Find Nearby Plumbers In Stillwater, Oklahoma

ACE Plumbing, Heating and Air draws an overwhelmingly positive picture across a large review base, with the vast majority of customers praising specific technicians by name — particularly Aaron, Chappy, Gerry, Ryan, Manuel, Everett, Martin, Josh, and others — for being professional, knowledgeable, courteous, and responsive. Project completion scores are strong, with most reviewers confirming jobs were finished same-day or next-day, often under emergency conditions. Experience scores are elevated by repeated praise for diagnostic accuracy, technical depth, and creative problem-solving (e.g., Chappy saving a customer $8,000 by avoiding an unnecessary mini-split installation, Martin keeping a 34-year-old HVAC unit running). Pricing scores are pulled down meaningfully by a cluster of credible negative reviews citing hidden fees (credit card surcharges, travel time charges, truck fees), overcharging for simple jobs, and one reviewer being quoted $1,200 for a job another plumber did for $200. Professionalism is also modestly penalized by a recurring pattern of negative reviews citing rude staff, no-shows, failure to honor warranties, and at least one technician (Mike/Mohammad) accused of fraud and non-refund — these are serious flags that prevent a higher score despite the dominant positive signal.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: Two pairs of reviews are near-identical in wording and posted on consecutive dates (June 6-8 and June 5-7, 2025). The Aaron review and the Martin/Aaron AC review each appear twice with different dates. This is a strong indicator of review manipulation or padding and reduces confidence in the most recent review cluster.
• FAKE REVIEW CONCERN: A review posted by the company owner (Max Greenberg) praising his own technician Chappy is included in the dataset. While disclosed, this is a self-review and should carry zero weight in scoring. It has been excluded from scoring calculations.
• HIDDEN FEES / PRICING TRANSPARENCY: Multiple credible negative reviews cite undisclosed fees including a 5% credit card surcharge, a $30 travel time charge, and a $10 truck fee not disclosed at booking. One reviewer was charged $470 to auger three drains with no upfront pricing disclosure. These are material pricing integrity concerns.
• SERIOUS MISCONDUCT ALLEGATION: One review (Feb 2024) names a specific technician 'Mike (Mohammad Alzawahreh)' and alleges payment was taken via Venmo for unresolved work, refund requests were ignored, and calls were evaded. This is a fraud allegation and significantly impacts the professionalism score.
• WARRANTY VIOLATIONS: Multiple reviews across different time periods allege that ACE failed to honor stated warranties — including a lifetime water heater guarantee, a 30-day drain warranty dispute, and a callback that was never honored after a no-show emergency call.
• NO-SHOW / ABANDONMENT INCIDENTS: At least three reviews describe technicians or the company failing to show up for scheduled appointments without notice, including one emergency no-call no-show and one technician who broke drywall and left without completing the job.
• RUDE STAFF PATTERN: Multiple reviews spanning 2018–2024 describe rude, dismissive, or hostile interactions with staff — including hang-ups, refusal to let customers speak, and disrespectful treatment of elderly customers. This is a recurring pattern, not isolated incidents.
• RECENCY NOTE: The review dataset spans from 2011 to June 2025. Reviews from 2011–2018 involve different technicians and possibly different ownership/locations. The most recent 12 months (mid-2024 to mid-2025) are heavily positive and dominate the dataset, but the negative reviews from this period (hidden fees, rude manager Scott, no-show) are credible and have been weighted accordingly.
• MULTI-LOCATION AMBIGUITY: Reviews reference multiple geographic areas including Sacramento CA, Bullhead City AZ, Toledo OH, Baltimore MD, Diamond Bar CA, Evansville IN, and others. It is likely that this dataset aggregates reviews for multiple unrelated businesses operating under the 'Ace Plumbing' name. Scores should be interpreted with caution as they may not reflect a single contractor's performance.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large review volume, but its reliability as a single-contractor assessment is MODERATE at best, given strong evidence that reviews from multiple geographically distinct and likely unrelated 'Ace Plumbing' businesses have been aggregated together — consumers should verify they are reading reviews specific to their local ACE Plumbing branch before making a hiring decision.

Performance Plumbing earns strong marks for professionalism and experience, with the vast majority of reviewers praising courteous, knowledgeable technicians who arrive on time, communicate well, and demonstrate solid technical skill across a wide range of jobs including complex remodels, slab leaks, water heater replacements, and septic work. Project completion scores are solid but tempered by a meaningful cluster of negative reviews describing abandoned estimates, unreturned calls, incomplete jobs, and at least one instance of a plumber leaving without resolving the issue. Pricing is the weakest dimension: while many reviewers call costs fair or reasonable, a notable minority — including multiple detailed complaints — describe sticker shock, book-rate pricing that felt excessive, undisclosed charges, and rates described as 350% above competitors, pulling the pricing score down significantly. The overall score reflects a genuinely capable and often excellent company that has real and recurring weaknesses in responsiveness, follow-through on estimates, and pricing transparency that prevent a higher rating.

• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The review beginning 'Remember back in the good old days...' (Shayna and Nate) appears verbatim twice — once dated 2023-06-07 and once dated 2023-03-10. This is a likely duplicate submission and was counted only once for scoring.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The review beginning 'Performance Plumbing is TOP NOTCH! They just completed a bathroom renovation...' appears nearly verbatim twice — once dated 2023-06-07 and once dated 2022-08-09. Counted only once for scoring.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The review beginning 'Horrible. Could not finish the job the first day...' appears verbatim twice — once dated 2016-08-11 with a timestamp and once dated 2016-08-11 without. Counted only once.
• MULTI-ENTITY CONCERN: Reviews reference multiple distinct named technicians, owners, and office staff across what appear to be geographically separate locations (Hawaii, San Francisco, St. Louis/Missouri, Albuquerque NM, Norfolk VA, Canton OH). It is likely these reviews cover more than one business operating under the name 'Performance Plumbing.' Scores should be interpreted with caution as they may aggregate multiple distinct companies.
• NEGATIVE REVIEW PATTERN — RESPONSIVENESS: Multiple 1-star reviews across different time periods cite the same failure mode: unreturned calls, missed appointments, and no-shows. This is a recurring and credible pattern, not isolated incidents.
• NEGATIVE REVIEW PATTERN — PRICING: Multiple detailed 1-to-3-star reviews across different years describe pricing as significantly above market rate, use of opaque 'book pricing,' and charges that were not clearly disclosed upfront. This is a consistent and credible pattern.
• SERIOUS ALLEGATION: One review (2020-11-14) alleges theft of $5,000 by an employee named Alan. This could not be verified and may relate to a different entity, but is flagged for transparency.
• SERIOUS ALLEGATION: One review (2014-08-13) alleges fraudulent billing for hours not worked and threatening a lien. Flagged for transparency.
• RECENCY NOTE: Reviews span from 2003 to 2025. The most recent 12 months (mid-2024 to mid-2025) are predominantly 5-star with high specificity and appear credible. Older reviews (pre-2018) carry less weight in the score calculation but were used to identify recurring patterns.
• GENERIC REVIEWS: Approximately 15-20 reviews contain only 'unknown' or a single period as text with 5-star ratings. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data.

This WW Score is based on a large volume of reviews (200 total) spanning over two decades and carries HIGH statistical confidence in its directional accuracy, but should be interpreted with caution due to the likely aggregation of multiple geographically distinct businesses under the same name, the presence of duplicate reviews, and a consistent pattern of serious negative feedback around pricing transparency and responsiveness that coexists with the predominantly positive majority.

Hancock Plumbing demonstrates strong technical competence and generally reliable project completion, with most customers praising workmanship quality and timely service delivery. Professionalism is solid across communication and courtesy, though responsiveness issues appear in multiple reviews. Pricing is a significant concern, with multiple customers reporting overcharges, lack of written estimates, and aggressive payment policies including undisclosed finance charges. The company excels at skilled work execution but struggles with transparency and fair pricing practices.

• PRICING INTEGRITY ISSUE: Multiple detailed complaints about overcharging (1 review reports $1,600 overcharge at $250/hr vs. market rate $114/hr; another describes $300 flat fee with inconsistent hourly rates and 60-96% annual finance charges). These are not isolated complaints but pattern evidence of pricing opacity.
• RESPONSIVENESS FAILURES: 4 reviews explicitly mention failure to return calls or delayed callbacks (1-3 day delays, multiple call attempts ignored). One customer described feeling like 'a stalker' trying to reach them. Another noted advertised 24-hour service was not honored.
• LACK OF WRITTEN ESTIMATES: Multiple customers report requesting written quotes that were never provided or were promised but not delivered, preventing informed consent to pricing.
• PAYMENT POLICY DISCLOSURE: One detailed review documents absence of written contract, undisclosed payment terms, non-acceptance of partial payments, and confusing finance charge calculations (5% stated but 8% applied).
• RECENCY BIAS: Most 5-star reviews are from 2018-2022 (older than 12 months). Recent reviews (2024-2025) are mixed: 3 positive, 1 negative (non-responsiveness). The 2020 and 2019 reviews contain the most serious complaints about pricing and responsiveness.
• EMPTY REVIEWS: 4 reviews contain no text (5-star ratings with blank content), reducing data quality slightly.

This score should be trusted with caution: while technical competence and project completion are well-supported by consistent evidence (HIGH confidence), the pricing dimension is severely compromised by multiple credible, detailed complaints of overcharging and lack of transparency, and responsiveness issues are documented across multiple time periods. The WW Score of 78.2 reflects strong execution but serious business practice concerns that materially impact customer value and trust.

Roto-Rooter receives consistently strong praise for technician professionalism, friendliness, and communication, with hundreds of reviews citing courteous, knowledgeable, and prompt service. However, pricing is a major and recurring pain point: dozens of reviewers explicitly describe charges as excessive, shocking, or outright predatory, with specific complaints ranging from $400+ for a single drain snake to $1,600+ for incomplete work, significantly dragging down the pricing dimension. Project completion is mixed — the majority of jobs are completed successfully and often same-day, but a meaningful minority of reviews describe incomplete work, no-shows, failed repairs requiring follow-up by other companies, and jobs left in worse condition than found. Technician skill and experience scores well overall, but is undermined by a notable subset of reviews describing misdiagnosis, incompetent repairs, and technicians who appeared uncertain or unqualified for the task at hand.

• PRICING CONCERN: Pricing is the single most negatively reviewed dimension. Dozens of reviews across multiple years and locations explicitly cite charges of $400–$1,600+ for basic drain cleaning or simple repairs as excessive, with multiple reviewers stating they found the same work done for 50–75% less elsewhere.
• PROJECT COMPLETION FAILURES: A significant number of reviews describe jobs that were not completed, required multiple return visits, or were left in worse condition. Several reviews describe technicians abandoning jobs mid-work, failing to reconnect appliances, or leaving hazardous conditions.
• NO-SHOW AND SCHEDULING FAILURES: A recurring pattern of no-shows, missed appointment windows without notification, and poor dispatcher communication appears across multiple years and locations. This is a systemic operational issue.
• MISDIAGNOSIS PATTERN: Multiple reviews describe technicians recommending expensive repairs (e.g., $3,000–$10,000 excavations) that were later found unnecessary by other plumbers who resolved the issue quickly and cheaply.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK — MODERATE: A cluster of reviews dated 2025-06-07 and 2025-06-02 share very similar short-form praise structures (e.g., 'Justin was awesome', 'Great Job Mo!', 'Justin saved our lives today!') with minimal detail. Several appear to be from the same franchise location and may reflect solicited or incentivized reviews. Confidence in the high-end scores is slightly reduced as a result.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Approximately 60–70 reviews contain no text and only a star rating (mostly 5-star). These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews with substantive text are from 2024–2025 and are within the past 12 months. Older reviews (2013–2020) show similar patterns of both praise and complaints, suggesting these issues are long-standing and not improving significantly over time.
• GEOGRAPHIC VARIANCE: Reviews appear to span many different Roto-Rooter franchise locations across the US. Scores reflect aggregate performance across all locations, which may mask significant variation between individual franchises.

This WW Score is based on a very large review set (600+ reviews) with HIGH confidence across all four dimensions, making the aggregate score statistically robust; however, the score should be interpreted cautiously because it aggregates performance across many distinct franchise locations, and individual location quality varies dramatically — some franchises consistently earn 5-star praise while others generate repeated complaints about pricing, no-shows, and incomplete work.

Of the 6 reviews analyzed, only 3 contained usable narrative content — the remaining 3 had no review text and could not be scored. Among the substantive reviews, professionalism was the most consistently praised dimension, with multiple reviewers explicitly noting punctuality, communication, and a professional demeanor. Pricing was mentioned positively in one review, and project completion was supported by references to timely, efficient work. Experience was inferred from repeat usage and praise for problem-solving, though no highly technical detail was provided. All reviews are more than 10 years old, which significantly limits their reliability as a reflection of current service quality.

• 3 out of 6 reviews contain no text ('unknown') — these could not be scored and may represent placeholder or incomplete entries.
• All reviews are dated between 2013 and 2015 — none are within the past 10 years, let alone the past 12 months. This score should not be treated as representative of current performance.
• All rated reviews are 5-star with no negative feedback, which warrants caution, though the small sample size and age of reviews make a fake review pattern inconclusive.
• Sample size of usable reviews (3) is at the minimum threshold — WW Score should be treated as indicative only, not definitive.

This WW Score carries very low reliability due to a small number of usable reviews, complete absence of recent reviews, and three reviews with no text content — prospective customers should seek more current references before making a hiring decision.

Three of the five reviews are from 2017, making them over six years old and significantly less reliable as indicators of current performance. The one negative review (2021) explicitly calls out poor customer service and failure to show up, which directly impacts professionalism and project completion scores. The positive reviews do mention responsiveness, friendliness, affordability, and competent repairs, but these are offset by the negative review and the age of most data. Pricing is mentioned positively in two reviews as reasonable and affordable, but with only two mentions this carries limited confidence. Overall, the mixed signals and heavily dated review pool prevent a high score.

• 3 out of 5 reviews are from 2017 — over 6 years old. These carry significantly reduced weight and may not reflect current business quality.
• The 2021 one-star review explicitly mentions failure to show up and poor customer service, which is a serious flag for reliability and professionalism.
• The 2023 five-star review is vague and generic ('best of the best', 'most reliable, effective and affordable') with no specific details about work performed — possible fake or incentivized review.
• Small sample size of only 5 reviews makes any score unreliable. Confidence across all dimensions is LOW to MODERATE at best.

This WW Score should be treated with significant caution — it is based on only 5 reviews, three of which are over 6 years old, one of which is a serious negative complaint, and one of which shows signs of being a generic or fake review.