Find Nearby Plumbers In Phoenix, Arizona

Only one review is available, which limits the reliability of any scoring. That said, the single review explicitly praises Jerry for being professional and prompt, sending photos to a remote customer, and successfully resolving a leak that a prior plumber had misdiagnosed — all positive signals across professionalism, project completion, and experience. Pricing was not mentioned at all, so that dimension cannot be scored. The review appears genuine, with specific situational detail (condo water damage, working remotely, Friday urgency) that reduces fake-review concern. All dimension scores are conservative given the single data point.

• Only 1 review analyzed — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Pricing dimension has zero mentions and cannot be scored.
• All scores carry LIMITED confidence due to single-review basis — treat with caution.
• No fake review patterns detected; review contains specific, credible detail.

This score report is based on a single review and should be considered highly preliminary — no meaningful conclusions about this contractor's overall performance can be drawn until at least 3 or more reviews are available.

Only a single review exists, which limits the reliability of any scoring. The reviewer explicitly praised professionalism, noting punctuality in scheduling, shoe coverings to protect floors, and a clean working style. The contractor was described as knowledgeable, supporting a modest experience score. Project completion is implied — the reviewer sought repairs and recommended the contractor — but no explicit confirmation that all work was fully finished and delivered on time was stated, so the score is kept conservative. Pricing was not mentioned at all and cannot be scored.

• Only 1 review analyzed — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably with fewer than 3 reviews.
• No pricing information mentioned in any review — Pricing dimension has no data.
• Project completion is implied but not explicitly confirmed; score kept conservative.
• Single 5-star review with no corroborating reviews — treat all dimension scores with caution.

This score report is based on a single review and should be considered highly unreliable; no meaningful conclusions about this contractor's overall performance can be drawn until significantly more reviews are available.

This single review provides explicit positive feedback on professionalism (efficiency, preparation, cleanup), pricing (fair flat rate), and project completion (work delivered as promised). However, with only one review, no technical skill or workmanship details are mentioned, and the sample size is far too small to calculate a reliable WW Score. The review is recent (April 2024) and contains specific details rather than generic praise, which is encouraging, but one review cannot support confident scoring.

• Insufficient data — only 1 review analyzed. Minimum 3 reviews required for reliable WW Score calculation.
• Experience dimension has no data; no mention of technical skill, problem-solving, or workmanship quality.
• Single review cannot establish patterns or trends.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. A minimum of 3 reviews is required to produce a trustworthy score.

Only one review is available, which limits the reliability of any scoring. The single review does explicitly describe a multi-faceted plumbing project — copper line extension and replacement, ABS-to-cast-iron tie-in, toilet replacement, and shutoff valve installation — indicating a meaningful breadth of technical work completed successfully. Project completion and experience scores are conservatively set at 85 given the positive but single-source evidence. Professionalism and pricing are entirely unmentioned and cannot be scored. With only one review, no reliable WW Score can be calculated.

• Only 1 review analyzed — far below the minimum threshold of 3 required for a reliable WW Score.
• Professionalism and pricing dimensions have zero data and were excluded from scoring entirely.
• Single review limits confidence across all scored dimensions to LIMITED; scores should not be treated as representative of overall contractor performance.
• Review is from May 2023 — over 12 months old at time of analysis; no recent reviews available to confirm continued performance.

This score report is based on a single review and should be considered highly unreliable; no meaningful conclusions about this contractor's overall quality can be drawn until substantially more reviews are collected.

This single review paints a positive picture across all four dimensions. The contractor answered immediately and scheduled same-day service, indicating strong responsiveness and professionalism. The reviewer explicitly mentions receiving a 'great deal' from the owner, supporting a favorable pricing score. Project completion is evidenced by a fully described, technically complex sewer rehabilitation that was carried out with minimal disruption to landscaping and the street. The use of epoxy lining and targeted excavation suggests solid technical experience and problem-solving ability. However, all scores are based on a single review and must be treated with very low confidence.

• Only 1 review analyzed — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per scoring rules requiring a minimum of 3 reviews.
• All four dimension scores are based on a single mention each, making every score LOW CONFIDENCE and potentially unrepresentative of overall contractor performance.
• No negative feedback exists to balance the assessment, but this is expected with only one review rather than indicative of fake review patterns.
• Review is from August 2023 — within the past 12 months relative to a mid-2024 evaluation window, so recency is acceptable.

This score report is based on a single review and should not be trusted as a reliable indicator of contractor quality — significantly more reviews are needed before any dimension score or overall WW Score can be considered meaningful.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 1 review was analyzed. The single review praises Vlad's professionalism (clear communication, undaunted attitude, helpful recommendations), project completion (work completed thoroughly despite challenges), and experience (skilled problem-solving on an older home). However, pricing is not mentioned at all. A minimum of 3 reviews is required to produce a reliable WW Score.

• Only 1 review provided — statistically insufficient for reliable scoring
• Review is from 2023 (over 1 year old) — recency is limited
• No pricing information mentioned — cannot assess Price Friendly dimension
• Single 5-star review with no critical feedback — cannot validate balance

This analysis cannot produce a trustworthy WW Score with only 1 review; a minimum of 3 reviews is required to establish meaningful patterns and confidence levels.