Find Nearby Plumbers In Sierra Vista, Arizona

This contractor shows significant inconsistency across reviews. Two recent positive reviews (2024, 2011) praise quick response and reasonable pricing, but a critical 2018 review documents incomplete work and problematic diagnosis—a cold water valve replacement was never completed, and the contractor allegedly blamed customer plumbing rather than addressing the stated issue. The 2018 review explicitly states major hot water issues remain unresolved, which directly contradicts the professionalism and project completion dimensions. With only 3 reviews and conflicting evidence, confidence in this score is limited.

• CRITICAL: 2018 review documents incomplete project work and unresolved customer issue—cold water valve replacement was not completed despite being identified as necessary. This is a major red flag for project completion reliability.
• RECENCY CONCERN: The most damaging review is from 2018 (6+ years old), but it documents a serious failure. The two positive reviews are from 2024 and 2011, creating a temporal gap that makes trend assessment difficult.
• INCONSISTENT CONTRACTOR BEHAVIOR: Review from 2018 describes Steve claiming sole expertise and shifting blame to customer's bathroom faucets rather than completing identified repairs. This suggests potential professionalism and communication issues.
• INSUFFICIENT SAMPLE SIZE: Only 3 reviews total limits statistical reliability. Score should be treated as preliminary pending additional recent reviews.

This score should be treated with caution due to the small sample size (3 reviews) and conflicting evidence, particularly the unresolved 2018 project failure. The recent 2024 positive review is encouraging but does not outweigh documented project completion failure. Additional recent reviews are needed before making a confident hiring decision.

Precision Plumbing's review record is dominated by serious failures across nearly every dimension. Three of five reviews describe unprofessional behavior including hanging up on an emergency caller, failing to show for scheduled appointments, and maintaining a perpetually full voicemail that prevents customers from reaching the business. Project completion is particularly alarming — one reviewer experienced repeated flooding after a repair, followed by a complete breakdown in follow-through with no return visits and no communication. The two positive reviews, both older (2012 and 2015), mention fair pricing and friendly service, which slightly elevate the pricing and experience scores, but these are far outweighed by the negative pattern. Overall, the contractor demonstrates a consistent inability to complete work reliably or maintain basic professional communication.

• Three of five reviews are 1-star and describe serious operational failures including abandoned jobs, unreachable phone lines, and dismissive customer service.
• The two positive reviews are from 2012 and 2015 — both are more than 9 years old relative to the most recent negative reviews (2016). The most recent reviews trend strongly negative.
• The business phone line was reported as having a full voicemail box across multiple separate reviews, suggesting a systemic communication failure rather than isolated incidents.
• Small sample size of only 5 reviews severely limits statistical reliability. Scores should be treated with caution.
• The positive reviews lack specificity in some areas and are significantly older, reducing their weight in the overall assessment.

This WW Score is based on only 5 reviews spanning 2012–2016, with the most recent reviews being uniformly negative; the score should be treated as directionally informative but not statistically reliable, and the contractor's current operational status is unknown.

Insufficient data to calculate a reliable WW Score. Only 3 reviews were analyzed, all of which are 5-star ratings with generic praise and minimal specific detail. While professionalism is mentioned twice (reliability, kindness, professional attitude), pricing and experience are mentioned only once each. Critically, project completion—the highest-weighted dimension—is not explicitly addressed in any review. The review set exhibits patterns consistent with potential fake reviews: identical 5-star ratings, repetitive generic language ('wonderful,' 'reliable,' 'professional'), and absence of specific project details or challenges.

• FAKE REVIEW ALERT: All 3 reviews are 5-star ratings with suspiciously generic praise and no specific project details, challenges, or concrete examples.
• INSUFFICIENT SAMPLE SIZE: Only 3 reviews analyzed. Minimum 5 reviews recommended for any confidence in scoring.
• RECENCY CONCERN: 2 of 3 reviews are from 2022 (2+ years old). Only 1 review from 2024.
• MISSING CRITICAL DIMENSION: Project completion (35% weight) is not mentioned in any review, making overall score unreliable.
• LOW MENTION COUNTS: All scored dimensions have 1–2 mentions only, resulting in LIMITED confidence across the board.

This score cannot be calculated reliably due to insufficient review volume (n=3), suspected fake review patterns, and absence of data on the highest-weighted dimension (project completion). Any score derived from this dataset would be misleading and should not be trusted for decision-making.

The single review provided is an employee complaint about internal HR practices, management culture, and workplace treatment. It contains zero information about contractor or plumber service quality from a customer perspective. None of the four scoring dimensions — professionalism toward customers, pricing, project completion, or technical experience — are addressed in any way. As a result, no WW Score can be calculated from this data.

• The sole review is written from an employee perspective, not a customer perspective, and is therefore not usable for contractor service scoring.
• Insufficient data: only 1 review was provided, and it contains no customer-facing service information.
• WW Score cannot be calculated — minimum of 3 usable customer reviews required for a reliable score.

This score report cannot be trusted to reflect contractor service quality as no usable customer review data was provided.

Only one review was provided, which is insufficient to calculate a reliable WW Score. The single review is highly positive, praising punctuality, steady work, deadline adherence, and professional demeanor. However, with only one data point and no pricing information mentioned, confidence in any aggregate score is extremely limited. A minimum of 3 reviews is required for meaningful analysis.

• Insufficient review volume: only 1 review analyzed. Minimum 3 reviews required for reliable WW Score calculation.
• Review is from 2019 (over 4 years old). Recency is a concern for current contractor performance assessment.
• No pricing feedback provided in the single review.
• All dimensions scored based on single mention — confidence is inherently LIMITED.

This analysis cannot produce a trustworthy WW Score due to insufficient data volume. At least 3 reviews are needed to begin meaningful assessment.

Only a single review is available, dated July 2013, making this analysis over a decade old and of very limited reliability. The review notes the contractor arrived on the first visit without the necessary equipment, requiring a return trip — a minor but notable lapse in preparation that tempers the professionalism score. The fact that the first visit was not charged shows some goodwill and transparency on pricing. The job was ultimately completed on the second visit, and the reviewer gave a 5-star rating, suggesting satisfaction with the overall outcome despite the initial hiccup. No information was provided about workmanship quality or technical skill, so the Experience dimension cannot be scored.

• Only 1 review available — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Review is from July 2013 — over 10 years old. This data is severely outdated and should not be used to assess current contractor performance.
• Scores are highly conservative due to single-review basis and age of data.

This score is not reliable — it is based on a single review from over a decade ago, providing almost no meaningful basis for evaluating this contractor's current quality or consistency.