Find Nearby Plumbers In Homestead, Florida

Insufficient data to calculate a reliable WW Score. Only 2 reviews were analyzed, and only 1 contains usable information about the contractor's actual services. The first review concerns a traffic incident unrelated to plumbing work and does not evaluate the contractor's professional services. The second review mentions overpricing ($700 for 3 hours) and lack of price transparency, but confirms the job was completed correctly. Both reviews are from 2018–2019 and lack sufficient detail across multiple dimensions.

• Only 1 of 2 reviews pertains to actual contractor services; the other is about an unrelated traffic incident
• Both reviews are 5+ years old (2018–2019); no recent data available
• Insufficient review volume (n=2) to establish reliable scoring across dimensions
• No meaningful data on professionalism, experience, or project completion quality

This analysis cannot produce a trustworthy WW Score due to insufficient review volume and recency; at least 3 recent, service-related reviews are required for reliable assessment.

Both reviews speak positively to professionalism — the inspector in Review 1 was described as helpful and communicative, and the phone representative in Review 2 was described as sharp, clear, and knowledgeable. Experience is touched on in both reviews, with the inspector explaining the inspection process and the phone rep demonstrating strong service knowledge. Project completion is only partially addressed in Review 1, where the report was delivered next day and submitted to insurance, suggesting solid follow-through. Pricing is not mentioned in either review, so no score can be assigned to that dimension. With only 2 reviews total, no reliable WW Score can be calculated.

• Only 2 reviews provided — minimum threshold of 3 reviews not met; WW Score cannot be reliably calculated.
• Review 2 is dated 2009 — over 15 years old and should be treated with very low recency weight.
• Review 1 is dated 2016 — also more than 8 years old; neither review reflects recent performance.
• No pricing information mentioned in any review — that dimension cannot be scored.
• Small sample size and age of reviews severely limit the reliability of any conclusions drawn.

This score report is based on only 2 reviews, both of which are more than 8 years old, making it insufficient to reliably assess current contractor performance — treat any findings as highly preliminary and seek more recent reviews before making a hiring decision.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 2 reviews were analyzed, which falls below the minimum threshold of 3 reviews required for a trustworthy WW Score. The reviews are contradictory: one 1-star review from 2021 criticizes lack of responsibility and contractor accountability, while one 5-star review from 2019 praises professionalism and results. The extreme polarity and minimal sample size prevent reliable scoring.

• CRITICAL: Only 2 reviews analyzed — below minimum threshold of 3 for reliable scoring
• RECENCY ISSUE: Both reviews are older than 12 months (2019 and 2021); no recent data available
• CONTRADICTORY REVIEWS: Extreme polarity (1-star vs 5-star) with no middle ground suggests potential data quality issues or significant service inconsistency
• GENERIC PRAISE: The 5-star review contains vague language ('Great Service', 'very professional') with minimal specific detail, raising authenticity concerns
• RESPONSIBILITY CONCERN: The 1-star review raises serious questions about contractor accountability and subcontractor management — a critical business practice issue

This score cannot be calculated and should not be used for decision-making. The sample size is too small, reviews are outdated, and they present contradictory narratives. At least 3-5 recent reviews are needed to establish baseline reliability.

Both reviews speak positively about Ken/Kenny's promptness, courteous attitude, and clear communication, supporting a strong professionalism score. Pricing is mentioned explicitly in one review, where a flat-rate upfront quote was described as significantly better value than hourly competitors. Both reviews indicate the leak was successfully identified and the job was completed effectively, supporting a solid project completion score. Technical skill and problem-solving ability are highlighted in both reviews — Kenny located a long-standing mysterious leak that multiple other plumbers had failed to resolve, indicating strong experience. However, with only two reviews total, all scores must be treated as highly provisional.

• Only 2 reviews provided — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per scoring rules requiring a minimum of 3 reviews.
• Both reviews are significantly dated (2015 and 2019), meaning they are more than 5 years old. Current performance cannot be inferred from this data.
• No recent reviews are present to confirm whether quality and service standards have been maintained.
• All scores carry LIMITED confidence due to the very small sample size — treat all dimension scores with caution.

This score report is based on only 2 reviews, both of which are over 5 years old, making it insufficient to reliably assess current contractor performance — prospective customers should seek additional recent reviews before making a hiring decision.

Insufficient data — only 2 reviews analyzed. Both reviews are positive and mention professionalism (customer service, responsiveness to emergencies) and project completion (issue resolved, leak fixed). One review explicitly mentions fair pricing. However, with only 2 reviews total, no dimension reaches the 5-mention threshold for HIGH confidence, and the sample size is too small to calculate a reliable WW Score. No technical skill or workmanship details are provided.

• INSUFFICIENT SAMPLE SIZE: Only 2 reviews provided. Minimum 3 reviews required; 5+ strongly recommended for reliable scoring.
• GENERIC PRAISE: Both reviews contain generic positive language ('excellent job', 'great customer service', 'highly recommend') with minimal specific detail about the actual work performed.
• NO EXPERIENCE DATA: Neither review mentions technical skill, workmanship quality, or problem-solving ability.
• RECENCY CONCERN: One review is from September 2023 (recent), but the other is from December 2022 (over 1 year old).
• POTENTIAL PATTERN: Both reviews are 5-star ratings with enthusiastic tone but lack concrete specifics about what was done or how it was accomplished.

This analysis cannot produce a reliable WW Score due to insufficient review volume (2 reviews). A minimum of 3 reviews is required, and at least 5 reviews per dimension are needed for HIGH confidence scoring. Do not rely on any score calculation from this dataset.

Only two reviews exist for this contractor, making any scoring highly unreliable. The negative review raises serious concerns about professionalism, citing dismissive communication, unresponsiveness after partial payment, and deceptive practices. The positive review praises efficiency, niceness, and reasonable pricing, but is brief and lacks specific detail. The stark contrast between a 1-star and 5-star review with only two data points means no dimension can be scored with meaningful confidence. Per scoring rules, all scores are heavily discounted and the WW Score cannot be calculated reliably.

• Only 2 reviews total — far below the minimum threshold of 3 required for a reliable WW Score.
• The 1-star reviewer explicitly alleges that positive reviews were written by people the contractor knows personally, raising a fake review concern.
• The 5-star review is generic and lacks specific job details, which is consistent with the fake review allegation made in the negative review.
• Both reviews are from 2019, meaning all data is over 5 years old and may not reflect current performance.
• Extreme rating polarization (1-star vs 5-star) with no middle-ground reviews further reduces reliability.
• The negative review alleges the contractor becomes unresponsive after collecting partial payment — a significant financial and completion risk flag.

This WW Score report should not be trusted for decision-making purposes due to an critically small and potentially compromised review sample of only 2 reviews, both over 5 years old, with credible allegations of fake positive reviews.