Find Nearby Plumbers In Waukesha, Wisconsin

Only two reviews are available, both from 2013, making any score highly tentative and potentially outdated. Professionalism is supported by mentions of punctuality and a willingness to work with the customer. Project completion is noted in both reviews, with one explicitly stating the job was finished the same day and the other describing a phased project completed on schedule. Experience receives a limited signal from one review noting the crew knew what they were doing. Pricing is entirely unmentioned across both reviews and cannot be scored.

• Only 2 reviews provided — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Both reviews are from 2013, over 10 years old. These scores may not reflect current contractor performance.
• Reviews are brief and lack specific detail, limiting the ability to score dimensions with confidence.
• No pricing information mentioned in any review — Pricing dimension scored as null.

This score should not be trusted as a reliable indicator of current contractor quality due to only 2 reviews available, both more than a decade old, with minimal detail across all dimensions.

This single review paints a strongly positive picture across all four dimensions. The contractor demonstrated honesty and integrity by correctly diagnosing a pipe leak rather than upselling an unnecessary full pump replacement, which speaks to both professionalism and experience. The reviewer explicitly expressed satisfaction with the cost, indicating fair and reasonable pricing. The job was completed successfully despite the challenge of replacing an older-style underground pipe, reflecting solid project completion and technical skill. However, with only one review available, all scores carry very limited confidence and should not be treated as representative of consistent performance.

• Only 1 review analyzed — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• All dimension scores are based on a single review and carry LIMITED confidence. These scores should not be used as a reliable indicator of overall contractor quality.
• Review is dated 2018-08-21, which is more than 6 years old. Performance may not reflect current standards or practices.
• No negative feedback or constructive criticism present, but this is not flagged as suspicious given the level of specific detail provided in the review.

This WW Score report is based on a single review from 2018 and should be considered highly unreliable — additional recent reviews are strongly recommended before drawing any conclusions about this contractor's quality or consistency.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 1 review was analyzed. This single review documents severe professionalism failures (3.5-hour delay, dismissive attitude toward customer complaint, abrupt job abandonment) and complete project non-completion (toilet left in driveway, work never finished). However, a single review cannot establish a reliable contractor score. Pricing and technical experience are not addressed in this review.

• CRITICAL: Only 1 review provided. WW Score cannot be calculated reliably with fewer than 3 reviews.
• Review is from 2022 (over 2 years old) — does not reflect current business practices.
• Severe allegations of unprofessional conduct and job abandonment, but single-source data prevents confident generalization.

This analysis cannot produce a trustworthy WW Score due to insufficient review volume (n=1). The single review contains serious complaints but cannot be treated as representative of contractor performance.

Insufficient data — only 1 review analyzed. While this single review is positive and mentions professionalism (good guys, pleasure to work with), pricing (reasonable price), project completion (work done promptly), and experience (good suggestions, attention to detail), a WW Score cannot be reliably calculated from a single data point. A minimum of 3 reviews is required to establish meaningful confidence in any scoring.

• Insufficient review volume: only 1 review provided. WW Score calculation requires minimum 3 reviews.
• Review is from 2017 (7+ years old) — does not reflect current service quality.
• Single positive review without comparative data cannot establish reliable benchmarks.

This analysis cannot produce a trustworthy WW Score due to insufficient review volume and age of the single available review.

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 (quick turnaround, work finished) and experience (quality of remodeling work), but provides no explicit information about professionalism or pricing. A reliable score requires substantially more data.

• Only 1 review available — minimum 3 reviews required for reliable scoring
• Review is from 2021 (3+ years old) — recency is a concern
• No explicit mentions of professionalism (punctuality, communication, attitude) or pricing (value, fairness, transparency)
• Generic praise without specific technical details limits confidence in experience assessment

This score cannot be calculated reliably due to insufficient review volume; at least 3 reviews are needed to produce a trustworthy WW Score.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only one review was analyzed. The single review mentions professionalism (punctuality, reliability, customer care), project completion (long-term customer retention), and experience (quality of work), but provides no information on pricing. With only 1 review, confidence in any dimension is severely limited and cannot support a reliable overall score.

• Only 1 review available — statistically insufficient for reliable scoring
• Review is from 2015 (9+ years old) — does not reflect current service quality
• No pricing information provided in review
• Generic praise language ('Excellent job!!!') with limited specific detail about work performed

This score cannot be calculated or trusted due to insufficient review volume (minimum 3 reviews required). A single data point from 2015 does not provide adequate basis for assessing current contractor performance.