Find Nearby Plumbers In Arlington Heights, Illinois

Only two reviews are available, both positive but lacking specific detail. Professionalism is supported by a mention of punctuality and cleanliness in the first review. Project completion is implied by both reviews — one noting the problem was fixed, the other citing 15 years of jobs done right the first time. Experience receives a conservative score based on the long-term repeat customer relationship and the implication of consistent quality, though no technical specifics are described. Pricing is entirely unmentioned and cannot be scored.

• Only 2 reviews total — insufficient data to calculate a reliable WW Score.
• Both reviews are older than 1 year; the most recent is from December 2017, over 7 years ago. Current performance cannot be assessed.
• The second review (2007) is over 17 years old and carries very little relevance to present-day service quality.
• Reviews are generic and lack specific detail, limiting scoring confidence across all dimensions.

This score should not be trusted as a reliable indicator of contractor quality — only 2 reviews exist, both are outdated, and no pricing data is available.

Only one review is available for analysis, which is insufficient to calculate a reliable WW Score. The single review praises Manny's professionalism (accommodating, respectful, communicative) and pricing (fair and reasonable), but provides no evidence regarding project completion or technical experience. A minimum of 3 reviews is required to establish meaningful patterns and confidence in scoring.

• Insufficient data — only 1 review analyzed. Cannot calculate WW Score reliably.
• No information provided about project completion, timeliness, or quality of workmanship.
• Single review is generic in praise without specific project details or outcomes.

This analysis cannot be trusted as a reliable assessment of contractor performance; a minimum of 3 reviews is required to produce a valid WW Score.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only one review was provided, which falls below the minimum threshold of 3 reviews required for reliable scoring. Additionally, the single review contains only generic praise with no specific details about any of the four dimensions (professionalism, pricing, project completion, or experience). The review does not mention punctuality, communication, pricing, job completion, workmanship quality, or any other measurable criteria.

• Only 1 review provided — minimum 3 reviews required for reliable WW Score calculation
• Review contains only generic praise ('you can go wrong with Max') with no specific details or examples
• No explicit mentions of any of the four scoring dimensions
• Possible typo in review text ('you can go wrong' may mean 'you cannot go wrong'), but intent is unclear
• 5-star rating with no substantive content is a red flag for low-quality review data

This score cannot be calculated or trusted. A minimum of 3 reviews with substantive detail is required; only 1 generic review was provided.

Only one review was available for analysis, which severely limits the reliability of any scoring. The single review explicitly mentions that the bathroom remodel was completed on time and to the customer's satisfaction, which supports a modest project completion score. However, no details were provided regarding professionalism, pricing, or technical experience, so those dimensions cannot be scored. The review is brief and generic, offering limited specifics beyond general satisfaction.

• Only 1 review analyzed — far below the minimum threshold of 3 required for a reliable WW Score.
• Review is very brief and lacks specific detail, which limits its evidentiary value.
• Cannot rule out recency bias or isolated experience — a single positive review is not representative of consistent contractor performance.
• Three out of four scoring dimensions have no data at all and could not be evaluated.

This score is not calculable and should not be trusted as a meaningful assessment — only one review was provided, covering only one dimension with minimal detail.

Only a single review is available, dated June 2010, making this analysis extremely limited in reliability. The reviewer reports satisfaction with a washer/dryer hookup installation, noting the quote was the best received — a positive pricing signal. The technician demonstrated professionalism by walking the customer through the completed work, and the job appears to have been completed successfully with no follow-up issues reported over several months. Experience is inferred from the successful outcome and the technician's ability to explain the work, though no specific technical detail is provided. All scores are conservative given the single-review basis.

• Only 1 review analyzed — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Review is dated June 2010 — over 14 years old. This data is significantly outdated and should not be used to assess current contractor quality.
• With only one review, no pattern analysis for fake review detection is possible. The single review is moderately specific and does not raise immediate authenticity concerns, but cannot be verified.

This score carries very low reliability due to a single review that is over 14 years old — it should not be used as a meaningful basis for hiring decisions without substantially more recent and numerous reviews.

This single review paints a deeply problematic picture of a bathroom remodel gone wrong. While the contractor (Andy) was personally described as likable, responsive, and knowledgeable, the actual work — largely performed by a separate crew — was riddled with serious deficiencies including unlevel flooring, incorrect fixture installation, improper electrical work, sloppy tilework, and an unauthorized wall move. Project completion scores extremely low because the customer was left with a job requiring significant remediation at their own expense, with only a partial $1,000 discount offered. Experience scores are near the floor given the volume and severity of technical errors across multiple trades. Professionalism receives a slightly higher score only because Andy personally returned to fix one issue and was described as personable and communicative, though his failure to supervise the crew adequately is a serious mark against him.

• Only 1 review analyzed — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per scoring rules (minimum 3 reviews required).
• Review is from June 2022, which is over 12 months old at most reference points — recency weighting is reduced.
• The reviewer explicitly notes that other customers have had positive experiences with this contractor, suggesting this may be an outlier or crew-dependent outcome rather than a universal pattern.
• Work was performed by a subcontracted crew rather than Andy directly — scores may not fully reflect the contractor's own skill level, but do reflect his project management and oversight failures.
• No other reviews were provided to corroborate or contradict this account — all dimension scores carry LIMITED confidence and should not be treated as representative.

This score report is based on a single detailed review and should be considered highly unreliable as a general assessment of this contractor — additional reviews are essential before drawing any meaningful conclusions.