Find Nearby Plumbers In Tulsa, Oklahoma

The majority of reviews praise this contractor's responsiveness, punctuality, and friendly demeanor, with many customers reporting same-day or next-day service and technicians arriving on time. However, a meaningful minority of negative reviews — spanning multiple years — raise serious concerns about pricing transparency, including inflated hours, surprise charges beyond quoted amounts, and misleading claims about parts availability. Project completion is generally strong, with most jobs described as finished promptly and thoroughly, but several reviews document abandoned work, unresolved issues after payment, and a failure to stand behind completed work when problems emerged later. Experience scores are solid overall, with multiple reviewers specifically praising technical knowledge and problem-solving, though at least two reviews describe technicians who appeared unskilled or unable to diagnose basic issues correctly.

• Several reviews from 2024–2025 are extremely brief, generic, or contain no review text at all (only a star rating), which reduces their evidentiary value and raises mild concern about authenticity.
• Two reviews appear to be near-identical duplicates: the review praising 'Adam and Israel' with 'Esme the dispatcher' appears verbatim in both a 2017 and a 2016 entry — this is a strong indicator of a duplicated or potentially manipulated review.
• The review dated 2021-04-06 reads like promotional or AI-generated marketing copy rather than a genuine customer experience, with no specific job details and unusual phrasing. Confidence in this review is low.
• Multiple negative reviews cite pricing dishonesty: inflated hours (2021), surprise charges beyond quote (2016, 2019), misleading parts claims (2018), and a 60% quote increase after initial contact (2023). This pattern is consistent and credible across independent reviewers.
• One review (2020-10-08) describes a major post-job leak causing floor damage and the company refusing to respond or stand behind their work — a serious project completion and integrity flag.
• One review (2023-11-02) describes a $250 charge for unresolved work, with the actual fix later performed by a competitor — a direct project completion failure.
• One review (2023-03-31) describes a last-minute cancellation with no backup plan, resulting in a lost appointment — a professionalism and reliability concern.
• One review (2016-03-25) describes a no-call, no-show appointment — a reliability flag.
• One review (2011-05-12) describes significant punctuality failures and poor communication from the owner — though this is older, the pattern recurs in more recent reviews.
• Review corpus spans from 2011 to 2025. Reviews older than 3 years (pre-2022) have been given reduced weight in scoring. The business appears to have multiple staff members and possibly operates across different service areas, which may explain some inconsistency in quality.

This WW Score is based on a large review set (109 reviews) with HIGH confidence across all four dimensions, but the score should be interpreted cautiously due to a recurring and credible pattern of pricing transparency complaints, at least one serious post-job abandonment incident, suspected duplicate reviews, and several content-free star-only submissions that inflate the apparent rating without providing usable evidence.

Plumb Crazy Plumbing earns strong marks for professionalism and responsiveness across a large volume of reviews, with many customers praising punctuality, friendly technicians, and the company's practice of sending technician photos and names ahead of arrival. Experience scores are solid, with numerous reviewers citing knowledgeable, skilled plumbers who explained their work clearly and solved problems effectively. However, pricing is a notable weak point: while many customers found fees reasonable, a meaningful cluster of negative reviews specifically called out inflated quotes, excessive markups on parts, and charges for trivial tasks, pulling the price score down significantly. Project completion is mixed — the majority of jobs were completed successfully, but several reviews describe incomplete work, return visits required, damage left behind without acknowledgment, and in a few cases outright abandonment of jobs or ignored callbacks, which materially reduces that dimension's score. The WW Score of 74.2 reflects a company with genuine strengths in service delivery but recurring, credible complaints about pricing transparency and workmanship quality control that cannot be ignored.

• Several negative reviews describe a pattern where the owner responds defensively to complaints and deflects blame onto customers rather than taking ownership — this was noted explicitly by multiple reviewers and suggests a systemic customer service issue at the management level.
• Pricing concerns appear in at least 7 negative reviews with specific dollar amounts cited (e.g., $2,500 water heater quote vs. $593 retail price, $325 for a $29 part, $1,700 upsell attempt vs. $175 quoted), indicating a credible and recurring pattern of price inflation or opportunistic upselling rather than isolated incidents.
• Multiple reviews describe workmanship issues including damage to property (scratched toilet bowl, torn floor tiles, rusty water mess left in garage), incomplete repairs requiring follow-up visits, and use of subpar materials (shark bite fittings replacing copper pipe) — these are not isolated complaints.
• One review describes a job being abandoned entirely with calls ignored for days (2016), and another describes a plumber leaving without completing work and never returning (2011). While older, these suggest a historical pattern of follow-through failures.
• Review date range spans from 2007 to 2025 — a span of 18 years. Reviews older than 3 years (pre-2022) were given reduced weight in scoring. The majority of negative reviews are concentrated in the 2016–2024 range, suggesting the issues are not purely historical.
• No strong fake review patterns detected. Reviews vary in length, specificity, tone, and rating. Named technicians appear across multiple independent reviews, lending authenticity. Some very short 5-star reviews (e.g., 'Great.' and 'Very Very great job well done!') provide minimal usable data but do not appear coordinated.
• One reviewer explicitly accused the company of fake reviews and being a 'ripoff' (2022), though this review itself lacks specific detail and may reflect a personal dispute rather than a systemic issue.

This WW Score is based on 78 reviews spanning 18 years with a high volume of detailed, specific feedback across all four dimensions, making it one of the more reliable assessments possible — however, the score should be interpreted with caution given the credible and recurring negative patterns around pricing transparency and project completion quality, which suggest the experience is inconsistent depending on the technician assigned.

Artisan Plumbing earns strong marks for professionalism and experience across a large and diverse review base spanning over a decade, with many customers praising punctuality, communication, courteous technicians, and skilled problem-solving. However, pricing is a meaningful drag on the overall score: multiple reviewers across different years explicitly flagged high hourly rates, unexpected equipment/diagnosis fees, and significant parts markups, with one reviewer citing a $285 part sold for $56–69 at retail and another calling the company a 'huge rip-off.' Project completion is mixed — the majority of jobs were finished well, but there are credible, detailed accounts of abandoned follow-through: one customer was ghosted after paying for a camera inspection and never received a quote, another waited months for a promised estimate with no response, a gas leak went undetected for two months after an uninspected installation, and one technician no-showed entirely. These are not minor complaints — they represent a pattern of follow-through failures that meaningfully tempers an otherwise solid reputation. The business clearly delivers excellent service in many cases, but the inconsistency in pricing transparency and job follow-through prevents a higher score.

• 9 reviews contain no text at all — only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: Two reviews with nearly identical text about a pressure tank leak (dated 2024-09-12 and 2024-08-18) appear to be the same review submitted twice. Only one instance was counted in scoring.
• PRICING CONCERNS — RECURRING PATTERN: Multiple independent reviewers across different years (2017, 2019, 2020, 2022, 2024) explicitly flagged high labor rates, unexpected snake/equipment fees, diagnosis charges on top of completed work, and large parts markups. This is not isolated and reduces confidence in pricing fairness claims made in positive reviews.
• PROJECT COMPLETION FAILURES — RECURRING PATTERN: At least three detailed, credible negative reviews describe being ghosted after paying for diagnostic work (2019, 2023), a no-show with no follow-up (2022), and a gas leak left undetected for two months due to a missed county inspection (2025). These are serious completion and safety concerns.
• RECENCY NOTE: The review base spans 2013–2025. Reviews older than 2022 carry reduced weight. The most recent reviews (2024–2025) are generally positive but include the gas leak incident and the Kenny misdiagnosis complaint, suggesting quality inconsistency persists.
• One 1-star review (2024-08-10) describes the office becoming defensive when workmanship concerns were raised, an admitted incorrect installation that was never remedied, and undisclosed premium parts pricing. This aligns with other pricing and follow-through complaints and is treated as credible.
• No strong evidence of fake reviews detected. The review set contains specific names, dates, job types, and a realistic mix of positive and negative experiences. Language varies sufficiently across reviews.

This WW Score is based on 85 reviews spanning 12 years with strong mention counts across all four dimensions, making it statistically reliable — however, consumers should weigh the recurring and independently corroborated concerns about pricing transparency and job follow-through before hiring, as these patterns appear across multiple years and reviewers.

Air Solutions receives strong praise for professionalism in the majority of reviews, with technicians frequently described as courteous, punctual, communicative, and respectful — driving a solid but not exceptional professionalism score due to several notable negative experiences involving rude or dismissive behavior. Pricing is the weakest dimension, with multiple credible complaints about excessive labor charges, lack of transparency, misquoted rates, and pressure to purchase unnecessary replacements, significantly pulling that score down. Project completion is mixed: many jobs are described as completed efficiently and thoroughly, but there are serious complaints about incomplete work, failed repairs, and a plumber whose work literally fell apart within six months. Experience scores moderately well overall, with many reviewers praising technical knowledge, but offset by at least two significant incidents where technicians misdiagnosed problems — one nearly costing a customer $15,000–$23,000 for a repair that turned out to be a loose wire. The WW Score of 74.2 reflects a company with genuine strengths in customer-facing professionalism but meaningful and recurring weaknesses in pricing integrity and technical reliability.

• 15 reviews contain no review text at all — only a 5-star rating. These blank reviews cannot be scored on any dimension and are excluded from dimension scoring. Their presence inflates the apparent star rating and may indicate solicited or incentivized reviews.
• Several short, generic 5-star reviews (e.g., 'Excellent Service A++', 'Thorough', 'What a great day he made') provide no usable detail and show signs of low-effort or potentially inauthentic submissions.
• The review corpus spans from 2013 to 2025, meaning some reviews are over 10 years old. Older reviews (pre-2020) were given reduced weight as they may not reflect current business practices.
• A credible and detailed 2-star review describes a technician misdiagnosing a working system and quoting $15,000–$23,000 for unnecessary replacement; the actual fix by a competitor was a loose wire. The business owner did respond and partially remediated, but this represents a serious competence or ethics concern.
• A 1-star review from 2023 describes plumbing work costing $1,774 where pipes were never properly glued or secured, failing within 6 months. The company then attempted to charge a service fee to return and fix their own work. This is a significant project completion and workmanship red flag.
• A 1-star review describes being quoted $59/hour by phone, then billed $215 for a 3-hour job with multiple breaks and trips. The company then cashed a check after promising to void it — a serious integrity concern.
• A 1-star review alleges a technician red-tagged a functioning furnace to pressure the customer into purchasing new units, and later charged over $500/hour for duct work. While unverified, the specificity of the claim warrants caution.
• A 1-star review from 2024 alleges a 2-year-old system was quoted $5,500 for a part repair and $17,000 for full replacement — pricing that the reviewer considered grossly excessive. This is consistent with a pattern of upselling complaints across multiple reviews.
• Recency note: The majority of blank and generic 5-star reviews cluster in April–June 2025, which may suggest a recent review solicitation campaign. This pattern warrants skepticism about the representativeness of the most recent review wave.

This WW Score is based on a large review set (72 total) with strong mention counts across all four dimensions, giving it HIGH overall confidence, but the score should be interpreted cautiously given a consistent pattern of serious pricing and workmanship complaints from credible, detailed negative reviews that are partially masked by a high volume of blank or generic 5-star submissions.

Paragon Plumbing and associated contractors (Jason/Crane Plumbing) show a strong baseline of positive customer experiences, with many reviewers praising punctuality, friendliness, technical skill, and fair pricing across a large volume of reviews. However, a meaningful cluster of negative reviews — spanning multiple years — consistently cite no-shows, unreturned calls, broken appointment promises, and in one detailed case, significant cost overruns and poor communication throughout a complex job. These recurring professionalism and project-completion failures are not isolated incidents and materially drag down the score. Pricing is generally viewed favorably when work is completed, but the pattern of quoting one price and charging another (noted in at least two reviews) introduces concern. Experience scores are bolstered by several reviews describing skilled diagnosis and problem-solving, including one technician who identified a live electrical hazard mid-job, but are tempered by at least one account of careless workmanship and deflection of responsibility.

• 7 reviews contain no text at all — only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data.
• Several reviews reference 'Jason/Crane Plumbing Solutions' rather than Paragon Plumbing directly, suggesting this review pool may aggregate two distinct businesses or contractors. Scores may not reflect a single entity.
• Recurring no-show and unreturned-call complaints appear across multiple years (2013, 2014, 2016, 2019, 2022, 2024), indicating a systemic responsiveness problem rather than isolated incidents.
• One review (2015) describes significant cost overruns, broken communication, and undisclosed damage to irrigation lines — a serious project completion failure.
• One review (2013) describes a plumber scratching a sink, denying responsibility, and nearly abandoning the job — a notable professionalism and workmanship concern.
• One review (2013) describes a gas leak in completed work with no callback and no urgency shown — a serious safety and reliability concern.
• Review dates span from 2005 to 2025. Reviews older than 3 years (pre-2022) were given reduced weight in scoring. The majority of recent reviews (2022–2025) are positive, but the no-show pattern persists into 2022 and 2024.
• Some generic 5-star reviews with minimal detail (e.g., 'These guys rock.', 'Don and the boys are awesome great company and crew', 'FRIENDLY, responsive service.') were counted for sentiment but given low evidentiary weight due to lack of specifics.
• No confirmed fake review pattern detected, but the presence of multiple blank reviews and several very brief reviews with no detail warrants mild caution.

This WW Score is based on a large and diverse review set spanning over a decade, giving it reasonable statistical weight, but the score should be interpreted cautiously given the persistent pattern of no-shows and communication failures across multiple years, the possible mixing of two distinct contractors in the review pool, and the presence of several blank or near-blank reviews that could not be scored.

Roto-Rooter receives consistently strong marks for professionalism and responsiveness from individual technicians, with hundreds of reviews praising courteous, knowledgeable, and prompt service. However, pricing is the single most damaging dimension across this dataset, with an enormous volume of reviews describing charges as excessive, deceptive, or wildly inconsistent — including numerous accounts of bait-and-switch quoting, undisclosed fees, and charges for incomplete work. Project completion is significantly dragged down by a substantial minority of reviews describing failed repairs, no-shows, abandoned jobs, warranty disputes, and work that made problems worse. Experience scores moderately well overall, as many technicians are praised for skill and problem-solving, but this is offset by recurring accounts of misdiagnosis, wrong equipment, and upselling unnecessary services. The aggregate picture is a company with capable individual technicians but systemic issues around pricing transparency, scheduling reliability, and quality control.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: Multiple reviews appear to be exact or near-exact duplicates (e.g., two identical reviews from 'Paul arrived same day...', two identical 'Zach is the man...', two identical 'Based solely off customer service...', two identical 'Easy to schedule and a quick service...', two identical 'Great service. Would highly recommend!', two identical 'Efficient and effective...', two identical 'Excellent with Armando...', two identical 'Very prompt and helpful! Anthony...', two identical 'My name is Antoinette...'). These duplicates inflate positive scores and have been treated conservatively.
• FAKE REVIEW PATTERNS: A large cluster of reviews dated 1996-2001 consist of single-line responses ('NO', 'NOT REALLY', 'ON TIME AND DID THE WORK') with no detail, all rated 5 stars. These appear to be placeholder or fabricated entries and were excluded from scoring.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Approximately 100+ reviews contain no text content but carry 5-star ratings. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data, but their presence inflates the raw star average.
• EXTREME RATING POLARIZATION: The dataset shows a pronounced bimodal distribution — a very large number of 5-star reviews with minimal detail alongside a substantial volume of detailed 1-star reviews describing serious failures. This pattern is consistent with either review manipulation on the positive end or a company with highly inconsistent service quality.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS ARE SYSTEMIC: Pricing complaints are not isolated incidents — they span multiple years, multiple geographic locations, and multiple service types. Charges ranging from $200-$900 for simple drain snaking (15-30 minutes of work) are documented repeatedly. This is a structural business practice issue, not individual technician behavior.
• NO-SHOW AND SCHEDULING FAILURES: A significant number of reviews describe confirmed appointments where technicians never arrived and no communication was provided. This is a recurring operational failure across multiple franchise locations.
• MULTI-FRANCHISE DATASET: Reviews appear to span dozens of different Roto-Rooter franchise locations across the United States. Scores reflect the brand aggregate, not any single location. Individual location quality varies significantly.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews with substantive content are dated between 2020-2025, which is within the relevant scoring window. Older reviews (pre-2015) were given reduced weight.

This WW Score of 72.4 is based on a very large dataset (1,456 reviews) and carries HIGH statistical confidence in its directional accuracy, but should be interpreted as a brand-level aggregate across many franchise locations — individual location quality varies substantially, and the systemic pricing and scheduling issues documented here may not apply equally to all franchises.