Company A

Mentioned in the context of the brother's work, but not directly evaluated.

The user felt guilt after choosing Company B's offer over Company A's, indicating a negative sentiment, despite the lack of explicit negativity in the comments.

The manager felt serious during the interview.

Company A is mentioned as having better communication and seemingly better pricing. They are also a top-tier installer for GAF and OC.

Company A stated that the roof was not well-suited to metal because of the multiple penetrations in the roof (holes for vents, gables, etc.), and multiple areas that need fussy transitions to flashing which would add time, money, and, most importantly, room for error. They also said that a retention system would have to be installed to prevent the gutters from being ripped off by falling ice, and that the warranty on the metal is only for the finish for 40 years, while the shingles have a lifetime warranty.

The founder of company A is leaving the country to focus on a new company (company B) that uses technology developed for company A. This is considered unethical by many commenters because it potentially exploits the investment made in company A and leaves company A as a shell company or a source of free labor.

Company A recruiter reached out to the OP despite knowing they weren't a good fit based on their LinkedIn profile, wasting the OP's time.