Find Nearby Plumbers In Tulsa, Oklahoma

Preston's Plumbing has a deeply mixed record across all four dimensions. Professionalism is the most contested area: multiple positive reviews praise friendliness, responsiveness, and same-day service, but three negative reviews describe a hot-headed owner, exploitation of an elderly customer, and leaving a job site dirty with floor damage. Project completion is similarly split — several reviews confirm quick, thorough work, but two significant negative reviews describe incomplete jobs (bathroom not snaked, bathtub drain left unconnected, hot water not hooked up) and one describes a disputed diagnosis that a second plumber contradicted. Pricing has mostly positive signals, with multiple reviewers citing affordability and one noting a competitor overcharged by more than triple, though the elderly-customer billing complaint tempers this. Experience scores moderately — skilled work is praised in several reviews, but the misdiagnosed broken line and the multiple unfinished plumbing connections in the renovation job are serious technical red flags.

• Three reviews are from 2014–2015 and one from 2020, making them 4–10+ years old. These carry significantly reduced weight under recency rules.
• The 1-star review from 2024-06-02 is the most recent review and describes multiple serious failures: incomplete work, dirty job site, and financial exploitation of an elderly person — this is a strong recent negative signal.
• The 1-star review from 2023-07-06 describes a disputed diagnosis where a second plumber contradicted Preston's assessment, yet payment was still demanded under threat of lien — this is a credibility and ethics concern.
• The 1-star review from 2021-11-12 describes a renovation job with multiple incomplete connections (unhooked bathtub drain, missing hot water hookup) and unprofessional owner behavior — a serious project completion failure.
• Several 5-star reviews are generic in nature (e.g., 'great work,' 'highly recommend,' 'very happy') with limited specific detail, which slightly reduces their evidentiary weight, though they are not conclusively fake.
• The two oldest 5-star reviews (2014 and 2015) are over 9 years old and should be treated as minimally relevant to current performance.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability: while there are enough reviews to calculate a score, the significant time spread (2014–2024), the presence of three detailed and credible 1-star reviews including the most recent review, and the generic nature of several positive reviews mean the score should be interpreted cautiously — recent performance trends negative.

Professionalism is the most-mentioned dimension and is sharply divided: three reviewers praised punctuality, responsiveness, and friendly communication, while one reviewer described a serious failure involving no voicemail, a missed appointment, and leaving a customer without water for four days. This single negative review is detailed, credible, and recent, and it significantly drags the professionalism score down. Project completion is similarly mixed — two reviews confirm work was completed quickly and well, but the 1-star review describes an abandoned job with no follow-through, which is a serious red flag. Pricing and experience are each mentioned by only two reviewers and carry very limited confidence; both dimensions trend positive but cannot be weighted heavily. One review (the in-wall speaker estimate) appears to be for a non-plumbing service and was not fully discounted but treated with caution.

• One review (2023-02-15) describes a request to install an in-wall speaker — this is not a plumbing service. It is unclear whether this contractor is being reviewed for the correct trade, which raises questions about review accuracy or business category.
• The 1-star review (2023-04-10) is highly detailed and credible, describing specific failures: no voicemail setup, missed appointment, no hot water for four days, and no follow-through. This is a serious operational red flag and is the most recent review in the dataset.
• The four positive reviews use somewhat generic praise ('punctual,' 'professional,' 'responsive') with limited job-specific detail, which slightly reduces their individual weight. However, they are not identical in phrasing and are not flagged as definitively fake.
• Total review count is only 5, which is insufficient for high-confidence scoring. All scores should be treated as preliminary estimates only.
• All reviews fall within a narrow 6-week window (2023-02-15 to 2023-04-10), which may indicate a burst of reviews rather than a sustained track record.

This WW Score is based on only 5 reviews over a very short time window and should be considered a low-reliability preliminary estimate; the presence of one highly detailed negative review alongside four positive but somewhat generic reviews creates meaningful uncertainty across all dimensions.

Polar Bear Jack's presents a deeply mixed picture across its review history. The positive reviews — spanning 2014 to 2020 — consistently praise professionalism, technical skill, and follow-through, with multiple reviewers highlighting courteous technicians, punctual arrivals, and willingness to tackle difficult jobs. However, two recent reviews (2022 and 2024) describe a serious responsiveness failure: customers in urgent situations, including one involving a 90-year-old without AC in summer, received no timely callback. These responsiveness failures significantly drag down the professionalism and project completion scores. Pricing was mentioned positively in only one review, yielding a LIMITED confidence score that should not be weighted heavily. The recency of the negative reviews is particularly concerning and warrants caution.

• RECENCY CONCERN: The two most recent reviews (2022 and 2024) are both 1-star and describe complete communication failures. The positive reviews are predominantly from 2014–2020, suggesting a possible decline in service quality over time.
• RESPONSIVENESS FAILURE: Two separate reviewers explicitly report no callback or severely delayed callback in urgent situations. This is a direct, concrete negative data point — not an absence of praise.
• REVIEW VOLUME WARNING: Only 8 total reviews span a 10-year period. This is a very thin dataset and limits the reliability of any score produced.
• RECENCY WEIGHTING APPLIED: Positive reviews from 2014–2017 were down-weighted relative to the 2022 and 2024 negative reviews per Rule 6.

This WW Score carries LOW overall reliability due to the small review pool (8 reviews over 10 years), a clear negative trend in the most recent reviews, and the fact that most positive data is 5–10 years old — prospective customers should treat this score with significant caution.

Custom Air has a mixed track record across these 5 reviews. Professionalism scores moderately — staff like Abby and Herman received genuine praise for responsiveness and follow-through on a holiday weekend, while other interactions involved technicians leaving equipment in unsafe or non-functional states after service visits. Pricing is a significant concern: one reviewer documented a near-$300 quote for a $25 part, and another paid a high installation price only to receive poor workmanship, dragging the pricing score down sharply. Project completion is inconsistent — one installation required excessive time and errors before completion, and one service call resulted in a technician damaging a circuit board and leaving without a fix. Experience scores reflect a wide variance: some techs demonstrated quick, competent diagnostics while others were described as 'highly incompetent' and left gas valves off after servicing furnaces.

• Small sample size of only 5 reviews — WW Score should be treated as preliminary and not fully reliable.
• Two of the most detailed reviews are negative and contain specific, credible incidents (circuit board fire, gas valve left off, excessive repair pricing), which carry significant weight.
• The most positive reviews (5-star) are relatively brief and lack technical detail, though they do reference specific staff names which adds some credibility.
• Review dates span 2019–2022 — the most recent review is from November 2022, meaning all reviews are more than 1 year old as of 2024. Recency is a concern; current service quality is unknown.
• No fake review patterns detected — reviews vary in tone, detail, and rating, suggesting authentic submissions.

This WW Score is based on only 5 reviews, all older than 12 months, and should be considered a low-confidence preliminary assessment — prospective customers should seek more recent and numerous reviews before making a hiring decision.

Dibble Plumbing shows significant inconsistency across reviews, with stark contrasts between positive and negative experiences. While professionalism scores moderately well (friendly technicians, punctuality noted in several reviews), major failures in project completion and experience undermine overall trustworthiness. Critical issues include incomplete repairs requiring customer callbacks, improper installation techniques (French drain installation at wrong depth with inadequate materials), failure to diagnose problems correctly, and lack of accountability when work fails. Pricing concerns are substantial, with customers charged premium rates ($2,300–$6,000+) for work that either failed or was unnecessary. The company's defensive responses to complaints and delayed communication further damage credibility.

• SUSPICIOUS REVIEW PATTERN: One review contains only a period (.) with 5-star rating and no substantive content—likely fake or placeholder review.
• RECENCY BIAS: Most positive reviews are from 2015–2019 (5–9 years old); most detailed negative reviews are from 2020–2022 (more recent). Recent reviews show pattern of serious failures.
• POTENTIAL REVIEW FILTERING: One detailed negative review (2020-11-15) explicitly states suspicion of review filtering and notes lack of negative reviews online despite documented failures. This raises credibility concerns about the review ecosystem.
• ACCOUNTABILITY ISSUES: Multiple reviews document company denying responsibility, refusing callbacks, or claiming warranty expired immediately after job completion.
• QUALITY CONTROL VARIANCE: Positive reviews mention simple jobs (faucet installation, shower head); negative reviews involve complex work (French drains, main line repair, diagnostics). Suggests company lacks expertise for complex projects.

This score should be treated with CAUTION. While based on 8 usable reviews, the stark polarization between older positive reviews and recent detailed negative reviews, combined with explicit allegations of review filtering and documented project failures, suggests the overall score may not reflect current service quality. The company appears competent for basic plumbing but demonstrates serious deficiencies in complex installations, diagnostics, accountability, and customer service recovery.

Joel's Plumbing shows significant inconsistency across reviews. While two reviews praise responsiveness and professionalism, two critical reviews document serious failures: improper repairs requiring rework, code violations creating health hazards, non-transparent pricing with charges exceeding quotes, and poor follow-up on callbacks. The most damaging review describes sewage venting into the home and unresponsiveness to multiple contact attempts. Pricing concerns appear consistently, with customers charged substantially more than quoted without clear itemization. The company demonstrates capability in some areas but critical gaps in project completion quality and customer accountability.

• CRITICAL: Review from 2023-04-30 documents health and safety violations (sewage vented into home) and code violations. This is a serious red flag.
• Pricing transparency issues appear in 2 of 4 reviews: non-itemized invoices, charges exceeding quotes without explanation, and diagnostic fees not credited toward work.
• Project completion failures documented: improper initial repair requiring professional rework, multiple code violations, and unresponsiveness to callbacks.
• Review dates span 2021-2023; most recent negative review is from April 2023, suggesting ongoing issues.
• Positive reviews lack specificity about actual work quality; negative reviews provide detailed documentation of failures.

This score should be treated with caution due to the small sample size (4 reviews) and stark polarization between reviews. However, the detailed documentation of safety violations, code breaches, and unresponsiveness in the negative reviews carries significant weight and suggests real systemic problems that warrant serious consideration before engaging this contractor.