Find Nearby Plumbers Companies In 96822, Honolulu, Hawaii

Little Big Plumbing (and the legacy Big Tuna Plumbing reviews included in this dataset) consistently earns strong marks for professionalism, with numerous reviewers citing punctuality, courtesy, and clear communication across both companies. Pricing is frequently described as fair, reasonable, and transparent, with one reviewer specifically noting a military discount and another praising that the technician avoided recommending expensive unnecessary alternatives. Project completion is generally strong, though one reviewer reported being charged for a second call when the original problem was not resolved, and another noted that an initial visit made a drain problem worse before a follow-up visit corrected it. Technical experience and problem-solving ability are well-documented, with multiple reviewers highlighting successful resolution of issues that other plumbers could not fix. The score is tempered slightly by the two negative completion-related incidents and the mixed-entity nature of the review pool.

• WARNING: This review dataset appears to contain reviews for TWO distinct companies — 'Little Big Plumbing' (LBP) and 'Big Tuna Plumbing' (featuring a plumber named Harland Brown). These are almost certainly separate businesses. Scores have been calculated across all reviews but this blending reduces reliability.
• 13 reviews contain no text content (blank or placeholder entries such as '.', 'unknown', or empty strings) and were excluded from dimension scoring. They were counted in total_reviews_analyzed.
• The Big Tuna Plumbing reviews range from 2015 to 2018 and are significantly older than 1 year. Per recency rules, these carry reduced weight. The LBP reviews are more recent (2021–2025) and are more representative of current service quality.
• One 1-star review (2024-06-09) explicitly describes a project completion failure — the original problem was not resolved and the customer was charged for a second visit. This negatively impacted the project_completion score.
• One review (2023-08-02, rated 5 stars) describes an initial visit that worsened the problem before subsequent visits resolved it — a mixed completion signal despite the positive final rating.
• One review (2015-12-10, 1-star, Big Tuna Plumbing) describes a no-follow-through on a promised quote with no explanation — a professionalism and project completion concern for that entity.
• A large proportion of reviews are uniformly 5-star with minimal detail. While many do include specifics, the volume of blank and generic reviews warrants mild fake-review awareness. Confidence has not been reduced significantly as the detailed reviews are consistent and specific, but users should be aware.
• The review dated 2018-02-01 references 'Big Tuna Plumbing' and a plumber named 'Harland Brown' — this is a different contractor from the LBP technicians (Michael, Tom, Mike) referenced in the majority of reviews.

This WW Score carries moderate-to-high reliability for Little Big Plumbing's recent performance (2021–2025), but is meaningfully diluted by the inclusion of reviews for a separate company (Big Tuna Plumbing) and a large number of blank, no-text reviews that provide no scorable data; consumers should focus on the LBP-specific reviews for the most accurate picture.

All Aloha Plumbing (recent reviews, 2025) consistently earns strong marks for professionalism, responsiveness, and courteous technicians, with many customers praising named plumbers by name and highlighting emergency availability. However, the review pool also contains a substantial body of older reviews for Professional Plumbing Services (PPS), a separate or predecessor entity, which significantly drags down scores across all dimensions with repeated complaints about abandoned jobs, missed appointments, poor workmanship, overcharging, and dishonesty. Project completion is the most damaged dimension, with multiple PPS reviews describing unfinished renovations lasting months, unkept callbacks, and work left in disarray. Pricing is mixed — recent All Aloha reviews are mostly positive on value, but PPS reviews include credible accounts of overcharging, inflated parts markups, and billing for idle time. Experience scores are similarly split, with recent All Aloha technicians praised for skill and problem-solving, while PPS reviews document poor workmanship, incorrect installations, and a gas line improperly installed.

• MIXED ENTITY ALERT: This review set appears to contain reviews for two distinct businesses — 'All Aloha Plumbing' (reviews primarily from 2025) and 'Professional Plumbing Services / PPS' (reviews from 2007–2024). These may be separate companies or a rebranded entity. Scores reflect the combined pool but the two entities have very different performance profiles.
• RECENCY BIAS NOTE: All Aloha Plumbing reviews from 2025 are overwhelmingly positive (mostly 5-star). PPS reviews from 2012–2022 include numerous 1-star complaints. If only the 2025 reviews are relevant, the WW Score would be substantially higher (estimated 85+). If PPS history is relevant to the same operator, the lower scores are warranted.
• FAKE REVIEW FLAG (PPS): One reviewer (2020) explicitly alleges that PPS/Louis Moon fabricated a 5-star review using their name without consent. This raises credibility concerns about some of the generic positive PPS reviews with no detail.
• FAKE REVIEW PATTERN (All Aloha 2025): Several All Aloha reviews are blank text with only a 5-star rating (at least 5 such reviews detected). These provide no usable data and inflate the star average without substantive evidence.
• ABANDONED WORK (PPS): Multiple independent reviewers describe PPS leaving jobs unfinished — a bathroom renovation taking 10 months, a dishwasher left in the kitchen for days with no callback, a sewer problem unresolved after $835 paid, and a tub installation with ongoing squeaking never remedied.
• WORKMANSHIP FAILURES (PPS): Documented issues include a gas line installed improperly (fire department called), pipe support made by smashing copper pipe, incorrect vent line installation, broken toilet caused by technician, and a lavatory popup assembly that fell apart immediately after repair.
• OVERCHARGING COMPLAINTS (PPS): At least two detailed reviews describe being charged for technician idle time, parts marked up 4x retail price, charges exceeding quoted amounts, and a $400 quote for a 10-minute job.
• PROJECT DELAYS (PPS): Multiple renovation projects ran significantly over promised timelines — one took 4 weeks instead of 2, another took 10 months, and one job was abandoned entirely with no-shows on scheduled days.
• POSITIVE SIGNAL (All Aloha 2025): Recent All Aloha reviews are specific, name individual technicians, describe real scenarios, and include both 5-star and occasional 3-star honest feedback — suggesting these are largely authentic.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large review volume, but its reliability as a predictor of current service quality is MODERATE at best, because the review pool conflates two potentially distinct business entities across an 18-year span — prospective customers should weight the 2025 All Aloha reviews heavily and treat the PPS history as a separate risk signal requiring clarification on business continuity.

Brison's Plumbing shows a deeply split profile: older reviews (2018–2021) consistently praise professionalism, punctuality, communication, and quality workmanship, while more recent reviews (2023–2024) reveal a troubling pattern of last-minute cancellations, non-responsiveness, overpriced estimates, and failure to complete or refund paid work. Pricing is a significant concern, with multiple recent reviewers citing estimates far above market rate (e.g., $800–$995 for soft clogs) and one reviewer confirming a competitor completed the same job for roughly half the price. Project completion is heavily penalized by at least three recent incidents where work was left unfinished, refunds were not issued, and calls went unreturned. The experience dimension scores moderately well due to strong older reviews describing skilled, thorough workmanship, but is tempered by recent incidents suggesting misdiagnosis and abandonment of jobs. The recency trend is clearly negative and should be weighted heavily by any prospective customer.

• RECENCY ALERT: The most recent reviews (2023–2024) are predominantly 1-star and describe serious issues including cancellations with charges, abandoned jobs, non-refunded payments, and non-responsiveness. This represents a significant and recent decline in service quality.
• PATTERN OF NON-PAYMENT/REFUND FAILURE: At least two reviewers (Oct 2024, Jul 2024) report being charged for services not rendered and being unable to obtain refunds after repeated contact attempts — a potential consumer protection concern.
• PRICING CONCERN: Multiple recent reviews cite grossly inflated estimates ($800–$995 for soft clogs later fixed by competitors for $150–$300). This suggests possible predatory pricing practices.
• POSSIBLE FAKE OR BIASED REVIEW: The Nov 2020 5-star review ('I'm not sure what Don2L. is talking about') appears to be a direct rebuttal to a negative review rather than an independent service experience, and provides no verifiable service details. Its credibility is reduced.
• REVIEW AUTHENTICITY NOTE: Several older 5-star reviews use enthusiastic but vague language ('hamma status', 'immaculate', 'class act') with limited verifiable specifics. While not conclusively fake, they should be weighted with moderate caution.
• ABANDONMENT INCIDENT: One reviewer (Sep 2024) reports Brison diagnosed a problem, collected a diagnostic fee, declared nothing could be done, and then blocked the customer's calls — a serious professionalism and ethics flag.
• CANCELLATION PATTERN: At least two separate reviewers (Oct 2024, Jul 2023) report last-minute appointment cancellations, one of which still resulted in a $95 charge to the customer.

This WW Score is based on 33 reviews spanning 2018–2024 with HIGH mention counts across all dimensions, but the score should be interpreted cautiously given a clear and sharp decline in service quality in the most recent 12–18 months, which strongly suggests the older positive reviews no longer reflect current business operations.

This contractor presents a deeply split profile: a cluster of positive reviews from 2010–2011 praising punctuality, professionalism, and fair pricing is sharply counterbalanced by a series of serious negative reviews citing overcharging, hidden fees, incomplete work, wrong parts installed, and a near-total failure to return calls. The pricing dimension is particularly damaged by multiple detailed accounts of bait-and-switch billing, undisclosed charges, and invoices that far exceeded quoted amounts. Project completion suffers significantly due to documented instances of abandoned work, missing fixture components, and refusal to honor callbacks or warranty repairs. The experience dimension is mixed — early reviewers praised his skill and knowledge, but later reviewers had work fail shortly after completion due to incorrect parts, undermining confidence in workmanship quality. The overall trajectory of reviews is strongly negative, with the most detailed and credible complaints concentrated in 2011–2014.

• RECENCY CONCERN: All reviews are from 2010–2014, making this data over 10 years old. Current performance cannot be reliably inferred from this dataset.
• PATTERN — BILLING MISCONDUCT: Multiple independent reviewers (at least 4) describe a consistent pattern of quotes being ignored, surprise charges added at job completion, and invoices significantly exceeding agreed amounts. This is a systemic concern, not isolated incidents.
• PATTERN — UNRESPONSIVENESS: At least 3 separate reviewers in late 2011 independently reported that Rik stopped answering or returning calls, including for warranty/callback situations. This suggests a possible business disruption or deliberate avoidance.
• WORKMANSHIP FAILURE: Two reviewers reported that plumbing work failed within months of completion and a subsequent plumber confirmed wrong or missing parts were installed. This is a serious quality and liability concern.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — LOW RISK: The positive reviews (2010–2011) are generally specific and varied in detail, reducing suspicion of fabrication. However, the sharp contrast between early glowing reviews and later serious complaints may suggest early reviews reflect a different operational period.
• ABANDONED WORK: At least one reviewer was left with kitchen pipes disassembled and water still running after the contractor departed mid-job following a payment dispute.
• PERSONAL CHECK REQUEST: Multiple reviewers noted being asked to make checks out to the individual (Rik) rather than the company, which is a red flag for business legitimacy and accountability.
• AKA ALIASES: This contractor operates under multiple business names (Save-More Hawaii Plumbing, Save-More Plumbing and Solar, Da Hawaiian Plumber), which may complicate accountability and dispute resolution.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the volume of detailed, specific reviews, but the score itself should be treated with caution given the age of all reviews (2010–2014) and the severity of documented misconduct patterns across billing, workmanship, and responsiveness.

Only one review is available for analysis, which is insufficient to calculate a reliable WW Score. The single review explicitly mentions rapid emergency response (professionalism dimension) and successful problem resolution (project completion dimension), but provides no information on pricing or technical experience details. The review is dated 2018 (over 6 years old), which further limits its relevance to current service quality.

• Insufficient data: only 1 review analyzed. Minimum 3 reviews required for reliable scoring.
• Review is from 2018 — over 6 years old. Does not reflect current service quality.
• No pricing information mentioned in review.
• No technical skill or experience details provided.

This analysis cannot produce a trustworthy WW Score due to insufficient review volume (n=1) and the age of the single available review. At least 3 recent reviews are needed to establish confidence in any scoring.