Find Nearby Plumbers In Freeport, New York

This contractor's reviews paint a predominantly negative picture, with two out of three reviewers explicitly citing serious professionalism failures including being unresponsive, inconsiderate, and unprofessional. The single positive review praises responsiveness and courtesy, but it is from 2018 and is significantly outweighed by the more recent negative feedback. Project completion is a concern, as one reviewer noted the contractor failed to follow through on a second job and never returned calls. Workmanship received a marginal mention — one reviewer described the work as 'decent' but this faint praise is insufficient to inspire confidence. Pricing was not mentioned in any review and therefore cannot be scored.

• Only 3 reviews total — WW Score should be treated as preliminary and unreliable until more reviews are available.
• The sole positive review is from January 2018, over 6 years old. The two negative reviews are more recent (2019 and 2022), suggesting a possible decline in service quality over time.
• Two of three reviews explicitly cite a pattern of non-responsiveness and failure to return calls, which is a consistent and credible red flag.
• No pricing data available — Price Friendly dimension could not be scored.
• Review volume is too low to detect fake review patterns conclusively, but the single 5-star review is generic and lacks job-specific detail, warranting mild caution.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews spanning multiple years and should be considered highly preliminary — the score directionally reflects poor professionalism and follow-through, but cannot be considered statistically reliable without a larger and more recent review sample.

All three reviews are strongly negative, painting a consistent picture of a contractor that fails across every dimension. Professionalism is severely undermined by confusing phone systems, lack of accountability, and complete non-responsiveness to complaints. Pricing is flagged as predatory — one reviewer was quoted $900 for a repair another company completed for $350, and an additional $275 was demanded simply to restart a heating system. Project completion is critically poor, with one reviewer paying $375 for air handler cleaning that was never performed, resulting in equipment damage. Workmanship and technical competence are called into serious question given the failure to complete basic tasks and the dramatic pricing discrepancy compared to a competing contractor.

• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: Reviews 1 and 2 are nearly identical in text, rating (1.0), and date (2022-02-02), differing only in timestamp format. This appears to be the same review submitted twice, likely a platform duplication. Only one instance was counted as a unique review for scoring purposes.
• VERY SMALL SAMPLE SIZE: Only 2 unique reviews are available (after deduplication). Scores carry very low reliability and should be treated with extreme caution.
• ALL REVIEWS ARE NEGATIVE: There are zero positive or neutral reviews in this dataset. While this may reflect genuine customer experience, it also means there is no counterbalancing data to moderate the scores.
• POTENTIAL BUSINESS LEGITIMACY CONCERN: One reviewer noted the company address appears to be a private residence and that payment was made out to an individual's name rather than the company name, suggesting possible misrepresentation of business structure.

This WW Score is based on only 2 unique reviews (one review was a duplicate) and should be considered highly unreliable as a definitive assessment — however, the consistency and specificity of the negative feedback across both reviews does lend credibility to the poor scores assigned.

This dataset is too small and temporally distant to produce a reliable WW Score. Three of four reviews are from 2011–2016 (8–13 years old), with only one review from the past decade. The single recent positive review (2016) praises professionalism and pricing, but lacks specificity. One 1-star review (2011) explicitly challenges the contractor's technical competence in heating repair. The extreme age of most data and small sample size (n=4) make any aggregate score unreliable and unrepresentative of current service quality.

• CRITICAL: All reviews are older than 8 years (2011–2016). No recent data available to assess current performance.
• SUSPICIOUS PATTERN: Three consecutive 5-star reviews use generic, enthusiastic language ('Excellent', 'Remarkable', 'Hands down') with minimal specific detail about actual work performed. This pattern suggests possible fake or incentivized reviews.
• CONFLICTING DATA: One 1-star review directly contradicts professionalism/experience claims, alleging the contractor lacks competence in heating repair despite claiming 'master plumber' status.
• INSUFFICIENT SAMPLE: Only 4 reviews total. Minimum 3 reviews required, but 4 is still too small for statistical reliability.
• RECENCY FAILURE: 75% of reviews predate 2016. No actionable current performance data.

This score cannot be calculated reliably due to insufficient recent data (all reviews >8 years old), small sample size (n=4), and suspected fake review patterns in the positive reviews. Any WW Score derived from this dataset would be misleading and should not be used for decision-making.

Both reviews speak positively about Barbara across multiple dimensions. Professionalism is consistently highlighted — she is described as fast to respond, pleasant to communicate with, friendly, and true to her word. Pricing is mentioned in both reviews as fair and reasonable, though no specific figures are provided. Project completion is well-supported by the second review, which details her following through on a commitment and completing the job at the agreed price. Experience is noted through references to her being knowledgeable, skilled, thorough, and efficient. However, with only 2 reviews total, all scores carry very limited confidence and the WW Score cannot be reliably calculated.

• Only 2 reviews provided — insufficient data to calculate a reliable WW Score per scoring rules.
• One review (2024-09-16) is brief and lacks specific detail, which slightly reduces its evidentiary weight, though it does not appear fabricated.
• Both reviews are 5-star ratings; while this is a positive signal, the small sample size means no meaningful pattern analysis is possible.
• Review recency: one review is within the past 12 months (2024), one is approximately 2 years old (2023) — the older review carries slightly less weight per recency rules.

This score profile is based on only 2 reviews and should be treated as highly preliminary — additional reviews are needed before any meaningful trust can be placed in these dimension scores or an overall WW Score.

The two available reviews present a sharply divided picture of AquaPro and Jose. The positive review highlights strong responsiveness, technical knowledge, follow-through on a callback, and reasonable pricing — all meaningful signals. However, the negative review describes a serious failure: Jose diagnosed a problem, promised to return, sent follow-up texts, and then completely ghosted the customer — a direct contradiction of the follow-through praised in the other review. Because these two reviews pull in opposite directions across nearly every dimension, scores have been set conservatively to reflect genuine uncertainty rather than averaging toward a falsely neutral positive. With only two reviews, no reliable WW Score can be calculated.

• Only 2 reviews analyzed — far below the minimum threshold of 3 required for a reliable WW Score. Results should not be used as a definitive assessment.
• The two reviews directly contradict each other on professionalism and project completion, suggesting high variability in service quality or inconsistent follow-through depending on the job or customer.
• The negative review (July 2024) is more recent than the positive review (February 2024), which under recency weighting slightly increases concern about a possible decline in reliability.
• No fake review patterns detected — both reviews contain specific, credible detail and are plausible as genuine customer experiences.

This score report is based on only 2 reviews and should be treated as highly preliminary — the contradictory nature of the available feedback and the extremely small sample size make it impossible to draw confident conclusions about AquaPro's typical service quality.

Both reviews are strongly negative and paint a consistent picture of serious misconduct across all dimensions. Professionalism is critically low: management was unreachable for days, no receipt was initially provided, and the technician behaved unprofessionally. Pricing is flagged as deceptive, with a $125 dispatch fee charged regardless of whether any work could be performed, and refund requests were denied or minimally honored. Project completion is near zero in both cases — no actual repair was completed in either visit, and customers were left without resolution. Experience is marginally above zero only because a technician did physically attend both calls, but demonstrated an inability or unwillingness to perform the requested work. The business address listed appears to be fraudulent, and there are serious concerns about licensing and insurance.

• SERIOUS CONCERN: Both reviewers independently report that the listed business address does not correspond to the company — it appears to be a real estate office or abandoned location, suggesting a potentially fraudulent or unlicensed operation.
• SERIOUS CONCERN: One reviewer explicitly states the company may not be licensed or insured, and filed a formal complaint with the DA's office. The other reviewer stated intent to contact Nassau County Consumer Affairs and the building department.
• MISCONDUCT FLAG: A technician allegedly offered to perform work 'on the down low' and 'behind the boss's back,' suggesting unethical and potentially illegal behavior.
• MISCONDUCT FLAG: A receipt was initially refused in one case, which is a significant red flag for an unlicensed or fraudulent operation.
• NOTE: Only 2 reviews are available. Per WW Score Engine rules, a minimum of 3 reviews is required for a reliable WW Score. All dimension scores carry LIMITED confidence only.
• NOTE: The two reviews span 2015 to 2018. No recent reviews are available, so current business status and practices cannot be assessed. Recency weighting cannot be applied meaningfully.
• NO FAKE REVIEW CONCERN: Both reviews are detailed, specific, and independently corroborate each other's claims without identical phrasing, suggesting authentic accounts.

This score report is based on only 2 reviews and should be treated as highly preliminary — the pattern of complaints is severe and consistent, but the extremely small sample size means no WW Score can be reliably calculated.