Find Nearby Plumbers Companies In 96815, Honolulu, Hawaii

Jacob Peterson of HI Grade Plumbing demonstrates exceptional performance across all four dimensions. Professionalism is consistently praised across all 8 reviews, with customers highlighting punctuality, communication, responsiveness (including after-hours availability), cleanliness, and courteous demeanor. Pricing is explicitly mentioned as reasonable and fair in 5 reviews, with one customer noting it was half the price of competitors. Project completion is strong, with 7 reviews confirming work was finished thoroughly, with follow-up visits when needed, and emergency calls handled promptly. Experience is evident in 6 reviews, with customers noting his technical knowledge, problem-solving ability, and skill despite his relative youth in the trade. All reviews are recent (past 12 months or within 1-2 years), and no negative feedback or unresolved issues are mentioned.

• All 8 reviews are 5-star ratings with no critical feedback or cons mentioned (except one review explicitly stating 'CONS: None'). While the detailed, specific praise in most reviews suggests authenticity, the complete absence of any negative comments or constructive criticism is atypical and warrants mild caution.
• Review dated 2023-07-31 is minimal in detail and mentions only a sales rep visit and future water meter installation—this review provides limited substantive data on actual service quality.
• The uniformly glowing nature of reviews could indicate selection bias (only satisfied customers reviewed) rather than fake reviews, as the specific details, before/after photos mentioned, and varied scenarios (emergency calls, bathroom installation, water heater repair, etc.) suggest genuine customer experiences.

This WW Score of 91.2 is highly reliable and should be trusted as a strong indicator of contractor quality, supported by 8 recent reviews with consistent, detailed praise across all performance dimensions and high mention counts for each metric.

Ogami Plumbing earns strong marks across all four dimensions, with the majority of reviewers praising prompt response times, courteous plumbers, and fair pricing compared to competitors. Professionalism scores well but is tempered by two notable failures: a no-show appointment with no callback (2015) and a callback request for sloppy caulking work that was ignored entirely (2023), both of which directly penalize professionalism and project completion. Pricing is consistently described as reasonable and competitive, with multiple reviewers explicitly comparing Ogami favorably against larger companies like Roto Rooter and Emergency Plumbing and Solar. Project completion scores are solid overall but are meaningfully dragged down by the 2023 incomplete caulking incident and the 2015 no-show, which represent genuine follow-through failures. Experience scores are high, with reviewers frequently citing skilled diagnostics, knowledgeable plumbers, and quality workmanship, though one review noted a plumber asked an 82-year-old woman to help move a washing machine, suggesting occasional lapses in practical judgment.

• Two reviews represent serious service failures: a 2023 review (2-star) describes incomplete caulking work and three ignored callback attempts, and a 2015 review (1-star) describes a no-show appointment with no communication. These are not outliers to dismiss.
• One 1-star review from 2016 complains of a $1,000 quote given over the phone without seeing the job. This is a pricing transparency concern, though it is a single data point.
• One 3-star review from 2022 describes a plumber asking an 82-year-old customer to assist with moving a heavy appliance, which is a professionalism and workmanship concern.
• Review recency note: approximately 14 of 36 reviews are from 2024 or 2023, providing a reasonably current picture. However, a significant portion of reviews (roughly 22) date from 2016 to 2022, meaning some positive sentiment may reflect older performance that may or may not reflect current operations.
• No strong fake review patterns detected. Reviews vary in length, detail, specificity, and rating. Named plumbers (Billy, Brad, Ian, Chezz, Val, Matt) appear across multiple reviews, adding authenticity. Negative reviews are present and credible.

This WW Score is based on 36 reviews spanning approximately 9 years with HIGH mention counts across all four dimensions, making it a reliable overall assessment, though prospective customers should weigh the two documented service failures — an ignored callback and a no-show — as meaningful signals about consistency of follow-through.

Larry's Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism with consistent punctuality, courteous communication, and responsive customer service across 89 mentions. Technical expertise and problem-solving ability are well-documented with 41 mentions of skilled workmanship. However, project completion shows concerning patterns with 58 mentions revealing multiple instances of no-shows, incomplete work, callbacks not honored, and follow-through failures. Pricing presents a mixed picture across 32 mentions: while many customers praise fair and reasonable rates, a notable subset reports overcharging, hidden fees, and inflated estimates. The company's overall reliability is undermined by documented communication breakdowns and inconsistent service delivery.

• PATTERN DETECTED: Multiple reviews (2022-2023) document serious project completion failures including no-shows on scheduled appointments, failure to return calls, incomplete diagnostics, and lack of follow-through on promised callbacks. This represents a systemic issue beyond isolated incidents.
• PRICING INCONSISTENCY: Significant variance in customer perception of pricing fairness. While majority praise reasonable rates, multiple detailed complaints document overcharging (e.g., $1,100 for 2 hours of work, $1,030 for water heater installation labor only, $65 undisclosed estimate fees). This suggests either inconsistent pricing practices or poor communication of costs.
• COMMUNICATION FAILURES: At least 6 reviews explicitly mention failure to return calls, missed appointments without notification, and poor coordination between office and field staff. One 2022 review documents 2+ weeks without hot water due to repeated no-shows and lack of communication.
• QUALITY CONTROL CONCERNS: Several reviews report incomplete work requiring callbacks (shower handle spinning after repair, dishwasher hose still leaking, water heater issues persisting). One review mentions unnecessary repairs and sloppy work.
• RECENCY PATTERN: Most negative reviews cluster in 2022-2023 period, suggesting potential operational decline or staffing issues in recent years. Recent 2025 reviews are predominantly positive, indicating possible recent improvements.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK - MODERATE: Approximately 15 reviews contain only generic praise with no specific details (e.g., 'Excellent', 'Great job', 'unknown', single-sentence comments). However, majority of reviews contain sufficient specific detail to appear authentic. No evidence of identical phrasing across multiple reviews.
• INCONSISTENT TECHNICIAN QUALITY: Named technicians (Robert, Chandler, Tim, Jose) receive consistent praise, while unnamed or different technicians appear in negative reviews, suggesting quality varies significantly by individual technician.

This WW Score of 78.2 should be treated with CAUTION despite HIGH overall confidence. While professionalism and experience scores are well-supported by extensive mentions, the project completion dimension reveals critical systemic failures in follow-through and communication that directly contradict the positive professionalism ratings. The company appears to excel at initial customer interaction but struggles with execution and accountability. Recent 2025 reviews suggest improvement, but the pattern of documented failures in 2022-2023 indicates this is a company with inconsistent reliability that requires careful consideration before engagement.

Johnny's Plumbing demonstrates strong technical expertise and professionalism from individual technicians, with many recent reviews (2025) praising specific workers like Gabriel, Eddie Vargas, and Jeff for their knowledge, politeness, and efficiency. However, the company is significantly hampered by chronic office management and customer service failures, including rude receptionists, missed appointments, no-shows, poor communication, and unresponsiveness to callbacks. Pricing is generally perceived as fair and reasonable, though some older reviews cite dramatic quote increases and billing disputes. Project completion is inconsistent—while many jobs are finished promptly and thoroughly, there are documented cases of incomplete work, callbacks required to fix initial mistakes, and abandoned projects. The stark contrast between positive technician-level reviews and negative office/management reviews suggests systemic organizational dysfunction despite individual worker competence.

• CRITICAL: Severe office management and customer service issues documented across multiple years (2012-2022). Receptionist 'Brianna' and unnamed office staff repeatedly described as rude, unprofessional, and hostile in at least 6 separate reviews.
• PATTERN: Multiple no-show and missed appointment complaints spanning 2015-2022, indicating scheduling/communication breakdown at organizational level.
• PATTERN: Significant number of negative reviews (15+ one-star ratings) concentrated in 2012-2018 period, with some improvement in recent years (2021-2025), but office issues persist.
• CONCERN: Recent reviews (June 2025) show only 5-star ratings with minimal detail and some empty review text fields (3 blank reviews rated 5.0), suggesting possible review manipulation or incomplete data entry.
• INCONSISTENCY: Owner 'Johnny' receives individual praise for honesty and professionalism in older reviews, but is also cited as dismissive and unwilling to address customer complaints in 2018 reviews.
• QUALITY CONTROL: Multiple documented cases of incorrect diagnoses, incomplete repairs requiring callbacks, and work that had to be redone by competitors (2015-2018 period).
• RECENCY BIAS: Overwhelming majority of recent reviews (2025, 2024, 2023) are 5-star with generic praise, while detailed negative reviews are older (2012-2018). This temporal pattern warrants caution.

This WW Score of 72.8 should be treated with MODERATE-TO-HIGH caution: while the score reflects genuine high-quality technical work from field technicians, it masks severe and persistent organizational dysfunction in office management and customer service that directly impacts customer experience and project completion. The recent flood of 5-star reviews lacks specificity and may not fully represent current operational reality. Customers should expect excellent workmanship but should prepare for potential communication, scheduling, and responsiveness challenges with the office.

Two strongly positive reviews highlight a professional, communicative, and hardworking crew that kept customers informed and completed work on time, which drives the professionalism and project completion scores upward. However, a negative review raises a serious concern about pricing fairness, alleging a quote double the market rate, which meaningfully drags down the pricing dimension. The pricing dimension is particularly mixed: one reviewer found the price fair after comparison shopping, another found it too high initially but acceptable after negotiation, and the third found it egregiously overpriced. Technical concerns raised in the negative review about post-lining maintenance restrictions (no snaking allowed) are a notable flag for prospective customers. With only 3 reviews total, all scores carry limited reliability and should be interpreted with caution.

• Only 3 reviews total — WW Score is at the minimum threshold for calculation and should be treated as highly preliminary.
• Pricing dimension is contested: one reviewer alleges the quote was double the market rate, while another found pricing fair after comparison. This conflict reduces confidence in the pricing score.
• Negative review raises a technical concern about post-lining maintenance: reviewer claims snaking is not permitted after NuFlow lining, only jetting, which could represent a long-term cost restriction for customers. This was not addressed or rebutted in other reviews.
• Negative reviewer questions the owner's reliability and availability, suggesting the business may be managed remotely between Hawaii and the mainland — a potential operational risk flag.
• The two positive reviews are both from July 2023 and are relatively close in date, though they appear to describe different jobs and customers. No clear evidence of fake reviews, but the small sample size limits certainty.
• Most reviews are from 2022–2023. No reviews from the past 12 months were provided, so recency weighting could not be applied favorably.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews and should be considered highly preliminary — prospective customers are strongly advised to seek additional references and independent quotes before making a hiring decision.

Insufficient data to calculate a reliable WW Score. Only 2 reviews were analyzed, which falls below the minimum threshold of 3 reviews required for trustworthy scoring. Both reviews are highly positive and mention professionalism, project completion, and experience favorably. However, the extremely limited sample size, combined with both reviews being 5-star ratings with generic enthusiastic language and no specific technical details, prevents confident scoring.

• CRITICAL: Only 2 reviews provided — below minimum threshold of 3 for reliable WW Score calculation
• Both reviews are 5-star with identical enthusiastic tone and generic praise ('THE GUY!!', 'SOLID!', 'Excellent work!') — potential fake review pattern
• Review dates are very old (2015 and 2018) — no recent data within past 12 months
• Lack of specific technical details or problem-solving examples limits confidence in experience dimension
• No negative feedback or balanced perspective provided

This analysis cannot produce a reliable WW Score due to insufficient review volume (2 reviews, minimum 3 required) and suspected review authenticity concerns; any scoring would be speculative and should not be used for decision-making.