Find Nearby Plumbers In Corpus Christi, Texas

Only a single review exists for this contractor, making any scoring highly tentative. The reviewer notes repeat usage over several months, suggesting a degree of reliability and consistency. Quality of work is described as high and pricing as decent, which supports modest positive scores across all dimensions. However, with only one data point, all scores are conservative per scoring rules and should not be treated as reliable indicators of true performance.

• 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 carry LIMITED confidence only.
• The word 'curious' in the review may be a typo for 'courteous' — interpreted charitably but noted as ambiguous language.
• No negative feedback exists, but this is likely due to the extremely small sample size rather than an absence of issues.

This score report is based on a single review and should not be trusted as a meaningful assessment of this contractor's overall performance — significantly more reviews are needed before any dimension score or WW Score can be considered reliable.

Only one review is available, dated May 2020, making any scoring highly unreliable. The single review does suggest that Jimmy successfully resolved plumbing issues with a sink and backyard that other plumbers had previously failed to fix, which speaks modestly to both experience and project completion. However, no details were provided about professionalism, pricing, punctuality, communication, or workmanship quality beyond the outcome. Scores for project completion and experience are intentionally conservative given the single data point and the age of the review.

• Only 1 review available — far below the minimum threshold of 3 reviews needed for a reliable WW Score.
• Review is dated May 2020, making it over 4 years old. Recency weighting significantly reduces its reliability as a current indicator of contractor performance.
• No pricing, professionalism, or communication details mentioned — three of four dimensions have no scoreable data.
• Single review with generic praise ('Highly recommended for all your plumbing needs') and no granular specifics beyond the job outcome — treat with caution.

This WW Score cannot be calculated reliably due to insufficient review volume (1 review) and the age of the sole available review; no meaningful conclusions about this contractor's current performance should be drawn from this data.

Only one review is available, which severely limits scoring reliability. The reviewer describes the technician as fast, friendly, and attentive to detail, supporting modest scores in professionalism and experience. The job involved resolving three plumbing issues in an older home, and the work appears to have been completed satisfactorily, with the customer expressing intent to return for future work. Pricing was not mentioned at all, leaving that dimension entirely unscored. All scores are held conservative due to the single-review basis.

• Only 1 review analyzed — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• The review contains generic praise ('fast and friendly', 'attention to detail and expertise we always get') with limited specific detail about the actual work performed, which reduces evidentiary strength.
• No pricing information mentioned in any review — Pricing dimension has no data.
• Recency note: The single review is dated 2024-05-22, which is within the past 12 months and is therefore given full recency weight, but this does not compensate for the lack of review volume.

This score report is based on a single review and should be considered highly unreliable — no meaningful conclusions about this contractor's overall performance can be drawn until substantially more reviews are available.

Only a single review is available for this contractor, making any scoring highly unreliable. The sole reviewer describes an extremely negative experience centered on what they characterize as unauthorized work performed on an adjoining property and a bill of $1,785 that they consider grossly inflated compared to a typical market rate of $125–$250 for a perk test. Pricing received a near-floor score due to explicit allegations of price gouging and lack of transparency. Professionalism scored low because the reviewer implies work was conducted without proper authorization or communication. Project completion received a marginally higher score only because the underlying issue (a water leak traced to a neighbor's plumbing) was technically identified, though the reviewer disputes the legitimacy and scope of the work billed.

• Only 1 review available — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Review is dated 2018-11-21, which is more than 1 year old. No recent reviews are available to assess current performance.
• Reviewer alleges work was performed on an adjoining property without explicit permission, which if accurate raises serious ethical and professional concerns.
• Reviewer alleges significant price inflation — billing $1,785 for a service they claim should cost $125–$250. This specific pricing complaint warrants scrutiny but cannot be independently verified from a single review.
• No reviews exist to corroborate or contradict this account. Score should be treated with extreme caution.

This WW Score report is based on a single review from 2018 and should not be considered a reliable representation of this contractor's overall quality or current business practices.

Only a single review is available, making any scoring highly tentative. The reviewer noted the company ran behind schedule but still arrived within the day, which slightly tempers the professionalism score despite the technician being described as pleasant and professional. Pricing was explicitly praised as competitive, and a military discount was mentioned as a positive. The job — a garbage disposal installation — was completed quickly, suggesting adequate project completion and workmanship, though no technical complexity was described to fully assess experience.

• Only 1 review analyzed — far below the minimum threshold of 3 required for a reliable WW Score.
• Review is dated 2021-04-05, which is more than 3 years old. This data may not reflect current service quality.
• Punctuality concern noted: company arrived late (though within the same day), which slightly reduces the professionalism score.
• All dimension scores are based on a single mention and should be treated as highly speculative.

This WW Score cannot be calculated reliably due to insufficient review data; the single available review is also over three years old, making it a poor basis for assessing current contractor performance.

Only a single review is available for analysis, which severely limits scoring reliability. The reviewer, a real estate agent, explicitly praises professionalism and helpfulness, and references 'best service and value,' which touches on pricing and project completion. However, no specific details about workmanship, technical skill, or completed project outcomes are provided, so Experience cannot be scored. All dimension scores are conservative due to the single-mention limitation.

• Only 1 review analyzed — WW Score cannot be reliably calculated with fewer than 3 reviews.
• Review is generic in nature with no specific project details, job type, or measurable outcomes described — limits scoring precision.
• Single 5-star review with broad praise and no specifics may not be fully representative of overall contractor performance.

This score should not be trusted as a reliable indicator of contractor quality — only one review was available, and it lacks the specific detail needed to validate any dimension with confidence.