Find Nearby Plumbers In Albuquerque, New Mexico

Only one review is available, making any scoring highly tentative. That single review highlights strong professionalism: the team adapted to a last-minute scheduling emergency, communicated proactively with other contractors on-site, and observed COVID-19 safety protocols. Project completion is implied positively — the reviewer states the team 'quickly took care of everything' — but no granular detail about final outcomes or follow-up is provided. Experience is suggested by the team's ability to assess the bathroom remodel scope and coordinate across trades, though no technical specifics are described. Pricing is entirely unmentioned and cannot be scored.

• Only 1 review analyzed — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• All data originates from a single 5-star review dated 2020-10-26, which is over 3 years old. Recency weighting is a significant concern — this review does not reflect current performance.
• With only one review, no pattern analysis for fake review detection is possible. The review does contain specific names (Christian, Richard) and situational detail, which slightly reduces fake review suspicion for this single entry.
• Pricing dimension has zero data and was excluded from all scoring calculations.

This WW Score report is not reliable for decision-making purposes — it is based on a single review from over three years ago, falling well below the minimum threshold required for a trustworthy assessment.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only one review was provided, which falls below the minimum threshold of 3 reviews required for reliable scoring. The single review mentions project completion (repeat customer, excellent work) and experience (quality of workmanship), but provides no explicit information about professionalism or pricing. A WW Score cannot be calculated from a single data point.

• Only 1 review provided — minimum 3 reviews required for reliable WW Score calculation
• Review is from 2013 (11+ years old) — does not reflect current service quality
• Generic praise with minimal specific details about work performed
• No pricing information mentioned
• No explicit professionalism details (punctuality, communication, responsiveness) mentioned

This analysis cannot produce a reliable WW Score due to insufficient review volume and age of the single review provided.

The single review available is a severe 1-star complaint describing multiple critical failures. The contractor allegedly delivered visibly defective work (a gate with a 2-inch height discrepancy between sides), refused all follow-up communication via phone, text, and email, and left the job incomplete. The customer escalated the matter to the NM Regulation and Licensing Division, indicating a formal regulatory complaint. Professionalism and project completion scores are near-zero due to explicit evidence of non-responsiveness and abandoned/unfinished work. Experience is scored very low due to the described poor workmanship quality.

• Only 1 review available — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Formal regulatory complaint filed with the NM Regulation and Licensing Division — this is a significant red flag beyond a typical negative review.
• Contractor allegedly refused all contact attempts after payment — pattern consistent with abandonment of work.
• Insufficient review volume to detect fake review patterns, but no fake review concerns are present here.

This score is based on a single review and should be treated with very low statistical confidence; however, the severity of the complaint — including a regulatory filing — makes the negative signals highly credible and warrants serious caution.

This single review describes severe failures across all dimensions: multiple missed appointments (professionalism), overcharging for work later deemed 'small' with a lower competitor estimate available (pricing), defective thermostat installation that was not properly fixed and warranty claims were disputed (project completion and experience). The customer explicitly states they will not return and feel betrayed by warranty misrepresentation. However, a WW Score cannot be reliably calculated from a single review.

• INSUFFICIENT DATA: Only 1 review provided. WW Score requires minimum 3 reviews for reliability.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Review is from April 2020 (4+ years old). No recent data available to assess current performance.
• SINGLE NEGATIVE REVIEW: Cannot determine if this represents systemic issues or isolated incident without additional reviews.

This analysis is unreliable for decision-making. A single negative review from 2020 provides insufficient evidence to calculate a trustworthy WW Score. At minimum 3 reviews, preferably recent ones, are required.

This single review describes severe failures across all dimensions: poor communication and non-responsiveness (professionalism), overpricing (pricing), incomplete and defective work requiring third-party remediation (project completion), and multiple critical technical errors including improper drain installation, missing insulation, and dangerous electrical splicing (experience). However, a WW Score cannot be reliably calculated from a single review, as one customer's experience—even if detailed—does not provide sufficient evidence of consistent contractor performance.

• INSUFFICIENT DATA: Only 1 review analyzed. WW Score requires minimum 3 reviews for reliability.
• EXTREME SEVERITY: Review describes multiple critical failures (electrical hazards, water damage, incomplete work) and third-party remediation required. If accurate, this represents serious safety and quality issues.
• SINGLE-SOURCE BIAS: Cannot determine if this is an isolated incident or systemic pattern without additional reviews.
• NO RECENCY CONTEXT: Single review is from August 2024 (recent), but temporal pattern cannot be assessed with one data point.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. A minimum of 3 reviews is required to produce a trustworthy WW Score. This single review, while detailed and severe, cannot establish whether poor performance is consistent or an outlier.

This single review provides explicit positive mentions across all four dimensions: Marco demonstrates strong professionalism through responsive communication and punctuality; pricing is described as reasonable; project completion is evidenced by solving a persistent problem that other plumbers failed to address; and experience is demonstrated through technical skill and problem-solving ability. However, with only one review, the WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per the methodology requirement of minimum 3 reviews.

• Insufficient review volume (n=1) — WW Score calculation requires minimum 3 reviews for reliability
• All dimension scores based on single mention — confidence is LIMITED across all dimensions
• Review is highly positive with no critical feedback — consider as baseline only until additional reviews are collected

This analysis cannot produce a trustworthy WW Score with only one review; a minimum of three reviews is required to establish reliable scoring patterns and confidence levels.