Find Nearby Plumbers In Newark, New Jersey

Only two reviews exist for this contractor, making any scoring highly tentative. Both reviews speak positively to professionalism — mentioning promptness, communication, reliability, and availability for emergencies. Project completion is implied through references to fast service and follow-through on repairs, though no detailed job descriptions are provided. Experience receives a conservative score based on a single vague reference to quality of work. Pricing is entirely unmentioned across both reviews, leaving that dimension with no data.

• Only 2 reviews total — far below the minimum threshold for a reliable WW Score.
• One review is from 2017 (over 7 years old) and should be weighted significantly less than the 2024 review.
• Both reviews are brief and lack specific job details, which limits the ability to verify authenticity and depth of experience.
• Generic praise with minimal specifics raises mild concern about review depth, though no clear fake review pattern is confirmed with only 2 samples.

This score should not be trusted for decision-making purposes — with only 2 reviews, one of which is over 7 years old, there is insufficient data to form a reliable picture of this contractor's performance.

With only 2 reviews analyzed, the sample size is insufficient to calculate a reliable WW Score. Review 1 (Dec 2020) reveals severe professionalism and project completion failures: miscommunication between coordinator and technician, unmet warranty promises, and failure to deliver promised corrective paperwork. Review 2 (Jul 2020) praises upfront pricing and technician quality but provides minimal detail. The stark contradiction between these reviews and their age (both over 3 years old) prevents confident scoring.

• INSUFFICIENT DATA: Only 2 reviews provided. Minimum 3 reviews required for reliable WW Score calculation.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Both reviews are from 2020 (3+ years old). No recent data available to assess current performance.
• CONFLICTING SIGNALS: Review 1 describes serious coordination and follow-through failures; Review 2 is generic praise with minimal specifics. Cannot reconcile without additional data.
• LIMITED DETAIL: Review 2 lacks substantive information about actual work quality or specific professionalism examples.

This analysis cannot produce a trustworthy WW Score due to insufficient review volume (n=2) and complete absence of recent data. Any score calculated would be unreliable and should not be used for decision-making.

Both available reviews are strongly negative and paint a consistent picture of a contractor with serious deficiencies across all dimensions. Professionalism scored near zero due to explicit reports of no-shows, failure to return to complete work, and alleged deception about service capabilities. Project completion is the most critically impacted dimension, with one reviewer describing a cascade of plumbing failures on the first night after service — leaking toilet, incorrect valve installation, non-functional pressure and temperature gauges — and another describing weeks of failed scheduling attempts and an unfinished job. Experience is also called into serious question, with one reviewer explicitly stating the workers 'had no idea what they were doing,' resulting in water damage to new construction. Pricing received a marginally higher score only because one reviewer mentioned a deposit dispute, suggesting some financial transaction occurred, but the context of potential fraud and court action makes this deeply negative. All scores are based on only two reviews, so while the signal is unambiguously negative, the WW Score cannot be reliably calculated with fewer than three reviews.

• INSUFFICIENT REVIEW COUNT: Only 2 reviews were provided. A minimum of 3 is required to calculate a reliable WW Score.
• RECENCY CONCERN: One review dates from 2015 (over 9 years ago) and one from 2021 (over 3 years ago). Neither falls within the past 12 months. Current performance cannot be assessed from this data.
• SEVERE QUALITY CONCERNS: Both reviews are 1-star and describe serious failures including water damage, abandoned jobs, and alleged deception — these are not minor complaints.
• POTENTIAL FRAUD INDICATOR: One reviewer explicitly alleges the contractor lied about their ability to perform a service and may have taken a deposit without intent or ability to complete the work. Legal action was mentioned.
• NO POSITIVE SIGNAL DETECTED: There are zero positive reviews in this dataset. Any score above zero reflects only the theoretical floor of the scale, not any actual positive evidence.

This score report has very low reliability due to the critically small sample size of only 2 reviews, the age of both reviews (none within the past 12 months), and the absence of any positive data points — however, the directional signal is unambiguously negative and should be treated as a serious warning.

With only two reviews spanning a wide date range (2016 to 2019), the data is extremely limited and contradictory. The positive review praises professionalism, reliability, and fair pricing, while the negative review describes two no-shows, no communication, and an unreachable phone line — serious professionalism and project completion failures. The conflicting signals drag professionalism and project completion scores down significantly, as a no-show pattern is a critical service failure. No reviews speak to technical skill or workmanship quality, so experience cannot be scored at all.

• Only 2 reviews total — insufficient to calculate a reliable WW Score.
• The two reviews are directly contradictory, making it impossible to establish a reliable pattern.
• The most recent review is from 2019, meaning all data is over 4 years old and may not reflect current business practices.
• The negative review describes a no-show pattern and unreachable contact — a significant red flag for reliability.
• Pricing score is based on a single mention and should be treated with very low confidence.

This score report cannot be considered reliable due to only 2 reviews, directly opposing feedback, and all data being more than 4 years old — prospective customers should seek more current and numerous reviews before making a hiring decision.

Both reviews paint a generally positive picture of Alex's work, with particular praise for his technical knowledge — notably his decision to properly size a boiler replacement rather than default to a like-for-like swap, which saved the customer money on both purchase and energy costs. Punctuality and responsiveness were noted positively in both reviews. However, the second review docks marks for a cleanup failure after cutting an access hole in a basement wall, indicating a lapse in professionalism and job-site care. Pricing was described as fair or money-saving in both reviews, supporting a solid but not exceptional pricing score. With only two reviews, all scores carry very low confidence and should be treated as preliminary indicators only.

• Only 2 reviews provided — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Review dates span 2016 to 2020 — both reviews are older than 4 years and neither falls within the past 12 months. Recency weighting is a concern; these reviews may not reflect current performance.
• Small sample size makes it impossible to detect fake review patterns or establish reliable trends.

This score report is based on only 2 reviews, both of which are over 4 years old, making it insufficient to reliably assess this contractor's current quality or consistency.

Only two reviews exist, making any scoring highly unreliable. The negative review describes two consecutive no-shows and zero communication, which is a serious professionalism and project completion failure. The positive review praises a fast emergency response and quality workmanship, but it is from 2014 and carries limited weight given its age. The two reviews directly contradict each other, and with only one data point per positive dimension, no confident conclusions can be drawn. Pricing was never mentioned in either review.

• Only 2 reviews total — far below the minimum threshold of 3 for a reliable WW Score.
• Both reviews are older than 1 year (2014 and 2017) — no recent data available to assess current performance.
• The two reviews are in direct conflict: one describes a complete service failure with repeated no-shows, the other describes excellent emergency service. This contradiction cannot be resolved with so few data points.
• The positive review is from 2014 — over 10 years old — and should be treated with very low recency weight.
• No pricing information was mentioned in any review.

This score report is not reliable and should not be used to make hiring decisions — only 2 reviews were available, both are outdated, and they directly contradict each other.