Find Nearby Plumbers Companies In 96814, Honolulu, Hawaii

All Aloha Plumbing and First Class Plumbing demonstrate strong overall performance with a WW Score of 82.3. Professionalism is the standout dimension (86.5), with 98 mentions highlighting courteous, responsive, and skilled technicians across both companies. Project completion scores well at 84.0 with 67 mentions, showing reliable follow-through and timely work. Experience is solid at 85.0 with 52 mentions reflecting strong technical knowledge and problem-solving. Pricing is the weakest dimension at 76.0 with only 28 mentions; while many reviews praise fair pricing, several complaints about unexpected charges, high labor rates, and misleading quotes create concern. The score is tempered by multiple negative reviews (1-2 stars) citing no-shows, poor communication, and billing disputes, though these represent a minority of the dataset.

• MIXED COMPANY DATA: Reviews appear to combine two separate plumbing companies (All Aloha Plumbing in Hawaii and First Class Plumbing in Maryland/DC area). Scoring treats them as a single entity, which may not reflect individual company performance accurately.
• PRICING CONCERNS: Multiple reviews (2018-2022) report unexpected charges, misleading quotes, labor-only pricing without parts clarity, and rates significantly higher than quoted. One review documents $942 invoice vs. $450 quote; another $198 charge for failed diagnosis.
• NO-SHOW PATTERN: At least 3 reviews document missed appointments without callback (2023-2014), suggesting potential scheduling/communication system issues.
• NEGATIVE OUTLIERS: Several 1-star reviews describe serious failures (damaged shower fixtures, hung-up calls, bully tactics, no follow-up on quotes) that contradict the predominantly positive dataset. These may indicate inconsistent service quality or specific technician issues.
• RECENCY BIAS: Most recent reviews (2025, 2024) are overwhelmingly 5-star for All Aloha; older reviews (2012-2018) for First Class show more mixed results. This suggests either improved operations or potential review selection bias.
• GENERIC PRAISE: Several reviews use nearly identical phrasing ('first class,' 'mahalo,' 'highly recommend') which could indicate template-like responses, though this is common in plumbing reviews.
• INCOMPLETE REVIEWS: 5 reviews contain no text, only ratings (all 5-star), reducing data quality for those entries.

This WW Score of 82.3 should be treated with MODERATE-TO-HIGH confidence for professionalism and project completion, but MODERATE confidence for pricing and overall reliability. The dataset combines two geographically separate companies with different operational histories, and contains a notable minority of serious complaints (no-shows, billing disputes, damaged work) that contradict the majority positive sentiment. Prospective customers should specifically inquire about pricing transparency, get detailed written quotes including parts and labor breakdown, and confirm appointment scheduling procedures before committing.

Security Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism with consistent praise for punctuality, courtesy, and communication across 89 reviews. Technical expertise is well-documented with 56 mentions of skilled workmanship and problem-solving. However, project completion reliability is tempered by multiple reports of no-shows, abandoned jobs, delayed follow-ups, and unresolved callbacks, lowering that dimension to 75.5. Pricing receives moderate support (76.0) with complaints about hidden travel fees, inflated parts markups, and inconsistent transparency, though many customers praise fair rates. The company shows significant operational inconsistency—excellent service from named technicians (Omed, Ali, Matin, Jose) contrasts sharply with documented failures in scheduling, accountability, and follow-through.

• OPERATIONAL INCONSISTENCY: Multiple 1-star reviews document no-shows, abandoned jobs mid-work, and failure to return after cancellations (2020-11-30, 2020-11-10, 2019-03-05). This suggests systemic scheduling or accountability issues despite strong individual technician performance.
• HIDDEN FEES PATTERN: At least 3 detailed complaints (2022-03-09, 2021-10-04) describe undisclosed travel time charges and parts marked up 100% above retail cost. One customer explicitly noted GPS-based billing disputes and lack of transparency on time charges.
• FOLLOW-UP FAILURES: Multiple reviews (2022-06-10 grab bars review, 2019-12-02) describe lack of proactive communication when running behind schedule, missed callbacks, and unresolved follow-up commitments despite promises.
• DAMAGE LIABILITY DISPUTES: Two reviews (2024-08-13, 2019-08-03) describe property damage (broken window, stained carpet, knocked-over shelf) with company refusing responsibility or failing to follow up after admitting fault.
• QUALITY INCONSISTENCY: One long-term customer (2022-06-10) downgraded from 5-star to 3-star due to recent service degradation, suggesting possible decline in standards over time.
• RUDE STAFF INCIDENT: One 2020-10-19 review documents abusive language from scheduling staff ('shut the fuck up'), though this appears isolated.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK - MODERATE: Approximately 15-20 reviews contain only 1-3 words ('Good', 'Nice job', 'unknown', '.') with 5-star ratings and no dates or minimal dates (2022-06-10, 2023-06-10 clusters). These provide no usable data and suggest possible review padding. However, the majority of reviews are detailed and credible.
• RECENCY NOTE: Most detailed negative reviews cluster in 2019-2022. Recent reviews (2025, 2024) show mixed quality—some excellent, some critical of professionalism and follow-through, suggesting ongoing operational challenges.

This WW Score of 78.2 should be trusted with HIGH confidence due to large sample size (161 reviews) and consistent patterns across dimensions, but customers should be aware that Security Plumbing exhibits significant operational inconsistency: individual technicians (particularly Omed, Ali, Matin) deliver excellent service, but scheduling reliability, follow-up accountability, and transparent pricing are documented weak points that warrant direct clarification before booking.

SageWater exhibits a deeply polarized performance profile. While many reviews praise professionalism, efficiency, and quality workmanship—particularly from satisfied customers in large condo projects—a substantial number of reviews document serious failures in project completion, follow-through, and damage accountability. The company demonstrates strong technical capability and communication in some engagements but shows critical gaps in quality control, cleanup, damage prevention, and responsiveness to customer concerns. Pricing appears high relative to competitors, and several reviews indicate the company resists accountability for defects and damages caused during work.

• POLARIZED REVIEW PATTERN: Stark divide between 5-star and 1-star reviews with few middle ratings. This suggests either highly variable execution by different crews/project managers or potential selection bias in review sources.
• RECURRING DAMAGE ISSUES: Multiple independent reviews document property damage (broken fixtures, cracked sinks, dented furniture, broken lights, damaged tile, cut wires) with consistent pattern of company denial or delayed/incomplete repairs.
• PROJECT COMPLETION FAILURES: Numerous reviews report incomplete work, extended timelines far exceeding estimates (12 weeks vs. 1 week promised; 2+ years for single building), unfinished drywall/paint, and callbacks required weeks/months after walkthrough.
• PROFESSIONALISM INCONSISTENCY: Reviews frequently praise individual crew members and project managers (Keegan, Trey, Tracy, Victor, etc.) but criticize others (Larry Counts, Harry) by name, suggesting management quality varies significantly.
• CLEANUP AND CARE GAPS: Repeated complaints about inadequate cleanup, dust left behind, personal items damaged or moved without care, and lack of protective measures despite promises.
• ACCOUNTABILITY AVOIDANCE: Multiple reviews document company denial of responsibility for damage they caused, dismissive attitudes toward customer concerns, and resistance to warranty claims.
• COMMUNICATION FAILURES: Several reviews cite poor communication from project managers, schedule changes without notice, and lack of follow-up on promised repairs.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEWS: Three empty reviews with 5-star ratings (2025-06-09, 2024-10-12, 2024-06-09, 2021-06-10, 2020-06-10, 2019-06-11) and one generic 4-star review ('Easy to get to. Plenty of parking.') appear to lack substantive content. However, the volume of detailed negative reviews with specific incidents, names, and dates suggests authentic complaints outweigh any potential fake positive reviews.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most recent reviews (2025, 2024, 2023) show continued pattern of serious complaints, indicating problems are not historical but ongoing.

This WW Score of 62.8 is reliable and should be trusted as a cautionary indicator. The score is based on 57 usable reviews with HIGH confidence across all major dimensions. The polarized pattern and recurring themes of damage, incomplete work, and accountability avoidance across multiple independent reviews spanning 10+ years suggest systemic operational issues. While the company demonstrates technical capability and professionalism in some engagements, the frequency and consistency of complaints about project completion, damage, and customer service responsiveness indicate significant risk. Prospective customers should expect variable quality depending on assigned crew/project manager and should document pre-existing conditions carefully.

The three reviews present a mixed picture. The most recent review (2024) is strongly positive, praising responsiveness, communication, and follow-through. However, a 2021 review raises a serious concern about billing transparency — the customer was charged for two master plumbers when only one was present, and the company refused to provide an itemized invoice on company letterhead, preventing an insurance claim. This is a significant professionalism and pricing red flag that meaningfully drags down those dimensions. The oldest review (2011) is too dated to carry meaningful weight and offers little specific detail. With only three reviews spanning 13 years, confidence across all dimensions is LOW and the WW Score should be treated with caution.

• BILLING FRAUD CONCERN: One reviewer explicitly states they were charged for two master plumbers but only one master plumber was present — this is a serious overcharging allegation.
• DOCUMENTATION REFUSAL: The company reportedly refused to provide an itemized invoice on company letterhead, which prevented the customer from filing an insurance claim — a significant transparency and professionalism failure.
• RECENCY ISSUE: One of three reviews is from 2011 (13+ years old) and carries very little relevance to current business practices. It has been given minimal weight.
• VERY LOW REVIEW VOLUME: Only 3 reviews total across 13 years. This is an extremely thin data set and the WW Score cannot be considered reliable.
• GENERIC REVIEW: The 2011 review is brief and lacks specific detail, limiting its analytical value.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews spanning 13 years and should be considered highly unreliable — the score reflects directional signals only and must not be used as a definitive assessment of this contractor's quality.

Kamaaina Plumbing exhibits highly inconsistent service quality with significant operational challenges. While individual plumbers (Joe, Terrell, Kalani, Dan, Earl, Allan, David) consistently receive praise for technical skill and professionalism, the company's office operations are severely problematic. Recurring complaints include unresponsive receptionists, missed appointments, no-shows, failure to return calls, and poor communication. Pricing is frequently cited as excessive and non-transparent, with estimates that differ dramatically from final charges. Project completion is hampered by scheduling failures and incomplete work requiring multiple visits. The stark contrast between positive field-level experiences and negative administrative/scheduling experiences suggests systemic management failures rather than technical incompetence.

• SEVERE OPERATIONAL INCONSISTENCY: Positive reviews consistently praise individual plumbers by name (Joe, Terrell, Kalani, Dan, Earl, Allan, David) while negative reviews universally criticize office staff, scheduling, and management. This pattern suggests excellent technicians undermined by dysfunctional administrative systems.
• RECEPTIONIST CONDUCT: Multiple reviews (at least 8) explicitly mention rude, unhelpful, or dismissive receptionists. This is a systemic issue, not isolated incidents.
• NO-SHOW AND LATE PATTERN: At least 12 reviews document missed appointments, no-shows, or significant delays without proper notification. This is a recurring operational failure.
• PRICING TRANSPARENCY ISSUES: Multiple reviews report verbal estimates that differ dramatically from written estimates (e.g., $500 verbal vs $2,300 written; $600-1000 range vs $1,000+ overcharge). Undisclosed fees (access fees) are also documented.
• COMMUNICATION FAILURES: Systematic failure to return calls, respond to emails, or follow up on submitted photos/information is documented in at least 10 reviews.
• RECENCY NOTE: Most negative reviews cluster in 2012-2019 period. More recent reviews (2019-2020) show some improvement with specific plumbers (Terrell, Joe) but office issues persist in 2019 reviews.
• HOME DEPOT RELATIONSHIP: Multiple reviews mention Home Depot as the contracting source, suggesting this may be a subcontractor relationship where quality control is limited.

This WW Score of 56.8 is highly reliable (HIGH confidence) but represents a company in crisis: exceptional field-level technicians are systematically undermined by dysfunctional office operations, making the overall customer experience unpredictable and frequently negative. The score reflects the weighted average of these contradictions rather than a company that is simply mediocre across all dimensions.

The review set for this contractor is deeply mixed, with significant red flags pulling scores down across multiple dimensions. Professionalism is heavily damaged by one detailed 1-star review describing four cancellations and a no-callback in an emergency, partially offset by positive mentions of responsiveness and helpfulness in other reviews. Pricing received a severe negative signal from a reviewer who considered a $761 estimate for a minor hose bib repair a ripoff, with only one positive pricing mention to counterbalance it. Project completion is similarly split — one reviewer explicitly described cancelled appointments, wrong parts ordered, and an unresolved urgent leak, while others reported quick, clean, complete work. Experience scores moderately, with a few reviewers noting competent repairs and helpful suggestions, but the wrong-parts incident in the most recent detailed negative review is a meaningful deduction. The overall picture is an inconsistent contractor with some capable technicians but serious reliability and responsiveness problems documented across multiple reviews.

• Several older positive reviews (2015, 2017, 2018) are vague and lack specific detail, which raises mild concern about authenticity or relevance to current service quality.
• The most recent and most detailed reviews (2023) skew negative, suggesting possible service quality decline over time. Recency weighting significantly impacts confidence in positive scores.
• One 2018 review notes the technician was actually from a different company (Shaka Plumbing), meaning that positive experience may not reflect Aloha Plumbing's own workforce quality.
• The 2015 review reads as generic and anecdotal with no specifics about technician skill or pricing, limiting its scoring value.
• With only 8 total reviews spanning 8 years, the sample size is too small for high-confidence scoring. All dimension confidence levels should be treated with caution despite formula outputs.

This WW Score should be treated with low-to-moderate trust due to the small review sample (8 reviews over 8 years), significant recency concerns showing a negative trend in 2023, and several vague older positive reviews that provide limited evidentiary weight.