Find Nearby Plumbers In Provo, Utah

This single review comes from a professional foreman with repeated experience using Mint Plumbing across multiple remodel projects, lending it slightly more credibility than a typical one-time customer review. The reviewer explicitly praises responsiveness and communication (same-day estimate, always answers the phone), supporting a solid but conservatively scored professionalism dimension. Project completion is highlighted strongly — work passes inspections consistently and is completed on difficult older-home installs — driving the highest dimension score. Experience is evidenced by the ability to handle complex, non-standard plumbing situations and pass every inspection. Pricing is mentioned only briefly (estimate given in person with cost outlined upfront), warranting a conservative score reflecting transparency but insufficient detail on affordability or value.

• Only 1 review analyzed — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably with fewer than 3 reviews.
• All dimension scores carry LIMITED confidence due to single-review basis; treat all scores as directional only.
• Review is from April 2023, which is over 12 months old depending on current date — recency should be monitored as more reviews are added.
• No negative signals detected, but a single 5-star review with no counterbalancing data means positive bias cannot be ruled out.

This score is based on a single review and should be considered highly preliminary — additional reviews are required before any meaningful confidence can be placed in these dimension scores or an overall WW Score.

Only a single review is available, dated April 2011, making this report extremely limited in reliability. The reviewer explicitly describes unprofessional communication — hesitation, lack of commitment, and apparent unwillingness to take on the job — which directly impacts the professionalism score. Project completion also scores very low as the contractor effectively declined the work, forcing the customer to seek another provider. No information was provided regarding pricing or technical experience, so those dimensions cannot be scored.

• Only 1 review available — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Review is over 13 years old (April 2011) — data is severely outdated and should not be used to represent current business performance.
• Two dimensions (pricing, experience) have zero data and were excluded from scoring entirely.

This report is based on a single review from 2011 and should be considered essentially unreliable — no meaningful conclusions about this contractor's current quality or practices can be drawn from this data alone.

Only one review is available for analysis, which is insufficient to calculate a reliable WW Score. The single review mentions professionalism (niceness, attitude), project completion (quality job from start to finish), and experience (quality workmanship), but provides no information on pricing. All scores are based on extremely limited data and should not be considered representative.

• Insufficient review volume: only 1 review analyzed. Minimum 3 reviews required for reliable scoring.
• Review is generic and lacks specific details about the work performed, timeline, or pricing.
• No pricing information provided in any review.
• Review date is from 2023 (over 1 year old); recency cannot be assessed with single review.

This analysis cannot produce a trustworthy WW Score due to insufficient data — only 1 review is available, and a minimum of 3 reviews is required for reliable assessment.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 1 review was analyzed. The single review explicitly mentions professionalism (friendly, professional, quick response, cleanliness) but provides no information about pricing, project completion details, or technical experience/workmanship quality. A minimum of 3 reviews is required to produce a reliable WW Score.

• Only 1 review available — below minimum threshold of 3 reviews required for reliable scoring
• Review is generic praise with no specific project details or technical accomplishments mentioned
• No pricing information provided
• No project completion or follow-through details mentioned
• No assessment of technical skill or workmanship quality

This score cannot be calculated or trusted with only 1 review. A minimum of 3 independent reviews is required to produce a meaningful WW Score.

This single review paints a consistently negative picture across all four dimensions. On professionalism, the contractor failed to disclose a $69 trip fee upfront despite the company advertising free estimates, and showed limited willingness to accommodate the customer's needs or communicate transparently. Pricing was a major concern — the flat-rate quotes felt high compared to market rates, hidden fees were introduced mid-visit, and the customer felt taken advantage of. Project completion was poor: the core problem (clogged toilet) was not resolved, and the contractor left without fixing anything while still charging $269. Experience is scored low because the technician did not even inspect the toilet before quoting, and ultimately failed to clear the clog, suggesting limited problem-solving effectiveness in this instance.

• Only 1 review analyzed — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably with fewer than 3 reviews.
• Undisclosed trip fee contradicts advertised 'free estimates' policy — potential deceptive pricing practice.
• Contractor quoted without inspecting the problem, which raises concerns about diagnostic competence.
• Job was left incomplete with no resolution offered beyond an upsell to full toilet replacement.
• Customer explicitly reported feeling taken advantage of — strong negative sentiment signal.

This score is based on a single 1-star review and should be treated as highly preliminary — no conclusions about this contractor's typical performance can be drawn until significantly more reviews are analyzed.

This single review paints a strongly positive picture of Ammon's professionalism, highlighting his responsiveness, willingness to return at short notice, and dedication to ensuring the customer's satisfaction — spending an additional two hours on-site at no apparent complaint. Project completion is well-supported, as the reviewer explicitly confirms the sink, faucet, and reverse osmosis system were brought to full satisfaction. Experience is inferred from the successful installation and resolution of a follow-up issue, though no deep technical detail is provided. Pricing is entirely unmentioned, so no score can be assigned for that dimension. With only one review, all scores must be treated as highly provisional and low-confidence.

• Only 1 review analyzed — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Review is from February 2014, making it over 10 years old. Recency weighting is very low — this data may not reflect current service quality.
• Single review with no corroborating reviews — scores across all dimensions carry very limited confidence.
• Pricing dimension has no data whatsoever and cannot be scored.

This score should not be trusted as a reliable indicator of contractor quality — it is based on a single review that is over a decade old, providing insufficient data to draw meaningful conclusions about any dimension.