Find Nearby Plumbers In Dallas, Texas

Only a single review is available for analysis, which severely limits the reliability of any scoring. The reviewer mentions competitive and fair pricing, and describes the work as excellent, providing minimal but positive signals for pricing and experience dimensions. No explicit mentions of professionalism indicators such as punctuality or communication, nor any detail about project completion, were found. The review is also from 2019, making it over five years old, which further reduces its relevance to current performance.

• Only 1 review analyzed — far below the minimum threshold of 3 required for a reliable WW Score.
• The sole review is dated September 2019, which is more than 5 years old. Current performance may differ significantly.
• Review is generic in nature with limited specifics — phrases like 'excellent work' and 'competitive and fair' lack detail, reducing evidentiary value.
• Cannot rule out recency bias or changes in service quality given the age of this single data point.

This score is not calculable and should not be trusted as a reliable indicator of contractor quality due to insufficient review volume and the age of the only available review.

Only a single review is available, which limits the reliability of any scoring. The reviewer noted same-day service within 90 minutes, suggesting strong responsiveness and punctuality. The faucet leak was resolved in a short time, indicating the job was completed, and the price was described as reasonable. The reviewer also noted Mario was a very nice person, reflecting positively on attitude and professionalism. All scores are conservative given the single data point.

• Only 1 review analyzed — far below the minimum threshold of 3 required for a reliable WW Score.
• All dimension scores are based on a single mention and should be treated as highly provisional.
• Cannot rule out recency bias or unrepresentative experience from a single data point.
• Review is positive with no specifics beyond the immediate job — limited detail reduces scoring confidence.

This score is not reliable and should not be used for decision-making; a minimum of 3 reviews is required, and meaningful confidence requires 5 or more reviews per dimension.

Only one review is available for analysis, which is insufficient to calculate a reliable WW Score. The single review demonstrates positive performance across professionalism (fast response time of 40 minutes), pricing (described as very reasonable), and project completion (leak fixed in 30 minutes). However, no information is provided regarding technical experience or workmanship quality. With only one data point, confidence in any aggregate score is critically limited.

• Insufficient review volume: only 1 review analyzed. Minimum 3 reviews required for reliable WW Score calculation.
• Review is from 2014 (10+ years old). No recent data available to assess current service quality.
• Generic praise language with limited specific detail about workmanship or technical skill.

This analysis cannot produce a trustworthy WW Score due to insufficient review volume (1 review, minimum 3 required) and extreme age of the single available review (2014). Any scoring would be unreliable.

This single review paints a deeply concerning picture across multiple dimensions. On professionalism, the contractor initially responded quickly to an emergency but then repeatedly no-showed, stopped communicating entirely, and ignored calls for weeks — behavior that warrants a near-floor score. Project completion is similarly alarming: the job was left unfinished with a loose faucet unresolved, a subsequent leak developed, and no callback or follow-through occurred. On experience, the reviewer initially perceived competence but ultimately concluded the work was substandard, evidenced by a leak emerging shortly after service. Pricing could not be assessed as it was not mentioned in the review. The reviewer also notes existing BBB complaints mirroring this experience, suggesting this is a pattern rather than an isolated incident.

• Only 1 review analyzed — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Reviewer explicitly references multiple BBB complaints with patterns identical to their own experience, suggesting systemic issues with abandonment and non-communication.
• Reviewer suspects prior positive reviews may be inflated or misleading ('I think his reviews are good because at first he seems nice'), warranting caution when evaluating any positive reviews for this contractor.
• All dimension scores carry LIMITED confidence due to single-review data set — treat all scores as directional indicators only, not reliable benchmarks.

This score report is based on a single 1-star review and cannot be considered statistically reliable; however, the specific, detailed, and corroborated nature of the complaint (including referenced BBB filings) lends credibility to the concerns raised and should be treated as a serious red flag.

Only one review was available for analysis, which is insufficient to calculate a reliable WW Score. The single review mentions responsiveness and quality service (professionalism), troubleshooting ability (experience), and implies job completion. However, pricing is not addressed, and all scores are based on minimal evidence with LIMITED confidence.

• Insufficient review volume: only 1 review analyzed. WW Score calculation requires minimum 3 reviews for reliability.
• Generic praise language with limited specific details about the work performed.
• No pricing information provided in review.
• Cannot assess patterns or detect fake reviews with only one data point.

This analysis cannot produce a trustworthy WW Score due to insufficient data; a minimum of 3 reviews is required for meaningful assessment.

Only one review was provided, which is insufficient to calculate a reliable WW Score. The single review mentions professional communication and technical knowledge (findings presentation), but provides no explicit information about pricing, project completion, or timeline adherence. The review is recent (September 2024) and appears genuine, but a minimum of 3 reviews is required for meaningful analysis.

• Insufficient data — only 1 review analyzed. Minimum 3 reviews required for reliable WW Score calculation.
• No information available on pricing fairness or project completion metrics.
• Cannot assess overall contractor reliability with single data point.

This analysis cannot produce a trustworthy WW Score with only one review; additional customer feedback is essential before making any contractor assessment.