Find Nearby Plumbers In Honolulu, Hawaii

Furuta Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism and technical expertise, with consistently positive feedback on technician courtesy, responsiveness, and skill level. However, pricing remains a significant concern, with multiple customers reporting high costs, lack of itemized invoices, and feeling overcharged relative to work performed. Project completion shows mixed results—while most jobs are finished promptly and well, several reviews document incomplete work, delayed follow-ups on proposals, and unresolved issues requiring additional service calls. The company excels in communication and punctuality but struggles with transparent pricing practices and consistent project follow-through.

• PRICING INCONSISTENCY: Multiple reviews (6+) explicitly criticize pricing as 'overpriced,' 'arm and leg,' or 'ridiculously high.' One senior citizen reported being charged $900 for work a friend completed for $60. Another customer was quoted $1,800 then offered $900 'as a side job.' This pattern suggests potential predatory pricing or inconsistent rate structures.
• INVOICE/TRANSPARENCY ISSUE: At least 2 reviews explicitly mention lack of itemized invoices and missing cost breakdowns, creating friction with property management and insurance claims.
• PROJECT COMPLETION GAPS: Multiple reviews (4+) document incomplete work cycles: leak investigations that don't result in quotes for days/weeks, jobs requiring multiple appointments, and one case where a clogged toilet reclogged shortly after service. One customer waited over a week for a proposal after paying $250 for leak investigation.
• COMMUNICATION BREAKDOWN: Several reviews (3+) from 2023 describe poor responsiveness to follow-up inquiries, delayed quote turnarounds (72+ hours despite 24-48 hour promise), and loss of interest when customers mentioned shopping around.
• RECENCY PATTERN: Most negative reviews (1-star and 2-star) cluster in 2023 and early 2024, suggesting potential operational or policy changes. Older reviews (2020-2022) are predominantly 5-star with fewer complaints about pricing.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW RISK - MODERATE: Several 5-star reviews contain nearly identical phrasing ('mahalo,' 'highly recommend,' specific technician name-drops with effusive praise). However, reviews are sufficiently detailed and varied in specifics to suggest authenticity rather than fabrication. No clear evidence of coordinated fake reviews, but some reviews read as overly polished.

This WW Score of 78.2 is reliable at HIGH confidence due to 47 reviews with substantial data across all dimensions. However, the score masks a critical bifurcation: the company excels in professionalism and technical skill but has serious, documented issues with pricing transparency and project completion consistency. Customers should expect quality workmanship and professional service but should obtain detailed, itemized quotes in writing and clarify all scope and pricing before work begins. Recent negative reviews suggest operational challenges that may not be fully resolved.

TNH Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism and technical expertise, with consistent praise for punctuality, courteous staff (particularly Chad and Russell), and knowledgeable workmanship across 38 and 32 mentions respectively. However, the company is significantly undermined by serious project completion failures and customer service breakdowns documented in multiple 1-star reviews: a solar panel piping installation that leaked for 2+ years causing roof damage with refusal to warranty; a customer billing dispute handled unprofessionally; and a job cancellation due to time constraints despite customer preparation. Pricing feedback is mixed—many reviews cite fair and competitive rates, but some customers report overcharging (billing for 3 hours when only 2 were worked). The recency of negative reviews (2024, 2018, 2014, 2013) suggests systemic issues persist despite the company's strong historical reputation.

• CRITICAL: Multiple severe project completion failures. Most damaging is the 2024 review documenting a solar panel piping installation that leaked continuously for 2+ years, causing algae growth and tree growth on roof, with TNH refusing to warranty or properly quote the repair work. This represents catastrophic failure of workmanship and follow-through.
• CRITICAL: Customer service breakdown documented in 2014 review involving billing disputes, unprofessional/rude staff behavior, unauthorized invoicing, and alleged retaliatory conduct. Customer filed BBB complaint.
• CRITICAL: Job abandonment in 2013 review where plumber cancelled mid-appointment due to hard 3:30 PM end-of-day cutoff, leaving customer with leaking valve over weekend despite advance notice and customer preparation. Competitor completed same job in 45 minutes for $20 less.
• MODERATE: Billing discrepancy in 2014 review where customer was charged for 3 hours of labor when only 2 hours were worked, and old parts were substituted for customer's new parts.
• MODERATE: Communication failure in 2018 review—business did not return 3 voicemail messages and had inconsistent business hours.
• PATTERN OBSERVATION: Majority of 5-star reviews are from 2011-2016 (older than 8 years). Recent reviews (2024, 2018) include serious complaints, suggesting service quality may have declined or become inconsistent. The 2024 review is particularly damaging as it documents ongoing failure from a major construction project.
• POSITIVE NOTE: No evidence of fake reviews detected. Reviews contain specific details, varied experiences, and authentic negative feedback mixed with praise, indicating genuine customer accounts.

This WW Score of 78.2 should be treated with CAUTION despite HIGH overall confidence. While the score reflects strong professionalism and experience metrics supported by numerous mentions, it masks critical underlying issues: documented catastrophic project failures (2+ year leak causing structural damage), customer service breakdowns, and job abandonment. The company's reputation appears to have been built on strong historical performance (2011-2016) but recent reviews suggest deterioration in reliability and accountability. Customers should be aware that while individual technicians (Chad, Russell) receive consistent praise for technical skill and punctuality, the company's project completion and warranty practices are questionable, particularly for complex or high-value work. The 2024 solar panel piping failure is especially concerning as it represents a major construction defect with ongoing consequences.

Faith Plumbing demonstrates strong technical expertise and generally reliable project completion, with most customers praising workmanship and responsiveness. However, pricing emerges as a consistent weakness, with multiple explicit complaints about high labor rates ($175/hr), inflated part markups, and hidden charges (travel fees). Professionalism is solid overall, though one critical review documents a major project failure with incomplete work and refusal to return for corrections. The company shows excellent customer service in emergency situations and follow-up, but pricing transparency and accountability on complex jobs are significant concerns that temper the otherwise positive reputation.

• PRICING CONCERN: Multiple reviews (2016, 2004, and one undated) explicitly cite overpricing, high labor rates ($175/hr vs. industry standard $100/hr), and hidden charges. This is a material and recurring issue.
• MAJOR PROJECT FAILURE: One undated review documents incomplete cast iron replacement, failed auger work, leaking joints, basement flooding with sewage, and refusal to return for corrections. This is a severe quality and accountability failure.
• DATE INCONSISTENCY: 13 of 27 reviews lack dates, making recency assessment difficult. Dated reviews span 2004–2025, with a concentration of positive reviews having no dates (potential selection bias).
• CONFLICTING PRICING NARRATIVES: One detailed 2023 review praises 'extremely fair and reasonable' pricing, while multiple other reviews cite excessive charges. This suggests pricing may vary significantly by job type or customer.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: Several undated reviews use nearly identical phrasing ('Great service,' 'Very professional,' 'Will recommend') with minimal detail, which could indicate template-like or fabricated reviews.

This score is moderately reliable for assessing technical competence and responsiveness, but should be treated with caution regarding pricing claims and complex project execution. The lack of dates on 48% of reviews and conflicting accounts of pricing fairness introduce uncertainty. The one documented major project failure is serious and not offset by positive reviews, suggesting risk on large-scope jobs.

Fast Rooter demonstrates strong technical competence and generally fair pricing, with many customers praising quick response times and quality workmanship. However, professionalism scores are significantly dragged down by persistent communication failures—multiple recent reviews (2024, 2020) document the owner Mark and dispatchers failing to return calls, breaking commitments, and displaying rudeness. Project completion is solid overall, though some callbacks were not honored. The company appears to have experienced a management or operational decline, with older reviews (2012-2019) substantially more positive than recent ones (2020-2024).

• RECENCY CONCERN: Reviews from past 12 months (2024, 2023) show markedly worse professionalism scores than 2012-2019 reviews. Multiple recent complaints about non-responsiveness and owner rudeness suggest operational degradation.
• COMMUNICATION PATTERN: At least 8 reviews explicitly mention failure to return calls, answer phones, or honor callback commitments. This is a systemic issue, not isolated incidents.
• OWNER CONDUCT: Multiple reviews name 'Mark' (owner) as rude, dismissive, or unwilling to engage with customers. One 2024 review documents him hanging up mid-conversation.
• PRICING INCONSISTENCY: Some reviews praise 'very reasonable' pricing; others cite $300/hour labor rates and overcharging concerns. Pricing appears to have increased significantly over time ($95-100/hr in 2014-2018 vs $150-300/hr in 2019-2024).
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: Two identical reviews from 2016-01-07 with identical text, dates only 4 minutes apart. This suggests possible review manipulation.
• DISPATCHER ISSUES: Multiple complaints about dispatcher unprofessionalism, including one 2017 review describing dispatcher as 'ignorant haole hater' and 'completely out of control.'

This score should be treated with CAUTION due to significant temporal decline in service quality. While the overall WW Score of 76.8 reflects strong technical work and reasonable pricing, the company's professionalism has deteriorated markedly since 2020, with recent reviews showing systemic communication failures and owner conduct issues that are not captured in the aggregate score. Customers should expect good workmanship but should be prepared for communication challenges and potential delays in scheduling.

T&C Plumbing demonstrates strong technical competence and generally fair pricing, with many customers praising specific technicians (Evan, Randy, Chris, James) for skill and professionalism. However, the company is significantly hampered by inconsistent project completion and communication issues. Multiple reviews document missed appointments, delayed callbacks, slow quote turnaround, and follow-up failures. While individual technicians often deliver quality work efficiently, systemic office management problems—particularly around scheduling, responsiveness, and administrative follow-through—create friction that undermines overall customer satisfaction. The WW Score reflects this split: strong on experience and professionalism when work occurs, but weakened by reliability and completion gaps.

• SCHEDULING AND NO-SHOW PATTERN: At least 8 reviews explicitly mention missed appointments, no-shows, or failure to arrive at scheduled times. This is a recurring systemic issue, not isolated incidents.
• COMMUNICATION BREAKDOWN: Multiple reviews cite difficulty reaching the office, unanswered calls, voicemail tag, and slow callback response. One reviewer noted 'nearly impossible to contact them.'
• QUOTE DELAYS: At least 4 reviews document delays of 1-2+ weeks in providing quotes, with some customers abandoning the company due to slow administrative response.
• FOLLOW-UP FAILURES: Several reviews indicate incomplete follow-up after initial work (e.g., water heater installation with no hot water, leak not fully resolved, estimate never sent).
• OFFICE STAFF ATTITUDE: Multiple reviews mention unprofessional phone interactions, dismissive tone, and defensive responses from office staff (particularly one named Samantha).
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most negative reviews cluster in 2015-2021 period. More recent reviews (2024, 2023) are predominantly positive, suggesting possible recent management improvements. However, insufficient recent data (only 2 reviews from past 12 months) to confirm sustained change.
• CONFLICTING NARRATIVES: One detailed 2021 review alleges the company conspired with property management to misrepresent damage responsibility and avoid accountability. While unverified, the level of detail and frustration suggests a real service failure.
• INDIVIDUAL TECHNICIAN VARIANCE: Quality appears highly dependent on which technician is assigned. Named technicians (Evan, Randy, Chris, James) receive consistent praise; unnamed or different technicians sometimes receive criticism.
• NO FAKE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: Reviews show genuine variation in detail, complaint specificity, and emotional tone. No evidence of coordinated fake positive reviews.

This WW Score of 76.8 should be treated with caution: while the company demonstrates genuine technical competence and fair pricing when work is completed, the high frequency of scheduling, communication, and follow-up failures creates significant reliability risk. The score is pulled down by project completion issues (72.0) despite strong experience ratings (85.0). Recent reviews suggest improvement, but the sample size from the past 12 months is too small to confirm sustained change. Customers should expect quality work from named technicians but should prepare for potential delays and communication friction with office staff.

Shaka Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism with consistent punctuality, courteous communication, and responsive service across 48 reviews. Project completion is solid at 79.0, though several reviews document incomplete repairs, warranty disputes, and follow-up failures that temper the score. Experience and technical skill are well-regarded at 81.0, with many customers praising workmanship quality. However, pricing emerges as a significant weakness (68.0), with 18 reviews citing quote discrepancies, unexpected charges, overpricing relative to competitors, and perceived dishonesty in billing practices. The company's 24/7 service claim is contradicted by multiple reviews documenting unavailability on weekends and evenings.

• PRICING INTEGRITY CONCERN: Multiple reviews (2016-07-30, 2016-06-30, 2017-02-28, 2019-07-23, 2019-10-23, 2016-02-08) document quote discrepancies, unexpected charges, and overpricing. One customer reported being quoted $130 but charged $300 for incorrect diagnosis; another was quoted $300 but charged $175 by competitor for identical work. Pattern suggests inconsistent or inflated quoting practices.
• 24/7 SERVICE CLAIM UNSUBSTANTIATED: Three reviews (2018-07-01, 2017-12-24, 2015-12-14) explicitly contradict the advertised 24/7 availability, with customers unable to reach service on Sunday evenings and holidays despite claims. Company appears to lack adequate staffing for emergency coverage.
• PROJECT COMPLETION FAILURES: Multiple reviews document incomplete repairs and warranty disputes. One customer (2016-07-30) was charged $300 for incorrect diagnosis and refused warranty service after 30 days; another (2015-05-29) experienced four separate 5-10 minute visits over two weeks without resolution; a third (2017-01-26) had work completed 6.5 hours late with inadequate cleanup and excessive charges ($2,250 for job initially quoted at $800).
• COMMUNICATION FAILURES: Three reviews (2020-02-07, 2016-07-25, 2016-10-11) document no callback, no response to emails, and poor follow-up despite initial contact. One customer filed BBB complaint with no response from company.
• LICENSING CONCERN: One review (2016-06-30) claims Shaka Plumbing's license was expired at time of service, though this is unverified.
• REVIEW AUTHENTICITY: Approximately 35 of 60 reviews are 5-star ratings with minimal detail or generic praise (e.g., "Great service", "Thanks", single period "."). While some detailed 5-star reviews exist, the high proportion of brief, enthusiastic reviews without specifics warrants moderate caution, though not sufficient to flag as fake review campaign given presence of substantive negative reviews and detailed positive reviews.
• RECENCY BIAS: 45 of 60 reviews are from 2015-2017 (7-9 years old). Only 15 reviews are from 2018 onward. Recent review data is limited, making current service quality assessment uncertain.

This WW Score of 76.8 should be treated with MODERATE-TO-HIGH confidence for professionalism and project completion, but MODERATE confidence for pricing assessment. The score is significantly dragged down by documented pricing integrity issues across 18 reviews spanning multiple years, suggesting systemic rather than isolated problems. The company excels in responsiveness and technical skill but demonstrates concerning patterns in quote accuracy, warranty honoring, and follow-up communication. The heavy weighting of older reviews (2015-2017) limits confidence in current service quality; recent data is sparse. Prospective customers should obtain detailed written quotes and verify pricing before commitment.