Find Nearby Plumbers In Omaha, Nebraska

With only two reviews, this contractor presents a deeply contradictory picture. The 1-star review describes a severe failure across nearly every dimension: abandoned work, broken promises over 10 months, ruined materials worth $1,200, refusal to communicate, and ultimately blocking the customer. The 5-star review describes a positive Sunday plumbing visit with thorough work, fair pricing, and good cleanup. The scores are heavily dragged down by the 1-star review, which contains extensive, specific, and credible detail about project abandonment and unprofessional conduct. The positive review, while genuine-seeming, covers a single plumbing call and cannot offset the severity of the negative account.

• Only 2 reviews total — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold rules.
• The two reviews describe radically different experiences, suggesting inconsistent service quality or possibly different types of jobs (painting vs. plumbing).
• The 1-star review is highly detailed and credible, describing a 10-month pattern of non-performance, broken promises, ruined materials, and the contractor blocking the customer — this is a serious red flag.
• The contractor appears to operate across multiple trades (painting, plumbing, remodeling), which may indicate lack of specialization and contributes to inconsistent outcomes.
• The negative review is from August 2022 and the positive review from January 2022 — both are over 2 years old, limiting recency relevance.
• No reviews from the past 12 months are present — current performance cannot be assessed.

This score is highly unreliable due to the critically low review count of 2, the stark contradiction between the two reviews, and the age of all available data — no hiring decision should be made based on this report alone.

With only two reviews, the data is highly polarized and insufficient for reliable scoring. The negative review describes a serious professionalism failure — a no-show after a confirmed appointment with no follow-up communication — which heavily drags down professionalism and project completion scores. The positive review praises friendliness, problem diagnosis, a completed fix, and reasonable pricing, providing the only positive signals across all dimensions. The stark contrast between these two reviews makes it impossible to establish a trustworthy pattern. All scores should be treated with extreme caution given the minimal sample size.

• Only 2 reviews analyzed — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Both reviews are from 2019, meaning all data is over 5 years old. This contractor's current quality and reliability are entirely unknown.
• The negative review describes a complete no-show with zero follow-up communication, which is a serious professionalism and reliability red flag.
• The two reviews are diametrically opposed (1-star vs 5-star), indicating high variance and unpredictability in service quality.
• Recency concern: No reviews from the past 12 months are present. This score should not be used to assess current performance.

This score is not reliable — it is based on only 2 reviews from over 5 years ago, with extreme rating variance, and should not be used to make a hiring decision without seeking additional, more recent references.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. The two reviews provided do not evaluate the contractor's work quality, professionalism in service delivery, pricing practices, project completion, or technical experience. Both reviews describe payment disputes and non-payment of bills to service providers, which are character and business conduct issues rather than assessments of the contractor's actual plumbing or workmanship services. No usable data exists to score any of the four WW dimensions.

• CRITICAL: These reviews describe the contractor as a customer who failed to pay service providers, not as a service provider being evaluated. This is fundamentally different from contractor performance reviews.
• Both reviews are extremely negative (1-star ratings) and focus exclusively on payment disputes and alleged avoidance of financial obligations.
• No information provided about the contractor's actual work quality, punctuality, communication, pricing of services offered, project completion, or technical skill.
• Oldest review dates to 2019 (4+ years old); most recent is 2023 (1+ year old). Both are outside typical recency window.
• Cannot assess whether these reviews are legitimate or represent actual service experiences, as they do not describe any service work performed.

This WW Score cannot be calculated. The reviews provided do not contain evaluable data about contractor performance across any of the four dimensions. A minimum of 3 reviews with substantive information about actual service delivery, workmanship, professionalism, pricing, or project completion is required to produce a reliable WW Score.

This single review paints a strongly positive picture across all four dimensions. Professionalism is well-supported by explicit mentions of polite communication, check-ins, integrity, and oversight. Pricing is addressed directly through the reviewer noting Hugo respected their budget and provided value for services. Project completion is supported by references to excellent timing and satisfactory workmanship outcomes. Experience is implied through references to keen oversight, research involvement, and quality of workmanship, though no highly technical detail is provided. All scores are held conservative due to the extremely limited sample size of one review.

• Only 1 review analyzed — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• With a single 5-star review, there is no way to assess consistency, pattern of performance, or detect outliers.
• The review is positive but somewhat generic in places (e.g., 'professional service, integrity') — specificity is present but limited. No fake review pattern detected, though sample is too small to assess.
• Review is from June 2024, which is within the past 12 months and therefore carries full recency weight, but this cannot compensate for the lack of volume.

This score report is based on a single review and should be considered highly unreliable as a representation of overall contractor performance — seek additional reviews before making any hiring decision.

Only one review is available, making any scoring highly tentative. The reviewer explicitly praised the quality and speed of work (cabinet hanging and shower head replacement), suggesting competent workmanship and solid project follow-through. Pricing was noted as 'very reasonable,' supporting a modest positive score in that dimension. Professionalism was not directly addressed — punctuality, communication, and attitude were not mentioned — so no score was assigned there. All scores are conservative given the single-review basis.

• Only 1 review analyzed — far below the minimum threshold of 3 required for a reliable WW Score.
• Single review with no specifics on professionalism (punctuality, communication, responsiveness) — that dimension could not be scored.
• With only one data point, there is no way to assess consistency of performance over time.
• No review dates beyond this single October 2024 entry — recency is not a concern here, but volume is critically low.

This score report should not be trusted as a reliable indicator of contractor quality — only one review exists, providing far too little data to draw meaningful conclusions about any dimension.

Only one review exists for this business, and it describes a deeply alarming experience involving a fraudulent transaction on Facebook Marketplace. The reviewer paid via PayPal, received no tracking or shipment information, and was subsequently blocked by the seller. No contractor or plumbing work is described, making most trade-specific dimensions unscoreable. The single review is an explicit fraud allegation, which severely impacts professionalism and project completion scores.

• CRITICAL: The sole review alleges outright fraud — the reviewer paid for a purchase and was blocked with no delivery or follow-up. This is a scam allegation, not a service quality complaint.
• Only 1 review is available. Per scoring rules, fewer than 3 reviews means a reliable WW Score cannot be calculated.
• This review does not describe any plumbing or contracting work. The business may be operating outside its listed trade category, or this listing may be misattributed.
• Pricing, experience, and most professionalism sub-factors cannot be scored due to complete absence of relevant data.
• Recency note: The single review is from April 2022, which is more than 1 year old. No recent reviews are available to assess current business behavior.

This score report is based on a single fraud-allegation review with no trade-specific content, making it entirely unreliable as a measure of contractor or plumbing quality — exercise extreme caution before engaging this business.