Find Nearby Plumbers In Avondale, Arizona

With only 3 reviews, this analysis lacks sufficient data for a reliable WW Score calculation. The company shows mixed performance: one highly satisfied customer (2023) praised same-day service and problem resolution, while two older reviews (2018) heavily criticized pricing practices, with customers reporting charges double or triple expected rates. Project completion appears solid across all reviews, but pricing concerns are severe and consistent across the two negative reviews. Recency matters here—the most recent review is positive, but the two older reviews raise serious affordability questions.

• INSUFFICIENT SAMPLE SIZE: Only 3 reviews analyzed. Minimum 5 reviews recommended for meaningful confidence.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Two reviews are from 2018 (5+ years old); only one recent review from 2023. Older reviews may not reflect current pricing or practices.
• PRICING RED FLAG: Two independent customers (2018) reported excessive charges—$100 for work worth ~$50, and $350 for a single valve replacement at rates exceeding dental services. This pattern suggests systemic pricing issues, though only one recent review available to confirm if this persists.
• LIMITED PROFESSIONALISM DATA: One review praised responsiveness (same-day service); another criticized punctuality (4 hours late). Conflicting signals with minimal mentions.

This score should NOT be trusted for decision-making. With only 3 reviews and 2 from 5+ years ago, the analysis is severely underpowered. The recent positive review is encouraging, but pricing concerns from 2018 remain unresolved by recent customer feedback. Collect at least 5–10 recent reviews before making a hiring decision.

Insufficient data — only 2 reviews analyzed. The positive review (2019) explicitly praises punctuality, courtesy, quick diagnosis, and cleanup, supporting a professionalism score of 90. However, the negative review (2022) documents a severe failure to respond to warranty service requests over 3 months, directly contradicting project completion and responsiveness. The extreme recency gap (3-year span) and conflicting outcomes prevent reliable WW Score calculation. The 2022 complaint suggests potential systemic issues with communication and follow-through that are not offset by a single older positive review.

• CRITICAL: Only 2 reviews — insufficient for reliable scoring. Minimum 3 reviews recommended.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Positive review is from March 2019 (5+ years old); negative review is from February 2022 (2+ years old). No recent data.
• CONFLICTING OUTCOMES: One review reports excellent service; the other reports complete non-responsiveness over 3 months. This suggests either inconsistent service quality or a change in company operations over time.
• MISSING DATA: No explicit pricing information in either review. No detail on experience/skill level in negative review.

This score cannot be calculated reliably due to insufficient review volume (n=2) and conflicting evidence spanning multiple years with no recent data. Any score derived would be highly speculative and should not be used for decision-making.

Both reviews are positive and paint a consistent picture of a responsive, communicative, and knowledgeable contractor. The second review is notably detailed, praising punctuality, proactive communication, honesty, and willingness to educate the customer — all strong professionalism and experience indicators. Pricing is mentioned only briefly in the first review as 'affordable,' providing very limited data on that dimension. Project completion is implied in both reviews as problems were resolved, though neither review explicitly describes a large or complex project being seen through to full completion. All scores are conservative given the extremely small sample size of only two reviews.

• Only 2 reviews provided — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per scoring rules. A minimum of 3 reviews is required.
• Both reviews are dated in early-to-mid 2021, making them over 3 years old. Recency weighting is a concern — current performance may differ.
• With only 2 reviews, no fake review pattern detection is possible, but the small sample size alone severely limits reliability.
• All dimension scores carry LIMITED confidence and should not be used as a definitive assessment of this contractor.

This score report is based on only 2 reviews from 2021 and should be treated as highly preliminary — no meaningful conclusions about this contractor's consistent performance can be drawn without a substantially larger and more recent review sample.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 2 reviews were analyzed, which falls below the minimum threshold of 3 reviews required for a trustworthy WW Score calculation. While both reviews are positive and mention professionalism, project completion, and experience, the sample size is too small to produce a statistically meaningful composite score. All dimension scores carry LIMITED confidence due to minimal mention counts (1–2 per dimension).

• Sample size critically low: only 2 reviews analyzed. Minimum 3 reviews required for reliable scoring.
• Both reviews are from 2018 (5–6 years old). No recent data available to assess current performance.
• Review 1 is very brief with minimal detail; lacks specificity on professionalism and project scope.
• No negative feedback or complaints present in either review; cannot assess how contractor handles problems or criticism.

This analysis cannot produce a reliable WW Score due to insufficient review volume (2 reviews, minimum 3 required) and age of data (both from 2018). Any score derived would be speculative and should not be used for decision-making.

Both reviews speak positively about Dave and his team, citing honesty, hard work, and fair pricing. One review references a specific technical fix (high pressure reduction from 100 PSI to an appropriate level), and the other mentions a multi-bathroom renovation and a water heater replacement, suggesting reasonable breadth of experience. Project completion is implied positively in both cases, with no mention of abandoned or incomplete work. However, with only two reviews — one of which is nearly a decade old — confidence across all dimensions is strictly limited and scores should be treated with caution.

• Only 2 reviews total — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• One review is dated 2015 (approximately 9+ years old) and carries significantly reduced recency weight. Only one review falls within a more recent window, and even that is from 2020.
• Both reviews are 5-star with generally positive but somewhat generic praise. While some specific details are present (PSI level, 3-bath renovation, water heater), the overall volume is too low to rule out selection bias.
• No negative feedback or constructive criticism present across either review, which is expected given the very small sample size but limits balanced assessment.

This score profile is based on only 2 reviews, one of which is nearly a decade old, making it highly unreliable as a basis for hiring decisions — significantly more recent and varied review data is needed before any dimension score can be trusted.

Insufficient data — only 2 reviews analyzed. Both reviews praise professionalism (courteous, professional, came early) and experience (hardworking, knowledgeable, handled multiple trades). One review mentions cost-effectiveness. However, project completion is not explicitly addressed in either review, and the sample size is too small to calculate a reliable WW Score. The oldest review dates to 2012, raising recency concerns.

• Insufficient review volume (n=2) — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per Step 4 threshold
• Recency concern: one review is from 2012 (12+ years old); only one review from past 5 years
• No explicit mention of project completion, timeliness, or follow-through in either review
• Generic praise language without specific project details limits confidence in scoring

This analysis cannot produce a trustworthy WW Score due to insufficient review volume (minimum 3 required). Any scores derived from 2 reviews carry only LIMITED confidence and should not be used for contractor evaluation.