Find Nearby Plumbers In Waterloo, Iowa

Only a single review is available, making any scoring highly tentative. That review does speak positively across multiple dimensions: the contractor was described as honest and down to earth, reflecting well on professionalism. Pricing received a strong signal — the contractor proactively charged only half the service call fee when minimal work was required, demonstrating transparency and fairness. Project completion is scored slightly lower because the original job (disposal replacement) was not performed, though the actual underlying problem was resolved correctly. Experience is scored conservatively, as diagnosing a reset issue is relatively straightforward and the review provides limited evidence of advanced technical skill.

• Only 1 review analyzed — far below the minimum threshold of 3 required for a reliable WW Score.
• Review is dated 2017 — this is over 7 years old and carries very low recency weight. Contractor performance may have changed significantly since then.
• With only one review, no fake review pattern detection is possible, but the single data point should not be treated as representative of overall contractor quality.

This score should not be trusted as a reliable indicator of contractor quality — it is based on a single review from 2017, providing insufficient data across all dimensions.

Insufficient data — only 1 review analyzed. The single review mentions professionalism (courteous, friendly, professional) and pricing (best deal, reliable service), but provides no specific details about project completion or technical experience. The review is generic and lacks concrete examples or specifics about actual work performed. No WW Score can be reliably calculated with fewer than 3 reviews.

• Only 1 review available — insufficient for reliable scoring
• Review is from 2012 (12+ years old) — not recent
• Review lacks specific details about actual work performed or outcomes
• Generic praise without concrete examples raises authenticity concerns
• No mention of project completion, timeliness, or technical quality

This analysis cannot be trusted as a reliable assessment. A minimum of 3 reviews is required to calculate a WW Score, and this single review from 2012 is too old and too generic to provide meaningful guidance.

This single review is highly detailed and describes serious misconduct by the contractor. Professionalism scored very low due to the contractor hanging up on the customer, adding unauthorized late fees, and refusing to provide documentation. Pricing scored near the bottom due to alleged falsification of labor hours, inability or refusal to provide proof of part costs, and charging $127 for a part available at retail for approximately $20. Project completion received a partial score because the contractor did respond on a Sunday and completed the physical repair, but the overall engagement was marred by billing disputes and dishonest practices. Experience scored low-moderate as the repair was technically performed, but the use of original lime-stained bolts and lack of transparency about parts quality raises workmanship concerns.

• SERIOUS MISCONDUCT FLAG: Reviewer alleges the contractor falsified labor hours on an invoice — original invoice claimed 3.5 hours of work, but video evidence reportedly shows the contractor was on-site for approximately 2.5 hours or less. A revised invoice later adjusted hours to 2.5, which the reviewer interprets as an admission of falsification.
• PRICING FRAUD CONCERN: Contractor charged $127 for a main valve part reportedly available at Menards or Home Depot for approximately $20, with no special order authorization obtained from the customer beforehand.
• TRANSPARENCY FAILURE: Contractor explicitly stated he had 'no way of providing proof' of part pricing, which is highly irregular for any legitimate business and raises serious concerns about billing practices.
• UNAUTHORIZED CHARGES: A late fee was added to a disputed invoice without customer consent and was described as 'auto-charged,' which the contractor refused to waive during an active billing dispute.
• UNPROFESSIONAL CONDUCT: Contractor ended a customer service call abruptly by hanging up without resolution.
• LOW REVIEW VOLUME WARNING: Only 1 review is available. No WW Score can be reliably calculated. All dimension scores carry LIMITED confidence and should not be used as a definitive assessment.
• RECENCY NOTE: This review is dated October 2020, making it over 4 years old at time of analysis. Contractor behavior may have changed since then, but no more recent reviews are available to confirm or contradict.

This score report is based on a single detailed review and cannot be considered statistically reliable; however, the specificity and documentary nature of the allegations (video evidence, invoice copies, timestamped interactions) lend the review itself a high degree of individual credibility, and the concerns raised are serious enough to warrant significant caution.

This single review describes serious deficiencies across multiple dimensions. The contractor failed to complete the water heater installation properly, shifted responsibility to the customer, and demonstrated poor professionalism through unannounced visits and inconvenient scheduling. While the reviewer acknowledges Gary 'seems to know plumbing,' the execution and follow-through were severely lacking. However, a reliable WW Score cannot be calculated from a single review, as one customer's experience may not represent typical performance.

• INSUFFICIENT DATA: Only 1 review provided. WW Score requires minimum 3 reviews for reliability.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Review is from July 2014 (10+ years old). Does not reflect current business practices.
• SINGLE NEGATIVE REVIEW: Cannot determine if this represents systemic issues or isolated incident without additional data.

This analysis is unreliable for decision-making. A single review from 2014 cannot establish a trustworthy contractor rating. Minimum 3 recent reviews are required to calculate a valid WW Score.

This single review paints a strongly positive picture across all four dimensions. The technician Cameron was explicitly praised for professionalism, politeness, and thorough cleanup, supporting a high professionalism score. Pricing was directly addressed and described as satisfying, justifying a strong but conservative pricing score. The job was completed fully and promptly — a technician arrived within 20 minutes and finished the task — supporting project completion. Experience is inferred from the successful resolution of the drain backup and the reviewer's favorable comparison to other companies, though no deep technical detail was provided.

• Only 1 review analyzed — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably with fewer than 3 reviews.
• Single 5-star review with enthusiastic language; while specific details are present (technician name, job type, response time), the sample size is far too small to draw reliable conclusions.
• No negative feedback or nuance present; this is expected with n=1 but means there is no counterbalancing data.
• Recency note: Review is dated 2024-01-31, which is within the past 12 months and therefore carries full recency weight — but this does not compensate for the insufficient sample size.

This score should be treated as essentially unreliable for decision-making purposes, as it is based on a single review; additional reviews are required before any meaningful confidence can be placed in these dimension scores.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 1 review was analyzed, which falls below the minimum threshold of 3 reviews required for a trustworthy WW Score calculation. The single review mentions fair pricing, quality workmanship, and project completion, but provides minimal specific detail. No information about professionalism (punctuality, communication, attitude) was mentioned.

• Only 1 review available — far below minimum threshold of 3 reviews for reliable scoring
• Review lacks specific details about the work performed, timeline, or communication
• Generic praise language without concrete examples reduces confidence in assessment

This score cannot be calculated reliably with only 1 review. A minimum of 3 reviews is required to produce a trustworthy WW Score.