Find Nearby Plumbers In Oklahoma City, Oklahoma

All three reviews consistently praise Justin Gentry and All Care Plumbing across every scored dimension. Professionalism is highlighted through prompt arrival (often ahead of schedule), clear communication, and courteous demeanor. Pricing stands out strongly — one reviewer explicitly noted a $95/hour rate for a slab leak versus competitor estimates of $500+, and a total job cost of $260 was called out as remarkably fair. Project completion is excellent across all reviews, with every job described as fully resolved in a single visit, often within one to two hours. Technical experience is well-evidenced by accurate leak diagnosis, efficient repairs, and problem-solving under difficult conditions such as slab leaks and hidden pipe failures. The overall picture is very positive, though the score is tempered by the small review pool of only three reviews.

• Only 3 reviews analyzed — this is the minimum threshold for a WW Score calculation. Results should be treated as preliminary and not fully representative of long-term performance.
• Two of the three reviews are dated 2019, making them over 4 years old at time of analysis. Only one review (2023) falls within the past 12 months. Recency weighting is limited.
• All three reviews are 5-star ratings with no negative feedback of any kind. While the reviews contain specific details and personal narratives that reduce fake review suspicion, the uniformly perfect ratings across a small sample warrant mild caution.
• No negative or mixed reviews are present, which may reflect selection bias rather than a complete picture of contractor performance.

This WW Score carries MODERATE dimension-level confidence but overall LIMITED reliability due to the very small review sample (n=3) and the fact that two of three reviews are more than four years old — prospective customers should seek additional recent reviews before making a hiring decision.

All three reviews speak positively to Gabe's responsiveness and promptness, including emergency situations on weekends and evenings, which strongly supports a high professionalism score. Project completion is consistently affirmed — jobs were finished quickly and thoroughly, including a complex sewage backup and a misconnected pipe from a prior handyman. Experience is supported by two reviews that reference specific technical problem-solving, such as identifying a wrong connector and diagnosing a sewer backup, though the sample is small. Pricing was not mentioned in any review, so that dimension is excluded from scoring entirely. The overall WW Score is moderately reliable but limited by the very small review pool of only three reviews.

• Only 3 reviews analyzed — sample size is very small and the WW Score should be treated with caution.
• All three reviews are 5-star ratings with no negative feedback; while the reviews contain specific details suggesting authenticity, the uniformly perfect ratings warrant mild scrutiny.
• Most reviews are from 2023 or early 2024; no reviews from the past 12 months (relative to mid-2025) are present, which may not reflect current service quality.
• Pricing dimension has zero data — this dimension is entirely excluded from the WW Score calculation.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews with no pricing data and no reviews from the past 12 months, making it a low-confidence snapshot that should not be treated as a definitive assessment of this contractor's quality.

Quality Irrigation earns consistently positive marks across all four dimensions from a small but substantive review set. Professionalism is the most frequently cited strength, with multiple reviewers explicitly praising courteous, friendly, and professional behavior from technicians. Project completion is also well-supported, with reviewers confirming that jobs were fully resolved, leaks were fixed and held over time, and complex problems were worked through to completion. Experience is backed by four reviews noting technical competence, problem-solving under difficult conditions (e.g., rock under soil, controller rewiring), and quality workmanship. Pricing receives a more cautious score — one detailed reviewer noted parts felt slightly expensive and the second-hour rate was high, though the total cost came in below competitors, tempering concerns.

• Only 5 reviews total — WW Score should be treated as preliminary and directional only, not definitive.
• Three of the five reviews are older than 12 months (2019, 2020, 2022), with only two reviews from the past 12 months (2023). Recency weighting is limited.
• No negative reviews present across all 5 submissions — while this may reflect genuine quality, the small sample size makes it impossible to rule out selection bias or incomplete review representation.
• No fake review patterns detected — reviews vary in length, detail, writing style, and specificity, which supports authenticity.

This WW Score is based on only 5 reviews, three of which are over a year old, making it a low-volume, moderately dated signal that should be treated with caution until more recent reviews are available.

Cory receives consistently positive feedback across all four dimensions from a small but coherent set of reviews. Professionalism is noted in multiple reviews through prompt responsiveness, pleasant demeanor, and professional conduct. Project completion is well-supported — notably, one reviewer highlighted that Cory persisted across multiple trips to fix a refrigerator ice maker, demonstrating strong follow-through. Experience is evidenced by his ability to diagnose additional issues beyond the original scope (e.g., noticing a dryer heating problem, saving a customer from buying a new fridge, and handling diverse repairs from appliances to chimney caps). Pricing is mentioned positively in one review as reasonable and affordable, and one instance of a no-extra-charge fix further supports fair pricing, though this dimension rests on limited data.

• Only 4 reviews total — WW Score should be treated as preliminary and not fully reliable.
• All 4 reviews are 5-star ratings with no negative feedback of any kind. While the reviews do contain specific details (appliance types, job descriptions, multi-trip persistence), the uniformly perfect ratings warrant mild caution.
• No reviews older than 18 months from the most recent date; recency is acceptable but the sample size is too small to draw strong conclusions.
• No fake review patterns detected — reviews contain specific job details, named contractor, and varied language, suggesting authenticity.

This WW Score is based on only 4 reviews and should be considered a preliminary indicator only — significantly more reviews are needed before this score can be trusted with confidence.

Muddy Water Plumbing receives consistently strong feedback across all four dimensions from this small review set. Professionalism is the most well-supported dimension, with all five reviews explicitly praising friendliness, communication, punctuality, and responsiveness. Pricing is mentioned positively in four reviews as reasonable and affordable, though no specifics about quotes or transparency are provided. Project completion is supported by three reviews, including one notable callback case where the customer rehired the contractor twice more — a strong signal of follow-through. Experience is only lightly evidenced, with two reviews implying competent workmanship (pipe repair, winterproofing, water heater replacement, garbage disposal install), but without detailed quality assessments.

• Only 5 reviews total — WW Score should be treated as preliminary and not fully reliable.
• All 5 reviews are 5-star ratings with no negative feedback of any kind — this is a potential flag for review selectivity, though the reviews do contain specific details (names, job types, callbacks) that reduce the likelihood of fabrication.
• Three of the five reviews share the same date (2024-09-17 or 2024-09-18), which is unusual and warrants mild scrutiny, though the content of each review is distinct.
• No reviews mention any negative experiences, delays, or issues — absence of criticism in a small sample does not confirm perfection and should not be over-interpreted.

This WW Score is based on only 5 reviews, all positive, and should be considered a preliminary indicator only — a minimum of 15–20 reviews would be needed to establish a reliably stable score.

Punctual Plumbing receives consistently positive feedback across all four dimensions, with professionalism being the most frequently and clearly praised attribute — reviewers specifically highlight punctuality, courtesy, responsiveness, and cleanliness. Project completion is well-supported, with multiple reviewers confirming jobs were finished fully and efficiently. Pricing is mentioned positively in two reviews as fair and reasonable, but the limited mentions prevent a high-confidence pricing score. Experience and workmanship are noted favorably but without deep technical detail. The overall picture is positive, though the small review pool and age of the reviews significantly limit reliability.

• Only 4 reviews contain usable data; 1 review ('unknown') provided no actionable content and was excluded from scoring.
• RECENCY WARNING: All reviews are between 2 and 11 years old (oldest: 2013, most recent: 2022). None fall within the past 12 months. The score may not reflect current performance.
• LOW VOLUME WARNING: With only 4 usable reviews, confidence factors are suppressed across all dimensions. This score should be treated as a preliminary indicator only.
• No fake review patterns detected — reviews contain specific details, varied language, and distinct scenarios, suggesting authenticity.

This WW Score carries LIMITED overall reliability due to a very small review pool (4 usable reviews) and the fact that all reviews are more than 2 years old, with the majority being 7–11 years old; the score should be used only as a rough directional indicator until more recent reviews are available.