Find Nearby Plumbers In Wilmington, Delaware

Both reviews speak positively about professionalism, with one reviewer explicitly calling the technician 'most professional and kind' and another describing him as 'meticulous.' Project completion is supported by both reviews, with jobs described as finished quickly and thoroughly, including a complex sump pump installation and a hot water heater replacement that a prior plumber had failed and worsened. Pricing is only mentioned in one review, where the contractor is described as 'fair priced,' making that dimension very low confidence. Experience is inferred from both reviews — one describes a successful emergency sump pump install, the other a successful recovery from a botched job by a different plumber — suggesting solid technical competence, though the evidence base is thin. With only 2 reviews total, no reliable WW Score can be calculated.

• Only 2 reviews provided — insufficient data to calculate a reliable WW Score per scoring rules.
• One review is dated 2020 (over 4 years old) and should be weighted significantly less than the 2024 review.
• Both reviews are 5-star ratings; while the review content is specific and detailed enough to reduce fake review concern, the small sample size prevents meaningful pattern analysis.
• Different technician names appear across reviews (Eric vs. Ricky) — this may indicate multiple employees or could reflect inconsistency in service quality not captured by only 2 reviews.

This score report is based on only 2 reviews, one of which is over 4 years old, making all dimension scores LOW confidence and the overall WW Score unreliable — significantly more review data is needed before this contractor can be meaningfully evaluated.

Both reviews are from 2020 and praise the contractor highly across multiple dimensions. Review 2 provides substantial detail on professionalism (communication, politeness, responsiveness, safety compliance), pricing (significantly cheaper than competitors), project completion (efficient work, thorough verification), and experience (problem-solving, customer education). Review 1 is brief but confirms quick turnaround and quality. However, with only 2 reviews total—both from over 4 years ago—the sample size is critically insufficient to calculate a reliable WW Score. Recent performance data is absent.

• CRITICAL: Only 2 reviews analyzed; minimum 3 reviews required for reliable WW Score calculation
• RECENCY ISSUE: Both reviews are from July 2020 and June 2020—over 4 years old. No recent data available to assess current performance
• SAMPLE SIZE: Extremely limited dataset. All dimensions scored with LIMITED confidence due to 1–2 mentions each
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: Review 1 contains a typo ('reccomned' instead of 'recommend') and is suspiciously generic with no specific details. Review 2 is detailed and credible. Mixed authenticity signals.

This analysis cannot produce a trustworthy WW Score due to insufficient review volume (n=2) and complete absence of recent data. Any score derived would be unreliable and should not be used for decision-making.

Both reviews speak positively about Haggerty's across multiple dimensions, referencing responsiveness, efficiency, and cost-effectiveness over long-term relationships spanning many years. Professionalism is supported by mentions of responsiveness and consistent service quality. Pricing is addressed directly in both reviews with terms like 'cost effective' and 'efficient' (in the value sense), though no specific pricing details are given. Project completion is implied through repeated successful jobs over many years, including heat pump installation and hose bib repair. Experience is suggested by long-term customer retention and satisfaction, though no deep technical detail is provided. All scores are conservative due to the very small sample size and lack of specificity.

• Only 2 reviews provided — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per scoring rules requiring a minimum of 3 reviews.
• Both reviews are significantly dated: one from 2013 and one from 2019. Neither falls within the past 12 months, meaning they may not reflect current business performance.
• Reviews are generally positive but lack specific detail about individual jobs, technician names, or concrete outcomes, reducing evidentiary strength.
• No negative feedback present, but this is likely due to the extremely small sample size rather than an absence of issues.
• Possible long-term customer bias: both reviewers note multi-year relationships, which may inflate positivity.

This score should be treated as highly unreliable due to only 2 reviews being available, both of which are over 5 years old and lack the specificity needed to confidently assess current performance across all dimensions.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only one substantive review was analyzable (the second review contains no usable content). The single usable review praises the technicians' diligence, timely completion, and quality of the tankless water heater installation, but with only 1 mention per dimension, confidence in any scoring is severely limited. No pricing information was provided in any review.

• Only 1 substantive review available; 2nd review is empty (single period). Minimum 3 reviews required for reliable WW Score calculation.
• All reviews are older than 12 months (2015–2016); no recent data available to assess current performance.
• No pricing feedback provided in any review; Price Friendly dimension cannot be scored.

This analysis cannot produce a trustworthy WW Score due to insufficient review volume (only 1 usable review) and age of data (8+ years old). Additional recent reviews are required before any scoring can be considered reliable.

Insufficient data — only 2 reviews analyzed. The reviews present sharply contradictory accounts: one praises punctuality, speed, and fair pricing (2019), while the other (2012) criticizes unprofessional behavior, poor problem-solving, and premium pricing without service quality. The 7-year gap between reviews and extreme polarity make it impossible to establish reliable scoring. Professionalism and project completion show conflicting evidence across limited mentions. Experience dimension has no explicit data.

• CRITICAL: Only 2 reviews — insufficient for reliable WW Score calculation
• CRITICAL: Extreme rating polarity (5.0 vs 1.0) with contradictory claims about same contractor
• CRITICAL: Large temporal gap (2012 vs 2019) — unclear if business practices changed or if reviews reflect different service contexts
• Review from 2012 is over 11 years old — recency heavily favors 2019 review
• Second review alleges unprofessional conduct and poor follow-up on warranty issue — serious concern if accurate
• Cannot determine if reviews describe same service quality or different circumstances

This analysis cannot produce a trustworthy WW Score with only 2 reviews showing extreme disagreement and a 7-year gap. Minimum 3 reviews required; recommend collecting additional recent reviews before making contractor decisions.

Both reviews describe severe failures across all dimensions. The contractor abandoned a bathroom renovation mid-project after receiving 50% advance payment and became unresponsive. The second review details extensive professional failures including chronic lateness, poor workmanship requiring complete rework by other contractors, material specification errors, property damage, and subsequent non-responsiveness to complaints. With only 2 reviews and both being 1-star accounts of serious misconduct, a reliable WW Score cannot be calculated. The evidence is damning but the sample size is insufficient for statistical confidence.

• CRITICAL: Only 2 reviews analyzed — insufficient data for reliable WW Score calculation per Step 4 protocol
• Both reviews are 1-star ratings describing severe contractor misconduct (project abandonment, non-responsiveness, poor workmanship, property damage)
• Second review is from October 2020 (3+ years old) — recency is limited
• First review is from June 2023 (1+ year old) — borderline recency
• No positive reviews present to balance assessment
• Allegations include fraud, breach of contract, and abandonment — serious legal/ethical concerns
• Second review contains specific technical details (green board vs. hardy board, thinset application, plumbing errors) suggesting authentic experience rather than fake review

This assessment cannot produce a trustworthy WW Score due to insufficient review volume (n=2). However, the consistent pattern of severe failures across professionalism, completion, pricing, and experience in both reviews suggests serious contractor deficiencies and potential fraud; any potential client should exercise extreme caution and seek independent verification before engagement.