Find Nearby Plumbers In Oklahoma City, Oklahoma

Wiggy's Plumbing shows significant inconsistency in service quality. While they demonstrate strong technical expertise and skill (82/100), with multiple customers praising workmanship and problem-solving, professionalism and project completion are substantially undermined by recurring complaints about messy work sites, incomplete cleanup, and follow-through failures. Pricing is moderately fair but with documented instances of inconsistent quotes and one egregious overcharge for minimal service. The company excels at rapid response times but falters in accountability and attention to detail post-job.

• CRITICAL: Multiple independent reviews (2023, 2022, 2018) explicitly mention mess left behind and inadequate cleanup—this is a pattern, not isolated incident
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most positive reviews are from 2017-2020 (4-7 years old). Recent reviews (2022-2023) are predominantly negative, suggesting service quality has declined
• PROFESSIONALISM RED FLAG: July 2023 review documents repeated failed callbacks, poor attitude during cleanup attempt, and water left running—indicates systemic follow-through and accountability issues
• PRICING INCONSISTENCY: Same service ($175 vs $225 for identical faucet replacement) and one review of $90 charge for simple reset button push on elderly customer suggests variable pricing practices
• POTENTIAL DISCRIMINATION CONCERN: Customer explicitly raised concern about differential treatment based on race; while unverified, combined with pricing inconsistency, warrants caution
• WARRANTY ISSUE: One-year warranty mentioned as inadequate; faucet performance issues noted

This score should be treated with MODERATE caution. While based on 9 reviews with adequate mention counts, the stark divergence between older positive reviews and recent negative ones, combined with documented patterns of incomplete work and poor follow-through, suggests the company's current service quality may be lower than historical reputation indicates. Recent customers (2022-2023) report significantly worse experiences than those from 2017-2020.

Stone Creek Plumbing shows highly inconsistent performance across reviews spanning 2013–2024. While technical skill and workmanship are generally praised (82/100), the company suffers from severe professionalism deficits: multiple no-shows, failure to call ahead, poor responsiveness to callbacks, and rude owner behavior are documented across 15 reviews. Project completion is compromised by warranty disputes, incomplete work, and callbacks that required multiple visits. Pricing is mixed—some customers report fair value, others cite hidden charges and inflated estimates. Recent reviews (2024) show both excellent service and catastrophic failures on the same dates, suggesting inconsistent execution or possible staffing issues.

• CRITICAL: Multiple reviews document no-shows and failure to call customers (2024, 2019, 2015, 2013). This is a systemic professionalism issue.
• CRITICAL: Warranty disputes documented—company refused to honor 2-year warranty on shower valve repair (2023). Customer reported thousands spent with company.
• CRITICAL: Owner behavior flagged as rude and unresponsive in multiple reviews (2015, 2013). One review describes owner slamming phone down.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most negative reviews are older (2013–2015), but 2024 shows both 5-star and 1-star reviews on same date (2024-06-09), suggesting inconsistent service quality or possible data anomaly.
• QUALITY CONTROL: One detailed 2015 review documents repeated failed repairs on same toilet requiring 3+ visits, indicating poor workmanship or inadequate diagnostics.
• PRICING INCONSISTENCY: One review (2022) reports hidden charges—initial quote of $125 did not include water pressure adjustment, which was presented as additional charge after work began.
• EMPTY REVIEWS: Four reviews contain only ratings (1.0 or 5.0) with no text, limiting ability to assess actual performance (2023, 2021 x2, 2020, 2018).

This WW Score should be treated with CAUTION. While based on 25 reviews with HIGH confidence in professionalism and project completion dimensions, the company exhibits a stark pattern of inconsistency: excellent technical work undermined by chronic communication failures, no-shows, and warranty disputes. The presence of empty reviews and the concentration of severe complaints in 2013–2015 (with some recurrence in 2024) suggests either historical problems that may persist or inconsistent execution depending on technician assigned. Recommend contacting recent customers directly and verifying warranty terms before engaging.

Don-Co Plumbing shows highly polarized performance with extreme variance across reviews. Two recent reviews (2024, 2023) praise professionalism, fair pricing, and efficient work completion, while two older reviews (2019, 2020) express serious concerns about trustworthiness and service quality. The 2024 review explicitly documents critical failures: incomplete work (water left running), billing problems, and collection threats. Professionalism scores are dragged down by documented ineptitude and poor communication in negative reviews, while the positive reviews highlight good scheduling and crew conduct. Pricing feedback is limited and mixed. Project completion is undermined by the documented failure to properly finish work in the most recent review.

• CRITICAL: Most recent review (2024-05-07) documents severe service failures including incomplete work, billing fraud, and collection agency threats. This is the most recent data point and should be weighted heavily.
• Extreme polarization: 3 five-star reviews vs. 2 one-star reviews with no middle ground suggests either inconsistent service quality or potential fake reviews among the positive set.
• Review from 2020 and 2018 are 4-6 years old; recency heavily favors the 2024 negative review which is current.
• The 2023 positive review is detailed and specific (125' gas line, 5 hours, named employees Chad and Vera), lending it credibility. However, the 2024 negative review is equally specific about failures.
• Possible fake review pattern: The 2018 review about found money is anecdotal and does not address core service dimensions; the 2020 review is vague and generic without specifics.

This score should be treated with caution due to extreme polarization and limited sample size (5 reviews). The most recent review (May 2024) documents critical failures that directly contradict positive reviews from 2023, suggesting either significant service degradation or inconsistent quality. Confidence is MODERATE at best; additional recent reviews are needed to establish reliable trend data.

Tipton's Plumbing exhibits a stark bifurcation in customer experience. Professionalism scores are dragged down by 16 documented complaints about owner Zach Tipton's rude, condescending, and verbally abusive behavior toward customers, including alleged racist remarks and mockery. Pricing is the most critical weakness, with 28 mentions of excessive charges, bait-and-switch tactics, inflated quotes, and non-transparent billing practices that consistently exceed market rates by 2-4x. Project completion is relatively strong (78), with most jobs finished on time and to specification. Technical skill and workmanship quality are solid (75), particularly when Luis is assigned. However, the company's reputation is severely compromised by owner conduct and pricing practices that exploit customer vulnerability.

• CRITICAL: Multiple reviews (2018-2024) document owner Zach Tipton engaging in verbally abusive, condescending, and allegedly racist behavior toward customers. This pattern is consistent across independent reviews spanning 6+ years.
• PRICING MANIPULATION: 28 reviews explicitly cite overcharging, bait-and-switch pricing, non-transparent quotes, and charges 2-4x higher than competitors for identical work. Service call fees ($45-$85) are charged even when customer declines work.
• FAKE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: Approximately 20 reviews from June 2024 and January 2025 contain suspiciously generic praise with minimal specifics ('Great service!', '5 stars, great service!', empty reviews with 5-star ratings). Multiple reviews mention the same technician 'Luis' by name with nearly identical positive phrasing. This clustering suggests potential review manipulation.
• BUSINESS ACCOUNT EVASION: First review explicitly alleges owner created separate business account to escape negative reviews, suggesting awareness of reputation damage and potential review manipulation.
• INCONSISTENT SERVICE QUALITY: Positive reviews consistently praise technician Luis; negative reviews cite owner Zach Tipton's behavior and pricing. This suggests technician quality is good but owner/management practices are problematic.
• FOLLOW-UP HARASSMENT: Multiple reviews document owner contacting customers via private cell phone after negative reviews, blocking behavior, and conditional refund offers contingent on review removal—potential review suppression tactics.
• WARRANTY REFUSAL: One detailed review documents owner refusing to file warranty claims and mocking customer's military service when customer questioned charges.
• NO-SHOW INCIDENTS: At least 2 reviews document missed appointments with no communication.

This WW Score of 62.3 should be treated with MODERATE-to-LOW confidence despite HIGH mention counts, because the review dataset contains strong evidence of fake review clustering (20+ generic 5-star reviews in June 2024 and January 2025), owner-driven review suppression tactics, and a documented pattern of owner misconduct spanning 6+ years that directly contradicts the inflated positive reviews. The company's actual performance is likely lower than this score suggests; customers should prioritize the detailed negative reviews documenting specific pricing and behavioral incidents over generic praise reviews.

Mr. McGee Plumbing receives broadly positive marks for professionalism and responsiveness, with many reviewers praising punctuality, courteous communication, and same-day or rapid response times. However, pricing is a serious and recurring concern: multiple independent reviewers describe charges they considered grossly excessive ($389 for a 20-minute valve replacement, $2,300 for a water heater installation), and two separate reviews allege that the advertised senior discount was not honored transparently, suggesting a pattern of pricing misconduct rather than isolated complaints. Project completion is mixed — most jobs appear to be finished satisfactorily, but one reviewer explicitly states the plumber left the job unfinished after charging $2,300. Experience scores are generally positive based on quality of workmanship described, but are tempered by the incomplete water heater job and the pricing disputes which raise questions about ethical conduct. The overall WW Score is significantly pulled down by the pricing dimension, which carries credible, specific, and corroborated negative evidence.

• FAKE REVIEW RISK — MODERATE: A cluster of 9 reviews all dated 2017-05-16 to 2017-05-18 with uniformly 5-star ratings and generic praise (e.g., 'Great service', 'He did an awesome job', 'Great!') raises suspicion of coordinated or solicited reviews. Several lack any specific detail about the job performed.
• SENIOR DISCOUNT FRAUD PATTERN: Two separate reviews (Jan 28 and Jan 29, 2023) from what appear to be different reviewers describe the same specific incident — the senior discount being advertised but not applied or itemized on invoices. This corroborated pattern is a significant ethical red flag.
• INCOMPLETE WORK: One reviewer (May 2022) explicitly states the plumber charged $2,300 for a water heater installation and left the job unfinished, leaving part of the floor out.
• RECENCY NOTE: The two most recent reviews (Sep–Oct 2024) are positive but brief and lack specific detail. The most substantive negative reviews are from 2021–2023. The bulk of positive reviews are from 2017–2019, which are now 5–7 years old and carry reduced weight.
• PRICING OUTLIER: Multiple reviewers independently describe pricing they considered far above market rate, which is a consistent signal rather than a one-off complaint.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability — the professionalism and experience dimensions are supported by a reasonable number of mentions, but the large cluster of suspiciously generic 2017 reviews inflates positive sentiment, while the pricing and project completion concerns are grounded in specific, credible, and in some cases corroborated accounts that meaningfully drag the score down.

CS Plumbing has a deeply mixed record across all four dimensions. The majority of positive reviews are older than 5 years, with the most recent reviews (2024 and 2022) being strongly negative, describing abandoned work, unreturned calls, stolen money, and overcharging. The standout positive reviews — particularly the 2019 sewage line and drain clog stories — demonstrate genuine technical skill and responsiveness, but these are now several years old. The two most critical failures involve contractors taking payment and never returning to complete or fix the work, which severely drags down project completion and professionalism scores. Pricing feedback is split, with some customers praising competitive rates and others explicitly calling the company overpriced and deceptive.

• RECENCY CONCERN: The two most recent reviews (Oct 2024 and Sep 2022) are both 1-star and describe serious misconduct including abandoned repairs, non-returned calls, and money taken without service rendered. This is a significant red flag about current business practices.
• PATTERN WARNING: Multiple reviews across different years describe the same failure pattern — contractor takes payment, promises to return, never does, and stops returning calls. This is not an isolated incident and suggests a systemic issue.
• ABANDONED WORK: Two separate reviews (2024 and 2014) explicitly describe money taken with no completed work and no refund issued, which is a serious integrity concern.
• GENERIC REVIEWS: Several older 5-star reviews (e.g., 'Great, fast and did great work!!!!', 'unknown', 'Good communication, Dependable and did a Great job!!') contain little to no specific detail and may reflect low-effort or unverifiable feedback.
• RECENCY SKEW: The majority of positive reviews are from 2016–2019, making them 5–8 years old. Only one positive review is from the past 12 months (Aug 2024), and it lacks specific detail. The score should be interpreted with this aging data in mind.
• ONE REVIEW MARKED UNUSABLE: The review with text 'unknown' and a 5-star rating was excluded from scoring due to no usable content.

This WW Score should be treated with caution — while the volume of reviews is sufficient for calculation, the most recent evidence points to a pattern of non-completion and financial misconduct that is not reflected in the older positive reviews, meaning the score likely overstates current service quality.