Find Nearby Plumbers In Grand Junction, Colorado

Only a single review was provided, dated April 2018, making it over six years old and of very limited reliability. The review briefly mentions honest and fair pricing and describes the contractor as genuinely knowledgeable, allowing limited scoring on pricing and experience dimensions only. No information was provided regarding professionalism (punctuality, communication, responsiveness) or project completion (job finished, timeliness, follow-through). Scores assigned are conservative given the single data point and the age of the review.

• Only 1 review provided — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Review is dated April 2018, making it more than 6 years old. Recency weighting significantly reduces reliability.
• Review is very brief and generic with no specific details about the job performed, which limits confidence in all dimension scores.
• With only one review, no pattern analysis for fake review detection is possible, but the lack of specificity is noted.

This score should not be trusted as a reliable indicator of contractor quality — it is based on a single, over six-year-old review with minimal detail, and a WW Score could not be calculated due to insufficient data.

Only a single review is available, which limits the reliability of any scoring. The reviewer praises Brandon Rupe's work ethic, quality, value relative to competitors, timely completion, and respectful demeanor. Professionalism is supported by mentions of being respectful and quiet. Pricing is explicitly called out as unmatched value compared to other plumbers. Project completion is evidenced by the job being finished within a couple of hours. Experience is supported by the claim of high quality and being described as one of the best plumbers in town, though this is a subjective assertion from a single source.

• Only 1 review analyzed — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Single review with all-positive, broad praise and no specific technical details beyond job type and duration — treat all dimension scores with extreme caution.
• Cannot assess fake review risk from a single data point, but the review is somewhat generic in its praise with limited specifics.

This score is based on a single review and should not be considered a reliable indicator of contractor quality — far more reviews are needed before any dimension score or overall assessment can be trusted.

Insufficient data — only 1 review analyzed. The single review mentions friendly demeanor and knowledgeable service (professionalism and experience), with problem solved quickly (project completion). However, pricing is not addressed, and all scores are based on minimal evidence from a single data point. No WW Score can be reliably calculated.

• Insufficient review volume (n=1) — cannot calculate reliable WW Score
• Review is from 2020 (4+ years old) — recency is a concern
• Generic praise language with no specific details about work performed
• No pricing information provided in review

This analysis cannot be trusted for decision-making; a minimum of 3 reviews is required to calculate a meaningful WW Score.

Only a single review exists for this contractor, making any scoring highly conservative and low-confidence. The reviewer praises Matt's work quality and character, and expresses intent to rehire, which provides weak positive signals for professionalism, project completion, and experience. However, the review is vague and lacks specific details about the nature of the work, timeline, communication, or outcomes. Pricing is 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.
• Review language is generic and lacks specifics (no job type, no details on what was done, no mention of timeline or pricing) — limits scoring accuracy across all dimensions.
• Cannot rule out that this is a personal acquaintance review given the character-focused language ('big heart') rather than service-focused detail.

This score report should not be trusted as a reliable indicator of contractor quality — a single vague review provides insufficient evidence to draw meaningful conclusions about any dimension.

Only a single review is available, dated March 2020, making any scoring highly tentative. The reviewer praised the technician Andy as friendly and exceptional, supporting a modest professionalism score. A notable positive was the absence of extra charges for difficult access to septic lids, which directly informs a fair pricing signal. Project completion is inferred from the service being carried out without issue, though no detail is given about scope or follow-through. Experience/workmanship quality was not explicitly addressed in the review.

• Only 1 review available — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Review is from March 2020, which is over 4 years old — recency is a concern and this data may not reflect current performance.
• All dimensions scored are based on a single mention each — treat all scores as highly speculative.
• No technical or workmanship detail provided — Experience dimension returned null due to no usable data.

This score report is based on a single review from 2020 and should not be considered a reliable indicator of this contractor's current quality or consistency.

Only a single review is available, making any scoring highly tentative. The review speaks positively about Cam's communication style, customer care, and transparency during the job — all professionalism indicators — earning a conservative but favorable professionalism score. He demonstrated some technical engagement by explaining his work and photographing the job for reference, suggesting baseline competence, though no specific skill or problem-solving challenges were described. Project completion is implied but not explicitly confirmed, so a conservative score is applied. Pricing is entirely unmentioned and cannot be scored.

• Only 1 review analyzed — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• The single review is heavily character-focused and personal in tone, with limited technical detail about the actual work performed. This limits scoring accuracy for Experience and Project Completion.
• No pricing information mentioned in any review — Pricing dimension has no data.
• With only one review, there is no way to assess consistency of performance or detect patterns across customers.

This score report is based on a single review and should be considered highly unreliable — at least 3 reviews are required for a meaningful WW Score, and 5 or more are needed for any dimension to reach full confidence.