Find Nearby Plumbers In Edmond, Oklahoma

The four usable reviews paint a generally positive picture across all dimensions, with professionalism being the most consistently mentioned quality — reviewers noted punctuality, after-hours responsiveness, property protection, and prompt callbacks. Pricing was explicitly called out as affordable and competitive in three reviews, which is a meaningful signal given the small sample. Project completion was supported by accounts of multi-trip jobs being seen through to resolution and a callback being honored promptly. Experience received limited but positive mentions, including handling older non-standard parts and rebuilding toilet internals, suggesting solid technical competence. However, the small sample size and the age of most reviews — the majority dating from 2012 to 2021 — significantly limit confidence in how well these scores reflect current performance.

• One review contained only the word 'unknown' with no usable content and was excluded from scoring.
• Only 5 reviews total were provided — this is a very small sample and scores should be treated with caution.
• Most reviews are between 3 and 12 years old (2012–2021). Only one review is from 2021; none are from the past 12 months relative to a 2024 evaluation date. Current performance cannot be reliably assessed.
• No reviews from the past 12 months are present, which significantly reduces the reliability of this score as a reflection of current service quality.

This WW Score carries LOW overall reliability due to a very small review sample (4 usable reviews), the complete absence of recent reviews, and the inability to assess current performance trends.

Progressive Plumbing and its associated entities receive broadly positive marks for professionalism and technical experience, with many reviewers praising named technicians such as Daniel, Victor, Marcus, Justin, and Roberto for being courteous, knowledgeable, and responsive. However, pricing is the single most damaging dimension in this dataset: a very large number of reviewers across multiple years explicitly describe charges as excessive, arbitrary, or deceptive — including instances of verbal quotes being exceeded, refusal to itemize bills, and charges perceived as exploitative during emergencies. Project completion is mixed: while many jobs are described as completed promptly and well, there are notable failures including no-shows, abandoned work, callbacks that were never honored, and at least one case of a job left incomplete with damage caused. The volume and consistency of pricing complaints across a wide date range significantly suppresses the overall score.

• SUSPECTED MIXED ENTITY PROBLEM: Multiple reviews reference 'San Bruno Plumbing' as the company name, while the majority reference 'Progressive Plumbing' or 'Progressive Service Company.' These may be distinct businesses whose reviews have been aggregated together, which would make the composite score unreliable.
• FAKE OR PADDING REVIEW CONCERN: At least 30+ reviews consist of blank text with only a star rating (all 5-star). These provide zero usable data and inflate the apparent rating volume. They were excluded from dimension scoring.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The review for Marcus ('came on time in fact earlier than expected... cost was fair, lower than expected') appears verbatim on both 2025-05-19 and 2025-05-16. This is a likely duplicate submission and was counted only once.
• RECENCY NOTE: Reviews span from 2005 to 2025. A significant portion of negative pricing and project completion reviews date from 2017–2023, indicating these are not isolated historical incidents. Positive reviews are more concentrated in 2024–2025, which may reflect genuine improvement or selection bias.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS ARE SYSTEMIC: Overcharging complaints are not isolated — they appear across many years, many technicians, and many job types (water heaters, toilet repairs, faucet installs, drain clearing). This pattern is too consistent to dismiss as outliers.
• UNPROFESSIONAL CONDUCT COMPLAINTS: Multiple reviews describe technicians performing unauthorized work, billing tenants without owner approval, leaving job sites in disarray, being rude or dismissive, and in one case potentially misusing a credit card. These are serious conduct flags.
• NO-SHOW AND ABANDONMENT PATTERN: At least 5 reviews describe scheduled appointments where no technician arrived and no follow-up communication was made. This is a recurring project completion failure.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large number of substantive reviews, but the score itself should be interpreted cautiously given the systemic pricing complaints, suspected entity mixing between 'Progressive Plumbing' and 'San Bruno Plumbing,' a high volume of blank filler reviews, and recurring patterns of no-shows and incomplete work that suggest operational inconsistency rather than isolated incidents.

Trophy Plumbing shows a deeply polarized performance profile. Recent reviews (2024) consistently praise Andy's professionalism, responsiveness, and technical skill, with multiple mentions of same-day or next-day service and fair pricing. However, older reviews (2016–2017) reveal serious systemic failures including no-shows, incomplete work, installation defects, overcharging, and poor follow-up communication. The company appears to have undergone significant changes in ownership and personnel, with the newer Andy-led operation performing substantially better than the legacy operation. Professionalism scores are dragged down by documented instances of rudeness, no-shows, and lack of callback responsiveness in older reviews. Project completion is compromised by multiple accounts of incomplete work, defective installations, and failure to honor appointments. Pricing concerns stem from documented overcharging and inflated quotes relative to market rates in several 2016 reviews.

• MAJOR RECENCY BIAS: 12 of 13 most recent reviews (2024 and 2023) are 5-star with Andy; 8 of 12 older reviews (2016–2017) are 1-star. This suggests significant company restructuring or ownership change. Scores heavily weighted toward recent positive data.
• OWNERSHIP/PERSONNEL CHANGE DETECTED: Early reviews reference 'Joe' (old owner) and 'Heath' (staff); recent reviews reference 'Andy' exclusively. One 2016 review explicitly states 'new owner was rude' and contrasts with 'Joe the old owner was nice.' This is not fake reviews but rather a genuine operational transformation.
• INSTALLATION QUALITY CONCERNS: Multiple 2016–2017 reviews document defective installations (shower stall gap, gas line safety hazard with propane leak, water pump failure, water heater code violation, incomplete oven hookup). These are specific, detailed complaints with consequences.
• PRICING FRAUD ALLEGATIONS: Three 2016 reviews allege significant overcharging ($1,300 vs. $350–$400 for same work, commission-based incentive structure leading to unnecessary upsells). These are serious allegations with corroborating detail.
• NO-SHOW PATTERN: Multiple reviews (2016–2017) document scheduled appointments with no-show and no callback. One 2024 review also reports no-show and no callback after appointment confirmation.
• COMMUNICATION BREAKDOWN: Several older reviews cite unreturned calls, unanswered phones, ignored emails, and rude staff interactions. Recent reviews show opposite pattern (quick callbacks, clear communication).
• SINGLE RECENT NEGATIVE: One 2024 review (June 16) reports no-show and no callback after appointment confirmation, suggesting the issue may not be entirely resolved despite overall improvement.

This score should be interpreted with caution: the 68.2 WW Score reflects a company in apparent transition, with recent performance (2024) substantially stronger than legacy performance (2016–2017). If evaluating for current service, weight recent reviews heavily and expect professionalism and responsiveness similar to 2024 reviews; however, the historical pattern of installation defects and overcharging warrants verification of current practices and independent inspection of complex work. The single 2024 no-show suggests old issues may not be entirely resolved.

Higgins Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism and technical expertise, with multiple reviews praising responsiveness, politeness, and quality workmanship. However, significant pricing concerns emerge across multiple reviews, with customers reporting substantially higher quotes than competitors and feeling overcharged for diagnostics. Project completion is generally solid, though one critical safety failure (gas leak left unaddressed with poor follow-up) substantially undermines confidence. The business shows inconsistency: excellent service in many cases contrasts sharply with serious lapses in accountability and customer care.

• CRITICAL SAFETY ISSUE: One review (2017-11-13) reports a gas leak left in attic with no callback response—this is a serious liability concern that cannot be overlooked.
• PRICING PATTERN: Multiple reviews (2018-07-09, 2017-03-30) explicitly cite excessive pricing and overcharging compared to competitors. This is a consistent complaint across different time periods.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most reviews are 6+ years old (2006-2014 range). Only 3 reviews are from 2018 or later, limiting confidence in current service quality.
• INCONSISTENCY: One review (2011-11-10) contains contradictory language ('very unprofessional' but rates 5 stars and says 'will use again')—suggests possible transcription error or unclear intent.
• GENERIC PRAISE: Several 5-star reviews lack specific detail (2009, 2014 reviews are extremely brief), though this is less concerning than identical phrasing across reviews.

This score should be treated with caution due to age of data (most reviews 6+ years old), a critical unresolved safety incident, and consistent pricing complaints that suggest systematic overcharging. The MODERATE overall confidence reflects conflicting evidence: strong professionalism and expertise ratings are substantially undermined by serious gaps in accountability, safety practices, and fair pricing.

This contractor shows significant inconsistency across projects and time periods. While some reviews praise quick response, problem identification, and technical knowledge, multiple serious failures undermine overall trustworthiness. Critical issues include: a 2017 project with incomplete work (unresolved handle replacement after months of delay), a 2014 shower installation that leaked immediately with poor follow-up and refusal to fix defects, and a 2010 no-show with communication breakdown on an urgent water leak. Positive reviews emphasize responsiveness and technical skill, but project completion and professionalism scores are dragged down by documented abandonment and poor follow-through. The contractor demonstrates capability but unreliable execution.

• Three reviews (2015-08-12, 2015-03-17, 2013-05-24) contain insufficient data ('unknown' or 'Please see above') and were excluded from scoring
• Severe project completion failures documented: 2014 shower leak with water damage and refusal to repair; 2017 handle replacement unresolved after 2+ months; 2010 no-show on emergency water leak with communication avoidance
• Professionalism concerns: no-show without notice (2010), delayed invoice (2017), failure to communicate about work changes (2017), dismissive response to defects (2014)
• Recency issue: most usable reviews are 7-13 years old; only one recent review (2017) which documents serious problems
• Stark contrast between positive reviews (5-star, praising responsiveness and skill) and negative reviews (1-star, documenting project failures and poor follow-up) suggests inconsistent service quality

This score should be treated with caution due to limited recent data (only one review from past 7 years) and a troubling pattern of project completion failures documented in multiple reviews spanning a decade. The contractor's technical ability appears sound, but reliability and follow-through are questionable.

Help Services demonstrates strong technical expertise and professionalism in leak detection, with multiple reviews praising skill and courtesy. However, the company is significantly hampered by serious pricing concerns—multiple customers report bills double competitors' rates and disputed charges—and inconsistent project completion, with several reviews documenting failed or inaccurate leak locates requiring multiple site visits and additional costs. The stark divide between 5-star and 1-star reviews suggests highly variable service quality or customer experience outcomes. Recency shows mixed patterns, with critical pricing complaints from 2024 and completion failures spanning 2020–2021.

• POLARIZED REVIEW DISTRIBUTION: 5 five-star reviews vs. 4 one-star reviews with no middle ratings suggests either highly inconsistent service or different customer expectations.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS ARE CONSISTENT AND SPECIFIC: Multiple independent reviews (2024, 2021) cite excessive hourly rates ($325/hr mentioned), bills 2x competitors, and disputed charges after service failures. This is not isolated.
• PROJECT COMPLETION FAILURES: Three reviews explicitly document failed leak locates (wrong location, multiple attempts, extra holes in slab, additional plumber costs). One review documents no-show with poor communication.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most critical reviews are from 2024 and 2021. Recent 2024 reviews show pricing and communication issues persist.
• DEFENSIVE BEHAVIOR NOTED: One 2021 review explicitly states company was 'defensive and not understanding' when customer complained about double billing.
• POSITIVE REVIEWS LACK PRICING DETAIL: Five-star reviews praise technical skill but do not address pricing, suggesting customers may not have compared costs or may have been satisfied despite high rates.

This score should be treated with MODERATE caution. While technical expertise is well-documented (HIGH confidence), serious and consistent pricing complaints and project completion failures significantly undermine overall trustworthiness. The polarized review distribution and pattern of disputed charges suggest real operational or customer service issues that are not resolved by positive technical reviews.