Find Nearby Plumbers In Broken Arrow, Oklahoma

Only two reviews exist, making any scoring highly unreliable. The first review is strongly positive, praising same-day responsiveness, fair pricing, honest billing, and courteous extras like emptying a bucket and changing a furnace filter — though it dates from 2015. The second review is sharply negative, citing a rude receptionist and a problem that was never resolved, which directly impacts professionalism and project completion scores. The contrast between these two reviews creates significant uncertainty across all dimensions, and conservative scoring has been applied throughout. Because fewer than 3 reviews are available, a formal WW Score cannot be calculated.

• Only 2 reviews total — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold rules.
• Both reviews are over 9 years old (2014 and 2015). No recent data exists to reflect current service quality.
• The two reviews are in direct conflict — one 5-star with detailed praise, one 1-star with a serious complaint — making it impossible to establish a reliable trend.
• The positive review, while detailed and specific, is a single data point and cannot outweigh the negative review without additional corroborating evidence.
• No reviews from the past 12 months are present. This score should not be used to make hiring decisions without seeking more current feedback.

This score is not reliable — only 2 reviews were available, both are over 9 years old, and they directly contradict each other, making it impossible to draw meaningful conclusions about current service quality.

This single review describes a severely negative experience across all four scored dimensions. The plumber (Jimmy) demonstrated poor professionalism by threatening to leave the customer without working toilets over a weekend, lying about the cause of the damage (claiming roots in a crawl-space line where roots are physically impossible), and attempting to shift financial responsibility for his own equipment onto the customer. Project completion was a clear failure — the job was abandoned mid-work, holes were left open in the yard, lines were left exposed, and additional damage was caused to the clean-out line. On the experience dimension, three independent plumbers subsequently confirmed that the wrong tool size was used and the wrong access point was chosen, indicating a serious lapse in technical judgment. Pricing concerns arose from the contractor's attempt to charge the customer for excavation to retrieve equipment that was his own responsibility to remove. All scores are extremely low and based on a single review, so they carry very limited statistical weight.

• Only 1 review is present — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per scoring rules requiring a minimum of 3 reviews.
• All scores are LIMITED confidence due to a single mention per dimension.
• The review references an associated business (Phoenix Plumbing / All Tulsa Plumbing) — this contractor may operate under multiple names, which is a consumer warning flag.
• The review is dated 2016-12-04, making it over 8 years old. Recency weighting is very low — business practices may have changed significantly since this review was written.
• No positive or neutral reviews are present to provide balance. The score is based entirely on one highly negative account.

This WW Score report is based on a single review from 2016 and should be considered highly unreliable as a representation of this contractor's overall quality — consumers should seek additional, more recent reviews before drawing conclusions.

This single review describes a severely negative experience centered on unprofessional communication and pricing concerns. The customer reported aggressive, dismissive behavior from the owner when questioned about a $2,270 invoice that far exceeded expectations ($400–$750 range), with $1,900 attributed to labor alone. However, the reviewer explicitly acknowledged that prior work was satisfactory and that the actual workmanship quality was good. The project itself appears to have been completed, but the interaction was so poor that it overshadows any technical competence.

• INSUFFICIENT DATA: Only 1 review provided. WW Score cannot be calculated reliably with fewer than 3 reviews.
• RECENCY: Review is from June 2023 (approximately 1.5+ years old). Current service quality may differ.
• CONFLICTING SIGNALS: Reviewer acknowledges good prior work and good workmanship on this job, but rates 1 star due to communication and pricing transparency failures. This suggests the core issue is professionalism and pricing clarity, not technical skill.
• NO QUOTE PROVIDED: Reviewer explicitly states no quote was given upfront, which contributed to shock at final invoice. This is a process/communication failure.

This score cannot be trusted as a reliable assessment of overall contractor quality because only one review is available, and it reflects a single negative interaction that may not be representative of typical service. A minimum of 3 reviews is required for meaningful analysis.

The single review available is a strongly negative 1-star account describing multiple serious failures across all four dimensions. The customer reported being charged $270 for a basic snake job, which they considered excessive and compared unfavorably to a competitor who would have charged roughly half the price. The workmanship was described as poor — floors were damaged and the toilet was not properly reinstalled. A potentially unnecessary upsell (new flange) was also alleged, raising concerns about transparency and honesty. All scores are heavily penalized and carry only LIMITED confidence due to the single data point.

• Only 1 review provided — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• All dimension scores are based on a single negative review and should be treated with extreme caution.
• Alleged upsell of a new flange by technician Casey warrants attention as a potential transparency or ethics concern.
• Review is dated January 2018 — over 6 years old. Business practices may have changed significantly since this review was written.
• No positive or neutral reviews were provided for balance; this report reflects only one customer's experience.

This score is highly unreliable and should not be used to make any meaningful judgment about this contractor, as it is based on a single review from 2018 with no corroborating data across any dimension.

This single review describes initial competent work (quick arrival, timely completion, technical execution) but catastrophic failure in follow-through and professionalism. The contractor completed the initial job adequately but failed to honor warranty obligations, missed two promised callback appointments, and ultimately ghosted the customer. While the initial work quality appeared acceptable, the complete breakdown in accountability and communication severely undermines overall trustworthiness.

• INSUFFICIENT DATA: Only 1 review analyzed. WW Score cannot be calculated reliably with fewer than 3 reviews.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Review is from June 2019 (5+ years old). Does not reflect current business practices.
• CRITICAL SERVICE FAILURE: Warranty work not honored and customer ghosted. This is a severe red flag for reliability.
• ESCALATION INDICATOR: Customer escalated to Better Business Bureau, suggesting unresolved dispute.

This score is unreliable and should not be used for decision-making. A single review from 2019 cannot establish a trustworthy assessment of current contractor performance. Additional recent reviews are essential before making any hiring decision.