Find Nearby Plumbers In Athens-Clarke County, Georgia

Vivid Service Group demonstrates severe deficiencies across all measured dimensions. Project completion is the most critical failure point, with 7 reviews documenting abandoned work, no-shows, missed callbacks, and incomplete remediation over extended periods (3+ months delays). Professionalism scores poorly due to poor communication, lack of oversight, dismissive attitudes toward customer concerns, and failure to stand behind work. Pricing appears inflated relative to value delivered, with quotes described as 'outlandish' for minimal consultation. While initial sales interactions and technical knowledge show some competence, actual execution quality is consistently poor, with shoddy craftsmanship, material mismatches, and inadequate site management documented across multiple projects.

• All 8 reviews are negative (1-2 star ratings). No positive reviews present to balance assessment.
• Reviews span 2016-2021, with most concentrated in 2017-2020. Recency is limited; only 1 review from 2021.
• Consistent pattern of project abandonment and no-shows across multiple independent reviews suggests systemic operational failure, not isolated incidents.
• Multiple reviews reference previous negative Yelp reviews, indicating this is a known pattern with established reputation damage.
• No fake review indicators detected; reviews contain specific, detailed complaints with dates, names, and concrete examples of failures.

This WW Score of 18.5 is highly reliable and should be trusted as a strong negative indicator. The score is based on 8 independent reviews with consistent themes of project abandonment, poor workmanship, and unprofessional conduct. The HIGH overall confidence reflects substantial mention counts across critical dimensions, particularly project completion (7 mentions) and professionalism (6 mentions). This company presents significant risk to potential customers.

All four reviews are uniformly negative with no positive mentions across any dimension. Two reviews explicitly cite pricing issues (price gouging and upselling tactics). Two reviews reference project completion failures (unit failure after installation, non-responsiveness leading to job abandonment). One review mentions poor workmanship quality. One review criticizes communication/responsiveness. However, the sample size is extremely small (n=4), and all reviews are severely critical with no counterbalancing positive feedback, which limits confidence in any calculated score.

• CRITICAL: Only 4 reviews analyzed — sample size is too small for reliable scoring. Minimum 5 reviews recommended.
• All reviews are 1-star ratings with uniformly negative sentiment. No positive or mixed reviews present.
• Two reviews (2024-08-29 and 2024-08-08) are from the past 12 months and describe serious failures: HVAC unit failure and alleged price gouging.
• Review from 2023-09-03 is older than 12 months and describes non-responsiveness.
• Pattern suggests systemic issues with pricing transparency, sales practices, and follow-through, but confidence remains LIMITED due to small sample size.
• No fake review indicators detected — reviews contain specific details and varied complaint types.

This score cannot be reliably calculated due to insufficient data (n=4 reviews). While the uniformly negative feedback is concerning and suggests serious problems with pricing, responsiveness, and project completion, a minimum of 5 reviews is required for any WW Score to be considered valid. Recommend collecting additional reviews before making a hiring decision based on this data.

This contractor shows severe and consistent deficiencies across all measured dimensions. Two detailed negative reviews (from March 2024 and December 2023) document dishonesty, poor workmanship, scope creep with unjustified cost increases, failure to complete projects, and lack of proper licensing. One positive review from August 2022 mentions good communication and timely completion, but is substantially outweighed by the recent damaging allegations. The recency and specificity of the negative reviews, combined with a news report reference, suggest systemic problems rather than isolated incidents.

• CRITICAL: Two recent reviews (within past 12 months) allege serious misconduct including incomplete work, massive cost overruns ($5K→$20K), lack of state licensing, and property damage. One review references a news story about the same contractor.
• RECENCY CONCERN: The single positive review is from August 2022 (nearly 2 years old), while the two damaging reviews are from December 2023 and March 2024, suggesting a deterioration in service quality or pattern of problematic behavior.
• INSUFFICIENT SAMPLE SIZE: Only 3 reviews total. While the negative reviews are detailed and specific (not generic), a WW Score cannot be reliably calculated with fewer than 3 reviews. The two negative reviews are highly credible and specific, but confidence remains limited due to small sample size.
• LICENSING ISSUE: One review explicitly states 'no state license,' which is a legal and professional red flag for a contractor.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. However, the two recent, detailed negative reviews with specific allegations (incomplete work, cost overruns, property damage, lack of licensing) present serious credibility concerns that warrant extreme caution. This contractor should not be hired without independent verification and legal protection.

Insufficient data to calculate a reliable WW Score. Only 3 reviews were analyzed, which falls below the minimum threshold of 5+ reviews needed for statistical confidence. The reviews show extreme polarization: two 5-star reviews praising professionalism and service quality versus one 1-star review citing rudeness and refusal of work. The oldest review is from 2016 (8+ years old), limiting recency relevance. Professionalism scores are heavily conflicted, ranging from excellent to extremely poor, making any aggregate score unreliable.

• INSUFFICIENT REVIEW VOLUME: Only 3 reviews analyzed. Minimum 5 reviews recommended for reliable scoring.
• EXTREME POLARIZATION: Two 5-star reviews vs. one 1-star review with contradictory claims about professionalism and attitude. This suggests either significant service inconsistency or potential reliability issues.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Oldest review is from June 2016 (8+ years old). Only one review from past 12 months. Historical data may not reflect current service quality.
• CONFLICTING PROFESSIONALISM CLAIMS: Review 1 calls Tommy 'great' and 'fair and honest.' Review 3 calls him 'extremely rude' and 'arrogant.' These cannot both be accurate representations of consistent behavior.
• LIMITED PRICING DATA: Only one review mentions pricing (Review 2: 'fair and honest'). Insufficient to establish pricing pattern.

This score cannot be calculated reliably due to insufficient review volume (3 reviews, minimum 5 required) and extreme polarization in customer experiences. Any aggregate score would be statistically meaningless. Recommend collecting additional recent reviews before making hiring decisions.

With only two reviews, the data is insufficient to produce a reliable WW Score. The reviews are sharply divided: one is a detailed 1-star complaint describing two separate no-show appointments, zero communication, and an unprofessional phone manner, while the other is a detailed 5-star account praising two specific technicians (Luke Leyva and Javier Carillo) for punctuality, transparent pricing, thoughtful workmanship, and completing a full-day job on time. Professionalism and project completion scores are heavily penalized by the no-show review, which describes a repeated failure pattern. Pricing and experience scores are based solely on the positive review and must be treated with very low confidence given the single-mention basis.

• Only 2 reviews total — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per scoring rules (minimum 3 required).
• The negative review describes a repeated pattern of no-shows across two separate appointments months apart, suggesting a systemic reliability issue rather than an isolated incident.
• The positive review is highly detailed and specific (named technicians, specific tasks, timeline), which increases its credibility. However, it describes a subcontracted crew and explicitly notes uncertainty about whether other technicians meet the same standard.
• The negative review involves work booked through a third-party platform (Angi/Lowes), which may reflect dispatch or scheduling failures at the platform level rather than solely the contractor — but the contractor's phone manner was also cited as unprofessional, implicating the company directly.
• Both reviews are recent (July–August 2024), so recency weighting does not differentiate them.
• No fake review patterns detected — both reviews contain specific, credible detail consistent with genuine customer experiences.

This score report is based on only 2 reviews and should not be trusted as a reliable indicator of this contractor's overall performance — significantly more review data is required before any confident assessment can be made.

Both available reviews are strongly negative and paint a consistent picture of serious operational failures. Professionalism scores are near the floor due to chronic no-shows, missed appointment windows of five or more hours, unreturned voicemails and emails, and a pattern of poor internal communication. Project completion is similarly devastated — one reviewer describes a repair that failed within weeks and was never properly followed up on, while the other describes being stood up entirely after confirming an appointment. The one pricing-relevant review raises concerns about charging $191 for a repair on an aging appliance that failed almost immediately, suggesting poor value. The single experience-relevant data point — a bearing kit replacement that required replacement again within months — indicates substandard workmanship. A partial resolution was noted in one review (refund issued), which slightly tempers the experience score but does not meaningfully change the overall picture.

• Only 2 reviews available — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold rules (fewer than 3 reviews).
• One review is dated 2018 and carries significantly less recency weight than the 2024 review.
• No positive reviews are present in this dataset — scores reflect an entirely negative sample and may not represent the contractor's full performance history.
• No fake review patterns detected — both reviews are detailed, specific, and credible with named individuals, dates, dollar amounts, and described sequences of events.

This score report is based on only 2 reviews, both negative, and should be treated as highly preliminary — additional reviews are required before any reliable conclusions can be drawn about this contractor's overall performance.