Find Nearby Plumbers In New Brunswick, New Jersey

Both reviews speak positively about Andre Plumbing and Heating across multiple dimensions. Professionalism is supported by mentions of responsiveness, pleasant staff, clear communication, and cleanliness on the job site. Pricing is explicitly called out as fair in both reviews, with one reviewer noting they shopped around before choosing this contractor. Project completion is implied through successful job delivery but lacks detail on timelines or callbacks, keeping that score conservative. Experience is reflected in praise for diagnosing and explaining problems and working quickly and efficiently, though specifics on technical complexity are limited.

• Only 2 reviews are available — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per scoring rules requiring a minimum of 3 reviews.
• One review is from 2021, which is over 3 years old and carries reduced recency weight.
• Both reviews are 5-star with generally positive language; while not conclusively fake, the small sample size prevents meaningful pattern analysis for fake review detection.
• All dimension scores should be treated as highly provisional given the extremely limited review base.

This score profile is based on only 2 reviews spanning over 2 years, making it insufficient for a reliable WW Score — all dimension scores carry LIMITED confidence and should not be used as a strong indicator of contractor quality without additional review data.

Only one review is available for analysis, which is insufficient to calculate a reliable WW Score. The single review mentions responsiveness (called and got help within hours), fair pricing (great price), and quality workmanship (top quality, guaranteed service). However, with only one data point, no dimension has adequate mention count to establish confidence, and project completion is not addressed at all.

• Insufficient review volume: only 1 review analyzed. Minimum 3 reviews required for reliable scoring.
• Generic praise language ('top quality', 'guaranteed service') with limited specific detail about actual work performed.
• No explicit mention of project completion, timeliness, or follow-through on callbacks.

This score cannot be calculated reliably due to insufficient data (fewer than 3 reviews). A minimum of 3 independent reviews is required to produce a trustworthy WW Score.

Only a single review is available, which describes a contractor who was unable to complete a leaky shower repair — a relatively standard plumbing task. The reviewer ultimately had to do the job themselves, indicating a clear failure in both project completion and demonstrated experience. No information was provided about professionalism, communication, pricing, or punctuality, so those dimensions cannot be scored. The reviewer offered a charitable interpretation that the contractor may specialize elsewhere, but this does not offset the documented inability to complete the job.

• Only 1 review available — WW Score cannot be reliably calculated per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• No data on professionalism or pricing — two of the four scoring dimensions are entirely unscored.
• Low-detail review limits scoring precision; scores for project_completion and experience are conservative estimates based on minimal evidence.
• Review is from 2022 — over 2 years old at time of analysis; may not reflect current contractor capability.

This score report is based on a single review with very limited detail and should not be considered a reliable assessment of this contractor's overall quality or capabilities.

Only a single review is available for analysis, which severely limits the reliability of any scoring. The reviewer describes the contractor as 'highly professional and meticulous,' supporting modest scores for professionalism and experience, though no specific details or examples are provided. Pricing is noted as 'very fair,' warranting a conservative positive score. Project completion is entirely unaddressed in the review, so no score can be assigned. With only one review from 2018 — over six years ago — recency is a significant concern and further reduces confidence in these findings.

• Only 1 review available — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Review is dated April 2018, making it over 6 years old. This data is significantly outdated and may not reflect current contractor performance.
• Review language is generic and lacks specific detail (no job type, no description of work performed, no elaboration on what made pricing fair). This limits the ability to validate claims.
• Project Completion dimension has no data and could not be scored.

This score report is based on a single, generic, and heavily dated review — it should not be trusted as a reliable indicator of this contractor's current quality or consistency.

Insufficient data — only 1 review analyzed. The single review explicitly mentions responsiveness, customer focus, and team preparedness/thoroughness (professionalism and experience dimensions), but provides no information about pricing, project completion, timeliness, or specific workmanship quality. No WW Score can be reliably calculated with fewer than 3 reviews.

• Only 1 review provided — minimum 3 reviews required for reliable WW Score calculation
• Review is from March 2021 (3+ years old) — recency is a concern
• Review is generic praise with no specific project details, completion timeline, or pricing information
• No negative or critical feedback present — cannot assess balance or authenticity

This analysis cannot produce a trustworthy WW Score. A minimum of 3 reviews is required; only 1 review was provided. Any scoring would be unreliable and should not be used for decision-making.

Only a single review is available, dated July 2016, making this data over 8 years old and of very limited reliability. The reviewer noted punctuality, follow-through on promises, and post-job cleanup, which positively informs professionalism and project completion. Pricing was described as 'very decent,' suggesting fair value. No information was provided regarding technical skill or workmanship quality, so the Experience dimension cannot be scored. All scores are conservative due to the single-review basis and the age of the data.

• Only 1 review analyzed — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• The sole review is dated July 2016, making it over 8 years old. Current performance cannot be inferred from this data.
• Experience dimension has no data and cannot be scored.
• All dimension scores carry LIMITED confidence and should not be treated as representative of actual contractor quality.

This score is not reliable — it is based on a single review from 2016, and no meaningful conclusions about current contractor performance can be drawn.