Find Nearby Plumbers In Sioux City, Iowa

The three reviews present a sharply divided picture of this contractor. Two reviews are broadly positive, praising friendliness, affordability, and responsiveness, while one detailed negative review describes a serious workmanship failure — an incorrect repair that caused water leakage and exhaust fumes entering the home, posing a genuine health risk. The negative review significantly drags down both the project completion and experience scores, as it describes not just incomplete resolution but an actively harmful outcome. Professionalism scores are modestly positive overall due to the friendly tone noted in two reviews, but the $400 charge for faulty work tempers the pricing score. With only three reviews spanning several years, confidence in all dimensions is low to moderate.

• Only 3 reviews total — WW Score is at the minimum threshold for calculation and should be treated with significant caution.
• One review (1-star, 2019) describes a serious safety incident: exhaust fumes leaking into the home due to an incorrect repair by this contractor. This is a critical workmanship red flag.
• The two positive reviews are relatively generic and lack specific technical detail, which slightly reduces their evidentiary weight.
• Review dates span 2019 to 2022 — the most recent review is over 2 years old, and no reviews from the past 12 months are present. Current performance cannot be assessed.
• The positive 5-star review from 2019 uses broad praise ('totally know their business', 'competitive pricing') with no job-specific details, which limits its reliability.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews with no data from the past 12 months, and includes one serious safety-related complaint — it should be considered highly unreliable and insufficient to make a confident hiring decision without seeking additional recent references.

All three reviews describe severely negative experiences with Tod/GBC Services. The contractor demonstrated chronic unprofessionalism including no-shows, irregular scheduling, poor communication, and failure to complete promised work. Pricing issues are evident in two reviews, with significant overcharges and hidden fees. Project completion failures are consistent across all reviews: incomplete work, abandoned tasks, and undelivered services. While one review mentions construction skill concerns, the evidence base is too limited and the overall pattern of failure is so severe that a meaningful WW Score cannot be calculated reliably.

• CRITICAL: All three reviews are uniformly negative (1.0 ratings) with detailed, specific complaints rather than generic criticism. This is NOT a fake review pattern—it is a genuine pattern of consistent service failure.
• Review from 2017 is 7+ years old; two reviews are from 2024 and 2016, providing some recency but limited recent data.
• Insufficient review volume (n=3) to calculate a statistically reliable WW Score. Recommend collecting additional recent reviews before making hiring decisions.
• Pattern of behavior across reviews suggests systemic issues: scheduling failures, incomplete work, cost overruns, and poor communication are mentioned in multiple independent accounts.

This analysis cannot produce a reliable WW Score due to insufficient review volume (fewer than 3 usable reviews is the threshold, and while we have exactly 3, the uniformly catastrophic nature of all feedback and lack of any positive data points make aggregation meaningless). The individual dimension scores reflect the severe negative evidence present, but should not be treated as a predictive metric. Based on available evidence alone, this contractor presents substantial risk.

Only two reviews contained usable content, making any scoring highly tentative. The first review highlights strong communication and proactive customer service, including a pre-visit call and bringing missing parts, which speaks positively to professionalism and project completion. The second usable review briefly notes fast diagnosis and economical pricing, suggesting competence and fair value. However, with only 2 usable reviews and all data points supported by just 1–2 mentions each, no dimension reaches even MODERATE confidence. All scores should be treated as directional indicators only, not reliable assessments.

• One review contained only 'unknown' as text and was excluded from scoring — no usable data.
• Only 2 of 3 reviews contained scorable content. This is below the minimum threshold for a reliable WW Score.
• All reviews are dated between 2015 and 2016 — all data is more than 8 years old. Recency is very poor; contractor performance may have changed significantly.
• With only 3 total reviews, there is insufficient volume to detect fake review patterns, but the reviews are sparse and lack detail, limiting confidence further.

This score should not be trusted as a reliable indicator of contractor quality due to critically low review volume, all reviews being over 8 years old, and every dimension being supported by only 1–2 mentions at most.

With only 3 reviews spanning 5+ years (2013–2018), this dataset is too small to generate a reliable WW Score. Two reviews (2013, 2018) describe severe professionalism failures: rudeness, broken appointments, and refusal to complete work. One positive review (2017) praises quick response and professional installation of a water heater. The extreme polarization and age of most data make trend analysis unreliable. Project completion is particularly concerning, with documented appointment cancellations and job refusal.

• Only 3 reviews total — insufficient sample size for reliable scoring
• Reviews span 5 years (2013–2018); two are older than 6 years and may not reflect current operations
• Extreme polarization: two 1-star reviews with detailed complaints vs. one 5-star review with generic praise
• Two reviews describe serious professionalism issues: rudeness, broken appointments, and refusal to complete scheduled work
• No pricing data available across any review
• Recency concern: most recent review is from 2018; no data from past 12 months

This score should NOT be trusted for decision-making. The sample size is critically small (n=3), reviews are outdated (oldest from 2013), and the extreme polarization suggests either significant operational changes or inconsistent service quality. Additional recent reviews are essential before drawing conclusions.

Only two reviews were available, and one of them is not a customer review at all — it appears to be a cease-and-desist-style message from a competing or legitimate contractor claiming this business is using their company name and license number fraudulently. The single usable customer review describes a no-show with no communication, which is a serious professionalism and project completion failure. There is no data on pricing or experience. Given the extremely limited and alarming nature of the available data, no reliable WW Score can be calculated.

• CRITICAL: One review appears to be from a licensed contractor (License #0079981) alleging that this business is fraudulently operating under their company name. This is a serious legal and identity concern that should be investigated before hiring.
• Only 1 of 2 reviews is from an actual customer, falling well below the minimum threshold of 3 reviews needed for a reliable WW Score.
• The sole customer review describes a complete no-show with zero communication, indicating a significant professionalism and reliability failure.
• Insufficient review volume to detect fake review patterns, but the overall profile raises serious red flags about the legitimacy of this business listing.

This score report cannot be considered reliable — the review pool is critically small, and a potential business identity fraud allegation makes this contractor profile highly suspect; consumers should exercise extreme caution.

Both reviews are from 2016–2017, making them over 7 years old, which significantly limits their relevance to current performance. Professionalism is the most consistently mentioned dimension, with both reviewers noting responsiveness, honesty, and customer-centered behavior — including a notable instance where the contractor voluntarily redirected a job rather than make a customer wait unnecessarily. Project completion is referenced in both reviews but only at a surface level, with no detailed description of work quality or follow-through beyond the job being done cleanly and quickly. Pricing and experience are each mentioned by only one reviewer, making those scores highly tentative. Overall, the sentiment is positive, but the extremely small and outdated sample size means no reliable WW Score can be produced.

• Only 2 reviews provided — minimum threshold of 3 reviews not met; WW Score cannot be calculated reliably.
• Both reviews are dated 2016–2017, more than 7 years ago. These scores may not reflect current contractor performance.
• Sample size is too small to detect fake review patterns, but no obvious red flags of fabrication were observed in the two reviews provided.

This score report should be treated as highly unreliable due to only 2 reviews being available, both of which are over 7 years old and provide limited detail across most scoring dimensions.