Find Nearby Plumbers In Union City, New Jersey

Only a single review is available, making any scoring highly tentative. The reviewer notes the job was completed in one hour and describes the service as fast and reliable, supporting a modest project completion score. Friendliness and advice-giving suggest reasonable professionalism, though no specifics about punctuality, communication, or appearance are provided. Technical experience is implied by the successful heater repair but not described in any detail. Pricing is entirely unmentioned and cannot be scored.

• Only 1 review analyzed — far below the minimum threshold of 3 required for a reliable WW Score.
• Review is from September 2013, making it over 10 years old. This data is significantly outdated and should be weighted very low.
• Review is generic in nature with no specific details about the technician, scope of work, or pricing — limits scoring confidence across all dimensions.
• Single 5-star review with brief, non-specific praise may not be representative of consistent service quality.

This WW Score cannot be calculated reliably due to insufficient review volume (1 review) and the extreme age of the sole review (2013), meaning no meaningful conclusions about current service quality can be drawn.

Only a single review from 2013 is available, making any meaningful scoring nearly impossible. The one dimension with any data is pricing, where the reviewer briefly noted 'the prices were great,' warranting a conservative score of 80 given the vague, undetailed praise. No information was provided about professionalism, project completion, or experience, so those dimensions cannot be scored. The review is over 10 years old, significantly reducing its relevance to current performance.

• Only 1 review provided — far below the minimum threshold of 3 reviews needed for a reliable WW Score.
• Review is dated 2013-08-22, making it over 10 years old. This data is severely outdated and should not be used to assess current contractor quality.
• Pricing praise is generic ('prices were great') with no specific figures or context, limiting confidence in even that single data point.
• No mention of whether the job was actually completed, which is a significant gap in usable information.

This score report is not reliable — it is based on a single, decade-old review with minimal detail, and a WW Score cannot be responsibly calculated from this data.

Only a single review was provided, making any scoring highly unreliable. The review mentions a quick response and efficient service, which loosely supports professionalism and project completion dimensions, but provides no specific detail about punctuality, communication, workmanship quality, or pricing. The language is vague and generic, offering very little actionable signal. No data exists for pricing or experience dimensions whatsoever.

• Only 1 review analyzed — far below the minimum threshold of 3 required for a reliable WW Score.
• Review is dated 2013-12-12, making it over 10 years old. This data is significantly outdated and should be given minimal weight.
• Review language is generic and lacks specific details (no names, no description of the actual job, no mention of cost or workmanship), which is consistent with low-quality or potentially inauthentic review patterns.
• Insufficient data to calculate a WW Score — result returned as qualitative notice only.

This score report cannot be considered reliable in any meaningful way — it is based on a single, decade-old review with vague language and no coverage of key dimensions such as pricing or experience.

Only a single review is available, dated January 2013, making any scoring highly conservative and unreliable. The reviewer praises promptness, friendliness, and directness, which supports a modest professionalism score. The heating problem appears to have been resolved, supporting a modest project completion score. Some technical competence is implied by the successful fix, but no specific detail is provided to justify a high experience score. Pricing is not mentioned at all and cannot be scored.

• Only 1 review available — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Review is from January 2013, over 10 years old — recency weighting severely penalizes reliability of this data.
• Review is generic in nature with limited specifics (no detail on what was fixed, how, or at what cost), reducing confidence across all scored dimensions.
• Single 5-star review with no corroborating reviews — cannot rule out selection bias or isolated positive experience.

This score should not be trusted for decision-making purposes — it is based on a single, decade-old review with no pricing data and insufficient detail to validate workmanship or consistency.

This single review paints a strongly negative picture across multiple dimensions. The reviewer explicitly calls out rude behavior from a named staff member, directly impacting the professionalism score. Pricing is flagged as a concern, with the reviewer suggesting the business pushes high-priced systems. Project completion suffers due to the complaint that post-sale support was withheld and the company gave the customer the runaround rather than honoring manufacturer-level support obligations. Experience could not be scored as no commentary was made about technical skill or workmanship quality.

• Only 1 review available — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably with fewer than 3 reviews.
• Review is from 2018, making it over 6 years old. Recency rule applies — this data may not reflect current business practices.
• No positive reviews present to balance assessment. All scores are based on a single negative data point and should be treated with extreme caution.

This score is highly unreliable due to a single review from 2018; no meaningful conclusions about this contractor's overall quality can be drawn from this data alone.

This single review is severely negative across all four dimensions. The contractor demonstrated deeply unprofessional behavior, including proceeding with work without customer consent, refusing to provide invoices, and allegedly destroying completed work when a payment dispute arose. Pricing transparency was absent — charges of $650, $700, and an additional $600 were applied sequentially with no upfront agreement. Project completion failed entirely, as the original heating issue remained unresolved after $1,350 in payments. The technical experience dimension also scores near zero, as the contractor misdiagnosed the issue initially, failed to detect a gas leak during the first visit, and may have caused a new hot water failure during the second visit.

• Only 1 review is available — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably with fewer than 3 reviews.
• This review is dated 2018-11-13, making it over 6 years old. It may not reflect the contractor's current quality or practices.
• The review describes potentially dangerous behavior: a gas leak was not identified on the initial visit, and the contractor allegedly vandalized their own work during a payment dispute. These are serious safety and conduct concerns.
• No positive or neutral reviews are present to provide balance. Score is based entirely on one highly negative account.

This score is based on a single review from 2018 and should be treated with very low statistical confidence — it reflects one customer's experience only and cannot be considered representative of the contractor's overall performance.