Find Nearby Plumbers In Dekalb, Illinois

This contractor's reviews paint a deeply concerning picture across nearly every dimension. Three of the five reviews are 1-star and describe serious failures: no-shows without notification, unanswered phones, jobs left incomplete, and an invoice sent before the customer even received it. The two positive reviews mention friendly staff and honest diagnosis, which prevents scores from bottoming out entirely, but they are outnumbered and older. Project completion is the most critically damaged dimension, with multiple reviewers explicitly stating the job was never finished and they had to hire another company. Professionalism scores are similarly low due to repeated failures in communication, punctuality, and follow-through.

• Three of five reviews are 1-star with specific, credible, and detailed complaints — this is a strong negative signal.
• The two positive reviews (both 5-star) are from 2016 and are relatively brief and generic compared to the detailed negative reviews. They may not reflect current service quality.
• All reviews are older than 5 years (most recent: September 2018), meaning this score reflects historical performance only. Current service quality is unknown.
• RECENCY WARNING: No reviews from the past 12 months — or even the past several years — are present. This score should be treated with significant caution as a current performance indicator.
• One review explicitly describes receiving an invoice with a due date earlier than the date the invoice was received, suggesting potential billing irregularities.

This WW Score is based on only 5 reviews, all of which are more than 5 years old, making it a LOW-reliability snapshot of historical performance that should not be used as a confident indicator of current service quality.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 2 reviews are available, which falls below the minimum threshold of 3 reviews needed for a reliable assessment. Both reviews are severely negative, citing unprofessional behavior, rudeness, and project abandonment after payment. However, the sample size is too small to produce a statistically meaningful WW Score. Additionally, both reviews are from 2019–2020, making them over 4 years old and potentially not reflective of current operations.

• Insufficient review volume (n=2) — cannot calculate WW Score reliably
• Both reviews are from 2019–2020 (4+ years old) — recency is poor
• No data on pricing, so value assessment is impossible
• No data on experience/skill level mentioned in reviews
• Severe negative pattern in both reviews suggests serious operational or behavioral issues, but sample size prevents confident generalization

This analysis cannot produce a reliable WW Score due to insufficient review volume (minimum 3 required). The two available reviews are old and paint a highly negative picture, but their age and small number mean this assessment should not be used for decision-making without additional current reviews.

With only two reviews, the data is sharply polarized and insufficient for a reliable WW Score. The positive review highlights responsiveness and care during an emergency, suggesting strong professionalism in that instance. However, the negative review is detailed and damning, describing multiple installation errors over four years including a dangerous exhaust venting mistake, a clogged drain from install debris, and a leaking coil — all pointing to serious workmanship deficiencies. The negative review also describes poor responsiveness (two-week wait times in emergencies) and a hostile in-office interaction, which significantly drags down professionalism and project completion scores. Pricing was not mentioned in either review, so that dimension cannot be scored.

• Only 2 reviews analyzed — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Both reviews are dated 2019–2020, making all data over 4 years old. Recency cannot be confirmed and current performance may differ significantly.
• The negative review is highly detailed and specific (multiple incidents across 4 years, specific failure modes described), lending it strong credibility and weight despite being a single review.
• The positive review, while genuine in tone, is relatively generic and lacks specific technical detail, limiting its evidentiary weight against the detailed negative account.

This score report should be treated as highly unreliable due to the critically small sample size of 2 reviews, the age of all available data (4+ years), and the extreme polarization between the two accounts.

With only two reviews spanning nearly a decade apart, meaningful scoring is extremely limited. The 2022 review is a serious negative account describing technical incompetence with well water systems, iron contamination caused by the contractor, and a refusal to return and fix their own mistakes — this heavily impacts project completion and experience scores. The 2013 review is a brief but positive note mentioning professionalism and clean-up, though it lacks specific detail. The stark contrast between these two reviews and the large time gap between them makes it impossible to draw reliable conclusions about current performance.

• Only 2 reviews total — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• The two reviews are approximately 9 years apart (2013 and 2022). The older positive review should be weighted significantly less than the more recent negative review.
• The 2022 negative review describes a serious unresolved workmanship failure (iron contamination from improper well water piping) and contractor refusal to remediate — this is a significant red flag.
• The 2013 positive review is generic and brief with no specific details, limiting its evidentiary value.
• No pricing information was mentioned in either review — pricing dimension cannot be scored.

This score report has very low reliability due to an insufficient number of reviews (only 2), a wide date gap between them, and a serious unresolved complaint in the most recent review — prospective customers should seek additional references before making a hiring decision.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only one review was analyzed. The single review explicitly mentions professionalism (punctuality, accommodation, promptness) and project completion (repair work completed, though required a parts run). No information was provided regarding pricing or technical experience/skill level. A minimum of 3 reviews is required to produce a reliable WW Score.

• Only 1 review available — statistically insufficient for reliable scoring
• Review is from 2020 (4+ years old) — recency is a concern
• No pricing information mentioned — cannot assess value or fairness
• No technical skill or experience details provided

This analysis cannot be trusted as a reliable score due to insufficient review volume (n=1) and age of the single review; at least 3 recent reviews are needed for meaningful assessment.