Find Nearby Plumbers In Tulsa, Oklahoma

JR Plumbing demonstrates strong technical competence and generally professional on-site behavior, with many customers praising workmanship quality and responsiveness. However, the company is significantly hampered by critical reliability issues: multiple no-shows and ghosting incidents appear across recent reviews (2025, 2023, 2020), and historical pricing disputes suggest inconsistent quoting practices. While recent reviews (2025) show mostly positive experiences, the pattern of no-shows without communication and follow-up failures (missing invoices, unresponsive callbacks) directly contradicts claims of professionalism. The WW Score reflects strong technical execution offset by serious project completion and communication failures that undermine customer trust.

• CRITICAL: Multiple no-show incidents documented across different time periods (2025-06-02, 2025-05-19, 2023-04-03, 2020-09-12) with customers reporting being ghosted after confirmed appointments. This is a systemic reliability problem.
• PRICING CONCERNS: Several reviews document price increases after initial quotes (2015-06-11, 2021-07-28) and complaints about overcharging for simple work (2024-02-15, 2023-07-03). Fair pricing claims are contradicted by documented evidence.
• FOLLOW-UP FAILURES: Multiple customers report unmet promises to send invoices, warranties, and documentation (2021-07-28, 2022-02-04). One customer waited 5 months for water heater installation (2016-07-07).
• CUSTOMER SERVICE COMPLAINTS: Historical reviews (2015-2016) document rude, defensive behavior from office staff member 'Wanda,' including shouting at customers and demeaning language. While recent reviews do not mention this, it indicates potential systemic issues.
• RECENCY BIAS ALERT: Recent reviews (2025, March 2025) are predominantly 5-star with generic praise, while older reviews (2015-2023) contain detailed negative experiences. Recent positive reviews lack specificity compared to detailed negative reviews, suggesting possible review manipulation or selection bias.
• INCONSISTENT SERVICE QUALITY: Same company name appears in both exceptional reviews and catastrophic reviews, suggesting either significant operational inconsistency or different service locations/personnel with vastly different standards.

This WW Score should be treated with CAUTION. While recent 2025 reviews are positive, the documented pattern of no-shows, ghosting, pricing disputes, and follow-up failures across multiple years (2015-2023) indicates systemic operational problems that have not been definitively resolved. The score reflects a company with strong technical skills but unreliable execution and communication—customers should verify current operational standards before committing to service.

Duvall Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism with consistent praise for technicians like Rick, Hunter, Drew, and Alex regarding punctuality, communication, and courteous behavior. However, pricing emerges as a significant weakness, with multiple customers reporting substantially inflated charges ($475 for a $142 job, $600 for quoted $295 work, $1,000 for a clog, $11,200 AC system quotes). Project completion shows mixed results with some excellent follow-through but also documented no-shows and failed inspections. Technical experience is generally solid, though several reviews indicate misdiagnosis and poor problem-solving in complex situations.

• PRICING CONCERNS: Multiple independent reviews (2022-2025) document significant overcharging patterns. A customer paid $475 for work a local plumber charged $142 for; another paid $600 for a $295 quoted job; a third paid $1,000 for a clog removal. This is not isolated complaint—it is a recurring pattern across different time periods.
• MISDIAGNOSIS PATTERN: At least 3 detailed reviews describe incorrect initial assessments (compressor continuity claim later contradicted, thermal coupling dismissed then proven correct, fuses claimed blown when functional). This suggests inconsistent technical competency.
• NO-SHOW INCIDENTS: Two separate reviews document complete no-shows with no communication despite confirmations (2024-09-27 and 2023-11-30). One customer waited 8 hours across two days.
• INSTALLATION QUALITY FAILURES: One detailed 2024-02-05 review documents multiple installation failures requiring reinspection, water damage, and poor post-incident communication. Another 2024-02-01 review notes amperage code violation on water heater installation.
• CUSTOMER SERVICE INCONSISTENCY: 2024-09-27 review describes dismissive office staff (Courtney) who laughed at customer concerns and denied confirmed appointments.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK - MODERATE: 2 reviews are blank (2025-06-05, 2025-06-02, 2025-02-09) and 2 contain only periods/minimal text (2016-09-12). Additionally, 5 reviews from 2025-06 use nearly identical phrasing ('great job,' 'highly recommend,' 'awesome') with no specific details. However, the negative reviews are highly detailed and credible, so overall fake review risk is limited rather than severe.
• RECENCY BIAS: Most positive reviews cluster in 2025 (recent), while serious negative reviews span 2022-2024. Recent reviews may reflect improved practices or selection bias.

This WW Score of 72.8 should be treated with MODERATE confidence. While professionalism and experience scores are supported by substantial evidence, the pricing dimension is heavily dragged down by a consistent pattern of documented overcharges across multiple years and customers. The score reflects a company with skilled technicians but serious pricing transparency and fairness issues. Customers should obtain multiple quotes and verify all charges before authorizing work.

Horizon Plumbing demonstrates strong technical expertise and reasonable pricing, with multiple reviews praising skilled workmanship and fair costs. Professionalism is generally solid, with punctuality and communication highlighted in several recent reviews. However, project completion reliability is significantly undermined by critical failures: a 2024 review documents complete no-show after multiple confirmations, and a 2023 review details incomplete work, installation errors, and defensive behavior when questioned. These serious incidents substantially lower overall confidence despite numerous positive historical reviews.

• FAKE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: Reviews from 2012-2015 contain 4 entries with minimal or no text ('unknown', '.') rated 5.0 stars with no substantive content. These appear to be placeholder or fraudulent entries and reduce confidence in historical data.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most detailed positive reviews are from 2012-2020 (8+ years old). Recent reviews (2024, 2023) show severe service failures including no-show and incomplete work with unprofessional responses.
• BUSINESS CONTINUITY ISSUE: February 2024 review indicates business may be closed or non-responsive ('no answer from business for weeks now'), which contradicts the July 2024 review showing active operations. This suggests possible operational instability.
• CRITICAL SERVICE FAILURES: July 2024 review documents failed appointment with poor communication protocol (unknown caller, text with 5-minute response demand). March 2023 review documents incomplete installation, wrong materials, installation blocking driveway, and aggressive customer interaction ('KNOCK IT OFF MAN').

This score should be treated with caution. While historical reviews suggest competent work, recent critical failures in project completion and professionalism (2023-2024), combined with detected fake reviews in the dataset and apparent business continuity issues, significantly undermine confidence in current service reliability. The WW Score reflects a business in apparent decline from its historical reputation.

Hudson Plumbing shows significant inconsistency in service quality. While many reviews praise professionalism, punctuality, and technical expertise—particularly from recent positive reviews (2023-2024)—multiple detailed negative reviews document serious failures in project completion, follow-through, and customer respect. The 2024 bathroom installation review describes poor workmanship, failure to follow manufacturer instructions, incomplete site cleanup, and dismissive owner response. Earlier reviews (2018-2019) report abandoned work, lack of callbacks, and aggressive collection behavior. Pricing is generally viewed favorably when work is completed properly, but the company's inconsistency and documented quality control issues significantly undermine overall trustworthiness.

• MAJOR INCONSISTENCY: Stark contrast between glowing 5-star reviews and detailed 1-star reviews describing serious workmanship failures and unprofessional conduct. This suggests either highly variable service quality or potential review authenticity concerns.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most positive reviews are from 2019-2024, but the most detailed negative review (bathroom installation) is from January 2024, indicating recent problems persist despite positive recent feedback.
• FAKE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: Multiple 5-star reviews use generic praise with minimal specifics ('excellent work,' 'love the atmosphere,' 'will never use anyone else'). However, positive reviews from 2023-2024 contain specific technical details (boiler maintenance, HVAC tests, water line repair) suggesting some authenticity.
• OWNER CONDUCT: Multiple reviews document unprofessional owner behavior—laughing at customer complaints (2024), aggressive payment collection (2019), dismissive attitude toward quality issues.
• PROJECT COMPLETION FAILURES: Documented instances of abandoned work (2011 A/C job with no callback), incomplete site restoration (2024 bathroom), and failure to complete promised follow-up work (2018 drain cleaning).
• QUALITY CONTROL: 2024 bathroom installation review provides photographic evidence of poor workmanship—uneven panels, gouges, lumpy caulking, failure to follow manufacturer instructions, slanted sewer pipe installation.

This score should be treated with CAUTION. While the numerical WW Score of 72.8 reflects the mixed data, the company exhibits a troubling pattern of inconsistent service quality with documented recent failures in workmanship and customer service, suggesting the score may overstate reliability. The presence of detailed, specific negative reviews describing serious defects alongside generic positive reviews raises questions about consistency. Prospective customers should request references for similar project scope and review the detailed negative reviews carefully before engaging this company.

Wise Plumbing demonstrates solid professionalism and technical knowledge based on recent positive reviews praising punctuality, friendliness, and knowledgeable staff. However, significant concerns emerge around pricing fairness (one customer charged $130 for 5 minutes of work) and project completion reliability (a 2013 review documented incomplete work requiring a second contractor to finish properly). The WW Score of 72.8 reflects mixed performance: strong interpersonal skills and expertise offset by pricing transparency issues and documented follow-through failures. Recent reviews (2024) are more favorable than older ones, suggesting possible service improvements.

• PRICING RED FLAG: One 2024 review explicitly criticizes excessive charges ($130 for 5-minute service call), indicating potential pricing transparency or fairness issues.
• PROJECT COMPLETION CONCERN: A 2013 review documents incomplete work (old leach lines not removed, improper installation technique) requiring a second contractor (Rotorooter) to complete the job successfully.
• RECENCY BIAS: Two reviews are from 2024 (recent, positive), but three reviews are from 2012-2015 (older, mixed quality). The 2013 reviews suggest historical quality control problems.
• GENERIC REVIEW: One review marked 'unknown' with 5-star rating and no detail (2015) — insufficient data, excluded from scoring.
• CONFLICTING SIGNALS: The 2013 septic review gives 5 stars while describing serious incompetence by 'East Texas Plumbing' (not Wise directly), creating confusion about which contractor is being evaluated.

This score should be treated with caution due to limited mention counts (3-4 per dimension), significant recency gaps, and conflicting historical evidence of both strong professionalism and serious project completion failures; recent 2024 reviews suggest improvement, but pricing concerns remain unresolved.

This contractor shows strong technical skill and problem-solving ability, with multiple reviews praising thoroughness and quality workmanship. However, professionalism is significantly undermined by a major 2022 incident involving no-show without communication, unexplained store visits, missing receipts, and questionable pricing practices ($580 for standard faucet installation). Pricing feedback is mixed—some reviews cite fair pricing while the 2022 review documents rates triple typical market rates. Project completion is generally solid with work finished and functional, though the 2022 experience raises concerns about follow-through and transparency. The stark contrast between glowing older reviews (2018–2019) and the detailed negative 2022 experience suggests possible service quality decline or inconsistency.

• RECENCY CONCERN: Four of five reviews are from 2018–2019 (3–6 years old). The most recent review (2022) is highly detailed and severely negative, documenting no-show, missing receipts, unexplained store visits, and pricing concerns. This suggests potential service degradation over time.
• PRICING INCONSISTENCY: Reviews cite both 'very fair pricing' and a documented case of $580 for faucet installation (vs. $250 market rate). This inconsistency warrants caution.
• PROFESSIONALISM RED FLAGS: The 2022 review documents no-show without communication, inability to be reached, missing receipts, undisclosed store visits, missing parts, and abrupt departure. These are serious professionalism failures.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: The four positive reviews (2018–2019) use generic praise ('THEY ARE THE BEST', 'Excellent', 'great', 'nice guy') with minimal specific detail. The 2022 negative review is exceptionally detailed and credible by contrast. The older reviews may be inflated or unverified.
• MISSING DOCUMENTATION: The 2022 review explicitly states no receipt was provided and parts were missing. This raises accountability concerns.

This score should be treated with caution. While technical skill appears solid, the detailed 2022 negative review documents serious professionalism and pricing concerns that contradict older generic praise. The small sample size (5 reviews), age of most positive reviews (3–6 years), and potential pattern of generic positive reviews vs. one credible detailed negative review suggest the overall score may not reflect current service quality. Recommend requesting recent references and written estimates before engaging.