Find Nearby Plumbers In Colorado Springs, Colorado

Both available reviews are strongly negative and paint a consistent picture of serious professionalism failures. The second review details rude behavior from both the owner (Mike) and his secretary, failure to follow through on a specific customer request (photographing completed work), inappropriate contact with third parties, and the owner deflecting blame onto the customer. The first review, while brief, warns of broken promises regarding work availability. Project completion received a very low score because the contractor failed to fulfill an explicitly agreed-upon deliverable (the photo confirmation), though the physical installation itself appears to have been completed. Pricing and experience dimensions were not mentioned in either review and cannot be scored.

• Only 2 reviews total — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold rules.
• Both reviews are dated 2016–2017, making them over 7 years old. This data may not reflect the contractor's current performance.
• No positive reviews were provided for analysis. The score reflects only negative feedback and may not represent a balanced view if more recent or positive reviews exist elsewhere.
• Review 1 appears to be written by a former or prospective employee rather than a customer, which limits its relevance to consumer-facing service quality assessment.

This score is highly unreliable due to the critically small sample size of only 2 reviews, both of which are over 7 years old, and one of which may not represent a standard customer experience — no conclusions about current service quality should be drawn from this data alone.

Both reviews speak positively about Monty's professionalism, punctuality, and honest pricing, with one reviewer explicitly noting fair charges and another calling him extremely reasonable. Project completion is implied in both reviews but with limited specific detail — one confirms the work was completed, while the other references efficiency and attention to detail. Experience and workmanship are touched on lightly, with references to great work and attention to detail, but no technical specifics are provided. All scores are held conservative due to the very small sample size of only two reviews. With only 2 reviews total, no reliable WW Score can be calculated.

• Only 2 reviews provided — minimum threshold of 3 reviews not met; WW Score cannot be reliably calculated.
• Both reviews are 5-star with broadly positive language and no critical feedback, which is expected with a small sample but warrants caution.
• Mild similarity in tone and themes (honesty, pricing, reliability) across both reviews — not conclusive of fake reviews but worth noting given the small sample.
• Review dates span approximately 9 months apart (January 2024 and October 2024), which slightly reduces concern about coordinated fake reviews.
• No negative feedback or constructive criticism present in any review — impossible to assess how the contractor handles problems or disputes.

This score report is based on only 2 reviews and should be considered highly unreliable as a standalone assessment; significantly more reviews are needed before any WW Score can be trusted.

This single review paints a positive picture across all four dimensions. Shane demonstrated strong professionalism through friendliness, organization, cleanliness, and clear communication about the work being done. Pricing transparency was explicitly noted, with a detailed estimate provided upfront to avoid surprises. The water heater repair was completed fully and thoroughly, indicating solid project completion. His ability to diagnose the issue, explain it clearly, and resolve it reflects competent experience and workmanship. However, all scores are based on a single review and must be treated with very low confidence.

• Only 1 review available — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• All dimension scores are based on a single data point and carry LIMITED confidence only.
• Cannot assess fake review risk from a single review, but the review contains specific details (named technician, specific job type, explanation of process) which are positive authenticity signals.
• Review is from January 2024, which is within the past 12 months and therefore carries full recency weight, but sample size remains critically insufficient.

This score report is based on a single review and should not be used as a reliable indicator of contractor quality — at least 3 reviews are required for a meaningful WW Score.

Only one review is available, which limits the reliability of any scoring. The single reviewer praises attention to detail, quality of work, and notes the home was left in better condition than found — suggesting solid workmanship and professionalism. Project completion is implied positively as multiple tasks were completed in a single visit. Pricing was not mentioned at all, so that dimension cannot be scored. This is also a repeat customer, which is a mild positive signal, but one review is far too few to draw confident conclusions.

• Only 1 review analyzed — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• No pricing information mentioned in any review — Pricing dimension scored as null.
• All scores carry LIMITED confidence due to single-review basis — treat all dimension scores with caution.

This score report is based on a single review and should not be considered a reliable representation of this contractor's overall performance — significantly more reviews are needed before any dimension score or WW Score can be trusted.

Only a single review exists for this contractor, making any scoring highly tentative. Professionalism is supported by explicit mentions of punctuality, responsiveness, and strong customer service. Project completion is evidenced by the inspector delivering a thorough report with photos and following through on questions. Experience is noted through the description of a thorough inspection process, though no technical specifics or problem-solving scenarios are described. Pricing is entirely unmentioned and cannot be scored. All scores are conservative given the extremely limited data.

• Only 1 review analyzed — far below the minimum threshold of 3 reviews needed for a reliable WW Score.
• Review is from 2021 — over 3 years old at time of analysis. No recent reviews available to confirm current service quality.
• Single 5-star review with positive but somewhat generic praise. Cannot rule out recency or selection bias with only one data point.

This score should not be trusted for decision-making purposes — with only one review from 2021, there is insufficient data to draw any reliable conclusions about this contractor's consistent performance.

Only one review is available for analysis, which severely limits the reliability of any scoring. The single reviewer praised fair prices, great communication, and on-time delivery, suggesting positive professionalism, pricing, and project completion. However, no technical skill or workmanship details were mentioned, leaving the Experience dimension entirely unscored. All scores are conservative given the extremely limited data pool. The review is also over 7 years old, further reducing its relevance to current performance.

• Only 1 review analyzed — far below the minimum threshold of 3 required for a reliable WW Score.
• Review is dated 2017-07-30, which is more than 7 years old. This data may not reflect current business practices or quality.
• No technical workmanship or skill-related details were mentioned — Experience dimension cannot be scored.
• With only one review, fake review detection is not possible, but the review is generic in nature with limited specifics about the actual work performed.

This WW Score cannot be calculated reliably due to insufficient review data — only 1 review was provided, and it is over 7 years old, making any conclusions about this contractor's current performance highly speculative.