Find Nearby Plumbers In Kenosha, Wisconsin

Only a single review is available, making any scoring highly tentative. The reviewer praised the contractor's sump pump work and specifically highlighted their responsiveness in handling a post-job issue, which speaks positively to professionalism and follow-through. Project completion receives a slightly conservative score because an issue arose after the work was done, even though it was resolved well. Experience is inferred minimally from the mention of 'great work' but lacks technical detail to score confidently. Pricing was not mentioned at all and cannot be scored.

• Only 1 review available — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Review is from October 2019, which is more than 1 year old. Recency weighting is a concern as this does not reflect current performance.
• Single review with generic praise and limited specifics — confidence in all dimension scores is LOW. Scores should be treated as directional only.

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

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 1 review was analyzed, which falls below the minimum threshold of 3 reviews required for a trustworthy WW Score calculation. The single review mentions project completion (emergency and maintenance work completed) and experience (perfectionist, versatile skill set), but provides no explicit information about professionalism or pricing. A reliable assessment requires substantially more review data.

• Only 1 review provided — minimum 3 reviews required for reliable scoring
• Review is from February 2020 — over 4 years old, outside the preferred 12-month recency window
• Generic praise without specific details (e.g., no mention of punctuality, communication style, pricing transparency, or specific technical accomplishments)
• No data on professionalism or pricing dimensions

This assessment cannot be trusted as a reliable score due to insufficient review volume and age of the single review provided.

This single review paints a strongly negative picture across multiple dimensions. The reviewer explicitly describes repeated scheduling failures — being made to wait over two hours, then rescheduled to the next morning, then delayed further — indicating serious punctuality and communication issues that drove the professionalism score very low. Pricing was flagged as a major concern, with the reviewer calculating an effective rate of approximately $530/hour for what they described as simply lighting two pilot lights, suggesting a significant lack of price transparency or value. Project completion received a slightly higher (though still poor) score because the work itself appears to have been technically finished, even if the process was deeply frustrating. No information was provided about the quality of workmanship or technical skill beyond the basic task performed, so experience could not be scored.

• Only 1 review available — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably with fewer than 3 reviews.
• Review is from November 2021, which is more than 12 months old. Recency weighting is reduced.
• All scores are based on a single reviewer's account and should be treated with extreme caution — one negative experience does not establish a reliable pattern.
• No fake review concerns detected — the review contains specific details, a clear narrative, and a concrete pricing complaint, suggesting authenticity.

This score report is based on a single review from over two years ago and should not be considered a reliable representation of this contractor's overall performance — significantly more review data is required before any confident assessment can be made.

Only a single review exists, which describes a severely negative experience. The contractor agreed to a job, received photos of the scope of work, confirmed the engagement, then canceled on the day of service and refused to complete the work — a clear project completion failure. The reviewer explicitly describes the business as rude and untrustworthy, driving the professionalism score to near zero. No pricing or experience data was mentioned in any review, so those dimensions cannot be scored. With only one review, no reliable WW Score can be calculated.

• Only 1 review available — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• No pricing or experience data present in any review — two dimensions are entirely unscored.
• Single review represents an extreme negative experience; scores should be treated as directional only, not definitive.

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

Only one review is available for analysis, which is insufficient to calculate a reliable WW Score. The single review mentions pricing favorably ('Priced great'), project completion (water heater fixed, faucet repaired, working properly), and technical skill (soldering joints, hard piping gas supply). However, professionalism dimensions such as punctuality, communication, and attitude are not explicitly addressed. With only one data point, confidence in any scoring is severely limited.

• Insufficient review volume: only 1 review analyzed. Minimum 3 reviews required for reliable WW Score calculation.
• Review is from 2019 (5+ years old). No recent data available to assess current performance.
• Professionalism dimension has zero mentions and cannot be scored.

This analysis cannot produce a trustworthy WW Score due to insufficient data volume (1 review vs. minimum 3 required) and age of the single review (2019). Any scoring would be unreliable.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 1 review was analyzed. While this single review is positive across all dimensions (punctuality, fair pricing, prompt completion, and quality workmanship), a reliable WW Score requires a minimum of 3 reviews to account for variability and reduce the risk of outlier bias.

• Only 1 review available — statistically insufficient for reliable scoring
• Review is from 2022 (over 2 years old) — recency is a concern
• Single positive review cannot establish pattern or confidence in contractor performance

This analysis cannot produce a trustworthy WW Score with only 1 review; a minimum of 3 reviews is required to establish meaningful confidence in any dimension.