Find Nearby Plumbers In Albuquerque, New Mexico

Only one review is available, which limits the reliability of any scoring. The reviewer praises Arturo and his crew for professionalism and personal investment in the job, supporting a modest professionalism score. The mention of completing the job 'well within the bid' suggests fair or favorable pricing, earning a conservative pricing score. Project completion is positively noted with the phrase 'above and beyond the scope of work,' supporting a moderate completion score. No specific technical or skill-based commentary was provided, so Experience cannot be scored.

• Only 1 review analyzed — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably with fewer than 3 reviews.
• Single 5-star review with enthusiastic but somewhat generic praise — insufficient data to rule out bias or inauthenticity.
• Experience dimension has no data and was excluded from scoring entirely.
• All dimension scores are LOW confidence due to single-review basis — treat all scores as preliminary only.

This report is based on a single review and should be considered highly preliminary — no meaningful conclusions about contractor quality can be drawn until at least 3 or more reviews are available.

Only a single review is available, dated March 2014, making it over 10 years old and of very limited reliability. The reviewer praises fair pricing, kind attitude toward a family member, and a great job overall, which touches on professionalism, pricing, project completion, and experience. However, all mentions are vague and lack specific detail, preventing high scores in any dimension. Scores have been kept conservative across all dimensions due to the minimal and dated evidence. No WW Score can be reliably calculated with fewer than 3 reviews.

• Only 1 review analyzed — far below the minimum threshold of 3 required for a reliable WW Score.
• Review is from March 2014, over 10 years old. This data is significantly outdated and may not reflect current service quality.
• Review language is generic and enthusiastic with no specific details about the work performed, tools used, timeline, or scope — limiting scoring precision.
• All dimension scores are based on a single mention and should be treated as highly speculative.

This WW Score report is not reliable — it is based on a single, decade-old review with vague language, and no meaningful conclusions about current contractor quality can be drawn from this data.

This single review provides explicit positive evidence across all four dimensions: professionalism (thorough, thoughtful, great communicator, pleasant, respectful), pricing (reasonable quote, no surprises in bill, good value), project completion (extensive slab leak reroute completed successfully with good cleanup), and experience (skilled work on complex emergency repair). However, with only one review, the WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per methodology requirements. All dimension scores are based on LIMITED data and should not be treated as representative.

• INSUFFICIENT DATA: Only 1 review provided. Minimum 3 reviews required to calculate WW Score reliably.
• SINGLE REVIEW BIAS: All scores reflect one customer's experience and may not be representative of typical service quality.
• POTENTIAL SELECTION BIAS: This appears to be a highly satisfied customer review with enthusiastic language and multiple exclamation marks; no negative or neutral reviews present for balance.

This analysis cannot produce a trustworthy WW Score with only one review. A minimum of 3 independent reviews is required to establish meaningful confidence in any scoring.

This single review describes an extremely negative experience involving deliberate tardiness to trigger after-hours pricing, failure to inspect or address the reported drain issue, failure to repair the air conditioner, and a $150 charge solely for an estimate. Professionalism scores near zero due to intentional lateness and predatory behavior toward a vulnerable customer. Pricing scores near zero due to what appears to be a manipulated after-hours rate and a charge for an estimate that yielded no work. Project completion scores at zero because neither reported problem was addressed or resolved. Experience cannot be assessed as no actual work was performed or evaluated.

• Only 1 review exists — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold rules.
• The review describes potentially predatory behavior: deliberate delay to trigger a higher billing rate against an elderly customer in an emergency situation. This is a serious ethical and professional concern.
• The contractor charged $150 for an estimate without completing or even inspecting the reported jobs — this may constitute deceptive trade practice.
• With only one review, all dimension scores carry very low confidence and should not be used as definitive assessments of this contractor's overall quality.

This score is based on a single 1-star review and should be considered highly unreliable as a general assessment, though the specific conduct described — deliberate late arrival to inflate charges, no work performed, and targeting of a vulnerable individual — is a serious red flag that warrants caution.

Only a single review is available, which severely limits the reliability of any scoring. The reviewer mentions same-day service and responsiveness, supporting a modest professionalism score. Project completion is supported by explicit mention of two completed tasks — a water heater replacement and a leak fix. Pricing is briefly noted as 'great' but with no specifics. Experience is inferred from the completed work but not described in technical detail, so a conservative score is applied across all dimensions.

• Only 1 review analyzed — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• All dimension scores are based on a single mention each and should be treated as highly provisional.
• Review is generic in some respects (no technician name, no specific detail on workmanship quality) — moderate specificity overall.
• Recency note: Review is from August 2023, which is over 12 months old depending on current date — weight accordingly.

This score is based on a single review and should not be trusted as a reliable indicator of contractor quality — significantly more reviews are needed before any dimension score carries meaningful confidence.

This single review paints a positive picture across all four dimensions. The reviewer explicitly praises John Martin's professionalism, noting he was communicative, transparent, and thorough in explaining his process. Pricing was described as fair and upfront with no mention of hidden charges. The job was completed same-day, indicating strong project completion. Technically, the reviewer noted he diagnosed the issue, checked all possible causes, and tested his work, suggesting solid experience. However, with only one review, all scores are treated conservatively and no reliable WW Score can be calculated.

• Only 1 review provided — far below the minimum of 3 required for a reliable WW Score.
• All four dimension scores are based on a single mention each, making them LOW CONFIDENCE and highly susceptible to being unrepresentative.
• Review is recent (May 2024) which is a positive signal for recency, but a single data point cannot establish a reliable pattern.
• The review reads as genuine and specific with named technician, described problem, and detailed process — no fake review indicators detected.

This WW Score cannot be calculated reliably due to insufficient review data; a minimum of 3 reviews is required, and meaningful confidence requires 5 or more reviews per dimension.