Find Nearby Plumbers In Tulsa, Oklahoma

York Plumbing shows mixed performance across dimensions. Positive reviews highlight fast emergency response, courteous staff, fair pricing, and reliable multi-year service relationships. However, two critical negative reviews from 2016 and 2018 document serious professionalism failures (condescending phone communication, dismissive attitude) and workmanship defects (improper faucet installation requiring third-party correction). The company demonstrates technical capability but inconsistent execution and customer service quality. The presence of both 5-star and 1-star reviews suggests variable performance depending on which technician is assigned.

• RECENCY CONCERN: Three of five reviews are older than 3 years (2016, 2018, 2019). Only one review from past 12 months. Recent performance trajectory unclear.
• WORKMANSHIP DEFECT: 2018 review documents installation error (gasket placement) that required third-party correction, indicating quality control gaps.
• PROFESSIONALISM INCIDENT: 2016 review describes condescending phone behavior and dismissive treatment, suggesting inconsistent customer service standards.
• SMALL SAMPLE SIZE: Only 5 reviews limits statistical reliability. Scores should be treated as preliminary indicators rather than definitive assessments.

This WW Score of 72.3 should be treated with caution due to small sample size (5 reviews), significant recency gap (most data 3+ years old), and polarized ratings (three 5-stars, two 1-stars) indicating inconsistent service delivery. The score reflects documented strengths in responsiveness and pricing but is tempered by verified professionalism and workmanship failures.

Bryant Plumbing has a strong base of positive reviews praising responsiveness, courteous staff, fair pricing, and solid technical work across a wide range of plumbing tasks. However, three serious negative reviews meaningfully drag down the scores: one describes a catastrophic failure where water was turned back on without identifying the source of a leak, causing major structural flooding damage; another describes a job left incomplete with no follow-up communication, leaving the customer without functioning plumbing for days; and a third alleges price gouging and unnecessary work performed on a vulnerable senior citizen. These are not minor complaints — they describe fundamental failures in professionalism, project completion, and ethical conduct. The positive reviews span many years and include some with very little detail, which limits their evidentiary weight. Scores have been conservatively adjusted to reflect the severity and credibility of the negative incidents.

• Two reviews (2018-11-08 and 2018-11-10) are not plumbing reviews at all — they describe employees helping someone with a boat trailer. These provide no usable data on any scored dimension and were excluded from scoring.
• Several reviews contain no substantive detail (e.g., 'Bryant Plumbing is excellent. I love it.', 'OVERALL I THOUGHT WORK WAS FINE.', '.', 'unknown') and were treated as low-value or excluded from dimension scoring.
• The review corpus spans from 2004 to 2021. The majority of reviews are older than 3 years relative to the most recent review date (2021-11-23), and only 3 reviews are from 2020 or later. Recency weighting reduces confidence in the overall picture.
• The most recent review (2021-11-23, 1-star) describes a severe incident — water turned back on without identifying a broken main, causing flooding and foundation damage. This is the most recent data point and carries elevated weight under recency rules.
• The 1-star review from 2019-01-20 describes a job abandoned mid-service with no callback, leaving the customer without usable plumbing. This is a direct and credible project completion failure.
• The 1-star review from 2016-01-27 alleges financial exploitation of a senior citizen, which is a serious ethical and professionalism concern.
• Some 5-star reviews use generic praise without specifics, which slightly raises concern about authenticity, though most positive reviews do include enough detail to be considered credible. No strong fake review pattern detected, but caution is warranted given the volume of brief or vague entries.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability: the volume of reviews is reasonable and most dimensions have HIGH mention counts, but the wide date range (2004–2021), the presence of three serious and credible negative reviews, and a significant number of low-detail positive reviews mean the score should be interpreted cautiously — particularly given that the most recent review describes a severe service failure.

Murray Electric and Plumbing receives consistently strong marks for professionalism, with many reviewers citing punctuality, courteous technicians, and clear communication before and after work. However, pricing is a significant weak point: two detailed negative reviews describe predatory or opportunistic billing practices — one involving a $387/hr charge to retrieve a common part, and another alleging a 5x markup over competitor quotes — which substantially drag down the pricing score despite several reviews praising reasonable or fair pricing. Project completion is generally positive, with most reviewers reporting work was finished thoroughly and efficiently, though one notable review describes technicians failing to locate a fault that the electric company found immediately for free, and one undated review explicitly states the requested work had not yet been completed. Experience scores moderately well, with multiple reviewers praising knowledgeable and skilled technicians, but the failed fault-location incident tempers confidence in technical consistency.

• A large cluster of undated reviews (17 out of 26) cannot be assessed for recency. These reviews carry reduced reliability as they may be very old or selectively submitted.
• Several undated reviews are brief, generic, and lack specific detail (e.g., 'From start to finish Murray Electric provided exceptional service.' and 'Anthony did a wonderful and thorough job.'). This pattern is consistent with potentially coached or low-effort reviews and warrants caution.
• The ratio of 5-star to 1-star reviews is heavily skewed (22 five-star vs. 3 one-star), but the negative reviews contain specific, credible, and detailed accounts of pricing abuse and technical failure — these should be weighted heavily despite being outnumbered.
• Dated reviews span from 2011 to 2025. The oldest negative review (2011) and several positive reviews (2018, 2019, 2021) are more than 3 years old and may not reflect current service quality. Only 3 reviews are from the past 12 months (2024–2025).
• One review (dated 2025-05-26) describes a specific and serious predatory pricing incident involving charging $387/hour to retrieve a common plumbing part. This is the most recent dated review and should be treated as a high-weight signal for current pricing practices.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability: while the volume of reviews is sufficient and dimension coverage is broad, the heavy concentration of undated and potentially generic reviews, the small number of recent dated reviews, and credible specific complaints about pricing and technical competence introduce meaningful uncertainty into the final score.

A-Team Plumbing receives broadly positive feedback across professionalism, pricing, and workmanship, with multiple reviewers praising punctuality, responsiveness, and follow-up calls from the owner — a notable quality signal. Pricing is viewed favorably, with one reviewer explicitly noting A-Team charged half of what a competitor quoted, though a lack of upfront baseline service fees was flagged as a minor concern. Project completion scores are tempered by one significant negative review (never showed or replied) and the fact that several reviews are quite old, reducing confidence in current performance. The experience dimension is supported by specific accounts of skilled problem-solving, such as diagnosing a water heater anode issue and managing a complex tub installation, lending credibility to the workmanship scores. Overall, the score is held back by the age of most reviews, two uninformative 'unknown' entries, and one clear service failure.

• 3 reviews contain only the text 'unknown' or no usable content and were excluded from scoring.
• Only 2 of the 11 reviews are from the past 12 months (2023 and 2020). The majority of reviews are 5–10+ years old, significantly reducing confidence in current performance.
• One review (2016-01-04, 1-star) explicitly states the contractor never showed up and never replied — a serious professionalism and project completion failure that was factored into scoring.
• The two most recent reviews (2023 and 2020) are the primary indicators of current quality; all other substantive reviews date from 2013–2015 and should be treated as low-recency data.
• No fake review patterns detected; reviews contain specific details, named technicians, and varied language consistent with authentic customer experiences.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability due to the small number of recent reviews, a majority of data points being 5–10 years old, and three reviews providing no usable content — prospective customers should seek more current references before making a hiring decision.

Cooper Perry Plumbing receives consistently strong praise across all four dimensions, with professionalism being the most frequently and enthusiastically mentioned quality — reviewers highlight punctuality, respectful communication, and follow-through. Project completion is well-supported, with reviewers noting jobs finished efficiently and follow-up calls made to confirm satisfaction. Experience is reflected in specific mentions of technical competence, troubleshooting guidance, and quality workmanship on items like water heaters and PRV valves. Pricing is mentioned positively in only one review, so that dimension carries very limited weight in the overall score. The small review pool limits confidence in the final WW Score despite the uniformly positive sentiment.

• Only 4 reviews total — WW Score should be treated as preliminary and not fully reliable.
• All reviews are 5-star with no negative feedback, which warrants mild caution, though reviews do contain specific details and named individuals that reduce fake review suspicion.
• One review (2020-10-27) and one review (2021-10-11) are more than 3 years old and carry reduced recency weight.
• Pricing dimension is based on a single mention — score of 78 is conservative and LOW confidence per rules, labeled LIMITED.

This WW Score is based on only 4 reviews, two of which are over 3 years old, making it a preliminary indicator of quality rather than a statistically reliable assessment — more recent reviews are needed to establish a trustworthy score.

Two substantive reviews provide usable data, both strongly positive. The detailed 5-star review highlights exceptional dedication — a technician walking to a job site after a truck breakdown — as well as transparent pricing with no parts upcharge, timely completion, and skilled workmanship on a 70-year-old home with original tile. The second 5-star review corroborates competitive pricing and efficient, proper work completion. Scores are kept conservative across all dimensions due to the very small sample size. The first review (1-star) contains no usable content — only a phone number request — and was excluded from scoring.

• Only 2 reviews contain usable data. This is an extremely small sample and the WW Score should be treated as highly preliminary.
• The 1-star review (Cheri Strand, 2024-11-02) contains no descriptive content — only a phone number. It cannot be scored but its low rating suggests a potentially unresolved issue that warrants attention.
• All scored reviews are from 2024, which is positive for recency, but the sample is too small to draw reliable conclusions.
• No fake review patterns detected in the two substantive reviews — both contain specific, credible details.

This WW Score is based on only 2 usable reviews and should be considered highly preliminary — do not rely on it as a definitive assessment of this contractor's quality until significantly more reviews are available.