Find Nearby Plumbers In Honolulu, Hawaii

SageWater exhibits a deeply polarized performance profile. While many reviews praise professionalism, efficiency, and quality workmanship—particularly from satisfied customers in large condo projects—a substantial number of reviews document serious failures in project completion, follow-through, and damage accountability. The company demonstrates strong technical capability and communication in some engagements but shows critical gaps in quality control, cleanup, damage prevention, and responsiveness to customer concerns. Pricing appears high relative to competitors, and several reviews indicate the company resists accountability for defects and damages caused during work.

• POLARIZED REVIEW PATTERN: Stark divide between 5-star and 1-star reviews with few middle ratings. This suggests either highly variable execution by different crews/project managers or potential selection bias in review sources.
• RECURRING DAMAGE ISSUES: Multiple independent reviews document property damage (broken fixtures, cracked sinks, dented furniture, broken lights, damaged tile, cut wires) with consistent pattern of company denial or delayed/incomplete repairs.
• PROJECT COMPLETION FAILURES: Numerous reviews report incomplete work, extended timelines far exceeding estimates (12 weeks vs. 1 week promised; 2+ years for single building), unfinished drywall/paint, and callbacks required weeks/months after walkthrough.
• PROFESSIONALISM INCONSISTENCY: Reviews frequently praise individual crew members and project managers (Keegan, Trey, Tracy, Victor, etc.) but criticize others (Larry Counts, Harry) by name, suggesting management quality varies significantly.
• CLEANUP AND CARE GAPS: Repeated complaints about inadequate cleanup, dust left behind, personal items damaged or moved without care, and lack of protective measures despite promises.
• ACCOUNTABILITY AVOIDANCE: Multiple reviews document company denial of responsibility for damage they caused, dismissive attitudes toward customer concerns, and resistance to warranty claims.
• COMMUNICATION FAILURES: Several reviews cite poor communication from project managers, schedule changes without notice, and lack of follow-up on promised repairs.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEWS: Three empty reviews with 5-star ratings (2025-06-09, 2024-10-12, 2024-06-09, 2021-06-10, 2020-06-10, 2019-06-11) and one generic 4-star review ('Easy to get to. Plenty of parking.') appear to lack substantive content. However, the volume of detailed negative reviews with specific incidents, names, and dates suggests authentic complaints outweigh any potential fake positive reviews.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most recent reviews (2025, 2024, 2023) show continued pattern of serious complaints, indicating problems are not historical but ongoing.

This WW Score of 62.8 is reliable and should be trusted as a cautionary indicator. The score is based on 57 usable reviews with HIGH confidence across all major dimensions. The polarized pattern and recurring themes of damage, incomplete work, and accountability avoidance across multiple independent reviews spanning 10+ years suggest systemic operational issues. While the company demonstrates technical capability and professionalism in some engagements, the frequency and consistency of complaints about project completion, damage, and customer service responsiveness indicate significant risk. Prospective customers should expect variable quality depending on assigned crew/project manager and should document pre-existing conditions carefully.

Emergency Plumbing & Solar shows significant inconsistency across dimensions. While professionalism and technical experience receive moderate-to-good marks with many positive mentions of responsive staff, knowledgeable technicians, and courteous service, the company is severely hampered by pervasive pricing complaints and project completion issues. Pricing is the most critical weakness, with 42 reviews explicitly citing excessive charges, price gouging, inflated quotes, and bait-and-switch tactics—often 3-5x competitor rates. Project completion suffers from no-shows, rescheduling failures, incomplete work, and follow-up issues. The company demonstrates capability but appears to prioritize revenue extraction over customer value, creating a polarized review pattern: strong positive reviews from satisfied customers versus numerous negative reviews from those who felt exploited.

• SEVERE PRICING PATTERN: 42 reviews mention pricing concerns. Recurring complaints include: quotes of $500-$700 for simple jobs (toilet valve, drain snake) that competitors complete for $45-$200; $18K-$37K estimates later proven unnecessary; systematic price reductions when customers push back, indicating inflated initial quotes; dispatch fees ($90-$99) not disclosed upfront; lack of itemization on invoices.
• PROJECT COMPLETION FAILURES: Multiple reviews report no-shows without notification, cancellations 2 hours before appointment, rescheduling 3+ times, incomplete work requiring callbacks, and technicians not returning to finish jobs. At least 8 reviews explicitly mention no-shows or failure to arrive.
• DOUBLE CHARGING INCIDENT: One detailed review documents being charged twice for the same service ($500+), with delayed refund processing and poor follow-up.
• QUALITY CONTROL ISSUES: Several reviews report incorrect installations (mixing valve installed backwards), damage caused by technicians (broken drain cover, scratched car, cracked toilet), and inadequate diagnostics (misidentifying problems, recommending unnecessary replacements).
• CUSTOMER SERVICE RESPONSIVENESS: Multiple reports of unanswered phones, calls to 24-hour line going unanswered, office staff hanging up on customers, and poor follow-up on complaints.
• REVIEW AUTHENTICITY: No evidence of fake reviews detected. Reviews show consistent, specific complaints across multiple time periods with detailed narratives and named technicians. Positive reviews also contain specific details (technician names, job types, timelines).
• RECENCY: Most reviews span 2018-2024, with significant volume in 2023-2024. Recent reviews (past 12 months) show continued pricing and completion issues, indicating problems are ongoing, not historical.

This WW Score of 62.3 is highly reliable given 80 reviews with substantial data across all dimensions. However, the score masks a deeply polarized company: customers who receive service report decent professionalism and skill, but a large segment report feeling systematically overcharged and abandoned. The pricing dimension (38/100) is the primary driver of the low overall score and reflects a consistent, well-documented pattern rather than isolated complaints. Prospective customers should expect high prices, potential no-shows, and incomplete work, though some technicians (Kyle, Calvin, Robert, Harley) receive consistent praise.

This contractor shows mixed performance across all dimensions. Professionalism is inconsistent—while multiple reviews praise Alex's friendliness and responsiveness, one critical review documents a no-show with no follow-up communication, severely damaging trust. Pricing feedback is polarized: some customers report competitive rates and good value, while another claims significant overquoting on a shower repair ($3-5K vs. $50 DIY fix), raising concerns about diagnostic accuracy. Project completion appears solid when work is undertaken, but the no-show incident represents a major failure. Experience is questioned by the shower repair overquote, suggesting possible diagnostic or technical judgment issues. All reviews are from 2019-2020, limiting recency data.

• CRITICAL: One review (2020-05-07) documents a no-show by owner Alex with no response to follow-up communication—this is a severe professionalism failure that contradicts positive reviews.
• PRICING CONCERN: Review from 2019-12-08 alleges significant overquoting ($3-5K estimate for a shower leak that cost $50 in supplies to fix)—suggests potential diagnostic or sales pressure issues.
• RECENCY: All reviews are from 2019-2020; no recent data available to assess current performance or whether issues have been addressed.
• POLARIZED FEEDBACK: Extreme rating variance (1.0 and 5.0 stars) with contradictory claims about the same owner's professionalism and pricing practices suggests either inconsistent service delivery or selective customer experience.

This score should be treated with caution. While the MODERATE confidence reflects adequate mention counts, the presence of a documented no-show, a credible overquoting allegation, and the absence of recent reviews (all 4+ years old) significantly undermine confidence in the contractor's current reliability. The polarized feedback pattern suggests inconsistent service quality that warrants direct verification before engagement.

Yamada's Plumbing demonstrates strong technical skill and work quality (82/100), with multiple reviews praising fast, correct execution of complex jobs. However, professionalism is significantly undermined by documented instances of no-shows, late arrivals, poor attitude toward customers, and yelling at clients. Pricing is a major weakness (55/100), with consistent complaints about overbilling, inflated labor hours, excessive travel charges, and quotes 2-4x higher than competitors. Project completion is solid (78/100) with most jobs finished correctly, though one review documented incomplete gluing requiring callbacks. The company shows high variability—excellent work quality paired with poor business practices and customer service.

• Two reviews (2012-06-11 and 2012-06-07) are essentially non-substantive ('See above!!!!' and '.') and were excluded from scoring as they contain no usable data.
• Significant recency bias: 8 of 12 reviews are from 2012-2015 (9+ years old). Only 2 reviews from 2022 and 2013. Recent data is sparse and may not reflect current operations.
• Extreme rating polarization: 6 five-star reviews vs. 4 one-star reviews with no middle ratings. This suggests highly inconsistent service or customer experience variance.
• Multiple credible complaints of billing fraud: owner charging for 2 hours when work took 45 minutes, inflated travel time charges, and overbilling on labor hours. One honest technician is documented pushing back on owner's inflated hours.
• Documented unprofessional behavior: owner yelling at customer and hanging up phone, owner sleeping on job site while billing for 2 men, no-show without callback.
• Pricing complaints appear in 6 of 10 usable reviews—this is a systemic issue, not isolated incidents.

This score should be treated with caution due to sparse recent data (only 2 reviews in past 9 years), extreme rating polarization suggesting inconsistent service, and multiple credible allegations of billing practices that may constitute overbilling. The technical skill appears genuine, but professionalism and pricing integrity are serious concerns that warrant independent verification before hiring.

TMO Services & Plumbing shows significant inconsistency in service delivery. While positive reviews (5 of 8) praise Tyler's responsiveness, technical skill, and efficiency, three recent 1-star reviews reveal serious failures in project completion and follow-through: non-response after service fees were paid, no-shows without proper communication, and failure to honor warranty callbacks. The company demonstrates strong technical competence and professionalism when engaged, but critical breakdowns in accountability and communication undermine overall reliability. The pattern suggests operational or communication system failures rather than technical incompetence.

• CRITICAL: Three 1-star reviews (Oct 2024, Dec 2023, Jun 2023) describe severe communication failures, non-responsiveness, blocked numbers, no-shows, and failure to honor warranty commitments. These are not minor complaints but fundamental business practice failures.
• INCONSISTENCY PATTERN: Stark divide between 5-star reviews praising responsiveness and 1-star reviews describing complete non-responsiveness and blocking. This suggests either inconsistent service delivery or potential operational breakdown.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most recent review (Oct 28, 2024) is a 1-star describing current non-responsiveness and number blocking, suggesting ongoing issues rather than past problems.
• PROJECT COMPLETION RED FLAG: Multiple reviews mention promised callbacks that never happened and warranty commitments not honored. This is a systemic issue, not isolated incidents.
• POSITIVE REVIEWS OLDER: The 5-star reviews cluster in June-July 2023 (12+ months old), while recent reviews are negative, indicating potential service degradation over time.

This score should be treated with caution due to extreme inconsistency in service delivery and a concerning recent pattern of non-responsiveness and communication failures. While technical competence appears solid, the company's reliability in follow-through and accountability is questionable, particularly based on the most recent complaint from October 2024.

This contractor exhibits a deeply polarized review pattern with two distinct customer populations. Recent reviews (2021-2025) are overwhelmingly positive (5-star), praising professionalism, fair pricing, and quality workmanship. However, older reviews (2012-2020) reveal serious systemic issues including alleged overcharging, missed appointments, incomplete work, and unethical billing practices. The company appears to have undergone significant operational changes or rebranding (Drain Rite to Full Service Plumbing). While current performance metrics are strong, the historical pattern of complaints regarding pricing transparency and project follow-through substantially reduces overall confidence.

• CRITICAL: Extreme temporal polarization detected. Reviews from 2021-2025 are nearly all 5-star with detailed positive narratives. Reviews from 2012-2020 are predominantly 1-star with allegations of fraud, overcharging, missed appointments, and incomplete work. This suggests either dramatic operational reform or potential review manipulation.
• Multiple reviews (2012-2020) allege fraudulent billing practices, including signing blank contracts with amounts filled in later, double-billing insurance companies, and charging significantly above quoted estimates.
• Company name change from 'Drain Rite Plumbing' to 'Full Service Plumbing' noted in multiple older reviews, with allegations this was done to escape negative reputation.
• Owner name inconsistency: Older reviews reference 'John Opitz' as owner; recent reviews reference 'Jeff Gilbert' or 'Jeffrey.' This may indicate ownership change or rebranding.
• Several 1-star reviews mention no-shows, missed appointments, and poor communication despite scheduling confirmations.
• Pricing complaints are concentrated in older reviews but are severe, with allegations of 300-400% markups over fair market value.
• Recent positive reviews show some repetitive phrasing patterns (e.g., 'go above and beyond,' 'honest and reliable,' 'professional and knowledgeable') but appear substantive with specific details.
• Empty reviews (no text, only ratings) present in dataset; these were excluded from scoring but suggest data quality issues.

This WW Score should be treated with CAUTION. While recent reviews (past 3-4 years) demonstrate strong performance across all dimensions, the historical record reveals serious allegations of unethical practices. The dramatic shift in review sentiment coinciding with apparent company rebranding raises questions about whether improvements are genuine or whether negative reviews are being suppressed. Recommend requesting references from recent clients and verifying licensing/complaint history with local regulatory bodies before engaging this contractor.