Find Nearby Plumbers Companies In 96797, Honolulu, Hawaii

Only two reviews exist for this contractor, making any scoring highly unreliable. The single detailed positive review describes Irving Murakami as punctual, polite, calm under pressure, and thorough in cleaning up — supporting a moderately high professionalism score. His technical problem-solving around the pipe clearance issue and quiet, efficient work style suggest solid experience. However, project completion is tempered by the fact that the job was not fully finished at the time of the review — outlets still needed to be installed and a pipe issue was only partially resolved. The first review raises a concern about limited service scope, suggesting the contractor may not take on all types of work.

• Only 2 reviews total — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• The positive review is highly detailed and appears genuine, but represents only one customer's experience.
• The negative review (2-star) is very brief and describes a service availability issue rather than quality of work — it may reflect a business policy rather than poor performance, but it does indicate limited accessibility for certain customer needs.
• No pricing information is mentioned in any review — the pricing dimension cannot be scored.
• Both reviews are from 2022, meaning all data is over 12 months old. No recent reviews are available to assess current performance.
• Project completion score is conservatively reduced because the detailed review explicitly states the job was not fully finished at time of writing — outlets and a pipe fix were still pending.

This score report is based on only 2 reviews, both over two years old, and should be treated as highly unreliable — prospective customers are strongly advised to seek additional references before hiring.

With only 2 reviews, this analysis is severely limited and unreliable. The reviews are diametrically opposed: one 5-star praise from a repeat customer citing great service and pricing, and one 1-star safety complaint detailing unsafe electrical work on a water heater installation. The negative review provides specific technical concerns (exposed wiring, improper splicing, lack of proper connections) and questions licensing claims. The positive review lacks specifics and reads as generic praise. This extreme polarity, combined with the critical safety allegations in the recent negative review, prevents calculation of a meaningful WW Score.

• CRITICAL: Only 2 reviews analyzed — insufficient data for reliable scoring (minimum 3 required)
• EXTREME POLARITY: 5-star and 1-star reviews with contradictory claims about the same contractor
• SAFETY CONCERN: Negative review alleges unsafe electrical work (exposed wiring, improper splicing, lack of licensing in Hawaii) on water heater installation — serious allegation requiring verification
• POSITIVE REVIEW LACKS SPECIFICITY: First review is generic praise with no concrete details, mentions 'repeat customer' status but provides no substantive evidence of quality
• LICENSING DISCREPANCY: Negative review claims contractor states he lacks Hawaii license despite claiming 35+ years experience — credibility concern
• RECENCY: Both reviews from 2024 (April and July), so recency is not a mitigating factor

This score cannot be reliably calculated due to insufficient review volume (n=2) and extreme contradictory claims; the serious safety allegations in the recent negative review warrant independent verification before engaging this contractor.

Both reviews describe positive interactions with named technicians (Oscar and Isaac) who communicated clearly, explained options thoroughly, and completed the work to the customer's satisfaction. Professionalism scores well due to explicit mentions of thorough explanations, non-pushy estimates, and helpful attitudes. Pricing is mentioned in only one review, where a reasonable compromise was reached, warranting a conservative but positive score. Project completion is supported by both reviews indicating the work was done and follow-up was even scheduled in one case, though no detail on timeliness is given. Experience is reflected in both technicians' ability to diagnose problems and explain solutions clearly, though no deep technical complexity was described.

• Only 2 reviews provided — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Both reviews are significantly dated (2011 and 2014), over 10 years old. These reviews carry very low recency weight and may not reflect current service quality.
• Both reviews are 5-star with generally positive language; however, they do contain specific named technicians and situational details, reducing fake review suspicion.
• All confidence levels are LIMITED due to only 1–2 mentions per dimension. No dimension has sufficient data to be considered reliable.

This score report is based on only 2 reviews, both more than 10 years old, making it highly unreliable as a representation of current contractor quality — significantly more recent and numerous reviews are needed before any WW Score can be meaningfully trusted.

This review describes a retail supply store (Hawaii Pacific Plumbing Supply) and a sales associate (Kevin), not a contractor or plumber service provider. The review discusses product selection, pricing comparison, and retail customer service—not plumbing work, installation services, or contractor performance. This review is not applicable to the WW Score framework, which evaluates contractor/plumber service delivery.

• Review is for a plumbing supply retailer, not a contractor or plumber service provider
• No contractor work, project completion, or service delivery is described
• Insufficient data: only 1 review and it is not applicable to the scoring framework

Cannot calculate WW Score—the provided review does not evaluate a contractor or plumber's service performance and therefore contains no usable data for any of the four dimensions.