Find Nearby Plumbers In Durham, North Carolina

This single review paints a positive picture of Ben across all four dimensions, but the extremely limited data set prevents any reliable scoring. Professionalism is supported by explicit mentions of punctuality, respectfulness, and clear communication including problem explanation and quoting. Pricing receives a modest score as the reviewer mentions a 'solid quote' suggesting transparency, but no commentary on affordability or value is provided. Project completion is supported by the reviewer's reference to a prior successful repair that proved 'solid and long lasting,' indicating follow-through over time. Experience is inferred from the repeat-customer endorsement and the claim of durable, quality work, though no technical specifics are described.

• Only 1 review analyzed — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably with fewer than 3 reviews.
• All dimension scores are based on a single mention and must be treated as LOW CONFIDENCE estimates only.
• Review is from October 2023, which is within the past 12 months relative to a 2024 evaluation window — recency is acceptable.
• No fake review patterns detected; the review contains specific, personal details consistent with a genuine customer experience.

This score report is based on a single review and should not be used as a reliable indicator of contractor quality — significantly more reviews are needed before any dimension score or overall WW Score can be trusted.

Only a single review exists for this contractor, making any scoring highly tentative. The reviewer praises Alex as professional, knowledgeable, and fast, and notes good cleanup afterward, which speaks positively to professionalism, project completion, and experience. Pricing is partially addressed in that an estimate was provided over the phone based on photos, suggesting some transparency, but no commentary on fairness or value was made explicitly. All dimension scores are conservative given the extremely limited data pool of one review.

• Only 1 review analyzed — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Single review with all positive sentiment and a 5-star rating — cannot distinguish genuine quality from isolated or potentially unrepresentative feedback.
• No negative feedback or nuance present; treat all scores as highly provisional until more reviews are available.

This score should not be trusted as a reliable indicator of contractor quality — only one review exists, which is far below the minimum threshold needed for meaningful analysis.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 1 review was analyzed. The single review demonstrates strong professionalism (quick response, Saturday work, professional demeanor), solid experience (diagnosed root intrusion, replaced pipe), and mostly successful project completion (3 of 4 fixtures fixed, though one toilet remained problematic). However, pricing is not mentioned, and a single review cannot provide reliable statistical confidence in any dimension.

• Only 1 review available — statistically insufficient for reliable scoring
• Review is from 2022 (over 2 years old) — recency is a concern
• Pricing dimension completely absent — cannot assess value or fairness
• Incomplete project completion noted (1 toilet still not working after initial visit, though root cause was ultimately addressed)

This score cannot be calculated or trusted. A minimum of 3 reviews is required to produce a meaningful WW Score. Collect additional recent reviews before relying on any contractor assessment.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 1 review was analyzed. The single review provides positive feedback on professionalism (responsive communication, respectful of customer time), project completion (temporary unit provided, new unit installed, customer satisfied), and experience (described as hard workers with good results). However, pricing is not addressed in this review, and a single data point cannot support a reliable overall score.

• Only 1 review available — statistically insufficient for reliable scoring
• Review is from November 2023 (approximately 1+ year old depending on current date)
• No pricing information mentioned — cannot assess Price Friendly dimension
• Single positive review with no negative feedback — cannot validate against potential selection bias

This analysis cannot be trusted as a reliable WW Score due to insufficient review volume (minimum 3 reviews required); a single review cannot represent contractor performance patterns.

Only a single review was available for analysis, which severely limits the reliability of any scoring. The review touches on professionalism positively, noting the contractor was well-mannered, polite, and thorough. A modest experience score is inferred from the word 'thorough,' though no specific technical details were provided. Pricing and project completion were not mentioned at all, leaving two of the four dimensions with no data. The WW Score cannot be calculated reliably with fewer than three reviews.

• Only 1 review analyzed — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Review is generic and brief with no specific details about the work performed, tools used, or problems solved — limits confidence in all dimension scores.
• No pricing or project completion information mentioned — two major dimensions are entirely unscored.
• Single 5-star review with no critical feedback — insufficient to establish a balanced performance profile.

This score report is based on a single review with minimal detail and should not be trusted as a reliable indicator of this contractor's overall performance.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 1 review was analyzed, which falls below the minimum threshold of 3 reviews required for a trustworthy WW Score calculation. The single review mentions professionalism (reliability, customer service), project completion (timely, outlined work), and experience (quality work), but provides no information on pricing. All dimension scores are based on extremely limited evidence.

• Only 1 review available — far below minimum threshold of 3 reviews for reliable scoring
• Review is from 2020 (4+ years old) — recency is a concern
• Review contains generic praise with hashtags (#awesometeamofworkers #qualitywork) but lacks specific project details, scope, or measurable outcomes
• No pricing information mentioned — cannot assess Price Friendly dimension
• Suspiciously generic language ('very hard to find contractors that you can trust') without concrete examples

This score cannot be calculated and should not be used for decision-making. A single review from 2020 with generic praise and no specific project details provides insufficient and potentially unreliable evidence for contractor evaluation.