Find Nearby Plumbers In Honolulu, Hawaii

Mac's Plumbing demonstrates strong technical expertise and generally professional service, with most customers praising responsiveness, knowledge, and workmanship quality. However, the company shows significant inconsistency: while the majority of reviews (48 of 56) are highly positive, six recent or detailed negative reviews reveal serious concerns around communication reliability, pricing transparency, and follow-through on callbacks. The most recent negative review (June 2024) describes complete communication breakdown and ghosting. Pricing complaints appear in multiple reviews, with some customers reporting unexpectedly high bills or perceived price gouging. The company's score is pulled down by these reliability gaps despite strong technical capabilities.

• RECENCY CONCERN: Most positive reviews are from 2013-2017 (7+ years old). Recent reviews show deterioration: June 2024 review reports ghosting and communication failure; March 2024 review is positive but isolated. This suggests possible service quality decline over time.
• PRICING INCONSISTENCY: Multiple reviews mention unexpectedly high bills (2017, 2017, 2017 reviews) and price gouging concerns. One customer reported $5000 initial quote reduced to $1500-2000 for a simple meter install. Another paid $200 for 30 minutes of work that didn't fix the problem. This contradicts the 'fair pricing' narrative in positive reviews.
• COMMUNICATION FAILURES: Two 1-star reviews explicitly cite ghosting, failure to return calls/texts, and unavailability for emergency callbacks. June 2024 review states they 'stopped returning my txt' and 'GHOSTED' after promising Friday/Monday service.
• CALLBACK/FOLLOW-UP ISSUES: One 2017 review describes a faulty repair (toilet leak after installation) with no response to email follow-up. Another 2015 review mentions cancellations and attitude problems on callback.
• INCOMPLETE WORK: One 2017 review describes a $3500 job bid that was abandoned when another job came in, with no liability clause in the estimate.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: The overwhelming concentration of 5-star reviews (48 of 56) with generic praise language ('amazing', 'excellent', 'highly recommend') from 2013-2019 is atypical. However, the presence of detailed negative reviews with specific complaints and the recent deterioration in service suggests these are likely genuine historical reviews rather than fabricated ones. The pattern appears to reflect genuine decline rather than fake inflation.

This WW Score should be treated with CAUTION. While the numerical score of 76.8 reflects the aggregate data, the company exhibits a troubling pattern of service deterioration and inconsistency that is not fully captured by the score. The majority of positive reviews are 5-10 years old, while recent reviews (2024, 2018, 2017) reveal serious communication and reliability failures. Customers considering this company should weight recent negative reviews heavily, particularly the June 2024 ghosting complaint and the multiple pricing disputes. The company's technical skills appear solid, but professionalism and follow-through appear unreliable.

Jewel's Isle Plumbing demonstrates strong technical expertise and generally professional conduct, with many customers praising Tui's knowledge, responsiveness, and fair pricing. However, the company's WW Score is significantly impacted by serious project completion and follow-through issues documented in multiple reviews from 2019, including failure to complete jobs within promised timeframes (3+ weeks delays), repeated appointment rescheduling, and abandonment of service requests. While recent reviews (2017–2018) are predominantly positive, the pattern of completion failures and communication breakdowns in 2019 reviews raises reliability concerns. The company excels in technical skill and initial customer interaction but struggles with project management and accountability.

• CRITICAL: Multiple reviews (2019) document severe project completion failures—water heater installation took 3 weeks post-installation to complete, faucet repair appointment rescheduled 3 times over 3 weeks, and solar heater service abandoned entirely. These are not isolated incidents.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most positive reviews are from 2017–2018. The 2019 reviews (3 of them) are predominantly 1-star with detailed complaints about follow-through and professionalism. This suggests potential service quality decline or inconsistency.
• PROFESSIONALISM INCONSISTENCY: One 2019 review documents highly unprofessional behavior including signing blank receipts, MLM recruitment during service, and refusal to provide receipts. This contrasts sharply with other reviews praising professionalism.
• COMMUNICATION FAILURES: Multiple reviews cite missed callback promises, rescheduling without notice, and lack of follow-up communication. One customer reported no pre-visit call despite company promise.
• BLANK ESTIMATE FORM: One customer was asked to sign a blank estimate form, which is a red flag for business practices and transparency.

This score should be treated with CAUTION. While the overall WW Score of 76.8 reflects strong technical ability and pricing, the company exhibits a troubling pattern of project completion and accountability failures documented in recent (2019) reviews that directly contradict the positive historical reviews. The score is pulled down significantly by project completion (68.0), which is the highest-weighted dimension. Customers should be aware of documented delays, rescheduling issues, and follow-through problems before engaging this company.

American Leak Detection of Hawaii (Pete and Nikolai) earns strong marks for technical expertise and experience, with multiple reviewers explicitly praising their use of specialized detection equipment, methodical problem-solving, and ability to succeed where other plumbers failed. Professionalism scores are solid but are meaningfully dragged down by one notable scheduling failure (the 2020 review describing repeated wrong-date confirmations and a no-show), which is a significant operational red flag. Pricing is a genuine strength — one reviewer noted Nikolai voluntarily reduced his quote twice, and another praised Pete for advising customers on how to save money before calling them out. Project completion is moderately strong but not perfect: the 1-star review explicitly stating the contractor is 'not qualified to do pool leak detection' introduces uncertainty, and one review describes a job that ended in a referral rather than a completed repair, which is appropriate but limits full credit. Overall, the business demonstrates genuine technical competence and good character, but scheduling reliability and scope-of-service clarity are areas of concern.

• One blank review with a 1-star rating (no text) was excluded from usable data — this may indicate a frustrated customer who chose not to elaborate, or a mistaken submission.
• One 1-star review explicitly states the contractor is 'not qualified to do pool leak detection' — however, a separate 5-star review describes a successful pool leak diagnosis, creating a direct contradiction. This inconsistency was weighted conservatively and reduces confidence in pool-related work claims.
• The 2020 scheduling failure review (wrong dates sent at 4:11 AM and 5:30 AM, followed by a no-show) is a concrete operational failure and was weighted heavily against professionalism and project completion scores.
• Several reviews are older than 3 years (2017–2019 range), and the most recent reviews are from 2022–2023. Recency weighting was applied, giving more influence to the 2022 and 2023 reviews.
• No strong fake review patterns detected — reviews vary in length, tone, specificity, and rating, which is consistent with authentic feedback. Some generic praise exists (e.g., 'great service, solved our problem quickly') but is not dominant enough to flag as suspicious.

This WW Score is based on 15 reviews with usable data spanning 2017–2023, with HIGH confidence across all four dimensions due to sufficient mention counts; however, the presence of contradictory reviews regarding pool leak qualification and a documented scheduling no-show introduce meaningful uncertainty, so the score should be treated as a reasonable but not definitive indicator of current service quality.

Ohana Clog Drain Service earns strong marks across most dimensions, with consistent praise for fast response times, friendly and professional technicians (especially Tim), transparent pricing, and effective same-day service. However, two notable negative reviews — one describing an unresolved clog that was made worse, and another citing a failure to follow through on a scheduled second appointment — meaningfully drag down the project completion score, which is the highest-weighted dimension. Pricing feedback is largely positive, with multiple reviewers specifically noting no hidden fees and competitive quotes. The experience dimension is solid, with reviewers citing skillful, knowledgeable work, though the botched drain unclogging incident introduces a real concern about consistency. Overall, the business performs well in the majority of cases but has documented follow-through and quality-control failures that cannot be ignored.

• Two reviews (1-star dated 2024-08-27 and 3-star dated 2024-10-06) describe incomplete or abandoned work and failure to follow up — these are serious project completion failures and are weighted heavily in scoring.
• The 1-star review describes a situation where the drain was left in worse condition than before service began, which is a significant workmanship concern.
• The 3-star review describes a customer being unable to reach the company after partial work was completed, suggesting possible communication breakdown or selective responsiveness.
• No strong fake review patterns detected — reviews contain specific names (Tim, K), job details, and varied language. However, the high volume of 5-star reviews with very similar praise themes (same-day service, Tim, quick work) warrants mild note, though this appears to reflect genuine operational strengths rather than fabrication.
• All reviews fall within the past 12 months (July 2024 – October 2024), so recency weighting is uniformly applied with no penalty.

This WW Score is based on 14 reviews with usable data across all four dimensions and is considered moderately reliable — the high mention counts provide statistical grounding, but the small absolute sample size and two substantive negative outcomes mean the score should be interpreted with caution, particularly regarding project completion consistency.

Point Plumbing earns strong marks for technical experience and workmanship, with multiple long-term customers praising Scott's skill, knowledge, and problem-solving ability across complex and emergency jobs. Professionalism is generally positive — punctuality, friendliness, and communication are frequently cited — but is meaningfully dragged down by one detailed 1-star review describing a plumber arriving nearly two hours late, charging for off-topic conversation time, and failing to complete the job due to missing supplies. Project completion is similarly mixed: most reviews describe jobs finished quickly and correctly, but the same negative review documents incomplete work and an attempt to charge for a return visit. Pricing feedback is limited but notable — one reviewer flagged a credit card surcharge, and the negative reviewer described a mid-range estimate ballooning beyond all competitors due to hourly billing practices, which tempers the pricing score considerably.

• RECENCY WARNING: Five of nine reviews are from 2011–2018, making them 6–13 years old. Only one review (2023) falls within the past 12 months. The score may not reflect current service quality.
• NEGATIVE REVIEW CREDIBILITY: The 1-star review (2018) is highly specific — naming lateness duration, billing disputes, and incomplete work — and is treated as credible. It meaningfully impacts professionalism, project completion, and pricing scores.
• MILD GENERIC PRAISE PATTERN: Several 5-star reviews (e.g., 2015 entries) use enthusiastic but somewhat vague language with limited job-specific detail. These are not flagged as definitively fake but are weighted conservatively.
• SMALL SAMPLE SIZE: With only 9 total reviews spanning 12+ years, the dataset is thin. Scores carry moderate-to-high confidence within the data available, but the overall picture may not be fully representative.

This WW Score is based on a small but largely credible review set; the presence of one well-documented negative review and the age of most reviews (pre-2020) mean the score should be treated as a reasonable historical baseline rather than a definitive current assessment.

Dan Does Plumbing earns consistently strong praise for pricing transparency and affordability, with dozens of reviewers explicitly noting his rates were significantly lower than competitors — this is the clearest and most reliable signal in the dataset. Professionalism scores are solid overall, with the majority of reviewers citing punctuality, responsiveness via text, and courteous demeanor, but are meaningfully dragged down by several credible negative reviews describing unprofessional behavior including name-calling, ignoring texts after a dispute, and not wearing a mask during COVID. Project completion is the most concerning dimension: while most jobs are described as completed efficiently, there are multiple credible 1-star accounts of abandoned work, broken fixtures blamed on the customer, a hole left in a wall, and a botched bathroom renovation with poor workmanship and no accountability — these are serious red flags that prevent a high score. Experience scores moderately well given the volume of praise for technical competence and problem-solving, but is tempered by documented instances of incorrect installations and a confirmed lack of a Hawaii contractor license flagged by one reviewer.

• LICENSE CONCERN: One reviewer (2024-11-07) explicitly states Dan does not hold a Hawaii contractor license per the DCCA website. This is a significant legal and liability concern that should be independently verified by any prospective customer.
• SERIOUS WORKMANSHIP COMPLAINT (2024-11-07): Reviewer describes Dan breaking a faucet, then breaking a pipe while attempting to fix the valve, cutting a hole in the wall, and then going silent and abandoning the job — leaving the customer with an unrepaired wall. This is a credible, detailed, recent account.
• SERIOUS WORKMANSHIP COMPLAINT (2019-08-04): Detailed 1-star review with photos describes a botched bathroom renovation, incorrectly anchored shower pipe, poor tiling by an unsupervised trainee, and Dan calling the customer a 'jerk' — a significant professionalism and quality failure.
• ABANDONED JOB COMPLAINT (2021-11-08): Reviewer describes Dan committing to a repair and tile fix, then calling back two days later to say neither he nor his tile guy could do the job, forcing the customer to find another plumber.
• UNPROFESSIONAL CONDUCT (2020-11-12): Reviewer reports Dan was texting while driving during their interaction and gave a dismissive phone diagnosis without a visual inspection.
• UNPROFESSIONAL CONDUCT (2020-07-23): Reviewer reports Dan did not wear a mask during a COVID-era visit and approached the customer without one.
• RESPONSIVENESS FAILURE (2024-06-07): One reviewer reported a 24-hour wait for a response during an active leak emergency.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK — MODERATE: The overwhelming majority of reviews are 5-star with enthusiastic but sometimes generic praise. Several reviews use nearly identical phrasing ('Dan is the man', 'Dan does great plumbing', 'best priced'). However, many reviews contain specific job details, dates, and named individuals, which reduces but does not eliminate concern. Confidence is not fully reduced but noted.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most serious negative review is from November 2024 (most recent in the dataset), which is weighted more heavily. Several positive reviews are from 2019-2021 and may not reflect current service quality.

This WW Score is based on a large review set (78 reviews) spanning 2018–2024 and carries HIGH statistical confidence in its directional accuracy, but prospective customers should weigh the credible and detailed negative reviews — particularly the most recent 2024 complaint involving abandoned work and an unverified contractor license — very seriously before hiring.