Find Nearby Plumbers In El Paso, Texas

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 3 reviews analyzed, with significant recency issues: two reviews are from 2017 (7+ years old) and one is from 2007 (17 years old). The two older negative reviews cite serious professionalism failures (no-shows, no communication, missed callbacks), while the single positive review from 2007 praises speed and friendliness but provides minimal detail. No pricing information is mentioned in any review. The extreme age gap and small sample size make it impossible to assess current contractor performance.

• CRITICAL RECENCY ISSUE: Two reviews from 2017 and one from 2007. No reviews from past 12 months. Current contractor performance cannot be reliably assessed from this data.
• INSUFFICIENT SAMPLE SIZE: Only 3 reviews total. Minimum 5 reviews recommended for any confidence in scoring.
• CONFLICTING DATA: Positive review is 10 years older than negative reviews, suggesting possible business changes, ownership changes, or staff turnover.
• NO PRICING DATA: Cannot evaluate Price Friendly dimension at all.
• LIMITED DETAIL: Positive review lacks specifics about workmanship quality beyond 'speedy.' Negative reviews focus on communication failures rather than work quality.

This score should NOT be trusted for decision-making. The data is too old, too sparse, and lacks recency to reflect current contractor performance. A minimum of 5 recent reviews (within 12 months) is required before any reliable WW Score can be calculated.

All three reviews are uniformly negative and recent (within 12 months). Professionalism is severely criticized across all reviews, citing unprofessional behavior, threatening conduct, and confusion during work. Pricing is flagged as misleading and inflated, with one review documenting a quote that doubled on-site. Project completion is questioned, with reviews suggesting incomplete or inadequate work. Experience is undermined by documented confusion and inability to execute quoted work. The consistency of negative feedback across all dimensions is notable, though the sample size is very small.

• CRITICAL: Only 3 reviews analyzed — insufficient data for reliable WW Score calculation per Rule 4 (minimum 3 reviews required, but confidence is severely limited with this sample size)
• All reviews are 1-star ratings with uniformly negative language — while not necessarily fake, the complete absence of any positive or mixed feedback is unusual and warrants caution
• All reviews are recent (Feb 2024–Jul 2024), indicating potential ongoing issues rather than isolated incidents
• Multiple reviews explicitly use strong language ('scammer,' 'threatening,' 'clowns') suggesting possible emotional response — verify independently before making hiring decision
• WW Score cannot be reliably calculated with only 3 reviews; this contractor should be considered high-risk based on available evidence

This assessment is based on only 3 reviews, all uniformly negative and recent. While the pattern is concerning, the sample size is too small to generate a statistically reliable WW Score. Do not hire this contractor without independent verification of current work quality and customer references.

Both reviews are positive and speak to responsiveness, professionalism, and courteous behavior from the team. Review 2 provides more detail, noting that Brian explained every step of the work, which suggests reasonable technical communication and competence. Review 1 briefly mentions fair pricing and responsiveness, lending limited support to the pricing and professionalism dimensions. However, with only 2 reviews — both 5-star — there is insufficient data to calculate a reliable WW Score, and all dimension scores must be treated with very low confidence.

• Only 2 reviews provided — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per scoring rules requiring a minimum of 3 reviews.
• Both reviews are 5-star ratings, which limits the ability to identify any weaknesses or balanced patterns.
• Review 1 is very brief and generic with no specific job details, which slightly reduces its evidentiary value.
• Review dates are from 2021 and 2022 — both are older than 12 months from a typical 2024 analysis date, meaning recency weighting is a concern and these reviews may not reflect current service quality.
• No negative or mixed feedback present — this may reflect genuine satisfaction but could also reflect a very small and unrepresentative sample.

This score report is based on only 2 reviews, both over 2 years old, making it highly unreliable as a representation of this contractor's current or consistent performance — significantly more reviews are needed before any WW Score can be trusted.

Both reviews are highly positive and mention all four dimensions, but the sample size of only 2 reviews is insufficient to calculate a reliable WW Score. Review 1 (2022) explicitly praises punctuality, transparent pricing communication, and thorough problem-solving. Review 2 (2018) highlights responsiveness, timeliness, affordability, and diagnostic skill. However, with only 2 mentions per dimension and no negative feedback, these scores lack the statistical foundation needed for confident assessment.

• INSUFFICIENT DATA: Only 2 reviews analyzed. Minimum 3 reviews required for reliable WW Score calculation.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Review 2 dates to October 2018 (6+ years old). Only 1 review from past 12 months.
• SAMPLE SIZE RISK: With only 2 reviews, all dimensions show LIMITED confidence. Any single negative review would significantly alter scores.
• GENERIC PRAISE PATTERN: Both reviews use enthusiastic language ('phenomenal', 'amazing', 'highly recommend') with minimal specific technical details about the actual work performed.

This analysis cannot produce a trustworthy WW Score due to insufficient review volume. A minimum of 3 reviews is required; ideally 5+ recent reviews are needed to establish reliable confidence in contractor performance metrics.

With only two reviews, confidence across all dimensions is severely limited and no reliable WW Score can be produced. The negative review is serious: an improperly installed rain shower head caused significant water damage to a wall and an adjacent art studio, and the contractor then charged the customer for repairing damage he caused — a major red flag for both workmanship and professional ethics. The positive review describes responsive communication, a free estimate, same-day problem-solving, and clean-up, which partially offsets the picture but cannot outweigh the severity of the first incident. Pricing signals are mixed: one reviewer praised a free estimate while the other was charged for damage the contractor caused, pulling the pricing score down considerably. Overall, the project completion and experience scores are dragged down heavily by the documented failure and resulting property damage.

• Only 2 reviews total — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Review 1 (2023-11-15) documents a serious workmanship failure: improper rain shower head installation caused water to flood an adjacent art studio, damaging walls and surrounding areas. This represents a significant liability and quality concern.
• Review 1 also flags an ethical concern: the contractor charged the customer for repairing damage that resulted from his own faulty installation.
• Review 1 is the more recent of the two (November 2023 vs. July 2022) and therefore carries greater recency weight under Rule 6.
• The two reviews are diametrically opposed in sentiment (1-star vs. 5-star), making any aggregate score highly unreliable until more reviews are available.

This score output should not be trusted for decision-making purposes — only 2 reviews exist, they conflict sharply, and the most recent documents serious property damage and a questionable billing practice.

With only two reviews — one strongly negative and one strongly positive — no reliable picture of this contractor can be formed. The negative review explicitly calls out unprofessional behavior, harassment by a staff member, and overcharging, which significantly drags down professionalism and pricing scores. The positive review praises courtesy, professionalism, and reasonable prices, but it is a single older review from 2021 and cannot outweigh the specific complaints raised in the more recent 2023 review. Project completion and experience received limited positive signals but are based on only one mention each, making those scores highly uncertain. Overall, the data is too sparse and too conflicted to draw meaningful conclusions.

• Only 2 reviews total — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• The two reviews are in direct conflict across all major dimensions, suggesting a highly polarized customer experience or the possibility that one review is not genuine.
• The positive review (5-star, 2021) uses somewhat generic praise with no specific project details, which warrants mild fake review suspicion.
• The negative review (1-star, 2023) is more recent and contains specific behavioral complaints (harassment, overcharging), which per RULE 6 should be weighted more heavily.
• Recency gap: the positive review is over 2 years older than the negative review. The negative review reflects more current business behavior.

This score report should not be trusted as a reliable indicator of contractor quality — only 2 reviews exist, they directly contradict each other, and the sample size is far too small to draw any statistically meaningful conclusions.