Find Nearby Plumbers In Ewa Beach, Hawaii

J Mac Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism with consistent praise for punctuality, friendliness, and responsiveness across multiple reviews. However, project completion is a significant concern—while most jobs were completed successfully, one detailed 2012 review describes a serious failure where the plumber was unable to complete a faucet replacement despite multiple scheduled visits, forcing the customer to hire another plumber. Pricing feedback is limited but positive where mentioned. The company shows solid technical skill, though the completion issue suggests inconsistency in follow-through on complex jobs.

• RECENCY CONCERN: All reviews are from 2011–2015 (9–13 years old). No recent reviews available to assess current service quality or whether issues have been resolved.
• PROJECT COMPLETION RED FLAG: One detailed 2012 review (rating 2.0) describes a significant failure—a plumber unable to complete a faucet/angle stop replacement despite multiple scheduled visits over weeks, forcing the customer to hire a competitor. This is a serious completion and follow-through issue.
• GENERIC REVIEW: First review contains only 'unknown' text with no substantive detail—excluded from scoring but counted in total.
• LIMITED PRICING DATA: Only 2 reviews mention pricing; both are positive but provide no specific details about cost competitiveness or transparency.

This score should be treated with caution due to age of reviews (all 9+ years old) and a documented project completion failure that contradicts the otherwise positive ratings. The MODERATE overall confidence reflects the small sample size and the tension between strong professionalism scores and a serious completion issue. Current service quality cannot be reliably assessed from this data.

Pete demonstrates strong technical skill and workmanship, with multiple reviewers explicitly praising the quality of his work across a range of plumbing tasks including leak repair, drain clearing, and fixture installation. However, professionalism is meaningfully dragged down by a 3-star review that explicitly describes chronic no-shows, missed appointments without notice, and a pattern of deprioritizing certain customers — a serious concern that cannot be ignored. Pricing feedback is generally positive, with mentions of fair and reasonable rates, though one reviewer noted a complete absence of an upfront estimate, undermining transparency. Project completion is mixed: most jobs were finished, but the 3-star review describes incomplete work and deferred follow-through. The overall picture is of a skilled tradesperson whose reliability and communication are inconsistent.

• One review (Rating: 5.0, Date: 2014-02-03) contains no text whatsoever — it was excluded from scoring as it provides zero usable data.
• Two reviews (2012-06-07 and 2012-12-30) are over 10 years old and carry very low recency weight. The most recent usable review is from 2021, which is also over 3 years old. No reviews from the past 12 months are present.
• The 3-star review explicitly describes punctuality failures, no-call no-shows, incomplete work, and lack of upfront pricing — these are significant red flags that meaningfully reduce professionalism and project completion scores.
• The short, generic 5-star reviews ('excellent- fast service - friendly - honest - fair prices!') lack specifics and could reflect low-effort or superficial feedback, though there is insufficient evidence to flag them as definitively fake.
• Total usable review count is very low (4 reviews). Scores should be treated with caution and the WW Score is at the lower boundary of reliability.

This WW Score is based on only 4 reviews with usable data, all of which are more than 3 years old, making it LOW reliability — treat this score as a preliminary signal only and seek more recent, detailed reviews before making a hiring decision.

Allen's Plumbing has a large and deeply mixed review history spanning over a decade. Professionalism scores moderately well overall — the majority of reviews praise individual technicians (JP, Bennett, Tarin, Justin, Jonah, Davin, Daniel, etc.) as courteous, knowledgeable, and professional, but a meaningful minority of reviews describe serious failures including no-shows, rescheduling without notice, rude dispatchers, and at least one incident of a technician starting a fire and another leaving hazardous waste on a client's floor. Pricing is the weakest dimension: multiple reviewers explicitly called out charges as excessive or shocking (e.g., $1,050 labor quote for a faucet/disposal install, $2,150 for a water heater, $600 for a 20-minute wax ring job, $423 for a wrong diagnosis), and several noted hidden trip/diagnostic charges not disclosed upfront, though a handful praised fair or competitive pricing. Project completion is mixed — many jobs were completed well and on time, but recurring complaints about no-shows, rescheduled appointments, unfinished work, and at least one case of a job left incomplete for weeks drag the score down significantly. Experience scores highest among the four dimensions, with many reviewers specifically praising technical skill and problem-solving, though a few reviews describe botched repairs, wrong diagnoses, and damage caused by technicians.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: Two pairs of reviews appear to be exact duplicates — the 'Justin arrived in a timely manner' review (5-star) appears on both 2025-06-06 and 2025-06-04, and the long 'second Yelp review for Allen's Plumbing' (5-star) also appears on both dates. These duplicates were counted only once each for scoring purposes.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Approximately 18 reviews contain no text at all (only a star rating). These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable qualitative data.
• POTENTIAL GEOGRAPHIC INCONSISTENCY: Several reviews appear to reference locations outside Hawaii (Idaho Falls, Pennsylvania, Florida, Tennessee, St. Petersburg, Lehigh Valley) which may indicate this listing aggregates reviews from multiple businesses or a different Allen's Plumbing entity. Scores from clearly off-island reviews were still included but noted as potentially belonging to a different business.
• RECENCY NOTE: Reviews span from 2011 to 2025. A significant number of negative reviews regarding scheduling failures, rude dispatchers, and billing disputes date from 2016–2022. More recent reviews (2024–2025) trend more positively for technician quality but pricing complaints persist into 2025.
• SERIOUS INCIDENT FLAGS: One review (2024-01-24) alleges a technician started a fire between walls causing $10,000 in damage. One review (2021-09-07) describes hazardous waste left on a child's bedroom floor. One review (2019-03-08) alleges a bill of over $550 with no receipt and disputed charges. One review (2024-09-03) describes a $423 charge for a completely wrong diagnosis with management refusing to refund. These are serious quality and ethics concerns that weigh heavily on scoring.
• PRICING TRANSPARENCY CONCERN: Multiple independent reviewers across different years describe undisclosed trip/diagnostic charges, quotes that changed dramatically on-site, and pressure to accept additional services. This is a recurring pattern, not isolated incidents.
• ONE REVIEW (2024-05-13) gives 5 stars but the text is entirely negative ('Don't believe Allen's commercial on TV. He doesn't care about his customers'). This review's star rating was disregarded as inconsistent with its content; the text was used for qualitative scoring only.

This WW Score is based on a large volume of reviews (196 total, 172 with usable data) spanning over a decade, giving it HIGH statistical confidence, but the score should be interpreted cautiously given the wide variance in experiences, credible reports of serious incidents, persistent pricing transparency complaints, recurring scheduling failures, and possible geographic data contamination from reviews that may belong to a different Allen's Plumbing entity outside Hawaii.

Yamada's Plumbing demonstrates strong technical skill and work quality (82/100), with multiple reviews praising fast, correct execution of complex jobs. However, professionalism is significantly undermined by documented instances of no-shows, late arrivals, poor attitude toward customers, and yelling at clients. Pricing is a major weakness (55/100), with consistent complaints about overbilling, inflated labor hours, excessive travel charges, and quotes 2-4x higher than competitors. Project completion is solid (78/100) with most jobs finished correctly, though one review documented incomplete gluing requiring callbacks. The company shows high variability—excellent work quality paired with poor business practices and customer service.

• Two reviews (2012-06-11 and 2012-06-07) are essentially non-substantive ('See above!!!!' and '.') and were excluded from scoring as they contain no usable data.
• Significant recency bias: 8 of 12 reviews are from 2012-2015 (9+ years old). Only 2 reviews from 2022 and 2013. Recent data is sparse and may not reflect current operations.
• Extreme rating polarization: 6 five-star reviews vs. 4 one-star reviews with no middle ratings. This suggests highly inconsistent service or customer experience variance.
• Multiple credible complaints of billing fraud: owner charging for 2 hours when work took 45 minutes, inflated travel time charges, and overbilling on labor hours. One honest technician is documented pushing back on owner's inflated hours.
• Documented unprofessional behavior: owner yelling at customer and hanging up phone, owner sleeping on job site while billing for 2 men, no-show without callback.
• Pricing complaints appear in 6 of 10 usable reviews—this is a systemic issue, not isolated incidents.

This score should be treated with caution due to sparse recent data (only 2 reviews in past 9 years), extreme rating polarization suggesting inconsistent service, and multiple credible allegations of billing practices that may constitute overbilling. The technical skill appears genuine, but professionalism and pricing integrity are serious concerns that warrant independent verification before hiring.

Yamaz Plumbing exhibits a deeply polarized performance pattern with stark contrasts between positive and negative experiences. While the company demonstrates strong technical skill and responsiveness when jobs are completed (evidenced by 5-star reviews praising quick, professional work), a significant portion of reviews document severe professionalism failures including no-shows, failure to return calls, incomplete repairs, and lack of follow-through on callbacks. Project completion is the most critical weakness, with numerous customers reporting abandoned work, ghosting after initial visits, and broken promises to return. Pricing appears fair when work is actually completed, but customers report frustration with incomplete jobs and lack of transparency. The high volume of negative reviews citing identical patterns (no-show, no-call-back, incomplete work) suggests systemic operational issues rather than isolated incidents.

• CRITICAL PATTERN: 20+ reviews document identical failure modes—no-shows, failure to return calls, and ghosting after initial contact. This is not random variation but suggests systemic operational dysfunction.
• RECENCY CONCERN: While recent reviews (2024, 2023) show both 5-star and 1-star ratings, the pattern of no-shows and non-responsiveness persists across the entire 10-year review history, indicating chronic unresolved issues.
• POLARIZATION RED FLAG: Extreme bimodal distribution—reviews are predominantly 5-star or 1-star with very few middle ratings. This suggests either genuinely inconsistent service delivery or that satisfied customers are more likely to review than those with mediocre experiences.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW SIGNAL: Several 5-star reviews contain nearly identical phrasing ('professional and speedy service,' 'great work,' 'would recommend') with minimal specific detail. However, these are balanced by highly detailed negative reviews with specific dates and circumstances, reducing overall fake review confidence.
• ACCOUNTABILITY ISSUE: Multiple reviews indicate the contractor blames AHS (American Home Shield) for failures, but the pattern of no-shows and non-responsiveness is consistent across reviews, suggesting contractor accountability rather than insurance company issues.
• INVOICE/DOCUMENTATION PROBLEM: At least 2 reviews mention lack of invoices provided, raising concerns about business professionalism and record-keeping.

This WW Score of 62.3 should be treated with MODERATE confidence but interpreted cautiously: the score reflects genuine high-confidence data (38+ mentions per dimension), but the extreme polarization and persistent pattern of project abandonment across a decade of reviews suggests the contractor's reliability is fundamentally inconsistent. Customers should expect either excellent service or complete non-responsiveness with no middle ground; the score masks this critical volatility. The company's technical competence when present is strong, but follow-through and accountability are severe weaknesses.