Find Nearby Plumbers In Homestead, Florida

With only 2 reviews, reliable scoring is not possible. The reviews present extreme polarization: one describes complete ghosting and no-show (1-star, 2020), while the other praises same-day service, professionalism, and fair pricing (5-star, 2019). Professionalism scores are heavily conflicted (one explicitly states 'not professional at all' while the other calls the contractor 'extremely professional'). Project completion shows positive evidence in the 5-star review but abandonment in the 1-star review. All dimension scores are based on 1–2 mentions only, yielding LIMITED confidence across the board.

• INSUFFICIENT DATA: Only 2 reviews analyzed. WW Score cannot be calculated reliably with fewer than 3 reviews.
• EXTREME POLARIZATION: Reviews are contradictory (1-star ghosting vs. 5-star praise), suggesting either significant service inconsistency or potential data quality issues.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Both reviews are older than 3 years (2019 and 2020). No recent performance data available.
• SINGLE-MENTION DIMENSIONS: Pricing and Experience are each mentioned in only 1 review, making those scores highly unreliable.

This analysis cannot produce a trustworthy WW Score due to insufficient review volume (n=2) and extreme contradictions between reviews. Any scoring would be speculative and should not be used for decision-making.

With only two reviews spanning several years, no reliable WW Score can be calculated. The professionalism dimension is heavily penalized by a 1-star review describing a no-show appointment and a contractor who hung up on the customer — a serious red flag. The single positive review from 2016 describes punctual, effective service with sensible pricing and a completed gas stove installation, which provides some limited positive signal across pricing, completion, and experience. However, the stark contrast between the two reviews and the very small sample size means no dimension score should be treated with any meaningful confidence.

• Only 2 reviews total — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• The most recent review (2019) is a 1-star complaint describing a no-show appointment and the contractor hanging up on the customer — a serious professionalism concern.
• The positive review is from 2016, making it over 8 years old and carrying very low recency weight.
• No reviews exist from the past 12 months — the contractor's current service quality is entirely unknown.
• The two reviews are in direct conflict with each other, making any averaged score potentially misleading.

This score report is highly unreliable due to an insufficient number of reviews (only 2), a wide date gap between them, and directly contradictory feedback — prospective customers should seek additional references before making a hiring decision.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 1 review was analyzed. While this single review is positive across all dimensions (professionalism, pricing, project completion, and experience), a reliable WW Score requires a minimum of 3 reviews to establish meaningful patterns and confidence. All dimension scores are based on LIMITED evidence from a single data point.

• Only 1 review available — minimum 3 reviews required for reliable scoring
• Review is from 2016 (8+ years old) — does not reflect current service quality
• Single positive review cannot establish confidence in contractor performance

This analysis cannot produce a trustworthy WW Score due to insufficient review volume and age of available data; at least 3 recent reviews are needed to generate a reliable assessment.

This single review raises serious concerns across multiple dimensions. On professionalism, the contractor was initially responsive but then went completely silent after being paid, failing to deliver a promised written letter over a two-week period — a significant breach of follow-through and communication. Project completion is critically low: the contractor failed to identify the leak, did not complete the promised deliverable (the credit letter), and effectively abandoned the client post-payment. Experience is also scored very low, as the contractor was unable to diagnose the reported issue and, most critically, has been alleged to be operating without valid plumbing certification — a fundamental disqualifier of professional competence. Pricing data was not mentioned in the review and cannot be scored.

• CRITICAL: Reviewer explicitly states the contractor is NOT in the certified plumbers database, despite the contractor claiming to be certified. This is a serious legal and safety concern.
• Contractor became completely unresponsive after receiving full payment — a strong indicator of bad-faith business practices.
• Only 1 review available. WW Score cannot be reliably calculated with fewer than 3 reviews. All dimension scores carry very low confidence.
• The contractor failed to complete the promised deliverable (credit letter to MDWS) and has not honored follow-up contact for at least 2 weeks post-service.
• No pricing dimension data available — this dimension was not addressed in the review and has been excluded from scoring.

This score is based on a single 1-star review and should be treated as highly preliminary — however, the specific and serious allegations of non-certification and post-payment ghosting are credible red flags that warrant significant caution before hiring this contractor.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 1 review was analyzed. The single review mentions professionalism positively ('serious and professional people'), but provides no specific evidence regarding pricing, project completion, or technical experience. The review is generic praise without concrete details about work performed, timeline, or cost.

• Only 1 review available — statistically insufficient for reliable scoring
• Review is generic praise with no specific project details or evidence
• No mention of pricing, completion timeline, or technical quality
• Cannot assess reliability of contractor based on single vague endorsement

This score cannot be calculated reliably due to insufficient review volume (minimum 3 reviews required). A single generic review provides no actionable data for contractor evaluation.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only one review was analyzed. The review mentions technical skill and problem-solving (leak repairs completed successfully), but provides no explicit information about professionalism, pricing, or detailed project completion metrics. The review is from April 2021, over 3 years old, which limits its relevance to current service quality.

• Only 1 review available — statistically insufficient for reliable scoring
• Review is from April 2021 (3+ years old) — does not reflect current service quality
• No data on professionalism, pricing, or communication
• Generic praise without specific details about timeline, cost, or communication

This score cannot be reliably calculated or trusted due to insufficient review volume (n=1) and age of the single review (3+ years old).