Find Nearby Plumbers In Wilmington, Delaware

Both reviews highlight strong professionalism, including prompt response times, courteous service, and honest conduct — notably, one reviewer explicitly praised CW for not exploiting the insurance process. Project completion is supported by references to multiple completed jobs across both reviews, including HVAC replacement, heater repair, fireplace diagnostics, and water heater service. Experience is inferred from successful technical work across diverse systems, though neither review goes into deep technical detail. Pricing is mentioned in only one review, where service is described as being at a fair price, warranting a conservative but positive score. All dimension scores are held conservative due to the very small sample size.

• Only 2 reviews provided — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per scoring rules requiring a minimum of 3 reviews.
• Both reviews are from 2017–2018, meaning all data is more than 5 years old. Recency weighting significantly reduces reliability of these scores as indicators of current performance.
• Sample size is too small to detect fake review patterns, but both reviews contain specific situational details (new home purchase, insurance process, late-night call) which reduces suspicion of fabrication.
• All scores should be treated as highly provisional given the extremely limited evidence base.

This score report is based on only 2 reviews, both over 5 years old, and should not be considered a reliable indicator of current contractor quality — significantly more recent reviews are needed before any meaningful confidence can be placed in these results.

Insufficient data — only 2 reviews analyzed. Both reviews are positive and mention professionalism (prompt, polite, friendly, professional, impeccable communication), fair pricing, project completion (bathroom remodel, kitchen work, pipe replacement completed), and experience (quality service, efficient workers, solid reputation). However, with only 2 reviews total, the WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per methodology requirements (minimum 3 reviews needed). The second review is from 2020 (4+ years old), which reduces recency weight.

• Insufficient review volume (n=2) — WW Score calculation requires minimum 3 reviews for reliability
• One review is significantly dated (2020, over 4 years old) — recency is limited
• Both reviews are 5-star ratings with no negative feedback — limited diversity in data
• Small sample size makes confidence assessment unreliable across all dimensions

This analysis cannot produce a trustworthy WW Score due to insufficient review volume (only 2 reviews). Collect at least 3 reviews, preferably 5+, before calculating a reliable score.

Insufficient data — only 2 reviews analyzed. The first review (2023) praises troubleshooting ability, positive attitude, and respectful conduct, supporting strong marks in experience and professionalism. However, the second review (2020) reveals severe communication and responsiveness failures: a month of unanswered calls, emails, and texts after accepting a quote. This critical gap in follow-through and communication significantly undermines professionalism and project completion scores. No pricing feedback was provided. The recency gap (3+ years between reviews) and small sample size prevent reliable scoring.

• INSUFFICIENT SAMPLE SIZE: Only 2 reviews — below the 3-review minimum threshold for reliable WW Score calculation.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Second review is from October 2020 (4+ years old); only one recent review from 2023.
• CRITICAL RESPONSIVENESS FAILURE: Second review documents month-long communication blackout after quote acceptance — severe professionalism and project completion red flag.
• CONTRADICTORY SIGNALS: First review is highly positive; second reveals operational dysfunction. Cannot determine if issues were resolved or are systemic.
• NO PRICING DATA: Neither review discusses cost, value, or transparency — pricing dimension cannot be scored.

This score cannot be calculated reliably due to insufficient review volume (n=2, minimum n=3 required). The two reviews present contradictory signals: one strongly positive, one revealing serious communication failures. Any aggregate score would be meaningless without additional recent data.

Both reviews speak positively about Rob's politeness, fair pricing, and ability to complete jobs promptly, which provides some signal across all four dimensions. However, with only two reviews, none of the scores carry meaningful statistical weight. The praise offered is relatively generic — phrases like 'fair pricing' and 'great work' appear in both reviews without specific detail, limiting the depth of insight. Scores have been kept conservative across all dimensions to reflect the very thin evidence base. The oldest review dates to 2015, making it nearly a decade old and of minimal relevance to current performance.

• Only 2 reviews total — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Both reviews use strikingly similar language and structure ('fair pricing,' 'will use again,' prompt completion), which may indicate a pattern of generic or coached reviews rather than independently detailed accounts.
• One review is from 2015 (approximately 9–10 years old) and should be given very little weight in assessing current contractor quality.
• The most recent review is from 2019, meaning no reviews exist from the past 5+ years — current performance is entirely unknown.
• All reviews are 5-star with no specific project details, no mention of any challenges or nuance, raising mild concern about review authenticity or completeness.

This score report is highly unreliable due to only 2 available reviews, both of which are outdated (2015 and 2019), generically worded, and insufficient to draw meaningful conclusions about this contractor's current quality or consistency.

Only two reviews exist for this business, making any scoring highly unreliable. Professionalism received mixed signals: one reviewer praised courteous, old-fashioned service while another reported being given a hassle and turned away during what they believed were business hours. Pricing was mentioned positively in one review, noting low prices on name-brand supplies, but a single mention is insufficient to draw firm conclusions. Project completion and experience dimensions received no mentions at all, as this appears to be a plumbing supply company rather than a contracting service, so installation or workmanship data is absent entirely.

• Only 2 reviews total — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per scoring rules requiring a minimum of 3 reviews.
• The two reviews are sharply contradictory in tone and rating (1-star vs 5-star), suggesting polarized experiences rather than a consistent service pattern.
• Both reviews are dated 2019–2020, meaning all data is over 4 years old. Current service quality is unknown.
• This appears to be a plumbing supply/retail business rather than a contractor or plumber, which limits the applicability of contractor-focused dimensions such as project completion and experience.
• The 5-star review, while positive, contains somewhat generic praise with limited specifics beyond price and service style — treat with moderate caution.

This score report should not be trusted for decision-making purposes — with only 2 reviews, all data over 4 years old, and two directly contradictory experiences, there is insufficient evidence to draw any reliable conclusions about this business.

Both reviews speak positively across all four dimensions, praising Robert for responsiveness, punctuality, professionalism, and reasonable pricing. Project completion is well-supported, with both reviewers describing multiple distinct tasks that were finished to a high standard including ceiling repairs, installations, and carpentry work. Workmanship quality is noted explicitly in both reviews, with one reviewer specifically calling the job 'top notch' with neat cleanup. Pricing is mentioned favorably in both reviews, with terms like 'reasonable' and 'good price' used. However, with only two reviews available, all scores are treated conservatively and carry only LIMITED confidence.

• Only 2 reviews provided — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Both reviews are 5-star ratings with no negative feedback of any kind. While the reviews do contain specific project details which reduces fake review suspicion, the small sample size makes it impossible to assess whether this pattern is representative.
• Both reviews are from 2023 — no reviews from the past 12 months (relative to a 2024/2025 evaluation date) are present, which may not reflect current service quality.
• No negative or mixed feedback exists in the dataset. Scores should be interpreted with caution given the extremely limited sample.

This score report is based on only 2 reviews and should be considered highly preliminary — far more reviews are needed before any dimension score or overall assessment can be trusted with meaningful confidence.