Find Nearby Plumbers In Edmond, Oklahoma

Fairway Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism across punctuality, communication, and courteous service, with 89 mentions supporting an 87.5 score. Pricing is consistently praised as fair and transparent with 42 mentions yielding an 84.0 score. Project completion shows the most variability (76.5 score, 58 mentions), with several older reviews citing follow-through issues, missed callbacks, and incomplete work, though recent reviews are predominantly positive. Experience and technical skill are well-documented (85.0 score, 51 mentions) with customers praising Derek and team members' knowledge and workmanship quality. The company's overall WW Score of 82.3 reflects strong execution in professionalism and pricing, tempered by historical project completion concerns.

• RECENCY BIAS: Approximately 70% of reviews are from 2024-2025 (past 12 months), while 8 negative reviews cluster in 2010-2014. Recent reviews are overwhelmingly 5-star positive, suggesting either significant company improvement or potential selection bias in recent feedback.
• NEGATIVE REVIEW PATTERN: Eight 1-star reviews (2010-2014) describe serious issues: incomplete work, poor follow-through, missed appointments, lack of communication, and alleged dishonesty. These are detailed and credible but are 10+ years old. One 2021 review (1-star) mentions mask refusal during COVID.
• OUTLIER REVIEWS: Two 4-star reviews (2020, 2016) cite pricing concerns or minor process issues but acknowledge quality work. One 3-star review (2011) mentions cancellation due to rain with poor notice timing. One 3-star review (2010) describes installation issues requiring follow-up.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW MARKERS: Multiple reviews from 2024-06-09 (same date, 8 reviews) with similar phrasing praising Derek specifically. However, these contain specific job details (water heater, toilet, repipe, etc.) and vary in language enough to appear legitimate rather than templated.
• DEREK CONCENTRATION: Derek is named in approximately 35+ reviews spanning 2012-2025, suggesting he is the primary/owner operator. His consistent positive mentions support reliability, but company-wide consistency may depend heavily on this one person.
• INSTALLATION VS. PLUMBING MIX: Approximately 25-30 reviews involve Lowe's appliance installations (dishwashers, ranges, microwaves, water heaters via Lowe's), which may not reflect core plumbing competency. These are generally positive but represent a different service line.

This WW Score of 82.3 is reliable for assessing current performance (2024-2025) with HIGH confidence, as recent reviews are numerous, detailed, and consistently positive across all dimensions. However, the score should be interpreted cautiously for long-term reliability: historical reviews (2010-2014) reveal serious project completion and communication failures that are no longer evident, suggesting either genuine company transformation or a shift in customer base. The heavy reliance on Derek as the primary technician introduces concentration risk. For customers seeking plumbing services, recent track record is strong; for those evaluating long-term stability and company-wide consistency, older concerns warrant acknowledgment.

This contractor demonstrates strong performance across all four dimensions based on available reviews. Professionalism is evidenced by punctuality and politeness across multiple engagements. Pricing is consistently described as fair and reasonable with no hidden charges. Project completion is solid with jobs finished promptly and follow-through honored. Experience is reflected in quality workmanship and trustworthiness. However, the overall confidence is MODERATE because the sample size is small (5 reviews) and all reviews are uniformly 5-star with generic praise, which limits the depth of evidence.

• All 5 reviews are 5-star ratings with no critical feedback or specifics about challenges — this uniformity is atypical and suggests potential selection bias or fake review patterns
• Review dates span 2013–2021 (8 years), with most reviews older than 3 years; only 1 review from past 12 months limits recency assessment
• Sample size is very small (n=5); scores should be treated as preliminary and updated as more recent reviews accumulate
• Generic praise language ('AMAZING', 'highly recommend', 'man of his word') without specific technical details reduces confidence in authenticity

This WW Score of 88.3 should be treated as preliminary due to small sample size, age of most reviews, and uniformly positive ratings with limited specificity. The score is directionally positive but requires additional recent reviews to establish reliable confidence.

Courtesy Plumbing earns strong marks across professionalism, project completion, and technical experience, with an enormous volume of reviews consistently praising punctuality, communication, friendliness, and thorough workmanship from named technicians like Lou, Jack, Jason, Sami, Aaron, Richard, and others. Project completion scores are high, with the vast majority of reviewers confirming jobs were finished correctly, on time, and with proper cleanup, though a small number of reviews describe abandoned follow-through, missed appointments, or work that required callbacks. The pricing dimension is the most contested dimension in the entire review set, with a meaningful cluster of negative reviews explicitly citing overcharging, hidden fees, price inflation, and quotes far above competitors — this materially drags the pricing score down from what would otherwise be a higher overall result. Negative reviews (1-star) account for roughly 8-10% of the total corpus and are specific enough in their complaints (late arrivals, excessive billing, incomplete diagnosis, poor communication on follow-up) to be treated as credible rather than outliers. The WW Score of 79.4 reflects a genuinely strong but imperfect contractor with a well-documented pricing inconsistency problem.

• PRICING CONCERN — HIGH FREQUENCY: A statistically significant number of reviews (approximately 12-15 distinct reviews) explicitly describe pricing as excessive, inconsistent, or containing hidden fees. Complaints include quotes of $850-$900 for jobs completed by others for $300-$450, a $6,800 tankless water heater quote vs. a $2,000 competitor price, $575 for a faucet replacement vs. $260 elsewhere, and $400/hr effective labor rates. This is not a fringe complaint and materially affects the pricing score.
• BLANK REVIEWS — DATA QUALITY: Approximately 20-25 reviews consist of a star rating only with no review text. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence per scoring rules. All were 5-star ratings, which slightly inflates the raw star average but cannot be used to support any dimension score.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews with substantive text span 2013 to June 2025. Reviews from 2020 onward dominate the corpus and were weighted more heavily. Older reviews (pre-2018) were noted but given reduced weight. The most recent reviews (2025) continue to reflect the same patterns as the broader corpus.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW FLAG — LOW CONFIDENCE: One review dated 2024-07-29 (1-star) uses highly generic complaint language covering every possible failure mode simultaneously (late, unskilled, overcharged, unresponsive) with no specific technician name, job type, or verifiable detail. This review pattern is consistent with a fabricated negative review. It was included in scoring but flagged for reduced weight.
• ABANDONED WORK / FOLLOW-THROUGH FAILURES: Multiple 1-star reviews describe specific failures of follow-through — a technician who agreed to a job then never called back over 3 weeks (Dec 2023), a missed appointment with no notice (Oct 2015), a job accepted that the company lacked equipment to complete (Dec 2023 Scottsdale review), and a billing dispute where the owner was unresponsive. These are credible and specific and were factored into the project completion score.
• GEOGRAPHIC SCOPE NOTE: A small number of reviews appear to reference locations outside San Diego (Aurora IL, Scottsdale AZ, Naperville IL, Covina CA, Rancho Cucamonga CA, Phoenix AZ). It is unclear if this is one company with multiple locations or review aggregation across similarly named businesses. Scores were calculated across all reviews as provided but this geographic ambiguity is flagged as a potential data integrity issue.

This WW Score is based on a very large review corpus (295 reviews) with HIGH confidence across all four dimensions, making it one of the more statistically reliable assessments possible — however, the persistent and specific pricing complaints from credible reviewers introduce meaningful uncertainty around the pricing dimension specifically, and prospective customers should request itemized written quotes before authorizing any work.

Clearwater Plumbing demonstrates strong technical expertise and professionalism, with consistently positive feedback on punctuality, courtesy, and skilled workmanship across numerous reviews. However, the company is significantly hampered by serious pricing concerns and notable project completion failures. Multiple reviews document instances of incomplete work, abandoned projects (particularly involving David Lopez), failure to honor callbacks, and pricing disputes where customers felt overcharged or misled. While the majority of recent reviews (2023-2025) are highly positive, older reviews reveal systemic issues with accountability and follow-through that persist despite the company's established reputation since 1951.

• CRITICAL: Multiple reviews (at least 6) document David Lopez taking full payment upfront and abandoning projects entirely, never completing work or refunding customers. This represents a serious fraud/embezzlement pattern within the company.
• PRICING CONCERNS: At least 8 reviews explicitly mention overcharging, excessive labor fees for simple jobs, or pricing that was 2-3x higher than competitors for identical work. Several customers report being charged $120-$350 for work that took 10-45 minutes.
• PROJECT COMPLETION FAILURES: Multiple reviews document incomplete work, failed callbacks, no-shows for scheduled appointments, and refusal to return to fix defective work (particularly 2016-2022 timeframe).
• CUSTOMER SERVICE ISSUES: Several reviews describe rude phone staff, owner rudeness, hanging up on customers, and dismissive attitudes toward complaints. One review documents the owner swearing at a customer.
• INCONSISTENT QUALITY: Wide variance in outcomes—some technicians (Larry, Tyler, Scott, Senad, Erin) receive exceptional praise; others (David Lopez, unnamed referrals) deliver poor results or fraud.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK - MODERATE: Multiple empty reviews with 5-star ratings (at least 6 instances) and several generic praise reviews with minimal detail suggest possible review padding, though the majority of detailed reviews appear authentic.
• RECENCY BIAS: Most negative reviews cluster in 2014-2022 period. Recent reviews (2023-2025) are predominantly 5-star with specific positive details, suggesting either genuine improvement or increased review curation.

This WW Score of 78.2 should be treated with caution: while recent performance appears strong and technical expertise is well-documented, the company has a documented history of serious issues including fraud, incomplete work, and pricing disputes that persist across multiple years and customer accounts. The score reflects current trajectory but does not fully capture the severity of past failures or the risk of recurrence.

Hubbard Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism with consistent punctuality, courteous technicians, and responsive communication from ownership. Project completion is generally reliable with most jobs finished on schedule, though some callbacks and incomplete work on first visits are noted. Technical experience and workmanship quality are well-regarded across multiple review mentions. However, pricing is a significant weakness, with multiple customers reporting substantial quote-to-bill discrepancies, lack of transparency, and aggressive billing practices that undermine otherwise positive service experiences. The company's responsiveness varies—many reviews praise quick callbacks, but several older reviews cite complete non-responsiveness to inquiries.

• PRICING INTEGRITY CONCERN: Multiple reviews (2006-2007 era) report major billing disputes—quotes of $275 billed at $575, and $139 charge for 20-minute work followed by additional $105 demand. While more recent reviews show better pricing feedback, this pattern suggests historical systemic issues with quote accuracy and transparency.
• COMMUNICATION INCONSISTENCY: Stark contrast between reviews praising quick callbacks and multiple reviews (2014-2015, 2020-2022) reporting complete non-responsiveness, no-shows, and failure to return calls. This suggests inconsistent service delivery or staffing changes over time.
• PROJECT COMPLETION GAPS: Several reviews document incomplete work requiring callbacks (phantom flush toilet issue, faucet cartridge installed incorrectly, drain clogging shortly after installation). One review explicitly states technician was 'somewhat confused' on how to fix the problem.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most 5-star reviews cluster in 2012-2019 period. Recent reviews (2020-2022) are predominantly 1-2 stars citing no-shows and non-responsiveness, suggesting potential service degradation in past 2-3 years.
• GENERIC/MINIMAL REVIEWS: Approximately 15 reviews contain only 'unknown', '.', or single-word responses ('Excellent', 'All well', 'No complain'). These provide no substantive data and may inflate apparent satisfaction artificially.
• OWNER RESPONSIVENESS PATTERN: Multiple reviews note owner (Steve/Jeff Hubbard) personally intervenes to fix problems after complaints, suggesting reactive rather than proactive quality control.

This score should be treated with MODERATE-TO-HIGH caution. While the HIGH confidence is supported by 58+ mentions of professionalism and 35+ of project completion, the WW Score is significantly dragged down by legitimate pricing concerns documented across multiple years and recent service failures (2020-2022). The company appears to have experienced service quality degradation recently. Customers should expect strong technical work and professionalism when service is delivered, but should obtain detailed written quotes, confirm pricing before work begins, and be prepared for potential communication delays. The score reflects historical performance; current reliability may be lower.

Champion Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism and technical expertise across most service interactions, with technicians consistently praised for punctuality, courtesy, and knowledge. However, the company is significantly hampered by persistent pricing concerns, with numerous customers reporting charges substantially above market rates for routine work (faucet installations quoted at $750–$1,350 vs. $160–$295 elsewhere; diagnostic fees of $89–$90 retained even when work is declined). Project completion is generally solid, though some customers report unresolved issues, missed appointments, and incomplete diagnostics. The company shows inconsistency: many five-star reviews detail excellent service, while negative reviews reveal patterns of overpricing, poor communication about costs, and occasional service failures that required hiring competitors to complete work.

• PRICING RED FLAG: Multiple independent reviews (at least 12) document significant overcharging compared to competitors. Examples include $750 vs. $160 for faucet installation, $1,350 vs. $295 for shower cartridge replacement, $451 for an $18–$34 capacitor, and $2,235 vs. $295 for leak diagnosis. This pattern is too consistent to ignore and suggests systemic pricing issues.
• DIAGNOSTIC FEE CONTROVERSY: Several customers report $89–$90 diagnostic fees that are retained even when customers decline work, creating customer friction. Some reviews indicate unclear communication about whether this fee is credited toward work.
• SERVICE COMPLETION ISSUES: At least 5 reviews document incomplete work or failed diagnostics requiring customers to hire competitors (sewer line clogs unresolved in 1.5 hours, main line drain unclogged by competitor in 5 minutes; water softener misdiagnosed for well water, costing customer $5,500 in damage; pressure issue misdiagnosed, leading to unnecessary $3,100 repair vs. $1,000 competitor quote).
• APPOINTMENT RELIABILITY: Multiple reviews (at least 6) report missed appointments, late arrivals, rescheduling without notice, or vague time windows forcing customers to take time off work.
• POTENTIAL UPSELLING PATTERN: Several reviews describe aggressive upselling of unnecessary repairs or replacements (e.g., recommending full faucet replacement when only hose needed replacement; recommending water pressure tank replacement that competitor advised against).
• FAKE REVIEW AWARENESS: Approximately 30 reviews from June 9, 2024, and June 2025 contain minimal detail, generic praise, or are blank (5-star with no text). While not definitively fake, the clustering and lack of specificity reduce confidence in that subset. However, the majority of reviews (220+) contain specific details, names, and concrete examples, suggesting overall authenticity.
• RECENCY BIAS: Most reviews are from May–June 2025 (recent) and May–June 2024 (1 year ago), with a secondary cluster from late 2024. Recent reviews show similar patterns to older ones, suggesting issues are ongoing rather than historical.

This WW Score of 76.8 is reliable and should be trusted, supported by HIGH confidence across three of four dimensions based on 89–127 mentions each. However, the score masks a critical bifurcation: Champion excels in professionalism and technical skill but is severely compromised by pricing practices that consistently exceed market rates by 2–4x. Customers seeking quality workmanship may be satisfied; customers prioritizing fair value will likely be disappointed. The pricing dimension (62.0, MODERATE confidence) is the primary driver of the lower overall score and reflects genuine, documented customer harm across multiple independent reviews.