Find Nearby Plumbers In DeSoto, Texas

This single 1-star review paints a largely negative picture across all four dimensions. On professionalism, the contractor arrived and began work before the customer could come outside, effectively bypassing the estimate process, and refused to accept a check — both behaviors that eroded trust, though the reviewer did note the owner was personally polite. Pricing received the lowest score, as the customer explicitly states she was overcharged using the wrong pricing category from a pricing book, billing for slab work when no slab was involved. Project completion is marginally higher because the water was ultimately restored, but the quality of the finished work was described as looking nothing like it did before, suggesting poor workmanship follow-through. Experience scores low due to the apparent misclassification of the job type and the substandard appearance of the completed repair.

• Only 1 review is available — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably with fewer than 3 reviews.
• All dimension scores are based on a single mention and should be treated as very low confidence.
• No recency weighting can be applied meaningfully with only one review; note this review is from July 2019 and may not reflect current service quality.
• No fake review concerns detected — the review is detailed, specific, and includes named individuals and a concrete complaint narrative.

This score is based on a single 1-star review from 2019 and should not be considered a reliable representation of this contractor's overall quality — significantly more reviews are needed before any meaningful conclusions can be drawn.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 1 review was analyzed. This single review documents severe professionalism failures (disrespectful behavior, hanging up on customers), poor workmanship, and failure to honor warranty obligations. However, a single review cannot establish a reliable overall score. Pricing was not mentioned. A minimum of 3 reviews is required for trustworthy scoring.

• Only 1 review available — statistically insufficient for reliable WW Score calculation
• Review is from 2016 (8+ years old) — does not reflect current business practices
• Severe allegations of disrespect and poor workmanship, but cannot be corroborated without additional reviews
• No pricing information provided in review

This analysis cannot produce a reliable WW Score due to insufficient review volume (n=1). The single review is also significantly outdated. Do not rely on this assessment to make a contractor decision without gathering additional current reviews.

Only one review was provided, which is insufficient to calculate a reliable WW Score. The single review speaks positively about two technicians named Eric and Chris, praising their communication and their ability to complete a difficult bathroom tub faucet repair. Professionalism is supported by references to the technicians being described as gentlemen who explained things well. Project completion is implied by the repair being finished despite being described as difficult, and experience is inferred from their ability to handle a challenging job — though no technical detail is provided. Pricing is entirely unmentioned and cannot be scored.

• Only 1 review analyzed — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• All scored dimensions are based on a single review, making every score LOW confidence and highly susceptible to change with additional data.
• No pricing information was mentioned in any review — this dimension returned null.
• The review is positive but brief and lacks specific technical detail, limiting the depth of scoring across all dimensions.

This score report is based on a single review and should not be used to make any meaningful judgment about this contractor — at least 3 reviews are required for a minimally reliable assessment.

Only a single review is available, which severely limits the reliability of any scoring. The one review is positive, noting professional behavior and that Chad took time to show the customer how to operate the new grill, suggesting reasonable competence and good customer interaction. Project completion is implied by the successful gas connection, though no detail is given about timeline, complexity, or follow-through. Pricing is entirely unmentioned, so no score can be assigned for that dimension. All scores are conservative given the extremely limited data.

• Only 1 review analyzed — far below the minimum threshold of 3 required for a reliable WW Score.
• Review is from 2018, making it over 6 years old. Recency weighting significantly reduces its relevance to current performance.
• Single 5-star review with limited specifics — cannot rule out atypical or unrepresentative experience.
• Pricing dimension has NO DATA — this dimension cannot be evaluated at all.

This score should not be trusted for any meaningful hiring decision — it is based on a single review from 2018 with no pricing data and insufficient volume to establish any reliable pattern of performance.

This single review paints a deeply negative picture across multiple dimensions. The contractor failed to follow up after an AC repair that did not resolve the issue, with the customer unable to get a response within 3-4 hours of the failed repair — indicating poor responsiveness and professionalism. Project completion is critically low, as the repair did not work and no callback or remedy was honored. The technical outcome (AC still not cooling) suggests a workmanship failure, driving the experience score down significantly. Pricing was not explicitly discussed, so no score can be assigned for that dimension.

• Only 1 review available — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• All scores are based on a single data point and should be treated with extreme caution.
• The review is from 2022-08-02, which is more than 12 months ago — recency weighting is reduced.
• No fake review concerns detected — the review contains specific, credible detail including context about fixed VA disability income and a precise timeline.

This score report is based on a single negative review from over two years ago and cannot be considered a reliable representation of this contractor's overall performance.

Only a single review is available, dated July 2020, making any scoring highly tentative. The reviewer mentions quick response, reliable service, good communication, price transparency, and efficient repair work — touching on all four dimensions. Scores are kept conservative across the board given the extremely limited sample size. The review is moderately specific (mentions sewage pipe repair, two-month problem duration, and price transparency), which lends some credibility, but one review is far too few to draw reliable conclusions about this contractor's overall performance.

• Only 1 review analyzed — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Review is from July 2020, which is more than 1 year old — recency weighting is a concern.
• All four dimension scores are LIMITED confidence due to single-review basis; treat all scores as highly provisional.
• No fake review patterns detected — the review contains specific context (sewage pipe, two-month duration, price transparency) suggesting authenticity.

This score report is based on a single review from over four years ago and should not be considered a reliable indicator of this contractor's current quality or consistency.