Find Nearby Plumbers Companies In 96819, Honolulu, Hawaii

Both reviews describe severe failures across all dimensions. The company installed HVAC units with improper materials and techniques that failed within 2 years, causing corrosion and requiring $14,000 in replacement costs. Professionalism was critically lacking: rude service representatives, call transfers, refusal to honor warranty claims, and complete ghosting after the customer discovered the defective work. The company then claimed it no longer offers HVAC services despite being listed as the official contact for AC repairs in the building. No apologies, refunds, or referrals were offered. With only 2 reviews and both being catastrophic failures, a reliable WW Score cannot be calculated.

• INSUFFICIENT DATA: Only 2 reviews analyzed. Minimum 3 reviews required for reliable WW Score calculation.
• SEVERE QUALITY ISSUES: Both reviews describe identical failure patterns—improper HVAC installation, material corrosion, and complete service abandonment.
• POTENTIAL BUSINESS MODEL CHANGE: Company appears to have shifted away from HVAC/residential services, creating confusion with customers and building management.
• WARRANTY ABANDONMENT: Company refuses to honor warranties or assist with defects caused by their own installation.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Reviews are from 2022 and 2023; no recent reviews available to assess if practices have changed.
• EXTREME FINANCIAL IMPACT: Customers report losses of $14,000+ due to defective work.

This analysis cannot produce a trustworthy WW Score due to insufficient review volume (only 2 reviews). However, the consistent pattern of catastrophic failures, refusal to take responsibility, and abandonment of customers across both reviews suggests severe systemic problems with this contractor's HVAC work and customer service practices. Any engagement with this company for HVAC services carries extremely high risk.

With only two reviews spanning different time periods, the picture is sharply divided. The positive review from December 2018 highlights timely scheduling, punctuality, good workmanship, and reasonable pricing. The negative review from May 2018 directly contradicts this on multiple fronts — citing slow project pace, extended timelines, and poor cleanup, while acknowledging low price but framing it as a warning rather than a compliment. Project completion is the most damaged dimension, as the negative review explicitly describes an extended project and debris left behind. Pricing receives a middling score because both reviews confirm low cost, but the negative reviewer explicitly states the low price came at the expense of quality and professionalism.

• Only 2 reviews total — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold rules.
• The two reviews are in direct conflict across nearly every dimension, making any score highly uncertain.
• Both reviews are from 2018 — all data is over 5 years old and should be treated as significantly outdated. Current performance is unknown.
• The positive review uses somewhat generic praise ('great job,' 'very reasonable') with limited specifics, which slightly reduces its evidentiary weight.

This score profile should not be trusted for decision-making — only 2 reviews exist, both are over 5 years old, and they directly contradict each other across all key dimensions.

Both reviews speak very positively about AMKO's professionalism, highlighting punctuality, friendliness, clear communication, and considerate behavior such as removing shoes and laying down protective tarps. Project completion is noted as thorough, including a follow-up visit the next day to confirm satisfaction and cleanup after work. Experience is reflected in skilled removal and installation work, accurate measurement verification, and knowledgeable diagnosis of a leaky faucet. Pricing is mentioned in only one review, where rates were described as reasonable and worth the cost. However, with only two reviews total, none of these scores can be considered reliable and the WW Score cannot be calculated.

• Only 2 reviews provided — far below the minimum threshold of 3 required for a reliable WW Score calculation.
• Both reviews are dated 2015, making them approximately 9–10 years old. Recency weighting heavily penalizes these scores as they do not reflect current performance.
• Both reviews are 5-star ratings. While the review content is detailed and specific enough to reduce fake review suspicion, the small sample size and age of reviews mean no meaningful pattern analysis is possible.
• Pricing confidence is especially low — only 1 of 2 reviews mentions it, and the description is vague ('reasonable and worth it') with no specific figures provided.

This score report is based on only 2 reviews, both from 2015, and should be considered highly unreliable — prospective customers should seek more recent and numerous reviews before making a hiring decision.

Only one review was provided, which is insufficient for reliable WW Score calculation. The single review mentions positive professionalism (foreman was nice and understanding) and technical competence (dangerous job well done), but provides no information on pricing, project completion, timeliness, or detailed workmanship. The review is also dated over 3 years ago (January 2021), limiting its recency relevance.

• Insufficient data — only 1 review provided; minimum 3 reviews required for reliable scoring
• Review is dated January 2021 (over 3 years old); does not reflect current performance
• Review lacks specificity about actual plumbing/contractor work performed; appears to be about a crane job observation rather than direct service evaluation
• No pricing information mentioned
• No project completion details provided

This score cannot be calculated reliably with only one review. A minimum of 3 reviews is required to produce a trustworthy WW Score.

Only a single review is available, making any scoring highly tentative. The reviewer notes good customer service and fast response, which provides minimal signal for professionalism and project completion. The mention of being the only company with the required parts suggests some degree of specialized knowledge or experience, but this is a very thin basis for an experience score. Pricing is entirely unmentioned and cannot be scored. With just one review, no reliable WW Score can be produced.

• Only 1 review analyzed — far below the minimum threshold of 3 required for a reliable WW Score.
• Review is brief and lacks specific detail, limiting the ability to score dimensions accurately.
• No pricing information mentioned in any review — Pricing dimension scored as null.
• Recency note: The single review is dated September 2024, which is within the past 12 months and is therefore considered current.

This score report is based on a single review and should not be trusted as a reliable indicator of contractor quality — significantly more reviews are needed before any dimension scores or a WW Score can be considered meaningful.

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.