Skip to main content
DEAL WATCH: Keurig K-Express | 22% off $69.99

Keurig has changed the face of coffee, and snagging one of these for less than $70 is a solid deal. Read Review

BUY NOW
  • Introduction

  • Design & Usability

  • Features & Performance

  • Conclusion

  • Science Introduction

  • Cleaning Performance

  • Noise & Efficiency

  • Introduction
  • Design & Usability
  • Features & Performance
  • Conclusion
  • Science Introduction
  • Cleaning Performance
  • Noise & Efficiency

Introduction

Design & Usability

{{section_header}}{{section.name}}{{/section_header}}

There's a lot to like about the {{product.name}} when it comes to handling and usability.

We liked the {{product.name}}'s handling around corners and how simple it is to pull out its extension wand. You can do a lot with the 2.9 foot wand—clean stairs, shelves, ceilings—as result of its impressive 11.5 foot reach. It's easily removed by flipping up the grey tab at the top of the vacuum and pulling the red tube up. We were impressed with how effortlessly it turned, gliding smoothly along most surfaces. With an above-average power cord at 27 feet, you shouldn't have trouble moving from room to room.

According to Dyson, the nozzle head adjusts automatically to whatever surface it's cleaning.

There are really only two controls on the {{product.name}}, both of which are located at the middle of the vacuum: the red power button and grey power brush on/off button. According to Dyson, the nozzle head adjusts automatically to whatever surface it's cleaning; because of its struggles with carpet, though, we aren't sold on just how useful the feature is. The dirt holder is easy to remove (clicking on the red button that connects it to the vacuum) and just as simple to empty through its trap door, which is done by pressing the red button again. A purple HEPA filter is found inside the dirt container and is hand washable.

{{photo_gallery "Front Image", "Front 2 Image", "Right Image", "Left Image", "Handle Image", "Top Image", "Underside Image", "Hose Image", "Nozzle Extended Image", "Cleaning Tools 1 Image", "Cleaning Tools 2 Image", "Handling Primary Photo", "Handling Secondary Photo", "Controls 1 Image", "Controls 2 Image", "Controls 3 Image", "Filter 1 Image", "Filter 2 Image", "Power Cord 1 Image", "Power Cord 2 Image", "Dirt Container 1 Image", "Dirt Container 2 Image"}}

Features & Performance

{{section_header}}{{section.name}}{{/section_header}}

The {{product.name}} was lacking in carpet cleaning, but impressed with its large debris pickup capabilities.

If you have a house with lots of carpet...forget it. This machine, despite its high-end price tag, performed miserably on both long and short carpets. Hard wood floors did fine, though, so if you've got smooth surfaces covering the rooms in your home and you really like a user-friendly machine, this one may be worth the money. Oddly enough, both pet hair and debris came up without a problem; in fact, this machine did a better job picking up both light and heavy debris off of carpet compared to how it did with hard woods.

It seems that this machine simply lacks the ability to provide a deep clean.

It seems that this machine simply lacks the ability to provide a deep clean, but does a fine job on flat surfaces. For some added versatility, you receive a separate pet hair brush and crevice tool along with the {{product.name}} that attach to its extension wand. The {{product.name}} is pretty light for an upright, weighing only 14.34 pounds. That light weight comes with a price, though: you can expect the dirt container to fill up pretty quickly, since it can only hold 0.48 gallons at a time.

Conclusion

{{section_header}}{{section.name}}{{/section_header}}

Huge price for only okay cleaning overall; don't even both if all you have is carpet.

In spite of some new features, such as "Radial Root Cyclone" technology and a new nozzle head that adjusts to carpet height, the {{product.name}} doesn't do much to set itself apart from the DC41, or any other vacuum for that matter. It's lightweight and handles very well, but it only really excelled on hardwood and debris pickup. Though we liked some of its usability features, such as a long extension wand for shelves and stairs, they isn't enough to outweigh the vacuum's lagging performance. Your $500 can be better spent elsewhere.

Science Introduction

{{section_header}}{{section.name}}{{/section_header}}

For $500, we expected some pretty amazing cleaning performance. Unfortunately, there's no way to ignore the occasionally abysmal numbers that our tests produced. See where this overpriced vacuum succeeded...and where it simply lost its aspirational Midas touch.

Cleaning Performance

{{section_header}}{{section.name}}{{/section_header}}

Anything on the surface should be fine, regardless of what the surface may be...just don't expect a deep clean on carpet.

This performance results on this machine were a very odd mix indeed. It nearly nailed its performance on hard wood, sucking up 99.5% of dust and dirt, as well as 80% of both light and heavy debris. Short carpet, though, proved to be a bigger challenge: the Dyson only managed to remove 55.1% of dust and dirt, a number that merits multiple passes.

Long carpet was a bit of an enigma: with 90% of our test debris—which consists of pasta, rice, dimes, and nickles—getting successfully removed from our thickest floor covering, we were surprised to see that only 13.3% of our regular dust, dirt, and sand mixture made it into the canister. That's awful, hardly worth the effort needed to vacuum in the first place. To add some additional twist, it did exceptionally well removed pet hair that was stuck into the surface of our carpet. As such, it seems that the Dyson can handle almost anything, as long as it isn't buried too deep.

{{photo_gallery "Science Section 1 Images"}}

Noise & Efficiency

{{section_header}}{{section.name}}{{/section_header}}

Users will appreciate that the {{product.name}} is below average in both noise and energy consumption.

At 73 decibels, the {{product.name}} is fairly quiet for an upright. Also, it used just 1087 watts, which is a relatively low number compared to other vacuums. If only its performance was as uniformly superior...

{{photo_gallery "Science Section 2 Images"}}

Meet the tester

Patrick Ouellette

Patrick Ouellette

Staff Writer

@

Patrick Ouellette is a valued contributor to the Reviewed.com family of sites.

See all of Patrick Ouellette's reviews

Checking our work.

Our team is here for one purpose: to help you buy the best stuff and love what you own. Our writers, editors, and lab technicians obsess over the products we cover to make sure you're confident and satisfied. Have a different opinion about something we recommend? Email us and we'll compare notes.

Shoot us an email

Up next