Find Nearby Plumbers In Kenosha, Wisconsin

Only a single review is available, making any scoring highly tentative. The reviewer indicates the job was completed satisfactorily, noting the contractor successfully replaced drywall and ceiling in a utility room while navigating obstacles such as a hot water heater, furnace, and wall pipes — suggesting a reasonable level of technical competence. The 4-star rating (rather than 5) implies the experience was good but not exceptional, so scores have been kept conservative. No information was provided regarding professionalism, pricing, punctuality, communication, or value for money, so those dimensions cannot be scored.

• Only 1 review analyzed — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Review is dated 2021-08-19, which is more than 3 years old. It may not reflect current contractor performance.
• Professionalism and Pricing dimensions have no data whatsoever and were excluded from scoring entirely.

This report is based on a single review from over three years ago and should be considered highly unreliable — no meaningful conclusions about this contractor's overall quality can be drawn from this data alone.

Only a single review is available, which limits the reliability of all dimension scores. That said, the one review is detailed and specific, mentioning named crew members, communication practices, timeliness, and quality of workmanship — all positive indicators. Professionalism scores high due to explicit mentions of communication, punctuality, and responsiveness. Project completion and experience both score well based on the reviewer's statement that results exceeded expectations. Pricing is noted as 'reasonably priced' but with no comparative detail, warranting a conservative score.

• Only 1 review analyzed — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• All dimension scores carry LIMITED confidence due to single-review basis.
• Review is detailed and specific with named individuals, reducing fake review suspicion, but a single 5-star review with no counterbalancing data should be interpreted cautiously.
• Review is dated 2023-04-24, which is 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 review data is needed before the WW Score can be meaningfully trusted.

Only a single review is available, making any scoring highly unreliable. The reviewer explicitly flagged a major pricing concern, stating they were charged approximately 3x the market rate per foot for wiring, which drives the pricing score very low. On the positive side, the reviewer acknowledged the job was well done and the crew was competent, supporting modest scores for project completion and experience. No data exists for professionalism, as the review did not address punctuality, communication, attitude, or responsiveness. Given the review dates back to 2017, it is also significantly outside the preferred 12-month recency window.

• Only 1 review available — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Review is dated July 2017 — over 7 years old. This data is significantly outdated and may not reflect current business practices.
• Reviewer suggests the business may have changed ownership, meaning historical reviews may not apply to the current operator.
• Pricing concern is severe: reviewer claims a 3x markup over market rate, which is a strong negative signal on value and transparency.

This score is based on a single review from 2017 and should not be trusted as a reliable indicator of current contractor quality or pricing practices.

Only a single review is available, dated November 2021, which is over 3 years old and therefore carries reduced recency weight. The reviewer mentions reasonable pricing and quick availability, suggesting adequate professionalism and responsiveness. The job — changing out some valves — appears to have been completed, supporting a modest project completion score. However, no detail is provided about workmanship quality or technical skill, so Experience cannot be scored. All scores are conservative due to the extremely limited data.

• Only 1 review available — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Review is dated November 2021, over 3 years ago — recency is low and may not reflect current performance.
• Review is very brief and generic with minimal specifics, limiting the reliability of any dimension scores.
• Single 5-star review with vague praise — cannot rule out bias, though no definitive fake review pattern is detectable from one data point.

This score report is based on a single, brief, and dated review and should be considered highly unreliable — no meaningful conclusions about this contractor's consistent performance can be drawn.

This single review describes a serious incident involving a hit-and-run by a company vehicle and alleged refusal by the owner to take responsibility or cooperate with the customer. The review explicitly addresses professionalism through the owner's dismissive communication, accusation of fraud, and lack of accountability. No other dimensions (pricing, project completion, or experience) are mentioned in this review. With only one review and no data on three of four dimensions, a reliable WW Score cannot be calculated.

• CRITICAL: Only 1 review analyzed — insufficient for reliable scoring (minimum 3 required)
• This review describes a serious liability and customer service failure (hit-and-run, refusal to cooperate, accusation of fraud) rather than a typical service quality issue
• Review appears to be a complaint about personal injury/property damage and business conduct, not plumbing/contractor service quality
• No data available on pricing, project completion, or technical experience

This score cannot be reliably calculated due to insufficient review volume (1 review, minimum 3 required) and the single review addressing only professionalism with a severe negative incident that may not reflect typical service delivery.

Only one review exists for this contractor, making any scoring highly unreliable. The single reviewer noted same-day responsiveness and a completed sump pump replacement within approximately one hour, which speaks positively to both professionalism and project completion. No mention of pricing, quotes, or cost transparency was made, so the pricing dimension cannot be scored. The experience dimension receives a conservative score based solely on the implied competence of completing the job quickly, with no detail on workmanship quality or technical skill provided.

• Only 1 review total — far below the minimum threshold of 3 required for a reliable WW Score.
• Review is dated 2012 — over 12 years old. This data is significantly outdated and should be weighted very low.
• Review contains no specific detail about pricing, workmanship quality, or technical skill — limiting scoring depth across multiple dimensions.
• Generic positive language with minimal specifics raises minor concern, though the review does include a concrete detail (same-day service, one-hour job) that reduces fake review suspicion slightly.

This WW Score cannot be calculated reliably due to insufficient review volume (1 review) and the extreme age of the only available review (2012), meaning this report should not be used to make any meaningful hiring decision.