Find Nearby Plumbers In Thornton, Colorado

Jerred and North Metro Specialties receive consistently strong praise across all four scored dimensions. Professionalism is the most frequently cited strength, with multiple reviewers highlighting responsiveness, courtesy, same-day availability, and honest communication — including instances where he proactively lowered a quote after assessing the actual scope of work. Pricing is also a notable positive, with several reviewers explicitly calling his rates reasonable or unbeatable, and one reviewer contrasting him favorably against an overcharging competitor. Project completion is well-supported, with reviewers describing jobs finished the same day, late-night emergency completions, and no instances of abandoned or incomplete work. Experience is backed by references to over 10 years in corporate property maintenance, military background, and demonstrated problem-solving in the field (e.g., identifying a hidden GFI, navigating tree root complications without upcharging). The primary caveat is that 6 of 8 reviews are more than 5 years old, which meaningfully limits confidence in current performance.

• RECENCY WARNING: Only 1 of 8 reviews is from the past 12 months (January 2024). Six reviews are from 2016–2019, making it difficult to assess current service quality with confidence.
• FAKE REVIEW AWARENESS: All 8 reviews are 5-star ratings with no negative feedback whatsoever. While the reviews do contain specific details and varied language, the uniformly perfect rating pattern warrants mild caution.
• SMALL SAMPLE SIZE: With only 8 total reviews, all dimension scores — despite HIGH confidence labels based on mention counts — should be interpreted conservatively. The confidence_factor formula caps at 1.0 at 5 mentions, but 5–7 mentions across 8 reviews is still a limited absolute sample.
• NAME SPELLING INCONSISTENCY: The contractor's name is spelled 'Jerred,' 'Jerrod,' and 'Jarred' across reviews. This is minor but noted for record accuracy.

This WW Score carries moderate overall reliability — the reviews are detailed and specific enough to suggest authenticity, but the heavy skew toward reviews that are 5–8 years old significantly limits confidence in whether this score reflects the contractor's current quality and practices.

All six reviews speak positively to professionalism, highlighting prompt responsiveness, same-day service, punctuality, and courteous attitude — one reviewer notably contrasted Aloha's responsiveness against six other local plumbers who failed to respond. Project completion is consistently praised across all reviews, with jobs described as finished quickly, correctly, and thoroughly, including proactive extras like replacing a flapper valve unprompted. Experience is well-supported, with reviewers describing work across a diverse range of plumbing tasks including water mains, frozen pipes, water heaters, and fixture installs, all completed expertly. Pricing receives only a single mention ('fair prices'), so that dimension carries very limited confidence and is scored conservatively. Overall, the pattern of reviews is positive and credible, though the small sample size and age of most reviews temper confidence in the final score.

• All 6 reviews are 5-star ratings with no negative feedback — while reviews appear genuine with specific details and varied scenarios, the uniformly perfect ratings warrant mild caution.
• RECENCY WARNING: Only 1 of 6 reviews is from the past 12 months (2021). Four reviews are from 2015–2018, making the dataset largely outdated. Current service quality may differ significantly.
• Small sample size (6 reviews total) limits statistical reliability of all dimension scores.

This WW Score carries moderate reliability due to a small, mostly dated review set (5 of 6 reviews are over 3 years old), though the specificity and variety of the reviews suggest they are genuine and the positive signals are credible within those limitations.

Starz Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism and technical expertise across multiple reviews, with staff consistently praised for responsiveness, punctuality, and knowledgeable problem-solving. Pricing is reported as reasonable and transparent in three reviews. Project completion is generally solid, though one 2019 review raises concerns about a significant code violation issue involving trenching that resulted in legal action, which materially impacts confidence in this dimension. The company shows strong follow-up and customer service orientation, but the legal dispute and older review dates (most from 2018-2019) warrant moderate overall confidence.

• CRITICAL: 2019 review alleges Starz Plumbing performed trenching work not up to city code, was featured on a Troubleshooter Show, and filed a legal gag order. This is a serious credibility and compliance concern that cannot be ignored.
• RECENCY ISSUE: Most reviews are from 2018-2019 (4-6 years old). Only one review from 2019 is recent. No reviews from past 12 months limits ability to assess current performance.
• SAMPLE SIZE: Only 6 reviews total is a small dataset. Scores should be treated as preliminary.
• POSITIVE REVIEW CLUSTERING: Five of six reviews are 5-star with enthusiastic language. While not necessarily fake, the concentration of perfect ratings with limited critical detail warrants caution.

This WW Score of 82.1 should be treated with caution due to small sample size (6 reviews), age of data (mostly 2018-2019), and one serious allegation of code violation that directly contradicts claims of expertise and professionalism. The score reflects positive customer service experiences but is significantly undermined by the unresolved legal dispute regarding code compliance.

Rob receives consistently positive feedback across professionalism, project completion, and workmanship, with multiple reviewers explicitly praising his punctuality, communication, cleanliness, and attention to detail. Pricing is mentioned favorably in a few reviews as fair and competitive, though the limited number of pricing mentions keeps that dimension's confidence at MODERATE. A notable negative data point is one reviewer who reported Rob never returned a phone call, which meaningfully impacts the professionalism score and signals a potential responsiveness issue. The majority of reviews are significantly dated — most are from 2014–2016, with only one from 2018 — which substantially reduces confidence in how well these scores reflect current performance. Scores have been kept conservative to reflect both the recency gap and the small total review count.

• RECENCY WARNING: 8 of 9 reviews are from 2018 or earlier, with the majority clustered in 2014–2016. None are from the past several years. These scores may not reflect the contractor's current quality or availability.
• ONE REVIEW (2018) explicitly reports a failure to return a phone call, which is a direct negative signal for professionalism and responsiveness. This has been factored into the professionalism score.
• Two reviews ('unknown' rating 5.0 from 2015, and 'Very well! Each task was successfully completed.' from 2007) contain no usable detail and were excluded from dimension scoring. The 2007 review is extremely dated and carries no meaningful weight.
• FAKE REVIEW AWARENESS: No strong patterns of fake reviews detected, but several reviews are vague and generic (e.g., 'Very well, very pleasant and completed in a timely fashion'). These were treated as low-signal and not used to inflate scores.
• SMALL SAMPLE WARNING: Only 9 total reviews across a multi-year span. The WW Score should be treated as directional rather than definitive.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability due to the small review count, the significant age of most reviews, and one explicit negative responsiveness complaint — prospective customers should seek more recent references before hiring.

It's Fixed demonstrates strong professionalism with consistent praise for responsiveness, punctuality, and courteous communication across 8 reviews. However, project completion reliability is significantly undermined by critical failures: a fence gate installed into a neighbor's property, a non-functional hose spigot, and a shower regrouting job that failed twice with the contractor refusing warranty coverage. Pricing transparency is a concern, with one customer noting unclear upfront costs and another charged $425 for a job that required costly rework. Experience and workmanship are generally solid when jobs succeed, but the pattern of incomplete problem-solving and warranty refusal raises serious concerns about follow-through.

• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: Reviews dated 2023-12-18 (two reviews within 3 minutes), 2022-09-20 and 2022-09-21 (consecutive days) contain suspiciously similar phrasing ('prompt, professional', 'highly recommend', 'found Mike on Nextdoor'). Generic praise without specific details in multiple 5-star reviews suggests possible review manipulation.
• CRITICAL WARRANTY ISSUE: Review from 2023-12-11 documents serious warranty refusal on shower regrouting work that failed twice. Contractor charged additional fees rather than standing behind work—this directly contradicts claims of reliability in other reviews.
• QUALITY CONTROL FAILURES: Multiple reviews document defective work (fence gate encroaching on neighbor property, non-functional spigot, failed grout application). These are not minor issues but represent fundamental project completion failures.
• RECENCY CONCERN: 6 of 10 reviews are from 2023 or earlier; only 3 reviews from 2024. Recent reviews show declining satisfaction trend (3-star in June 2024 vs. 5-star cluster in late 2023).

This WW Score should be treated with caution. While professionalism metrics are strong, the documented warranty refusal, multiple project failures, and suspected review manipulation significantly undermine confidence in the overall rating. The score reflects a company with good customer service presentation but inconsistent execution and poor accountability—recommend requesting references for similar project types before hiring.

Brandon's business shows strong technical expertise and generally fair pricing, but is significantly undermined by serious professionalism and project completion issues. Multiple reviews praise his workmanship and reasonable rates, but two damaging 1-star reviews document poor communication, failure to honor warranties, and inability to fulfill paid service commitments. The pattern of communication failures and unresolved callbacks appears systemic rather than isolated. While positive reviews outnumber negative ones, the severity of the failures (leaving customers without heat, non-delivery of paid services) carries substantial weight in assessing reliability.

• RECENCY CONCERN: Most reviews are from 2013-2019; only one review from 2019. No recent data (past 12 months) available to assess current business practices or whether issues have been resolved.
• CRITICAL PATTERN: Two 1-star reviews document serious failures in communication and project completion (warranty denial, non-delivery of paid filter, unresponsive callbacks). These are not minor complaints but fundamental business failures.
• INCONSISTENCY: Stark contrast between 5-star reviews praising service and 1-star reviews describing abandonment and non-responsiveness suggests either significant operational inconsistency or deterioration over time.
• BUSINESS VIABILITY: One 2013 review questions whether the company is 'still in business' due to non-responsiveness, raising concerns about business stability during that period.

This score should be treated with caution due to age of data and conflicting evidence; the presence of serious, documented failures in communication and project completion significantly undermines confidence despite positive technical reviews, and the lack of recent data prevents assessment of whether issues have been addressed.