Find Nearby Plumbers In Oklahoma City, Oklahoma

The reviews present a mixed picture of this contractor. Positive signals include a technician who cleaned up thoroughly, explained work clearly, and returned to verify results — all strong professionalism and experience indicators. However, one notably critical review (2-star) explicitly called out failure to show up on time, lack of communication about schedule changes, and not following through on commitments, which meaningfully drags down professionalism and project completion scores. Pricing data is extremely thin — only one review vaguely references cost being competitive, which is insufficient for a reliable pricing score. The overall dataset is small (5 reviews) and spans over a decade, making recency a significant concern.

• All 5 reviews are older than 1 year — the most recent is from 2015, nearly a decade ago. This score should not be treated as reflective of current service quality.
• Very small review set (5 reviews total) severely limits statistical reliability across all dimensions.
• One 2-star review explicitly describes punctuality failures, no-shows without communication, and incomplete follow-through — this is a meaningful negative signal that cannot be dismissed.
• Two reviews ('Excellent, friendly service.' and 'I had a clog in my main line. Robert showed up with his son and they were able to clear the clog within minutes.') are very brief and lack specific detail, limiting their scoring utility.
• Pricing dimension is based on a single indirect reference and should be treated with very low confidence despite the LIMITED label.

This WW Score carries LOW overall reliability due to the extremely small and heavily dated review set spanning 2011–2015, the presence of one substantive negative review highlighting core operational failures, and insufficient data across multiple dimensions — this score should not be used as a confident indicator of current contractor quality.

Professionalism receives a moderate score because while several reviewers praised timely responses, courteous communication, and personable technicians, there are notable negative data points including one reviewer citing unprofessional conduct and another describing difficulty with scheduling and communication. Pricing is the weakest dimension, with two reviewers explicitly calling out high or excessive charges and one reviewer feeling taken advantage of, partially offset by one reviewer noting upfront and clear pricing. Project completion is mixed: most jobs appear to have been finished, but one reviewer flagged that a secondary drain issue was dismissed and required a separate contractor, and one review alleged installation of used parts when new were quoted, which is a serious workmanship and integrity concern. Experience scores similarly mixed, with positive mentions of quality work on water softeners and burst pipes, but undermined by the alleged fraud of installing used parts and a failure to advise on an aging water heater.

• Two reviews contain only the word 'unknown' with no review text — these provide no usable data and were excluded from scoring.
• All reviews are dated between 2013 and 2017 — none are within the past 12 months (relative to a 2024/2025 evaluation date). This data is significantly outdated and may not reflect current business practices.
• One review (2014-12-21) alleges installation of used parts when new parts were quoted, which constitutes a potential fraud allegation. This is a serious flag and has been weighted heavily in project completion and experience scoring.
• The two 'unknown' reviews both carry 5-star ratings with zero content, which is consistent with low-effort or potentially inauthentic reviews. Confidence has been reduced accordingly.
• Small total review count (10 reviews, 8 usable) limits statistical reliability of all dimension scores.

This WW Score should be treated with LOW trust due to a small and entirely outdated review set (all reviews from 2013–2017), two content-free reviews inflating the raw star average, and at least one serious allegation of fraudulent parts substitution that could not be verified or rebutted within the available data.

Carl's Plumbing presents a deeply divided picture across its review history. Positive reviews — concentrated more heavily in recent years (2024–2025) — frequently praise individual technicians by name (Chris, T, Tony, Sam) for punctuality, friendliness, and competent work, particularly through home warranty assignments. However, a substantial volume of negative reviews spanning 2014–2025 describes serious and recurring failures: rude office staff, abandoned or incomplete jobs, disputed and hidden charges, work done incorrectly requiring callbacks, and outright hostile interactions with management. Pricing concerns are significant, with multiple reviewers alleging unnecessary upsells, undisclosed fees, and charges collected for work never performed. Project completion is the most damaged dimension, with multiple accounts of jobs left unfinished for weeks or months, failed repairs requiring re-visits, and at least one case where a city inspector rejected an installation. The company appears to be under new management as of approximately mid-2024, and recent reviews do trend more positively, but the long tail of serious complaints prevents a high score.

• RECENCY SPLIT: Reviews from 2024–2025 are noticeably more positive than reviews from 2014–2023. The company claims new management as of ~mid-2024. Scores are modestly adjusted to reflect this trend but older negative reviews are not discarded as they reflect documented patterns.
• SUSPECTED GENERIC REVIEWS: Multiple reviews contain only 'unknown', blank text, or single-word entries (e.g., 'went great', '....') with 5-star ratings and no substantive detail. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The review praising Carl's for fixing a leaking pipe and a water pressure issue for free appears verbatim twice (once dated 2024-06-09 and once dated 2023-10-05). This may indicate a copy-paste error or a manipulated review. Counted only once for scoring purposes.
• OFFICE STAFF PATTERN: A recurring and consistent complaint across multiple independent reviews spanning many years involves rude, dismissive, or hostile front-office staff — including hanging up on customers, threatening fees, and refusing to escalate to management. This is a structural concern, not isolated incidents.
• FRAUDULENT BILLING ALLEGATIONS: Multiple reviewers allege charges were collected for services never rendered, parts returned without notice with restocking fees charged, and in one case a job was filed as completed with the home warranty company despite the contractor never entering the property. These are serious integrity flags.
• WORKMANSHIP FAILURES: At least two reviews describe work that failed shortly after completion or was done incorrectly (gas leak left unresolved, toilet connection re-leaking, city inspector rejecting boiler installation). These directly impact the experience and project completion scores.
• RACIST CONDUCT ALLEGATION: One reviewer (2019) alleges a technician made racist comments during a service visit. This is noted as a serious conduct flag, though it is a single account.

This WW Score is based on a large and diverse review set spanning nearly two decades and carries HIGH statistical confidence in its dimensions, but the score should be interpreted cautiously given the stark split between positive recent reviews and a long, well-documented history of serious complaints about billing practices, incomplete work, and unprofessional office conduct.

Red Plains Plumbing presents a deeply mixed picture across all four dimensions. Professionalism scores are dragged down significantly by repeated complaints about unanswered calls, abandoned jobs, and poor office communication, even though many individual technicians are praised as friendly and courteous. Pricing is the weakest dimension, with multiple explicit complaints about undisclosed fees, charges exceeding verbal quotes, billing for travel time to retrieve forgotten parts, and a $99 quote fee that competitors do not charge. Project completion is seriously undermined by several high-detail negative reviews describing abandoned work, a snake left broken inside a drain, flashing not replaced as agreed, and a drain pipe installed at a reduced diameter causing years of problems. Experience scores are similarly split, with some reviewers praising diagnostic thoroughness while others describe fundamental plumbing errors such as using the wrong snake head, reducing drain diameter, and failing to check water pressure before installation.

• DUPLICATE REVIEW FLAG: The washer drain snake incident review appears four times with nearly identical text across dates 2023-08-21 (three entries) and one additional copy. These have been counted as a single unique incident for scoring purposes to avoid artificial inflation of negative signals, but the duplication is noted.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW FLAG: The tankless water heater review praising Darien appears twice with identical text (2022-06-10 and 2022-03-20). Counted as one unique review.
• BLANK REVIEW FLAG: Six reviews contain no text at all (only a rating). These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence per Rule 2.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of substantive negative reviews are from 2023–2025, suggesting a possible decline in service quality or consistency over time. Older positive reviews (2015–2020) may not reflect current operations.
• PATTERN CONCERN: Several 5-star reviews are very brief, generic, and lack specific detail (e.g., 'Very nice and professional. Thawed my frozen pipes!' or 'No problems, fixed the first time'). While not conclusive, this warrants mild caution.
• SERIOUS WORKMANSHIP CONCERN: At least three independent negative reviews describe fundamental plumbing errors — wrong snake head left in drain, drain pipe diameter reduced contrary to code, and water softener installed without checking water pressure. These are not minor complaints and materially reduce the experience and project completion scores.
• PRICING TRANSPARENCY CONCERN: Multiple unrelated reviewers independently describe being quoted one price verbally and charged significantly more on the invoice, including undisclosed service fees, fuel surcharges, and dual technician fees. This is a systemic pattern, not isolated incidents.

This WW Score is based on 46 reviews with usable content spanning 2015–2025 and carries HIGH overall confidence due to mention volume, but the score should be interpreted cautiously given the systemic pricing transparency complaints, repeated workmanship failures described in detail by multiple independent reviewers, and the presence of duplicate reviews that suggest possible review manipulation.

SunTech exhibits a deeply polarized customer experience with significant structural problems. While some customers praise individual technicians (Jeff Gilpatrick, Rodney, Caleb, Tyler, Cody) and report successful installations, the company is plagued by recurring complaints about deceptive sales practices, overcharging, and poor follow-through. Multiple reviews document instances where technicians allegedly damaged working units, misdiagnosed problems to justify expensive replacements, and failed to disclose warranty coverage or cost-mitigation programs. Professionalism scores are dragged down by scheduling failures, unresponsiveness, and management's dismissive attitude toward complaints. Pricing is the weakest dimension, with consistent allegations of inflated charges, hidden fees, and quotes significantly higher than competitors. Project completion suffers from delayed appointments, incomplete callbacks, and abandoned service requests.

• CRITICAL: Pattern of alleged deliberate damage to AC units to justify expensive replacements (at least 4 reviews: 2022-07-22, 2021-07-07, 2020-07-07, 2020-03-27). Multiple customers report units working fine before service, then broken after, with company refusing to fix damage.
• CRITICAL: Systematic overcharging and deceptive sales tactics documented across multiple reviews. Examples: $545 for capacitor replacement (2021-09-08), $1400+ for capacitor that cost $95 elsewhere (2020-03-27), $750 quote for coil cleaning with no transparency (2020-08-24), $21,000 replacement quote when warranty covered repair (2019-04-15).
• CRITICAL: Failure to disclose warranty coverage and cost-mitigation programs. Multiple customers report learning after full payment that they qualified for rebates or warranty coverage that SunTech did not mention upfront (2024-06-11, 2020-03-27, 2019-04-15).
• Management and communication failures: Multiple reviews cite unresponsive office staff, missed appointments, failure to deliver quotes, and dismissive owner responses (2020-06-18, 2020-06-07, 2020-06-05). One customer reported being told 'Please call someone else' by owner.
• Inconsistent quality: Positive reviews often praise specific technicians by name, while negative reviews cite incompetence or deliberate misconduct. This suggests quality is highly dependent on which technician is assigned.
• Recency note: Most negative reviews cluster in 2020-2022 period. Some recent positive reviews (2024, 2023) suggest possible management changes, but pattern of complaints is too severe and consistent to ignore.
• One review (2019-04-30) explicitly mentions 'under new management' and improved experience, but this does not eliminate the pattern of serious complaints both before and after that date.

This WW Score of 56.8 is highly reliable due to substantial data (36 reviews, 14-18 mentions per dimension) and should be trusted as a strong warning signal. The polarized distribution and documented pattern of alleged deceptive practices, damage, and overcharging represent serious red flags that outweigh positive reviews from satisfied customers. Potential customers should conduct independent verification and obtain multiple quotes before engaging SunTech.

Stone Creek Plumbing shows a deeply polarized review pattern with stark contrasts between early positive reviews (2012–2016) and serious negative incidents (2008–2013). While recent reviews praise professionalism, fair pricing, and timely service, multiple older reviews document significant project completion failures, including incomplete work requiring callbacks, yard damage without remediation, and a catastrophic installation that caused $2,980 in water damage. Most damaging are three reviews from 2008–2009 alleging refusal to honor warranty obligations, threats of legal action, and failure to comply with court judgments. The company's project completion score is substantially depressed by documented failures in planning, follow-through, and accountability. Professionalism scores are mixed due to individual technician quality (Blake praised; Travis criticized) but undermined by management-level failures and alleged dishonesty in legal proceedings.

• CRITICAL: Three reviews (2008–2009) allege serious legal disputes, court judgments against the company, failure to appear in court, and non-payment of court-ordered damages. Case numbers cited: SC-2009-9856 and SC-09-9856 (Oklahoma County District Court). These are not opinion disputes but documented legal failures.
• CRITICAL: Multiple reviews document incomplete work requiring callbacks and customer intervention to force completion (2012–2013 main water line repair took 6+ weeks, required payment stoppage to compel work; 2012 porch repair took 3–4 days instead of 2, with unnecessary damage).
• RECENCY BIAS: All negative reviews are from 2008–2013 (11–15 years old). All positive reviews are from 2012–2016 (8–12 years old). No reviews from past 8 years. Cannot assess current operational status or whether issues were resolved.
• PATTERN: Negative reviews consistently cite poor project planning, inadequate resource allocation (sending one person for two-person jobs), and management-level failures. Positive reviews focus on individual technician professionalism and pricing but lack detail on complex project execution.
• CREDIBILITY CONCERN: One review (2012) mentions 10% discount due to home warranty and suspects price inflation—suggests potential pricing inconsistency based on customer insurance status.

This score should be treated with caution due to extreme age of all reviews (none from past 8 years) and unresolved legal allegations from 2008–2009. While recent positive reviews suggest improved professionalism, the documented project completion failures and alleged legal non-compliance create significant trust concerns that cannot be validated without current evidence. The company's current operational status and whether past issues were remedied remain unknown.