Find Nearby Plumbers In Littleton, Colorado

Only one review contains substantive service feedback. The 2024 review is a complaint about phone number misattribution and is not usable for contractor evaluation. The 2021 review (nearly 3 years old) mentions rapid response and job completion, but with only a single mention and significant age, confidence is severely limited. Insufficient data exists to calculate a reliable WW Score.

• Only 1 of 2 reviews contains usable contractor performance data
• The usable review is from July 2021 — nearly 3 years old and outside the preferred 12-month recency window
• The 2024 review is a phone number complaint unrelated to service quality and cannot be scored
• Insufficient review volume (fewer than 3 usable reviews) to calculate WW Score reliably

This analysis cannot produce a trustworthy WW Score due to insufficient usable data (only 1 substantive review) and recency concerns; additional recent reviews are required before any scoring recommendation can be made.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. The single review provided does not evaluate any of the four scoring dimensions (professionalism, pricing, project completion, or experience). The review is a complaint about incorrect contact information in a business listing and contains no information about service quality, workmanship, pricing, timeliness, or professional conduct.

• Only 1 review available; minimum 3 reviews required for reliable scoring
• Review does not assess any of the four WW Score dimensions
• Review is administrative/listing complaint, not a service evaluation

This score cannot be calculated or trusted due to insufficient review data and lack of evaluable content.

Only a single review is available, making any scoring inherently low-confidence. The reviewer positively notes that the contractor did what he said he would do at the agreed price and arrived prepared with the right tools and parts, which touches on professionalism, pricing transparency, project completion, and basic competence. Scores are kept conservative across all dimensions in line with the limited evidence base. The review is also over 10 years old (dated November 2013), which significantly reduces its relevance to current performance. No negative signals were detected, but the absence of complaints cannot be treated as evidence of quality.

• Only 1 review provided — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Review is dated November 2013 — over 10 years old. This data is significantly outdated and should be weighted very low relative to recent reviews.
• All scores carry LIMITED confidence due to single-review basis. Treat all dimension scores as indicative only, not reliable assessments.

This score should not be trusted as a reliable indicator of current contractor quality — it is based on a single review that is more than a decade old, providing far too little data for meaningful assessment.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only one review was analyzed. The single review explicitly criticizes pricing as unfair (charging ~$500/hour labor for a 35-minute job with minimal material cost), resulting in a very low pricing score. Project completion appears adequate (job was finished), but professionalism and experience dimensions lack explicit mention. A single review cannot provide reliable scoring across multiple dimensions.

• Only 1 review available — statistically insufficient for reliable WW Score calculation
• Review is from 2013 (11+ years old) — recency is a significant concern
• Pricing complaint is explicit and specific, but based on single data point
• No information provided on professionalism, communication, or technical skill

This analysis cannot be trusted as a reliable score — only one review exists, it is over a decade old, and it does not provide sufficient coverage across all dimensions to calculate a meaningful WW Score.