Find Nearby Plumbers In Tulsa, Oklahoma

This contractor shows highly polarized performance with critical gaps in reliability. One detailed negative review from 2021 documents severe project failures including pipe damage, water saturation of the home's underbelly, membrane damage, and complete failure to provide itemized billing—suggesting awareness of liability. Two positive reviews praise work quality and versatility, but lack specificity and one dates to 2018. The absence of pricing feedback and the dramatic contradiction between reviews creates substantial uncertainty. The company's failure to communicate after causing damage is a major professionalism red flag.

• CRITICAL: One detailed 1-star review documents major project failures (pipe damage, water saturation, membrane damage) and complete communication breakdown (no itemized bill provided for weeks). This is not a minor complaint.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Positive reviews are from 2024 and 2018; the most serious negative review is from 2021 (3+ years old). Unclear if issues have been resolved.
• INSUFFICIENT DATA: Only 3 reviews total. Two positive reviews are generic with minimal detail ('amazing job'). Cannot reliably assess true performance with this small sample.
• PROFESSIONALISM RED FLAG: Failure to provide itemized billing after causing damage suggests intentional avoidance of accountability.
• NO PRICING DATA: No reviews mention pricing, value, or transparency of quotes.

This score should be treated with extreme caution due to only 3 reviews and a stark contradiction between one detailed failure account and generic praise. The documented project failures and communication breakdown in the 2021 review are serious concerns that cannot be dismissed. More recent reviews are needed to determine if performance has improved.

This contractor shows significant inconsistency across reviews. While two reviews praise professionalism and skill, a detailed 2021 review documents serious failures in project completion (incomplete HVAC follow-up, incorrectly wired outlets, work started without approval), pricing transparency (unexpected charges for previously promised free work), and professionalism (poor cleanup, integrity concerns around invoice approval). The contractor spent over $17k with the customer but failed to warranty work or provide callbacks, forcing the customer to hire competitors for repairs. The positive reviews lack specificity and predate the major complaints by 1-2 years, suggesting possible service quality decline.

• RECENCY CONCERN: Two positive reviews are from 2020 and 2022; the most detailed negative review is from December 2021, indicating potential service quality issues that may persist.
• PATTERN OF INCOMPLETE WORK: Multiple instances documented—HVAC installation not followed up, outlets wired incorrectly, work started without approval, poor cleanup practices.
• WARRANTY/CALLBACK FAILURE: Explicit statement that contractor does not warranty or service work after payment, forcing customer to hire competitors for troubleshooting.
• INTEGRITY CONCERN: Documented case of work started without customer approval and invoice disputes, with contractor claiming verbal approval that customer denies.
• POSITIVE REVIEWS LACK DETAIL: The two 5-star reviews contain generic praise with minimal specifics, contrasting sharply with the detailed negative review.
• SAMPLE SIZE VERY SMALL: Only 3 reviews analyzed; one detailed negative review carries disproportionate weight.

This score should be treated with caution due to very small sample size (3 reviews) and significant recency/consistency issues; the detailed negative review from a $17k+ customer documenting multiple failures in completion, pricing, and professionalism substantially outweighs generic positive reviews, but broader patterns cannot be confirmed without additional recent data.

This contractor shows a deeply mixed track record across all dimensions. Professionalism is polarized: some reviewers praise responsiveness and patience from Mike, while others report complete failure to return calls and dismissive behavior toward a female customer. Project completion is the most concerning dimension, with one detailed 1-star review describing a job left incomplete, a tank not fully pumped, and a distribution box ignored entirely — resulting in immediate system failure after payment. Pricing feedback is similarly split, with one reviewer calling them expensive with no itemized breakdown, while another suggests they are cheaper than most and hints at cash discounts. Experience concerns are raised by the incomplete pump job and failure to diagnose a distribution box issue, suggesting inconsistent technical thoroughness. The two most positive reviews are older (2018 and 2024), and the most damaging reviews contain specific, credible detail that significantly weighs down the score.

• Two of the five reviews are from 2014 and 2015 — over 9 years old — and should be treated as low-recency data. However, they contain specific negative detail that cannot be dismissed.
• The 2018 positive review is also over 6 years old and may not reflect current service quality.
• Only one review is from the past 12 months (October 2024), which is insufficient to establish a reliable current performance baseline.
• The 1-star review from 2014 is highly detailed and credible, describing incomplete work, dismissive communication, and a refusal to accept responsibility — this is a significant red flag for project completion and professionalism.
• The 5-star review from July 2024 is vague and generic with no specific details about the job performed, which reduces its evidentiary weight.
• No fake review patterns detected, but the small sample size (5 reviews) severely limits reliability.
• Cash discount suggestion in one review may indicate informal or off-the-books pricing practices — minor flag.

This WW Score is based on only 5 reviews spanning 10 years, with just one review from the past 12 months, making it a LOW-RELIABILITY indicator of current contractor performance — treat with significant caution and seek additional recent references before hiring.

This contractor's review history is deeply mixed and spans a very wide date range (2006–2018), making it difficult to establish a reliable current performance picture. Professionalism scores moderately due to several mentions of punctuality and friendliness, but are significantly dragged down by a no-show with no call in 2018 and a pattern of poor communication in negative reviews. Project completion is the most damaging dimension: multiple reviews describe unfinished work, serious installation errors (blocked drains, missing p-traps, misaligned tiles), and at least one instance where a customer had to hire others to correct the contractor's mistakes. Experience scores low-to-moderate because while a few older reviews praise skill and problem-solving, the more detailed negative reviews describe fundamental workmanship failures across multiple trades. Pricing receives a middling score as one reviewer noted it would have been fair had the work been done correctly, and one positive review praised reasonable pricing.

• One review consists solely of a period ('.') with a 5-star rating — this is not usable data and was excluded from scoring as it contains no substantive content.
• The review dataset spans 2006 to 2018 — the most recent review is from 2018 and describes a no-show. No reviews exist from the past several years, making current performance impossible to assess.
• Most positive reviews are from 2006–2012; the more recent reviews (2013–2018) trend negative, suggesting possible decline in service quality over time.
• The single most recent review (2018) is a 1-star no-show complaint, which is weighted more heavily per recency rules.
• Small total review count (8 reviews, 7 usable) limits statistical reliability of all scores.

This WW Score should be treated with caution — the small number of reviews, wide date range, and absence of any recent positive reviews mean the score reflects a historically inconsistent contractor whose current performance cannot be reliably assessed.

Acme's reviews paint a deeply mixed but predominantly negative picture. Professionalism is the most heavily flagged dimension: multiple reviews cite rude staff, threatening behavior from a plumber, a dismissive division manager, and chronic office communication failures that left customers without updates for hours. Project completion is similarly troubled — one customer was never called back at all, another paid for a job that required a return visit due to a cracked sink, and one reviewer explicitly states they were paid for work that was never performed. Pricing received one strong positive mention (competitive HVAC pricing) but is significantly undermined by a detailed account of unexplained 'helper' charges totaling $406 for a person who performed no visible work, suggesting a lack of pricing transparency. On the experience side, at least one field technician received genuine praise for skill and efficiency, and one reviewer praised a large gas line replacement job, but these positives are outweighed by accounts of careless workmanship (damaging a sink strainer) and a return-visit failure.

• No fake review patterns detected — reviews vary significantly in length, detail, tone, and rating, suggesting authentic authorship.
• RECENCY NOTE: Only 2 of 7 reviews are from the past 12 months (2023–2024). Three reviews date from 2019, which limits how well this score reflects current business performance.
• BILLING CONCERN: One detailed review describes being charged $406 for a 'helper' who performed no work across two service calls, with no upfront disclosure. This may indicate a systemic billing practice worth flagging.
• MANAGEMENT CONDUCT FLAG: Two separate reviews describe rude or dismissive behavior from office/management staff (division manager Stratton and a second plumber named Steve), suggesting a possible cultural or leadership issue beyond isolated incidents.
• ABANDONED WORK FLAG: One reviewer explicitly states they paid Acme and the work was never performed, which is a serious project completion failure.

This WW Score is based on 7 reviews spanning 2019–2024, with moderate overall confidence; the score is likely a fair reflection of systemic issues but should be interpreted cautiously given that recent data is limited to only 2 reviews from the past 12 months.

This contractor demonstrates severe deficiencies across multiple critical dimensions. Professionalism is critically weak, with consistent reports of rude behavior, missed appointments, no-shows, poor communication, and owner hostility toward customers. Project completion is equally problematic, with incomplete repairs, callbacks not honored, and quality issues (leaking faucets within 6 weeks, dangerous water temperature hazard). Experience shows gaps in technical knowledge, with technicians admitting they don't know how to perform work. Pricing is the only relative bright spot with two mentions of reasonable/competitive rates, but this cannot offset the fundamental failures in service delivery and customer treatment.

• CRITICAL: Multiple reviews (4 of 6) report severe owner/staff unprofessionalism including rudeness, hanging up on customers, and dismissive behavior toward legitimate complaints
• CRITICAL: Three reviews explicitly document no-shows, missed appointments, or failure to follow through on promised callbacks
• CRITICAL: Two reviews report safety hazards and quality failures (leaking faucet within 6 weeks, dangerously hot water causing injury)
• CRITICAL: Two reviews document incomplete work and refusal to fix problems after payment
• All reviews are older than 8 years (2015-2017), limiting ability to assess current operations
• Pattern of owner involvement in negative interactions suggests systemic management issues rather than isolated incidents

This score should be trusted as a strong indicator of serious service problems, though all reviews predate 2018 and current operations may differ; the consistency of complaints across multiple dimensions and the pattern of owner misconduct provide moderate-to-high confidence in the negative assessment.