Find Nearby Plumbers Companies In 96701, Honolulu, Hawaii

Pro Rooter earns strong marks for responsiveness, same-day availability, and friendly service, with dozens of reviewers praising prompt arrivals and courteous technicians. However, a meaningful cluster of 1-star reviews — spanning multiple years — describes serious failures including abandoned jobs, incorrect diagnoses, property damage (flooded basement with sewage), warranty disputes, and a $3,000 lift station job that had to be redone by a competitor. Pricing sentiment is mixed: many customers found prices fair and competitive, while several others described overcharging, hidden fees, and billing for estimates without consent. Project completion is the most concerning dimension, with multiple reviews citing incomplete work, wrong equipment brought to the job, and technicians leaving without resolving the issue. The score reflects a contractor with genuine strengths in speed and friendliness but a documented pattern of serious quality and accountability failures that cannot be ignored.

• 14 reviews contained no text at all — only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The 1-star review describing the $3,000 lift station pump failure appears twice with identical text (dates 2022-05-10), suggesting a copy-paste duplicate. Only counted once in scoring.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most severe negative reviews (flooded basement, fraudulent billing, warranty scam, incorrect pipe location) date from 2018–2022. Recent 2024–2025 reviews are predominantly positive, suggesting possible improvement — but the older negatives are serious enough to weigh on the score.
• FAKE REVIEW CONCERN — MODERATE: Several 5-star reviews from 2025-05-10 are clustered on the same date with minimal or no text ('helpful', blank). This pattern is suspicious and may indicate review padding. Confidence in the positive signal from that date cluster is reduced.
• PROPERTY DAMAGE INCIDENT: Two reviews (2018) describe Pro Rooter leaving a basement cleanout cap off, flooding a basement with sewage, then denying responsibility. This is a serious unresolved complaint.
• ACCOUNTABILITY CONCERN: Multiple negative reviewers report that the company denied fault, refused refunds, or became unresponsive after problems arose — a pattern suggesting systemic accountability issues.
• OLDER REVIEWS: A significant portion of reviews predate 2022. Per scoring rules, more weight was given to 2024–2025 reviews, but older negatives were not discarded as they describe serious incidents.

This WW Score is based on a large review set with HIGH confidence across all dimensions, but should be interpreted cautiously given the documented pattern of serious project failures, property damage, and accountability issues in older reviews alongside a suspicious cluster of same-day blank 5-star reviews in 2025.

Furuta Plumbing and Protech Plumbing (reviews appear to be commingled for what may be related or co-branded entities) show a strong base of positive feedback around responsiveness, professionalism, and technical skill, with many reviewers praising fast scheduling, courteous technicians, and quality workmanship. However, a meaningful cluster of negative reviews — including allegations of price gouging, inflated labor hours, a failed leak inspection that was charged despite not resolving the issue, and a refusal to take responsibility for pipe damage caused during service — significantly tempers the overall score. Pricing is the weakest dimension, with multiple reviewers explicitly calling out excessive charges, rates described as three times competitors, and one detailed account of a disputed $1,200 bill for a minor installation. Project completion also carries notable risk, as at least two reviews describe jobs that were left incomplete or caused downstream damage without accountability.

• MIXED ENTITY CONCERN: Reviews appear to cover at least two distinct businesses — Furuta Plumbing and Protech Plumbing. These may be related companies or a data aggregation error, but scoring them together reduces reliability. Scores should be interpreted with caution until reviews are separated by entity.
• RECENCY NOTE: Several positive reviews date back to 2009, 2015, 2016, 2021, and 2022. While recent reviews (2024–2025) are present, a significant portion of the positive review base is older than 12 months and some are many years old. More weight was given to 2024–2025 reviews.
• POTENTIAL FAKE OR LOW-EFFORT REVIEWS: Multiple reviews contain no substantive detail — 'Stand up guys.', blank text with a 5-star rating, 'unknown', 'Excellent service and quick. Recommended', and 'Fast. Professional. Reliable.' These provide no verifiable evidence and were excluded from dimension scoring.
• NEGATIVE PATTERN — PRICING: At least 4 separate reviews explicitly cite overcharging, inflated hours, or rates significantly above competitors. One reviewer described a disputed bill of $1,200 for a minor water purifier line connection, ultimately settled at $989 after dispute. Another cited $700 for a 2-hour shower faucet replacement. Another stated costs were three times other companies.
• NEGATIVE PATTERN — ACCOUNTABILITY: One review describes Furuta causing pipe damage that led to thousands of dollars in restoration costs across multiple apartment units, with the company refusing to guarantee their work or accept responsibility. A separate review describes a failed leak inspection that was charged despite not identifying the actual leak, with the company later screening the customer's calls.
• UNPROFESSIONAL CONDUCT FLAG: One review describes a Furuta company vehicle driver cutting off a family on the freeway and mocking them — a reputational concern for professionalism beyond the job site.
• RESPONSIVENESS FAILURES: Multiple reviews cite being ignored, not called back, or having calls screened — including one reviewer who confirmed call screening by calling from a different number and receiving an immediate answer.

This WW Score carries moderate-to-high statistical reliability due to the volume of reviews, but its trustworthiness is meaningfully reduced by the commingling of two business entities, a pattern of credible and detailed negative reviews across pricing and project completion, and a non-trivial number of low-effort reviews that could not be scored.

Joseph demonstrates strong professionalism with consistent praise for responsiveness, politeness, and pleasant demeanor across five reviews. Pricing is viewed favorably in four reviews as fair and reasonable. However, project completion is significantly weakened by one critical failure—a no-show appointment with no follow-up callback—which directly contradicts claims of reliability. Technical experience is well-regarded with efficient problem-solving and quality workmanship noted in four reviews. The single negative review substantially impacts overall confidence despite the predominance of positive feedback.

• One severe project completion failure (no-show, no callback) creates material inconsistency with otherwise positive reviews and reliability claims.
• Five of six reviews are 5-star ratings with similar positive phrasing; while not definitively fake, the uniformity and lack of specific criticisms warrant caution.
• All reviews are from 2024 (past 12 months), which is positive for recency, but the small sample size (6 reviews) limits statistical reliability.

This score should be treated with caution due to the small sample size (6 reviews) and the presence of one critical service failure that contradicts the otherwise positive narrative; the MODERATE overall confidence reflects genuine uncertainty about consistency and reliability despite strong individual dimension scores.

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.

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.

Only a single review exists, which describes a complete failure to respond to a service inquiry for a gas pipe replacement estimate. This directly impacts professionalism, as the contractor never communicated with the prospective customer at all. Project completion is also severely impacted because the job never began due to the lack of response. Pricing and experience cannot be assessed as no work was performed and no relevant details were provided. With only one review and no positive data points, confidence in any scoring is extremely limited.

• Only 1 review total — WW Score cannot be reliably calculated per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• The sole review is a 1-star complaint about complete non-responsiveness, which is a significant red flag for professionalism and reliability.
• No data available for pricing or experience dimensions — these cannot be scored.
• Recency note: The single review is dated October 2024, which is within the past 12 months and therefore carries full recency weight.

This score is based on a single review and should not be considered a reliable representation of this contractor's overall performance — far more reviews are needed before any meaningful conclusions can be drawn.