Find Nearby Plumbers In Tulsa, Oklahoma

Raby Plumbing has a strong overall track record built on consistent responsiveness, punctuality, and friendly service across a very large review base spanning over a decade. Professionalism scores well but is tempered by several notable complaints about rudeness, argumentativeness, and poor attitude from at least three separate reviewers. Project completion is generally solid — most jobs are described as finished on time and completely — but there are meaningful exceptions including a multi-visit sewer job with no upfront cost communication, a faucet installation where all three fixtures leaked post-install, and a job where the plumber quit mid-project. Pricing is the weakest dimension: while many reviewers praise fair or competitive pricing, there are at least five distinct complaints about overcharging, charges exceeding quoted amounts, or surprise bills — a pattern significant enough to substantially reduce the pricing score. Experience scores reasonably well, with many reviewers noting skill, knowledge, and quality workmanship, though a few outcomes (leaking installs, unresolved sewer issues) introduce doubt.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: At least two pairs of reviews appear to be exact duplicates — 'Russ the owner called me within 20 minutes...' (2019-04-30) and 'Prompt efficient service. Russ responded...' (2019-04-15) each appear twice verbatim. These duplicates have been counted only once per unique review for scoring purposes.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS PATTERN: At least 5 separate reviews explicitly describe being charged more than quoted or feeling overcharged (2021-03-05, 2017-04-28, 2014-09-08, 2012-05-08, 2017-06-14). This is a recurring and credible pattern that significantly reduces the pricing score.
• PROFESSIONALISM COMPLAINTS: At least 3 reviews describe negative interpersonal experiences — one reviewer reports the plumber was 'very argumentative' and quit the job (2017-06-14, 0.5 stars), another reports rudeness and being charged for time not worked (2013-01-08), and a third describes the plumber deliberately breaking things to generate more work (2022-09-13, 0.5 stars).
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews are older than 12 months. Only 3 reviews are from the past 12 months (2024-11-08, 2024-04-10, 2023-06-05). The most recent reviews are generally positive but the sample is too small to confirm current performance trends.
• ZERO-STAR RATING ANOMALY: A large number of reviews carry a 0.0 star rating (approximately 25+ reviews from 2011–2013). This appears to be a platform artifact from an era when ratings were not required, not necessarily negative reviews. These were evaluated on text content only.
• GENERIC/THIN REVIEWS: Several reviews contain no substantive detail (e.g., 'Ok job', 'Very reliable.', 'He did a great job.', blank text with 5-star rating). These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no actionable evidence per scoring rules.
• PROJECT COMPLETION CONCERN: One review (2017-03-08) explicitly notes that all three installed faucets leaked after installation, requiring a return visit. While the repair was ultimately made, this represents a quality control failure on initial workmanship.

This WW Score is based on a large review dataset (125 reviews) with HIGH confidence across all four dimensions, making the score statistically robust; however, the presence of duplicate reviews, a consistent pattern of pricing complaints, and several serious professionalism incidents mean the score should be interpreted as a moderate performer rather than a top-tier contractor, and prospective customers should obtain written quotes before work begins.

Minuteman Plumbing, Heating, and Air has a strong base of satisfied customers who consistently praise responsiveness, punctuality, and friendly technicians — particularly Taylor, Darrell, and Kevin. Pricing is frequently cited as competitive and fair, with multiple reviewers noting significant savings versus competitors, and a standout 10-year warranty on water heater installs. However, the score is meaningfully dragged down by several credible negative reviews describing the owner Jason as hostile, defensive, and unprofessional when customers raised billing concerns — a pattern appearing in at least two independent reviews. Additional pricing concerns include one allegation of a bait-and-switch on a water heater brand, one claim of a wildly inflated repair quote, one allegation of excessive hourly rates, and one HVAC job where a customer was billed for unresolved work. Project completion is generally strong but is tempered by one instance of service never being provided after two weeks of assurances, and one HVAC job left unresolved.

• OWNER CONDUCT PATTERN: At least two independent, detailed reviews (Jan 2024 and May 2025) describe the owner Jason becoming hostile, defensive, and verbally aggressive when customers raised billing questions or sought invoices. This is a recurring and credible pattern, not an isolated incident.
• PRICING CONCERNS: Multiple negative reviews allege overcharging — including a $249/hr drain cleaning rate billed with travel time, a $900 charge for a sub-$200 part installed in under an hour, and a $5,000 quote for a repair the customer completed themselves for $130. These are serious and specific allegations.
• BAIT-AND-SWITCH ALLEGATION: One reviewer (Dec 2022) reports being quoted an A.O. Smith water heater but receiving a Bradford-White unit from a damaged box with no satisfactory explanation.
• UNRESOLVED HVAC WORK BILLED: One reviewer (May 2025) reports being billed $310 for HVAC work that was not fixed, with the owner canceling the follow-up appointment after the customer sought a second opinion.
• SERVICE ABANDONMENT: One review (Jul 2017) reports that service was never provided after two weeks of assurances, resulting in the customer having to find another plumber.
• BLANK REVIEWS: 4 reviews contained no text — only a 5-star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews are from 2024–2025 and are therefore given full weight. Several negative reviews are also recent (2024–2025), which increases their relevance and concern.
• GENERIC PRAISE: A small number of short positive reviews (e.g., 'Awesome company', 'Top notch service and techs', 'Couldn't be better in all ways expected') lack specifics and were scored conservatively. No coordinated fake review pattern was detected overall, but these low-detail entries were treated as low-signal.
• HVAC VS PLUMBING SCOPE: Several reviews reference HVAC work. The negative HVAC reviews are specific and credible and have been included in scoring as they reflect on the same business entity and owner.

This WW Score is based on 62 reviews spanning 2012–2025, with the majority being recent and detailed enough to score with HIGH confidence across all four dimensions; however, the score should be interpreted cautiously given a credible and recurring pattern of owner misconduct during billing disputes, multiple specific overcharging allegations, and at least one service abandonment — factors that meaningfully limit how much the positive majority should be trusted without further vetting.

C&J Plumbing has a strong historical track record across most dimensions, with many reviewers praising punctuality, reasonable pricing, and solid technical skill — including multiple instances where the plumber solved problems that other plumbers could not. However, the score is meaningfully dragged down by recurring responsiveness failures: at least three reviews explicitly cite unreturned calls or no-shows, including a 2022 update where a promised callback never materialized. Project completion is also penalized by one review noting a recurring issue that went unresolved, and another citing slow and poor work. Pricing is generally viewed favorably, with multiple reviewers noting competitive or below-market rates. The overall picture is of a capable but inconsistently reliable contractor whose communication and follow-through have been a persistent weak point across multiple years.

• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The review 'He did an excellent job. He did what we wanted and the price was reasonable...' appears verbatim on both 2012-06-06 and 2009-11-18. This is a likely duplicate entry and was counted only once for scoring purposes.
• RECENCY WARNING: The vast majority of reviews are older than 1 year. Only one review (2022-10-07) is within the past 3 years, and it is a negative update about a failed callback. The most recent data point is unfavorable, which warrants caution about current service quality.
• REVIEW SPAN WARNING: Reviews span from 1999 to 2022 — over 23 years. Business quality, ownership, and staffing may have changed significantly over this period. Older reviews (pre-2010) should be weighted with caution.
• VAGUE/UNUSABLE REVIEWS: Several reviews ('unknown', 'slowly and badly', 'Fine, Fast and Thorough', 'excellent work, up to date, affable and efficient') provide minimal detail and were scored conservatively or excluded from specific dimension counts.
• RESPONSIVENESS PATTERN: At least 3 separate reviews across different years (2008, 2022, and 2002) explicitly cite failure to return calls or follow through on commitments. This is a consistent and recurring negative pattern, not an isolated incident.

This WW Score is based on a moderately large review set but should be treated with caution due to the extreme age of most reviews, a confirmed duplicate entry, and a clear recurring pattern of communication failures that persists into the most recent available review from 2022.

All City Plumbing receives broadly positive feedback across all four dimensions, with professionalism and project completion being the most frequently cited strengths. The majority of reviewers praise courteous, on-time technicians who explain their work and clean up after themselves. However, scores are tempered by meaningful negative signals: one reviewer reported a no-show and suspected scam operation, another described being overcharged and experiencing a failed repair within two days, and a 4-star reviewer noted poor phone skills and a late arrival. Pricing is generally praised as competitive, but the overcharging complaint and one reviewer paying $240 for a single faucet installation introduce enough doubt to keep that dimension below 70. Experience scores well overall given multiple references to skilled, knowledgeable technicians handling complex jobs, but the toilet handle failure shortly after installation is a workmanship red flag that prevents a higher score.

• One review (2016) alleges the company is a scam operation using a dispatcher number, refusing to provide an address, and failing to show up — this is a serious flag that could indicate a different entity operating under the same name or a fraudulent listing.
• One review (2003) describes a toilet handle falling off two days after installation and a customer feeling overcharged and taken advantage of — direct workmanship and pricing failure.
• Several reviews use very generic praise with minimal specifics ('great service,' 'very professional,' 'highly recommend') which is a mild fake-review pattern risk, though named technicians in multiple reviews (Ross, Omar, Rosendo Jr., Numa, Tony, Mason, Kyle, Mike) add credibility and reduce this concern.
• Review date range spans 2003 to 2024 — the two most negative reviews are from 2003 and 2016, which are significantly older. The most recent reviews (2024) are uniformly positive, suggesting possible improvement over time, but older negative data was still factored into scoring.
• One review (2024-06-27) contains no usable text beyond a job description ('Install a ceiling mount shower head with soaking tub') and was excluded from dimension scoring as it provides no evaluative content.

This WW Score carries HIGH overall confidence due to a sufficient volume of reviews with named technicians and specific job details, but consumers should note the serious no-show/scam allegation from 2016 and the overcharging/workmanship failure from 2003, and independently verify the company's current legitimacy before hiring.

Arrowhead Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism and technical competence across the majority of reviews, with recurring praise for punctuality, courteous communication, thorough explanations, and clean workmanship. However, pricing is a persistent and significant concern — a substantial minority of reviewers across many years explicitly describe feeling overcharged, encountering unexpected additional fees beyond quoted or deal prices, or receiving estimates that were dramatically higher than competitors. Project completion is generally solid, with most jobs finished correctly, but there are notable failures including abandoned work, unresolved repairs, a no-show incident, and at least one case of damage caused during service. The negative reviews, while a minority, are detailed and credible, describing specific incidents of poor communication, warranty disputes, and unprofessional conduct by individual technicians or office staff, which meaningfully tempers the otherwise positive picture.

• PRICING CONCERN — HIGH FREQUENCY: Pricing complaints appear in a large proportion of reviews spanning 2014–2025. Recurring themes include unexpected upcharges beyond deal prices, estimates significantly higher than competitors, flat-rate pricing perceived as excessive, and in two separate detailed reviews, allegations of inflated quotes that were undercut by 50–70% by competing plumbers. This is a systemic pattern, not isolated incidents.
• WARRANTY DISPUTE PATTERN: Multiple independent reviews (2021, 2024) describe Arrowhead refusing to honor warranties or disputing warranty claims under questionable pretexts. One reviewer obtained independent verification that the warranty claim was valid and Arrowhead was at fault. This is a credibility-damaging pattern.
• NO-SHOW / RESPONSIVENESS FAILURES: Several reviews (2016, 2015) describe Arrowhead never responding to a paid booking, not showing up for confirmed appointments, or being unreachable by phone. One reviewer flew from New York for a confirmed appointment that was missed entirely.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: Two reviews dated 2024-09-12 and 2024-08-29 contain nearly identical text describing the same Cinch Home Services warranty dispute. This appears to be the same reviewer posting twice, not two independent reviews. Counted as one unique incident.
• RECENCY NOTE: Reviews span from 2014 to 2025. The most recent reviews (2024–2025) are predominantly positive, suggesting possible improvement over time. However, pricing complaints and a rude phone interaction appear even in 2025 reviews, indicating the pricing concern has not been fully resolved.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK — LOW: No strong evidence of coordinated fake reviews. Most positive reviews contain specific details (technician names, job descriptions, locations). Generic praise exists but is not dominant. No suspicious clustering of identical phrasing detected beyond the confirmed duplicate.
• INDIVIDUAL TECHNICIAN VARIANCE: Multiple reviews praise specific technicians (Leo, Derrick Sr., Derrick Jr., Miguel, Jose, Paulino, CJ) by name, while negative reviews often describe different or unnamed technicians. Quality of service appears to vary significantly by individual assigned.

This WW Score of 74.2 is based on a very large review set (218 reviews) spanning over a decade and carries HIGH confidence in its accuracy; the score reflects a genuinely mixed but net-positive service record, with strong technical and professionalism marks offset by a well-documented and persistent pattern of pricing concerns and occasional serious service failures.

R&L Plumbing demonstrates strong overall performance in professionalism and responsiveness, with dozens of reviewers praising punctuality, communication, friendly technicians, and same-day or emergency availability. Project completion scores are solid, with most jobs described as finished correctly and efficiently, though a meaningful minority of reviews cite incomplete work, abandoned jobs, or the need for return visits to fix errors. Experience scores are generally positive, with many reviewers highlighting knowledgeable and skilled technicians, though several reviews describe undertrained plumbers, incorrect diagnoses, and work that had to be redone. Pricing is the weakest dimension by a significant margin — multiple reviewers across different years cite billing disputes, charges exceeding quoted amounts, overtime surcharges not disclosed upfront, and rates described as outrageous or a bait-and-switch, pulling this score down considerably despite some reviewers finding the pricing fair or reasonable.

• 30 reviews contain no text — only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence. This is a notable pattern and may indicate padding of the review count.
• Several reviews appear to be duplicates or near-duplicates: the 'toilet clog / bomb cyclone / Doug' review appears verbatim in both a 2023 and 2025 entry, suggesting a copy-paste or re-posted review. This was counted only once for scoring purposes.
• One 1-star review (2014) references 'Tulsa and surrounding area,' which is geographically inconsistent with an SF Bay Area plumber. This review may be misattributed or fraudulent and was weighted minimally.
• One 1-star review describes a driver behaving recklessly and another describes trucks blocking a sidewalk — these are conduct complaints not directly related to plumbing service quality but do reflect on professionalism and were factored into that dimension.
• Billing disputes are a recurring and consistent pattern across multiple years (2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2023, 2024), suggesting a systemic issue with pricing transparency and billing accuracy rather than isolated incidents.
• The volume of 5-star reviews with no text raises mild fake review concern, though the large number of detailed, specific, named-technician reviews across many years lends overall credibility to the review corpus.

This WW Score is based on a large and diverse review set spanning multiple years with high mention counts across all four dimensions, making it statistically reliable; however, the recurring billing dispute pattern and 30 text-free reviews introduce meaningful uncertainty, and prospective customers should pay close attention to the pricing dimension score as it reflects a documented and consistent weakness.