Find Nearby Plumbers In Honolulu, Hawaii

Both reviews describe positive interactions with named technicians (Oscar and Isaac) who communicated clearly, explained options thoroughly, and completed the work to the customer's satisfaction. Professionalism scores well due to explicit mentions of thorough explanations, non-pushy estimates, and helpful attitudes. Pricing is mentioned in only one review, where a reasonable compromise was reached, warranting a conservative but positive score. Project completion is supported by both reviews indicating the work was done and follow-up was even scheduled in one case, though no detail on timeliness is given. Experience is reflected in both technicians' ability to diagnose problems and explain solutions clearly, though no deep technical complexity was described.

• Only 2 reviews provided — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Both reviews are significantly dated (2011 and 2014), over 10 years old. These reviews carry very low recency weight and may not reflect current service quality.
• Both reviews are 5-star with generally positive language; however, they do contain specific named technicians and situational details, reducing fake review suspicion.
• All confidence levels are LIMITED due to only 1–2 mentions per dimension. No dimension has sufficient data to be considered reliable.

This score report is based on only 2 reviews, both more than 10 years old, making it highly unreliable as a representation of current contractor quality — significantly more recent and numerous reviews are needed before any WW Score can be meaningfully trusted.

With only two reviews spanning different time periods, the picture is sharply divided. The positive review from December 2018 highlights timely scheduling, punctuality, good workmanship, and reasonable pricing. The negative review from May 2018 directly contradicts this on multiple fronts — citing slow project pace, extended timelines, and poor cleanup, while acknowledging low price but framing it as a warning rather than a compliment. Project completion is the most damaged dimension, as the negative review explicitly describes an extended project and debris left behind. Pricing receives a middling score because both reviews confirm low cost, but the negative reviewer explicitly states the low price came at the expense of quality and professionalism.

• Only 2 reviews total — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold rules.
• The two reviews are in direct conflict across nearly every dimension, making any score highly uncertain.
• Both reviews are from 2018 — all data is over 5 years old and should be treated as significantly outdated. Current performance is unknown.
• The positive review uses somewhat generic praise ('great job,' 'very reasonable') with limited specifics, which slightly reduces its evidentiary weight.

This score profile should not be trusted for decision-making — only 2 reviews exist, both are over 5 years old, and they directly contradict each other across all key dimensions.

Both reviews speak very positively about AMKO's professionalism, highlighting punctuality, friendliness, clear communication, and considerate behavior such as removing shoes and laying down protective tarps. Project completion is noted as thorough, including a follow-up visit the next day to confirm satisfaction and cleanup after work. Experience is reflected in skilled removal and installation work, accurate measurement verification, and knowledgeable diagnosis of a leaky faucet. Pricing is mentioned in only one review, where rates were described as reasonable and worth the cost. However, with only two reviews total, none of these scores can be considered reliable and the WW Score cannot be calculated.

• Only 2 reviews provided — far below the minimum threshold of 3 required for a reliable WW Score calculation.
• Both reviews are dated 2015, making them approximately 9–10 years old. Recency weighting heavily penalizes these scores as they do not reflect current performance.
• Both reviews are 5-star ratings. While the review content is detailed and specific enough to reduce fake review suspicion, the small sample size and age of reviews mean no meaningful pattern analysis is possible.
• Pricing confidence is especially low — only 1 of 2 reviews mentions it, and the description is vague ('reasonable and worth it') with no specific figures provided.

This score report is based on only 2 reviews, both from 2015, and should be considered highly unreliable — prospective customers should seek more recent and numerous reviews before making a hiring decision.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only one review was analyzed, which falls below the minimum threshold of 3 reviews required for a reliable WW Score calculation. The single review mentions work quality positively but provides no specific details about professionalism, pricing, or project completion. The review is also from 2012 (over 11 years old), making it outdated.

• Only 1 review available — minimum 3 reviews required for reliable scoring
• Review date is from May 2012 — extremely outdated (12+ years old), not representative of current service
• Review lacks specific details about the work performed, pricing, timeline, or communication
• Generic praise ('Great Service', 'Great Work') without concrete examples or specifics
• Unclear scope: review mentions both residential (toilet/sink) and commercial (high-rise) work but provides no detail on which was actually performed

This score cannot be trusted and should not be used for decision-making. Insufficient review volume and extreme age of the single review make any scoring unreliable.

Only one review is available for analysis, which is insufficient to calculate a reliable WW Score. The single review explicitly mentions rapid emergency response (professionalism dimension) and successful problem resolution (project completion dimension), but provides no information on pricing or technical experience details. The review is dated 2018 (over 6 years old), which further limits its relevance to current service quality.

• Insufficient data: only 1 review analyzed. Minimum 3 reviews required for reliable scoring.
• Review is from 2018 — over 6 years old. Does not reflect current service quality.
• No pricing information mentioned in review.
• No technical skill or experience details provided.

This analysis cannot produce a trustworthy WW Score due to insufficient review volume (n=1) and the age of the single available review. At least 3 recent reviews are needed to establish confidence in any scoring.

Only a single review is available, making any scoring highly tentative. The reviewer notes good customer service and fast response, which provides minimal signal for professionalism and project completion. The mention of being the only company with the required parts suggests some degree of specialized knowledge or experience, but this is a very thin basis for an experience score. Pricing is entirely unmentioned and cannot be scored. With just one review, no reliable WW Score can be produced.

• Only 1 review analyzed — far below the minimum threshold of 3 required for a reliable WW Score.
• Review is brief and lacks specific detail, limiting the ability to score dimensions accurately.
• No pricing information mentioned in any review — Pricing dimension scored as null.
• Recency note: The single review is dated September 2024, which is within the past 12 months and is therefore considered current.

This score report is based on a single review and should not be trusted as a reliable indicator of contractor quality — significantly more reviews are needed before any dimension scores or a WW Score can be considered meaningful.