Find Nearby Plumbers In Kailua Kona, Hawaii

Big Island Plumbing receives overwhelmingly positive feedback across all four dimensions, with professionalism being the most frequently and enthusiastically cited strength — reviewers consistently highlight punctuality, responsiveness, courteous communication, and going above and beyond (e.g., removing shoes, explaining work thoroughly, responding to texts on weekends). Pricing is mentioned favorably in several reviews, with multiple customers explicitly noting fair, transparent, and non-gouging rates, though this dimension has fewer dedicated mentions than others. Project completion scores well, supported by evidence of same-day emergency responses, consistent follow-through across multiple jobs, and a notable instance of returning to correct a past mistake at no charge. Experience and technical skill are praised across a wide range of jobs including repiping, tankless water heater installation, grey water systems, and complex diagnostics, with reviewers frequently noting the team's knowledge and problem-solving ability.

• Two reviews (2025-03-11 and 2024-12-11) contain no text whatsoever — only a 5-star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data.
• One review (2023-08-23) appears to be a near-exact duplicate of another review (2024-06-09), with identical text. This may indicate a copied or reposted review. Counted only once for dimension scoring.
• Two reviews marked 'unknown' (2015-06-29 rated 2.0, and 2015-04-16 rated 5.0) contain no usable text and were excluded from dimension scoring.
• Several older reviews (2010–2014) reference a plumber named 'Mark' and one references 'Tony', which differ from the current owners 'Glenn' and 'Tainan' mentioned in recent reviews. One review explicitly notes the plumber 'relocated and no longer serves the area.' These older reviews may reflect a different operator or business era and were weighted conservatively.
• The majority of detailed, high-quality reviews are from 2020–2024, which is a positive recency signal. Reviews from 2010–2014 were given reduced weight due to age and possible personnel changes.
• One review (2014-02-03, rated 4.0) noted sloppy workmanship — connections to a tank were left loose and leaking after the job, requiring the customer to tighten them. This is the only negative workmanship note in the dataset and was factored into the experience and project completion scores.

This WW Score is based on 35 reviews with usable content spanning over a decade, with the majority of substantive feedback coming from the past five years under the current ownership team; the score is considered reliable for the current business but should be interpreted with awareness that a small number of older reviews may reflect a different operator.

The overwhelming majority of reviews praise professionalism, punctuality, and courteous technicians, driving a solid but not exceptional professionalism score. Pricing is generally described as fair and reasonable, with multiple reviewers noting the company beat competitor quotes significantly; however, a handful of reviews cite overcharging, unclear billing, and one instance of a $2,800 charge for a job far simpler than estimated. Project completion is the most penalized dimension: several reviews document incomplete work, return visits required due to errors, a cracked toilet base left unaddressed, a disposal quoted but not fixed, and a toilet that leaked again the next day after service — with one reviewer noting the company stopped responding to follow-up emails. Experience scores moderately well given strong praise for skilled technicians like Fabian, Eddie, and Brian, but is tempered by documented cases of undersized equipment used, wrong parts installed, and a technician who made problems worse. The co-owner Mary is cited by name in multiple negative reviews for rude, aggressive, and unprofessional behavior, which significantly weighs down the professionalism dimension despite the many positive technician-level interactions.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: The review by 'Emery was great and easy my concern...' (2023-11-28) appears twice with identical text and date. The review praising Luis for gas line installation (2021-06-10) appears twice with near-identical text. The review about selling a home and hydrostatic test (2021-01-30 and 2020-12-08) appears twice with nearly identical text. These duplicates have been counted only once each in mention tallies.
• MULTIPLE COMPANIES IN REVIEW SET: Several reviews reference 'Jet Drain' or 'Jet Drain Plumbing' as a distinct business entity, not A&M Plumbing. These appear to be reviews for a different company mixed into this dataset. They were analyzed for scoring purposes but flagged as potentially belonging to a separate contractor.
• REVIEW FOR 'JAIRO' (2025-06-06): This review does not mention A&M Plumbing or any of its known staff by name and may belong to a different contractor entirely.
• OWNER CONDUCT PATTERN: Co-owner 'Mary' is cited by name in at least 4 separate negative reviews (2013, 2013, 2021, 2023) for rude behavior, use of foul language, failure to return calls, and dismissive responses to legitimate complaints. This is a consistent and credible pattern, not an isolated incident.
• PERMIT VIOLATION FLAGGED: One reviewer (2023-06-10, 1-star) explicitly states A&M chose not to obtain a city permit prior to plumbing work, which caused the customer financial harm. This is a serious compliance concern.
• LARGE VOLUME OF BLANK REVIEWS: Approximately 20+ reviews contain no text whatsoever — only a star rating (all 5-star). These provide no usable data and inflate the apparent positivity of the review set. They were excluded from dimension scoring.
• RECENCY NOTE: A significant portion of detailed reviews date from 2013–2018. While there are recent reviews (2024–2025), the bulk of substantive feedback is older than 5 years. Scores should be interpreted with this in mind, as service quality may have changed.
• BILLING DISPUTE PATTERN: At least 3 separate reviews describe being charged for work that was not completed, not completed correctly, or for a service call where nothing was fixed. This is a recurring theme that meaningfully impacts the project completion score.

This WW Score is based on a large review set (175 total) with high mention counts across all four dimensions, giving it statistical weight; however, reliability is moderately reduced by the presence of duplicate reviews, blank no-text reviews, mixed-company reviews (Jet Drain), a consistent pattern of owner misconduct complaints, and documented billing and workmanship failures that suggest the positive aggregate score masks meaningful service inconsistency.

Dan's Plumbing receives strong praise across multiple dimensions, with reviewers consistently highlighting fair pricing, technical competence, and thorough cleanup after jobs. Several reviews specifically commend Dan's problem-solving ability, responsiveness in emergencies, and honest approach with no upsells. However, one notable 1-star review describes a serious communication failure — three unreturned calls over 8 days — which meaningfully tempers the professionalism score. The majority of substantive reviews are older than 3 years, with only two reviews from 2021 providing recent data, which limits confidence in the current state of the business.

• Three reviews contain only the text 'unknown' with no usable content — these were excluded from scoring.
• One 1-star review with no text (2014) was also excluded due to no usable content.
• The 1-star review from 2020 describes a significant responsiveness failure (3 unreturned calls over 8 days), which directly contradicts positive claims about communication and responsiveness in other reviews.
• RECENCY WARNING: The majority of substantive reviews are from 2013–2021, with only 2 reviews dated within the past 3 years. The most recent review is from November 2021. Current performance cannot be reliably assessed.
• No strong fake review patterns detected, though several older positive reviews are brief and generic. Not flagged as fake but noted as low-detail.

This WW Score carries moderate overall reliability — the dimension scores are grounded in explicit review evidence, but the recency gap (no reviews since late 2021) and one credible communication complaint introduce meaningful uncertainty about the contractor's current service quality.