Find Nearby Plumbers In Peoria, Illinois

Both reviews speak positively about responsiveness and communication, with AMP Electric standing out for actually answering their phone and dispatching quickly when competitors did not respond. The second review provides richer detail, praising punctuality, courtesy, and the crew's ability to complete a complex two-day job involving trenching, attic wiring, and wall cuts while leaving the property in pristine condition. Experience is noted in one review with explicit mention of the crew being 'extremely knowledgeable,' supporting a moderate skill score. Pricing is not mentioned in either review, so no score can be assigned to that dimension. With only two reviews total, all scores must be treated as very low confidence and the WW Score cannot be reliably calculated.

• Only 2 reviews provided — minimum threshold of 3 reviews not met; WW Score cannot be calculated reliably.
• One review is dated 2015 (over 9 years old) and should be weighted significantly less than more recent data.
• The most recent review (2020) is itself over 4 years old — no recent reviews are present to confirm current service quality.
• No pricing information is mentioned in any review — the Pricing dimension cannot be scored.

This score report is based on only 2 reviews, one of which is nearly a decade old, making all dimension scores and any overall assessment highly unreliable and insufficient for confident contractor evaluation.

Both reviews are strongly negative and paint a deeply concerning picture of this contractor. Professionalism is severely damaged by allegations of the owner appearing intoxicated during business hours, lying to customers about availability, failing to show up for scheduled appointments, and becoming unreachable after initial contact. The one review that addresses project completion describes multiple gas leaks, a disconnected water line, and sloppy routing — indicating dangerously poor workmanship. The contractor also allegedly refused to honor warranty callbacks and stopped answering calls after payment. With only two reviews available, no reliable WW Score can be calculated, but the available evidence is uniformly alarming.

• Only 2 reviews provided — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per scoring rules (minimum 3 reviews required).
• Review 1 (2015) and Review 2 (2014) are both over 9 years old — recency weighting is severely limited and current contractor behavior is unknown.
• Review 1 alleges serious safety hazards: multiple gas leaks and a disconnected water line following completed work — this is a critical red flag.
• Review 1 alleges the contractor stopped answering calls after payment and failed to honor a scheduled warranty repair visit.
• Review 2 alleges the owner appeared to be under the influence of substances during business hours on multiple occasions, including at 2:00 PM.
• Review 2 alleges the owner lied about being sick to cancel an appointment while simultaneously offering availability to another caller within the same hour.
• No fake review patterns detected — both reviews are detailed, specific, and independently describe different types of negative experiences.
• No pricing data was mentioned in either review — the pricing dimension cannot be scored.

This score report is based on only 2 reviews, both from 2014–2015, making it statistically insufficient and temporally outdated — it should not be used as a definitive assessment of current contractor quality, but the severity of the safety and conduct allegations warrants serious caution.

Only two reviews are available, making any scoring highly tentative. The second review provides the most usable detail, noting that the crew arrived on time, completed the job within the estimated 3-hour window, and charged a fair price — all positive signals for professionalism, project completion, and pricing. The first review speaks positively to after-sale service and support, suggesting some degree of follow-through and customer care, which contributes modestly to professionalism and project completion scores. No review explicitly addresses technical skill or workmanship quality, so the Experience dimension cannot be scored. All scores are conservative given the extremely limited sample size.

• Only 2 reviews provided — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Review dates span from 2020 to 2022, meaning both reviews are more than 2 years old. No recent reviews are available to assess current performance.
• The first review is vague and generic ('do the right things for their customers') with no specific details about the job, which limits its usable data value.
• Sample size is too small to detect fake review patterns, but the generic nature of Review 1 warrants mild caution.

This score report should not be trusted as a reliable indicator of contractor quality — only 2 reviews were provided, both are over 2 years old, and one lacks meaningful specifics, making all dimension scores highly speculative and the WW Score incalculable.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 2 reviews were analyzed, which falls below the minimum threshold of 3 reviews required for a trustworthy WW Score calculation. Both reviews are highly positive and mention professionalism and project completion favorably, with one reference to fair pricing. However, the extremely limited sample size and age of reviews (2019 and 2022) prevent reliable scoring.

• Total review count is only 2 — below minimum threshold of 3 for reliable WW Score calculation
• Reviews are dated 2019 and 2022 — both older than 12 months; no recent data available
• Experience dimension has zero mentions — cannot assess technical skill or workmanship quality
• Pricing dimension mentioned in only 1 review with generic statement ('not cheap no matter who you call') — insufficient evidence for pricing assessment
• Both reviews are 5-star ratings with generic praise; limited specific detail about work quality or problem-solving

This analysis cannot produce a reliable WW Score due to insufficient review volume (2 reviews, minimum 3 required). Any score derived would be statistically unreliable and should not be used for decision-making.

With only two reviews spanning a wide date range (2018 to 2021), the data is insufficient to produce a reliable WW Score. The positive review highlights timely arrival, professional demeanor, and efficient installation of a water softener, suggesting capable workmanship in that instance. However, the negative review raises serious concerns about safety negligence — specifically, a failure to check surrounding gas line connections after installing a shut-off valve, resulting in a leak that required a costly second visit. Pricing transparency is also flagged as a concern, with the negative reviewer noting that transit time (30 minutes each way) effectively tripled the cost of a 30-minute job. These two reviews present a sharply divided picture and cannot be reconciled into a trustworthy composite score.

• Only 2 reviews total — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Serious safety concern flagged in the 1-star review: technician allegedly failed to inspect surrounding gas line connections after installing a shut-off valve, resulting in a gas leak discovered post-service.
• Pricing concern flagged: customer was charged for round-trip transit time (approximately 60 minutes) on top of 30-minute labor, effectively tripling the billed cost. This practice was not disclosed upfront according to the reviewer.
• The two reviews are from 2018 and 2021 respectively — both are more than 3 years old. No recent reviews are available to assess current service quality.
• The positive review, while detailed, comes from a single data point and cannot offset the documented safety and pricing concerns raised in the negative review.

This score report should not be trusted as a reliable indicator of contractor quality — only 2 reviews exist, both are over 3 years old, and they present directly contradictory experiences including a documented safety incident.

Insufficient data — only 2 reviews analyzed. Review 1 mentions honest pricing and no upselling (pricing dimension). Review 2 explicitly references 30 years of service history and completed major drainage work (experience and project completion). However, with fewer than 3 reviews, the WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per protocol. Professionalism is not explicitly mentioned in either review.

• INSUFFICIENT REVIEW COUNT: Only 2 reviews provided. Minimum 3 reviews required for reliable WW Score calculation.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Both reviews are significantly dated (2018 and 2013). No recent reviews from past 12 months available.
• GENERIC PRAISE: Review 1 contains vague positive language ('honest', 'not out to get you') without specific examples or details.
• PERSONAL RELATIONSHIP BIAS: Review 2 explicitly states reviewer is a 'very good friend' of the plumber, introducing potential bias and lack of objectivity.
• LIMITED DIMENSION COVERAGE: Only 3 of 4 dimensions have any mention. Professionalism not explicitly addressed in either review.

This analysis cannot produce a trustworthy WW Score due to insufficient review volume (2 reviews, minimum 3 required), extreme age of reviews (5-11 years old with no recent data), and potential bias in the available feedback.