Find Nearby Plumbers In Waukegan, Illinois

Only one review was available for analysis, which is insufficient to calculate a reliable WW Score. The single review is positive and mentions professionalism (courteous tradesmen), project completion (job completed on bathroom remodel), and experience (contractor offered ideas and solutions). However, pricing is not addressed. The review is from January 2013, making it over 10 years old and not reflective of current service quality.

• INSUFFICIENT DATA: Only 1 review analyzed. Minimum 3 reviews required for reliable scoring.
• RECENCY ISSUE: Review is from January 2013 (11+ years old). Does not reflect current contractor performance.
• PRICING NOT MENTIONED: No information available on pricing fairness or value.

This analysis cannot produce a trustworthy WW Score due to insufficient review volume (1 review) and extreme age of the data (2013). At least 3 recent reviews are needed for meaningful assessment.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 1 review was analyzed. While the review expresses strong satisfaction and long-term loyalty (20+ years), it contains no explicit information about professionalism, pricing, project completion, or experience. The review is also from 2016, making it 8+ years old and not reflective of current service quality.

• Only 1 review provided — minimum 3 reviews required for reliable scoring
• Review date is from January 2016 — significantly outside the 12-month recency window
• Review lacks specific details about any of the four scoring dimensions
• Cannot assess pricing, punctuality, workmanship quality, or project outcomes from this review alone

This score cannot be calculated or trusted. A minimum of 3 reviews with substantive detail is required to produce a meaningful WW Score.

This single review from 2013 provides limited actionable data. The reviewer noted timely arrival, problem identification, and reasonable pricing, but explicitly criticized professionalism due to inadequate cleanup and lack of follow-up callback. Project completion was achieved but without post-service verification. With only one review and all dimensions mentioned just once, confidence in any aggregate score is severely limited and cannot reliably represent contractor performance.

• INSUFFICIENT DATA: Only 1 review analyzed. WW Score calculation requires minimum 3 reviews for reliability.
• RECENCY ISSUE: Review is from May 2013 (11+ years old). Does not reflect current business practices or performance.
• SINGLE-MENTION BIAS: All dimensions scored on only 1 mention each, resulting in LIMITED confidence across all metrics.

This analysis cannot produce a reliable WW Score — only 1 review is available, and it is over a decade old. At minimum 3 recent reviews are required to generate trustworthy scoring.

This single review describes a catastrophic customer experience involving a $2,000 deposit that was not refunded over a 6-week period, poor responsiveness, and unmet service expectations. The reviewer explicitly states they filed a BBB complaint, hired an attorney, and would not recommend the company. However, a WW Score cannot be reliably calculated from a single review, as the scoring methodology requires multiple data points to establish confidence and account for potential outliers or context-specific issues.

• INSUFFICIENT DATA: Only 1 review provided. WW Score calculation requires minimum 3 reviews to be statistically meaningful.
• CRITICAL ISSUE: Review is from March 2010 (14+ years old). This is extremely dated and may not reflect current business operations, especially given the reviewer's note that management/ownership has changed.
• SEVERE ALLEGATIONS: Review alleges theft of funds, unresponsive management, and legal action. These are serious claims but cannot be verified from review text alone.
• BUSINESS VIABILITY CONCERN: Reviewer notes the company has an 'F' rating with the Better Business Bureau and suggests it is surprising they remain in business.

This score is unreliable and should not be used for decision-making. A single review from 2010 cannot establish a trustworthy WW Score, and the extreme age of the review combined with documented management changes means it may not reflect current service quality.

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 provided is highly positive and mentions professionalism (friendly, responsive, communicative), project completion (superb installation and repair, spotless jobsite), and experience (clearly experienced). However, pricing is not addressed. The review is from October 2020, making it over 3 years old and outside the preferred 12-month recency window.

• Insufficient review volume: Only 1 review analyzed. Minimum 3 reviews required for reliable scoring.
• Review recency concern: Single review is from October 2020 (3+ years old). Current contractor performance cannot be assessed.
• No pricing data available: Dimension cannot be evaluated.
• Generic praise pattern: Review uses superlative language ('can't recommend highly enough', 'so much better') but lacks specific project details, costs, or measurable outcomes.

This score cannot be calculated or trusted. A single review is insufficient to establish a reliable WW Score, and the review's age (3+ years) further limits its relevance to current contractor performance.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only one review was provided. While this single review is positive and mentions successful problem diagnosis and resolution across two separate service calls (initial sump pump installation and later float switch replacement), a single review cannot establish reliable patterns across the four dimensions. Professionalism and pricing are not explicitly addressed in this review. A minimum of 3 reviews is required to produce a trustworthy WW Score.

• Only 1 review provided — minimum 3 reviews required for reliable scoring
• Review is from February 2022 (over 2 years old) — recency is limited
• Professionalism and pricing dimensions have no explicit mentions

This analysis cannot produce a reliable WW Score with only one review; additional customer feedback is essential before drawing conclusions about overall contractor performance.