Find Nearby Plumbers In Denver, Colorado

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 2 reviews analyzed, which falls below the minimum threshold of 3 reviews needed for reliable scoring. The reviews present a stark contradiction: one describes complete no-shows and broken commitments (1-star, 2019), while the other praises responsiveness, quality work, and customer education (5-star, 2019). Both reviews are over 4 years old with no recent data. Professionalism scores are heavily polarized, and pricing is not addressed in either review.

• Only 2 reviews available — insufficient sample size for reliable WW Score calculation
• Both reviews are from 2019 (over 4 years old) — no recent performance data
• Extreme contradiction between reviews suggests either significant service inconsistency or potential data quality issues
• No pricing information provided in any review — cannot assess Price Friendly dimension
• First review describes repeated no-shows and broken appointments — serious professionalism failure
• Second review is highly detailed and specific, suggesting authenticity; first review is brief but credible complaint

This score cannot be calculated reliably due to insufficient review volume (n=2, minimum n=3 required) and extreme age of data (all reviews from 2019). The contradictory nature of the two reviews suggests either significant service variability or a business that has changed substantially over time. Do not rely on this analysis for decision-making.

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 composite score. Both reviews are highly positive and mention professionalism (promptness, thoroughness, kindness), project completion (multiple completed projects), and experience (knowledgeable, efficient). However, pricing is not addressed in either review, and the extremely limited sample size with uniformly perfect ratings raises concerns about representativeness.

• Only 2 reviews analyzed — below minimum threshold of 3 for reliable scoring
• Both reviews are 5-star ratings with no critical feedback — potential selection bias or incomplete review dataset
• Second review appears incomplete (text cuts off mid-sentence at 'Kenfield Plumbing's prices')
• No pricing feedback in either review despite this being a key evaluation dimension
• Suspiciously uniform praise with no specifics about pricing, timeliness concerns, or any drawbacks

This analysis cannot produce a reliable WW Score due to insufficient review volume (n=2, minimum n=3 required) and lack of pricing data. Any score derived from this dataset would be unreliable and should not be used for decision-making.

Both reviews describe a responsive, courteous service with fast turnaround on weekend drain issues, supporting moderate-to-good scores across professionalism, pricing, and project completion. Pricing is described as 'reasonable' in both reviews, suggesting fair value without specific detail on quotes or transparency. Project completion is implied by the work being described as 'thorough' and 'fast,' though no explicit mention of follow-through or callbacks is made. Experience as a standalone dimension — covering technical skill, workmanship quality, or problem-solving depth — is not explicitly addressed in either review, so it cannot be scored. With only two reviews total, all scores carry very low confidence and the WW Score cannot be reliably calculated.

• Only 2 reviews provided — below the minimum threshold of 3 required for a reliable WW Score calculation.
• Both reviews are 5-star ratings with broadly positive but limited detail, which reduces scoring precision.
• Mild similarity in structure and theme (weekend drain issue, reasonable price, professional service) warrants minor caution, though the language is sufficiently distinct to not suggest fabrication at this time.
• Experience dimension returned null due to no explicit mention of technical skill or workmanship quality in any review.

This score report is based on only 2 reviews and should be considered highly preliminary — no meaningful conclusions about this contractor's overall quality can be drawn until significantly more review data is available.

With only 2 reviews, reliable scoring is impossible. The reviews are starkly contradictory: one 1-star review (July 2024) documents code violations, poor workmanship, unresponsiveness, and failed callbacks; the other 5-star review (August 2019) praises professionalism, timeliness, and affordability. The recent negative review provides specific, detailed complaints (Studor vent violation, unsupported pex piping, lost Kohler pieces, non-responsive owner), while the older positive review is generic and lacks specifics. The 5-year age gap and contradiction make it impossible to determine current contractor reliability.

• INSUFFICIENT DATA: Only 2 reviews analyzed. Minimum 3 reviews required for reliable WW Score calculation.
• EXTREME CONTRADICTION: One 1-star and one 5-star review with no middle ground. Suggests either significant service degradation over time or inconsistent service quality.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Positive review is from August 2019 (5 years old). Negative review is from July 2024 (current). Recent review documents serious code violations and unresponsiveness.
• SPECIFICITY IMBALANCE: Negative review contains detailed, verifiable complaints (Lakewood code violation, Studor vent, unsupported pex, Kohler parts, non-responsive callbacks). Positive review is generic praise without specifics.
• SERIOUS ALLEGATIONS: Recent review alleges code violations, deliberate misrepresentation ('lied to me'), poor workmanship (unsupported piping), and failure to honor callbacks. These are not minor complaints.

This score cannot be calculated reliably with only 2 contradictory reviews spanning 5 years. The recent negative review with specific, serious allegations (code violations, dishonesty, poor workmanship, unresponsiveness) should be weighted heavily, but a single recent complaint cannot override a positive older review without additional corroborating data. Do not rely on any aggregate score; instead, treat the July 2024 review as a critical warning requiring independent verification before engaging this contractor.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only one review was analyzed, which falls below the minimum threshold of 3 reviews required for a trustworthy WW Score. The single review mentions project completion (water leak fixed), but provides no explicit information about professionalism, pricing, or experience. A reliable assessment requires substantially more customer feedback.

• Only 1 review provided — minimum 3 reviews required for reliable scoring
• Review is extremely brief with minimal detail — no substantive information on pricing, professionalism, or workmanship quality
• Cannot assess confidence in any dimension with single-review data

This assessment cannot be trusted as a reliable indicator of contractor quality; a minimum of 3 reviews is required to produce a valid WW Score.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 1 review was analyzed, which falls below the minimum threshold of 3 reviews required for a reliable WW Score calculation. The single review mentions professionalism (describing Benny as professional and dependable) and pricing (affordable), but provides no explicit information about project completion or experience/workmanship quality.

• Only 1 review available — far below the minimum of 3 reviews needed for reliable scoring
• Review is generic in nature with limited specific details about actual work performed
• No information provided on project completion, timeliness, or technical skill demonstration

This score cannot be calculated or trusted due to insufficient review volume; a minimum of 3 reviews is required to produce a meaningful WW Score.