Find Nearby Plumbers In Rochester, New York

With only two reviews spanning five years, the data is far too thin to draw reliable conclusions about Benedict Plumbing. The 2014 review from Jason's job is strongly positive, highlighting same-day responsiveness, thorough follow-through, and quality workmanship on a gas line installation. However, the 2019 review is a serious negative data point: a failed toilet repair that lasted only five months, use of an outdated repair method, off-center installation causing recurring damage, and a dismissive office response that blamed the customer. The office's response in the negative review is particularly damaging to the professionalism dimension. No pricing information was mentioned in either review, so that dimension cannot be scored.

• Only 2 reviews available — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold rules.
• The two reviews are separated by approximately 5 years (2014 and 2019). The more recent review (2019) is itself over 5 years old, meaning there is no data reflecting current business performance.
• The negative review raises a concern about poor workmanship (outdated wax ring method, off-center installation) and a dismissive customer service response that blamed the customer without investigation.
• Pricing dimension has zero mentions across all reviews and cannot be scored.
• With only 2 reviews, all dimension scores carry LIMITED confidence and should not be treated as representative of overall contractor quality.

This WW Score report is highly unreliable due to an insufficient number of reviews (only 2) and the fact that both reviews are more than 5 years old, providing no meaningful insight into the contractor's current quality or practices.

With only two reviews, data is extremely limited and no reliable WW Score can be produced. Professionalism receives a mixed signal: one reviewer praised polite workers and a strong digital communication system, while the other described a frustrating interaction where the installer offered no satisfactory resolution. Pricing and project completion are dragged down significantly by the 1-star review, which explicitly called out a premium charge for substandard work — a crooked vent install left with visible gaps requiring additional patching and painting. Workmanship quality is similarly questioned in that same review, where the installer appeared to lack either the materials or initiative to correct the issue on-site.

• Only 2 reviews analyzed — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per scoring rules (minimum 3 reviews required).
• The 1-star review references a contractual indemnification clause that may have prevented the customer from seeking financial recourse, suggesting the company uses contract language to limit liability for workmanship disputes.
• The two reviews are nearly opposite in sentiment (5-star vs 1-star), making any aggregate score highly unreliable at this sample size.
• No fake review patterns detected — both reviews contain specific, credible detail.

This score report should not be trusted for decision-making purposes — only 2 reviews were available, all dimension scores carry LIMITED confidence, and the two reviews are sharply contradictory, making any aggregate assessment statistically meaningless.

Insufficient data to calculate a reliable WW Score. Only 2 reviews were analyzed, both with generic praise and minimal specific detail. Review 1 (2016) mentions customer care and work ethic but provides no concrete evidence of professionalism, pricing, or completion practices. Review 2 (2006) is extremely dated (18+ years old) and mentions satisfaction with prices and work quality but lacks specificity. No dimension has more than 1 mention, and project completion is not addressed in either review.

• INSUFFICIENT REVIEW VOLUME: Only 2 reviews analyzed; minimum 3 required for reliable scoring
• RECENCY CONCERN: Review 2 dates to 2006 (18 years old); Review 1 from 2016 (8 years old); no recent data
• GENERIC PRAISE: Both reviews lack specific examples, project details, or concrete evidence of performance
• MISSING CRITICAL DIMENSION: Project completion not mentioned in any review
• LOW MENTION COUNTS: All scoreable dimensions have only 1 mention each, indicating severely limited evidence base

This score cannot be calculated reliably due to insufficient review volume (fewer than 3 reviews) and extremely limited mention counts across all dimensions. The two reviews available are dated and lack specificity. No meaningful WW Score should be derived from this data.

Insufficient data — only 2 reviews analyzed. Both reviews are highly positive and mention professionalism (fast, friendly, efficient service) and project completion (jobs completed successfully). One review explicitly addresses pricing favorably (affordable, no upselling). However, with fewer than 3 reviews, the WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per methodology guidelines. All mentions are limited in frequency, preventing confident scoring.

• Only 2 reviews provided — below minimum threshold of 3 for reliable WW Score calculation
• Both reviews are 5-star ratings with generic praise language ('above and beyond,' 'best plumbers in the valley') and lack specific technical details about workmanship
• Suspiciously similar positive tone and structure across both reviews may suggest potential review manipulation or bias
• No negative feedback or specific problem-solving examples provided to validate claimed expertise
• Review dates are from 2023 (9-12 months old); no recent reviews available

This analysis cannot produce a trustworthy WW Score due to insufficient review volume (n=2). The limited data, combined with generic praise patterns and absence of specific technical details, means any score would be unreliable and should not be used for decision-making.

Both available reviews are strongly negative and together paint a concerning picture of this contractor. The first review alleges that an employee named Jim Uetz damaged a mini split installation and walked away without remedying the situation, directly implicating poor workmanship and zero follow-through on project completion. The second review, while not a direct customer of the company, describes an employee behaving in an aggressive and profane manner toward a member of the public, which is a serious professionalism red flag. No reviews mention pricing, and no positive experiences are documented whatsoever. With only two reviews available, the WW Score cannot be reliably calculated, but the signals present are deeply negative across every dimension that could be assessed.

• INSUFFICIENT REVIEW COUNT: Only 2 reviews were provided. A minimum of 3 is required for a reliable WW Score calculation.
• ZERO POSITIVE REVIEWS: Both reviews are 1-star. There is no counterbalancing positive data, which skews all dimension scores heavily downward but also limits confidence in the full picture.
• EMPLOYEE CONDUCT CONCERN: One review explicitly describes an employee using profane and aggressive language toward a member of the public in a company vehicle or while on duty, suggesting a cultural or management issue.
• ABANDONED WORK ALLEGATION: The first review alleges that a mini split unit was damaged during installation and the employee walked away without resolution, which is a serious project completion and workmanship concern.
• RECENCY NOTE: One review is from June 2024 (within the past 12 months) and one is from June 2022. The more recent review is the more serious allegation regarding damaged equipment and abandoned work.
• REVIEW VOLUME TOO LOW: With only 2 reviews, no dimension score should be treated as representative of the contractor's true performance. All findings are highly provisional.

This WW Score report has very low reliability due to an extremely small review sample of only 2 reviews, both of which are negative; no conclusions about typical performance can be drawn, and prospective customers should seek significantly more data before making a hiring decision.

Both reviews raise serious concerns across multiple dimensions. The first review describes a deeply troubling pattern of apparent deceptive intent — a supervisor was sent instead of a technician, a false diagnosis of an unrepairable leak was given, and a $5,000 replacement was pushed when a competitor found the system repairable for half the cost. Professionalism is further damaged by unanswered phone calls and a disputed $159.84 service charge. The second review notes fast installation but flags a broken component delivered with the system, an unfulfilled gift card promise, and describes the pricing as 'pricey,' suggesting poor value perception. Project completion is scored low due to the abandoned repair in review one and the unresolved broken part in review two. With only two reviews, all scores carry very limited confidence and should be interpreted with extreme caution.

• INSUFFICIENT REVIEW COUNT: Only 2 reviews analyzed. WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per scoring rules. A minimum of 3 reviews is required.
• DECEPTIVE PRACTICE CONCERN: Review 1 describes a pattern consistent with a bait-and-switch sales tactic — rescheduling to send a supervisor, fabricating a leak diagnosis, and pushing a $5,000 replacement that a competitor contradicted entirely.
• UNRESOLVED BILLING DISPUTE: Review 1 reports being charged $159.84 for what the customer describes as an unsolicited sales visit, not a service call, with no response to multiple follow-up calls.
• BROKEN PRODUCT ON INSTALLATION: Review 2 notes the top of the salt tank was broken upon installation and took an extended time to replace — indicating a quality control or fulfillment issue.
• UNFULFILLED PROMISE: Review 2 reports a promised $25 restaurant gift certificate from a survey was never delivered, suggesting misleading incentive practices.
• RECENCY NOTE: Both reviews are older than 12 months (2015 and 2020). No recent reviews are available to assess current business practices. Scores may not reflect the contractor's present performance.

This WW Score report is based on only 2 reviews, both over 3 years old, and should be considered highly unreliable as a basis for hiring decisions — the pattern of complaints is concerning, but far more review data is needed before any confident assessment can be made.