Find Nearby Plumbers In Omaha, Nebraska

Both reviews are highly positive and mention competence, responsiveness, honesty, and fair pricing. However, with only 2 reviews total, the sample size is insufficient to calculate a reliable WW Score. The reviews explicitly praise professionalism (competent, responsive, nice), pricing (reasonably priced, fair diagnosis vs. competitor gouging), project completion (work completed on kitchen fixtures and water heater diagnosis), and experience (skilled problem-solving). All dimensions show strong positive signals, but confidence remains limited due to minimal data volume.

• INSUFFICIENT DATA: Only 2 reviews analyzed. WW Score cannot be calculated reliably with fewer than 3 reviews.
• RECENCY CONCERN: One review is from 2019 (5 years old); only one review from the past 12 months. Historical data may not reflect current service quality.
• SMALL SAMPLE SIZE: All scores carry LIMITED confidence due to only 2 mentions per dimension. Results are not statistically robust.

This analysis cannot produce a trustworthy WW Score due to insufficient review volume (fewer than 3 reviews). While both available reviews are positive, a minimum of 3-5 reviews is required to establish baseline reliability.

Insufficient data — only 2 reviews analyzed. Review 1 (2019) praises pricing and technical problem-solving but criticizes job site cleanliness and employee conduct. Review 2 (2019) reports severe professionalism issues including abusive language from owner Walt and property damage without accountability. The stark contradiction between these reviews and the extremely limited sample size (n=2) makes any aggregate score unreliable. All dimension scores are based on LIMITED mentions (1–2 each) and should be treated with extreme caution.

• CRITICAL: Only 2 reviews provided — insufficient for reliable WW Score calculation. Minimum 3 reviews recommended.
• SEVERE PROFESSIONALISM CONCERN: Review 2 documents abusive language ('We don't fucking do carpentry', 'You know nothing about home repair') from owner Walt and dismissive attitude toward property damage caused by the company.
• CONTRADICTORY EVIDENCE: Review 1 rates 4.0 stars with praise for pricing and technical work but criticizes cleanliness and employee service. Review 2 rates 1.0 star with serious professionalism and accountability issues. These reviews paint conflicting pictures.
• RECENCY: Both reviews are from 2019 (4–5 years old). No recent reviews available to assess current performance or whether issues have been addressed.
• INCOMPLETE FOLLOW-UP: Review 1 mentions hope for employee service improvement but provides no evidence this occurred.
• PROPERTY DAMAGE UNRESOLVED: Review 2 indicates company caused damage (scraped garage, cracked archway) and refused responsibility, citing damage as 'expected' without offering repair options.

This score cannot be calculated reliably due to insufficient review volume (n=2) and conflicting evidence. The severe professionalism allegations in Review 2, combined with the age of both reviews (2019) and lack of recent data, make any aggregate score meaningless. Do not rely on this analysis for hiring decisions without obtaining additional recent reviews and direct clarification of the incidents described.

Both reviews speak positively to professionalism, noting polite behavior, punctuality, and good communication. Project completion is affirmed in both reviews — the shower repair was resolved correctly and the second reviewer noted work was completed efficiently — though the first review docks a point for a missed tiling appointment by a subcontractor. Experience is touched on only in the first review, where AX Plumbing successfully diagnosed and corrected a prior contractor's faulty drain seal and also addressed an additional kitchen faucet issue, suggesting solid technical competence. Pricing is not mentioned in either review, so no score can be assigned to that dimension. With only two reviews total, no WW Score can be reliably calculated.

• Only 2 reviews provided — minimum threshold of 3 reviews not met; WW Score cannot be calculated reliably.
• No pricing information mentioned in any review — that dimension carries no data.
• Sample size is too small to detect fake review patterns, but no obvious red flags of fabrication were observed; both reviews contain specific, credible details.
• Both reviews are from 2023 and fall within the past 12–18 months relative to a late-2024 evaluation window, so recency is acceptable but the dataset remains extremely limited.

This score report is based on only 2 reviews, which is insufficient to produce a reliable WW Score; all dimension scores should be treated as highly preliminary and low-confidence until more reviews are available.

With only 2 reviews, no reliable WW Score can be calculated. The most serious concern raised is a 1-star review explicitly alleging the contractor is unlicensed, made racist remarks, and falsely claimed veteran status — all of which are severe professionalism failures that heavily drag down that dimension. The single positive review is vague and generic, offering no specific detail about the work performed beyond that the problem was fixed and pricing was reasonable. The stark contrast between these two reviews, combined with the extremely small sample size, makes any scoring highly unreliable. Prospective customers should exercise significant caution until more verified reviews are available.

• CRITICAL: One review explicitly alleges the contractor is NOT a licensed plumber. If true, this is a serious legal and safety concern.
• CRITICAL: One review alleges blatant racist remarks were made — a severe professionalism and conduct violation.
• CRITICAL: One review alleges the contractor falsely claimed veteran status, suggesting potential dishonesty.
• INSUFFICIENT DATA: Only 2 reviews total. The WW Score cannot be calculated reliably with fewer than 3 reviews.
• The positive review is generic with no specific details about the work, technician, or job scope — low evidentiary value.
• The two reviews are in direct conflict with each other, making it impossible to establish a reliable performance baseline.

This score report has extremely low reliability due to only 2 reviews being available, one of which contains serious unverified allegations about licensing, conduct, and honesty — prospective customers should not rely on this data alone and are strongly advised to independently verify the contractor's license status before hiring.

Both reviews are highly positive and mention professional service, quick response times, and skilled technicians (Jeremy and Steve). However, the sample size is extremely small (only 2 reviews), both are from 2015–2017 (8+ years old), and neither review addresses pricing or value for money. The professionalism dimension is supported by mentions of quick scheduling, courteous communication, and professional demeanor. Project completion is evidenced by both jobs being resolved quickly and completely. Experience is reflected in the technicians' problem-solving speed and competence. The absence of recent reviews and lack of pricing data severely limits confidence in any overall score.

• CRITICAL: Only 2 reviews analyzed — insufficient data for reliable WW Score calculation per Rule 4 (minimum 3 reviews required).
• RECENCY ISSUE: Both reviews are 8+ years old (2015 and 2017). No recent data from past 12 months. Current service quality cannot be assessed.
• NO PRICING DATA: Neither review mentions cost, value, or pricing. Price Friendly dimension cannot be scored.
• SMALL SAMPLE BIAS: With only 2 reviews, any single negative review would dramatically shift scores. Results are not statistically meaningful.

This analysis cannot produce a reliable WW Score due to insufficient review volume (only 2 reviews, minimum 3 required) and extreme age of data (8+ years old with no recent reviews). Any score derived would be unreliable and should not be used for decision-making.

Both reviews speak positively about Corey's knowledge, efficiency, and communication, suggesting solid professionalism and technical competence. One review explicitly mentions his honesty and willingness to explain system functionality, which supports a reasonable experience score. Project completion is implied through the successful servicing of HVAC and plumbing systems, though no detail is given about scope, timelines, or follow-through. Pricing is entirely absent from both reviews, so no score can be assigned to that dimension. With only two reviews available, all scores carry very limited confidence and should not be treated as definitive.

• Only 2 reviews provided — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Both reviews are generic in nature with limited specific detail, which reduces confidence in all dimension scores.
• No pricing information mentioned in any review — that dimension scored null.
• Both reviews are 5-star ratings with broadly positive but non-specific language; while not conclusively fake, the lack of detail warrants caution.

This score report is based on only 2 reviews and should be considered highly preliminary — far more review data is needed before any meaningful conclusions can be drawn about this contractor's overall performance.