Find Nearby Plumbers In Tulsa, Oklahoma

Both reviews explicitly praise professionalism (punctuality, respectfulness, responsiveness), project completion (work finished quickly and completely), and experience (quality of work described as 'fantastic'). One review mentions fair pricing relative to competitor quotes. However, with only 2 reviews total, all dimensions carry LIMITED confidence. The sample size is too small to produce a reliable WW Score calculation.

• Insufficient review volume (n=2) — cannot calculate WW Score reliably per Step 4 threshold
• One review is from 2021 (3+ years old); only one review from past 12 months
• Both reviews are 5-star with generic praise language ('highly recommended', 'best service'); limited specific technical detail
• No negative feedback or balanced perspective provided

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. With only 2 reviews, all dimensions carry LIMITED confidence. A minimum of 3 reviews is required, and ideally 5+ recent reviews per dimension for trustworthy scoring.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 2 reviews were analyzed, falling below the minimum threshold of 3 reviews required for a trustworthy WW Score. The first review (from 2012) documents severe project completion failures across multiple service calls, with the plumber failing to diagnose and fix a water heater problem despite multiple visits and $200+ in warranty-covered work; the actual issue was only resolved by an electrician. The second review (from 2006) is extremely dated and provides limited detail, noting only punctuality and courtesy. The extreme age gap, conflicting quality signals, and minimal data volume make any aggregate score unreliable.

• CRITICAL: Only 2 reviews analyzed — below minimum threshold of 3 for reliable scoring
• SEVERE RECENCY ISSUE: Second review is from January 2006 (18+ years old); first review is from December 2012 (12+ years old). No recent reviews available.
• MAJOR RED FLAG: First review documents repeated service failures on the same job across multiple visits. Plumber failed to diagnose root cause (bad lower thermostat) despite claiming to replace all thermostats and elements. Customer had to pay $450 for unnecessary pressure regulator installation by another company, and ultimately required an electrician to solve the problem.
• CONFLICTING SIGNALS: Review 1 rates 1 star with documented poor outcomes; Review 2 rates 4 stars with minimal detail. Impossible to reconcile.
• INSUFFICIENT DETAIL: Review 2 provides almost no actionable information about quality, pricing, or technical skill.

This score cannot be calculated reliably due to insufficient review volume (2 reviews, minimum 3 required) and extreme age of all available data (oldest review is 18 years old). The one substantive review documents serious project completion and diagnostic failures. Any score derived from this data would be meaningless.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 2 reviews are available, which falls below the minimum threshold of 3 reviews required for a trustworthy WW Score calculation. The reviews do provide some positive signals: professionalism is evidenced by responsiveness and friendly demeanor (2 mentions), project completion is supported by job finishing and inspection passage (2 mentions), and pricing is mentioned once as affordable. However, with such limited sample size and all reviews from 2006 (18+ years old), no reliable overall score can be generated.

• CRITICAL: Both reviews are dated 2006-07-06 — extremely old data (18+ years). No recent reviews available to assess current service quality.
• Sample size of 2 reviews is below minimum threshold of 3 for reliable scoring.
• Experience dimension has zero mentions — no data on technical skill or workmanship quality.
• All reviews are 5-star with generic positive language; cannot assess whether contractor has addressed any weaknesses or evolved over time.

This analysis cannot produce a reliable WW Score due to insufficient review volume (2 reviews, minimum 3 required) and critically outdated data (all reviews from 2006). Any score generated would be meaningless. Current customer feedback is essential before trusting this contractor's quality.

Both reviews speak positively about Tommy from Merrick Plumbing Solutions, highlighting friendliness, respectfulness, and keeping the customer informed — all pointing to solid professionalism. One review explicitly mentions a great price, providing limited but positive pricing signal. Both reviews indicate the job was found and resolved in a timely manner, suggesting reasonable project completion. Workmanship is described as neat and efficient, supporting a modest experience score, though no technical detail is provided. All scores are conservative due to the very small sample size of only two reviews.

• Only 2 reviews analyzed — far below the minimum threshold of 3 for a reliable WW Score. Results should not be used as a definitive assessment.
• Both reviews are 5-star with broadly positive but non-specific language. While not conclusively fake, the limited detail and small sample size reduce confidence significantly.
• One review is dated February 2023 and one December 2023 — both are over 12 months old as of mid-2025, reducing recency weight.
• No negative feedback or constructive criticism present across any review, which is statistically unusual and warrants caution.

This score is based on only 2 reviews and should be considered highly unreliable — significantly more customer feedback is needed before any meaningful conclusions can be drawn about Merrick Plumbing Solutions.

Only two reviews exist, making any scoring highly unreliable. The positive review from 2006 praises reliability, fair pricing, cleanup, and good work, while the negative review from 2011 describes a lack of estimate, an exorbitant charge, and damage to drywall requiring additional repair cost. The negative review directly contradicts the positive one on pricing transparency and professionalism, creating a deeply mixed and unresolved picture. All scores are heavily discounted due to the minimal review count and the significant span of time between reviews (5 years apart, both older than 12 years). No dimension can be assessed with meaningful confidence.

• Only 2 reviews total — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Both reviews are over 12 years old (2006 and 2011) — data is significantly outdated and should not be used to assess current contractor quality.
• The two reviews directly contradict each other on pricing and professionalism, indicating high uncertainty in all dimension scores.
• The 2011 review describes property damage (drywall hole) caused by the contractor that required a paid third-party repair — this is a serious workmanship concern.
• The 2011 review explicitly states no estimate was provided before work began, indicating a lack of pricing transparency.

This score report is not reliable — with only 2 reviews, both over a decade old and directly contradicting each other, no trustworthy assessment of this contractor's current quality can be made.

Insufficient data — only 1 review analyzed. While this single review is positive across all dimensions (professionalism, fair pricing, quick resolution, and technical knowledge), a WW Score cannot be reliably calculated from a sample size of one. All dimension scores are based on LIMITED evidence and should not be considered representative of typical performance.

• Only 1 review provided — statistically insufficient for reliable scoring
• Single 5-star review with generic positive language ('great experience', 'highly recommend') lacks specific detail that would strengthen confidence
• Cannot assess consistency, patterns, or reliability with single data point

This analysis is unreliable. A minimum of 3 reviews is required to calculate a meaningful WW Score. Do not use this data for decision-making.