Find Nearby Plumbers In Honolulu, Hawaii

Pacific Plumbing has a large and deeply mixed review record spanning over a decade. The majority of positive reviews praise individual technicians — particularly Blake, Tony, Dale, Jerry, Eddie, and Kit — for punctuality, friendliness, communication, and solid workmanship, often in the context of home warranty dispatches. However, a substantial minority of negative reviews (roughly 25–30% of all reviews) describe serious failures: abandoned or incomplete work, incorrect installations (reversed hot/cold lines, failed city inspections), rude or hostile owner behavior, billing disputes involving charges for work not performed, and repeated no-shows. The pricing dimension is particularly polarized — some reviewers cite fair or below-market rates while others describe significant overcharging, lack of upfront quotes, and charges for materials not used. Project completion is similarly split, with multiple reviews describing jobs left unfinished, problems made worse, or follow-up calls ignored. The overall score reflects a contractor with genuine capable technicians but systemic issues in management, accountability, and consistency.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: At least 6 reviews appear to be exact or near-exact duplicates posted on different dates (e.g., 'They are very professional plumber. They are hard worker' posted 2024-06-09 and 2024-06-06; 'There is a very good service pacific plumbing co.' posted on both dates; the 1-star water heater cancellation review posted on both 2024-06-09 and 2024-06-06; the Dale/Tony shower leak review posted on both 2018-06-08 and 2018-02-26). These duplicates inflate review counts and confidence artificially.
• SUSPECTED FAKE OR PADDED REVIEWS: A cluster of 5-star reviews dated 2024-06-06 and 2024-06-09 includes extremely generic, low-detail entries ('They are very professional plumber. They are hard worker', 'There is a very good service pacific plumbing co.', 'Excellence') with no specifics. These appear to be padding reviews and have been discounted in scoring.
• BLANK REVIEWS: 14 reviews contained no text — only a star rating (mostly 5 stars). These provide no usable data for any dimension and were excluded from dimensional scoring.
• OWNER CONDUCT PATTERN: Multiple independent negative reviews across different years describe the owner (variously named David/Dave/Ray depending on location) as rude, hostile, threatening, and unwilling to accept responsibility for errors. This is a recurring and credible pattern, not isolated incidents.
• MULTI-LOCATION AMBIGUITY: Reviews reference locations including Fresno/Clovis CA, Tulsa OK, San Carlos/Redwood City CA, Charlotte NC, and Hawaii. This appears to be a shared business name across multiple unrelated or loosely related entities, which significantly reduces the reliability of aggregate scoring. Scores should be interpreted with caution as they blend performance across potentially different operators.
• RECENCY NOTE: Reviews span from 2009 to 2025. The most recent reviews (2024–2025) are generally positive for the Tulsa-area operation (Kit/Blake), while older and Fresno-area reviews show more mixed results. Recency weighting slightly benefits the overall score.
• FAILED CITY INSPECTION: One review explicitly states a water heater installation failed 3 consecutive city inspections, indicating a serious workmanship and code compliance issue.
• BILLING INTEGRITY CONCERNS: Multiple reviews describe charges for materials not used, estimates that increased significantly after work began, and refusal to honor written quotes — a pattern suggesting systemic billing integrity issues.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large review volume, but the score's practical reliability is MODERATE at best due to multi-location ambiguity, confirmed duplicate and suspected fake reviews, and a wide performance variance that suggests the aggregate score masks significantly different quality levels depending on which technician, location, or time period is involved — prospective customers should read individual reviews carefully rather than relying solely on the aggregate score.

Steve's Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism and technical expertise, with technicians consistently praised for punctuality, courtesy, and knowledge. However, the company is severely hampered by widespread pricing complaints—a dominant theme across 89 reviews citing excessive charges, hidden fees, and quotes 2-5x higher than competitors. Project completion shows moderate reliability with some scheduling failures and cancellations, though most completed work is of good quality. The stark contrast between high service quality and aggressive pricing creates a polarized customer experience, with recent reviews (past 12 months) showing more negative pricing feedback than older reviews.

• PRICING CRISIS: 89 reviews explicitly mention overcharging, with specific examples of $1,200+ for simple tasks, $3,000+ for routine replacements, and quotes 3-5x competitor rates. This is the dominant negative theme.
• SCHEDULING RELIABILITY: Multiple reviews (15+) report missed appointments, last-minute cancellations, and failure to provide promised callback windows, particularly for smaller jobs.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEWS: Approximately 40-50 reviews from 2021-2023 contain nearly identical phrasing ('very professional and knowledgeable,' 'great job,' minimal detail), suggesting possible review manipulation. However, recent reviews (2024-2025) are more detailed and credible.
• RECENCY BIAS: Reviews from past 12 months (June 2024-June 2025) show significantly more negative pricing and scheduling complaints than older reviews, indicating potential deterioration in service standards or pricing practices.
• DECEPTIVE PRACTICES ALLEGED: Multiple reviews allege high-pressure sales tactics, unnecessary upsells, incomplete diagnostics, and failure to honor commitments (e.g., home warranty authorization promises not fulfilled).
• COMPANY OWNERSHIP CHANGE: One review explicitly notes service quality declined after mainland company acquisition, with prices inflated and customer service degraded.
• INCONSISTENT QUALITY: Wide variance in individual technician performance; some highly praised, others criticized for poor diagnostics or aggressive upselling.

This WW Score of 68.2 is reliable but reflects a deeply bifurcated company: excellent technical execution and professionalism undermined by systematic overpricing that dominates customer dissatisfaction. The HIGH confidence is warranted due to large mention counts across all dimensions, but the score masks a critical vulnerability—pricing practices that appear to violate customer trust and fair value expectations. Customers should expect quality work but should obtain multiple quotes and negotiate aggressively, as this company's pricing is consistently flagged as 2-5x market rate.

Handy Andy Hawaii demonstrates strong technical expertise and workmanship quality, with many customers praising skilled technicians and professional execution on completed jobs. However, the company is significantly hampered by severe and persistent communication and follow-up failures that directly impact project completion and customer satisfaction. A substantial portion of negative reviews cite missed callbacks, delayed estimates, no-shows, and poor responsiveness—issues that undermine otherwise competent work. Pricing concerns also emerge frequently, with customers reporting unexpected quote increases and deposit practices that create friction. While the company excels when work is actively underway, the path to engagement is unreliable.

• CRITICAL: Systematic communication breakdown. At least 25+ reviews explicitly mention failure to return calls, respond to emails, provide timely estimates, or honor appointment confirmations. This is the single largest driver of negative sentiment.
• Quote accuracy and transparency issues. Multiple reviews (at least 8) report significant quote discrepancies—original estimates tripled or quintupled at time of service, with poor explanation. This suggests either poor initial assessment or deliberate low-balling.
• Deposit and fee practices questioned. Several reviews cite $50–$150 deposit/assessment fees with unclear value proposition, and at least 3 reviews report deposits taken with no follow-up service.
• Scheduling and no-show pattern. At least 12 reviews report missed appointments, no-shows, or cancellations without notification, even after confirmation calls.
• Potential fake review cluster detected. Multiple 5-star reviews from 2020-06-09 and 2019-06-10 contain minimal or no text (blank or single words like 'Great guy'), suggesting possible review padding. Additionally, some highly detailed positive reviews use nearly identical phrasing ('professional,' 'courteous,' 'on time,' 'Mahalo') in ways that feel formulaic.
• Recency concern: Most negative reviews cluster in 2019–2021; more recent reviews (2025) are sparse and uniformly positive, which may indicate either improved operations or reduced review volume. Insufficient recent data to confirm trend.
• One serious allegation: A 2019-06-10 review alleges assault and theft by an employee. While unverified, this is a significant red flag that warrants investigation.
• Inconsistent service quality. Same company receives both 5-star and 1-star reviews for similar service types (e.g., plumbing, AC installation), suggesting high variability in execution or staff performance.

This WW Score of 68.2 should be treated with caution: while based on substantial data (115 usable reviews), the company exhibits a stark bifurcation between strong technical execution and severe operational/communication failures. The score reflects this duality—high experience ratings offset by low project completion and professionalism scores driven by follow-up and scheduling breakdowns. Customers should expect quality work IF they can successfully navigate the booking and communication gauntlet; however, the frequency and severity of communication failures represent a material risk to project initiation and timeline reliability.

R&S Plumbing has a genuinely mixed record across all four dimensions. Professionalism is dragged down significantly by multiple serious complaints: a physical altercation with a customer, staff entering a home without masks during COVID, a billing agent being rude to a customer's wife, repeated no-shows after a failed repair, and two separate driving complaints about reckless behavior in a company van. While many customers praise punctuality and courtesy, these negative incidents are severe enough to substantially reduce the professionalism score. Pricing is similarly split — several reviewers praise reasonable and competitive rates, while others report price gouging (charging $225 for a 5-minute fix), an astronomical $2,500 quote, and a $200 diagnostic fee that competitors would have included in the total. Project completion is the most concerning dimension: there is a documented case of a failed repair followed by three consecutive no-shows, a tub valve job that left the customer without a shower, and a toilet unclog that failed within three days — offset by many reviews praising complete and timely work. Experience scores moderately well, with multiple reviewers citing knowledgeable, skilled technicians who solved complex problems, but undermined by at least two cases where the plumber appeared to lack the tools or skill to complete the job properly.

• Two reviews (dated 2017-06-11 and 2016-06-14) appear to be near-identical duplicates of the same detailed negative billing complaint — this may indicate a copy-paste error or a duplicate submission, and was counted as one unique incident for scoring purposes.
• Two reviews (dated 2020-06-10 and 2020-02-14) are nearly identical in content describing the same large list of repairs — likely the same customer submitting twice or a duplicate; treated as one incident for scoring.
• Two separate reviews (2023-03-29 and 2022-11-15) describe reckless driving by a company van driver — these are consistent and credible, and reflect on company culture and professionalism.
• The one-sentence and blank reviews ('great', 'made short work of it', and the empty 5-star review) provide no usable data and were excluded from dimension scoring.
• Most reviews with usable data are older than 12 months (many from 2011–2019), with only two reviews from the past 12 months (2024). Recency-weighted confidence in current performance is limited.
• The most recent substantive negative reviews (driving complaints in 2022–2023) and the most recent positive reviews (2024) are both low in volume, making current performance difficult to assess with confidence.

This WW Score is based on a reasonable volume of reviews (33 total, 31 usable), but reliability is moderated by the age of most reviews, two likely duplicate submissions, and a stark polarization between highly positive and highly negative experiences that suggests inconsistent service quality depending on the technician or situation encountered.

Charlie's Plumbing shows significant inconsistency across all dimensions. While individual technicians (particularly Eiler, Roy, and Ramon) receive consistent praise for professionalism and skill, the company suffers from severe systemic failures in scheduling, project completion, and administrative operations. Pricing concerns are substantial, with multiple complaints about overbilling, hidden charges, and inflated labor hours. The most critical issue is project completion reliability—numerous reviews document no-shows, missed appointments, and abandoned callbacks despite confirmed scheduling. Experience quality varies dramatically by technician but is undermined by poor follow-through and lack of accountability when problems arise.

• CRITICAL: Systematic scheduling failures documented across 15+ reviews spanning 2015-2025. Pattern includes confirmed appointments with no-shows, no advance notice, and unresponsive office staff.
• CRITICAL: Multiple reviews (8+) document overbilling, inflated labor hours, and charges for work not completed or improperly completed. Customers report being charged for travel time, multiple visits when one was promised, and hours that don't match actual time on-site.
• CRITICAL: Serious safety and quality failures documented: propane water heater installed with plastic drain pan creating fire hazard; plumber using torch caught house siding on fire; poor welding quality; reversed hot/cold lines; incomplete drain repairs requiring return visits.
• CRITICAL: Office communication breakdown is pervasive. Multiple reviews describe rude, dismissive, or unhelpful office staff; failure to relay messages; inability to provide time windows; and unresponsiveness to follow-up calls.
• MODERATE: Potential fake reviews detected. Approximately 8-10 reviews from June 2024 and June 2023 contain no text (blank reviews rated 5.0), suggesting possible system manipulation or placeholder entries.
• MODERATE: Significant recency bias in data. Approximately 40% of reviews are from 2024-2025, showing ongoing problems have NOT been resolved despite company's long history (operating since 1973).
• MODERATE: Owner/management accountability issues. Multiple reviews reference owner 'John' or 'Charlie' being dismissive, refusing to honor warranties, or blaming technicians rather than taking responsibility.
• MODERATE: Inconsistent quality by technician. Named technicians (Eiler, Roy, Ramon, Frank) receive 5-star reviews; unnamed or different technicians receive 1-star reviews, suggesting quality control and training issues.

This WW Score of 62.8 should be treated with caution despite HIGH overall confidence. While the score is based on substantial data (127 reviews, 52+ mentions per dimension), the extreme polarization of reviews—with roughly equal numbers of 5-star and 1-star ratings—indicates a company in crisis. The score reflects a company with pockets of excellence (specific technicians, parts counter service) but systemic failures in operations, scheduling, billing, and management accountability. Customers should expect significant risk of scheduling failures, billing disputes, and incomplete work, though individual technician quality may be high if the right person is assigned.

Diamond Head Plumbing exhibits significant inconsistency across all dimensions. While some customers report excellent professionalism and skilled workmanship (particularly praising specific technicians like Chris, Warren, and Peyton), many others describe rude staff, unprofessional behavior, and poor communication. Pricing is a major pain point, with numerous complaints about excessive charges, hidden fees, inflated estimates, and markups on parts. Project completion suffers from no-shows, incomplete work, callbacks needed for fixes, and abandoned jobs. Technical quality varies dramatically—some jobs are completed expertly while others involve shoddy workmanship, material failures, and structural damage discovered years later. The company's inconsistency suggests quality depends heavily on which crew is dispatched.

• SIGNIFICANT INCONSISTENCY: Reviews range from 1-star to 5-star with stark contrasts in experience quality, suggesting crew-dependent service delivery rather than consistent company standards.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS PERVASIVE: At least 32 reviews explicitly mention overcharging, hidden fees, inflated estimates, excessive markups on parts, and unfair pricing practices. This is a systemic issue.
• PROFESSIONALISM CONCERNS: Multiple reviews describe rude office staff (particularly 'Mariella'), unprofessional technicians, poor communication, no-shows, and failure to return calls or follow up on promised callbacks.
• PROJECT COMPLETION FAILURES: Numerous reviews document incomplete work, abandoned jobs, multiple callbacks needed to fix initial work, and failure to honor warranties or provide promised credits.
• LONG-TERM QUALITY ISSUES: Several reviews describe problems discovered years after completion (rotting drywall, cracked foundations, rusted materials, structural damage), suggesting poor workmanship or material selection.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEWS: Multiple 5-star reviews from 2020-2021 use nearly identical phrasing ('professional, courteous, on time, cleaned up') with minimal detail. However, these are balanced by numerous detailed negative reviews, so overall fake review risk is MODERATE rather than HIGH.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most recent reviews (2024-2025) are predominantly negative (1-2 stars), suggesting deterioration in service quality or increased customer dissatisfaction over time.
• LEGAL/COMPLIANCE ISSUE: One 2025 review alleges failure to display required Hawaii contractor license number on advertising materials and website, suggesting potential regulatory non-compliance.

This WW Score of 62.8 should be treated with caution despite HIGH confidence in the data. The score reflects genuine high-volume evidence of serious problems (pricing, professionalism, completion), but the extreme variability in customer experiences means individual outcomes are highly unpredictable and crew-dependent. Recent reviews trend negative, suggesting current service quality may be worse than the overall score indicates.