Find Nearby Plumbers In Tulsa, Oklahoma

H2O demonstrates strong performance across professionalism, pricing, and project completion. All four reviews explicitly praise fast service, professional conduct, and fair pricing. Project completion is particularly well-documented with multiple mentions of quick turnaround times (3 hours for emergency repair, 20 minutes for another job) and successful resolution of issues. Pricing transparency and responsiveness are highlighted as key strengths. However, the sample size is small (4 reviews) and technical experience/workmanship quality is not explicitly discussed in any review, limiting the overall assessment.

• Small sample size (4 reviews) limits statistical confidence; recommend collecting more reviews before making major business decisions
• No explicit mentions of technical skill, problem-solving ability, or workmanship quality in any review
• One review is from 2020 (over 3 years old); three reviews are from 2022-2023, providing reasonable recency
• All reviews are 4-5 stars with positive language, but each contains specific details (leak types, response times, repair duration) suggesting authenticity rather than generic praise

This score should be treated as a preliminary indicator only. With only 4 reviews and no data on technical experience, the WW Score of 88.3 reflects strong professionalism and project completion but lacks the depth and volume needed for high-confidence decision-making. Collect additional reviews before relying heavily on this assessment.

The overwhelming majority of reviews praise professionalism, punctuality, and friendly technicians across both the 702 PlumbAIR and Phillips Plumbing entities represented in this dataset. Pricing is generally described as fair and reasonable, though a meaningful minority of negative reviews cite billing surprises, overcharging, and hidden fees that temper the pricing score. Project completion is strong overall, with many reviewers noting jobs finished correctly and on time, but several serious negative reviews describe abandoned work, incomplete repairs, no-shows, and failure to follow through on callbacks — including one detailed account of a major repipe left unfinished for months. Experience scores well due to numerous specific mentions of skilled diagnostics, knowledgeable technicians, and quality workmanship, though a handful of reviews describe poor-quality work, wrong fittings, and recurring leaks after repairs.

• MIXED ENTITY ALERT: This review set appears to contain reviews for at least two distinct businesses — 'Phillips Plumbing' (multiple locations including Sarasota FL, Las Vegas NV, El Cerrito CA, and others) and '702 PlumbAIR' (Las Vegas NV). Scores reflect an aggregate that may not accurately represent either business individually.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — MODERATE: A cluster of reviews dated 2025-05-10 contains 15+ reviews posted on the same date, many with generic praise ('Great service', 'Excellent service', 'Amazing service'), no specific job details, and identical 5-star ratings. This pattern is consistent with review padding or solicited bulk reviews and reduces confidence in the overall positive skew.
• BLANK REVIEWS: At least 8 reviews contained no text content (only a star rating). These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data.
• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: At least 3 reviews appear to be near-identical or exact duplicates (e.g., the Donald/Marty kitchen repair story appears three times; the Phillips/El Cerrito Ralph review appears twice; the 'Solid 5 star company' Anthony review appears twice). Duplicates were counted only once per dimension to avoid score inflation.
• RECENCY NOTE: A significant portion of reviews date from 2014–2019, which is more than 5 years old. While recent 2025 reviews are present and weighted more heavily, the older negative reviews (including serious complaints about abandoned work, billing fraud, and unprofessional conduct) remain relevant to the overall assessment.
• SERIOUS NEGATIVE INCIDENTS: Multiple 1-star reviews describe significant failures including: a major repipe left incomplete for 5+ months with an open foundation hole and missing P-trap; a repair that caused water damage to an AC system twice with no callback; a technician who damaged a new wood floor and refused accountability; a billing dispute where a promised refund was never issued; and a technician described as condescending and threatening. These incidents meaningfully reduce scores for project completion and professionalism.
• PRICING CONCERN: At least 3 reviews explicitly describe being charged more than quoted, hidden fees (credit card surcharges, undisclosed material charges), or rates described as higher than competitors. One review noted a 30% premium over comparable companies.

This WW Score carries moderate-to-high reliability for general trend assessment given the large review volume, but should be interpreted cautiously due to the mixed-entity dataset, suspected bulk review padding on 2025-05-10, and a pattern of serious unresolved complaints that suggest meaningful quality inconsistency across technicians and locations.

One Way Plumbing demonstrates strong overall performance across a large review base spanning roughly 2009 to 2023, with the majority of feedback being positive. Professionalism scores well due to consistent mentions of punctuality, courteous technicians, and responsive communication, though a handful of reviews describe no-shows, forgotten appointments, and a failure to return emergency calls — preventing a higher score. Pricing is generally praised as fair, competitive, and transparent with no hidden charges, and multiple reviewers noted final costs came in at or below the quoted amount; one outlier felt pricing was high for faucet quality. Project completion is solid but carries meaningful deductions: several reviews document incomplete work on first visits, a gas leak left unresolved for six months after a water heater install, a missed crawl-space leak that nearly derailed a home sale, and a toilet repair that introduced a new problem requiring a paid second call. Experience scores well overall, with technicians frequently described as knowledgeable and skilled, including handling unusual hydronic systems and complex older-home plumbing, though the serious gas-fitting error and the water-heater drain incident in the attic reflect lapses in technical execution by specific crew members.

• RELIABILITY CONCERN: One review (2017-07-18, rated 2.0) describes a water heater installation where improper attic draining caused water damage to an electrical outlet, and a gas fitting was left leaking for approximately six months — a serious safety issue. The owner did remediate, but the incident reflects a significant quality control failure.
• INCOMPLETE WORK PATTERN: Multiple reviews note that work was not fully completed on the first visit and required callbacks (2015-03-04, 2017-05-22, 2016-11-17, 2013-07-29, 2014-04-23). In at least one case (2017-05-22) the missed repair was not acknowledged and the customer was charged for a $1,300 fix by another contractor.
• NO-SHOW / RESPONSIVENESS FAILURES: At least three reviews (2021-01-20, 2014-11-15, 2013-05-09) describe the company failing to show up for scheduled appointments or not returning emergency calls, with no proactive communication to the customer.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews are dated between 2013 and 2021. Only two reviews are from within the past 12 months relative to a 2024 evaluation date (2023-04-10 and 2022-03-20). The score is therefore weighted heavily on older data and may not reflect current performance.
• FAKE REVIEW CHECK: No strong indicators of fake reviews detected. Reviews vary in length, specificity, tone, and rating. Named technicians (Gary, Chad, Erik, Joseph, Logan, Jim, Dominique) appear consistently across reviews, lending authenticity. Several negative and mixed reviews are present, which further supports organic review patterns.
• VOLUME NOTE: The review set spans approximately 14 years. While the total count is high, the recency-weighted sample is thin, which limits confidence in current operational quality.

This WW Score is based on a large and diverse review set with HIGH statistical confidence across all four dimensions, but should be interpreted with caution given that the bulk of reviews are more than two years old, and a recurring pattern of incomplete first-visit work, at least one serious safety incident, and multiple no-show or non-response complaints meaningfully temper what would otherwise be a higher score.

All State Plumbing and Heating has a strong overall profile driven by consistently praised responsiveness, fast arrival times (often under an hour), and thorough job completion with cleanup. Individual technicians — particularly Patrick, Pauly, and Asim — are repeatedly named and commended for professionalism, friendliness, and technical competence, lending credibility to the positive reviews. However, pricing is a meaningful weak point: multiple reviewers across different time periods explicitly called out charges as exorbitant, overpriced, or lacking transparency, including a flat-rate switch that surprised at least one customer and a disputed $75 'wasted time' charge. Project completion is generally strong but is tempered by several serious complaints including no-shows without notice, failure to return calls, abandoned follow-up work, and at least one instance of a last-minute cancellation on a senior veteran. The score reflects a genuinely capable company with real service gaps that prospective customers should be aware of.

• Two reviews (2024-06-09) describing Asim and the home-building experience use nearly identical structure, phrasing, and section headers ('Reliability and Trustworthiness,' 'Tailored and Considerate Service,' 'Reliable Partner') — these appear to be duplicate or coordinated reviews and were down-weighted accordingly.
• A cluster of 6 reviews all share the exact same date (2025-05-10) and are all 5-star — while some contain specific technician names and details, the concentration warrants mild caution.
• Several reviews appear to reference different geographic locations or different business entities (e.g., Kernersville NC, references to 'Dave,' 'Paul,' 'Billy,' 'Michael M.' alongside the CT-based Asim/Pauly/Patrick crew) — it is possible this Google listing aggregates reviews from multiple locations or a formerly shared business name, which reduces score reliability.
• One 1-star review (2021-10-28) from a self-identified senior veteran describes a last-minute cancellation and refusal to wait for insurance payment — this is a significant project completion and professionalism concern.
• One 1-star review (2019-09-20) describes a technician doing minimal work, charging $150 for a shower that still did not work, and the company subsequently refusing to answer calls or return messages — a serious unresolved callback failure.
• One 1-star review (2020-08-19) reports two consecutive no-shows with no communication — a clear professionalism and reliability failure.
• One 1-star review (2019-08-09) describes a quote that was promised and never delivered, forcing the customer to hire a competitor.
• One 1-star review (2019-11-22) describes a no-show with no call or text on the day of service.
• Pricing complaints span multiple years (2020, 2021, 2025) suggesting a persistent pattern rather than isolated incidents — the pricing score was reduced accordingly.
• Reviews older than 3 years (pre-2022) were given reduced weight; reviews from 2025 and 2024 were weighted most heavily as they reflect current service quality.

This WW Score is based on a large review set (78 reviews) spanning over a decade, with strong mention counts across all four dimensions, yielding HIGH confidence — however, the score should be interpreted with caution given credible patterns of no-shows, unresolved callbacks, pricing complaints, and at least two suspected coordinated or duplicate reviews.

The overwhelming majority of reviews praise professionalism, friendliness, and communication across multiple technicians and companies represented in this dataset, driving a solid professionalism score. However, pricing is the weakest dimension: while many reviewers cite fair or competitive pricing, a meaningful cluster of negative reviews specifically allege deceptive upselling, charges exceeding quotes, and prices that felt exploitative — particularly from Rooter Hero-associated reviews — pulling the pricing score down significantly. Project completion scores well overall, with many reviews confirming jobs were finished thoroughly and promptly, but several negative reviews describe work left incomplete, recurring problems after service, and jobs done poorly requiring a second contractor. Experience scores moderately high, supported by consistent praise for technical knowledge and problem-solving, though a handful of reviews describe incompetent or lazy workmanship that undermines full confidence. The WW Score of 79.2 reflects a generally capable and professional operation tempered by recurring and credible complaints about pricing transparency and occasional workmanship failures.

• MULTI-ENTITY DATASET: Reviews appear to span multiple distinct businesses — primarily 'About Plumbing' and 'Rooter Hero Plumbing & Air' — which are separate companies. Aggregating them into a single score may obscure meaningful differences in quality between entities. Scores should be interpreted with caution.
• BLANK REVIEWS: 25+ reviews contain no text whatsoever, only a star rating (all 5-star). These provide no usable qualitative data and were excluded from dimension scoring. Their presence inflates the apparent review count and skews the average star rating upward.
• SUSPECTED PADDING: The cluster of blank 5-star reviews, particularly the group dated 2025-06-05, 2025-06-04, 2025-06-02, 2025-05-26, 2025-05-19, and 2025-05-10, is consistent with review padding behavior. No substantive content is provided to justify the ratings.
• RECENCY NOTE: A significant portion of reviews date back to 2008–2016 and may not reflect current business practices, staffing, or ownership. The most recent reviews (2024–2025) include both strong praise and serious complaints, suggesting inconsistent service quality in the current period.
• UPSELLING PATTERN FLAGGED: Multiple independent negative reviews (Rooter Hero) describe a consistent pattern of technicians performing minimal work and then escalating to a supervisor who pushes high-cost services ($1,800–$35,000 range), with allegations of scare tactics, withheld camera footage, and misdiagnosis. This pattern across unrelated reviewers adds credibility to the complaints.
• OWNERSHIP CHANGE NOTE (About Plumbing): One detailed review documents a past employee ('Brandon') engaging in misconduct including alleged insurance fraud, and confirms the owner subsequently bought out that partner. Some older negative reviews may be attributable to this former employee rather than current operations.
• PRICE SCORE CONFIDENCE CAVEAT: While pricing has HIGH confidence by mention count, the score of 68 reflects genuine polarization — many reviewers praise fair pricing while several describe significant overcharging or hidden costs. The score represents a weighted average of conflicting signals, not a consensus.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence by volume but should be treated as a blended estimate across what appears to be at least two distinct business entities with different service models; consumers should seek entity-specific reviews before making a hiring decision.

TOMCO Plumbing demonstrates strong performance across all four dimensions based on explicit customer feedback. Professionalism is the strongest area, with five reviews explicitly praising punctuality, courtesy, communication, and cleanliness. Pricing receives consistent praise for fairness and transparency across three reviews. Project completion is well-supported by four reviews confirming timely arrival, job completion, and follow-through. Experience is validated by three reviews highlighting quality workmanship and problem-solving. However, the overall confidence is moderated by the age of most reviews (majority from 2014–2015) and a limited total sample size of six usable reviews.

• RECENCY CONCERN: Five of six usable reviews are from 2014–2015 (8–10 years old). Only two reviews are from 2021–2022. Current performance cannot be reliably assessed from this dataset.
• TWO UNUSABLE REVIEWS: Two reviews contain only 'unknown' text with ratings (1.0 and 2.0 from 2014–2015). These cannot be analyzed and were excluded.
• SMALL SAMPLE SIZE: Only six usable reviews limits statistical confidence. Recommend collecting more recent feedback.
• POTENTIAL SELECTION BIAS: All usable reviews are 5-star or positive. The two low-rated reviews ('unknown' text) cannot be evaluated, creating possible skew toward positive sentiment.

This WW Score should be treated with caution due to the age of the data (most reviews 8–10 years old) and small sample size. While the score of 87.2 reflects genuinely positive feedback on professionalism and service quality, it may not represent current performance. Recent reviews (2021–2022) are limited to two examples. Recommend requesting updated customer feedback before making a high-confidence decision.