Find Nearby Plumbers In Apache Junction, Arizona

Only one review is available, which severely limits the reliability of any scoring. The reviewer mentions two completed jobs — a master bathroom remodel and washer shutoff valve replacement — both described positively, supporting a conservative project completion score. The phrase 'Great Experience' and repeat usage of the contractor suggests satisfaction with workmanship, justifying a limited experience score. However, no explicit mention is made of professionalism indicators such as punctuality or communication, nor is pricing discussed at all, leaving those dimensions entirely unscored. All scores are treated conservatively due to the single-review basis.

• Only 1 review analyzed — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably with fewer than 3 reviews.
• Review is from April 2022, which is over 2 years old at time of analysis — recency is a concern.
• No pricing or professionalism data mentioned in any review — two dimensions have no scoreable evidence.
• Single review with generic positive language ('Great Experience') and no granular detail — confidence in all scores is LOW due to minimal data.

This score report is based on a single review from 2022 and should not be considered a reliable indicator of this contractor's overall quality — significantly more review data is needed before any meaningful conclusions can be drawn.

Only a single review is available, making any scoring highly tentative. The reviewer speaks positively across all four dimensions — praising professionalism and friendliness, citing excellent prices, describing multiple completed jobs including plumbing installations, drain cleaning, and a tankless RO system, and noting that the team works efficiently and guarantees their work. However, with just one review from 2020, no meaningful pattern can be established. All scores have been kept conservative in line with the limited evidence base.

• Only 1 review analyzed — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Review is from July 2020, which is more than 4 years old. Recency weighting significantly reduces reliability.
• Single review with broad praise across multiple dimensions and no specific criticisms — while not conclusively fake, it cannot be independently corroborated.
• All dimension scores are LOW CONFIDENCE (LIMITED) and should not be used for hiring decisions without additional review data.

This score is based on a single review from over four years ago and should be considered essentially unreliable — prospective customers are strongly advised to seek additional recent reviews before making a hiring decision.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 1 review was analyzed. The single review explicitly mentions professionalism (punctuality, honesty, customer service) but provides no information about pricing, project completion details, or technical experience/workmanship quality. A minimum of 3 reviews is required to produce a reliable WW Score.

• Only 1 review available — below minimum threshold of 3 reviews required for reliable scoring
• Review is from 2017 (7+ years old) — recency is a concern for current contractor assessment
• Generic praise language ('absolutely the best', 'super honest', 'Great customer service all the way around') with limited specific detail about actual work performed
• No pricing information mentioned
• No specific project completion details mentioned (what work was done, timeline, follow-through on callbacks)
• No technical skill or workmanship quality assessment provided

This score cannot be calculated and should not be used for decision-making. A single review from 2017 is insufficient to assess contractor reliability, and critical dimensions (pricing, project completion, experience) are entirely absent from available data.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 1 review was analyzed, which falls below the minimum threshold of 3 reviews required for a trustworthy WW Score calculation. The single review does provide explicit evidence of strong professionalism (responsiveness, friendliness, communication) and project completion (job finished promptly), but pricing and experience dimensions are not mentioned. A reliable score requires a broader sample.

• Only 1 review available — minimum 3 reviews required for reliable scoring
• Review is from 2014 (10+ years old) — recency is a significant concern
• Pricing dimension not mentioned — cannot assess value for money
• Experience/workmanship quality not explicitly detailed — only implied by 'thorough' and quick completion

This analysis cannot produce a valid WW Score due to insufficient review volume. Do not rely on any aggregate score until at least 3 reviews are available.

This single review describes an extremely negative experience across all four scored dimensions. The contractor quoted $25 but charged $100, demonstrating deceptive and non-transparent pricing. The job was not completed successfully — the water heater still had no heat after the work, and the customer ultimately had to replace the unit entirely. The contractor damaged property (smashed a glass window), became hostile when confronted, and allegedly cashed a check under disputed terms, indicating severe professionalism failures. Workmanship quality was poor, with the job taking three times the estimated duration and failing to resolve the issue, reflecting very low experience and skill. The reviewer also notes the contractor appears to be unlicensed and unregistered with Arizona contractor authorities.

• Only 1 review is present — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Contractor is alleged to be unlicensed and unregistered with the City of Phoenix and the Arizona Roster of Contractors — this is a serious legal and safety concern.
• Alleged deceptive pricing: quoted $25, charged $100, then threatened $200 after the fact.
• Alleged property damage: reviewer states contractor smashed a glass window on the water heater.
• Alleged financial misconduct: contractor reportedly cashed a check under disputed or bad-faith circumstances.
• All scores are based on a single review and carry LIMITED confidence only — these scores should not be treated as statistically representative.

This score report is based on a single 1-star review and cannot be considered statistically reliable; however, the specific and detailed nature of the allegations — including unlicensed operation, property damage, pricing fraud, and failed workmanship — are serious red flags that warrant significant caution.

Only one review was provided, which is insufficient for reliable WW Score calculation. The single review mentions experience-related qualities (honesty, knowledgeable, hard working) but contains no explicit information about professionalism dimensions (punctuality, communication, responsiveness), pricing, or project completion specifics. The review is generic praise without concrete details about actual work performed or outcomes.

• Insufficient data — only 1 review provided; minimum 3 reviews required for reliable scoring
• Review is dated 2022-03-12, over 2 years old; recency is a concern
• Review lacks specific details about actual work performed, timeline, pricing, or measurable outcomes
• Generic praise language without concrete examples makes it difficult to validate claims

This score cannot be reliably calculated with only one review and should not be used for decision-making purposes.