Find Nearby Plumbers In Everett, Washington

Only a single review is available, making any scoring highly unreliable. The review praises customer service and staff responsiveness, which informs a conservative professionalism score. A mention of warranty coverage and referrals suggests some follow-through, supporting a limited project completion signal. No pricing information was mentioned at all, so that dimension cannot be scored. All scores are deliberately conservative given the extremely limited data.

• Only 1 review analyzed — far below the minimum threshold of 3 for a reliable WW Score.
• Review is from December 2020, making it over 4 years old. Recency weighting significantly reduces its reliability.
• The review references a company motto verbatim, which may indicate a promotional or non-organic review. Treat with caution.
• No pricing data mentioned — Pricing dimension cannot be scored.

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 should be drawn from this data.

Only one review is available, making any scoring highly conservative and low confidence. The reviewer highlights that this contractor was responsive and willing to communicate when others were not, which speaks positively to professionalism. The job was completed without hassle, suggesting reasonable follow-through on project completion. However, pricing, workmanship quality, and technical skill are entirely unmentioned, leaving two of four dimensions with no scorable data whatsoever.

• Only 1 review provided — far below the minimum threshold of 3 required for a reliable WW Score.
• Pricing and Experience dimensions have zero mentions and cannot be scored.
• The review contains a raw email address (aaabackflow.wa@gmail.com) embedded in the review text, which may indicate a data formatting issue or non-standard review submission.
• Single review from 2020 — this data is over 4 years old and may not reflect current service quality.

This WW Score cannot be calculated reliably due to insufficient review volume; the single available review is over four years old and covers only two of four scoring dimensions.

Only a single review is available for analysis, which severely limits scoring reliability across all dimensions. The reviewer explicitly describes the contractor as professional and thorough, and notes the price was reasonable, providing some basis for scoring professionalism, pricing, and experience. Project completion is implied by the successful repair of a burst pipe and faucet, and the reviewer's stated intent to use Prieto Plumbing again suggests satisfaction with the outcome. All scores are held conservative per scoring rules given the extremely limited data.

• Only 1 review 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.
• Cannot assess fake review patterns or recency trends from a single data point.
• Review is from 2023-03-30 — over 12 months old depending on current date; recency weighting may apply.

This score report is based on a single review and should not be considered a reliable representation of this contractor's overall performance; significantly more reviews are needed before any dimension score can be trusted.

This single review describes significant failures across all dimensions. Ken failed to disclose scope changes (drywall removal) before proceeding, demonstrating poor planning and communication. Pricing was not fully transparent upfront ($150 quote vs. $450 final). Project completion was incomplete—the drywall patch was inadequate and required hiring a third party to fix properly. While Ken showed some technical competence with the copper pipe repair, the overall execution was problematic. With only one review, no reliable WW Score can be calculated.

• INSUFFICIENT DATA: Only 1 review provided. Minimum 3 reviews required for reliable scoring.
• CRITICAL ISSUE: Major scope creep (drywall removal) not disclosed before work began, indicating poor pre-work assessment and communication.
• QUALITY CONCERN: Drywall patch work was substandard and required professional remediation by another contractor.
• PRICING CONCERN: Initial quote ($150) did not reflect final scope; customer was presented with $450 cost mid-project.
• This single negative review cannot establish a trustworthy contractor profile.

This score is unreliable and should not be used for decision-making. Only one review was provided, and it is overwhelmingly negative with serious concerns about scope disclosure, pricing transparency, and work quality. A minimum of 3–5 reviews is required to establish any meaningful confidence in contractor performance.

Only a single review was available for analysis, which severely limits the reliability of any scoring. The one review explicitly mentions good communication and going above and beyond, which supports a modest professionalism score. No information was provided regarding pricing, project completion, or technical experience, so those dimensions cannot be scored. The review is recent (June 2024) and positive in tone, but a single data point is insufficient to draw meaningful conclusions about this contractor's overall performance.

• Only 1 review analyzed — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably with fewer than 3 reviews.
• Three of four scoring dimensions (pricing, project completion, experience) have NO DATA due to lack of reviewer commentary on those topics.
• The single review is enthusiastic but brief and lacks specific detail about the work performed, which limits its analytical value.
• Cannot assess fake review patterns from a single review — no comparative data available.

This score report is based on a single review and should be considered highly unreliable — prospective customers are strongly advised to seek additional references or reviews before making a hiring decision.

Only one review is available for analysis, which is insufficient to calculate a reliable WW Score. The single review praises Jeff's helpfulness, patience, and reasonable pricing for sewer work, but provides no information about project completion or technical experience. The review does not describe a completed project, making it impossible to assess follow-through or workmanship quality.

• Insufficient review volume — only 1 review analyzed. Minimum 3 reviews required for reliable scoring.
• Review is from 2019 (5+ years old) — does not reflect current service quality.
• No project completion data available — customer chose different contractor, so no work was performed by this contractor.

This score cannot be calculated reliably due to insufficient review volume (fewer than 3 reviews). Any conclusions drawn from a single review are not statistically meaningful.