Find Nearby Plumbers In Akron, Ohio

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only one review was analyzed, which falls below the minimum threshold of 3 reviews required for a reliable WW Score calculation. The single review explicitly addresses pricing concerns, citing $900 for one hour of work as excessive, but provides no information about professionalism, project completion, or technical experience.

• Only 1 review available — minimum 3 reviews required for reliable scoring
• Review contains strong emotional language ('total robbery', 'outrageous pricing abuse') but lacks specific context about the work performed or service details
• No data available on professionalism, project completion, or experience dimensions

This analysis cannot produce a trustworthy WW Score due to insufficient review volume; at least 3 reviews are needed to establish meaningful patterns and confidence levels.

Only a single review is available for analysis, which severely limits scoring confidence across all dimensions. The reviewer speaks positively about the initial tankless water heater installation and notes that a warranty callback was honored promptly and without charge, suggesting reasonable professionalism and follow-through. Pricing is inferred as fair given no charges were applied during the warranty visit, though no explicit pricing commentary was made about the original job cost. All dimension scores are conservative in accordance with the low evidence base and should not be treated as reliable indicators of overall contractor quality.

• Only 1 review analyzed — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• All dimension scores carry LIMITED confidence due to single-review evidence base.
• Review date is January 2023 — this review is over 12 months old and may not reflect current service quality.
• No pricing details were explicitly stated for the original installation job; pricing score is inferred conservatively from the no-charge warranty callback only.

This score report is based on a single review and should be considered highly unreliable — additional reviews are required before any meaningful conclusions can be drawn about this contractor.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only one review was provided. While this review offers some useful insights (professionalism was mixed due to a tool-loss incident that affected the technician's demeanor; project completion was largely successful despite a water meter reassembly error; experience appears solid given the complexity of the work), a single review cannot support a reliable overall score. At minimum, 3 reviews are required to establish meaningful patterns and confidence.

• Only 1 review provided — statistically insufficient for reliable scoring
• Review is from 2013 (over 10 years old) — recency is a concern
• Professionalism score reduced due to explicit mention of technician appearing angered and glaring at customer, despite reviewer's understanding of the context
• Project completion score reflects a significant error (water meter reassembled backwards) that required city intervention, though ultimately resolved

This score cannot be calculated or trusted with only one review. Additional recent reviews are essential before any meaningful WW Score assessment can be made.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 1 review was analyzed. The review explicitly mentions successful project completion (drain was opened when competitor failed) and demonstrates technical skill/problem-solving ability. However, no explicit information is provided regarding professionalism dimensions (punctuality, communication, attitude) or pricing/value assessment. Long-term loyalty (19 years) suggests consistent quality, but this single review cannot support a reliable overall score.

• Only 1 review available — minimum 3 reviews required for reliable WW Score calculation
• Review is from 2014 (10+ years old) — does not reflect current service quality
• Pricing dimension completely absent — customer mentions being charged by competitor but provides no detail on Horvath's pricing or value proposition
• Professionalism dimension not explicitly addressed in review

This analysis cannot produce a trustworthy WW Score due to insufficient review volume (n=1) and age of data (2014). Additional recent reviews are required before any reliable scoring can be performed.

Only one review was provided, which is insufficient to calculate a reliable WW Score. The review mentions professionalism concerns (2-hour delay, lack of business credentials) offset by tidy work and quick job completion once on-site. Pricing cannot be assessed as the reviewer did not pay the bill. No data on technical experience or skill level is available.

• Insufficient reviews (n=1) — cannot calculate WW Score reliably per Step 4 guidelines
• Review is from 2011 (13+ years old) — recency is severely compromised
• Reviewer explicitly states inability to comment on pricing and did not verify insurance
• Professionalism score penalized for significant punctuality issues (2-hour delay) and lack of professional business identification

This analysis cannot be trusted as a reliable assessment — only one review from 2011 is insufficient to establish contractor quality or calculate a valid WW Score.

Only one review is available for analysis, which is insufficient to calculate a reliable WW Score. The single review mentions professionalism (on time, professional), pricing (reasonable), and project completion (fit the bill), but with only one data point, confidence in any dimension is severely limited. No information about technical experience or skill level was provided. A minimum of 3 reviews is required for meaningful scoring.

• Insufficient review volume: only 1 review analyzed. WW Score cannot be calculated reliably.
• Review is from 2017 (over 6 years old) — does not reflect current service quality.
• Generic praise with minimal specific details about the work performed.
• No mention of technical skill, workmanship quality, or problem-solving ability.

This analysis cannot be trusted for decision-making. A single review from 2017 is insufficient to establish contractor reliability or quality standards.