Find Nearby Plumbers In Daytona Beach, Florida

With only two reviews, the data is sharply divided. One reviewer experienced a no-call, no-show appointment — a serious failure in both professionalism and reliability. The other reviewer had an overwhelmingly positive experience, praising responsiveness, communication, and follow-through including photo documentation of completed work. These two reviews directly contradict each other, making it impossible to establish a reliable pattern. Pricing and experience were not mentioned in either review, leaving two of four dimensions with no data at all.

• Only 2 reviews total — far below the minimum threshold for a reliable WW Score.
• The two reviews are in direct conflict: one is a 1-star no-show complaint and one is a 5-star glowing review, suggesting high variability in service quality or inconsistent scheduling practices.
• No pricing or experience data available — 2 of 4 scoring dimensions cannot be evaluated.
• Recency note: both reviews are from 2023, so neither is older than 1 year at time of analysis, but the sample size is too small to draw meaningful conclusions.

This score should not be trusted for decision-making purposes — with only 2 reviews and two dimensions returning null, there is insufficient evidence to form a meaningful assessment of this contractor's overall quality.

Insufficient data — only 2 reviews analyzed. The first review (2022) praises professionalism, responsiveness, and fair pricing, with work completed same-day despite holiday schedule. The second review (2021) criticizes communication and responsiveness, citing inability to reach the contractor and lack of voicemail setup. These reviews are contradictory and both are over 2 years old. No technical skill or experience details are mentioned in either review.

• INSUFFICIENT SAMPLE SIZE: Only 2 reviews provided. WW Score cannot be calculated reliably with fewer than 3 reviews.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Both reviews are older than 2 years (2021-2022). No recent data available to assess current service quality.
• CONTRADICTORY FEEDBACK: Review 1 praises communication and responsiveness; Review 2 criticizes lack of communication infrastructure. This suggests either service has changed or inconsistent performance.
• NO EXPERIENCE DATA: Neither review mentions technical skill, workmanship quality, or problem-solving ability.

This analysis cannot produce a reliable WW Score due to insufficient review volume (minimum 3 required) and age of available data (both reviews exceed 2 years old). Any scoring would be speculative and should not be trusted for decision-making.

Both reviews are severely negative and date from 2016–2018, making them older than 12 months and potentially stale. Review 1 criticizes overpricing, lack of upfront cost transparency, and hiring subcontractors with inflated fees. Review 2 describes poor responsiveness to emergency repairs, extended timelines for parts procurement, and use of generic parts that allegedly caused a leak. All four dimensions show poor performance, but the sample size is critically small (n=2) and recency is a significant concern. A WW Score cannot be reliably calculated with fewer than 3 reviews.

• INSUFFICIENT DATA: Only 2 reviews analyzed. WW Score calculation requires minimum 3 reviews for reliability.
• RECENCY ISSUE: Both reviews are 6–8 years old (2016–2018). No recent data available to assess current performance.
• POTENTIAL OUTDATED INFORMATION: Contractor practices, staffing, or quality may have changed significantly since these reviews were written.
• NEGATIVE SKEW: 100% of reviews are 1-star with serious complaints. No positive or neutral reviews present to balance assessment.

This assessment is unreliable and should not be used for decision-making. Insufficient review volume (n=2), extreme age of data (6–8 years), and complete absence of recent feedback prevent any confident scoring. Current contractor performance cannot be determined from these reviews alone.

A single review describes a positive experience with Perry's, specifically praising technicians Joey and Bodi for their thoroughness in diagnosing and repairing a well pump issue. The reviewer highlights fast turnaround (under 20 hours from call to completion), reasonable pricing, and diligent follow-through including leak checks. All four dimensions received some mention, but every score is based on just one review and must be treated with very low confidence. The scores are intentionally conservative to reflect this limited data.

• Only 1 review analyzed — WW Score cannot be reliably calculated with fewer than 3 reviews.
• All dimension scores are based on a single mention each and carry LIMITED confidence only.
• Review is from September 2023, which is over 12 months old depending on current date — recency should be considered.
• Cannot assess fake review patterns or score reliability trends from a single data point.

This score report is based on a single review and should not be used to make any meaningful judgment about this contractor — substantially more review data is required before the WW Score can be considered trustworthy.

This single review paints a mixed picture of Rob's service. On the positive side, he was punctual, polite, courteous, performed quality work, and cleaned up after himself. However, a significant concern was raised around pricing transparency — the reviewer explicitly noted that Rob never discussed the cost of the toilet brand or the additional pipe replacement before proceeding, only presenting the bill at the end. The reviewer described him as 'very expensive' and felt blindsided by the lack of upfront pricing communication. Project completion appears solid as the job was finished fully and follow-through on the additional pipe issue was handled, though without prior cost discussion.

• Only 1 review available — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• This review is from May 2013, making it over 10 years old. It carries very low recency value and should not be treated as representative of current service quality.
• Pricing transparency is a notable concern explicitly raised by the reviewer — Rob proceeded with brand selection and additional work (pipe replacement) without disclosing costs beforehand.

This score is based on a single review from over a decade ago and should be considered highly unreliable — no meaningful conclusions about current service quality can be drawn from this data alone.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. The single review provided contains no usable text content (marked as 'unknown'), making it impossible to assess any of the four dimensions. A rating alone without descriptive detail cannot be scored under WW methodology.

• Review text is missing or marked 'unknown' — no substantive content to analyze
• Review is from 2016 (8+ years old) — outside the 12-month recency window
• Only 1 review available — minimum 3 reviews required for reliable scoring

This score cannot be calculated or trusted. At least 3 reviews with substantive content are required to produce a meaningful WW Score.