Find Nearby Plumbers In Wilmington, Delaware

Insufficient data — only 1 review analyzed. The single review mentions competitive pricing (best quotes) and project completion (bathroom remodel completed satisfactorily), but provides no explicit detail on professionalism, communication, punctuality, or technical skill. The review is generic praise without specifics, which limits confidence in any scoring.

• Only 1 review available — cannot calculate reliable WW Score
• Review contains generic praise with minimal specific detail about workmanship, communication, or professionalism
• No mention of punctuality, responsiveness, attitude, or technical expertise
• Insufficient data to assess contractor reliability

This score cannot be calculated reliably with only 1 review. A minimum of 3 reviews is required to produce a trustworthy WW Score.

Only one review was provided, which is insufficient for reliable WW Score calculation. The review explicitly praises professionalism (friendly, professional drivers; timely service) and technical knowledge (knowledgeable staff). However, no information is provided regarding pricing, project completion, or specific job outcomes. The review is dated 2015 (9+ years old) and does not reference a specific plumbing or contractor project.

• Insufficient review volume: only 1 review provided. Minimum 3 reviews required for reliable scoring.
• Review is from 2015 — significantly outdated (9+ years old). Does not reflect current service quality.
• Review appears to be about a service company (drivers mentioned) rather than a plumber/contractor. Scope mismatch with stated analysis purpose.
• No pricing information mentioned.
• No project completion details provided.
• Generic praise without specific project examples or outcomes.

This score cannot be calculated reliably due to insufficient review volume (1 review minimum is 3) and the review's age and apparent scope mismatch with plumbing/contractor services.

Only a single review is available, which describes a severely negative experience. The reviewer explicitly calls out unprofessional and unreliable behavior, including a snarky response to a complaint and a refusal to confirm a scheduled appointment. The contractor ultimately abandoned the job entirely, which directly and severely impacts the project completion dimension. No information was provided regarding pricing or technical experience, so those dimensions cannot be scored.

• Only 1 review available — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Review is from October 2016, making it over 8 years old. Recency weighting is very low and this score may not reflect current contractor performance.
• Both scoreable dimensions (professionalism and project completion) are based on a single mention each, resulting in LIMITED confidence across the board.
• Pricing and experience dimensions have no data and cannot be evaluated.

This score is highly unreliable due to a single review that is over 8 years old, providing no basis for a statistically meaningful or current assessment of this contractor.

Only a single review is available for analysis, which severely limits the reliability of any scoring. The reviewer explicitly praised punctuality and professionalism, and described the quality of work as phenomenal, supporting modest scores in those dimensions. Project completion is inferred from the reviewer having used the contractor twice with apparent satisfaction, suggesting consistent follow-through. Pricing was not mentioned at all and cannot be scored. All scores are conservative given the extremely limited data.

• Only 1 review analyzed — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Single review with generic praise and no specific details about the work performed — treat all dimension scores with very low confidence.
• No pricing information mentioned in any review — Pricing dimension has no data.
• Review is from April 2023, which is over 12 months old depending on current date — recency should be considered.

This score report is based on a single review and should not be trusted as a reliable indicator of contractor quality — significantly more reviews are needed before any meaningful conclusions can be drawn.

This single review provides positive mentions across all four dimensions: professionalism (fast, friendly service, prompt employees, after-hours emergency response), pricing (reasonable prices), project completion (jobs finished right, problems solved), and experience (technical competence demonstrated). However, with only one review, confidence in any calculated score is severely limited. The review is detailed and specific rather than generic, which supports authenticity, but a single data point cannot reliably represent contractor performance.

• INSUFFICIENT DATA: Only 1 review analyzed. Minimum 3 reviews required for reliable WW Score calculation.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Review is from July 2020, over 3 years old. Does not reflect current service quality.
• SINGLE REVIEW BIAS: One positive review cannot establish reliable performance baseline. Negative or neutral reviews are absent.

This analysis cannot produce a reliable WW Score with only one review. A minimum of 3 reviews is required, and ideally reviews should be from the past 12 months to reflect current service standards.

Only a single review is available, making any scoring highly tentative. The reviewer notes responsiveness issues for routine non-emergency calls, which negatively impacts the professionalism dimension. However, they praise the contractor's reliability in emergency situations and have used them across multiple service types (plumbing and heating), suggesting reasonable experience and follow-through in urgent scenarios. No pricing information was mentioned, so that dimension cannot be scored. Overall, the picture is mixed — strong for emergencies, weaker for routine scheduling.

• Only 1 review provided — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• All dimension scores are based on a single mention and should be treated as highly speculative.
• Review is dated 2016 — data is over 8 years old and may not reflect current contractor performance.
• No pricing data mentioned in any review — Pricing dimension cannot be scored.

This score report is based on a single review from 2016 and should not be trusted as a reliable indicator of current contractor quality or consistency.