Find Nearby Plumbers In Cheyenne, Wyoming

The review set is sharply divided between positive and negative experiences, with 4 one-star reviews and 5 five-star reviews creating a polarized picture. Professionalism is the most-mentioned dimension and carries significant negative weight — multiple reviewers explicitly describe rude behavior, dismissive attitudes, and poor customer service, while others praise courtesy and communication. Pricing concerns appear in multiple reviews, including a complaint about a $70 fee for minimal work and a comment about overcharging, which drags that dimension down considerably. Project completion is mixed: one reviewer had to hire a second plumber to fix Brent's work, and another describes a visit where no actual work was performed, while positive reviewers describe completed jobs across multiple service types. Experience scores moderately — the gas boiler diagnosis review is a strong positive signal, but the complaint about lousy workmanship requiring correction by another contractor is a meaningful negative.

• Several positive reviews are older than 12 months (2018, 2019) and should be weighted less heavily than more recent reviews.
• The most recent reviews (2021–2022) include both positive and negative experiences, suggesting no clear improvement trend.
• One positive review (2019-06-13) is extremely vague — 'Nothing but good things to say about them' — with no specifics. This provides minimal usable signal.
• No fake review patterns detected, but the binary 1-star/5-star split with no middle-ground ratings is worth noting as potentially indicative of a polarizing service experience rather than a balanced customer base.
• Small sample size of 9 reviews limits overall reliability. Scores should be treated as directional rather than definitive.

This WW Score carries MODERATE reliability due to the small review sample (9 total), a stark 1-star/5-star polarization with no mid-range ratings, and the fact that several positive reviews are more than 3 years old — consumers should seek additional recent references before hiring.

R&S Mechanical has a deeply mixed review profile spanning nearly two decades. Positive reviews consistently praise professionalism, punctuality, reasonable pricing, and quality workmanship — particularly from long-term repeat customers. However, several strongly negative reviews significantly drag down all dimensions: one customer experienced rude technicians, a failed callback, and a warranty dispute that ended with the owner yelling and hanging up; another reported technicians damaging an AC unit; and a third was charged $120 for a five-minute visit with no resolution and rude follow-up phone behavior. The three near-identical 1-star reviews from June 2021 (same reviewer, same content, posted across consecutive dates) are flagged as a duplicate review campaign, but the underlying complaint is substantive and corroborated by other negative reviews. Project completion is particularly concerning given the unresolved p-trap failure and the refusal to honor warranty work.

• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: Three reviews dated 2021-06-25 and 2021-06-26 are nearly word-for-word identical, submitted by what appears to be the same reviewer. These have been treated as a single unique complaint for scoring purposes to avoid over-penalizing, but the pattern suggests deliberate multi-posting.
• RECENCY CONCERN: The majority of positive reviews are from 2006–2014, with only 2 positive reviews from 2021–2024. The most recent negative review (2021) and the most recent positive reviews (2024) are both present, but the overall positive base is heavily aged.
• WARRANTY REFUSAL: One reviewer explicitly describes R&S refusing to honor warranty work on a p-trap failure they installed, with the owner denying responsibility and hanging up on the customer — a serious project completion and professionalism red flag.
• WORKMANSHIP DAMAGE CLAIM: One reviewer (2018) alleges that technicians caused a $7,000 AC unit to stop working after visiting the property, which was never addressed in any visible response.
• BILLING PRACTICES: Multiple reviewers and the negative 2021 review highlight outdated, insecure, and inconvenient billing methods with no online payment option, which contributed to a customer dispute.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability: while mention counts are sufficient for statistical confidence, the review set spans 18 years with significant recency gaps, contains a confirmed duplicate review submission, and includes several serious unresolved complaints that meaningfully offset the positive long-term customer base.

Bull Ridge Plumbing presents a deeply mixed record across all four dimensions. Professionalism scores are dragged down significantly by multiple reviews describing rude staff, being hung up on, and failure to follow through on commitments — though several positive reviews do praise courteous and timely service. Project completion is the most damaging dimension: multiple reviews describe incomplete work, return visits required to fix initial errors, abandoned or unfinished jobs, and — most critically — a serious misdiagnosis on a sewer scope that resulted in a potential $30,000 repair liability for the customer. Experience is similarly split, with a few reviews praising problem-solving ability (notably fixing a problem two other plumbers could not) but offset by clear technical failures including a missed sewer line break, a broken water heater after cleaning, and a drain fix that required two visits. Pricing receives mixed signals — one reviewer praised an amazing price, while another called the company 'super overpriced' — resulting in a middling score. The pattern of failing to take responsibility for mistakes is a recurring and serious concern across multiple reviews.

• Multiple reviews describe Bull Ridge refusing to accept responsibility for errors or damage caused by their work — this is a systemic pattern, not an isolated incident.
• The 2024 sewer scope review is particularly severe: three independent companies confirmed the defect was obvious and evident in the video, yet Bull Ridge reportedly took no responsibility. This represents a significant liability and competence concern.
• Two separate reviews (2021 and 2018) describe incomplete or abandoned work, suggesting a recurring project completion problem.
• The 2020 review describes a staff member (Andrea) being rude and charging a card without authorization after a dispute — a serious customer service and ethics concern.
• Recency note: The most recent review (2024) is a 1-star complaint. The majority of positive reviews are from 2017–2021, meaning recent trend is negative.
• No strong fake review patterns detected, but several positive reviews are brief and lack specific detail. This slightly reduces confidence in the positive scores.
• Review volume is low (13 total), which limits statistical reliability of all dimension scores.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability due to the small review sample (13 reviews), a clear negative trend in recent reviews, and multiple serious complaints describing technical failures and refusal to accept responsibility — consumers should weigh the negative reviews heavily given their specificity and severity.

The three reviews present a sharply divided picture of this contractor. Two positive reviews praise punctuality, courtesy, cleanliness, and technical competence, while one strongly negative review describes overcharging, unnecessary work, a two-week cleanup failure, and incorrect materials delivered. The single negative review carries significant weight on pricing and project completion, dragging those dimensions down considerably. Because the positive reviews are very old (2006 and 2017) and the negative review is also from 2018, no reviews fall within the past 12 months, severely limiting the reliability of this score as a reflection of current performance. With only 3 reviews total, all dimensions are scored conservatively.

• ALL THREE REVIEWS ARE OLDER THAN 5 YEARS — the most recent review is from 2018, meaning there is no data on current business performance. This score should not be treated as representative of present-day quality.
• VERY LOW REVIEW VOLUME — only 3 reviews total. The WW Score is statistically unreliable and should be treated with extreme caution.
• The 1-star review alleges serious misconduct: charging $3,000 for unnecessary work, using incorrect materials (sand instead of gravel), and failing to clean up the worksite for two weeks. These are significant red flags that are not offset by the two older positive reviews.
• The two positive reviews are generic in nature with limited specific detail, which slightly reduces their evidentiary weight, though they do mention some concrete details (punctuality, drain repair, cleanup).

This WW Score has very low reliability due to only 3 reviews, all of which are more than 5 years old, a stark split between positive and negative experiences, and the presence of a serious misconduct allegation that cannot be contextualized without more recent data.

The review pool is extremely small — only 2 reviews — making any score highly unreliable. The single detailed review (1-star, 2019) is deeply negative across nearly every dimension: the plumbers left a dishwasher drain plug in place, failed to secure a gas line, left a window open during a snowstorm, failed to relight water heaters, left unpatched sheetrock, and billed for time that the customer disputes as lunch and non-work periods. Management compounded the damage by never returning four separate phone calls, which severely tanks the professionalism score. The only positive review (5-star, 2017) is brief and speaks only to responsiveness and scheduling speed, providing minimal counterweight to the extensive documented failures in the detailed review. The gap in review dates (2017 vs. 2019) and the stark contrast in sentiment offer no reliable trend.

• Only 2 reviews total — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold rules.
• The 5-star review is extremely brief and generic ('reliable guys', 'get you in right away') with no specific details about work performed. This pattern is consistent with a low-information or potentially inauthentic review.
• The detailed 1-star review documents at least 5 distinct workmanship or completion failures and 4 unanswered callback attempts, suggesting systemic issues rather than isolated incidents.
• Both reviews are older than 12 months relative to a current 2024/2025 analysis date — recency weighting cannot be applied favorably to either review.
• Billing dispute involved charges for time the customer was off-site purchasing materials and a suspected lunch break billed as a parts run — this is a significant pricing transparency and ethics concern.

This WW Score is not calculable and should not be trusted as a reliable indicator of contractor quality — only 2 reviews exist, one of which is a brief generic positive review, while the other is an extensively detailed negative account documenting multiple failures across all scored dimensions.

With only two reviews, the data is extremely limited and no reliable WW Score can be produced. The negative review is highly specific and serious, describing a no-show on a contracted job, broken promises, and complete communication breakdown — all of which heavily drag down professionalism and project completion scores. The positive review praises communication and pricing but lacks any specific detail about the work performed or its quality. The stark contrast between these two reviews — one a detailed 1-star complaint, one a vague 5-star endorsement — makes it impossible to draw confident conclusions about this contractor's typical performance.

• Only 2 reviews total — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold rules.
• The 5-star review is notably generic with no specifics about the type of work done, technician names, or project details, which raises mild concern about its authenticity.
• Both reviews are older than 1 year (2020 and 2021), meaning there is no recent data to assess current performance.
• The 1-star review describes a serious pattern: no-show, broken promises, and eventual ghosting — behaviors that represent significant business risk for prospective customers.
• No reviews mention workmanship quality or technical skill, leaving the Experience dimension entirely unscored.

This score report should be treated as highly unreliable due to the critically low review count of 2, the age of both reviews (3–4 years old), and the complete absence of data on technical experience — prospective customers should seek additional references before engaging this contractor.