Find Nearby Plumbers In Broken Arrow, Oklahoma

This contractor demonstrates solid professionalism with consistent punctuality, cleanliness, and courteous service across multiple reviews. However, pricing practices are a significant concern, with multiple detailed accounts of overbilling on labor hours and questionable charges. Project completion is generally reliable, though one review indicates a recurring issue requiring multiple callbacks. Technical skill appears competent, but the pattern of billing discrepancies undermines overall trustworthiness. The WW Score of 76.8 reflects strong execution offset by serious pricing transparency issues.

• CRITICAL: Multiple reviews (2012-2013) document systematic overbilling patterns—charging for hours not worked and inflating service charges. This is a recurring complaint, not isolated.
• RECENCY CONCERN: 7 of 9 reviews are older than 7 years (2006-2013). Only 2 reviews from 2017 and earlier. Recent performance data is extremely limited.
• INCONSISTENCY: Positive reviews lack detail and mention nothing about pricing. Negative reviews are highly detailed and specific about billing fraud. This asymmetry suggests selective reporting or that pricing issues may have been endemic.
• PROJECT COMPLETION: One review (2012) explicitly states work failed within days, requiring multiple callbacks and eventual discovery of root cause by owner. This suggests initial diagnostic or execution problems.

This score should be treated with caution due to extreme age of most reviews (7+ years old) and a clear pattern of documented billing disputes that were not resolved satisfactorily. The contractor may have changed practices, but current performance data is insufficient to confirm improvement.

Horizon Plumbing demonstrates strong technical expertise and reasonable pricing, with multiple reviews praising skilled workmanship and fair costs. Professionalism is generally solid, with punctuality and communication highlighted in several recent reviews. However, project completion reliability is significantly undermined by critical failures: a 2024 review documents complete no-show after multiple confirmations, and a 2023 review details incomplete work, installation errors, and defensive behavior when questioned. These serious incidents substantially lower overall confidence despite numerous positive historical reviews.

• FAKE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: Reviews from 2012-2015 contain 4 entries with minimal or no text ('unknown', '.') rated 5.0 stars with no substantive content. These appear to be placeholder or fraudulent entries and reduce confidence in historical data.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most detailed positive reviews are from 2012-2020 (8+ years old). Recent reviews (2024, 2023) show severe service failures including no-show and incomplete work with unprofessional responses.
• BUSINESS CONTINUITY ISSUE: February 2024 review indicates business may be closed or non-responsive ('no answer from business for weeks now'), which contradicts the July 2024 review showing active operations. This suggests possible operational instability.
• CRITICAL SERVICE FAILURES: July 2024 review documents failed appointment with poor communication protocol (unknown caller, text with 5-minute response demand). March 2023 review documents incomplete installation, wrong materials, installation blocking driveway, and aggressive customer interaction ('KNOCK IT OFF MAN').

This score should be treated with caution. While historical reviews suggest competent work, recent critical failures in project completion and professionalism (2023-2024), combined with detected fake reviews in the dataset and apparent business continuity issues, significantly undermine confidence in current service reliability. The WW Score reflects a business in apparent decline from its historical reputation.

Phelps Plumbing has a clearly split reputation: the majority of positive reviews praise fair pricing, professional demeanor, quality workmanship, and good communication, while two significant negative reviews describe no-shows and complete failure to follow up — serious reliability failures that materially drag down the professionalism and project completion scores. Pricing is the strongest dimension, with multiple reviewers independently noting below-market rates and even a case where the plumber charged less than the estimate. However, the two no-show incidents (one in 2023, one in 2024) represent a pattern of punctuality and reliability problems that cannot be dismissed as isolated. Experience scores reasonably well based on specific descriptions of quality work, but the overall picture is one of inconsistency rather than consistent excellence.

• Two separate reviews (April 2024 and November 2023) describe complete no-shows with no follow-up communication — this is a recurring reliability pattern, not a one-off incident.
• Several older reviews (2019 and earlier) reference different technicians by name (Patrick, Tino), suggesting the business may have changed staffing or structure; these reviews may not reflect current service quality.
• The oldest review (2013) is over 10 years old and was given reduced weight in scoring.
• Reviews from 2019 and earlier were deprioritized in favor of 2023–2024 reviews per recency rules; the more recent reviews show a more mixed picture than the older ones.
• No strong fake review patterns detected — reviews vary in length, detail, and rating, and negative reviews are specific and credible.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability: the review count is low (13 total), the most recent reviews reveal a concerning no-show pattern that contrasts with older positive reviews, and the presence of multiple named technicians suggests the business may not deliver consistent quality across all jobs.

Adney Plumbing generally receives positive feedback across all four dimensions, with reviewers noting professional conduct, quality workmanship, and completed jobs. However, the detailed 4-star review raises notable concerns about internal communication failures — including a lost service request, undisclosed distance surcharges, and a final bill significantly exceeding the upper estimate — which tempers the professionalism and pricing scores. Project completion is solid, with jobs finished and callbacks honored, including a warranty return for a faulty valve. Pricing is mixed: one reviewer praised costs as 50% less than competitors, while another felt blindsided by undisclosed fees. All reviews are from 2013–2017, meaning no data exists from the past several years, which significantly limits the reliability of this score.

• ALL REVIEWS ARE OUTDATED: The most recent review is from December 2017 — over 7 years ago. This score should not be treated as reflective of current business quality.
• SMALL SAMPLE SIZE: Only 5 reviews total. Scores are based on limited data and should be interpreted with caution.
• COMMUNICATION ISSUES NOTED: One detailed review explicitly flagged a lost service request, undisclosed travel surcharges, and a final bill $240 above the upper estimate — these are concrete negative signals, not minor complaints.
• ONE REVIEW HAS NO USABLE DETAIL: The review stating only 'came same day I called' contributes a single data point on responsiveness but provides no meaningful scoring data for most dimensions.

This WW Score carries LOW overall reliability due to a very small review sample (5 reviews), all of which are more than 7 years old, making it unsuitable as a current indicator of contractor quality without more recent customer feedback.

Only 2 of the 4 reviews contained usable text; the remaining 2 are marked 'unknown' and provide no scorable information. The two substantive reviews, both from 2012 and 2013, paint a consistently positive picture of a professional, courteous, and punctual team that completed multi-faceted plumbing projects fully and on time. Professionalism scores highest due to explicit mentions of friendliness, courtesy, punctuality, and repeat patronage. Project completion is also strong, with one reviewer describing complex work including toilet relocation and pipe rerouting that was carried through successfully. Pricing was never mentioned in any review, so that dimension cannot be scored. All scores are treated conservatively given the very small sample size and the age of the data.

• 2 of 4 reviews have no text content (listed as 'unknown') and could not be analyzed for any dimension.
• All usable reviews are over 10 years old (2012 and 2013). This data is significantly outdated and may not reflect current service quality.
• Sample size is extremely small (2 usable reviews). The WW Score should be treated as highly provisional.
• No pricing information was mentioned in any review; the Pricing dimension is entirely unscored.

This WW Score carries very low reliability due to only 2 usable reviews, both more than a decade old, with no pricing data and no recent evidence of service quality.

Bill-Co Plumbing receives consistently positive feedback across professionalism, experience, and project completion, with reviewers highlighting punctuality, focus on the job, honesty, and reliability. Pricing is mentioned favorably in two reviews, with one noting Bill advises customers on cost-cutting measures and another referencing reasonable costs, though the limited mentions keep confidence low for that dimension. Project completion is supported by references to work being done correctly and follow-through without adding unexpected charges. However, all reviews are significantly dated — the most recent is from 2015 and the majority are from 2010–2014 — which substantially limits the reliability of this score for assessing current performance. The one review with unknown text was excluded from scoring.

• ALL reviews are older than 9 years (most recent: September 2015). This score reflects historical performance only and should not be treated as indicative of current service quality.
• One review contained no usable text ('unknown') and was excluded from all dimension scoring.
• The review from 2013-03-01 is generic and provides no specific detail ('came in and took care of it'), contributing minimal scoring value.
• All ratings are 5.0 stars with no negative or mixed feedback present. While not conclusively fake, the uniformity warrants caution — though the reviews do contain varied and specific language suggesting they are likely genuine.
• Total usable review count is only 5, which is below the threshold for high-confidence scoring across any dimension.

This WW Score carries LIMITED overall reliability due to the small number of reviews, the complete absence of any recent reviews (all predating 2016), and the lack of pricing and completion data depth — prospective customers should seek current references before making a hiring decision.