Find Nearby Plumbers In Tulsa, Oklahoma

Peak Plumbing presents a deeply divided picture across its review history. Positive reviews consistently praise responsiveness, same-day or next-day service, professionalism, and fair pricing — with several customers highlighting honest billing and efficient workmanship. However, a significant cluster of 1-star reviews — many involving home warranty jobs — describes a pattern of non-communication, broken commitments, failure to complete or document work, hanging up on customers, and in one case alleged property damage. The project completion dimension is severely dragged down by multiple accounts of abandoned or unfinished work, unreturned calls over weeks, and failure to submit required documentation. Pricing scores moderately well but only because the negative pricing mentions are indirect (disputed trade fees) rather than explicit overcharging complaints. The overall WW Score of 47.2 reflects a contractor with genuine capability but a serious and documented reliability problem.

• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: Two reviews with nearly identical full text (the long home warranty complaint) were submitted on consecutive dates (2020-05-08 and 2020-05-09). These appear to be the same reviewer submitting twice. Only one instance was counted per dimension to avoid double-weighting.
• RECENCY CONCERN: The majority of positive reviews are from 2011–2016, with only two positive reviews from 2018 and 2024. The negative reviews cluster around 2018–2020. The most recent review (2024) is positive but is a single data point and insufficient to override the broader negative pattern.
• HOME WARRANTY PATTERN: Multiple 1-star reviews explicitly involve home warranty assignments. This may indicate the contractor performs differently for direct-hire vs. warranty-dispatched jobs, but the pattern of non-communication and incomplete work is consistent enough across those reviews to be treated as credible.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW: The 'Tony's Tacos' review (2022) is highly informal and humorous in tone with no verifiable specifics beyond a toilet clog being resolved. While entertaining, it provides minimal scoreable data and its authenticity cannot be confirmed. It was given minimal weight.
• PROPERTY DAMAGE ALLEGATION: One review (2016) states the reviewer filed suit against the company's insurance for damage caused to their home. This is a serious allegation and contributes to the lowered project completion score.

This WW Score is based on 15 reviews spanning 13 years and carries HIGH confidence due to mention volume, but users should note that the contractor's performance appears to have been inconsistent across job types and time periods, and the score should be interpreted as a warning signal rather than a reliable endorsement.

AAA Advanced Plumbing presents a deeply divided picture across its reviews. Professionalism is the most damaged dimension, with multiple detailed negative reviews citing chronic lateness, no-call no-shows, dismissive attitudes, and unprofessional communication from the owner Jason — these serious complaints significantly drag down the otherwise positive signals from a handful of satisfied customers. Pricing is similarly split: several reviewers praised reasonable rates, but two credible and detailed negative reviews describe price gouging through low initial estimates followed by escalating charges, and a markedly inflated quote for a garbage disposal replacement. Project completion is mixed — some jobs were finished promptly and after-hours, but at least two reviews describe work that was incomplete, ineffective, or required a second plumber to correct. Experience scores modestly positive overall, as the negative reviews suggest misdiagnosis and pressure tactics rather than outright incompetence, while positive reviews note knowledgeable and effective service.

• RECENCY WARNING: Four of the five positive reviews are from 2018–2019, making them 5–6 years old. The two most recent reviews (2023–2024) include one negative and one brief positive, suggesting a possible decline in service quality over time.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — LOW LEVEL: The five positive reviews are relatively brief and generic (e.g., 'amazing service,' 'did the job GREAT,' 'friendly fast and reasonable') with minimal specific detail. While not conclusive, this pattern warrants mild caution. Scores have not been adjusted but confidence is noted.
• SERIOUS CONDUCT FLAG: One detailed 1-star review (2020) describes the owner making an unprofessional remark about being 'hard to get motivated,' refusing to complete requested work, repeatedly missing scheduled appointments, and hanging up on a customer. This is a significant professionalism red flag.
• PRICE GOUGING FLAG: One detailed 1-star review (2023) describes a bait-and-switch pricing pattern across project phases, with a final cost significantly exceeding a competitor's fixed-price quote for a higher-quality solution. A second negative review (2023) documents a $415 charge for a unit available at retail for $139 plus minimal labor.
• COMPETENCY FLAG: At least one review explicitly states that a subsequent plumber confirmed the work recommended by AAA Advanced Plumbing (full line replacement) was unnecessary, and that a simple snaking resolved the issue — suggesting possible upselling or misdiagnosis.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability: the review count is low (9 reviews), the majority of positive reviews are 5–6 years old and lack specific detail, while the negative reviews are recent, highly detailed, and describe consistent patterns of lateness, pricing concerns, and incomplete work — giving the negative evidence disproportionately higher credibility.

Pro Elevated Plumbing presents a deeply divided review profile. While a cluster of positive reviews praise responsiveness, friendliness, and professionalism, a substantial and detailed set of negative reviews — many with specific dollar amounts, dates, and named technicians — describe repeated failures to complete jobs, unresolved leaks, abandoned work, and unresponsiveness after payment. Pricing is a major concern, with multiple reviewers citing inflated charges, hidden fees, and in one case an alleged threat to charge more if a bad review was left. Project completion is the most damaging dimension, with at least eight reviews explicitly describing work that was left unfinished or failed shortly after the technician departed. The positive reviews tend to be brief and generic while the negative reviews are detailed and specific, which further undermines confidence in the higher ratings.

• SUSPECTED FAKE OR LOW-QUALITY POSITIVE REVIEWS: Several 5-star reviews have no dates and contain very generic praise with no specific details (e.g., 'Very professional!', 'Professional and friendly, knowledgeable, will use them again!'). These lack the specificity expected of genuine reviews and may be inflated.
• COERCION ALLEGATION: One reviewer (2022-11-02) explicitly states the technician offered a discount in exchange for not leaving a bad review — a serious ethical and integrity flag that may artificially suppress negative ratings.
• PATTERN OF INCOMPLETE WORK: At least 8 reviews across different dates and named technicians (David, Devon, Devin) describe jobs that were not completed, leaks that recurred immediately after service, or technicians who became unresponsive after receiving payment.
• PRICING TRANSPARENCY ISSUES: Multiple reviews describe bait-and-switch pricing — low initial quotes followed by significantly higher charges on-site, with no itemized receipts provided for parts.
• WRONG DIAGNOSIS PATTERN: At least 3 reviews describe incorrect problem diagnosis, suggesting potential systemic skill or process issues rather than isolated incidents.
• RECENCY NOTE: The two most recent dated reviews (May 2025) are positive, but they are isolated and insufficient to override the volume of detailed negative reviews from 2022–2023. Most undated reviews cannot be weighted by recency.
• MULTIPLE TECHNICIAN NAMES: Reviews reference 'David,' 'Devon,' and 'Devin' — possibly the same person or multiple technicians — making it difficult to isolate individual performance, but the pattern of complaints is consistent across names.

This WW Score is based on 25 reviews with high mention counts across all four dimensions, giving it statistical grounding, but the score should be treated with caution due to suspected generic positive reviews, a credible coercion allegation, and a consistent pattern of detailed negative experiences describing incomplete work and pricing misconduct.

This contractor's review record is deeply divided, with a cluster of positive reviews from 2011–2014 offset by severe negative experiences spanning 2011–2020. Professionalism is the most heavily flagged dimension: multiple reviewers describe no-shows, verbal abuse from the owner, failure to clean up job sites, and aggressive collection tactics — behaviors that dramatically drag the score down despite a handful of reviewers praising punctuality and courtesy. Pricing is similarly problematic, with explicit complaints about inflated invoices, undisclosed substitution of cheaper materials, and a post-payment attempt to collect an additional 25% — against a small number of reviewers who found pricing fair or competitive. Project completion is severely impacted by repeated accounts of unfinished or incorrect work, multi-week delays beyond agreed timelines, and work performed outside the agreed scope. Experience scores slightly higher due to a few reviewers praising technical knowledge and workmanship quality, but is undermined by accounts of wrong parts being ordered, incorrect equipment installed, and work that 'accomplished nothing.'

• RECENCY WARNING: The most detailed and severe negative review is dated 2020, making it the most recent and therefore highest-weighted review. The majority of positive reviews are from 2011–2014, which are over 10 years old and should be treated with significantly reduced weight.
• FAKE REVIEW CONCERN — LIMITED: The 2014-04-16 5-star review ('The plumber is so great... so great comparing him to two other plumbers') is vague, non-specific, and provides no actionable detail. It may be genuine but cannot be scored with confidence on any dimension beyond a general positive sentiment.
• OWNER CONDUCT FLAG: Two separate reviews (2014 and 2020) independently describe the owner, identified by name as Mike/Michael, as verbally abusive or engaging in unethical business practices including illegal or improper collection tactics. This is a serious and specific pattern, not a generic complaint.
• MATERIAL SUBSTITUTION FRAUD ALLEGATION: One reviewer explicitly states the company installed a cheaper water heater brand than what was contracted and paid for, and denied responsibility when confronted. This is a significant integrity flag.
• PATTERN OF NO-SHOWS: At least three separate reviews (2020, 2012, 2011) independently describe missed appointments or no-shows, suggesting a systemic reliability problem rather than isolated incidents.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability: while the review count is sufficient and all four dimensions have usable data, the score is heavily skewed by the age gap between positive reviews (mostly 2011–2014) and the most recent negative review (2020), and the presence of serious, specific misconduct allegations that cannot be dismissed as generic complaints.

This company shows significant inconsistency across reviews. While two reviews praise their workmanship and pricing (2020 and 2022), critical failures in professionalism and project completion severely damage the overall score. A serious safety incident involving a distracted driver (2024) and a complete failure to honor warranty service and respond to customer calls (2022) indicate systemic problems with accountability and customer service. The positive reviews are older (2020–2022) and may not reflect current operations. With only 4 reviews and mixed signals, confidence in this score is limited.

• CRITICAL SAFETY ISSUE: 2024 review reports driver running red light while using phone—potential liability and professionalism concern.
• WARRANTY SERVICE FAILURE: 2022 review reports inability to contact company for warranty repair on hot water heater installed less than 1 year prior—major project completion and responsiveness failure.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most positive reviews are from 2020–2022; most recent review (2024) is highly negative, suggesting possible service degradation.
• SMALL SAMPLE SIZE: Only 4 reviews limits statistical reliability; scores should be treated as preliminary indicators only.

This score should be treated with caution due to small sample size (4 reviews), significant recency concerns, and conflicting signals between older positive reviews and recent critical failures in safety and service delivery.

Across nearly 100 reviews spanning 2014–2024, Airco Service receives overwhelmingly negative feedback in all four scored dimensions. Professionalism is severely undermined by recurring reports of rude technicians, no-call no-shows, unanswered callbacks from management, and in one alarming case an unauthorized entry into a customer's home. Pricing is the lowest-scoring dimension, with dozens of reviewers explicitly describing inflated quotes, charges for parts at many multiples of retail cost, fees for incomplete or failed work, and aggressive upselling of unnecessary replacements. Project completion is deeply problematic, with numerous accounts of jobs left unfinished, repeat visits failing to resolve the same issue, and work that caused additional property damage. Experience scores marginally higher only because a meaningful minority of reviewers praised specific individual technicians by name for genuine skill and thoroughness, but these positive experiences are far outnumbered by accounts of misdiagnosis, incorrect installations, and technicians unable to identify basic problems that competitors resolved quickly and cheaply.

• UPSELLING PATTERN: A very high volume of reviews — across multiple years and service types (HVAC, plumbing, electrical) — describe technicians recommending full system replacements or expensive parts that were later found to be unnecessary by competing companies. This is a systemic pattern, not isolated incidents.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — POSITIVE REVIEWS: Several 5-star reviews are extremely brief and generic (e.g., 'Awesome company! Always takes care of me', 'Once again Airco Service Tulsa has provided wonderful service') with no specific details, job type, or technician names. These may inflate the positive signal.
• MANAGEMENT UNRESPONSIVENESS: Multiple reviews across different years explicitly state that managers never called back after promised, suggesting a systemic customer service failure at the management level.
• PROPERTY DAMAGE INCIDENTS: At least three reviews describe Airco technicians causing direct property damage (flooring water damage, yard destruction, wall damage) with inadequate or no remediation offered.
• UNAUTHORIZED HOME ENTRY: One 2014 review describes a technician entering a customer's home without permission and the company subsequently denying the incident occurred, which is a serious conduct and trust concern.
• FORGED SIGNATURE: One 2024 review describes a forged customer signature on a service invoice, which is a significant legal and ethical red flag.
• RECENCY NOTE: Negative reviews are consistent across the full date range (2014–2024), indicating these are not isolated historical issues. The most recent reviews (2024) continue to reflect the same core complaints about pricing, upselling, and incomplete work.
• SCORE SUPPRESSION APPLIED: Due to the volume and specificity of negative reviews, scores have been held conservative. The few genuinely positive reviews — particularly those praising named technicians — prevent scores from reaching the floor but do not materially offset the dominant negative pattern.

This WW Score is based on 100 reviews with HIGH mention counts across all four dimensions and should be considered highly reliable; the score of 38.2 reflects a contractor with serious, systemic, and well-documented deficiencies in pricing transparency, job completion, and consistent professionalism, offset only partially by a subset of positive individual technician experiences.