Find Nearby Plumbers In Chicago, Illinois

Only one review is available, which provides very limited data to work with. The reviewer confirms the work was completed — TV mounting, furniture rearrangement, and Sonos speaker installation — supporting a modest project completion score. The phrase 'quality of work' suggests a positive experience with the contractor's skill level, but no specific technical detail is provided to justify a high experience score. Professionalism and pricing are entirely unmentioned, so those dimensions cannot be scored. Overall, the data is too sparse to produce a reliable WW Score.

• Only 1 review analyzed — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably with fewer than 3 reviews.
• The review is generic in praise ('great service and quality of work') with no specific detail about professionalism, pricing, or technical problem-solving, limiting scoring confidence.
• No pricing or professionalism data mentioned — two of the four scoring dimensions are completely absent.

This score report is based on a single review and should not be trusted as a reliable indicator of this contractor's overall performance — significantly more reviews are needed before any meaningful conclusions can be drawn.

Only a single review is available, making any scoring highly provisional. That review is detailed and specific, describing a sump pump and gutter resolution complicated by unexpected tree roots, a same-day hot water tank replacement, prompt response, courteous behavior, and fair pricing — all positive indicators across all four dimensions. The reviewer explicitly praises reliability, honesty, and value, lending some credibility to the scores assigned. However, with just one review from 2013, these scores carry very low statistical weight and should not be treated as representative of current or consistent performance.

• Only 1 review analyzed — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Review is dated 2013-06-20, which is over 10 years old. This data is significantly outdated and may not reflect current business quality or ownership.
• Single review cannot be cross-referenced for fake review patterns, but the review does contain specific details (tree roots, sump pump, hot water tank, four-hour response) that reduce suspicion of fabrication.
• All dimensions scored from a single mention — all confidence levels are LIMITED and scores should be treated as directional only, not definitive.

This WW Score is not calculable and should not be trusted as a reliable indicator of contractor quality due to insufficient review volume (1 review) and significant data age (2013).

This single review from 2006 provides detailed criticism across multiple dimensions. The reviewer acknowledges Tom Lawless possesses broad technical knowledge (electrical, plumbing, carpentry, tile work), but criticizes carelessness causing property damage, significant cost overruns (charges doubled estimates), vague time tracking, and failure to honor promises about repair costs. The review is highly specific and credible in its complaints, but a WW Score cannot be reliably calculated from a single data point, particularly one nearly 18 years old.

• CRITICAL: Only 1 review analyzed — insufficient data for reliable WW Score calculation per Rule 4 (minimum 3 reviews required)
• RECENCY ISSUE: Review is from April 2006 (18+ years old) — does not reflect current business practices or recent performance
• Single negative review with no counterbalancing positive reviews — cannot establish pattern or trend

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. A single review, especially one from 2006, cannot support a trustworthy overall score. Current performance data is needed.

This single review paints a positive picture across all four dimensions. Tyler and Joey responded on a Sunday without an extra service fee, communicated proactively before arrival, and were described as nice and tidy — supporting a solid but conservatively scored professionalism rating. Pricing was explicitly called 'very reasonable,' earning a moderate pricing score. The job was completed in one visit using multiple cutter sizes to address tree root intrusion at two clean-out locations, indicating competent follow-through and technical problem-solving. However, with only one review available, all scores are held conservative per scoring rules and the WW Score cannot be reliably calculated.

• Only 1 review analyzed — far below the minimum of 3 required for a reliable WW Score.
• All dimension scores are based on a single mention and should be treated as LOW CONFIDENCE estimates only.
• Cannot rule out recency bias — this is a single 5-star review from November 2024 with no historical data to compare against.

This score report is based on a single review and should not be considered a reliable indicator of this contractor's overall performance — significantly more reviews are needed before any dimension score or WW Score can be trusted.

Only one review is available for analysis, which is insufficient to calculate a reliable WW Score. The single review praises Cristian's professionalism (quick response, accurate communication), technical expertise (described as 'expert'), and problem-solving ability (prevented significant damage). However, pricing is not discussed, and all scores are based on extremely limited data from a single 5-star review.

• Insufficient review volume: Only 1 review analyzed. WW Score cannot be calculated reliably with fewer than 3 reviews.
• Single 5-star review with generic praise language may indicate limited feedback diversity.
• No pricing information provided in available reviews.
• No explicit mention of project completion timeline or follow-through on callbacks.

This analysis cannot produce a trustworthy WW Score due to insufficient data (minimum 3 reviews required). Individual dimension scores should be disregarded as they are based on a single review and carry only LIMITED confidence.

Only one review was available for analysis, which is insufficient to calculate a reliable WW Score. The single review is highly negative, citing severe pricing concerns ($500+ for $10 in parts), poor professionalism (technicians unable to locate water shutoff, requiring multiple visits), and questionable problem-solving ability. However, a single review—especially one this extreme—cannot establish a trustworthy overall score.

• INSUFFICIENT DATA: Only 1 review analyzed. Minimum 3 reviews required for reliable scoring.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Review is from May 2021 (3+ years old). Does not reflect current service quality.
• EXTREME OUTLIER: Single 1-star review with very strong language ('rip-off artist'). Cannot determine if this is representative or an isolated incident.

This score cannot be calculated reliably with only one review. At least 3 reviews are needed to establish a trustworthy WW Score. Do not rely on this analysis for contractor selection.