Find Nearby Plumbers In Miami, Florida

With only 4 reviews available, this dataset is insufficient for reliable WW Score calculation. Professionalism is supported by 3 mentions highlighting respectfulness, honesty, and accommodating service. Project completion is mentioned in all 4 reviews with consistent positive outcomes (quick resolution, problem fixed). Experience is mentioned in only 2 reviews with positive technical assessment. Pricing data is entirely absent from all reviews, preventing evaluation of value and fairness. The review dates span 2019–2023, with 3 reviews older than 1 year.

• INSUFFICIENT SAMPLE SIZE: Only 4 reviews analyzed; minimum 3 reviews met but confidence remains limited due to small dataset
• RECENCY CONCERN: 75% of reviews (3 of 4) are older than 1 year (2019–2020); only 1 review from 2023
• MISSING PRICING DATA: No reviews mention pricing, value, quotes, or affordability; cannot assess Price Friendly dimension
• GENERIC PRAISE PATTERN: Reviews 2 and 3 contain vague language ('great job,' 'did a good job,' 'quick and hassle free') with minimal specific detail; Review 2 contains awkward phrasing ('took some money,' 'Great swing on the job') suggesting possible translation or authenticity concerns
• LIMITED DETAIL: Most reviews lack specifics about what work was performed, how problems were diagnosed, or what made service exceptional beyond general satisfaction

This score cannot be reliably calculated due to insufficient review volume (4 reviews) and missing critical data dimensions (pricing). The professionalism and project completion scores are based on limited mentions and should be treated as preliminary indicators only. Recency bias is significant with 75% of data older than 1 year. Do not rely on this assessment for major contractor decisions without additional recent reviews.

This contractor receives overwhelmingly negative feedback across all dimensions. Three of four reviews are 1-star ratings citing severe failures in professionalism (rude tactics, poor communication, unresponsiveness), pricing (bait-and-switch tactics, overcharging, hidden costs), and project completion (months-long delays, incomplete work, city code violations, abandoned projects). The single 5-star review from 2012 praising quality and pricing appears inconsistent with the pattern of complaints and lacks specificity. The extreme recency gap (most reviews are 10+ years old) and the stark contrast between the one positive and three negative reviews raise reliability concerns.

• CRITICAL: Three of four reviews are from 2012-2015; only one review is recent. Historical data may not reflect current operations.
• SUSPICIOUS PATTERN: One 5-star review praising 'economical pricing' directly contradicts three detailed complaints about overcharging and bait-and-switch pricing tactics. This inconsistency suggests either fake review or significant operational changes.
• SEVERE ALLEGATIONS: Multiple reviews allege code violations, months-long delays, incomplete work, and refusal to finish jobs without additional payment. These are serious red flags.
• INSUFFICIENT RECENT DATA: With only 4 total reviews and none from the past 8+ years, current reliability cannot be assessed.

This score cannot be reliably calculated due to insufficient recent data (all reviews are 8+ years old) and only 4 total reviews. The extreme negativity in three reviews combined with one inconsistent positive review raises questions about data authenticity and whether current operations match historical performance. Do not rely on this analysis for hiring decisions without seeking current references.

All four reviews are uniformly negative with 1-star ratings spanning 2014–2021, indicating a persistent pattern of poor service. The contractor demonstrates severe deficiencies across all dimensions: chronic non-responsiveness and failure to keep appointments (professionalism), overcharging relative to work quality (pricing), repeated project abandonment and incomplete work (project completion), and substandard workmanship (experience). The most detailed review documents a multi-day saga of broken promises, missing supplies, and abrupt job abandonment after payment. No positive or neutral reviews exist to balance these findings.

• CRITICAL: All 4 reviews are 1-star ratings with no positive reviews present. This represents a 100% negative review rate, which is extremely rare and suggests either severe systemic business failure or a contractor with fundamentally unreliable operations.
• Multiple reviews explicitly mention non-responsiveness to callbacks and failure to show up for scheduled work, indicating a pattern of abandonment.
• Review from 2014 and 2017 are older than 12 months; however, the 2021 review shows the pattern persisted for at least 7 years, suggesting ongoing issues rather than past problems.
• One review (2014) is highly detailed and specific with dates, times, and dollar amounts, lending credibility. Others are also detailed and specific, not generic praise.
• No evidence of licensing or permits mentioned positively; one review explicitly warns to verify contractor's license.
• Financial disputes noted: customer paid $500 for incomplete work; another customer questioned whether work was performed at all.

This score should be treated with extreme caution due to insufficient review volume (n=4), but the uniformity and specificity of negative feedback across a 7-year span strongly suggests genuine, persistent service failures rather than isolated incidents or fake reviews.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 3 reviews analyzed, which falls below the minimum threshold of 5 reviews needed for a statistically meaningful WW Score. While the available reviews are uniformly positive (all 5-star ratings), the sample size is too small to produce a trustworthy composite score. Professionalism and project completion show moderate confidence with 3 mentions each, but pricing and experience are based on only 1–2 mentions respectively, limiting their reliability.

• CRITICAL: Only 3 reviews provided — below minimum threshold for reliable scoring
• All reviews are 5-star ratings with no negative feedback — potential selection bias or insufficient sample diversity
• Review dates span 2018–2022 (4+ years old) — no recent reviews within past 12 months to assess current service quality
• Second review contains unusually detailed and enthusiastic language with multiple exclamation marks and superlatives — while specific details are present, the tone warrants noting as potentially non-representative
• Pricing dimension based on only 1 explicit mention — insufficient data for confident assessment

This analysis cannot produce a reliable WW Score due to insufficient review volume (3 reviews vs. minimum 5 required). Any score calculated would lack statistical validity. Recommend collecting at least 5–10 additional reviews, preferably from the past 12 months, before making business decisions based on this contractor's performance metrics.

This contractor receives overwhelmingly negative feedback centered on pricing practices. All three reviews explicitly criticize charges as exorbitant, with customers reporting markups of 200-400% above market rates for identical work. One review notes technicians were 'very nice' (professionalism mention), but this is vastly outweighed by pricing concerns. A critical red flag: a repair completed nearly 4 years prior failed in the same location, suggesting potential quality or durability issues, though the sample size is too small to establish a pattern. No reviews provide substantive evidence of technical skill or problem-solving ability. The extreme recency gap (oldest review from 2011, newest from 2017) limits current relevance.

• SEVERE PRICING CONCERNS: All three reviews cite dramatically inflated pricing (125-800 dollars for work competitors completed for 50-275 dollars). This is not isolated complaint—it is the dominant pattern.
• POTENTIAL QUALITY ISSUE: One review reports the same pipe location failed again after previous repair by this company 4 years earlier, suggesting possible workmanship or durability problems.
• RECENCY: All reviews are 7+ years old (2011-2017). No recent data available to assess current practices or improvements.
• INSUFFICIENT SAMPLE: Only 3 reviews total. Score reliability is severely limited.
• NO EXPERIENCE DATA: Reviews do not provide explicit commentary on technical skill, knowledge, or problem-solving ability.

This score cannot be reliably calculated due to insufficient review volume (n=3) and extreme age of all reviews (7+ years). However, the consistent and severe pricing complaints across all available reviews suggest a legitimate pattern of overcharging relative to market rates. Any decision should be based on current quotes and recent references, not this historical data.

Both reviews highlight strong professionalism, specifically praising Alex's fast response time, same-day or near-immediate availability, and pleasant demeanor. One review explicitly calls his pricing 'extremely fair,' providing limited but positive pricing signal. Project completion is implied across both reviews — multiple fixture installations and an emergency plumbing situation were resolved — though neither review provides granular detail about workmanship quality or technical skill. Experience as a standalone dimension received no explicit mention, so no score could be assigned. With only two reviews, all scores carry very low confidence and should not be treated as definitive.

• Only 2 reviews provided — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Both reviews are 5-star with generally positive but limited specificity; this is insufficient to rule out selection bias or unrepresentative sampling.
• No negative or mixed feedback present — this may reflect a genuinely strong contractor, but with only 2 data points it is impossible to assess consistency.
• Experience/workmanship dimension has zero explicit mentions — this is a significant data gap for a plumbing contractor assessment.
• Review dates span roughly 9 months (January 2024 to October 2024), both within the past 12 months, which is a positive recency signal but the sample remains too small to draw firm conclusions.

This score report is based on only 2 reviews, which is below the minimum threshold for a reliable WW Score — all dimension scores should be treated as preliminary indicators only and not used as a basis for confident contractor selection.