Find Nearby Plumbers In Oro Valley, Arizona

Insufficient data — only 1 review analyzed. The single review mentions honest pricing and job completion capability, but provides minimal detail and no substantive evidence across most dimensions. No information available regarding professionalism, punctuality, communication, or technical skill level. A WW Score cannot be reliably calculated with fewer than 3 reviews.

• Insufficient review volume (n=1) — cannot calculate reliable WW Score
• Review is generic and lacks specific details about work performed, timeline, or quality
• No mention of professionalism or experience dimensions
• Single positive review without comparative data is not statistically meaningful

This analysis is unreliable and should not be used for decision-making. A minimum of 3 reviews is required to produce a trustworthy WW Score.

Only a single review is available, dated November 2014, making this analysis over a decade old and extremely limited in reliability. The reviewer notes good communication and good work quality, which provides minimal positive signals for professionalism and experience. The phrase 'so far' in the review introduces uncertainty about whether the project was fully completed at the time of writing, warranting a conservative project completion score. No pricing information was mentioned at all, leaving that dimension entirely unscored. With only one vague, dated review, no meaningful conclusions can be drawn about this contractor's current performance.

• Only 1 review analyzed — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Review is dated November 2014 — over 10 years old. This data is severely outdated and should not be used to assess current contractor quality.
• The phrase 'so far' suggests the project may not have been complete at the time of the review, introducing uncertainty about project completion.
• Review is very brief and generic with no specific details about the work performed, limiting the ability to score dimensions with confidence.

This score report is not reliable — it is based on a single, decade-old review with vague language and no pricing or detailed workmanship information; prospective customers should seek current reviews before making any hiring decision.

Only one review is available, which limits the reliability of any scoring. The single reviewer explicitly praised the technicians as professional and noted they successfully resolved a serious water main leak losing 70 gallons per hour, indicating solid project completion and technical competence. Professionalism was directly mentioned with positive language around attitude and demeanor. Pricing was not referenced at all, so that dimension cannot be scored. All scores are conservative given the extremely limited data pool.

• Only 1 review analyzed — far below the minimum threshold of 3 reviews needed for a reliable WW Score.
• No pricing information mentioned in any review — Pricing dimension cannot be evaluated.
• Review is from April 2022, which is over 12 months old — recency weighting is a concern if this remains the only review.
• Single review cannot be cross-validated for authenticity or consistency patterns.

This score report is based on a single review and should be considered highly unreliable — do not use these dimension scores to make hiring decisions without gathering significantly more customer feedback.

Only a single review is available, making any scoring highly tentative. The reviewer explicitly flagged a significant pricing transparency issue — a $170 charge for a 15-minute job with a 2-hour minimum labor policy that was disclosed only after the work was completed. This hidden-fee-style billing practice drove the pricing score down substantially. Professionalism was penalized because the failure to communicate the minimum charge policy upfront reflects poor communication, a core professionalism indicator. The task itself appears to have been completed (the accessory was installed), which is why project completion received a modest score, though no detail about workmanship quality was provided, leaving experience unscored.

• Only 1 review analyzed — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Pricing transparency concern: reviewer states the 2-hour minimum labor charge was disclosed AFTER the work was completed, not before — this is a significant red flag for hidden or surprise billing practices.
• Review is dated 2016 — this is over 8 years old and may not reflect current business practices. Treat with caution.
• No data available for the Experience dimension — workmanship quality cannot be assessed from this review.

This score is based on a single review from 2016 and should be considered highly unreliable — no meaningful conclusions about this contractor's current quality or practices can be drawn from this data alone.

Only a single review was available for analysis, which severely limits the reliability of any scoring. The reviewer mentions a re-pipe job with professional and friendly staff, strong work ethic, and good value — touching on professionalism, pricing, and project completion at a surface level. However, no specific technical details, workmanship observations, or problem-solving examples were provided, so the Experience dimension cannot be scored. All scores have been kept conservative due to the extremely limited data pool and the generic nature of the praise. No WW Score can be calculated with fewer than 3 reviews.

• Only 1 review analyzed — far below the minimum threshold of 3 required for a reliable WW Score.
• Review language is generic and lacks specific detail (e.g., no mention of timeline, specific issues resolved, or technical observations), which reduces confidence in all dimension scores.
• Cannot rule out that this is a promotional or solicited review given its brevity and uniformly positive tone with no specifics.
• Recency note: Review is from June 2024, which is within the past 12 months and therefore carries full recency weight — but this is moot given the single-review limitation.

This score report is based on a single review and should not be trusted as a meaningful assessment of this contractor's performance — significantly more reviews are required before any WW Score can be considered reliable.

This single review paints a positive picture of Mark and Mile High Plumbing across all four dimensions. Professionalism is supported by mentions of scheduling flexibility, no-pressure communication, and responsiveness to a competitive bidding process. Pricing stands out strongly as the reviewer explicitly noted Mile High Plumbing was the most reasonable of seven estimates and that the final price matched the quote exactly. Project completion is implied positively but lacks specific detail about the scope or timeline of the finished work. Experience is referenced only briefly with the phrase 'The Work Mark did was Excellent,' which is encouraging but too vague to warrant a high score with confidence.

• Only 1 review analyzed — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably with fewer than 3 reviews.
• Review is from March 2019, which is over 5 years old. Recency weighting significantly reduces reliability of this data as a current indicator of performance.
• All dimension scores are based on a single mention each and should be treated as highly provisional.
• No fake review patterns detected in this single review — language is specific and contextually detailed.

This score should not be trusted as a reliable indicator of contractor quality — it is based on a single review from over five years ago, providing insufficient data across all dimensions to draw meaningful conclusions.