Find Nearby Plumbers Companies In 96819, Honolulu, Hawaii

Sidney Reyes demonstrates strong professionalism (emergency responsiveness, punctuality, courteous demeanor) and technical expertise (proactive problem-solving, comprehensive knowledge) across two positive reviews. However, a significant 1-star review from 2019 raises serious concerns about billing practices, alleging overbilling by 14 hours ($1,680) and charging for time not spent on-site. The pricing dimension is heavily penalized by this explicit allegation of dishonest billing. All three reviews are older than 12 months, limiting recency confidence. The WW Score reflects strong technical and interpersonal performance offset by credible pricing integrity concerns.

• RECENCY ISSUE: All three reviews are from 2019–2022; no recent data from past 12 months available.
• BILLING INTEGRITY CONCERN: One detailed 1-star review (2019) alleges systematic overbilling, inflated hours, and charging for non-work time. This is a serious allegation with specific dollar amounts ($1,680 overcharge on $30,000 project) and is not generic complaint.
• SAMPLE SIZE: Only 3 reviews total; confidence in overall score is inherently limited.
• BUSINESS RELATIONSHIP BREAKDOWN: Reviewer states company will no longer work for them after disputing hours, suggesting unresolved conflict.

This WW Score should be treated with caution due to small sample size (3 reviews), age of data (all pre-2023), and a credible allegation of billing misconduct that directly contradicts the positive reviews. The score reflects a split picture: strong technical and interpersonal skills versus serious pricing/integrity concerns. Additional recent reviews are needed to establish current reliability.

Allen's Plumbing has a large and deeply mixed review history spanning over a decade. Professionalism scores moderately well overall — the majority of reviews praise individual technicians (JP, Bennett, Tarin, Justin, Jonah, Davin, Daniel, etc.) as courteous, knowledgeable, and professional, but a meaningful minority of reviews describe serious failures including no-shows, rescheduling without notice, rude dispatchers, and at least one incident of a technician starting a fire and another leaving hazardous waste on a client's floor. Pricing is the weakest dimension: multiple reviewers explicitly called out charges as excessive or shocking (e.g., $1,050 labor quote for a faucet/disposal install, $2,150 for a water heater, $600 for a 20-minute wax ring job, $423 for a wrong diagnosis), and several noted hidden trip/diagnostic charges not disclosed upfront, though a handful praised fair or competitive pricing. Project completion is mixed — many jobs were completed well and on time, but recurring complaints about no-shows, rescheduled appointments, unfinished work, and at least one case of a job left incomplete for weeks drag the score down significantly. Experience scores highest among the four dimensions, with many reviewers specifically praising technical skill and problem-solving, though a few reviews describe botched repairs, wrong diagnoses, and damage caused by technicians.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: Two pairs of reviews appear to be exact duplicates — the 'Justin arrived in a timely manner' review (5-star) appears on both 2025-06-06 and 2025-06-04, and the long 'second Yelp review for Allen's Plumbing' (5-star) also appears on both dates. These duplicates were counted only once each for scoring purposes.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Approximately 18 reviews contain no text at all (only a star rating). These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable qualitative data.
• POTENTIAL GEOGRAPHIC INCONSISTENCY: Several reviews appear to reference locations outside Hawaii (Idaho Falls, Pennsylvania, Florida, Tennessee, St. Petersburg, Lehigh Valley) which may indicate this listing aggregates reviews from multiple businesses or a different Allen's Plumbing entity. Scores from clearly off-island reviews were still included but noted as potentially belonging to a different business.
• RECENCY NOTE: Reviews span from 2011 to 2025. A significant number of negative reviews regarding scheduling failures, rude dispatchers, and billing disputes date from 2016–2022. More recent reviews (2024–2025) trend more positively for technician quality but pricing complaints persist into 2025.
• SERIOUS INCIDENT FLAGS: One review (2024-01-24) alleges a technician started a fire between walls causing $10,000 in damage. One review (2021-09-07) describes hazardous waste left on a child's bedroom floor. One review (2019-03-08) alleges a bill of over $550 with no receipt and disputed charges. One review (2024-09-03) describes a $423 charge for a completely wrong diagnosis with management refusing to refund. These are serious quality and ethics concerns that weigh heavily on scoring.
• PRICING TRANSPARENCY CONCERN: Multiple independent reviewers across different years describe undisclosed trip/diagnostic charges, quotes that changed dramatically on-site, and pressure to accept additional services. This is a recurring pattern, not isolated incidents.
• ONE REVIEW (2024-05-13) gives 5 stars but the text is entirely negative ('Don't believe Allen's commercial on TV. He doesn't care about his customers'). This review's star rating was disregarded as inconsistent with its content; the text was used for qualitative scoring only.

This WW Score is based on a large volume of reviews (196 total, 172 with usable data) spanning over a decade, giving it HIGH statistical confidence, but the score should be interpreted cautiously given the wide variance in experiences, credible reports of serious incidents, persistent pricing transparency complaints, recurring scheduling failures, and possible geographic data contamination from reviews that may belong to a different Allen's Plumbing entity outside Hawaii.

Handy Andy Hawaii demonstrates strong technical expertise and workmanship quality, with many customers praising skilled technicians and professional execution on completed jobs. However, the company is significantly hampered by severe and persistent communication and follow-up failures that directly impact project completion and customer satisfaction. A substantial portion of negative reviews cite missed callbacks, delayed estimates, no-shows, and poor responsiveness—issues that undermine otherwise competent work. Pricing concerns also emerge frequently, with customers reporting unexpected quote increases and deposit practices that create friction. While the company excels when work is actively underway, the path to engagement is unreliable.

• CRITICAL: Systematic communication breakdown. At least 25+ reviews explicitly mention failure to return calls, respond to emails, provide timely estimates, or honor appointment confirmations. This is the single largest driver of negative sentiment.
• Quote accuracy and transparency issues. Multiple reviews (at least 8) report significant quote discrepancies—original estimates tripled or quintupled at time of service, with poor explanation. This suggests either poor initial assessment or deliberate low-balling.
• Deposit and fee practices questioned. Several reviews cite $50–$150 deposit/assessment fees with unclear value proposition, and at least 3 reviews report deposits taken with no follow-up service.
• Scheduling and no-show pattern. At least 12 reviews report missed appointments, no-shows, or cancellations without notification, even after confirmation calls.
• Potential fake review cluster detected. Multiple 5-star reviews from 2020-06-09 and 2019-06-10 contain minimal or no text (blank or single words like 'Great guy'), suggesting possible review padding. Additionally, some highly detailed positive reviews use nearly identical phrasing ('professional,' 'courteous,' 'on time,' 'Mahalo') in ways that feel formulaic.
• Recency concern: Most negative reviews cluster in 2019–2021; more recent reviews (2025) are sparse and uniformly positive, which may indicate either improved operations or reduced review volume. Insufficient recent data to confirm trend.
• One serious allegation: A 2019-06-10 review alleges assault and theft by an employee. While unverified, this is a significant red flag that warrants investigation.
• Inconsistent service quality. Same company receives both 5-star and 1-star reviews for similar service types (e.g., plumbing, AC installation), suggesting high variability in execution or staff performance.

This WW Score of 68.2 should be treated with caution: while based on substantial data (115 usable reviews), the company exhibits a stark bifurcation between strong technical execution and severe operational/communication failures. The score reflects this duality—high experience ratings offset by low project completion and professionalism scores driven by follow-up and scheduling breakdowns. Customers should expect quality work IF they can successfully navigate the booking and communication gauntlet; however, the frequency and severity of communication failures represent a material risk to project initiation and timeline reliability.

R&S Plumbing has a genuinely mixed record across all four dimensions. Professionalism is dragged down significantly by multiple serious complaints: a physical altercation with a customer, staff entering a home without masks during COVID, a billing agent being rude to a customer's wife, repeated no-shows after a failed repair, and two separate driving complaints about reckless behavior in a company van. While many customers praise punctuality and courtesy, these negative incidents are severe enough to substantially reduce the professionalism score. Pricing is similarly split — several reviewers praise reasonable and competitive rates, while others report price gouging (charging $225 for a 5-minute fix), an astronomical $2,500 quote, and a $200 diagnostic fee that competitors would have included in the total. Project completion is the most concerning dimension: there is a documented case of a failed repair followed by three consecutive no-shows, a tub valve job that left the customer without a shower, and a toilet unclog that failed within three days — offset by many reviews praising complete and timely work. Experience scores moderately well, with multiple reviewers citing knowledgeable, skilled technicians who solved complex problems, but undermined by at least two cases where the plumber appeared to lack the tools or skill to complete the job properly.

• Two reviews (dated 2017-06-11 and 2016-06-14) appear to be near-identical duplicates of the same detailed negative billing complaint — this may indicate a copy-paste error or a duplicate submission, and was counted as one unique incident for scoring purposes.
• Two reviews (dated 2020-06-10 and 2020-02-14) are nearly identical in content describing the same large list of repairs — likely the same customer submitting twice or a duplicate; treated as one incident for scoring.
• Two separate reviews (2023-03-29 and 2022-11-15) describe reckless driving by a company van driver — these are consistent and credible, and reflect on company culture and professionalism.
• The one-sentence and blank reviews ('great', 'made short work of it', and the empty 5-star review) provide no usable data and were excluded from dimension scoring.
• Most reviews with usable data are older than 12 months (many from 2011–2019), with only two reviews from the past 12 months (2024). Recency-weighted confidence in current performance is limited.
• The most recent substantive negative reviews (driving complaints in 2022–2023) and the most recent positive reviews (2024) are both low in volume, making current performance difficult to assess with confidence.

This WW Score is based on a reasonable volume of reviews (33 total, 31 usable), but reliability is moderated by the age of most reviews, two likely duplicate submissions, and a stark polarization between highly positive and highly negative experiences that suggests inconsistent service quality depending on the technician or situation encountered.

Yamada's Plumbing demonstrates strong technical skill and work quality (82/100), with multiple reviews praising fast, correct execution of complex jobs. However, professionalism is significantly undermined by documented instances of no-shows, late arrivals, poor attitude toward customers, and yelling at clients. Pricing is a major weakness (55/100), with consistent complaints about overbilling, inflated labor hours, excessive travel charges, and quotes 2-4x higher than competitors. Project completion is solid (78/100) with most jobs finished correctly, though one review documented incomplete gluing requiring callbacks. The company shows high variability—excellent work quality paired with poor business practices and customer service.

• Two reviews (2012-06-11 and 2012-06-07) are essentially non-substantive ('See above!!!!' and '.') and were excluded from scoring as they contain no usable data.
• Significant recency bias: 8 of 12 reviews are from 2012-2015 (9+ years old). Only 2 reviews from 2022 and 2013. Recent data is sparse and may not reflect current operations.
• Extreme rating polarization: 6 five-star reviews vs. 4 one-star reviews with no middle ratings. This suggests highly inconsistent service or customer experience variance.
• Multiple credible complaints of billing fraud: owner charging for 2 hours when work took 45 minutes, inflated travel time charges, and overbilling on labor hours. One honest technician is documented pushing back on owner's inflated hours.
• Documented unprofessional behavior: owner yelling at customer and hanging up phone, owner sleeping on job site while billing for 2 men, no-show without callback.
• Pricing complaints appear in 6 of 10 usable reviews—this is a systemic issue, not isolated incidents.

This score should be treated with caution due to sparse recent data (only 2 reviews in past 9 years), extreme rating polarization suggesting inconsistent service, and multiple credible allegations of billing practices that may constitute overbilling. The technical skill appears genuine, but professionalism and pricing integrity are serious concerns that warrant independent verification before hiring.

Sonoda Plumbing shows mixed performance across dimensions. Professionalism scores 68 based on 5 mentions—while some reviews praise respectful, hardworking technicians (Gerrick, Gino), others report lack of communication, gate protocol violations, and dismissive customer service. Pricing is a significant weakness (35/100, 3 mentions), with multiple complaints about overbilling, hour discrepancies, and unresponsive follow-up on billing disputes. Project completion averages 72 (4 mentions), with successful job finishes but concerns about incomplete work and unresolved issues. Experience is stronger at 82 (3 mentions), reflecting technical problem-solving and knowledgeable assessment. The company's overall WW Score of 62.8 reflects serious customer service and billing transparency issues that offset technical competence.

• CRITICAL: Multiple severe complaints about billing practices—overbilling hours, charging for work not performed, and unresponsive to billing disputes (3 reviews from 2014–2015). This pattern suggests systemic pricing/billing issues.
• CRITICAL: Two reviews (2021, 2014) describe deliberate negligence, property damage, and complete refusal to make things right or respond to customer concerns. These represent catastrophic service failures.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most negative reviews are from 2013–2015 (older than 9 years). More recent reviews (2016, 2018) are positive. However, the 2021 review indicates problems may persist.
• PROFESSIONALISM INCONSISTENCY: Wide variance in professionalism—some technicians (Gerrick, Gino) highly praised; others lack communication protocols and customer awareness.
• COMMUNICATION FAILURE: Multiple mentions of unreturned calls, miscommunication, and dismissive responses to customer concerns.

This score should be treated with MODERATE caution. While based on 7 reviews with usable data, the company shows a stark divide between technical competence and customer service/billing practices. Older reviews (2013–2016) suggest historical issues; the 2021 severe complaint raises questions about whether problems have been resolved. Prospective customers should prioritize getting detailed written quotes and payment terms in advance.