Find Nearby Plumbers In Oklahoma City, Oklahoma

This contractor has a deeply mixed record across only 3 reviews, making any conclusions highly tentative. Professionalism is the most-mentioned dimension and is significantly dragged down by a 1-star review describing a no-show scenario where the plumber left mid-appointment and sent a third party to cancel via text — a serious unprofessionalism flag. The two positive reviews mention friendly service and affordable pricing, with one citing a specific hourly rate of approximately $90/hour plus parts, which is a useful data point. Project completion is concerning: the abandoned appointment in the 1-star review represents a clear failure to complete a job, offsetting the positive completion implied in the cracked pipe review. Experience has only one indirect mention and is scored conservatively.

• Only 3 reviews total — WW Score is statistically unreliable and should be treated with extreme caution.
• One review (1-star, 2021) describes a serious abandonment of service: plumber left to retrieve tools and never returned, with cancellation communicated via a third party by text. This is a significant red flag for reliability.
• The oldest review dates to 2018 — over 6 years ago — and may not reflect current service quality. Recency weighting reduces its reliability.
• No reviews from the past 12 months are present in this dataset, limiting insight into current performance.
• Insufficient review volume to detect fake review patterns, but the two positive reviews are somewhat generic and lack granular detail.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews spanning multiple years, with no recent data, and should not be considered a reliable indicator of this contractor's current quality or consistency.

iPlumb demonstrates significant inconsistency across reviews spanning 2011–2023. Professionalism scores are heavily dragged down by repeated failures to show up for appointments, unresponsiveness after incidents, and poor communication—explicitly mentioned in 5 reviews. Project completion is severely compromised by no-shows, abandoned callbacks, and incomplete problem resolution in multiple cases. Experience and workmanship quality are rated higher when work is actually performed, but this is overshadowed by systemic organizational and accountability failures. The company's inability to follow through on commitments and respond to customer issues represents a critical weakness that undermines trust.

• RECENCY CONCERN: One positive review (2019) and one older positive review (2011) are substantially outweighed by three recent 1-star reviews (2023, 2017, 2015) documenting repeated no-shows and unresponsiveness. The 2023 review is particularly recent and damaging.
• PATTERN DETECTED: Three separate reviews (2023, 2017, 2015) describe identical failure modes—scheduled appointments with no-shows and failure to call back. This suggests systemic operational dysfunction rather than isolated incidents.
• INCOMPLETE DATA: No reviews mention pricing, making value assessment impossible. One positive review (2011) appears to reference a different company name ('Empact Plumbing') which may indicate data quality issues or company rebranding.
• SEVERITY ESCALATION: The 2023 review documents property damage (flooded attic) combined with non-responsiveness, representing the most serious complaint in the dataset.

This WW Score should be treated with caution due to limited review volume (6 total) and significant recency concerns; however, the pattern of repeated no-shows and unresponsiveness across multiple years suggests genuine systemic issues rather than isolated incidents. The score of 42.8 is conservative and reflects the company's demonstrated inability to execute basic scheduling and communication commitments, which are foundational to customer trust.

Across nearly 100 reviews spanning 2014–2024, Airco Service receives overwhelmingly negative feedback in all four scored dimensions. Professionalism is severely undermined by recurring reports of rude technicians, no-call no-shows, unanswered callbacks from management, and in one alarming case an unauthorized entry into a customer's home. Pricing is the lowest-scoring dimension, with dozens of reviewers explicitly describing inflated quotes, charges for parts at many multiples of retail cost, fees for incomplete or failed work, and aggressive upselling of unnecessary replacements. Project completion is deeply problematic, with numerous accounts of jobs left unfinished, repeat visits failing to resolve the same issue, and work that caused additional property damage. Experience scores marginally higher only because a meaningful minority of reviewers praised specific individual technicians by name for genuine skill and thoroughness, but these positive experiences are far outnumbered by accounts of misdiagnosis, incorrect installations, and technicians unable to identify basic problems that competitors resolved quickly and cheaply.

• UPSELLING PATTERN: A very high volume of reviews — across multiple years and service types (HVAC, plumbing, electrical) — describe technicians recommending full system replacements or expensive parts that were later found to be unnecessary by competing companies. This is a systemic pattern, not isolated incidents.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — POSITIVE REVIEWS: Several 5-star reviews are extremely brief and generic (e.g., 'Awesome company! Always takes care of me', 'Once again Airco Service Tulsa has provided wonderful service') with no specific details, job type, or technician names. These may inflate the positive signal.
• MANAGEMENT UNRESPONSIVENESS: Multiple reviews across different years explicitly state that managers never called back after promised, suggesting a systemic customer service failure at the management level.
• PROPERTY DAMAGE INCIDENTS: At least three reviews describe Airco technicians causing direct property damage (flooring water damage, yard destruction, wall damage) with inadequate or no remediation offered.
• UNAUTHORIZED HOME ENTRY: One 2014 review describes a technician entering a customer's home without permission and the company subsequently denying the incident occurred, which is a serious conduct and trust concern.
• FORGED SIGNATURE: One 2024 review describes a forged customer signature on a service invoice, which is a significant legal and ethical red flag.
• RECENCY NOTE: Negative reviews are consistent across the full date range (2014–2024), indicating these are not isolated historical issues. The most recent reviews (2024) continue to reflect the same core complaints about pricing, upselling, and incomplete work.
• SCORE SUPPRESSION APPLIED: Due to the volume and specificity of negative reviews, scores have been held conservative. The few genuinely positive reviews — particularly those praising named technicians — prevent scores from reaching the floor but do not materially offset the dominant negative pattern.

This WW Score is based on 100 reviews with HIGH mention counts across all four dimensions and should be considered highly reliable; the score of 38.2 reflects a contractor with serious, systemic, and well-documented deficiencies in pricing transparency, job completion, and consistent professionalism, offset only partially by a subset of positive individual technician experiences.

Brandon's Plumbing has an overwhelmingly negative review profile across all four scored dimensions. Pricing is the weakest area, with repeated complaints about undisclosed service fees, inflated flat-rate quotes, charges for work not completed, and prices dramatically higher than competitors — including a $125 fee just to show up and do nothing, and quotes thousands of dollars above market rate. Project completion is severely damaged by multiple accounts of jobs left unfinished, problems made worse after service, failed callbacks, repeated no-shows and cancellations, and at least one case where a clog was not cleared despite payment. Professionalism scores are dragged down by rude office staff, technicians with dismissive attitudes, a technician who sat in his truck after getting his feelings hurt, and a tech who cursed at a tenant. Experience scores reflect recurring accounts of misdiagnosis, incorrect leak locations, improperly installed toilets and wax seals, and work that failed within days or weeks. The minority of positive reviews — mostly praising specific named technicians like Bobby, Denver, Daniel, Ron, and Dusty — prevent the scores from reaching zero, but they are clearly outnumbered.

• 11 reviews contain no text at all — only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence.
• Several positive reviews are suspiciously brief and generic (e.g., 'Great Place!', 'Diagnosed my problem right away. Great jib', 'Tammie know what to do') with no specific details, which reduces their evidentiary weight.
• A cluster of 5-star reviews from 2024-06-09 with named technicians (Bobby, Jason, Daniel, Denver) may reflect a coordinated review push — multiple reviews on the same date with similar enthusiastic tone warrants caution.
• The review dated 2012-10-29 is over 10 years old and was given reduced weight in scoring. Several reviews from 2019-2020 were also down-weighted relative to 2023-2025 reviews.
• Multiple reviewers explicitly state the company's behavior has worsened over time compared to prior positive experiences, suggesting a meaningful decline in service quality in recent years.
• At least three reviews describe the company targeting vulnerable individuals (a 95-year-old aunt, a 62-year-old mother, an elderly grandfather) with inflated or deceptive charges — a serious ethical flag.
• The pattern of charging a $125 service fee for visits where no work is performed, combined with quotes far above market rate, appears systemic and is mentioned across at least 7 independent reviews.
• One reviewer confirmed a refund was only obtained after filing a complaint with the Oklahoma Attorney General's Office, indicating the company does not resolve disputes voluntarily.

This WW Score is based on 68 reviews with usable content spanning 2012 to 2025, with strong representation from the past 24 months, and carries HIGH confidence — the volume and consistency of negative feedback across all dimensions makes this score a reliable indicator of poor overall contractor performance.

The overwhelming majority of reviews across all four dimensions are deeply negative, with recurring complaints about rude staff, unprofessional technicians, abandoned or failed repairs, and significantly inflated pricing. Professionalism is the most frequently criticized dimension, with multiple reviewers citing rude receptionists, no-shows without notice, dismissive attitudes toward frustrated customers, and technicians who pressured customers into unnecessary purchases. Pricing complaints are pervasive and specific, with reviewers citing charges for work not completed, hidden fees, non-itemized invoices, and costs far exceeding market rates. Project completion is severely undermined by multiple accounts of systems installed or repaired that continued to malfunction, callbacks that failed to resolve issues, and at least one case of a $6,000+ system left non-functional for over a month. The handful of positive reviews (5 out of 24) do reflect genuine satisfaction with speed, courtesy, and value, but they are far outweighed by the volume and specificity of negative experiences, and most positive reviews are from 2017–2019 or earlier.

• Strong recency concern: the most recent reviews (2022–2023) are negative, suggesting the company's service quality has not improved over time and may have worsened.
• Multiple reviews describe a pattern of technicians recommending expensive replacements (new units, full system overhauls) before properly diagnosing the issue — this is a significant red flag for upselling misconduct.
• At least two reviews describe being charged for service calls where no work was performed and no problem was resolved, raising concerns about billing ethics.
• One review (2022) describes a technician failing to identify an empty propane tank as the root cause, resulting in $570 in unnecessary charges — a serious competency and ethics concern.
• One review (2018) describes a technician misdiagnosing a full coolant system as empty and recommending full replacement — later contradicted by a second company.
• The positive reviews are largely older (2014–2019) and may not reflect current service quality. The single 5-star review from 2020 is internally inconsistent — it is rated 1.0 in the data despite containing clearly positive text, suggesting a possible data entry error; it was treated as a positive review based on content.
• No fake review patterns detected — positive and negative reviews differ substantially in language, detail, and specificity, suggesting authentic authorship across the board.
• The ratio of 1-star to 5-star reviews is approximately 17:5, which is a strong negative signal even accounting for the tendency of dissatisfied customers to leave reviews more frequently.

This WW Score is based on 24 reviews with high mention counts across all four dimensions, making it statistically reliable; the score of 34.2 should be treated as a credible reflection of significantly below-average contractor performance, particularly given the consistency and specificity of negative feedback across multiple years.

The overwhelming majority of reviews describe Phil and AAA Plumbing in deeply negative terms across all four dimensions. Professionalism is the most severely impacted dimension, with dozens of reviews documenting verbal abuse, hanging up on customers, no-shows, missed appointment windows, condescending behavior toward women, and outright refusal to perform work. Project completion is nearly as damning, with repeated accounts of abandoned jobs, broken equipment left behind, work performed incorrectly requiring a second plumber to fix, and chronic failure to follow through on scheduled appointments. Pricing drew consistent complaints about inflated out-of-pocket charges for code upgrades that other plumbers quoted at a fraction of the cost, as well as allegations of attempting to double-bill home warranty companies. Experience scores slightly higher than the other dimensions only because a small cluster of positive reviews — primarily from non-warranty direct clients — describe Phil as highly skilled, knowledgeable, and capable of solving complex problems others could not; however, multiple negative reviews describe outright incompetent diagnoses and botched repairs that worsened the original problem.

• STRONG PATTERN: The vast majority of negative reviews involve home warranty company assignments (First American, Old Republic). Phil appears to systematically use code-upgrade claims to extract out-of-pocket payments beyond warranty coverage, a pattern repeated across at least 12 independent reviews spanning 2016–2023.
• SPLIT REVIEWER PROFILE: Positive reviews almost exclusively come from direct-hire or long-term personal clients, while negative reviews are almost entirely from home warranty-assigned customers. This suggests a deliberate two-tier service model rather than random quality variation.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW CONCERN: Several 5-star reviews are unusually brief and generic (e.g., 'very professional and courteous', 'honest as they come', 'great service call') with no specific details. These contrast sharply with the highly detailed negative reviews. Confidence in positive scores is reduced accordingly.
• BEHAVIORAL RED FLAGS: Multiple reviews independently describe Phil screaming at customers, calling customers derogatory names (including gendered slurs), hanging up mid-conversation, and retaliating against customers who questioned his pricing. At least two reviews describe dangerous driving behavior in a company vehicle.
• RECENCY NOTE: Negative reviews span the full date range from 2016 through 2023, indicating no improvement in conduct over time. The most recent reviews (2023) continue to document the same patterns as reviews from 2016–2018.
• LICENSING/PERMIT CONCERN: At least one review (2022) states that Phil claimed no permit was needed for a water heater installation, the customer independently obtained a permit, and city inspectors found multiple installation violations. This raises serious questions about licensing compliance.
• ABANDONED WORK: Multiple reviews describe Phil disconnecting water heaters, removing toilet components, or disassembling fixtures and then leaving the property mid-job without completing the work, leaving customers without water or functional plumbing for days or weeks.

This WW Score of 28.4 is based on 52 reviews with HIGH confidence across all four dimensions and should be considered a reliable and conservative reflection of this contractor's overall service quality; the volume and consistency of negative evidence across multiple years and independent reviewers leaves little ambiguity.