Find Nearby Plumbers In Oklahoma City, Oklahoma

All Aloha Plumbing (recent reviews, 2025) consistently earns strong marks for professionalism, responsiveness, and courteous technicians, with many customers praising named plumbers by name and highlighting emergency availability. However, the review pool also contains a substantial body of older reviews for Professional Plumbing Services (PPS), a separate or predecessor entity, which significantly drags down scores across all dimensions with repeated complaints about abandoned jobs, missed appointments, poor workmanship, overcharging, and dishonesty. Project completion is the most damaged dimension, with multiple PPS reviews describing unfinished renovations lasting months, unkept callbacks, and work left in disarray. Pricing is mixed — recent All Aloha reviews are mostly positive on value, but PPS reviews include credible accounts of overcharging, inflated parts markups, and billing for idle time. Experience scores are similarly split, with recent All Aloha technicians praised for skill and problem-solving, while PPS reviews document poor workmanship, incorrect installations, and a gas line improperly installed.

• MIXED ENTITY ALERT: This review set appears to contain reviews for two distinct businesses — 'All Aloha Plumbing' (reviews primarily from 2025) and 'Professional Plumbing Services / PPS' (reviews from 2007–2024). These may be separate companies or a rebranded entity. Scores reflect the combined pool but the two entities have very different performance profiles.
• RECENCY BIAS NOTE: All Aloha Plumbing reviews from 2025 are overwhelmingly positive (mostly 5-star). PPS reviews from 2012–2022 include numerous 1-star complaints. If only the 2025 reviews are relevant, the WW Score would be substantially higher (estimated 85+). If PPS history is relevant to the same operator, the lower scores are warranted.
• FAKE REVIEW FLAG (PPS): One reviewer (2020) explicitly alleges that PPS/Louis Moon fabricated a 5-star review using their name without consent. This raises credibility concerns about some of the generic positive PPS reviews with no detail.
• FAKE REVIEW PATTERN (All Aloha 2025): Several All Aloha reviews are blank text with only a 5-star rating (at least 5 such reviews detected). These provide no usable data and inflate the star average without substantive evidence.
• ABANDONED WORK (PPS): Multiple independent reviewers describe PPS leaving jobs unfinished — a bathroom renovation taking 10 months, a dishwasher left in the kitchen for days with no callback, a sewer problem unresolved after $835 paid, and a tub installation with ongoing squeaking never remedied.
• WORKMANSHIP FAILURES (PPS): Documented issues include a gas line installed improperly (fire department called), pipe support made by smashing copper pipe, incorrect vent line installation, broken toilet caused by technician, and a lavatory popup assembly that fell apart immediately after repair.
• OVERCHARGING COMPLAINTS (PPS): At least two detailed reviews describe being charged for technician idle time, parts marked up 4x retail price, charges exceeding quoted amounts, and a $400 quote for a 10-minute job.
• PROJECT DELAYS (PPS): Multiple renovation projects ran significantly over promised timelines — one took 4 weeks instead of 2, another took 10 months, and one job was abandoned entirely with no-shows on scheduled days.
• POSITIVE SIGNAL (All Aloha 2025): Recent All Aloha reviews are specific, name individual technicians, describe real scenarios, and include both 5-star and occasional 3-star honest feedback — suggesting these are largely authentic.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large review volume, but its reliability as a predictor of current service quality is MODERATE at best, because the review pool conflates two potentially distinct business entities across an 18-year span — prospective customers should weight the 2025 All Aloha reviews heavily and treat the PPS history as a separate risk signal requiring clarification on business continuity.

Pro Rooter earns strong marks for responsiveness, same-day availability, and friendly service, with dozens of reviewers praising prompt arrivals and courteous technicians. However, a meaningful cluster of 1-star reviews — spanning multiple years — describes serious failures including abandoned jobs, incorrect diagnoses, property damage (flooded basement with sewage), warranty disputes, and a $3,000 lift station job that had to be redone by a competitor. Pricing sentiment is mixed: many customers found prices fair and competitive, while several others described overcharging, hidden fees, and billing for estimates without consent. Project completion is the most concerning dimension, with multiple reviews citing incomplete work, wrong equipment brought to the job, and technicians leaving without resolving the issue. The score reflects a contractor with genuine strengths in speed and friendliness but a documented pattern of serious quality and accountability failures that cannot be ignored.

• 14 reviews contained no text at all — only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The 1-star review describing the $3,000 lift station pump failure appears twice with identical text (dates 2022-05-10), suggesting a copy-paste duplicate. Only counted once in scoring.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most severe negative reviews (flooded basement, fraudulent billing, warranty scam, incorrect pipe location) date from 2018–2022. Recent 2024–2025 reviews are predominantly positive, suggesting possible improvement — but the older negatives are serious enough to weigh on the score.
• FAKE REVIEW CONCERN — MODERATE: Several 5-star reviews from 2025-05-10 are clustered on the same date with minimal or no text ('helpful', blank). This pattern is suspicious and may indicate review padding. Confidence in the positive signal from that date cluster is reduced.
• PROPERTY DAMAGE INCIDENT: Two reviews (2018) describe Pro Rooter leaving a basement cleanout cap off, flooding a basement with sewage, then denying responsibility. This is a serious unresolved complaint.
• ACCOUNTABILITY CONCERN: Multiple negative reviewers report that the company denied fault, refused refunds, or became unresponsive after problems arose — a pattern suggesting systemic accountability issues.
• OLDER REVIEWS: A significant portion of reviews predate 2022. Per scoring rules, more weight was given to 2024–2025 reviews, but older negatives were not discarded as they describe serious incidents.

This WW Score is based on a large review set with HIGH confidence across all dimensions, but should be interpreted cautiously given the documented pattern of serious project failures, property damage, and accountability issues in older reviews alongside a suspicious cluster of same-day blank 5-star reviews in 2025.

Buddy's Plumbing earns strong marks for professionalism and friendliness across a large number of reviews, with many customers praising courteous technicians, prompt arrival, and good communication. However, pricing is a significant and recurring concern — multiple reviewers across different time periods describe charges as excessive, opaque, or inconsistent, dragging the pricing dimension down considerably. Project completion is generally positive, with most jobs reported as finished and a few callbacks honored, but there are notable negative outliers including an abandoned job, a slab repair with documented poor workmanship, and a no-show appointment. Experience scores are mixed: many reviews praise skill and problem-solving, but several credible negative reviews describe cut corners, improper installations, and technicians requiring multiple attempts to resolve issues. The overall picture is a contractor with a solid reputation that has been somewhat eroded by pricing complaints and a handful of serious workmanship failures.

• 10 reviews contain no text at all — only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data.
• Several reviews from 2024 and earlier reference a change in ownership, with multiple customers noting that quality and pricing deteriorated after the transition. This introduces a potential split-era bias in the review pool.
• Reviews span from 2012 to 2025 — a 13-year window. Older reviews (pre-2019) may not reflect current operations and were weighted less heavily in scoring.
• A cluster of very short, generic 5-star reviews with no detail (e.g., 'IT WAS GREAT', 'Great service and fast!', 'Have used them many times. Good Service') raises mild concern about authenticity or review solicitation, though not conclusive. Confidence is not reduced but noted.
• One review (2024-03-05) explicitly alleges that technicians cut corners on a PVC repair, overcharged, and then failed to return to complete promised follow-up work — a serious project completion and ethics flag.
• One review (2024-01-16) documents a multi-thousand dollar slab repair with verifiable post-scope evidence of improper pipe fall and a poor cast iron to PVC connection — a significant workmanship failure flag.
• One review (2014-04-04) alleges threatening phone calls from a company representative after a billing dispute. This is an isolated older incident but is noted as a conduct flag.
• Pricing complaints are spread across multiple years and multiple reviewers, suggesting this is a systemic issue rather than isolated incidents.

This WW Score is based on 62 reviews with usable content spanning 13 years and carries HIGH overall confidence due to volume, but consumers should note that the review pool reflects at least two distinct ownership eras and that pricing and workmanship concerns are credible, specific, and recurring rather than isolated.

Norman Air receives overwhelmingly positive reviews from 2024–2025, with technicians frequently praised for friendliness, communication, punctuality, and technical knowledge. However, a meaningful cluster of negative reviews — spanning 2017 through 2025 — raises serious concerns across all dimensions. Pricing is the weakest dimension, with multiple reviewers explicitly calling out significant parts markups (e.g., a $15 capacitor sold for $213), labor charges far above market rate, and at least one allegation of an unnecessary $6,000 upsell that turned out to be a free fix from the utility company. Project completion is also dragged down by documented cases of abandoned or incomplete work, no-call/no-shows, a job that ran weeks over schedule with property damage, and a plumber who walked off a job. The high volume of recent 5-star reviews is encouraging but must be weighed against a persistent pattern of serious complaints that recur across multiple years.

• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: A large number of recent 5-star reviews (May–June 2025) are very brief, generic, and lack specific detail (e.g., 'Great service!!', 'Devin was awesome.', 'Keith was fantastic. Great service.'). Several reviews are entirely blank with only a 5-star rating. This pattern warrants caution.
• PRICING CONCERN — PRICE GOUGING ALLEGATIONS: Multiple independent reviewers across different years (2018, 2018, 2025) explicitly allege extreme parts markups and labor overcharges. One reviewer documented a capacitor sold at ~1,000% markup. Another calculated they would have paid $800+ vs. $260 with a competitor. A 2025 reviewer alleges a $6,000 upsell for a problem that was fixed for free by the utility company.
• PROJECT COMPLETION CONCERN — ABANDONED/INCOMPLETE WORK: A 2020 review describes a plumbing job on a new home that remained unfinished for months, with the plumber walking off the job. A 2021 review describes a pipe replacement job that ran nearly 3 weeks over schedule, caused property damage (hit power lines and a gas line), required the customer to stay in a hotel, and was billed for 50ft of pipe when only 12ft was replaced.
• PROFESSIONALISM CONCERN — NO-CALL/NO-SHOWS: A reviewer documents multiple missed appointments in 2017 with no notification, and a 2019 reviewer describes a cancelled appointment they were never informed about, requiring paid time off from work.
• WORKMANSHIP CONCERN: A 2019 reviewer hired a second company after Norman Air recommended a costly repair; the second company found a simple physical obstruction and confirmed the outside unit Norman Air claimed to have cleaned had not been cleaned. A 2017 review documents a technician who disconnected a wire during a tune-up and nearly charged the customer to replace a part that was working fine.
• PROPERTY DAMAGE: A 2020 review describes Norman Air employees breaking an irrigation line and leaving a sunken hole in a neighbor's yard while working on a sewer line, then being unresponsive about repair.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of negative reviews are from 2017–2021, with some from 2024–2025. The majority of positive reviews are from 2025. It is unclear whether the company has genuinely improved or whether negative experiences are underrepresented in recent data.
• INTEGRITY CONCERN: One reviewer alleges the company promised a refund of $85 for two months and claimed twice to have mailed a check that never arrived. Another reviewer alleges the business owner called them a liar in response to their negative review.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large number of reviews, but the score itself should be treated with caution — the persistent and specific nature of the negative reviews across pricing, project completion, and workmanship suggests real systemic risks that are partially masked by a high volume of brief, potentially inflated recent 5-star reviews.

Bailey Brothers receives strong praise across recent reviews for knowledgeable technicians, same-day responsiveness, and courteous service — with many named techs (Larry, Aaron, Jeremy, Cody, Josh) earning repeated commendations. However, a meaningful cluster of negative reviews — spanning pricing disputes, incomplete or abandoned jobs, dishonesty allegations, and poor follow-through — meaningfully drags down the professionalism and project completion scores. Pricing is the weakest dimension, with multiple reviewers explicitly citing overcharging, lack of itemized invoices, and surprise cost changes after job completion. Project completion is also a concern, with at least two reviews describing unresolved issues and one describing a job left incomplete for over a year. The experience dimension scores highest, as technical skill is frequently praised even by some reviewers who had other complaints.

• Three reviews contain no text (only a 5-star rating) and were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data.
• Several older negative reviews (2014–2021) describe systemic issues including pricing opacity, no-shows, abandoned jobs, and poor management responsiveness — these patterns partially recur in more recent reviews (2024–2025), suggesting issues have not been fully resolved.
• One 2023 review describes a job left unstarted for over 6 months with no manager callback — a serious project completion failure.
• One 2022 review describes a leak that was never fixed after two visits, with the company refusing a refund and blaming a departed employee.
• One 2025 review (1-star) explicitly describes being quoted one price and charged a higher price after job completion, with the issue still unresolved — consistent with older pricing complaints.
• One 2024 review (1-star) accuses a technician of dishonesty regarding work performed.
• One 2018 review describes being charged a large amount with no itemized invoice provided despite repeated requests.
• One 2014 review describes a toilet installation quoted at $303 versus competitor quotes of $95–$125, suggesting significant pricing inconsistency.
• Recency note: The majority of positive reviews are from 2024–2025 and carry more weight. Negative reviews span 2014–2025, indicating recurring rather than isolated issues.
• No clear fake review patterns detected — reviews contain specific technician names, job details, and varied language. Confidence in authenticity is reasonable.

This WW Score is based on 55 reviews with a broad date range (2014–2025); the score is moderately reliable for recent performance given the volume of 2024–2025 reviews, but the recurring nature of pricing and project completion complaints across multiple years warrants caution before hiring for large or complex jobs.

Mike receives overwhelmingly positive feedback across all four dimensions, with professionalism being the most consistently praised trait — nearly every reviewer highlights his friendliness, patience, honesty, and responsiveness. Pricing is noted favorably in several reviews, with multiple customers specifically calling out fair or reasonable rates and his integrity in not upselling unnecessary work. Project completion scores well, with reviewers describing timely arrivals, same-day or next-day availability, and jobs finished as promised — including one reviewer who had four separate tasks completed in a single visit. Experience is supported by mentions of knowledgeable diagnosis, effective problem-solving, and quality workmanship across a range of plumbing tasks. The primary caveat is that the majority of reviews are from 2021 or earlier, with only two reviews from 2022, which moderates overall confidence in reflecting current performance.

• Most reviews are older than 1 year relative to the most recent review date (2022-08-15); the majority date from 2016–2021, which limits confidence in current performance.
• No reviews from 2023 or later are present, meaning recent service quality cannot be verified.
• All reviews are 4–5 stars with no negative or mixed reviews, which warrants mild caution, though the reviews contain sufficient specific detail and varied language to not suggest fabrication.
• Small sample size (9 reviews total) limits statistical reliability of all dimension scores.

This WW Score is moderately reliable given the small but detail-rich review set; however, the age of most reviews (many 2–6+ years old) means the score should be treated as a historical indicator of quality rather than a confirmed reflection of current service standards.