Find Nearby Plumbers In Oklahoma City, Oklahoma

Tate Plumbing demonstrates strong performance across all measured dimensions. Professionalism is evidenced by responsive communication, weekend/night availability, and courteous service even under personal hardship. Project completion is solid with multiple jobs finished successfully and follow-up work honored at no cost. Technical expertise is demonstrated through diagnostic problem-solving and customer education on equipment care. Pricing appears fair and transparent based on limited mentions. However, the score is constrained by older review dates (most from 2012–2018) and several unusable entries that reduce overall data reliability.

• Four reviews contain only 'unknown' or '.' as text with no substantive content — these cannot be scored and reduce usable data from 9 to 5 reviews
• Most reviews are older than 3 years (2012–2018); only 2 reviews from 2020 provide recent performance data
• Limited mention counts (2–4) across all dimensions result in MODERATE confidence rather than HIGH
• No negative feedback or complaints present, which is positive but limits ability to assess weaknesses or validate consistency

This WW Score of 87.2 should be treated with moderate caution due to limited recent data (only 2 reviews from past 4 years) and small sample size of usable reviews (5 of 9). The score reflects strong historical performance but lacks current market validation.

Mike's Plumbing earns strong marks across all four dimensions, driven by an overwhelming volume of positive reviews praising punctuality, communication, friendly technicians, and quality workmanship across a wide range of jobs. Professionalism is the most frequently cited strength, with dozens of reviewers specifically calling out on-time arrivals, courteous staff, clean work habits, and responsive office personnel. Pricing scores moderately well — the majority of reviewers describe fair, competitive, or below-estimate final costs, but a meaningful minority of negative reviews cite unexpectedly high charges, undisclosed labor rates, and a significant bait-and-switch pricing complaint that cannot be ignored. Project completion is strong overall, with most jobs described as fully resolved in a timely manner, though several reviews flag recurring issues, abandoned callbacks, and at least one instance of a new leak appearing within 24 hours of service. Experience scores well, with many reviewers praising skilled diagnosis, creative problem-solving, and technical knowledge, though a handful of negative reviews describe technicians who could not resolve the issue or required senior intervention.

• Two reviews (dated 2024-10-29 and 2024-11-08) are nearly word-for-word identical in content, both complaining about a $310/hour charge for a water heater troubleshooting visit that yielded no resolution. This may represent the same reviewer posting twice or a coordinated negative review effort — treat with moderate caution but the underlying complaint is plausible and consistent with other pricing concerns.
• Two reviews (dated 2025-06-06 and 2025-06-04) are exact duplicates of a detailed positive review about a kitchen sink replumb job. This is a strong indicator of a fake or duplicate review submission and reduces confidence in the most recent positive review cluster.
• Two reviews (dated 2024-10-09 and 2024-10-03) are near-identical positive reviews about the same sewer line incident involving Cody. This may be a duplicate submission by the same reviewer.
• Two reviews (dated 2022-09-07 and 2022-09-04) are near-identical positive reviews about a whole-house generator gas piping re-do. Likely duplicate submissions.
• Two reviews (dated 2008-07-11) are exact duplicates of a positive review. Likely a duplicate submission.
• Multiple reviews contain no text and only a star rating (5 stars). These provide no usable data for any dimension and were excluded from dimension scoring.
• A significant number of negative reviews (1-star) cite responsiveness and communication failures — unreturned calls, ignored messages, missed appointments, and failure to follow up. This is a recurring operational weakness that is partially offset by the high volume of positive responsiveness mentions but should not be dismissed.
• The review corpus spans from approximately 2008 to 2025. Reviews older than 2022 carry reduced weight per recency rules. The business appears to have grown significantly over time, and some older negative reviews may reflect earlier operational issues that have since improved — but some communication and scheduling complaints persist into 2024-2025.
• At least one review (2018-10-02) alleges the company refused to provide insurance information after causing property damage, which is a serious professional and legal concern.
• One review (2016-04-21) describes extremely unprofessional conduct including property damage, denial of responsibility, and an abusive late-night phone call. This is an outlier but a serious one.

This WW Score is based on a very large review corpus (281 reviews) spanning over 15 years, giving it HIGH statistical confidence in direction and relative dimension ranking, but the score should be interpreted with caution due to confirmed duplicate/fake positive reviews, a recurring pattern of communication and scheduling failures in negative reviews, and several serious pricing transparency complaints that suggest inconsistent customer experiences depending on the job type and technician assigned.

Anderson Plumbing demonstrates strong overall performance across a very large review base spanning many years and what appears to be multiple locations or franchises operating under the same name. Professionalism is the most frequently praised dimension, with dozens of reviewers citing punctuality, courteous technicians, clear communication, and clean workmanship. Project completion scores are solid but are meaningfully dragged down by a recurring pattern of no-shows, abandoned jobs, and at least one case of faulty workmanship requiring a third-party fix — these negative signals are explicit and credible. Pricing receives mixed signals: many reviewers praise fair or below-market rates, while a notable cluster of negative reviews specifically cite hidden charges, misquoted prices, and billing for invoice-writing time, reducing confidence in consistent pricing transparency. Experience scores are generally high, with many reviewers praising diagnostic accuracy and problem-solving, though a handful of reviews describe technicians who failed to identify root causes or created new problems, preventing a higher score.

• MULTI-ENTITY CONCERN: Reviews reference a very large number of different named technicians (Sam, Neil, Chris, Greg, Mark, Andrew, Justin, Francisco, Richard, Carson, Andre, Jimmy, James, Norbert, Caleb, Ryan, Wes, Dale, Zane, Pat, Craig, Gilbert, Bill, Tim, Tony, and others) across dates spanning 2004–2025. This strongly suggests these reviews aggregate multiple distinct Anderson Plumbing businesses in different cities/states rather than a single contractor. Scores should be interpreted with caution as they may not reflect any one business accurately.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK — UNDATED REVIEWS: Approximately 20+ reviews have no date (Date: None). Several of these are extremely brief and generic (e.g., 'Great work and great price!', 'I highly Recommend them and will definitely be using them again.', 'These gentlemen were the absolute best.'). These undated reviews lack specifics and may inflate positive sentiment. Confidence in undated reviews is reduced.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews with dates fall between 2020 and 2025, with a meaningful tail going back to 2004. Reviews older than 3 years (pre-2022) may not reflect current service quality and have been weighted less heavily in scoring.
• PRICING INCONSISTENCY FLAG: Multiple explicit negative reviews describe hidden charges, billing for travel/invoice time, misquoted prices, and charges significantly above initial estimates. Two reviews describe being charged $400+ more than quoted without authorization. This creates a meaningful downward pressure on the pricing score despite many positive pricing mentions.
• PROJECT COMPLETION NEGATIVES: At least 6 reviews describe explicit no-shows or abandoned work (2010, 2016, 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024). One review describes faulty installation of a p-trap that failed twice and was installed backwards. One review describes a PRV installation that broke and was never remedied. These are serious completion failures that materially reduce the project completion score.
• WORKMANSHIP NEGATIVES: At least 3 reviews describe technicians who failed to diagnose the correct problem, with a subsequent plumber identifying the real issue. One review describes a technician who created a new leak while fixing another. These reduce the experience score from what would otherwise be very high.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Approximately 20 reviews contain no text, only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring but counted in total reviews analyzed. Several blank 1-star and 2-star reviews suggest dissatisfied customers who did not elaborate.

This WW Score is based on a very large review corpus (296 reviews) with HIGH mention counts across all four dimensions, giving the score strong statistical weight; however, reliability is meaningfully reduced by the strong likelihood that these reviews represent multiple distinct businesses operating under the Anderson Plumbing name across different cities and states, by a recurring pattern of no-show and pricing complaints that are explicit and credible, and by a cluster of undated generic reviews that may artificially inflate positive sentiment.

Aladdin Plumbing has a strong base of loyal, long-term customers who consistently praise punctuality, friendliness, and technical competence across dozens of reviews spanning over a decade. Professionalism scores well overall but is meaningfully dragged down by recurring complaints about unresponsive callbacks, a late technician with no communication, rude office staff, and at least one plumber who refused to work in cold weather. Project completion is generally solid — many reviewers note jobs done right the first time — but there are credible accounts of repeat visits for the same unfixed issue, a misdiagnosed leak requiring three visits, and a plumber who created new problems while fixing others. Pricing receives mixed signals: several reviewers call it fair or competitive, while others explicitly describe it as expensive, and one customer was charged $280 for a job the plumber could not complete, with no response from the company. Experience scores moderately well given strong praise for specific technicians like Mike Bruno, Jerry, and Larry, but is tempered by documented cases of poor workmanship and misdiagnosis from at least one recurring technician.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: Four reviews appear in exact duplicate pairs — 'I had a boiler conversion. The service provided was exceptional...' appears verbatim on 2025-06-09 and 2025-06-06; 'Jerry was great. He explained everything to the fullest...' appears verbatim on 2025-06-09 and 2025-06-06; 'Jerry and Marcus did a terrific job!' appears verbatim on 2025-06-08 and 2025-06-05; 'The office got someone here right away...' appears verbatim on 2025-06-07 and 2025-06-04. These are likely fake or system-duplicated reviews and have been treated as single data points each.
• HIGH VOLUME OF BLANK REVIEWS: Approximately 25+ reviews contain no text whatsoever — only a star rating (all 5 stars). These provide no usable qualitative data and inflate the apparent review count without contributing meaningful signal. This pattern is consistent with review padding.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of substantive reviews are from 2024-2025 and are within the past 12 months, which is positive. However, several of the most detailed negative reviews date from 2013-2015 and 2017-2018. Negative patterns (unresponsive callbacks, repeat visits for same issue, billing disputes) do recur in more recent reviews as well, suggesting these are not fully resolved historical issues.
• THEFT ALLEGATION: One 2017 review alleges that plumbers stole a large sum of money from the reviewer's apartment and that the office was unhelpful and hung up. This is a serious unverified claim and is noted as a flag.
• PRICING CONCERN: A 2025 review explicitly states the company charged $280 for a job the plumber could not fix, with no response to the customer's complaint. This is a recent and specific pricing/completion concern.
• CALLBACK AND RESPONSIVENESS FAILURES: Multiple independent reviews across different years (2013, 2016, 2018, 2020, 2021) describe calls not being returned, sometimes for emergency situations. This is a recurring pattern affecting the professionalism score.

This WW Score is based on a large volume of reviews (155 total, ~120 with usable data) spanning over a decade, giving it HIGH statistical confidence overall, but the score should be interpreted cautiously due to confirmed duplicate/blank review inflation, a recurring pattern of callback failures and billing disputes, and at least one serious unverified allegation — the true performance floor may be somewhat lower than the score suggests.

Dean's Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism with consistently punctual arrivals, courteous technicians, and excellent communication across 187 mentions. Project completion is reliable with most jobs finished on schedule and callbacks honored, though some instances of incomplete work or rescheduling issues appear in negative reviews (156 mentions). Technical expertise is solid with skilled diagnostics and quality workmanship noted frequently (142 mentions). However, pricing emerges as a significant weakness, with 89 explicit mentions revealing a pattern of high costs, aggressive service fees, and customer frustration over value—this is the most frequently criticized dimension. The company excels in customer service and work quality but struggles with transparent, competitive pricing.

• PRICING PATTERN: Consistent complaints across multiple years (2012-2025) about high pricing, service fees ($59-$225), and aggressive upselling. Multiple reviews cite 2-3x higher costs than competitors for identical work.
• INCONSISTENT QUALITY: Several reviews note quality varies significantly depending on which technician is dispatched. Older owner (Bill) received notably poor reviews for installation work; younger technicians consistently praised.
• PAYMENT POLICY ISSUE: One 2024 review reports company demands full payment upfront before work begins, which is unusual and caused customer cancellation.
• FOLLOW-UP FAILURES: Multiple reviews (2023-2024) report promised discounts not honored, supervisor departures causing service breakdowns, and lack of accountability for verbal commitments.
• DIAGNOSTIC ERRORS: Several reviews (2020-2023) document misdiagnosis of plumbing issues, leading customers to seek second opinions and discover actual problems were different.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK - LIMITED: While most reviews appear genuine with specific details, the extremely high concentration of 5-star ratings (>80% of reviews) combined with very few 2-3 star reviews is atypical. However, negative reviews are detailed and credible, suggesting this is a genuinely polarizing company rather than fake reviews.
• RECENCY NOTE: Most recent reviews (2025, 2024) show continued pricing complaints and service inconsistencies, indicating issues are ongoing, not historical.

This WW Score of 78.2 is highly reliable (based on 365 reviews with consistent data across all dimensions) but reflects a company with significant internal contradictions: excellent professionalism and technical skill undermined by aggressive pricing practices and occasional service failures. Customers should expect quality work and professional behavior but should negotiate pricing aggressively and get all commitments in writing.

VIP Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism across most reviews, with technicians consistently praised for courtesy, punctuality, and communication. Project completion is generally solid with most jobs finished as promised, though a few negative reviews cite incomplete work or follow-up issues. Experience and technical knowledge are well-documented with positive mentions of problem-solving ability. However, pricing emerges as a significant weakness—multiple reviews explicitly criticize high costs, hidden charges, and expensive estimates, which pulls the overall score down. The company shows inconsistency: while many customers report fair pricing and good value, others describe overcharging and inflated quotes for simple jobs.

• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The negative review dated 2024-08-13 appears twice with identical text, suggesting possible data entry error rather than genuine duplicate feedback.
• PRICING INCONSISTENCY: Stark contradiction in pricing feedback. Some reviews praise 'fair price' and 'reasonable rates,' while others cite $3000+ charges for single-line replacements, $1200 sink quotes, and $125 estimate fees. This suggests either significant variation in job complexity or inconsistent pricing practices.
• SERIOUS QUALITY INCIDENTS: Two 1-star reviews document significant failures—one involving improper water line installation with property damage and incomplete work; another involving failed drain clearing that damaged P-trap connections. A third 2-star review describes a major cold water line project with poor workmanship, property damage, and overcharging, though partially remedied by management.
• FOLLOW-UP FAILURES: Multiple reviews mention incomplete callbacks, missed appointments without apology, and unfinished work requiring return visits (e.g., thermostat not turned on, pipes not connected, sprinkler line damage never addressed).
• RECENCY BIAS: Most 5-star reviews cluster in 2025 and late 2024 (recent months), while negative reviews are older (2018-2022). This temporal pattern suggests either recent service improvements or potential review manipulation. However, one serious negative review is from August 2024, indicating recent problems persist.
• TECHNICIAN VARIABILITY: Reviews frequently name specific technicians (Junior, Zach, Preston, Gerry, Dillon, etc.) with dramatically different outcomes. 'Justin' is explicitly called out as 'the worst plumber on their team.' This suggests significant quality control issues and inconsistent training.
• PROPERTY DAMAGE PATTERN: Multiple reviews document property damage (drywall holes, concrete step damage, sprinkler line breakage, interior door scraping) that was either not addressed or only partially remedied.

This WW Score of 78.2 should be treated with MODERATE-TO-HIGH caution. While professionalism and experience scores are well-supported by 35-58 mentions each, the pricing dimension is based on only 18 mentions and shows extreme polarization—some customers report excellent value while others describe significant overcharging. The presence of documented quality failures, property damage incidents, and follow-up issues, combined with technician-dependent outcomes and recent negative reviews, suggests the company's reliability varies substantially by technician and job type. The score reflects an average company with strong customer service skills but inconsistent execution, pricing transparency, and accountability for mistakes.