Find Nearby Plumbers In Peoria, Illinois

Only two reviews were provided, which is insufficient to calculate a reliable WW Score. Both reviews are broadly positive, with one mentioning reasonable pricing and another referencing long-term customer loyalty spanning over twenty years, suggesting some consistency in service. Professionalism is lightly supported by references to the company being 'dependable' and 'nice to work with,' but no specific details about punctuality, communication, or attitude are given. Project completion is entirely unaddressed across both reviews, leaving a critical scoring dimension with no data. The vague and generic nature of the praise limits confidence across all dimensions.

• Only 2 reviews provided — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Both reviews are generic in nature with no specific job details, making it difficult to validate claims or assess workmanship accurately.
• One review is from 2021, which is over 12 months old and carries reduced recency weight.
• No mention of project completion, follow-through, or specific work performed in either review — a critical dimension is entirely unscored.
• Possible generic praise pattern: phrases like 'great company' and 'great service' with no specifics may indicate low-detail reviews, though sample size is too small to flag as fake with confidence.

This score report is based on only 2 reviews with highly generic content, making it unreliable as a basis for hiring decisions — significantly more reviews with specific detail are needed before the WW Score can be trusted.

Both reviews are severely negative and describe serious failures across all dimensions. Review 1 (2022) documents scheduling miscommunication, rude staff behavior, incomplete service, and failure to follow up on callbacks. Review 2 (2020) alleges overcharging for minimal work, lack of promised equipment, and excessive pricing. However, with only 2 reviews total, the WW Score cannot be reliably calculated per protocol. The data is insufficient to establish a trustworthy overall assessment.

• INSUFFICIENT DATA: Only 2 reviews provided. Minimum 3 reviews required for reliable WW Score calculation.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Review 2 is from November 2020 (3+ years old). Review 1 is from July 2022 (2+ years old). Both are outside the preferred 12-month window.
• SEVERE NEGATIVE PATTERN: Both reviews are 1-star ratings with explicit complaints about professionalism, pricing, and follow-through. No positive reviews present to balance assessment.
• BUSINESS CHANGE NOTED: Review 1 references ownership/management change ('ever since Jim passed'), which may explain service degradation but cannot be verified.

This assessment is unreliable and should not be used for decision-making. Only 2 reviews exist, both are old (2+ years), both are extremely negative, and the sample size is far too small to calculate a valid WW Score. Additional recent reviews are essential before drawing any conclusions about current service quality.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 2 reviews analyzed, which falls below the minimum threshold of 3 reviews required for a trustworthy WW Score calculation. The two reviews are contradictory: one gives a 1-star warning about licensing and insurance issues, while the other gives 5 stars praising pricing and timeliness. Project completion mentions appear in both reviews (on-time work, completed j-trap replacement), but pricing is mentioned in only one review. No explicit mentions of professionalism or experience dimensions.

• CRITICAL: Only 2 reviews provided — insufficient for reliable scoring
• CRITICAL: Extreme polarity between reviews (1-star vs 5-star) suggests potential dispute or inconsistent service quality
• CRITICAL: First review raises serious red flags about licensing and insurance — if accurate, this is a major legal/safety concern that should be independently verified
• Second review contains informal language and minor spelling errors ('sinc' for 'sink', 'lisc' for 'licensed' in first review) but appears genuine
• No data on professionalism or experience dimensions

This score cannot be calculated and should not be used for decision-making. With only 2 contradictory reviews, one raising serious licensing and insurance concerns, any scoring would be unreliable. Independent verification of licensing status and insurance is strongly recommended before engaging this contractor.

Only two reviews exist for this contractor, making any scoring highly tentative. The first review from 2024 specifically praises fast, quality work on basement windows and describes pricing as reasonable, while the second from 2019 echoes great pricing and quality work. Both reviews are positive but lack granular detail on most dimensions. The 2019 review is over five years old and carries significantly reduced weight given recency rules.

• Only 2 reviews total — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• The 2019 review contains multiple typos ('jave', 'theses fuys') which may suggest an authentic but low-effort review; it is vague and lacks specific detail, reducing its evidentiary value.
• Both reviews are exclusively positive with no critical feedback, which is expected given the small sample but cannot be interpreted as a reliable signal of consistent quality.
• The first review includes a phone number in the review body, which is atypical and may suggest the reviewer has a personal relationship with the contractor — potential bias flag.
• One review is more than 5 years old (2019); its relevance to current service quality is limited.

This score report is based on only 2 reviews spanning over 5 years and should not be considered a reliable indicator of this contractor's overall quality or consistency.

Only a single review is available, making any scoring highly tentative. The reviewer describes the contractor as prompt in emergencies, fairly priced, and technically competent, which provides brief but positive signals across all four dimensions. Professionalism is supported by the mention of promptness, particularly in urgent situations. Pricing and experience receive conservative scores reflecting the reviewer's characterizations of 'fairly priced' and 'technically competent,' respectively. Project completion is inferred from the phrase 'go to,' suggesting repeated satisfactory outcomes, but this is a weak signal with very limited evidence.

• Only 1 review analyzed — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Review is from February 2022, which is over 2 years old at the time of analysis — recency weighting is reduced.
• All dimension scores are based on a single mention each and should be treated as highly speculative.
• No detail on specific projects, job scope, or outcomes — review is generic in nature, limiting scoring precision.

This score report is based on a single review from 2022 and should not be considered a reliable indicator of this contractor's overall quality or consistency.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only one review was provided. The single review describes a negative experience involving poor communication about rental vs. purchase options, aggressive sales pressure, and lack of responsiveness to the customer's stated needs. The technician demonstrated basic technical competence in water sampling but failed to honor the customer's explicit preferences. Professionalism and pricing transparency were both severely compromised.

• Only 1 review provided — statistically insufficient for reliable scoring
• Review is from October 2021 (over 2 years old) — recency is a concern
• This appears to be a water treatment company, not a traditional plumber — context may affect interpretation
• Customer complaint centers on sales practices and communication failure rather than technical workmanship

This score cannot be reliably calculated or trusted due to insufficient review volume (n=1). A minimum of 3 reviews is required to produce a statistically meaningful WW Score.