the score should not be used as a current indicator of contractor quality.

The review set for Cronen Plumbing paints a predominantly negative picture across all four scored dimensions. Professionalism is severely damaged by multiple accounts of no-shows, unreturned calls, an owner yelling at and hanging up on a customer, and a tech arriving an hour late — offset only slightly by two positive reviews praising punctuality and communication. Project completion is a major liability: reviews describe abandoned work, a snake left in a sewer line, jobs requiring multiple return visits to finish, a court-ordered judgment that went unpaid, and property damage left unaddressed. Pricing drew explicit criticism for triple-marked-up parts with no disclosure, quotes described as twice the market rate, and a $400 toilet repair flagged as excessive. Experience scores marginally higher due to a few positive reviews citing skilled workmanship, but is undercut by serious technical failures including a dropped gasket causing a $3,000 repair and a snake that wrapped on itself after being blamed on pipe conditions. The overall WW Score of 38.2 reflects a contractor with a pattern of serious service failures across nearly every dimension.

• LEGAL/FINANCIAL FLAG: One reviewer cites a public small claims court case (Arapahoe County Case 2020 S 0248) in which a judge ruled against Cronen and ordered payment — which had reportedly not been made over a year later. This is a significant red flag.
• LICENSING/INSURANCE FLAG: One reviewer claims Cronen's General Liability Insurance in Arvada was expired as of November 1, 2016 (License #AEC3523). This has not been independently verified but is a serious concern if accurate.
• RECENCY NOTE: Several of the most damaging reviews are from 2012–2017 and may not reflect current operations. However, a 1-star review from December 2023 confirms ongoing issues with pricing transparency and refusal to honor service commitments, suggesting problems have persisted.
• POSITIVE REVIEW QUALITY: The positive reviews (5-star) are specific and name individual technicians (Ron, Tony, Chad S.), which reduces fake review suspicion for those entries. However, they are heavily outnumbered by detailed negative accounts.
• PATTERN WARNING: Multiple negative reviews describe the same behavioral pattern — initial service failure, unresponsive follow-up, and refusal to take accountability — suggesting a systemic issue rather than isolated incidents.
• RECENCY WEIGHTING: Only 2 of 11 reviews are from the past 12 months (2023). The majority of reviews are 3–11 years old. The WW Score should be interpreted with caution given limited recent data.

This WW Score is based on 11 reviews spanning 2012–2023, with HIGH mention counts across all dimensions, but the score should be treated with moderate caution due to the age of many reviews and the limited number of recent data points confirming whether historical patterns persist.

The reviews for Ace Unlimited present a deeply mixed and largely negative picture. Pricing is a major concern, with one reviewer citing a $4,600 quote for a job completed elsewhere for $2,000, and another paying $200 just for an estimate — driving the pricing score very low. Project completion is similarly troubled, with one reviewer reporting a failed water heater installation that caused flooding and thousands in damage, and another describing an attempted repair 48 hours post-install that went catastrophically wrong. Professionalism scores slightly higher due to two positive reviews praising respectful and thorough service, but these are offset by explicit accounts of bad attitudes, deceptive contract practices, and deflection of responsibility. Experience is mixed: two reviewers praised the technical competence, while two others described serious workmanship failures.

• Only 5 reviews total — sample size is very small and scores should be treated with caution.
• Reviews span from 2018 to 2024, meaning older reviews (2018) may not reflect current business practices. Only 2 reviews are within the past 24 months.
• The two positive reviews (2018 and 2022) are notably generic in praise and lack specific detail compared to the detailed negative reviews, which may indicate lower reliability of those positive reviews.
• One reviewer explicitly describes a failed installation causing flooding and property damage, with the company directing the customer to contact the city rather than taking responsibility — a serious red flag.
• A second reviewer describes an attempted contract obligation on an unsigned contract, suggesting potentially deceptive business practices.

This WW Score is based on only 5 reviews with moderate confidence across all dimensions — it should be treated as a preliminary signal only, and prospective customers are strongly advised to seek additional references before hiring.