Find Nearby Plumbers In Broken Arrow, Oklahoma

The Plumbing Guy demonstrates exceptional performance across all four dimensions, earning a WW Score of 88.2. Professionalism is consistently praised with 68 mentions highlighting punctuality, responsiveness, politeness, and communication—particularly Shelley's office management and Paul's courteous demeanor. Project completion is the strongest dimension (90.0) with 71 mentions documenting thorough work, timely delivery, follow-through on callbacks, and meticulous final inspections. Experience scores 88.0 across 52 mentions, reflecting Paul's master plumber credentials, technical expertise, and problem-solving ability. Pricing (82.0, 32 mentions) is viewed as fair and reasonable, though some customers note uncertainty about comparative value. The business shows strong longevity and customer retention, with many multi-year relationships and repeat customers.

• Two negative reviews (1-star ratings from 2015 and 2013) cite poor phone responsiveness and perceived overpricing for service calls, contrasting sharply with overwhelmingly positive feedback. These appear isolated rather than systemic.
• One 4-star review (2014) mentions the plumber was 'a little gruff' and 'could smile a little more,' suggesting occasional personality friction, though overall satisfaction remained high.
• One 4-star review (2012) notes disappointment with a crew member's attention to detail compared to Paul's direct work, requiring follow-up visits—indicates potential quality variance with larger crews.
• Cluster of reviews from June 2021 and June 2010 with identical or near-identical dates suggests possible data aggregation or batch uploads, but review content is substantively distinct and specific, not indicative of fake reviews.
• Majority of reviews (approximately 70%) are from 2013-2021; only ~15 reviews from 2022 onward. Recency is moderate; most recent reviews are from March 2025, but historical weight is significant.

This WW Score of 88.2 is highly reliable, based on 127 reviews with strong data density across all four dimensions (32–71 mentions per dimension). The consistency of praise for professionalism, completion, and expertise across a 13-year span, combined with transparent acknowledgment of isolated negative feedback and minor crew-level inconsistencies, indicates a genuinely strong contractor with rare but documented service gaps. The score reflects a trustworthy, established business with proven track record.

Midwest Mechanical earns strong scores across all four dimensions, driven by a large volume of reviews spanning multiple years with consistent praise for punctuality, responsiveness, and technician conduct. Project completion scores are high, with numerous reviewers noting same-day or next-day resolution, follow-through on callbacks, and jobs finished correctly — including one detailed account where a technician correctly diagnosed a repair that a competitor had misquoted as a full replacement. Pricing feedback is notably positive, with multiple reviewers explicitly calling out fair, competitive, or lower-than-expected costs, and one standout account of the owner proactively steering a customer away from an unnecessarily expensive system. The one significant negative review — a 1-star from 2021 alleging technician rudeness and discriminatory behavior toward a queer customer, and failure to confirm the unit was working before leaving — is a serious flag that prevents a higher score in professionalism and project completion, even though it is an isolated older data point. Overall, the score reflects a well-established, consistently performing company with one credible and serious conduct complaint on record.

• ONE SERIOUS NEGATIVE REVIEW (2021): A 1-star review alleges a technician was repeatedly rude, misgendered a customer's wife, displayed hostile body language toward pride flags, was reluctant to service the unit, and left without confirming the unit was functioning — which it was not. This is a credible, specific, and detailed complaint that stands in sharp contrast to all other reviews and has been factored into professionalism and project completion scores.
• THREE BLANK REVIEWS: Three reviews contained no text (only a 5-star rating and date). These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence per scoring rules.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews (approximately 38 of 52) are dated within the past 12 months (mid-2024 to mid-2025), which increases confidence in the current state of the business. Older reviews (2011–2020) are consistent in tone but weighted less heavily.
• MILD REPETITION PATTERN: A large number of reviews use similar positive language ('professional,' 'prompt,' 'friendly,' 'great service'). While this could suggest generic phrasing, the volume of named technicians (Lee, Angel, Alex, Lalo, Kevin, Shon), specific job details, and varied narrative structures across reviews suggests these are likely genuine. No fake review flag is raised, but the pattern is noted.
• ALL 5-STAR RATINGS (except one 4-star and one 1-star): The near-universal 5-star distribution is notable. While the detailed and specific nature of most reviews reduces fake review concern, the lack of any 2- or 3-star reviews across 52 submissions is statistically unusual and should be considered when interpreting the score.

This WW Score is based on a high volume of reviews with strong recency, named technicians, and specific job details, making it moderately reliable — however, the single credible 1-star complaint alleging discriminatory technician behavior and incomplete work is a meaningful data point that prospective customers should read in full before making a hiring decision.

BA Plumbing receives consistently strong feedback across all four scored dimensions, with professionalism being the most frequently cited strength — reviewers repeatedly highlight punctuality, responsiveness (including same-day and weekend availability), and courteous communication. Pricing is described as reasonable, fair, or the best seen across a significant number of reviews, supporting a high pricing score. Project completion is well-supported, with multiple reviewers noting jobs were finished correctly the first time, callbacks were honored, and no work was left incomplete. Experience and technical skill are affirmed by several reviewers, including one detailed account of complex boiler servicing, though the depth of technical commentary is less consistent across the broader review set. One duplicate review was detected, and one review appears to reference a different technician (Nate Adams), which slightly limits the coherence of the dataset but does not materially undermine the overall picture.

• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The review beginning 'Ahmad was excellent! Called on a Sunday for a leaky faucet...' appears twice with different dates (2025-05-10 and 2024-06-12). This is likely a copy-paste duplicate and one instance was excluded from scoring.
• NEAR-DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: Two reviews with nearly identical text ('Had a great experience working with BA plumbing and highly recommend. Had to get something fixed for toilet and Ahmad was able to fix the issue promptly') appear on 2024-10-12 and 2024-09-27. These may represent a single customer submitting twice or a fabricated review. Confidence slightly reduced for affected dimensions.
• THIRD-PARTY TECHNICIAN REFERENCE: One review (2023-02-03) references 'Nate Adams' and a crew of two technicians rather than Ahmad/Mansoor. It is unclear if this is the same business or a misattributed review. The review was included in scoring as it explicitly names BA Plumbing, but this inconsistency is noted.
• ALL REVIEWS ARE 5-STAR: The absence of any negative or mixed reviews across 19 submissions is statistically unusual and may suggest selective review solicitation or platform filtering. Scores have been kept conservative to account for this pattern.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews fall within the past 12–24 months, which is favorable. The oldest review dates to February 2023, so no significant recency discount was applied.

This WW Score carries moderate-to-high reliability given the volume of reviews and consistent multi-dimensional feedback, but is tempered by the presence of at least two duplicate or near-duplicate reviews, a universal 5-star rating pattern, and one review referencing a different named technician — consumers should treat this score as a strong positive signal while remaining aware of these anomalies.

Heritage Plumbing demonstrates strong overall performance with particular strengths in professionalism and technical expertise. The company excels at punctuality, communication, and skilled workmanship, with 98 mentions of professional conduct and 64 mentions of quality technical work. Project completion is reliable with 76 mentions of timely, thorough job execution. However, pricing emerges as a notable weakness with only 32 mentions and a lower score of 73.0, reflecting customer concerns about overcharging, high service fees, and pricing transparency. Recent reviews (2024-2025) are overwhelmingly positive, but older reviews (2006-2018) contain several serious complaints about unresponsiveness, project abandonment, and unprofessional behavior from certain technicians.

• SIGNIFICANT QUALITY VARIANCE: Multiple negative reviews from 2015-2018 describe serious issues including project abandonment ($8,000+ unpaid work), non-responsiveness, and unprofessional conduct. These contrast sharply with recent 2024-2025 reviews which are nearly universally 5-star. This suggests either significant company restructuring or potential review manipulation.
• PRICING CONCERNS: 11 reviews explicitly mention overcharging or high prices (e.g., $520 for 50-minute job, $456.37 for disposal installation, $225 for toilet flapper replacement, $150 estimate fee for refused work). This pattern indicates systematic pricing issues despite overall positive service ratings.
• FAKE REVIEW INDICATORS: 6 reviews contain only ratings with no text or minimal text ('unknown', 'Great!!!!!!', 'no answer from them'). Additionally, 3 reviews are completely blank with only 5-star ratings. These appear to be placeholder or artificially inflated entries.
• RECENCY BIAS: 65% of reviews are from 2024-2025 (all 5-star with detailed praise), while negative reviews cluster in 2015-2018 and 2019-2020. The dramatic shift suggests either genuine improvement or review platform changes. Older reviews contain credible complaints about abandonment and non-responsiveness.
• PERSONNEL INCONSISTENCY: Reviews mention multiple technicians (Ben, Victor, Tony, Tommy, Rick, Gene, Travis, Eric, Rusty, Phillip, Dylan, Rodney Speake) with vastly different quality levels. One technician (Rick/Rodney Speake) appears in multiple serious complaints (project abandonment, overcharging, conspiracy rants, retaliation). This suggests quality control issues or personnel turnover.
• SERIOUS CONDUCT ISSUES: One 2018 review describes a technician engaging in aggressive political rants and conspiracy theories, then abandoning the job. Another 2017 review alleges retaliation against a customer who didn't award a bid. These are red flags for workplace culture and screening.
• RESPONSIVENESS PROBLEMS: Multiple reviews from 2018-2020 describe failure to return calls/emails despite promises of 'great service.' This contradicts the recent 2024-2025 narrative of excellent responsiveness.

This WW Score of 82.3 should be treated with CAUTION. While recent 2024-2025 reviews (65% of dataset) are consistently excellent and suggest genuine current quality, the presence of serious historical complaints (project abandonment, non-responsiveness, overcharging, unprofessional conduct), combined with suspicious review patterns (blank entries, sudden quality shift, multiple technician names), indicates the score may not fully reflect the company's actual reliability. The pricing dimension (73.0) is well-supported by credible complaints and should be weighted heavily in decision-making. Recommend requesting detailed references from recent clients and clarifying pricing structure before engagement.

Watkins Plumbing demonstrates strong performance across professionalism, project completion, and technical experience, with consistently positive feedback on punctuality, politeness, and work quality. However, pricing emerges as a significant weakness, with multiple customers reporting overcharges, inflated service call fees, and what some perceive as gender-based pricing discrimination. While the majority of recent reviews (past 2 years) are highly favorable, older reviews reveal a pattern of pricing complaints that cannot be ignored. The company excels at responsiveness and job execution but struggles with transparent, fair pricing practices.

• PRICING PATTERN ALERT: Multiple reviews (at least 8) explicitly cite overcharging, inflated fees, or unfair pricing. Several female customers report suspicion of gender-based pricing discrimination (reviews from 2016, 2018, 2019). This is a material concern that significantly impacts overall trustworthiness.
• PROFESSIONALISM INCIDENT: One 2019 review describes a technician as 'really rude,' leaving a mess, and making false accusations about customer behavior. Another 2016 review mentions a technician charging for work not performed.
• RECENCY BIAS: Most recent reviews (2024-2025, past 12 months) are uniformly 5-star with minimal pricing complaints. Older reviews (2015-2019) contain more critical feedback on pricing and conduct. This suggests either improved practices or potential review filtering.
• GENERIC PRAISE PATTERN: Approximately 15-20 reviews contain very brief, generic praise ('Excellent service,' 'Great job,' 'Highly recommend') with minimal specific detail. While not definitively fake, this pattern warrants caution.
• ONE BLANK REVIEW: One review (2024-06-09) contains only a 5-star rating with no text, and another (2024-09-12) contains only a 4-star rating with no text. These provide no usable data.

This WW Score of 82.1 is reliable for assessing professionalism and project completion (HIGH confidence), but the pricing dimension is materially understated due to limited recent mentions of pricing issues—older reviews reveal serious overcharging complaints that appear to have been addressed or are no longer being reported. Customers should expect excellent service quality and responsiveness but should obtain detailed written estimates and verify pricing before committing, particularly given historical pricing concerns.

Omega Plumbing earns strong marks across professionalism, project completion, and experience, with dozens of reviewers praising courteous, knowledgeable technicians who communicate clearly and follow through on jobs. Specific technicians — including John, Colin, Bill, Jonathan, David, Brandon, Chris, Albert, and Keith — are repeatedly named for quality work, punctuality, and going above and beyond. However, pricing is a meaningful drag on the overall score: multiple reviewers across different time periods explicitly complained about high costs, lack of transparent quoting, unexpected charges, and in one case alleged price gouging during a weather emergency. There are also isolated but serious concerns about an owner responding rudely to billing disputes and one incident of a technician failing to resolve a problem while still charging a service fee. The volume and consistency of positive reviews across multiple years provides high confidence in the core service quality, but the recurring pricing complaints prevent a top-tier score.

• 9 reviews contained no text (rating only) and were excluded from dimension scoring — these blank reviews inflate the raw review count without contributing usable data.
• Multiple pricing complaints span different years (2021, 2023, 2024) and involve different customers, suggesting a systemic pattern of high or opaque pricing rather than isolated incidents.
• One review (2021-09-01) alleges the owner sent multiple rude and personally insulting emails to a customer disputing a bill — a serious professionalism concern at the ownership level that is not reflected in technician-level scores.
• One review (2021-02-18) explicitly alleges price gouging during the Texas winter storm emergency, charging over $1,100 effective hourly rate for a 15-minute job.
• One review (2023-05-12) alleges a charge of over $1,100 with no detailed invoice provided and no callback after multiple requests — raises transparency and billing integrity concerns.
• One review (2025-04-10) describes a technician who failed to diagnose the problem, charged $150, and was dismissive — another company fixed the issue shortly after.
• One review (2021-09-20) alleges the company takes deposits and abandons jobs to start other work — this is a serious project completion concern but comes from a single reviewer with no corroboration.
• One review (2025-05-19) is about a company vehicle driving dangerously — not directly relevant to service quality but reflects on company culture and public conduct.
• The oldest review (2006) was noted but given negligible weight given its age. Reviews from 2017–2020 were given reduced weight relative to 2024–2025 reviews.
• No strong fake review patterns detected — reviews vary in length, specificity, named technicians, and include genuine negatives, which supports authenticity.

This WW Score is based on a large, diverse, and multi-year review set with high mention counts across all four dimensions, making it statistically reliable — however, the recurring pricing and billing transparency complaints are credible and consistent enough to warrant caution, and prospective customers should request detailed written quotes before authorizing work.