Find Nearby Plumbers In Lawton, Oklahoma

All Star Plumbing earns strong marks across professionalism, project completion, and experience, with the vast majority of reviewers praising courteous, knowledgeable technicians who arrive on time and complete jobs thoroughly. Recurring technicians such as Kyle, Manny, Jerry, Anthony, Toan, Bobby, and Johnny are cited repeatedly for going above and beyond, explaining issues clearly, and leaving work areas clean. Project completion is a clear strength, with many reviews noting same-day or next-day service, jobs finished as promised, and follow-through on callbacks. Pricing is the weakest dimension: while many reviewers describe costs as fair or competitive, a meaningful minority of negative reviews cite quotes that were significantly higher than competitors, unexpected charges, or price discrepancies between phone estimates and final invoices. A small but notable cluster of negative reviews also flags instances of no-shows, poor communication, rude behavior, and at least one case of faulty workmanship with no warranty honored, which moderately suppresses the professionalism and project completion scores.

• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: Two reviews with identical text ('Great customer service he did what needed to be done. Our kitchen sink stopped up. Knew exactly what to do.') were posted two days apart (2025-06-06 and 2025-06-08) with the same 5-star rating. This is a likely fake or duplicate submission and was counted only once for scoring purposes.
• REVIEW SCOPE CONCERN: This review set appears to aggregate reviews from multiple distinct All Star Plumbing businesses across different cities and states (Fresno CA, Fairfield CA, Napa CA, Corona CA, Greensboro NC, Minneapolis MN area, Arizona, and others). These are almost certainly separate, unrelated businesses operating under the same or similar name. Scores and narratives may reflect a blended profile of multiple companies rather than a single contractor, significantly reducing the reliability of any aggregate score.
• RECENCY NOTE: Reviews span from approximately 2005 to June 2025. A substantial portion of reviews predate 2022 and reflect business conditions, staff, and ownership that may no longer be current. Recent reviews (2024-2025) are weighted more heavily in scoring but older reviews still influence the aggregate.
• NEGATIVE REVIEW PATTERN: Approximately 20-25 reviews (roughly 5-6% of the total) are 1-2 star ratings citing: price gouging or bait-and-switch pricing, no-shows or failure to return calls, rude or dismissive technicians, faulty workmanship with no warranty honored, and pressure tactics. These are distributed across the review history and are not isolated incidents.
• GENERIC PRAISE PATTERN: A significant number of short reviews (e.g., 'Great service!', 'Professional', 'Excellent and friendly service', 'Best experience') contain no specific detail and cannot be reliably scored. These were excluded from dimension scoring but counted toward total reviews analyzed.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Approximately 10 reviews contained no text (only a star rating). These were excluded from dimension scoring.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large volume of detailed reviews, but its practical reliability is MODERATE-to-LIMITED as a guide for hiring any single contractor, because the review pool almost certainly blends feedback for multiple unrelated businesses operating under the 'All Star Plumbing' name across different states and regions — consumers should verify they are reading reviews specific to their local branch before making a hiring decision.

Shields Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism with consistent praise for punctuality, courtesy, and communication across 28 reviews. Project completion scores are solid at 79.0 based on 18 mentions, though several negative reviews cite incomplete work, abandoned callbacks, and failure to honor commitments. Pricing receives a moderate 78.5 score from 11 mentions—while many customers praise fair pricing and value, a notable subset reports overcharging, inflated quotes, and lack of transparency. Experience is rated 82.0 across 15 mentions, reflecting strong technical knowledge and problem-solving, though some reviews document significant workmanship failures and misdiagnosis.

• CRITICAL: 6 one-star reviews (2024-2019) document serious service failures including incomplete work, non-responsive callbacks, unprofessional technician behavior, overcharging, and property damage (electrical wire cut, additional leak damage). These are detailed, specific complaints from different customers—not generic criticism.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most positive reviews cluster in 2023-2025 (recent), while negative reviews span 2019-2024. This temporal pattern suggests either recent operational improvements or potential review manipulation. The 2024 negative reviews (March, February) contradict the overwhelmingly positive 2025 reviews.
• COMMUNICATION FAILURES: Multiple reviews (2023, 2020, 2019) explicitly cite non-responsiveness—failure to return calls, texts, emails, and abandoned callbacks. This directly contradicts the professionalism score and suggests inconsistent service quality.
• PRICING TRANSPARENCY: Two reviews explicitly mention lack of itemized billing and inflated quotes ($1,300 quote for $30 fix; $4,100 quote later deemed unnecessary). This undermines the 'fair pricing' narrative.
• INCOMPLETE WORK PATTERN: Three separate reviews document work completed only 75% or left unfinished, with callbacks never honored. This is a systemic issue, not isolated incidents.
• 4 reviews with 'unknown' text content (2016, 2015) cannot be validated and should be treated with caution.

This WW Score of 81.2 should be treated with MODERATE-TO-HIGH caution. While the score reflects genuine strengths in professionalism and experience, the presence of 6 detailed one-star reviews documenting serious failures (incomplete work, non-responsiveness, overcharging, property damage) indicates significant service inconsistency. The temporal clustering of positive reviews in 2025 versus negative reviews in 2019-2024 raises questions about data reliability. Prospective customers should weight recent negative reviews heavily and verify communication responsiveness and work guarantees before hiring.

Towers/Valley Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism with consistent praise for punctuality, courtesy, and responsiveness across 127 reviews. Project completion is reliable with 82/100 score based on 98 mentions showing timely work and follow-through. Technical experience scores 83/100 with 89 mentions highlighting skilled diagnostics and quality workmanship. However, pricing is a significant weakness at 65/100 based on 31 explicit mentions—multiple customers report charges 2-4x higher than competitors for identical work, with complaints about inflated labor rates and undisclosed service charges. The company shows strong operational execution but struggles with pricing transparency and value perception.

• PRICING PATTERN: Multiple reviews (2024-2019) document excessive pricing: $540 for $20 toilet parts, $1200 for 1.44-hour job, $428 for $90 pressure regulator, $450 for $20 valve installation. This is a systemic issue, not isolated incidents.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK - MODERATE: Approximately 15-20 reviews from 2025-06-02 to 2025-05-10 show suspicious clustering with generic praise, minimal detail, and identical 5-star ratings within same date ranges. However, older reviews (2006-2020) provide substantive detail and mixed ratings, suggesting core authenticity.
• RECENCY BIAS: 40% of reviews are from past 12 months (2025 and late 2024), heavily weighted toward 5-star ratings. Older reviews (2006-2015) show more balanced distribution with legitimate 1-2 star complaints about pricing and no-shows.
• NO-SHOW/SCHEDULING ISSUES: Four separate 1-star reviews (2021, 2020, 2016) document appointment failures, no-call cancellations, and 2-4 hour delays. This pattern suggests operational inconsistency despite recent positive reviews.
• WATER DAMAGE LIABILITY: One 2023 review documents technician negligence (failed to reconnect washing machine hose) causing floor flooding; company refused full reimbursement. Indicates potential liability and dispute resolution issues.
• PRICING TRANSPARENCY: Multiple reviews note undisclosed 'QSC' service plan charges ($79) added without customer awareness, suggesting aggressive upselling practices.

This WW Score of 78.2 is reliable for assessing operational competence and professionalism (HIGH confidence), but the pricing dimension (65/100) is understated due to limited explicit mentions relative to the severity of complaints; actual customer value perception is likely lower than the overall score suggests. Recent review clustering raises moderate concerns about data authenticity, but historical reviews provide sufficient substantive evidence to validate core findings. Recommend treating this score as strong on execution but weak on value proposition.

This contractor has a strong base of loyal, repeat customers who consistently praise individual technicians by name and highlight responsive communication, punctual arrivals, and respectful in-home behavior. However, pricing is a significant and recurring concern across multiple eras of reviews, with multiple customers explicitly describing charges as excessive, inconsistent with quoted amounts, or feeling taken advantage of — including a $1,000 charge for a faucet replacement (parts not included), $900 for toilet guts, $370 for a $7 part, and a $330 diagnostic that escalated unexpectedly. Project completion is generally strong, but there are notable failures including a shower faucet left in worse condition than found, an unresolved gas leak after repeated visits, a missed callback during an emergency, and a lawsuit allegation involving uninsured damage. The professionalism score is tempered by multiple reviews citing rude or dismissive behavior from the owner/office, and one technician making an inappropriate comment upon arrival.

• FAKE REVIEW CONCERN: A cluster of 9 reviews all dated 2025-05-10 and 4 reviews dated 2024-08-13 show suspiciously generic, marketing-style language with no specific job details, technician names, or unique circumstances. Phrases like 'exceeded all my expectations,' 'expertise and precision,' 'personalized care and attention to detail,' and 'encyclopedia' of knowledge are atypical of organic customer reviews. These reviews inflate the overall star rating and have been discounted in scoring.
• FAKE REVIEW CONCERN: Several reviews dated 2024-06-09 also follow a pattern of generic praise with no specifics, suggesting possible coordinated or incentivized review activity around that date cluster.
• BLANK REVIEWS: 14 reviews contained no text — only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence per scoring rules.
• RECENCY NOTE: A substantial portion of detailed, substantive reviews span from 2009 to 2022. While recent reviews exist, many of the most informative reviews (both positive and negative) are older than 12 months, reducing confidence in current service consistency.
• PRICING CONCERN: Multiple independent, detailed reviews across different years (2015, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2022) describe charges significantly above quoted amounts, upselling of unnecessary work, and fees that did not match the scope of work performed. This is a persistent pattern, not isolated incidents.
• OWNER CONDUCT: At least two reviews explicitly describe the owner or office staff as rude or dismissive when customers raised billing concerns, which is a meaningful professionalism flag.
• UNRESOLVED WORK: One review describes a shower faucet left in a worse state than found with no follow-up from the company after an email complaint. Another describes a gas leak that was never resolved despite multiple paid visits.
• LAWSUIT ALLEGATION: One review (2009) alleges the owner caused property damage while uninsured and was avoiding legal service. While old, this is a serious flag that warrants mention.
• POSSIBLE MULTI-ENTITY CONFUSION: Several reviews appear to reference different business entities (M&R Plumbing, Mr. Plumbing, Mr. Reliable Plumbing and Heating) and different geographic markets (Chicago suburbs vs. San Jose/Bay Area California). Some reviews referencing 'Michael Ra' and California locations may belong to a different business entirely, which could contaminate the dataset.

This WW Score carries moderate-to-high structural reliability due to the large review volume, but should be interpreted cautiously given strong evidence of fake or incentivized review clusters, a persistent multi-year pricing complaint pattern, possible cross-business review contamination, and a meaningful number of blank reviews that provide no scoring data.

Mick's Plumbing has a strong base of satisfied customers who consistently praise his friendliness, punctuality, technical skill, and willingness to respond on weekends and holidays without surcharges. Pricing is generally viewed as fair and reasonable, with one notable outlier review citing a quote more than four times higher than competitors. However, a recurring and serious pattern of no-shows and failure to return calls — documented across multiple reviews spanning 2017 to 2023 — significantly drags down the professionalism and project completion scores. The most damaging reviews describe customers left without water for hours or days after Mick committed to appointments, with no courtesy call or follow-up. This pattern is not isolated and appears to have persisted over several years, making it a systemic reliability concern rather than an isolated incident.

• SERIOUS RELIABILITY PATTERN: At least 5 reviews (2017, 2021, 2021, 2022, 2023) explicitly describe Mick committing to an appointment time and then not showing up and not calling — leaving customers without water or with unresolved emergencies. This is a consistent, multi-year pattern and is the single largest risk factor in this profile.
• WARRANTY/CALLBACK FAILURE: One review (2017-10-15) describes Mick completing initial work but then failing to show up twice when called back to fix a related issue under warranty, with no call either time. This compounds the no-show pattern.
• INCOMPLETE SCOPE OF WORK: One review (2014-02-06) notes that work agreed upon in the original consultation was later excluded at time of service without clear prior notice.
• LICENSING CONCERN: One review (2013-11-27) explicitly states Mick is not licensed, which limited the scope of work he could legally perform on that job. This is a significant flag for customers requiring permitted or code-compliant work.
• INCONCLUSIVE DIAGNOSIS: One review (2014-11-21) describes paying $250 for a leak diagnosis that was inconclusive, with Mick recommending expensive remediation that the homeowner's husband later resolved with a simple targeted test. Suggests possible diagnostic limitations on complex leak issues.
• RECENCY CONCERN: The majority of positive reviews are from 2012–2017. The most recent reviews (2021–2023) are predominantly negative, suggesting a possible decline in service reliability in recent years. Scores should be interpreted with caution given this trend.
• GENERIC/THIN REVIEWS: Multiple reviews contain only 'unknown', 'a', 'Magnificent', 'it went well', or similarly non-specific content. These provide no usable data and were excluded from dimension scoring. Their presence slightly inflates the raw star rating without adding meaningful evidence.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK — LOW TO MODERATE: The cluster of 'unknown' reviews and several very brief 5-star reviews with no detail are mildly suspicious, but the volume of detailed, specific positive reviews reduces the likelihood of systematic fabrication. No action taken beyond noting.

This WW Score is based on a large review set with HIGH confidence across all dimensions, but the score should be treated with caution due to a documented multi-year pattern of no-shows and non-communication, a licensing concern, and a clear decline in review sentiment in the most recent years (2021–2023).

Good Guys Plumbing shows strong performance across most dimensions, with particular strength in pricing fairness and technical skill. However, the score is tempered by a serious 2006 complaint involving incomplete work (debris left in valve), poor customer service recovery, and unprofessional conduct by management. Recent reviews (2023–2024) are consistently positive and detailed, praising professionalism, fair pricing, and quick response times. The older negative review is significantly dated but raises concerns about accountability and conflict resolution that cannot be ignored.

• RECENCY CONCERN: Three reviews from 2016 and earlier contain minimal or no usable text ('unknown', '.'), suggesting data quality issues or placeholder entries. These should be disregarded.
• SERIOUS HISTORICAL ISSUE: One 1-star review from 2006 documents a significant service failure (debris left in valve causing malfunction), failure to accommodate customer needs, and alleged unprofessional conduct by owner during BBB complaint process. While dated, this indicates potential systemic issues with quality control and customer service recovery.
• CONFIDENCE MODERATION: The positive recent reviews are genuine and detailed, but the sample size remains small (7 usable reviews). Confidence is capped at MODERATE due to limited mention counts across dimensions.
• POTENTIAL PATTERN: Multiple 5-star reviews with generic praise ('best service', 'nicest people') lack specific technical detail, though the 2024 and 2023 reviews do provide concrete examples (faucet repair, hydrant replacement, response time), suggesting authenticity.

This score should be treated with MODERATE confidence. Recent performance (2023–2024) appears genuinely strong and professional, but the historical 2006 failure and small sample size (7 usable reviews) prevent a higher confidence rating. The score reflects current reputation but does not fully account for the documented service failure and management conduct issue from nearly two decades ago.