More and more present in our homes, they promise to replace brooms, vacuum cleaners and mops or rags in a single gesture. But do floor vacuum cleaners really keep their promises? A new comparative test from the French magazine provides clarity 60 Millions de Consumerswhich tested 12 of the most popular models on the market.
The result? They are effective, yes, but not all in the same way. And they’re not always worth the price we pay.
Undoubtedly, their convenience is one of their main strong points: operation is simple and intuitive. A tank releases cold water and, if desired, detergent onto the rotating rollers that wash the floor, while at the same time the appliance sucks dirt and dirty water into a second container, separating the solid residues via a filter.
But this ease of use has limits: these devices only work well on hard, sealed floors – tiles, varnished parquet, linoleum – and do not replace a traditional vacuum cleaner on carpets, nor should they be used on rough or waxed parquet.
And the cost should not be overlooked: it starts from around 200 euros up to 700 euros for the top of the range models. A figure much higher than a traditional vacuum cleaner and a microfibre mop, which, despite being less practical, remain equally effective according to the test.
The best and the worst
Rowenta, Dreame, Dyson and Tineco are the four models that stood out for their greater effectiveness in removing the most stubborn stains. Dry ketchup disappears in 5-9 passes, egg yolk in 12-14. Rowenta, Tineco and Roborock also stand out for the possibility of being inclined completely horizontally, with a height from the ground of less than 15 cm: this makes them ideal for cleaning under beds, sofas and low furniture.
Electrolux, Shark and Hoover, on the other hand, according to the test, have acceptable performance on common dirt, but have more difficulty with stubborn stains such as dried egg yolk, which requires about 20 passes. The Shark also has a significant practical limitation: with only 26 minutes of battery life, it is not suitable for large surfaces. Positive note for the Electrolux filter, among the most effective in separating solid debris from dirty water.
Among the worst in the test, however, are the Kärcher, which requires up to 30 passes to remove the egg yolk, and its height when tilted (38.5cm to 60cm deep) makes it unsuitable for cleaning under most furniture.
Roborock and Philips are also the slowest overall, with 45 passes required for the same stain. The Philips (the worst in the test) also has a maneuverability problem: the rollers spin so fast on wet floors that they almost aquaplan, making cornering difficult.
Most devices offer an “intensive” cleaning mode. The testers evaluated it carefully and the conclusion is quite clear: it is not worth using. The performance improvement is minimal (one or two passes less at most), while battery life drops by up to 45% less. No visible improvement was detected on the Bissell and Philips models.
The less glamorous aspect of these devices is maintenance. After each use, you need to empty the dirty water tank, clean the filter and take care of the rollers. The manufacturers recommend a complete weekly intervention.
Almost all models have an automatic self-cleaning cycle that starts when the device is placed on the charging base: the rollers spin quickly and are sprayed with clean water. It’s a shame that the times vary enormously: less than 3 minutes for Dyson, Essentielb and Kärcher, but up to 3 hours and 6 minutes for the Electrolux and even 4 hours for the Hoover. And despite these biblical times, the rollers are not completely dry.
The cost of consumables must also be considered: rollers and particulate filters must be replaced regularly (at least twice a year) to maintain efficiency and hygiene. Expect an additional expense of between 40 and 100 euros per year.
Is it really worth buying?
The answer depends a lot on your home situation. For a studio or two-room apartment with small surfaces, the cost-benefit ratio is difficult to justify: traditional vacuum cleaners and mops, although requiring more effort, cost much less and are equally effective.
The situation changes if you have large surfaces of hard floors to clean frequently: in that case the saving of time and effort becomes concrete, and the initial investment can be repaid in the long term.
How the test was conducted
The experts analyzed 12 models from the main brands in the sector: Rowenta, Dyson, Tineco, Dreame, Roborock, Electrolux, Bissell, Shark, Hoover, Kärcher, Philips and Essentielb. The criteria evaluated were numerous:
To give a realistic benchmark, testers also replicated the same dry egg yolk removal test with a classic Vileda microfiber mop, which took 14 vigorous passes with hot water and detergent to remove it. The best devices tested achieved similar results, but with significantly less physical effort.
