Find Nearby Plumbers In Tucson, Arizona

Only a single review is available, which limits the reliability of any scoring. That review is positive across all four dimensions: the reviewer noted same-day contact and timely arrival (professionalism), reasonable pricing (price friendly), work completed quickly and fully (project completion), and that the work was done well (experience). Scores are kept conservative at 80–85 across dimensions due to the extremely limited data. No WW Score can be calculated reliably with fewer than 3 reviews.

• Only 1 review analyzed — far below the minimum of 3 required for a reliable WW Score.
• All dimension scores are based on a single mention each and should be treated as very low confidence.
• Review is from November 2023, which is over 12 months old depending on current date — recency should be monitored as new reviews come in.
• Cannot assess fake review patterns with only one review available.

This score report is based on a single review and should not be used to make any meaningful assessment of this contractor — significantly more review data is required before the WW Score can be calculated or trusted.

This single review paints a broadly positive picture of Raul's work, citing professional quality, good workmanship, and a willingness to suggest cost-saving alternatives for the homeowner. The reviewer's decision to rehire him after approximately five years is a meaningful signal of satisfaction and follow-through. However, with only one review available, all dimension scores are assigned conservatively and carry very limited confidence. Pricing is scored modestly because the mention of cost-saving suggestions implies some price-consciousness, but no explicit commentary on rates, quotes, or value was provided. Project completion is inferred from the positive outcome described but lacks detail on timelines or scope delivery.

• 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 should be treated as highly preliminary.
• No explicit mention of pricing transparency, specific rates, or cost comparisons — pricing score is inferred conservatively from a vague cost-saving reference only.
• Review is generally positive but lacks granular specifics (e.g., what type of work, exact timeline, any issues encountered), which limits scoring precision.

This score report is based on a single review and should not be used as a reliable indicator of contractor quality — at least 3 reviews are required for a meaningful WW Score calculation.

Only a single review exists, making any scoring highly provisional. The reviewer praises the electrician's competence, efficiency, and positive attitude, and notes that other tradespeople on-site sought out his contact details — a meaningful indirect endorsement of skill. Professionalism is supported by references to responsiveness, communication through Oscar, and a friendly demeanor. Pricing is addressed indirectly: the reviewer contrasts this contractor favorably against others charging $200+ per hour, implying good value, though no specific price is confirmed. Project completion is implied as successful but no explicit detail about full job delivery or timeline is provided, keeping that score conservative.

• Only 1 review analyzed — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• All dimensions are scored at LIMITED confidence due to single-review basis. Scores should not be treated as representative.
• Review is positive and detailed, which reduces fake review suspicion, but the absence of any critical feedback across a single data point means no balanced picture is possible.
• No other reviews available to confirm consistency of service quality over time or across different projects.

This score is based on a single review and should be considered highly unreliable — do not use it to make hiring decisions without gathering significantly more customer feedback.

This single review provides explicit praise for professionalism (quick response, same-day service within an hour), pricing (described as 'extremely fair'), and project completion (water downtime was short, issue resolved). However, with only one review, no technical experience or workmanship details are mentioned. The WW Score cannot be reliably calculated with insufficient data.

• Only 1 review provided — insufficient for reliable WW Score calculation (minimum 3 reviews required)
• Review is from 2018 (over 6 years old) — recency is a concern for current contractor performance assessment
• No mention of technical skill, problem-solving approach, or workmanship quality — experience dimension cannot be scored

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably with only 1 review. Additionally, the review's age (2018) limits its relevance to current service quality.

Only a single review was available for analysis, which severely limits the reliability of any scoring. The reviewer mentions 'great service' and intent to return, suggesting a positive professionalism impression, but no specific details about punctuality, communication, or attitude are provided. Pricing is noted as 'reasonably priced,' which supports a modest positive score but lacks specifics about quotes or transparency. 'Quality work' implies satisfactory workmanship, but no technical detail or problem-solving context is described. Project completion could not be scored as no information was provided about job follow-through, timeliness, or completion status.

• Only 1 review analyzed — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Review is very brief and generic with no specific details, which limits the ability to validate authenticity or extract meaningful scoring data.
• All positive language with no specifics may indicate a surface-level or potentially undetailed review — treat all scores with caution.
• Recency note: Review is dated 2024-08-20, which is within the past 12 months and therefore carries full recency weight, but sample size remains critically insufficient.

This score report is based on a single, brief review and should not be trusted as a reliable indicator of contractor quality — significantly more reviews are needed before any meaningful conclusions can be drawn.

Only a single review is available, which limits the reliability of any scoring. The reviewer notes that Steven responded promptly, resolved the issue quickly, and took time to explain the problem — indicating positive professionalism and experience. Project completion is implied by the issue being solved, though no detail is given about complexity or follow-through. Pricing is entirely unmentioned and cannot be scored. All scores are conservative given the extremely limited data.

• Only 1 review analyzed — far below the minimum threshold of 3 for a reliable WW Score.
• No pricing information mentioned in any review — Pricing dimension cannot be scored.
• Single review with generic positive language and no specific detail about the nature of the job — treat all scores with caution.
• Recency note: The one available review is from October 2024, which is within the past 12 months and is therefore given full recency weight.

This score report is based on a single review and should not be considered a reliable assessment of this contractor — significantly more reviews are needed before any dimension score or overall WW Score can be trusted.