Find Nearby Plumbers In Tulsa, Oklahoma

Across six usable reviews, this contractor consistently receives praise for punctuality, courteous communication, and responsiveness — with one detailed review highlighting proactive preparation, thorough explanation, and post-installation maintenance tips. Project completion is well-supported, with multiple reviewers noting timely resolution of issues including a water leak and a long-standing pressure problem. Pricing is mentioned positively in two reviews as reasonable, but the limited mentions keep confidence low for that dimension. Workmanship quality is referenced in several reviews, though mostly in general terms rather than technical specifics. Overall the picture is positive, but the small review pool and age of most reviews limit how much weight this score should carry.

• Only 7 total reviews, with 1 marked 'unknown' and excluded from scoring — sample size is very small and limits reliability.
• Five of the six usable reviews are older than 12 months; four are more than 2 years old, and two are from 2017 and 2020 respectively. Recency is a concern — contractor performance may have changed.
• One review from 2012 contained no usable text and was excluded entirely.
• Most reviews are 5-star with broadly positive language; however, the detailed 2022 water heater review provides specific, credible narrative that reduces fake review concern for that entry. The shorter reviews are generic but not identical in phrasing, so no strong fake review pattern is flagged.
• No negative reviews present — this may reflect genuine quality or may indicate an incomplete review picture given the small sample.

This WW Score should be treated with caution due to a very small review pool of only 6 usable reviews, the majority of which are more than one year old, making it difficult to assess the contractor's current performance with confidence.

All three reviews speak positively about Troy's customer service, responsiveness, and fair pricing, with one reviewer specifically noting a free follow-up visit and another highlighting that Troy actively discouraged unnecessary work — both strong indicators of professionalism and honest pricing. Project completion is supported by the follow-up review describing a completed service call with multiple tasks addressed, and the third review implies competent diagnosis that corrected a misdiagnosis by another company. However, the review base is very small (only 3 reviews) and spans nearly a decade (2015–2022), meaning the most recent review is over three years old, significantly limiting reliability. Scores have been kept conservative given the low volume of data.

• Only 3 reviews total — this is the minimum threshold for a WW Score calculation and results should be treated with caution.
• Review dates span from 2015 to 2022 — the most recent review is over 3 years old and none fall within the past 12 months, reducing recency relevance significantly.
• All three reviews are 5-star ratings with no critical feedback — while the reviews contain specific details that reduce fake review suspicion, the uniformly positive sentiment with zero negative data points warrants caution.
• No reviews mention project completion failures, delays, or callbacks in a negative context — absence of complaints is not treated as evidence of quality per scoring rules.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews, all of which are more than 3 years old, making it a low-reliability snapshot that should not be used as a definitive assessment of current service quality.

All three reviews are positive and reflect a generally capable and professional contractor. Professionalism is the best-supported dimension, with all three reviews referencing courteous behavior, responsiveness, and reliability. Project completion is also mentioned across all three reviews, with one reviewer specifically noting work was delivered on time and within quote, and another highlighting willingness to work overtime during a holiday. Pricing is supported by two reviews, one of which explicitly praised transparent quoting with no hidden costs, which is a strong positive signal. Experience is touched on in two reviews, noting accurate diagnosis of a difficult leak and quality workmanship, but the evidence base is thin. Overall, the scores are conservative given the very small review pool.

• Only 3 reviews total — this is the minimum threshold for a WW Score calculation. Results should be treated as highly preliminary.
• One review (2017) and one review (2018) are more than 5 years old and carry reduced weight. Only one review (2022) falls within a more recent window, and none are within the past 12 months of a typical evaluation cycle.
• The third review ('RSM is who I always recommend!') is vague and generic with no specific details about the work performed, pricing, or project type. It reads as enthusiastic but provides limited verifiable information and slightly raises a flag for authenticity.
• All three reviews are 4–5 stars with no critical feedback. While this could reflect genuine quality, the small sample size and lack of any negative detail means this pattern cannot be fully trusted as representative.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews, two of which are over 5 years old, making it a low-reliability snapshot that should not be used as a definitive assessment without a larger and more recent review dataset.

Three of four reviews are positive and recent (2024), praising professionalism, speed, and fair pricing. However, one 2-star review from 2023 meaningfully drags down the professionalism and experience dimensions, citing a condescending technician and a loss of trust that led the customer to choose a competitor. Office staff receive consistently strong praise across multiple reviews, but field technician quality appears inconsistent. With only 4 total reviews, all scores carry limited statistical weight and should be interpreted cautiously.

• Very small sample size (4 reviews total) — scores are not statistically reliable and may shift significantly with additional reviews.
• One review (2-star, 2023) explicitly describes a technician behaving condescendingly and the customer ultimately not using the company — this is a meaningful negative signal for both professionalism and experience.
• Pricing data is based on a single mention — the pricing score should be treated as anecdotal rather than representative.
• No strong fake review indicators detected, but three of four 5-star reviews are generic in structure; specificity is moderate rather than high.

This WW Score is based on only 4 reviews and should be considered a preliminary signal only — a minimum of 10–15 reviews would be needed to establish a reliably representative score.

Charlie's Rooter shows mixed performance across dimensions. Professionalism is supported by three reviews highlighting politeness, responsiveness, and helpfulness, though one 2021 review documents a significant communication failure and refusal to return for follow-up work. Pricing feedback is limited but positive in two reviews mentioning fair/reasonable rates and honesty. Project completion is the weakest dimension, with one detailed 2021 review describing abandonment of a scheduled callback and refusal to return despite customer willingness to pay. Experience/skill is consistently praised across three reviews for diagnostic ability and technical knowledge. The company appears to have strong technical capability but inconsistent follow-through and customer relationship management.

• One review (2024-04-23) is completely unrelated to plumbing services and appears to be a personal attack or misplaced review — excluded from analysis
• Significant recency gap: two positive reviews from 2019, one negative from 2021, no recent reviews in past 2-3 years — unable to assess current performance
• Critical service failure documented in 2021 review: scheduled callback never occurred, customer could not reach contractor for 2 weeks, and contractor refused return visit despite customer offering payment
• Small sample size (3 usable reviews) limits reliability of scoring
• Positive reviews lack specific detail about pricing and completion timelines, while negative review is highly detailed and specific

This score should be treated with caution due to limited review volume (3 usable reviews), significant age of most data (2019-2021 with no recent reviews), and a documented service failure that suggests potential reliability issues despite strong technical reputation.

Pacific Plumbing has a large and deeply mixed review record spanning over a decade. The majority of positive reviews praise individual technicians — particularly Blake, Tony, Dale, Jerry, Eddie, and Kit — for punctuality, friendliness, communication, and solid workmanship, often in the context of home warranty dispatches. However, a substantial minority of negative reviews (roughly 25–30% of all reviews) describe serious failures: abandoned or incomplete work, incorrect installations (reversed hot/cold lines, failed city inspections), rude or hostile owner behavior, billing disputes involving charges for work not performed, and repeated no-shows. The pricing dimension is particularly polarized — some reviewers cite fair or below-market rates while others describe significant overcharging, lack of upfront quotes, and charges for materials not used. Project completion is similarly split, with multiple reviews describing jobs left unfinished, problems made worse, or follow-up calls ignored. The overall score reflects a contractor with genuine capable technicians but systemic issues in management, accountability, and consistency.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: At least 6 reviews appear to be exact or near-exact duplicates posted on different dates (e.g., 'They are very professional plumber. They are hard worker' posted 2024-06-09 and 2024-06-06; 'There is a very good service pacific plumbing co.' posted on both dates; the 1-star water heater cancellation review posted on both 2024-06-09 and 2024-06-06; the Dale/Tony shower leak review posted on both 2018-06-08 and 2018-02-26). These duplicates inflate review counts and confidence artificially.
• SUSPECTED FAKE OR PADDED REVIEWS: A cluster of 5-star reviews dated 2024-06-06 and 2024-06-09 includes extremely generic, low-detail entries ('They are very professional plumber. They are hard worker', 'There is a very good service pacific plumbing co.', 'Excellence') with no specifics. These appear to be padding reviews and have been discounted in scoring.
• BLANK REVIEWS: 14 reviews contained no text — only a star rating (mostly 5 stars). These provide no usable data for any dimension and were excluded from dimensional scoring.
• OWNER CONDUCT PATTERN: Multiple independent negative reviews across different years describe the owner (variously named David/Dave/Ray depending on location) as rude, hostile, threatening, and unwilling to accept responsibility for errors. This is a recurring and credible pattern, not isolated incidents.
• MULTI-LOCATION AMBIGUITY: Reviews reference locations including Fresno/Clovis CA, Tulsa OK, San Carlos/Redwood City CA, Charlotte NC, and Hawaii. This appears to be a shared business name across multiple unrelated or loosely related entities, which significantly reduces the reliability of aggregate scoring. Scores should be interpreted with caution as they blend performance across potentially different operators.
• RECENCY NOTE: Reviews span from 2009 to 2025. The most recent reviews (2024–2025) are generally positive for the Tulsa-area operation (Kit/Blake), while older and Fresno-area reviews show more mixed results. Recency weighting slightly benefits the overall score.
• FAILED CITY INSPECTION: One review explicitly states a water heater installation failed 3 consecutive city inspections, indicating a serious workmanship and code compliance issue.
• BILLING INTEGRITY CONCERNS: Multiple reviews describe charges for materials not used, estimates that increased significantly after work began, and refusal to honor written quotes — a pattern suggesting systemic billing integrity issues.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large review volume, but the score's practical reliability is MODERATE at best due to multi-location ambiguity, confirmed duplicate and suspected fake reviews, and a wide performance variance that suggests the aggregate score masks significantly different quality levels depending on which technician, location, or time period is involved — prospective customers should read individual reviews carefully rather than relying solely on the aggregate score.