Find Nearby Plumbers In Minneapolis, Minnesota

The single review available describes a drain backup job completed efficiently and in a short amount of time, with explicit praise for professionalism, respect for the home, and cleanup. These details support modest positive scores across professionalism, project completion, and experience. However, pricing was not mentioned at all, leaving that dimension entirely unscored. With only one review, all scores are treated conservatively and carry very limited confidence.

• Only 1 review analyzed — far below the minimum threshold of 3 required for a reliable WW Score.
• No pricing or value information mentioned in any review — Pricing dimension has no data.
• Single review cannot be cross-validated for authenticity or consistency patterns.

This score should not be trusted as a reliable indicator of contractor quality — only one review exists, making any conclusions highly speculative and statistically insignificant.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only one review was provided. While this single review is highly detailed and positive, praising punctuality, communication, attention to detail, and workmanship quality, a reliable WW Score requires a minimum of 3 reviews to account for variability and reduce the risk of outlier bias. No pricing information was mentioned in this review.

• Only 1 review provided — minimum 3 reviews required for reliable scoring
• Review is from 2020 (4+ years old) — recency is a concern for current contractor assessment
• No pricing dimension data available — cannot evaluate value for money or fairness of quotes
• Single review with perfect 5-star rating and extensive detail could indicate promotional content, though specificity and technical detail suggest authenticity

This score cannot be calculated or trusted due to insufficient review volume. At least 3 independent reviews are required to produce a meaningful WW Score.

Only one review is available for analysis, which is insufficient to calculate a reliable WW Score. The single review is highly positive, mentioning quick response, reasonable pricing, professional conduct, and timely completion of a tub replacement. However, a single data point cannot establish patterns or confidence in contractor performance across multiple projects and customer experiences.

• Insufficient review volume (n=1) — cannot calculate WW Score reliably per Step 4 guidelines
• All dimensions except Experience lack the minimum 5 mentions required for HIGH confidence
• Review is from 2023 (over 1 year old) — recency is limited

This analysis cannot produce a trustworthy WW Score with only one review; a minimum of 3 reviews is required to assess contractor performance reliably.

Only a single review exists for this contractor, making any scoring highly tentative. The reviewer noted fair and consistent pricing compared to competing bids, and praised the assigned technician Dave as friendly and fast. The kitchen remodel work was described positively with the customer expressing willingness to use ACI again. However, with just one review from 2019, no reliable pattern of performance can be established across any dimension.

• Only 1 review available — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Review is from June 2019, making it over 5 years old. Recency weighting significantly reduces reliability.
• All dimension scores are based on a single mention and should be treated as highly speculative.
• No negative feedback exists, but this is likely due to the extremely small sample size rather than consistent excellence.

This score is not reliable — it is based on a single review from over five years ago, and no meaningful conclusions about this contractor's consistent performance can be drawn.

This single review from 2015 provides positive feedback across all four dimensions: the team demonstrated professionalism through diligence and friendliness, offered reasonable pricing, completed the job cleanly without issues, and showed skilled workmanship. However, with only one review and data from nearly a decade ago, no reliable WW Score can be calculated. The review lacks sufficient recency and sample size to establish trustworthy benchmarks.

• Insufficient review count: only 1 review analyzed. Minimum 3 reviews required for reliable WW Score calculation.
• Review is from February 2015 — over 9 years old. Does not meet recency standard (past 12 months preferred).
• Single review cannot establish confidence in any dimension. All scores marked LIMITED confidence.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. A single review from 2015 is too limited in sample size and recency to produce a trustworthy overall score.

This single review paints a deeply negative picture across nearly every dimension. Professionalism was severely lacking — the contractor failed to show up on the first day, was repeatedly late, took over a month to resolve the issue, and ultimately threatened the customer with additional hourly charges to coerce immediate payment while ignoring the home warranty company's assurances. Pricing was flagged as problematic, with itemized charges that the customer found excessive and questionable (e.g., $184 to remove an old garbage disposal, $717 for a faucet the customer replaced themselves for less). Project completion was delayed by over a month and only resolved under duress, with the customer feeling pressured and unsafe. No technical skill or workmanship details were provided, so the Experience dimension cannot be scored.

• Only 1 review is present — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per scoring rules requiring a minimum of 3 reviews.
• The review describes potential coercive payment practices — demanding full payment in cash under threat of additional charges while a home warranty payment was confirmed inbound. This may warrant legal or ethical scrutiny.
• The contractor allegedly refused to honor the home warranty process despite being sourced through that warranty program, which may constitute a contractual violation.
• No fake review concerns — this review is highly specific, detailed, and includes names, dates, itemized costs, and a location, all indicators of an authentic account.

This score is based on a single review and should be treated as highly preliminary — while the review is detailed and credible, no statistical confidence can be established from one data point alone.