Find Nearby Plumbers Companies In 96797, Honolulu, Hawaii

Do It Rite Plumbing demonstrates strong performance across all four dimensions with consistently high marks. Professionalism is the standout strength, with 72 reviews explicitly praising punctuality, responsiveness, communication, and courteous behavior from Cole and his team. Project completion is well-documented across 65 reviews, showing reliable follow-through, timely work, and thorough job execution. Pricing receives solid marks from 38 reviews citing fair, transparent, and reasonable costs without hidden charges. Experience is validated by 58 reviews highlighting skilled workmanship, technical knowledge, and problem-solving ability. The company's veteran ownership and military discounts are frequently mentioned as additional value. Three negative reviews (1-star ratings) exist but represent outliers: one involved a no-show/no-call situation, one questioned licensing, and one was a scheduling complaint. The overwhelming majority of reviews (84 of 87) are 5-star ratings from the past 4 years, with strong concentration in 2022-2024.

• Three negative reviews (1-star and 2-star) present: one no-show/communication failure (Feb 2023), one licensing/professionalism complaint (May 2021), one scheduling availability complaint (Apr 2022). These are genuine outliers but indicate occasional service inconsistencies.
• One review (July 2023) contains unusually lengthy, humorous commentary about employee appearance rather than substantive service feedback, though it does confirm professionalism and work quality.
• Overall review pattern shows 97% five-star ratings which is exceptionally high; however, reviews are detailed, specific, and mention concrete work performed (water heaters, sewer lines, faucets, etc.), reducing likelihood of fake reviews. Language varies naturally across reviews.
• No recency concerns: 68 of 87 reviews (78%) are from past 12 months (2024-2023), with strong recent activity indicating current operational standards.

This WW Score of 88.2 is highly reliable, based on 87 reviews with strong data across all four dimensions and HIGH confidence across the board. The score reflects genuine customer satisfaction with consistent professionalism, fair pricing, reliable project completion, and skilled workmanship, though occasional service failures (no-shows, scheduling conflicts) suggest the company is not perfect and should be treated as very good rather than flawless.

Rayco Plumbing earns strong marks across all four dimensions, with professionalism being the most consistently praised attribute — responsiveness, punctuality, courtesy, and communication are mentioned in the overwhelming majority of reviews. Pricing is generally viewed as fair and reasonable, with specific callouts for military discounts and one reviewer noting a quote approximately $350 below competitors, though two negative reviews raise concerns about billing disputes and warranty refusals that temper the pricing score. Project completion is solid overall, with many reviewers praising same-day or next-day service and thorough follow-through, but is meaningfully dragged down by one detailed 1-star review alleging abandoned work, a failed $4,500 repair, and refusal to honor warranty obligations, as well as a 2-star review citing a return-visit charge dispute and a 1-star review citing a missed appointment without notification. Experience scores well given repeated praise for diagnostic skill, creative problem-solving, and technical knowledge, though one 4-star review noted an incomplete repair and one 1-star review alleged that two subsequent plumbers deemed the original work unnecessary and ineffective. The score reflects a contractor with a genuinely strong track record tempered by a small but serious cluster of negative experiences that cannot be dismissed.

• One highly detailed 1-star review (2019-02-15) alleges serious misconduct: a $4,500 repair that failed within days, refusal to honor warranty, abandonment of elderly clients, and alleged intimidation when confronted. Two subsequent plumbers reportedly confirmed the work was unnecessary. This review is specific, internally consistent, and corroborated by dated video evidence per the reviewer. It carries significant weight and materially impacts project_completion and pricing scores.
• A separate 1-star review (2022-02-23) explicitly criticizes failure to notify a customer of a schedule change. The owner's response attempted to reframe the visit as a free estimate, which the reviewer disputed. This is a credible communication/professionalism flag.
• A 2-star review (2015-05-30) alleges that Rayco refused a return visit to fix a still-leaking toilet after job completion, citing that the customer had supplied the parts. This raises a legitimate warranty and accountability concern.
• A 4-star review (2013-10-30) notes an incomplete repair where the plumber did not start with the most critical component (the drain), resulting in a costly partial fix. This is a minor but real experience/judgment flag.
• Three reviews have no text content — two with ratings of 1.0 and 4.0 (2019-06-11) and one with a rating of 4.0 (2015-07-20). These were excluded from dimension scoring but counted in total reviews analyzed.
• The vast majority of reviews are 5-star, which warrants mild fake-review scrutiny. However, most positive reviews contain specific details (names of technicians, job descriptions, locations, dates of service), which significantly reduces the likelihood of coordinated fake reviews. The pattern appears to reflect genuine customer satisfaction rather than fabrication.
• Recency note: The most recent reviews are from 2023. Reviews from 2013–2018 are older than 5 years and were given reduced weight. The negative reviews span 2015–2022, indicating the issues are not isolated to a single period.

This WW Score is based on 57 reviews spanning approximately 10 years with strong mention counts across all four dimensions, making it statistically reliable; however, the presence of multiple substantive negative reviews — including one alleging serious financial harm and warranty abandonment — means prospective customers should read the critical reviews in full before making a hiring decision.

Loyalty Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism with consistent praise for punctuality, communication, and courteous technicians across 127 reviews. Project completion is solid with 81/100, though some reviews mention incomplete work or follow-up issues. Technical expertise and workmanship are well-regarded (82.5/100 across 89 mentions). However, pricing emerges as a significant weakness (68/100), with recurring complaints about hidden charges, overpricing, and deceptive add-on fees—particularly in Costco-contracted dishwasher installations. The company's WW Score of 78.2 reflects strong operational execution undermined by pricing transparency and fairness concerns.

• PRICING INTEGRITY CONCERN: Multiple reviews (at least 8-10) report hidden charges, surprise fees, and deceptive pricing practices, particularly for Costco dishwasher installations. Customers report being charged $200-$360+ in unexpected add-on fees (air gap installation, drilling, etc.) after agreeing to 'included' installation. This pattern suggests systemic business model issues rather than isolated incidents.
• COSTCO CONTRACTOR PATTERN: Loyalty Plumbing appears to systematically exploit the Costco 'included installation' model by charging customers substantial undisclosed fees. Multiple reviews explicitly state they were not informed upfront of these costs and felt coerced into paying on-site.
• OVERPRICING ALLEGATIONS: At least 5-6 reviews allege significantly inflated quotes compared to market rates (e.g., $1500 vs. $600-700 for shower valve replacement; $1300 for gas valve recess vs. small fee elsewhere; $510 vs. $60 DIY cost). Some customers report getting second opinions and discovering Loyalty's quotes were 2-8x higher.
• PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT INCIDENT: One review (2022-10-31) reports sexual harassment by employee 'Koa' during a service call. This is a serious red flag regarding employee vetting and workplace culture, though it appears to be an isolated incident.
• INCONSISTENT SERVICE QUALITY: Several reviews mention incomplete work, no-shows, follow-up failures, and poor communication (e.g., plumber left job unfinished, didn't return for promised follow-up, no communication about delays).
• FAKE REVIEW RISK - MODERATE: While most reviews appear genuine, there is a cluster of very short, generic 5-star reviews with minimal detail (e.g., 'They are the best!!!', 'Best plumbers in town!', 'Everything went well will use again') and several reviews with no dates or minimal text. However, the volume of detailed negative reviews and specific complaints suggests the dataset is largely authentic.
• RECENCY NOTE: Most recent reviews (2025) are uniformly 5-star with generic praise. Older reviews (2018-2023) contain more balanced feedback and specific complaints. This may indicate either improved service or review filtering.
• THIRD-PARTY CONTRACTOR ISSUES: Multiple reviews mention problems when Loyalty is contracted through Costco, Lowe's, or Sears, suggesting potential misalignment between contractor expectations and customer expectations regarding pricing and scope.

This WW Score of 78.2 is reliable for assessing operational professionalism and technical competence, but customers should be aware that pricing practices represent a material risk not fully captured in the overall score. The company excels at punctuality, communication, and workmanship, but the recurring pattern of hidden charges and overpricing—particularly in third-party contractor scenarios—warrants caution and explicit price confirmation before engagement.

CJ Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism with responsive communication, punctual arrivals, and courteous staff across most engagements. Pricing is generally fair and transparent, with many customers praising value compared to competitors, though some disputes over estimates exist. Project completion shows mixed results: many jobs are finished efficiently and thoroughly, but several reviews document incomplete work, abandoned jobs, and follow-up visits required. Technical expertise is solid with skilled diagnostics and quality workmanship, though a subset of reviews allege misdiagnosis and unnecessary work. The company's performance is notably inconsistent across different technicians and time periods.

• INCONSISTENCY PATTERN: Reviews show stark polarization—predominantly 5-star praise (majority recent) versus serious 1-star complaints (mix of recent and older). This suggests either significant service variability by technician or genuine quality control issues.
• MISDIAGNOSIS ALLEGATIONS: Multiple detailed reviews (2023, 2021, 2014) allege incorrect diagnoses leading to unnecessary work, wall damage, and inflated costs. Examples include water heater replacement when valve stem was issue, and false sewer pipe diagnosis.
• PROJECT COMPLETION CONCERNS: Several reviews document incomplete work requiring callbacks, abandoned jobs, and drywall damage left unrepaired. One review details work done to wrong unit entirely.
• COMMUNICATION FAILURES: Multiple 1-star reviews cite missed appointments, no-shows, lack of follow-up, and poor scheduling despite confirmation. One customer lost work day due to no-show.
• PRICING DISPUTES: While many praise fair pricing, others report significant cost overruns, surprise charges, and disputes over quoted vs. actual amounts. One review documents $1400 vs. $1600 discrepancy with aggressive all-caps response.
• DRIVER CONDUCT: Two separate reviews (2021, 2013) report aggressive/reckless driving by company vehicles, suggesting potential safety and professionalism concerns.
• RECENCY BIAS NOTED: Most 5-star reviews cluster in 2021-2025 (recent), while serious 1-star complaints span 2013-2021. Recent reviews are overwhelmingly positive, but historical pattern shows significant problems.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK—MODERATE: Several 5-star reviews are extremely generic with minimal detail (empty text fields, single sentences). However, majority of positive reviews contain specific names, dates, and detailed narratives, reducing overall fake review suspicion.
• SAMPLE COMPOSITION: 4 reviews have empty text fields but assigned 5-star ratings, limiting data quality for those entries.

This WW Score of 78.2 should be treated with CAUTION. While based on substantial data (127 reviews, HIGH confidence in dimensions), the extreme polarization between recent glowing reviews and historical serious complaints suggests either genuine operational improvement or potential review manipulation. The score reflects current performance trend but masks significant historical service failures. Customers should request references from recent jobs and clarify pricing/scope in writing before committing.

Faith Plumbing demonstrates strong technical expertise and generally reliable project completion, with most customers praising workmanship and responsiveness. However, pricing emerges as a consistent weakness, with multiple explicit complaints about high labor rates ($175/hr), inflated part markups, and hidden charges (travel fees). Professionalism is solid overall, though one critical review documents a major project failure with incomplete work and refusal to return for corrections. The company shows excellent customer service in emergency situations and follow-up, but pricing transparency and accountability on complex jobs are significant concerns that temper the otherwise positive reputation.

• PRICING CONCERN: Multiple reviews (2016, 2004, and one undated) explicitly cite overpricing, high labor rates ($175/hr vs. industry standard $100/hr), and hidden charges. This is a material and recurring issue.
• MAJOR PROJECT FAILURE: One undated review documents incomplete cast iron replacement, failed auger work, leaking joints, basement flooding with sewage, and refusal to return for corrections. This is a severe quality and accountability failure.
• DATE INCONSISTENCY: 13 of 27 reviews lack dates, making recency assessment difficult. Dated reviews span 2004–2025, with a concentration of positive reviews having no dates (potential selection bias).
• CONFLICTING PRICING NARRATIVES: One detailed 2023 review praises 'extremely fair and reasonable' pricing, while multiple other reviews cite excessive charges. This suggests pricing may vary significantly by job type or customer.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: Several undated reviews use nearly identical phrasing ('Great service,' 'Very professional,' 'Will recommend') with minimal detail, which could indicate template-like or fabricated reviews.

This score is moderately reliable for assessing technical competence and responsiveness, but should be treated with caution regarding pricing claims and complex project execution. The lack of dates on 48% of reviews and conflicting accounts of pricing fairness introduce uncertainty. The one documented major project failure is serious and not offset by positive reviews, suggesting risk on large-scope jobs.

Aina 1 Plumbing has a strong base of positive reviews praising punctuality, friendly staff, professional technicians, and fair pricing, with many customers citing repeat use and referrals. However, three substantive 1-star reviews meaningfully drag down scores across all dimensions: one describes a technician who failed to complete a water heater installation and blamed unrelated systems, one describes a plumber who lacked the basic tool to remove a shower handle nut and a billing dispute that went unresolved, and one describes a missed appointment with no call. The project completion dimension is most affected, as multiple reviews describe jobs that were not finished correctly on the first visit or required follow-up by a competing plumber. Pricing scores are moderately positive overall, but the charge-for-incomplete-work complaint introduces a transparency concern that tempers an otherwise favorable picture. The business demonstrates genuine strengths in responsiveness and customer rapport, but the pattern of negative reviews — spanning multiple years — suggests inconsistency in technician skill and office accountability.

• Two reviews (2021-04-11 and 2021-06-10) appear to be posted by the same entity managing Bayview Apartments and Juliana Towers Apartments, using nearly identical language. These may represent a single reviewer posting twice, which could artificially inflate the review count and positive sentiment.
• One review (2019-08-15) is based solely on a driver's road behavior and contains no information about plumbing services. It was excluded from dimension scoring but counted in total reviews analyzed.
• One review (2024-08-13) contains no text — only a 5-star rating. It was excluded from dimension scoring as it provides no usable data.
• Several older 5-star reviews (2013–2016) are very brief or generic (e.g., 'Excellent!', 'Fantastic.') with no specific detail. These were given limited weight in dimension scoring per Rule 1.
• The majority of reviews are older than 12 months. Only 3 reviews are from 2024, and the most detailed negative reviews span 2022–2023, which may reflect a period of service quality decline. Recency weighting was applied accordingly.

This WW Score is based on 33 reviews spanning approximately 11 years, with HIGH mention counts across all four dimensions, but reliability is moderated by the presence of multiple detailed negative reviews describing skill deficiencies and unresolved billing disputes, two likely duplicate reviews from the same source, and a thin recent review base that limits confidence in the contractor's current performance level.