Find Nearby Plumbers In St. Paul, Minnesota

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only one review was provided. While this single review is positive and mentions professionalism (friendly, professional service), project completion (arrived quickly, fixed problem), and experience (found and fixed the problem), a single data point cannot support a reliable WW Score. Pricing was not mentioned at all. At least 3 reviews are required to produce a trustworthy composite score.

• Only 1 review provided — minimum 3 reviews required for reliable scoring
• Review is from 2017 (7+ years old) — recency is a concern for current contractor assessment
• No pricing information mentioned — cannot evaluate Price Friendly dimension
• Generic praise language with limited specific detail about the work performed

This analysis cannot produce a valid WW Score due to insufficient review volume. A minimum of 3 reviews is required; only 1 was provided. Additionally, the single review is significantly outdated (2017), making it unreliable for assessing current contractor performance.

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 professionalism (efficient), pricing (affordable), and experience (problem-solving ability), but project completion is not addressed. All dimension scores are based on extremely limited evidence.

• Only 1 review provided — minimum 3 reviews required for reliable scoring
• Review is from 2022 (over 2 years old) — recency is a concern
• Generic praise language with minimal specific details about actual work performed
• No mention of project completion, timeliness, or follow-through

This analysis cannot produce a reliable WW Score due to insufficient review volume; at least 3 reviews are needed to establish meaningful patterns and confidence levels.

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 pricing favorably ('Wasn't a lot of money') and experience/workmanship positively ('great service,' 'great job'), but provides no explicit detail on professionalism or project completion. Generic praise without specifics limits confidence further.

• Only 1 review provided — minimum 3 reviews required for reliable scoring
• Review contains generic praise with minimal specific detail
• No explicit mention of professionalism dimensions (punctuality, communication, responsiveness)
• No explicit mention of project completion (on-time delivery, follow-through, callbacks)
• Repetitive use of 'great' and 'favorite' suggests low specificity

This analysis cannot produce a reliable WW Score with only 1 review; a minimum of 3 reviews is required to generate trustworthy scoring.

This single review paints a deeply negative picture across nearly every dimension. The plumber initially completed the job quickly and at a fair price, but the repair failed before the fixture was ever used — a significant indicator of poor workmanship. Follow-through was nonexistent: the reviewer attempted contact at least five times, was repeatedly put off, and never received a callback or remedy. The contractor ultimately refused to honor the repair, citing a disputed unpaid bill the reviewer flatly denies, suggesting either dishonesty or a serious breakdown in communication and accountability. All scores are heavily penalized and carry only LIMITED confidence given this is a single review from 2013.

• Only 1 review provided — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Review is dated 2013-07-29, making it over 10 years old. This data is significantly outdated and may not reflect current contractor performance.
• Reviewer explicitly alleges the contractor made a false claim about an unpaid bill to avoid honoring a warranty — this is a potential integrity/fraud concern worth noting.
• Pricing score of 55 reflects that initial pricing was described as fair, but is heavily discounted due to the disputed billing claim made by the contractor after the fact.

This score is based on a single review from over a decade ago and should be considered extremely low confidence — it is directionally informative but statistically unreliable as a basis for any hiring decision.

This single review describes a severe failure in both professionalism and project completion. The company cancelled a scheduled appointment the same day, citing that plumbers left early for a holiday weekend, and the representative Dave went so far as to suggest the customer call a competitor. No work was performed, no pricing was discussed, and no technical skill was demonstrated. Scores for professionalism and project completion are near-floor due to the explicit abandonment of the customer before any service began.

• Only 1 review available — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold rules.
• Review is dated July 2016, making it over 8 years old. This data carries very low recency weight and may not reflect current business practices.
• Pricing and Experience dimensions have no data and cannot be scored.

This score is based on a single review from 2016 and should not be considered a reliable representation of this contractor's overall quality or current performance.

This single review paints a severely negative picture across multiple dimensions. The owner was described as unprofessional, unapologetic, and verbally abusive — using profane language before hanging up on the customer. The work itself was not only incomplete but actively made the situation worse, resulting in flooding and ceiling damage. Project completion scores near the floor given that the job was left in a worse state than before work began. Experience is scored marginally above zero only because some work was attempted, though it caused additional damage. Pricing data was entirely absent from this review.

• Only 1 review is available — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Review is dated 2019 — this data is over 5 years old and may not reflect current business practices.
• Extremely severe allegations including property damage (flooding, ceiling damage) and verbal abuse by the owner — these claims should be weighted seriously but cannot be corroborated with a single data point.
• No positive reviews exist in this dataset to provide balance or context.

This score is based on a single review from 2019 and should be considered highly unreliable as a representation of overall contractor quality — far more reviews are needed before any meaningful conclusions can be drawn.