Find Nearby Plumbers In Elgin, Illinois

Both reviews speak positively about A&E's responsiveness and speed, with same-day or next-morning arrival noted in each case, supporting a modest professionalism score. Pricing is the most consistently praised dimension, with both reviewers explicitly calling costs fair or the cheapest quoted, justifying the highest dimension score. Project completion is supported by both reviewers indicating their sewer/root issues were resolved, though no detail is given about follow-up, warranties, or long-term outcomes. Experience scores conservatively because neither review describes technical complexity, problem-solving depth, or workmanship quality in any meaningful detail. With only 2 reviews total, no WW Score can be reliably calculated.

• Only 2 reviews provided — this is below the minimum threshold of 3 required for a reliable WW Score.
• Both reviews are dated between 2017 and 2019, meaning all data is more than 5 years old. Current performance cannot be inferred from these reviews.
• Both reviews are 5-star with broadly positive but non-specific language. While not conclusive, the limited detail and identical rating pattern warrants caution.
• No negative feedback exists, but this is likely a function of the very small sample size rather than an indicator of consistent excellence.

This score profile should be treated as very low reliability — only 2 reviews were available, both are over 5 years old, and no dimension reached even MODERATE confidence; no business decisions should be based on this data alone.

With only 2 reviews, reliable scoring is not possible. Review 1 (2014) praises punctuality, speed, and service quality. Review 2 (2014) criticizes pricing transparency and professionalism, citing a $110 quote discrepancy without apology and a technician who needed to retrieve glasses mid-job. Project completion was achieved in both cases, but professionalism and pricing show conflicting signals. No technical expertise or workmanship quality is explicitly discussed.

• Insufficient review volume (n=2) — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per protocol
• Both reviews are from 2014 (10+ years old) — recency is severely compromised; no recent customer feedback available
• Conflicting customer experiences suggest inconsistent service quality or operational issues
• Review 2 raises concerns about pricing transparency and customer service recovery

This analysis cannot produce a trustworthy WW Score due to insufficient review volume (minimum 3 required) and extreme age of all available data; any score derived would be unreliable and should not be used for decision-making.

Both reviews speak positively about Body Plumbing's punctuality, professionalism, and attitude, supporting a reasonable but conservative professionalism score. Pricing is noted as competitive in both reviews, though one reviewer explicitly found better pricing elsewhere for annual testing, which tempers the pricing score. Project completion is generally positive, but one review notes the first repair attempt failed and required a second visit, which introduces a meaningful caveat. Experience scores are conservatively set given the limited sample and the noted first-attempt failure on a repair job.

• Only 2 reviews provided — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per scoring rules requiring a minimum of 3 reviews.
• Both reviews are significantly dated (2010 and 2013), over 10 years old. These scores carry very low recency relevance and should not be used to assess current service quality.
• Sample size is too small to detect fake review patterns, but no obvious red flags of fabrication were observed — reviews contain specific details and mixed feedback.

This score should not be trusted as a reliable indicator of current contractor quality due to only 2 reviews being available, both of which are more than a decade old.

Both reviews are exceptionally positive and mention all four dimensions, but the sample size of only 2 reviews is insufficient to calculate a reliable WW Score. The reviews consistently praise Thurman's professionalism, courteous crew, transparent pricing, and quality workmanship across multiple job types. However, with only 2 mentions per dimension, confidence remains LIMITED across all categories. A minimum of 3 reviews is required to produce a statistically meaningful WW Score.

• INSUFFICIENT DATA: Only 2 reviews analyzed. Minimum 3 reviews required for reliable WW Score calculation.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Both reviews are significantly dated (2014 and 2015, 9-10 years old). No recent reviews provided to assess current service quality.
• POTENTIAL BIAS: Both reviews are 5-star ratings with highly enthusiastic language and similar narrative structure (comparison to other plumbers, emphasis on honesty/transparency, recommendation to family/friends). While not definitively fake, the uniformity warrants caution.
• SAMPLE SIZE: With only 2 data points, individual review sentiment carries disproportionate weight and cannot be generalized.

This analysis cannot produce a trustworthy WW Score due to insufficient review volume (2 reviews, minimum 3 required) and significant age of available data (9-10 years old). Any scoring would be unreliable and should not be used for decision-making.

Both available reviews are strongly negative and paint a consistent picture of serious failures across all dimensions. Gabriel is explicitly described as not punctual, unresponsive after payment, and failing to complete or properly fix the work in either case. One reviewer paid $250 cash for a repair that failed within five days despite a claimed five-year guarantee, and subsequent calls and texts went unanswered. The pattern of taking payment and then ghosting customers is a significant red flag for both professionalism and project completion. All scores have been kept very low to reflect the severity and consistency of the complaints, though the extremely small sample size means these scores carry only limited statistical confidence.

• Only 2 reviews available — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Both reviews describe a pattern of accepting payment and then becoming unresponsive — this is a serious consumer protection concern.
• Both reviews are older than 12 months (dated 2019 and 2020) — no recent data is available to assess whether performance has improved.
• Claimed five-year workmanship guarantee appears to be misleading based on reviewer account of work failing within five days.
• Small sample size prevents fake review detection analysis, but both negative reviews contain specific details and distinct language suggesting they are genuine.

This score report is based on only 2 reviews, both over four years old, and should be treated as highly unreliable for making a current hiring decision — significantly more recent reviews would be needed to assess this contractor's present performance.

With only 2 reviews, reliable scoring is impossible. The first review (Dec 2022) praises quick response and effective repair by Terry. The second review (Sep 2022) documents severe failures: incomplete work, unresolved sewer issues requiring repeat visits, poor responsiveness to emergency calls, and higher pricing than competitors. The extreme polarity and limited sample size prevent meaningful WW Score calculation.

• INSUFFICIENT DATA: Only 2 reviews analyzed. Minimum 3 reviews required for reliable scoring.
• EXTREME POLARITY: One 5-star and one 1-star review with contradictory experiences suggest either inconsistent service quality or different technicians/circumstances.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Both reviews are from 2022 (1.5+ years old). No recent data available to assess current performance.
• CRITICAL SERVICE FAILURE: Second review documents incomplete repairs, repeated callbacks without resolution, poor emergency responsiveness (24/7 claim not honored), and customer forced to seek alternative contractor. This represents serious project completion and professionalism failures.
• PRICING COMPLAINT: Second review explicitly states competitor was cheaper while delivering superior results, contradicting value proposition.

This score cannot be reliably calculated or trusted due to insufficient review volume (n=2), extreme rating polarity, and age of data (both reviews from 2022). At minimum 5-10 recent reviews are needed to establish credible performance assessment.