Find Nearby Plumbers In Honolulu, Hawaii

Price Plumbing has a strong base of satisfied customers who consistently praise responsiveness, communication, punctuality, and fair pricing across dozens of reviews spanning several years. However, a meaningful and recurring pattern of serious complaints — including multiple no-shows without notice, unfinished jobs after payment, failure to honor warranty callbacks, and at least one instance of dangerous gas work — significantly drags down the project completion and professionalism scores. The pricing dimension scores moderately well, with many reviewers noting competitive and transparent quotes, though one reviewer cited what they felt were excessive charges. Experience scores reasonably well overall, with most technicians described as skilled and knowledgeable, but a few reviews describe technicians who appeared unqualified or unfamiliar with the job at hand. The gap between the volume of positive reviews and the severity of the negative ones — particularly around reliability and follow-through — is the defining tension in this score.

• RECURRING NO-SHOW PATTERN: At least 7 distinct reviews across multiple years (2017, 2019, 2020, 2022, 2023) describe confirmed appointments where no one showed up and no communication was provided. This is a systemic reliability issue, not isolated incidents.
• UNFINISHED WORK AFTER PAYMENT: Multiple reviews (2022-03-20, 2020-01-02, 2021-04-26) describe jobs that were paid for but never completed, with the company becoming unresponsive afterward.
• WARRANTY/CALLBACK FAILURES: Several reviews (2020-07-01 x2, 2022-12-17, 2023-01-02) describe complete inability to reach the company for warranty or follow-up service, with calls going to an answering service that may not relay messages.
• SERIOUS SAFETY CONCERN: One review (2023-01-02) alleges a dangerous gas leak caused by Price Plumbing's work on a new home build, serious enough that the gas utility had to shut off service. This is a significant safety flag.
• POSSIBLE FAKE OR LOW-DETAIL REVIEWS: Several 5-star reviews (e.g., 2022-06-30, 2021-11-03, 2019-07-28 x2, 2019-07-24, 2019-07-23, 2019-07-22) contain very generic praise with no specific job details, identical tone, and some clustered within days of each other. The 2021-11-03 review references 'best plumbers in Vegas' while most reviews appear to be Hawaii-based, suggesting it may be for a different company entirely or a misplaced review.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent reviews (2023-2024) show a mixed but somewhat improved pattern compared to the 2020-2022 period, though no-show complaints still appear as recently as mid-2023.
• PAYMENT METHOD CONCERN: One review notes the company does not accept credit cards on-site and requires PayPal, and another reviewer paid cash and never received a promised receipt after multiple requests — a minor but notable transparency concern.
• MULTIPLE TECHNICIANS/SUBCONTRACTORS: Several reviews mention different named technicians (Jose, Justin, Charles, Scott, Albert, Ed) and one reviewer was explicitly told the technician sent was not actually a Price Plumbing employee but someone 'helping out.' This suggests inconsistent quality control across personnel.

This WW Score is based on a large review set (85 reviews) spanning 2016–2024 and carries HIGH statistical confidence, but consumers should weigh the score cautiously given the documented and repeated pattern of no-shows, abandoned jobs, and warranty non-response, which represent serious reliability risks that aggregate scores can obscure.

Pro Rooter earns strong marks for responsiveness, same-day availability, and friendly service, with dozens of reviewers praising prompt arrivals and courteous technicians. However, a meaningful cluster of 1-star reviews — spanning multiple years — describes serious failures including abandoned jobs, incorrect diagnoses, property damage (flooded basement with sewage), warranty disputes, and a $3,000 lift station job that had to be redone by a competitor. Pricing sentiment is mixed: many customers found prices fair and competitive, while several others described overcharging, hidden fees, and billing for estimates without consent. Project completion is the most concerning dimension, with multiple reviews citing incomplete work, wrong equipment brought to the job, and technicians leaving without resolving the issue. The score reflects a contractor with genuine strengths in speed and friendliness but a documented pattern of serious quality and accountability failures that cannot be ignored.

• 14 reviews contained no text at all — only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The 1-star review describing the $3,000 lift station pump failure appears twice with identical text (dates 2022-05-10), suggesting a copy-paste duplicate. Only counted once in scoring.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most severe negative reviews (flooded basement, fraudulent billing, warranty scam, incorrect pipe location) date from 2018–2022. Recent 2024–2025 reviews are predominantly positive, suggesting possible improvement — but the older negatives are serious enough to weigh on the score.
• FAKE REVIEW CONCERN — MODERATE: Several 5-star reviews from 2025-05-10 are clustered on the same date with minimal or no text ('helpful', blank). This pattern is suspicious and may indicate review padding. Confidence in the positive signal from that date cluster is reduced.
• PROPERTY DAMAGE INCIDENT: Two reviews (2018) describe Pro Rooter leaving a basement cleanout cap off, flooding a basement with sewage, then denying responsibility. This is a serious unresolved complaint.
• ACCOUNTABILITY CONCERN: Multiple negative reviewers report that the company denied fault, refused refunds, or became unresponsive after problems arose — a pattern suggesting systemic accountability issues.
• OLDER REVIEWS: A significant portion of reviews predate 2022. Per scoring rules, more weight was given to 2024–2025 reviews, but older negatives were not discarded as they describe serious incidents.

This WW Score is based on a large review set with HIGH confidence across all dimensions, but should be interpreted cautiously given the documented pattern of serious project failures, property damage, and accountability issues in older reviews alongside a suspicious cluster of same-day blank 5-star reviews in 2025.

535 Plumbing (formerly or also known as Creative Plumbing) has a strongly bifurcated review profile: the vast majority of recent reviews (2024–2025) are glowing, praising punctuality, friendliness, communication, and job completion, while older reviews (2008–2020) contain serious complaints about overbilling, unprofessional conduct, missed appointments, incomplete work, and poor workmanship. Professionalism scores well in recent years but is dragged down by multiple older reviews citing rudeness, a plumber urinating with the door open, workers disclosing confidential information to tenants, and no-shows. Pricing is a notable weak point, with multiple explicit complaints about overcharging, billing for time not worked, and rates described as three times the going rate, though a few reviewers found pricing reasonable. Project completion is generally strong in recent reviews but undermined by older accounts of abandoned jobs, unresolved problems after multiple visits, and a water heater installation that resulted in a closet wall being left open. Experience is similarly mixed, with recent technicians praised for skill and problem-solving, while older reviews describe plumbers who appeared inexperienced, made errors, and repeatedly retrieved wrong parts.

• RECENCY BIAS WARNING: The review set spans from 2008 to 2025. Reviews from 2015 and earlier account for roughly 15 reviews and contain the most severe complaints. Recent 2025 reviews are overwhelmingly positive. The WW Score reflects a blended picture but the older negative reviews meaningfully suppress scores.
• POSSIBLE BUSINESS TRANSITION: The company appears to have operated under the name 'Creative Plumbing' in older reviews and '535 Plumbing' in recent reviews. It is unclear whether this is the same legal entity, a rebrand, or a change in ownership. If ownership changed, older reviews may not reflect current operations and should be weighted accordingly.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — MODERATE: The 2025 reviews are heavily concentrated in a short window (June 2–9, 2025) with many reviews posted on the same dates, all 5-star, with similar praise structures. While they do contain specific technician names and job details (which reduces suspicion), the clustering pattern warrants caution.
• SEVERE HISTORICAL INCIDENT: One review (2015) describes a plumber urinating with the door open in front of a customer's wife and then leaving without completing the repair. The office was contacted and never followed up. This is a serious professionalism and conduct failure.
• BILLING COMPLAINTS: Multiple older reviews cite overbilling — one customer claims they were charged over $900 for a job worth $300, another was billed for 2.5 hours when the plumber was present for under 1.5 hours. These are explicit and specific complaints that reduce the pricing score significantly.
• INCOMPLETE JOB — NOTED: One review describes a water heater replacement where the wrong-sized unit was ordered by the office, resulting in a closet wall being left open permanently. The plumber received praise but the outcome was a failed project completion.
• ONE REVIEW FLAGGED AS UNUSABLE: The review with text 'unknown' and a 5-star rating (2015) contains no usable data and was excluded from dimension scoring.
• UNRESOLVED CALLBACK FAILURE: One 1-star review (2020) describes weeks of ignored phone calls regarding a solar hot water system the company originally installed, with the contact 'Todd' repeatedly failing to respond. This is a direct project completion and professionalism failure.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large number of reviews, but should be interpreted cautiously given the significant gap between recent glowing reviews and older severe complaints, a possible business rebrand, and clustering of 5-star reviews in a narrow recent window that may reflect review solicitation practices.

Furuta Plumbing and Protech Plumbing (reviews appear to be commingled for what may be related or co-branded entities) show a strong base of positive feedback around responsiveness, professionalism, and technical skill, with many reviewers praising fast scheduling, courteous technicians, and quality workmanship. However, a meaningful cluster of negative reviews — including allegations of price gouging, inflated labor hours, a failed leak inspection that was charged despite not resolving the issue, and a refusal to take responsibility for pipe damage caused during service — significantly tempers the overall score. Pricing is the weakest dimension, with multiple reviewers explicitly calling out excessive charges, rates described as three times competitors, and one detailed account of a disputed $1,200 bill for a minor installation. Project completion also carries notable risk, as at least two reviews describe jobs that were left incomplete or caused downstream damage without accountability.

• MIXED ENTITY CONCERN: Reviews appear to cover at least two distinct businesses — Furuta Plumbing and Protech Plumbing. These may be related companies or a data aggregation error, but scoring them together reduces reliability. Scores should be interpreted with caution until reviews are separated by entity.
• RECENCY NOTE: Several positive reviews date back to 2009, 2015, 2016, 2021, and 2022. While recent reviews (2024–2025) are present, a significant portion of the positive review base is older than 12 months and some are many years old. More weight was given to 2024–2025 reviews.
• POTENTIAL FAKE OR LOW-EFFORT REVIEWS: Multiple reviews contain no substantive detail — 'Stand up guys.', blank text with a 5-star rating, 'unknown', 'Excellent service and quick. Recommended', and 'Fast. Professional. Reliable.' These provide no verifiable evidence and were excluded from dimension scoring.
• NEGATIVE PATTERN — PRICING: At least 4 separate reviews explicitly cite overcharging, inflated hours, or rates significantly above competitors. One reviewer described a disputed bill of $1,200 for a minor water purifier line connection, ultimately settled at $989 after dispute. Another cited $700 for a 2-hour shower faucet replacement. Another stated costs were three times other companies.
• NEGATIVE PATTERN — ACCOUNTABILITY: One review describes Furuta causing pipe damage that led to thousands of dollars in restoration costs across multiple apartment units, with the company refusing to guarantee their work or accept responsibility. A separate review describes a failed leak inspection that was charged despite not identifying the actual leak, with the company later screening the customer's calls.
• UNPROFESSIONAL CONDUCT FLAG: One review describes a Furuta company vehicle driver cutting off a family on the freeway and mocking them — a reputational concern for professionalism beyond the job site.
• RESPONSIVENESS FAILURES: Multiple reviews cite being ignored, not called back, or having calls screened — including one reviewer who confirmed call screening by calling from a different number and receiving an immediate answer.

This WW Score carries moderate-to-high statistical reliability due to the volume of reviews, but its trustworthiness is meaningfully reduced by the commingling of two business entities, a pattern of credible and detailed negative reviews across pricing and project completion, and a non-trivial number of low-effort reviews that could not be scored.

Mel receives strong praise across many reviews for his professionalism, responsiveness, technical versatility, and fair pricing, with numerous customers highlighting his honesty, problem-solving ability, and willingness to go above and beyond. However, the score is meaningfully pulled down by several serious negative reviews: two customers report complete failure to return calls or respond to inquiries, one detailed review describes poor workmanship (a misinstalled microwave), inflated billing for questionable electrical work, and inefficient hourly labor, and another customer noted that Mel changed the agreed-upon rate mid-project and worked around his own schedule causing delays. Pricing confidence is also tempered by one reviewer explicitly alleging overcharging and another feeling taken advantage of on rates. The volume of 'unknown', 'N/A', and blank reviews (approximately 9) provides no usable signal and was excluded from scoring. Overall, Mel appears to be a capable and often well-regarded handyman, but the pattern of responsiveness failures and at least two substantive complaints about pricing and workmanship quality prevent a high score.

• Approximately 9 reviews contain no usable text ('unknown', 'N/A', '.', 'See above') and were excluded from dimension scoring — these inflate the review count without providing evidence.
• Two nearly identical reviews (dated 2014-09-17 and 2014-10-19) share almost word-for-word content about Mel and his brother Dave, suggesting a possible duplicate or coordinated review submission — confidence in those two reviews is reduced.
• Two separate reviewers (2017-05-06 and 2016-06-08) explicitly report that Mel or his team never returned calls or responded to service inquiries, which is a direct negative signal for professionalism and responsiveness.
• One detailed 1-star review (2016-03-15) alleges poor workmanship, inflated billing for electrical work, and inefficient hourly labor practices — this is a substantive complaint that materially affects project completion and pricing scores.
• One 3-star review (2016-02-05) alleges Mel changed the agreed rate after the job and worked around his own schedule, causing delays — this negatively impacts both pricing and project completion scores.
• The majority of reviews are older than 5 years (most from 2013–2016), with only one review from the past 5 years (2019). Recency weighting significantly limits confidence in current performance — the contractor's quality and responsiveness today may differ substantially from what is reflected here.
• The single most recent review (2019) is positive, but one data point is insufficient to establish a current performance trend.

This WW Score carries moderate-to-high structural confidence due to the volume of reviews with usable data, but should be treated with caution given that the overwhelming majority of reviews are more than 5 years old, several reviews contain no usable content, and there are credible negative reports regarding responsiveness, pricing integrity, and workmanship quality that prevent this score from being considered a reliable indicator of current performance.

Aina 1 Plumbing has a strong base of positive reviews praising punctuality, friendly staff, professional technicians, and fair pricing, with many customers citing repeat use and referrals. However, three substantive 1-star reviews meaningfully drag down scores across all dimensions: one describes a technician who failed to complete a water heater installation and blamed unrelated systems, one describes a plumber who lacked the basic tool to remove a shower handle nut and a billing dispute that went unresolved, and one describes a missed appointment with no call. The project completion dimension is most affected, as multiple reviews describe jobs that were not finished correctly on the first visit or required follow-up by a competing plumber. Pricing scores are moderately positive overall, but the charge-for-incomplete-work complaint introduces a transparency concern that tempers an otherwise favorable picture. The business demonstrates genuine strengths in responsiveness and customer rapport, but the pattern of negative reviews — spanning multiple years — suggests inconsistency in technician skill and office accountability.

• Two reviews (2021-04-11 and 2021-06-10) appear to be posted by the same entity managing Bayview Apartments and Juliana Towers Apartments, using nearly identical language. These may represent a single reviewer posting twice, which could artificially inflate the review count and positive sentiment.
• One review (2019-08-15) is based solely on a driver's road behavior and contains no information about plumbing services. It was excluded from dimension scoring but counted in total reviews analyzed.
• One review (2024-08-13) contains no text — only a 5-star rating. It was excluded from dimension scoring as it provides no usable data.
• Several older 5-star reviews (2013–2016) are very brief or generic (e.g., 'Excellent!', 'Fantastic.') with no specific detail. These were given limited weight in dimension scoring per Rule 1.
• The majority of reviews are older than 12 months. Only 3 reviews are from 2024, and the most detailed negative reviews span 2022–2023, which may reflect a period of service quality decline. Recency weighting was applied accordingly.

This WW Score is based on 33 reviews spanning approximately 11 years, with HIGH mention counts across all four dimensions, but reliability is moderated by the presence of multiple detailed negative reviews describing skill deficiencies and unresolved billing disputes, two likely duplicate reviews from the same source, and a thin recent review base that limits confidence in the contractor's current performance level.