Find Nearby Plumbers In Green Bay, Wisconsin

Both reviews are severely negative with ratings of 1.0 stars. The first review cites inability to reach the business by phone. The second review details multiple critical failures: incomplete work (missed a second leak during inspection), overpricing ($269 for minimal labor), poor responsiveness (24+ hour delays returning calls), unprofessional answering service, and ultimately requiring a second plumber to complete the job. Industry reputation is also questioned. With only 2 reviews and both extremely negative, a reliable WW Score cannot be calculated.

• Insufficient review volume (n=2) — cannot calculate WW Score reliably per Step 4 protocol
• Both reviews are 1-star ratings with no positive counterbalance — extreme skew suggests either severe systemic issues or potential selection bias (only dissatisfied customers reviewed)
• Second review is from 2015 (9+ years old) — recency is poor; first review from 2022 is more recent but still 2+ years old
• Second review contains extensive detail and specific dollar amounts, suggesting genuine customer experience rather than fake review; first review is brief but plausible
• No positive reviews present to validate or contextualize negative claims

This analysis cannot produce a trustworthy WW Score due to insufficient review volume (n=2 required minimum of 3). The extreme negativity and lack of any positive reviews suggests either severe contractor performance issues or a heavily skewed sample. Any score derived would be unreliable and should not be used for decision-making.

Only two reviews are available, making any scoring highly unreliable. The first review from 2017 provides meaningful detail: the technician (Lennie) demonstrated persistence and technical problem-solving to resolve a difficult plumbing challenge, which informs limited scores for professionalism, project completion, and experience. The second review from 2014 is entirely generic — a single sentence with no specifics — and contributes no scorable data to any dimension. Pricing was not mentioned in either review, leaving that dimension completely unscored. All scores carry only LIMITED confidence due to the extremely small sample size.

• Only 2 reviews total — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Review dated 2014-10-21 is over 10 years old and carries very low recency weight.
• Review dated 2017-04-13 is over 7 years old — neither review falls within the past 12 months.
• The second review ('I would definitely refer them to anybody.') is suspiciously generic with zero specifics, contributing no usable dimensional data.
• Sample size is far too small to draw meaningful conclusions about this contractor's typical performance.

This score report should not be trusted for decision-making purposes — only 2 reviews were available, both are more than 7 years old, and only one contained any substantive detail about the contractor's work.

Both reviews highlight strong responsiveness and professionalism — one reviewer praised RJ Parins for being the only company to call back on a Saturday night and arriving early Sunday morning, while the other specifically commended the plumber Tim for being kind, knowledgeable, and helpful. Project completion is inferred positively in both cases as the hot water heater issues were resolved, though neither review goes into granular detail about the completion process. Experience is touched on in one review where Tim is described as knowledgeable and capable of addressing multiple plumbing questions. Pricing is entirely absent from both reviews, leaving that dimension unscored. With only two reviews, no reliable WW Score can be calculated.

• Only 2 reviews provided — minimum threshold of 3 reviews not met; WW Score cannot be calculated reliably.
• Both reviews are dated between 2015 and 2018, meaning all data is more than 6 years old. Recency weighting is a significant concern — current performance cannot be assessed from this data.
• No pricing information mentioned in any review — the Price Friendly dimension has no data and cannot be scored.
• Sample size is too small to detect fake review patterns, but both reviews appear genuine with specific details and named individuals.

This score report has very low reliability due to only 2 reviews being available, all of which are over 6 years old, making it impossible to draw confident conclusions about the contractor's current quality or consistency.

Both reviews are positive and mention fast response times, friendly demeanor, and satisfactory job completion, which supports moderate scores across professionalism and project completion. Pricing was only mentioned once with the vague descriptor 'reasonably priced,' warranting a conservative score. Workmanship quality was referenced once with 'quality work,' providing only minimal evidence for the experience dimension. With only 2 reviews total, no reliable WW Score can be calculated, and all dimension scores carry very low confidence.

• Only 2 reviews provided — insufficient data to calculate a reliable WW Score per scoring rules.
• One review is dated 2019 (over 5 years old) and should be weighted significantly less than more recent data.
• Both reviews are 5-star with limited specifics; while not conclusively fake, the small sample size and generic praise reduce overall reliability.
• Pricing evidence is based on a single vague phrase ('reasonably priced') with no mention of actual costs, quotes, or transparency.

This score report is based on only 2 reviews, one of which is over 5 years old, making all dimension scores and any overall assessment highly unreliable and unsuitable for confident decision-making.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 2 reviews were analyzed, which falls below the minimum threshold of 3 reviews required for a trustworthy WW Score calculation. Both reviews are extremely positive and date from 2011–2015 (over 8 years old), raising concerns about recency and relevance. While professionalism, project completion, and experience are mentioned positively, pricing is not addressed in either review, leaving a critical dimension unmeasured.

• CRITICAL: Only 2 reviews provided — minimum 3 required for reliable scoring
• RECENCY ISSUE: Both reviews are from 2011 and 2015 — over 8 years old. No recent data available.
• PRICING DIMENSION MISSING: No reviews mention pricing, value, or cost — cannot assess fairness or transparency
• SMALL SAMPLE SIZE: All scores are based on LIMITED mentions (2 each). Confidence in any individual dimension is very low.
• POTENTIAL BIAS: Both reviews are 5-star with enthusiastic language but lack specific detail about scope, complexity, or challenges overcome

This analysis cannot produce a reliable WW Score due to insufficient review volume (2 reviews, minimum 3 required) and severe recency issues (reviews from 2011–2015). Any scoring would be speculative and should not be used for decision-making.

Both reviews indicate that Benzschawel Plumbing performs competent, tidy work and arrives on time, suggesting solid baseline professionalism and workmanship. The first review is enthusiastically positive, praising punctuality, neatness, and efficiency. The second review is more measured — work was completed satisfactorily, but the contractor's inability or unwillingness to take on repeat business from an existing customer is a meaningful concern for project follow-through and customer relationship management. No pricing information was mentioned in either review, so that dimension cannot be scored. With only two reviews available, no reliable WW Score can be calculated.

• Only 2 reviews provided — this is below the minimum threshold of 3 required for a reliable WW Score calculation.
• Review dates span approximately 4 years apart (2020 and 2024), limiting trend analysis. The more recent review (2024) is given greater weight per recency rules.
• The 2020 review raises a concern about responsiveness to repeat customers — the scheduler indicated they were too booked to take additional work, which may reflect capacity issues or deprioritization of existing clients.
• No pricing or cost-related information was mentioned in any review — the Pricing dimension cannot be scored.

This score report is based on only 2 reviews and should be considered highly unreliable as a representation of overall contractor quality — significantly more review data is needed before any meaningful conclusions can be drawn.