Find Nearby Plumbers Companies In 96744, Honolulu, Hawaii

Roto-Rooter receives consistently strong marks for professionalism and responsiveness from individual technicians, with hundreds of reviews praising courteous, knowledgeable, and prompt service. However, pricing is the single most damaging dimension across this dataset, with an enormous volume of reviews describing charges as excessive, deceptive, or wildly inconsistent — including numerous accounts of bait-and-switch quoting, undisclosed fees, and charges for incomplete work. Project completion is significantly dragged down by a substantial minority of reviews describing failed repairs, no-shows, abandoned jobs, warranty disputes, and work that made problems worse. Experience scores moderately well overall, as many technicians are praised for skill and problem-solving, but this is offset by recurring accounts of misdiagnosis, wrong equipment, and upselling unnecessary services. The aggregate picture is a company with capable individual technicians but systemic issues around pricing transparency, scheduling reliability, and quality control.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: Multiple reviews appear to be exact or near-exact duplicates (e.g., two identical reviews from 'Paul arrived same day...', two identical 'Zach is the man...', two identical 'Based solely off customer service...', two identical 'Easy to schedule and a quick service...', two identical 'Great service. Would highly recommend!', two identical 'Efficient and effective...', two identical 'Excellent with Armando...', two identical 'Very prompt and helpful! Anthony...', two identical 'My name is Antoinette...'). These duplicates inflate positive scores and have been treated conservatively.
• FAKE REVIEW PATTERNS: A large cluster of reviews dated 1996-2001 consist of single-line responses ('NO', 'NOT REALLY', 'ON TIME AND DID THE WORK') with no detail, all rated 5 stars. These appear to be placeholder or fabricated entries and were excluded from scoring.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Approximately 100+ reviews contain no text content but carry 5-star ratings. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data, but their presence inflates the raw star average.
• EXTREME RATING POLARIZATION: The dataset shows a pronounced bimodal distribution — a very large number of 5-star reviews with minimal detail alongside a substantial volume of detailed 1-star reviews describing serious failures. This pattern is consistent with either review manipulation on the positive end or a company with highly inconsistent service quality.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS ARE SYSTEMIC: Pricing complaints are not isolated incidents — they span multiple years, multiple geographic locations, and multiple service types. Charges ranging from $200-$900 for simple drain snaking (15-30 minutes of work) are documented repeatedly. This is a structural business practice issue, not individual technician behavior.
• NO-SHOW AND SCHEDULING FAILURES: A significant number of reviews describe confirmed appointments where technicians never arrived and no communication was provided. This is a recurring operational failure across multiple franchise locations.
• MULTI-FRANCHISE DATASET: Reviews appear to span dozens of different Roto-Rooter franchise locations across the United States. Scores reflect the brand aggregate, not any single location. Individual location quality varies significantly.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews with substantive content are dated between 2020-2025, which is within the relevant scoring window. Older reviews (pre-2015) were given reduced weight.

This WW Score of 72.4 is based on a very large dataset (1,456 reviews) and carries HIGH statistical confidence in its directional accuracy, but should be interpreted as a brand-level aggregate across many franchise locations — individual location quality varies substantially, and the systemic pricing and scheduling issues documented here may not apply equally to all franchises.

Prestige Plumbing has a large and predominantly positive review base spanning many years, with recurring praise for responsiveness, punctuality, technical skill, and fair pricing across dozens of detailed reviews. However, a meaningful cluster of negative reviews — including serious allegations of price gouging, bait-and-switch pricing, no-shows, abandoned jobs, rude behavior, and poor workmanship — significantly tempers the overall score. Pricing in particular is a split dimension: many customers praised affordability and transparency, while several others explicitly described being charged double quoted amounts, overcharged for unrendered services, or pressured into expensive unnecessary work. Project completion is similarly mixed, with multiple reviews describing technicians who failed to return to finish jobs, ghosted customers after quoting, or left work incomplete. The experience dimension scores highest, as the majority of detailed reviews affirm genuine technical competence, but a handful of reviews describe incorrect diagnoses, faulty repairs, and property damage during work.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: Multiple reviews appear to be exact or near-exact duplicates posted on the same or adjacent dates (e.g., two identical 'Poor quality of work' reviews on 2024-08-22, two identical 'Chico and crew did amazing work' reviews on 2023-01-16 and 2023-01-17, two identical 'Nick was great to deal with' reviews on 2024-05-29, two identical 'Very good job with good workmanshif' reviews on 2024-05-31, two identical 'Did excellent job' reviews on 2024-05-30, two identical 'Everything was fine' reviews on 2024-06-05, two identical 'So professional' reviews on 2024-06-03, two identical 'The plumber did a good job' reviews on 2024-07-22, two identical 'I spoke with Nick' reviews on 2024-08-04, two identical 'I had a great experience with Prestige Plumbing, thanks to Chico' reviews on 2024-09-03 and 2024-09-12, and two identical 'Shout out to Scott' reviews on 2023-12-01). These duplicates inflate the positive review count and reduce reliability.
• FAKE REVIEW PATTERN SUSPECTED: A large cluster of reviews dated exactly 2025-05-10 and 2025-06-02 through 2025-06-08 contain very short, generic, low-detail praise (e.g., 'LUIS IS THE BEST', 'Amazing Work by Luis great service', 'A good job y professional', 'Thank you Christian Correa!'). Several of these contain no substantive detail about the job performed, which is consistent with solicited or incentivized review patterns. Confidence in this recent cluster is reduced.
• BLANK REVIEWS: At least 5 reviews contain no text at all (only a 5-star rating). These were excluded from dimension scoring but counted in total reviews analyzed.
• SERIOUS NEGATIVE ALLEGATIONS: Multiple 1-star reviews allege bait-and-switch pricing (quoted $450, charged $3,550+), double-charging after seeing a veteran's license plate, charging for services not rendered, no-shows on multiple scheduled appointments, ghosting customers after quoting, a technician who refused to complete work and left a mess, and a plumber who called a customer's husband a liar and treated a woman disrespectfully. These are not isolated incidents and span multiple years.
• ROAD CONDUCT COMPLAINTS: At least 3 separate reviews (2020, 2024, 2024) describe reckless or aggressive driving behavior by company vehicle operators, including speeding at 90mph with unsecured loads, cutting lanes, and road rage incidents. While not directly related to plumbing quality, these reflect on company culture and employee conduct.
• MULTI-ENTITY CONCERN: Reviews reference many different named technicians and locations (Hawaii, Florida, California, North Carolina), suggesting this may be a franchise, aggregated listing, or name-shared business rather than a single contractor. Scores should be interpreted with caution as they may reflect multiple distinct operations under one brand name.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent reviews (May-June 2025) are disproportionately short and generic, while the most detailed and credible reviews — both positive and negative — span 2019 through 2024. The 2025 cluster shows hallmarks of a review solicitation campaign and should be weighted lower.

This WW Score carries moderate-to-high data confidence due to the large review volume, but the score itself should be treated with caution given confirmed duplicate reviews, a suspected solicited-review campaign in the most recent period, serious and recurring negative allegations across multiple years, and strong evidence that this listing may aggregate reviews from multiple distinct business entities operating under the same name.

Price Plumbing has a strong base of satisfied customers who consistently praise responsiveness, communication, punctuality, and fair pricing across dozens of reviews spanning several years. However, a meaningful and recurring pattern of serious complaints — including multiple no-shows without notice, unfinished jobs after payment, failure to honor warranty callbacks, and at least one instance of dangerous gas work — significantly drags down the project completion and professionalism scores. The pricing dimension scores moderately well, with many reviewers noting competitive and transparent quotes, though one reviewer cited what they felt were excessive charges. Experience scores reasonably well overall, with most technicians described as skilled and knowledgeable, but a few reviews describe technicians who appeared unqualified or unfamiliar with the job at hand. The gap between the volume of positive reviews and the severity of the negative ones — particularly around reliability and follow-through — is the defining tension in this score.

• RECURRING NO-SHOW PATTERN: At least 7 distinct reviews across multiple years (2017, 2019, 2020, 2022, 2023) describe confirmed appointments where no one showed up and no communication was provided. This is a systemic reliability issue, not isolated incidents.
• UNFINISHED WORK AFTER PAYMENT: Multiple reviews (2022-03-20, 2020-01-02, 2021-04-26) describe jobs that were paid for but never completed, with the company becoming unresponsive afterward.
• WARRANTY/CALLBACK FAILURES: Several reviews (2020-07-01 x2, 2022-12-17, 2023-01-02) describe complete inability to reach the company for warranty or follow-up service, with calls going to an answering service that may not relay messages.
• SERIOUS SAFETY CONCERN: One review (2023-01-02) alleges a dangerous gas leak caused by Price Plumbing's work on a new home build, serious enough that the gas utility had to shut off service. This is a significant safety flag.
• POSSIBLE FAKE OR LOW-DETAIL REVIEWS: Several 5-star reviews (e.g., 2022-06-30, 2021-11-03, 2019-07-28 x2, 2019-07-24, 2019-07-23, 2019-07-22) contain very generic praise with no specific job details, identical tone, and some clustered within days of each other. The 2021-11-03 review references 'best plumbers in Vegas' while most reviews appear to be Hawaii-based, suggesting it may be for a different company entirely or a misplaced review.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent reviews (2023-2024) show a mixed but somewhat improved pattern compared to the 2020-2022 period, though no-show complaints still appear as recently as mid-2023.
• PAYMENT METHOD CONCERN: One review notes the company does not accept credit cards on-site and requires PayPal, and another reviewer paid cash and never received a promised receipt after multiple requests — a minor but notable transparency concern.
• MULTIPLE TECHNICIANS/SUBCONTRACTORS: Several reviews mention different named technicians (Jose, Justin, Charles, Scott, Albert, Ed) and one reviewer was explicitly told the technician sent was not actually a Price Plumbing employee but someone 'helping out.' This suggests inconsistent quality control across personnel.

This WW Score is based on a large review set (85 reviews) spanning 2016–2024 and carries HIGH statistical confidence, but consumers should weigh the score cautiously given the documented and repeated pattern of no-shows, abandoned jobs, and warranty non-response, which represent serious reliability risks that aggregate scores can obscure.

Mel receives strong praise across many reviews for his professionalism, responsiveness, technical versatility, and fair pricing, with numerous customers highlighting his honesty, problem-solving ability, and willingness to go above and beyond. However, the score is meaningfully pulled down by several serious negative reviews: two customers report complete failure to return calls or respond to inquiries, one detailed review describes poor workmanship (a misinstalled microwave), inflated billing for questionable electrical work, and inefficient hourly labor, and another customer noted that Mel changed the agreed-upon rate mid-project and worked around his own schedule causing delays. Pricing confidence is also tempered by one reviewer explicitly alleging overcharging and another feeling taken advantage of on rates. The volume of 'unknown', 'N/A', and blank reviews (approximately 9) provides no usable signal and was excluded from scoring. Overall, Mel appears to be a capable and often well-regarded handyman, but the pattern of responsiveness failures and at least two substantive complaints about pricing and workmanship quality prevent a high score.

• Approximately 9 reviews contain no usable text ('unknown', 'N/A', '.', 'See above') and were excluded from dimension scoring — these inflate the review count without providing evidence.
• Two nearly identical reviews (dated 2014-09-17 and 2014-10-19) share almost word-for-word content about Mel and his brother Dave, suggesting a possible duplicate or coordinated review submission — confidence in those two reviews is reduced.
• Two separate reviewers (2017-05-06 and 2016-06-08) explicitly report that Mel or his team never returned calls or responded to service inquiries, which is a direct negative signal for professionalism and responsiveness.
• One detailed 1-star review (2016-03-15) alleges poor workmanship, inflated billing for electrical work, and inefficient hourly labor practices — this is a substantive complaint that materially affects project completion and pricing scores.
• One 3-star review (2016-02-05) alleges Mel changed the agreed rate after the job and worked around his own schedule, causing delays — this negatively impacts both pricing and project completion scores.
• The majority of reviews are older than 5 years (most from 2013–2016), with only one review from the past 5 years (2019). Recency weighting significantly limits confidence in current performance — the contractor's quality and responsiveness today may differ substantially from what is reflected here.
• The single most recent review (2019) is positive, but one data point is insufficient to establish a current performance trend.

This WW Score carries moderate-to-high structural confidence due to the volume of reviews with usable data, but should be treated with caution given that the overwhelming majority of reviews are more than 5 years old, several reviews contain no usable content, and there are credible negative reports regarding responsiveness, pricing integrity, and workmanship quality that prevent this score from being considered a reliable indicator of current performance.

This contractor exhibits a deeply polarized review pattern with two distinct customer populations. Recent reviews (2021-2025) are overwhelmingly positive (5-star), praising professionalism, fair pricing, and quality workmanship. However, older reviews (2012-2020) reveal serious systemic issues including alleged overcharging, missed appointments, incomplete work, and unethical billing practices. The company appears to have undergone significant operational changes or rebranding (Drain Rite to Full Service Plumbing). While current performance metrics are strong, the historical pattern of complaints regarding pricing transparency and project follow-through substantially reduces overall confidence.

• CRITICAL: Extreme temporal polarization detected. Reviews from 2021-2025 are nearly all 5-star with detailed positive narratives. Reviews from 2012-2020 are predominantly 1-star with allegations of fraud, overcharging, missed appointments, and incomplete work. This suggests either dramatic operational reform or potential review manipulation.
• Multiple reviews (2012-2020) allege fraudulent billing practices, including signing blank contracts with amounts filled in later, double-billing insurance companies, and charging significantly above quoted estimates.
• Company name change from 'Drain Rite Plumbing' to 'Full Service Plumbing' noted in multiple older reviews, with allegations this was done to escape negative reputation.
• Owner name inconsistency: Older reviews reference 'John Opitz' as owner; recent reviews reference 'Jeff Gilbert' or 'Jeffrey.' This may indicate ownership change or rebranding.
• Several 1-star reviews mention no-shows, missed appointments, and poor communication despite scheduling confirmations.
• Pricing complaints are concentrated in older reviews but are severe, with allegations of 300-400% markups over fair market value.
• Recent positive reviews show some repetitive phrasing patterns (e.g., 'go above and beyond,' 'honest and reliable,' 'professional and knowledgeable') but appear substantive with specific details.
• Empty reviews (no text, only ratings) present in dataset; these were excluded from scoring but suggest data quality issues.

This WW Score should be treated with CAUTION. While recent reviews (past 3-4 years) demonstrate strong performance across all dimensions, the historical record reveals serious allegations of unethical practices. The dramatic shift in review sentiment coinciding with apparent company rebranding raises questions about whether improvements are genuine or whether negative reviews are being suppressed. Recommend requesting references from recent clients and verifying licensing/complaint history with local regulatory bodies before engaging this contractor.

Island Plumbing exhibits a highly polarized performance profile with significant inconsistency across reviews. While positive reviews consistently praise individual technicians (Raul, Gustavo, Zach, Glen, Kim) for punctuality, professionalism, and quality work, negative reviews reveal systemic issues with responsiveness, follow-through, and accountability. The company struggles most with project completion and reliability—multiple customers report no-shows, missed callbacks, and abandoned work. Pricing transparency is a major concern, with numerous complaints about hidden charges, excessive markups, and failure to honor quoted estimates. The professionalism score is dragged down by dispatcher rudeness, poor communication, and lack of remorse when service failures occur.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: The water heater complaint ($2,985 charge with no hot water on Friday) appears identically 3 times (2022-06-10, 2021-10-16 twice), suggesting either fake reviews or a single customer posting repeatedly. This inflates negative sentiment artificially.
• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: The toilet installation no-show with Erica C. appears twice identically (2022-06-10 and 2021-06-09), further suggesting review manipulation or duplicate posting.
• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: The water valve callout charge ($130 for non-plumbing issue) appears 3 times identically (2021-06-10, 2020-09-11 twice), indicating potential fake review pattern.
• SUSPICIOUS GENERIC REVIEWS: Multiple 5-star reviews with minimal detail ('Amazing experience!', 'Great', 'Very Professional and efficient', 'Reasonable service and accommodating team') lack specificity and may be placeholder or fake reviews.
• IRRELEVANT REVIEW: 'La comida muy deliciosa' (The food is very delicious) dated 2020-06-10 is clearly not about plumbing services and appears to be misplaced or spam.
• EMPTY/MINIMAL REVIEWS: Multiple reviews contain only ratings with no text (blank reviews dated 2022-06-10, 2021-06-10, 2020-06-10, 2019-06-11, 2018-06-11, 2016-01-22, 2015-12-03, 2013-02-11), suggesting data quality issues.
• RECENCY BIAS: Most reviews are from 2018-2022 (older than 1 year). Only 5 reviews are from 2025 and 2 from 2024, limiting ability to assess current performance. Recent reviews (2025, early 2024) are predominantly 5-star, while older reviews show more balanced criticism.
• PATTERN OF NO-SHOWS: At least 6 distinct reviews mention failure to show up, missed appointments, or broken promises regarding arrival times—this is a systemic issue, not isolated incidents.
• PATTERN OF POOR FOLLOW-UP: Multiple reviews (at least 8) explicitly mention unanswered calls, unreturned voicemails, and lack of callback—indicating a chronic communication/accountability problem.
• PATTERN OF PRICING COMPLAINTS: At least 12 reviews mention overcharging, hidden fees, lack of transparency, or excessive markups—this is a consistent complaint across different time periods.

This WW Score of 62.3 should be treated with CAUTION due to significant data quality issues (duplicate reviews, empty reviews, irrelevant entries) and a highly polarized review distribution that suggests either inconsistent service delivery or review manipulation. The score reflects genuine customer experiences but is inflated negatively by duplicate complaints and lacks sufficient recent data (only 7 reviews from past 12 months) to confidently assess current performance. The company appears to have strong individual technicians but systemic operational failures in scheduling, communication, and accountability. Prospective customers should request specific technician assignments and obtain written guarantees before committing.