Find Nearby Plumbers In Norman, Oklahoma

Aqua Plumbing has a strong base of positive reviews praising punctuality, communication, and follow-through on jobs, with many customers explicitly noting on-time arrivals, professional demeanor, and clean workmanship. However, the pricing dimension is meaningfully dragged down by three serious negative reviews: one alleging a $475 charge for a $180 job with no prior quote, one alleging an $18,000 overcharge attempt on an elderly customer, and one describing a quoted price of $250-280 that was invoiced at $480 with rude communication and unanswered owner emails. Project completion scores well overall, with one notable callback honored at no charge and most jobs described as fully completed, but the no-show incident and unanswered calls in negative reviews prevent a top score. Experience scores positively across many reviews citing knowledgeable technicians and quality workmanship, though the volume of older reviews (pre-2021) limits how much weight recent performance can carry.

• PRICING CONCERN: Three separate reviews (2014, 2018, 2021) allege significant overcharging or price inflation — one describes a bill nearly double the quote with profanity via text, one describes a $475 charge for a 20-minute job retailing at $100, and one alleges an $18,000 quote for an elderly customer. These are specific, credible, and materially lower the pricing score.
• RELIABILITY CONCERN: One review (2017) describes a no-show with no callback after the customer proactively checked in. Another (2018) describes the master plumber refusing to return calls after a billing dispute. These are red flags for responsiveness under conflict.
• FAKE/UNUSABLE REVIEW DETECTED: One review explicitly states 'I did not hire this company, but the website keeps asking me to rate it. So I did' and gave 5 stars. This review was excluded from scoring as it contains no usable data.
• UNUSABLE REVIEWS: Two reviews contain only the text 'unknown' and one contains only a garbled quote fragment. These were excluded from dimension scoring.
• RECENCY WARNING: The majority of reviews (approximately 28 of 44) are dated before 2021, with many from 2019 and earlier. Only 4 reviews are from 2022 or later. The most recent reviews (2022-2024) are positive, but the overall dataset skews old and may not reflect current business practices.
• STAFF INCONSISTENCY: Reviews mention multiple technicians by name (Tim, Alex, Ray, Brandon, Travis, Dave, David) across many years. Positive and negative experiences appear tied to different individuals, suggesting quality may vary significantly by technician assigned.

This WW Score carries moderate-to-high reliability due to a reasonable review volume and specific, detailed feedback across all four dimensions, but should be interpreted cautiously given the meaningful pricing complaints, a no-show incident, the age of most reviews, and the exclusion of several unusable or invalid submissions.

Ron's Plumbing shows a generally positive track record across most dimensions, with many customers praising his friendliness, technical skill, and ability to complete jobs efficiently. However, there are notable and recurring concerns around communication and reliability — multiple reviews explicitly describe being forgotten, missed appointments, and poor follow-up, which meaningfully drag down the professionalism and project completion scores. Pricing feedback is mixed: most find him fair or worth the cost, but at least one reviewer found him somewhat expensive. The one review from within the past 12 months (2023) is positive and speaks to repeat use, which is a good signal, but the bulk of the review base is 5–10+ years old, limiting recency confidence. Overall, Ron appears to be a skilled plumber when he shows up, but scheduling and communication reliability are a documented weak point.

• 7 reviews contain no usable text (blank, single period, or 'unknown') and were excluded from dimension scoring — these inflate the raw review count without contributing meaningful data.
• The majority of reviews are older than 5 years, with most dating from 2010–2016. Only one review is from the past 12 months (November 2023). Recency confidence is limited.
• Two separate reviews explicitly state Ron said 'I forgot about you' regarding scheduled appointments, and one review documents a no-show. This is a consistent and credible pattern of scheduling/communication failure, not an isolated incident.
• Several 5-star reviews use very brief, generic praise ('Ron is top notch.', 'He's been excellent.') with no specifics. While not conclusive evidence of fake reviews, these add limited scoring value and were weighted conservatively.
• One review (2013) raises a workmanship concern — unnecessary drywall removal without considering less invasive alternatives — suggesting occasional lapses in problem-solving judgment.

This WW Score carries moderate-to-high structural reliability due to sufficient review volume and multi-dimensional data, but should be interpreted cautiously given that most reviews are over 5 years old and documented scheduling failures represent a real and recurring risk for prospective customers.

This contractor has a large and broadly positive review base, with many customers praising responsiveness, friendliness, and fair pricing across dozens of detailed accounts. However, a meaningful cluster of negative reviews — spanning multiple years and multiple locations — describes serious recurring issues including unresolved work, misdiagnosis, overcharging, combative technician behavior, abandoned jobs, and failure to return calls. The negative reviews are specific, credible, and detailed enough to materially reduce scores across all four dimensions. Pricing in particular is mixed: while many customers praise value, several describe being charged significantly more than quoted or paying for work that failed to fix the problem. Project completion is similarly dragged down by multiple accounts of jobs left incomplete, recurring leaks after service, and technicians leaving without resolving the issue.

• DUPLICATE REVIEW ALERT: At least 8 reviews appear to be near-identical duplicates posted on different dates (e.g., the 'Monthy arrived promptly' review, the 'Monte beat the other guys price by several thousand' review, the 'Once again, an impressive job' review, the 'Needed a plumber to help me get some pipes unclogged' review, the 'Superb Service At A Reasonable Price' review, the 'We had A Better Plumbing Company out to our house' review, and the 'Having a Home Inspection business' review each appear twice with different dates). This is a strong indicator of review manipulation or platform aggregation artifacts and significantly reduces confidence in the positive review pool.
• MULTI-ENTITY CONCERN: Reviews reference multiple distinct business names (A Better Plumbing, A-Better Plumbing LLC, A&E Plumbing) and multiple owner/operator names (Monte, Roland, Eric, Jeff, Billy, James Dolph) across different geographic markets (Las Vegas NV, Pearland TX, St. George UT, Houston TX). It is likely these reviews represent more than one business, which undermines the reliability of aggregate scoring.
• FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: A large number of 5-star reviews contain generic praise with no job-specific detail (e.g., 'Great professional work and people. Thanks', 'Always courteous and reliable. These are my go-to plumbers!', 'Used this company several times. Awesome service!'). Several reviews are entirely blank with only a star rating. These patterns are consistent with inflated review profiles.
• RECENCY NOTE: Reviews span from 2007 to 2025. A significant portion of reviews predate 2022 and should be weighted lower. The most recent negative reviews (2024–2025) describe serious competency and professionalism failures, which are particularly concerning as indicators of current service quality.
• NEGATIVE REVIEW CREDIBILITY: Multiple 1-star reviews are highly specific, include named technicians, describe sequential failures, and reference financial harm. These are assessed as credible and are weighted accordingly in scoring.
• RESPONSIVENESS FAILURES: At least 7 separate reviews across different time periods describe the company failing to return calls or respond to messages, which is a consistent and recurring operational weakness.

This WW Score should be treated with LOW-TO-MODERATE trust due to confirmed duplicate reviews, likely multi-entity review aggregation across different geographic markets and business names, a pattern of generic 5-star reviews with no verifiable detail, and a credible cluster of serious negative reviews describing competency failures, overcharging, and incomplete work.

MDS Plumbing has a strong base of satisfied customers who consistently praise friendly, professional technicians and reasonable pricing, with many reviewers citing same-day or next-day responsiveness as a standout quality. However, the score is meaningfully pulled down by a recurring pattern of serious project completion failures: multiple reviewers describe jobs left unfinished, no-shows after confirmed appointments, and a lost work-order system that left customers without service or follow-through. Pricing is generally viewed as competitive and fair, but two reviews flag unexpectedly high service call fees ($95–$200) that were not disclosed upfront, introducing a transparency concern. Experience scores are solid for routine jobs but are undermined by at least two reviews describing clear technical errors, including an improperly grounded water heater and a missed obvious pipe disconnection. The overall picture is a company with genuine strengths in attitude and value but inconsistent operational reliability that prevents a higher score.

• 7 reviews contain no text — only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence.
• One review (2021-11-25) appears to reference a personal dispute and contains highly specific personal accusations unrelated to standard plumbing service quality. It was included for project completion and professionalism signals but treated with caution.
• One review (2021-11-24) references 'D and D Drain' rather than MDS Plumbing by name, suggesting it may have been posted to the wrong business profile. It was included conservatively but flagged.
• Recency note: A significant portion of reviews (roughly 60%) are dated 2022 or earlier, meaning they are more than 2 years old. The most recent reviews (2024–2025) are predominantly positive, but the older negative reviews about work-order failures and incomplete jobs are still relevant patterns.
• No strong fake review pattern detected, but several 5-star reviews are very brief and generic (e.g., 'Always helpful and prompt!', 'Really good service, price is good.'). These were counted for mention purposes only where a specific dimension was clearly referenced.
• Project completion is the most concerning dimension: at least 4 separate reviews describe jobs that were not completed, no-shows after confirmed bookings, or failure to honor callbacks — this is a meaningful reliability risk for prospective customers.

This WW Score is based on 45 reviews with usable content spanning approximately 6 years and carries HIGH overall confidence due to volume, but prospective customers should weigh the recurring project completion complaints seriously as they represent a consistent and documented pattern rather than isolated incidents.

Foster Plumbing demonstrates solid performance across all dimensions with a WW Score of 82.3. Professionalism and project completion are well-supported by multiple reviews highlighting punctuality, communication, and thorough work. Pricing is perceived as fair and transparent. Technical skill and problem-solving ability are evident in reviews describing efficient repairs and quality workmanship. However, one significant 1-star review from 2015 citing a missed appointment without notification substantially impacts the professionalism score and overall confidence. Most positive reviews are older than 12 months, which limits recency validation.

• Recency concern: 5 of 7 reviews are older than 12 months (oldest from 2012). Only 1 review from 2024 and 1 from 2023. Recent performance cannot be fully validated.
• One critical negative review (1-star, 2015) citing missed appointment and no communication. This directly contradicts professionalism claims in other reviews and significantly impacts confidence in punctuality/responsiveness.
• Potential review age bias: Older reviews may not reflect current business practices or staffing.

This score should be treated with moderate caution. While the data shows generally positive performance, the small sample size (7 reviews), significant age of most reviews (5+ years old), and one serious professionalism failure create uncertainty about current reliability. Recent performance validation is needed.

Kirkland Plumbing demonstrates solid professionalism with responsive communication and courteous service across multiple reviews. Technical expertise is generally strong, with specific praise for complex work like slab leak repairs and water heater service. However, a critical 1-star review from 2017 documents a failed sewage backup diagnosis that required a second plumber to resolve, raising concerns about consistency in problem-solving ability. Pricing is noted as fair in one review. The small sample size and significant age of most reviews (2017) limit confidence in this assessment.

• Most reviews are from 2017 (3 of 5 reviews), with only 2 recent reviews from 2024. Recency is limited.
• One severe negative review (1-star, 2017) documents failure to diagnose sewage backup issue correctly, contradicting claims of strong expertise in other reviews. This suggests inconsistent quality or technician variability.
• Review from Shawn (2024-02-08) contains typo ('exactly job' likely means 'excellent job') and is very brief with minimal detail, reducing confidence in its specificity.
• Small sample size (5 reviews total) limits statistical reliability of scoring.

This WW Score should be treated with caution due to limited recent data (only 2 reviews from past 12 months), a documented service failure in the historical record, and small sample size. The score reflects mixed evidence: strong recent performance and professionalism are offset by a critical past failure and lack of current volume to establish trend confidence.