Find Nearby Plumbers Companies In 96734, Honolulu, Hawaii

This contractor demonstrates exceptional performance across all measured dimensions. Professionalism is consistently praised across all five reviews, with explicit mentions of punctuality (responding within 20 minutes to 1 hour), friendly demeanor, and respectful communication. Project completion is strong, with all jobs finished thoroughly and callbacks honored, including complex jobs requiring return visits with specialized equipment. Pricing feedback, while limited to three mentions, is uniformly positive with descriptions of 'affordable' and 'reasonable' rates. Technical skill and problem-solving ability are evident in handling challenging jobs like 75-foot drain snaking and persistent sewer blockages. All reviews are detailed and specific rather than generic, suggesting authentic customer experiences.

• All five reviews are 5-star ratings with no negative feedback—while the detailed nature of reviews suggests authenticity, the complete absence of any critical comments is atypical and should be noted
• Review dates span 2018–2023, with three reviews older than 2 years; only two reviews from the past 12 months limits recency weighting
• Small sample size (5 reviews) means scores, while high-confidence, represent limited market exposure

This WW Score of 91.3 is highly reliable based on consistent, detailed, and specific positive feedback across all dimensions, though the small sample size and absence of any critical feedback warrant continued monitoring as more recent reviews accumulate.

Accurate Plumbing & Repairs has a strong track record across professionalism, pricing, and workmanship, with numerous reviewers explicitly praising punctuality, responsiveness, and polite demeanor from both Clayton and Colton. Pricing is consistently described as reasonable, fair, and competitive — with multiple reviewers noting they received significantly lower bids than competitors. Technical skill and quality of workmanship are frequently highlighted, including complex jobs like full bathroom remodels, pipe replacements, and pressure regulator installs. However, two notable negative reviews temper the score: one describes an abandoned old water heater left in a carport for nearly two months after a job, and another reports an ongoing drip from a sink repair — both pointing to occasional follow-through and quality control issues. Additionally, one 1-star review appears to be about a parking dispute unrelated to plumbing services and was treated as non-usable for scoring purposes.

• One 1-star review (2023-12-18) is entirely about a parking dispute and contains no plumbing-related feedback. It was excluded from dimension scoring but is included in total review count.
• One review (2021-06-10) contains no text — only a 5-star rating. It was excluded from dimension scoring as it provides no usable data.
• A 2022 review explicitly describes incomplete follow-through: an old water heater was left in the carport for nearly two months after installation. This negatively impacts the project_completion score.
• A 2016 review reports a persistent drip remaining after a sink repair, suggesting a quality control lapse. This negatively impacts both experience and project_completion scores.
• Several reviews are older than 3 years (2012–2019). While they establish a long-term pattern, more recent reviews (2024–2025) are given greater weight. The business appears to have transitioned from Clayton to Colton in recent years, which may represent a change in service quality that the older reviews do not reflect.
• No strong fake review patterns detected. Reviews vary in length, specificity, and tone. Named individuals (Clayton, Colton, Carol) and specific job types are referenced across multiple reviews, lending authenticity.

This WW Score is based on 23 reviews with usable data spanning over a decade, with sufficient mentions across all four dimensions to produce HIGH confidence ratings; the score is considered moderately reliable, though users should note the business has undergone a generational transition and a small number of legitimate negative reviews indicate occasional lapses in job completion follow-through.

Johnson's Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism across nearly all reviews, with consistent praise for punctuality, communication, politeness, and responsiveness. Project completion is solid but shows some variability—most jobs are completed successfully and on time, though a few reviews mention delays or incomplete follow-through. Pricing is generally perceived as fair and competitive, though one significant dispute over diagnostic fees and hidden charges emerged. Experience and technical skill are well-documented, with reviewers frequently citing 30+ years in the trade and expert problem-solving abilities. The business shows strong family involvement and a reputation for honesty that resonates across the customer base.

• One 1-star review (2022-08-12) describes a serious dispute over billing practices: a $128.50 diagnostic fee charged after a $429.67 faucet replacement, followed by alleged threatening behavior. This is a material concern for pricing transparency and professionalism.
• One 1-star review (2021-02-01) appears to reference a different plumber or service provider entirely—mentions 3 different plumbers and a $75 service call + $140 charge. This may not be about Johnson's Plumbing directly.
• One 3-star review (2014-09-27) describes a significant project completion issue: the plumber (Elton) abandoned the job mid-way for 2 days to work on another project, leaving the customer without access to their bathroom. This is a notable reliability concern.
• One 2-star review (2012-06-02) describes chronic non-completion: a kitchen faucet repair promised for 'next Saturday' was never completed over multiple months despite repeated calls. This is a serious project completion failure.
• One 3-star review (2020-08-09) notes the plumber was uncomfortable with non-standard situations (condo attic water heater), suggesting potential limitations in adaptability.
• One 1-star review (2014-01-17) describes a pattern of poor responsiveness: no callback on first attempt, missed appointment on second attempt, and lack of service orientation on third attempt. This contradicts the otherwise strong professionalism profile.
• Most reviews are older than 12 months (majority from 2012-2019). Only 3 reviews are from 2024, 1 from 2022, and 1 from 2021. Recent data is limited.
• No evidence of fake reviews detected. Reviews show specific details, varied experiences, and natural language variation.

This WW Score of 82.1 is reliable at HIGH confidence for overall professionalism and experience, but should be interpreted with caution regarding project completion and pricing due to several documented failures and disputes. The score is heavily weighted toward older reviews (pre-2020), so current service quality may differ. The presence of 4 low-star reviews (1-2 stars) describing serious issues with follow-through, billing practices, and responsiveness indicates this contractor has a meaningful track record of problems alongside many satisfied customers. Prospective clients should prioritize recent references and clarify billing practices and project timelines in writing before engaging.

Stan's Local Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism and technical expertise across most reviews, with consistent praise for punctuality, communication, and skilled workmanship. However, the score is tempered by three significant negative reviews documenting incomplete work, no-shows, and billing disputes that directly contradict the overwhelmingly positive narrative. Pricing feedback is mixed, with some praising fair costs while others report unexpectedly high bills. Project completion shows the most concern, with documented instances of forgotten work items and abandoned tasks. The company's long track record and repeat customer base are notable strengths, but recent failures (2023) suggest potential operational inconsistency.

• FAKE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: Reviews from 2014-2015 contain multiple entries with minimal or no text ('unknown', '.') all rated 5.0 with identical dates/timestamps, suggesting placeholder or fraudulent entries. These 5 reviews lack substantive content and should be weighted minimally.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most detailed positive reviews are from 2012-2019 (8+ years old). The most recent substantive negative review (May 2023) documents serious service failure including incomplete work and pre-billing without scope confirmation, contradicting older positive patterns.
• CRITICAL INCONSISTENCY: Three 1-star reviews (2023, 2019, 2012) document: incomplete repairs, no-shows with no callback, and alleged rudeness with excessive billing. These are not minor complaints but fundamental service failures that directly contradict the 5-star majority.
• PROJECT COMPLETION RED FLAG: Review from 2016 documents forgotten hose installation and abandoned faucet work. Review from 2023 documents showers not actually fixed despite $345.55 charge. These suggest systemic follow-through issues.
• PRICING TRANSPARENCY ISSUE: One review reports $1000+ for 2.5 hours work with customer feeling 'blindsided.' Another reports $345.55 bill prepared before work scope was known. Fair pricing claims in positive reviews contrast sharply with these documented billing disputes.

This score should be treated with MODERATE-TO-HIGH caution. While the volume of positive reviews and HIGH confidence in professionalism and experience are genuine, the presence of three credible 1-star reviews documenting incomplete work, no-shows, and billing disputes—particularly the recent 2023 failure—indicates the company's performance is inconsistent. The fake review cluster (2014-2015) further reduces overall trustworthiness. Prospective customers should verify current operational standards and obtain detailed written scope-of-work agreements before engaging services.

Russell's demonstrates strong performance across all measured dimensions with consistent positive feedback. Professionalism is well-supported by mentions of promptness, communication, knowledge, and courteous service. Project completion is evidenced by timely job delivery and adherence to quoted prices across multiple complex plumbing jobs. Technical expertise is reflected in problem-solving ability and quality workmanship on complicated drain and pipe work. Pricing feedback is limited but positive where mentioned. The primary limitation is the small sample size (5 reviews) and significant age of most reviews (3 of 5 are from 2011–2014), which reduces confidence in current performance reliability.

• Review recency concern: 3 of 5 reviews are over 10 years old (2011–2014). Only 2 reviews are from the past decade (2021, 2012). Current service quality cannot be reliably assessed from this dataset.
• Small sample size: Only 5 total reviews limits statistical confidence. Recommend collecting additional recent reviews before making high-confidence decisions.
• Pricing dimension underrepresented: Only 2 mentions of pricing. One review notes 'slow responsiveness' which slightly tempers the otherwise perfect ratings.

This WW Score should be treated with caution due to the small sample size and predominantly outdated reviews; while historical performance appears strong, current reliability cannot be confidently assessed without more recent customer feedback.

Mark demonstrates strong professionalism across all three reviews, with consistent praise for his quiet demeanor, responsiveness, and reliability. His pricing is explicitly noted as fair and reasonable in two reviews, with customers emphasizing good value. Project completion is solid—he addresses multiple issues comprehensively, fixes problems left by other contractors, and follows through on callbacks. Technical expertise is evident across all reviews, with specific mention of his knowledge of Hawaii homes, gas lines, water heater installation, and diagnostic skills. However, the sample size is small (3 reviews) and the most recent substantive review is from 2024, while two others are significantly older (2019 and 2011), limiting confidence in current performance.

• Very small sample size (n=3) limits statistical reliability; recommend collecting more recent reviews before making major decisions
• Two reviews are over a decade old (2011, 2019); only one recent review from 2024 provides current performance data
• First review contains informal language and personal anecdotes (lilikoi jam, plants) that, while charming, reduce its professional assessment value; however, it does provide substantive technical detail about work quality
• No negative reviews present; while all positive feedback is encouraging, absence of critical feedback may not reflect full picture of contractor performance

This score should be treated with caution due to the very small sample size (3 reviews) and significant age gap between reviews. The 2024 review provides some current validation, but a minimum of 8-10 recent reviews would be needed to establish high confidence in Mark's current performance and reliability.