Sermon shows mixed performance across all dimensions. Professionalism is inconsistent—some reviews praise punctuality and communication (RV receptacle project, breaker repair), while others cite severe lapses including 7-day non-response, lack of estimates, and unprofessional conduct. Pricing is a significant weakness, with one customer reporting a 112% markup on a water heater and multiple compla...
Read more Score Narrative
Sermon shows mixed performance across all dimensions. Professionalism is inconsistent—some reviews praise punctuality and communication (RV receptacle project, breaker repair), while others cite severe lapses including 7-day non-response, lack of estimates, and unprofessional conduct. Pricing is a significant weakness, with one customer reporting a 112% markup on a water heater and multiple complaints about lack of transparency and itemization. Project completion is hampered by quality issues (oversized holes, slow work, rework required) and unresolved problems that triggered additional charges. Experience shows competence in routine repairs but poor judgment in complex installations and customer interaction. The company's reliability is undermined by high variability in service quality.
Flags & Warnings
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: Reviews dated 2016-10-05 11:32:33 and 2016-10-05 00:00:00 contain identical text with nearly identical complaints—this appears to be a duplicate submission rather than independent validation.
• RECENCY CONCERN: 8 of 13 reviews are older than 3 years (pre-2021). Only 2 reviews from past 12 months. Historical data may not reflect current operations.
• PRICING RED FLAG: One detailed 2018 review documents a 112% markup ($1,775 vs. ~$850 market price) on water heater installation. Another 2016 review criticizes lack of itemization and slow billing practices. Multiple pricing complaints suggest systemic issue.
• PROFESSIONALISM RED FLAG: 2016 reviews document serious conduct issues—technician sitting idle in truck, lack of estimates, unprofessional personal comments to customer, requests for personal checks rather than company checks.
• GENERIC REVIEWS: Several 5-star reviews (2013, 2014, 2016) contain minimal detail ('unknown' text, vague praise) and lack specificity, reducing their evidentiary value.
• INCONSISTENT QUALITY: Wide variance between 5-star and 1-star ratings suggests either highly variable service delivery or potential selection bias in review submission.
Reliability Statement
This WW Score should be treated with caution due to significant recency bias (62% of reviews older than 3 years), one confirmed duplicate review, and multiple generic/low-detail submissions that reduce data quality. The MODERATE overall confidence reflects genuine high-confidence dimension scores, but the underlying data quality is compromised. Recent performance (past 12 months) appears better than historical average, but sample size is too small to confirm trend. Customers should request detailed written estimates and itemized invoices before engaging this contractor.
Read less