Find Nearby Plumbers In Enid, Oklahoma

Dieterle Plumbing demonstrates solid performance across all measured dimensions, with particular strength in project completion and technical skill. Professionalism is consistently praised, though scheduling responsiveness was noted as a weakness in one review. Pricing is generally viewed favorably, though one customer questioned dual billing for plumber and helper. The score is tempered by the age of most reviews (2011–2016) and limited recent data to confirm current service standards.

• RECENCY CONCERN: All reviews are 8+ years old (2011–2016). No recent reviews available to assess current service quality or whether standards have changed under current ownership.
• INCOMPLETE DATA: Four reviews contain only 'unknown' text with 5-star ratings, providing no actionable information. These were excluded from scoring.
• AMBIGUOUS REVIEW: One 2-star review contains only 'See above' with no context, making it impossible to determine what issue prompted the low rating.
• PRICING AMBIGUITY: One customer questioned whether they were double-charged for plumber and helper, suggesting potential billing clarity issues, though the reviewer ultimately gave 5 stars.
• MINOR QUALITY CONTROL: One review noted failure to protect surfaces and failure to clean up sharp debris, indicating occasional lapses in job site professionalism.

This score should be treated with caution due to the age of all reviews (8–12 years old) and lack of recent data; while historical performance appears solid, current service quality cannot be reliably assessed from this dataset alone.

Hobbs Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism and technical competence across most reviews, with consistent praise for responsiveness, courtesy, and quality workmanship. However, a detailed 1-star review from January 2023 raises serious concerns about accountability, damage responsibility, and owner conduct during dispute resolution. While five reviews are highly positive, the severity of the negative experience—involving alleged property damage, refusal to take responsibility, and aggressive collection threats—significantly impacts overall trustworthiness. The company excels at quick service and fair pricing in routine jobs, but the conflict resolution and professional integrity issues create material risk.

• One highly detailed negative review (1-star, Jan 2023) describes serious issues: alleged property damage during service, owner refusal to take responsibility, aggressive communication including collection threats, and dismissal of customer concerns. This is not generic criticism but specific allegations of negligence and poor customer relations.
• Significant recency gap: Five positive reviews span 2005–2024, but the most recent negative review is from Jan 2023 (19 months old). Only two reviews are from 2024. Limited recent data to assess if issues have been resolved.
• The negative review is exceptionally detailed and credible in tone—specific dollar amounts ($125/hour), timeline details (20 mins), and logical reasoning provided. This is not a fake review pattern; it reads as a genuine customer grievance.
• Positive reviews lack specificity about pricing in most cases; only two explicitly mention 'reasonable cost' or 'low repair cost.' Pricing confidence is moderate due to limited explicit mentions.

This score should be treated with caution. While the numerical WW Score of 78.2 reflects mostly positive feedback, the detailed and credible negative review describing damage, accountability failure, and unprofessional owner conduct introduces material doubt about the company's reliability in problem situations. The score is reliable for routine, straightforward jobs but carries elevated risk for complex work or disputes.

All In Plumbing receives consistently positive feedback for responsiveness, friendliness, and technical competence across most reviews, with multiple reviewers praising prompt service and quality workmanship. However, one 1-star review explicitly describes a failure to return calls and poor customer service responsiveness, which meaningfully impacts the professionalism and project completion scores. Pricing is mentioned positively in two reviews as fair and reasonable, but the limited mention count keeps confidence low for that dimension. Experience is rated well across four reviews, with specific praise for efficient problem-solving and knowledgeable technicians. The single negative review is a notable outlier but cannot be ignored given the small total review pool.

• Small review pool of only 6 reviews limits overall reliability of the WW Score.
• One explicit 1-star review citing failure to return calls and poor customer service — this is a meaningful signal given the small sample size.
• Four of the six reviews are older than 12 months (pre-2022), with only one review from 2023; recency of data is limited and the most recent positive review may not reflect current service quality.
• The 2023 review is somewhat generic in phrasing ('friendly and responsive plus quality craftsmanship') with no specific job details, which slightly reduces its evidentiary weight, though it does not rise to the level of a suspected fake review.

This WW Score should be treated with moderate caution due to the small review pool, the presence of one clear negative review regarding responsiveness, and the fact that most reviews are over two years old.

Chase the Plumber shows mixed performance across dimensions. Professionalism is significantly undermined by a serious incident where the owner became argumentative with a customer and refused to address documented damage caused by his assistant, despite refunding payment. Project completion is hampered by incomplete work (kitchen faucet flow issues unresolved, damaged fixtures left unfixed) and follow-through failures. Pricing appears fair and transparent based on two positive mentions. Technical skill is evident in successful repairs, but execution quality is inconsistent. The 2020 negative review is recent enough to carry substantial weight and reflects systemic issues with accountability and customer service.

• CRITICAL: One detailed negative review (2020) documents serious professionalism failures including argumentative behavior, refusal to correct assistant-caused damage, and lack of accountability. This directly contradicts the positive reviews.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Two positive reviews are from 2019 and 2023, but the most detailed review (2020) is negative and describes a pattern of poor handling of mistakes rather than isolated incident.
• INCOMPLETE WORK: Kitchen faucet flow issues were not resolved; shower faucet was damaged and left unrepaired by the business owner.
• SAMPLE SIZE: Only 3 reviews total limits confidence in overall assessment. Additional recent reviews needed for reliable scoring.

This score should be treated with caution due to small sample size (3 reviews) and conflicting evidence. The detailed negative review from 2020 raises serious concerns about accountability and professionalism that are not adequately offset by positive reviews lacking specificity. More recent reviews are needed to determine if issues have been addressed.

Three of the four reviews contain usable data and paint a consistently positive picture of this contractor. Professionalism is the best-supported dimension, with multiple reviewers explicitly noting friendliness, politeness, punctuality, and responsiveness. Project completion is also well-supported, with reviewers describing jobs seen through to full resolution — including a complex drain issue that a prior contractor had abandoned. Experience is noted in two reviews, particularly the detailed account of Joey and his crew methodically diagnosing and resolving a multi-point drainage problem. Pricing is mentioned in only one review, where a $70 charge for a valve replacement was described as fair, yielding a conservative but positive score.

• One review (2016-05-07) contains only the word 'unknown' and no usable content — excluded from scoring.
• Only 3 usable reviews total. This is a very small sample size and scores should be treated with significant caution.
• Two of the three usable reviews are more than 12 months old (2022 and 2018), with only one review from the past 12 months (2023). Recency weighting is limited.
• The 2018 review is over 5 years old and may not reflect current service quality.

This WW Score is based on only 3 usable reviews spanning several years, making it LOW reliability — the score direction appears positive but cannot be considered statistically meaningful until significantly more reviews are analyzed.

Lewis Plumbing demonstrates strong technical expertise and workmanship (78.5/100), with many customers praising skilled technicians and quality repairs. Professionalism is moderate (72.5/100), with consistent mentions of punctuality and friendly staff, but significant communication and responsiveness issues undermine this score. Project completion is problematic (71.0/100), with numerous reports of missed appointments, incomplete work, and poor follow-through. Pricing is the most critical weakness (52.0/100), with extensive complaints about high hourly rates ($120-$150+), inflated markups on parts (200-400%), travel time charges, and lack of transparent estimates. The company shows a stark divide between positive recent reviews (2025) and negative historical patterns, suggesting either recent operational changes or review manipulation.

• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: Recent reviews (June 2025 and May 2025) show suspiciously uniform 5-star ratings with generic praise and minimal specificity. Multiple reviews use nearly identical phrasing ('fantastic,' 'professional,' 'highly recommend') without substantive detail. This contrasts sharply with older, more detailed reviews.
• SEVERE PRICING COMPLAINTS: 42 mentions of pricing issues reveal systematic overcharging practices including: hourly rates of $120-$150+, 200-400% markups on parts, charges for travel time, $1 minimum charges, and lack of upfront estimates. Multiple customers report feeling 'gouged' or 'cheated.'
• COMMUNICATION & RESPONSIVENESS CRISIS: Extensive pattern of unanswered calls, unreturned voicemails, missed appointments, and no-shows, particularly with American Home Shield (AHS) warranty work. This appears to be a systemic office management issue.
• QUALITY CONTROL INCONSISTENCY: While many reviews praise workmanship, others report incomplete repairs, incorrect installations (reversed water lines, upside-down valves), and multiple return visits to fix initial errors.
• AMERICAN HOME SHIELD PATTERN: Disproportionate number of negative reviews from AHS customers, suggesting the company may deprioritize warranty work or have poor coordination with AHS.
• RECENCY BIAS ALERT: 25+ reviews from 2025 and late 2024 are predominantly 5-star with minimal detail, while 2020-2023 reviews are more balanced and detailed. This temporal clustering warrants skepticism about recent ratings.
• OWNER ACCOUNTABILITY: Multiple reviews cite owner (Martin/Matthew) as defensive, unwilling to admit fault, and dismissive of customer concerns. One customer reported owner threatened legal action over a legitimate complaint.

This WW Score of 68.2 should be treated with MODERATE-TO-HIGH caution: while the score reflects genuine data from 152 reviews, the recent clustering of suspiciously generic 5-star reviews (2025) suggests possible manipulation, and the stark historical pattern of communication failures and pricing complaints indicates systemic operational issues that may not be fully captured by the recent positive surge. Customers should independently verify current service quality and request detailed written estimates before engaging this company.