Compare Yeedi C12 Pro Plus Robot Vacuum and Mop vs Roborock S8 Pro Ultra Robot Vacuum and Mop

Fresh liquid pickup was praised, with reviewers reporting strong results on Diet Coke, wet coffee, soda, milk, and similar spills.

Fresh spill pickup was poor in TechRadar testing because larger wet messes were spread rather than removed cleanly.

Scratch resistance had limited but positive evidence from one reviewer who said it did not scratch wooden surfaces.

Scratch resistance was a notable concern in PCMag testing after laminate scratches persisted even with a replacement mop pad.

Surface safety evidence was limited but positive, with one reviewer using it on wood and pool-table felt without scratching.

Surface safety was a concern because one reviewer saw laminate scratches and advised caution with scrub intensity.

Self-cleaning was a clear limitation because the dock does not wash or dry the mop pad.

The self-cleaning cycle was one of the strongest themes, with repeated praise for washing, drying, refilling, and auto-emptying.

The lack of mop lifting was a drawback because it required manual module changes or caused carpet/rug avoidance.

The mop-lifting system was widely praised for keeping many carpets dry and enabling combined vacuum-mop runs, with plush rugs as the caveat.

Large debris handling was positive where tested, including cat food and similar larger particles.

Large debris and tough mess handling was mixed: cereal and rice were easy, but concentrated spills or tough spots required manual help.

The floorhead/collection design received positive evidence for separating pet hair from finer debris in the bagless bin system.

The dual-roller floorhead was considered anti-climactic by Vacuum Wars because it did not translate into standout carpet deep-cleaning.

Low-profile performance was limited by the raised laser/navigation bump, which prevented cleaning under some sofas or lower edges.

Its height still allowed cleaning under most furniture in one review.

Stuck resistance was a recurring concern, especially around socks, cords, flip-flops, table legs, toys, and cluttered family environments.

Stuck resistance was highly split, ranging from never-stuck results to repeated cord, rug, and tight-space failures.

Value-for-money evidence was strongly positive, with reviewers describing the feature set and performance as above average for the cost.

Value-for-money was split; high automation impressed some reviewers, but comparative and price-focused reviews questioned the premium.

Dried-on stain performance was strong, with reviewers reporting good results on dried coffee and other stuck-on messes, usually with one or more passes.

Dried-on stain results ranged from excellent in Vacuum Wars mopping tests to poor in heavy yogurt/honey-style mess tests.

The dock was praised for not taking up much space, helped by the lack of water reservoirs in the base.

The dock footprint was a drawback; reviewers repeatedly called it bigger, bulky, massive, or hard to place in small spaces.

Maintenance requirements were manageable but real: reviewers mentioned mop-pad washing, filter cleaning, hair untangling, floor prep, and occasional deep cleaning.

Maintenance was a standout strength because the dock handles frequent tasks, though reviewers still noted occasional part cleaning and consumables.

Obstacle avoidance was the most consistent weakness, with repeated complaints about cords, socks, bottles, small objects, and simulated pet messes.

Obstacle avoidance drew the most mixed evidence: some tests were excellent, while others showed cords, mugs, remotes, or tight spots causing issues.

Value was a major strength across reviews, especially at sale prices, with many saying it delivers strong cleaning and features for a mid-tier or budget-friendly price.

Price sentiment was mixed-to-negative: reviewers called it expensive, sometimes worth it, but not always the best value against alternatives.

Swapping the vacuum-only and mop modules was the main tool-change complaint, with several reviewers calling the extra handling cumbersome or inconvenient.

Tool changes were mixed: brushroll hair cleanup was easy, but changing the non-detachable mop cloth was more awkward.

The bagless/self-empty bin was one of the strongest points, praised for easy emptying, reduced bag buying, and large practical capacity.

The bag system worked well with official bags, but a reviewer warned that poor-fitting third-party bags could disrupt auto-emptying.

Large hard-floor debris intake was strong in tests involving cereal, rice, crackers, or general spills.

Large debris pickup on hard floors was generally good for oats, cereal, and rice, though not perfect in every test.

Smart/app/automation evidence was mixed: scheduling, mapping, zones, and smart-home links were useful, but voice support and app depth lagged higher-end robots.

The app, maps, schedules, routines, assistants, and customization were consistently praised, with minor learning-curve or finicky-map caveats.

Noise was a weakness: reviewers described louder operation, distracting mechanical sounds, or above-average decibel results, even when some found it tolerable.

Cleaning noise was acceptable to good in some modes, but higher suction and dock emptying could be intrusive.

Bagless operation was repeatedly praised for lowering consumable costs and avoiding replacement dust bags.

Ongoing costs were softened by generic consumables in one review, though bags, filters, and mop cloths remain required.

Under-furniture pickup was weak where reviewed because the raised navigation dome or circular bump could prevent access under low furniture.

Under-furniture pickup was mixed because the robot fit under most furniture but missed crumbs under low cabinets.

Floor-shine evidence was limited but positive, with one reviewer praising spotless, shiny floors.

Some reviewers described shiny or sparkling floors after cleaning, especially when mopping worked well.

Area rug handling was mixed: the robot avoided wetting rugs in mop mode, but that also meant rug areas could be skipped unless the module was swapped.

Rug handling was mixed: mop lifting kept many rugs dry, but plush carpets, loose tassels, and high-pile edge cases remained concerns.

Runtime feedback was strong, with testers citing long claimed runtime and above-average battery results.

Runtime was generally good and often around 130 minutes, though max suction, carpet boost, and large homes reduce it.

Battery feedback was strong, with reviewers reporting long runtime, accurate estimates, and enough charge for large cleaning sessions.

Battery life was generally adequate to good, with recharge-and-resume helping, but carpet boost and large runs could require recharging.

Liquid-system comments were positive where reviewed, with the detachable/fillable tank considered easy to handle and wash.

The liquid system was useful and efficient, but reviewers noted proprietary-solution guidance, water-only use, and non-removable tank quirks.

Reviewers consistently praised the suction as unusually strong for the price, with good hard-floor, pet-hair, and carpet cleanup; one test source still found embedded debris left behind.

Suction was generally powerful in real use, but Vacuum Wars measured lower suction and airflow than expected.

Low-pile carpet pickup was generally solid but not flawless, with strong results after higher suction and some remaining embedded debris in another test.

Low-pile and general carpet pickup were usually strong, though one comparative test still found small debris left behind.

Docking and auto-empty reliability was mixed: auto-emptying often worked well, but several reviewers said the robot could take too long or struggle to find the dock.

Dock reliability was mostly strong, especially auto-empty and self-cleaning, though one comparison criticized the S8 Pro dock design and one owner had an emptying failure.

Dock noise was mixed: one reviewer called emptying loud, while another found the self-emptying volume tolerable.

Dock noise was a repeated concern; reviewers often found auto-emptying loud or startling even when normal cleaning noise was acceptable.

Bag/full visibility was positive where mentioned, with the transparent bin making fullness easy to monitor.

One reviewer found the bin-full alert useful as part of the low-touch cleaning routine.

Build quality received limited but positive evidence, with one reviewer describing the plastic body as sturdy enough for normal bumps.

The water tanks were described as solid and durable in one review.

Crevice/groove pickup had limited mixed evidence because grout cracks still needed human intervention.

Crevice pickup was weak in Vacuum Wars testing, while one review only found suction generally effective rather than exceptional in grooves.

Weight evidence was limited and negative, with one reviewer finding the unit hefty to lift.

Weight was a practical drawback at delivery and setup because the box was described as massive and extremely heavy.

Versatility was valued because the robot combines vacuuming, mopping, zone cleaning, and multiple app-controlled cleaning modes.

Versatility was strong, with reviewers praising vacuuming, mopping, combined cleaning, room modes, and multi-surface use.

Clogging and debris-prevention feedback was mixed: socks or brush issues could interrupt cleaning, although this was not universal.

Clog and debris prevention was a weakness in several reviews, especially with cables, cords, and dust clumps around the rollers.

Floor drying was a strength, with reviewers praising quick-drying mops and dry surfaces after wet cleanup.

Floors generally dried quickly after mopping, and the hot-air dryer left the mop pad dry between cleanings.

Edge-following accuracy was mostly positive for staying close to furniture, walls, and edges, though one source questioned whether avoidance was deliberate.

Edge-following accuracy was mostly good, with reviewers noting wall-hugging and precise lines, even when other navigation issues appeared.

Fine-dust hard-floor evidence was split: one reviewer said superfine grounds cleaned perfectly, while another measured weaker hard-floor pickup.

Hard-floor fine-dust pickup was strong in lab-style tests, but one home test found flour smearing under certain settings.

Pet-related feedback was mostly positive for fur pickup and pet-household upkeep, though obstacle avoidance around pet messes was a recurring caveat.

Pet-readiness was supported by good pet-hair pickup, pet-mode features, and reviewers with dogs or cats finding daily shedding manageable.

Cleaning convenience was a major positive: reviewers liked scheduled upkeep, less babysitting, and easier daily floor maintenance despite prep needs.

Overall convenience was the core strength, with reviewers repeatedly describing near-hands-off cleaning and reduced floor-care effort.

Packaging drew positive or acceptable feedback, with one reviewer praising protection and another accepting the basic box as a cost-saving tradeoff.

Packaging was described as neat and protective in one unboxing review.

Hair-wrap resistance was mostly praised, especially the anti-tangle roller, but long pet hair or side brushes still caused occasional manual cleanup.

Hair-tangle performance was mostly positive thanks to rubber dual rollers, though some tests still found tangles or middling rankings.

Maneuverability evidence was limited but positive, with the robot clearing room thresholds after some effort.

Maneuverability was mostly strong across floor types and tricky spaces, but one review reported getting stuck in odd places.

Design impressions were generally positive for the bold dock, matte finish, and elegant look, though the clear dustbin and black finish made dirt or hair more visible.

Design reactions were mostly positive for a sleek look, though dock styling was considered less living-room-friendly by one reviewer.

Heavy-duty suitability was limited: reviewers framed it as an upkeep helper rather than a deep-clean replacement or high-chaos household solution.

Heavy-duty suitability was limited; reviewers found it good for daily needs but weak on larger, concentrated messes.

Mapping was one of the most praised features, especially fast and accurate maps, though a few reviewers found navigation or room editing weaker.

Mapping and path efficiency were usually excellent, fast, and accurate, but one reviewer had room-division and map-editing problems.

Most reviewers found the controls and app easy or helpful, but some reported confusing setup prompts, language glitches, or limited map controls.

Controls and UI were a strength overall, with praise for customization and scheduling, though map editing and some settings took effort to learn.

Hard-floor hair pickup was usually praised, especially in homes with pets, though one reviewer still reported tangling on a side brush.

Hard-floor hair and dirt pickup was strong in owner-style reviews, especially for cat fur, dust, and uneven floors.

Residue/streaking feedback was mixed: one reviewer saw few/no traces, while another noted occasional sticky areas.

Residue and streaking evidence was mixed: floor-direction mopping was promising, but some heavy messes smeared.

Emptying and mess control were strongly positive overall, with easy bin release and effective auto-emptying; one reviewer noted it was not fully no-touch.

Auto-empty mess control was usually excellent, but one reviewer experienced dust trailing after an incomplete emptying event.

Setup and assembly were broadly praised as fast and approachable, with only a few reports of pairing confusion or patience needed during app setup.

Setup was broadly described as simple, easy, painless, or remarkably straightforward across hands-on reviews.

Edge and baseboard cleaning ranged from weak mopping edges to good fur pickup near baseboards, making this a mixed attribute.

Baseboard and edge cleaning was mixed, with strong side-brush comments from one review and missed wall-side crumbs from another.

The water tank was considered workable and easy enough to handle, though one tester noted capacity was slightly below average and another emphasized the need to swap/fill it.

The water tanks were mostly praised for capacity and ease, though the robot’s onboard tank and mop were criticized as non-removable.

Innovation evidence centered on the vibrating mop, which one reviewer said stands out against same-price competitors.

Reviewers often framed the S8 Pro Ultra as highly advanced or innovative, though long-term and comparative reviews noted some regressions.

Comparative performance was favorable for price and suction, though lab-style testing found overall cleaning solid rather than exceptional.

Comparisons were split: some reviews rated it better than older or newer models in areas like mopping or navigation, while others preferred alternatives for value or obstacle avoidance.

Overall sentiment was positive but qualified: reviewers liked the cleaning/value package while repeatedly noting quirks around obstacles, edges, noise, or mop maintenance.

Overall opinion was positive but not unanimous: most reviewers praised it as advanced and capable, while some criticized price, obstacle avoidance, or design quirks.

Ease of use was praised by lifestyle reviewers who felt it reduced chores and simplified routine floor upkeep.

Ease of use was a major strength, driven by automated maintenance, app control, and low-effort daily cleaning.

Mopping performance was generally good to excellent for maintenance and stains, though a few reviewers preferred higher-end self-cleaning mop systems.

Mopping was generally strong for daily cleaning and light stains, but results dropped with heavy spills, tougher stains, or one-pass comparison tests.

Corner cleaning was mixed, from missed pet fluff and coffee grounds to near-perfect results after a second pass.

Corner performance was mixed: one reviewer praised side-brush edge and corner cleaning, while another found crumbs left near the wall.

Reviewers wanted more included extras: one noted only an extra dust bag, another said the box lacked spare mop or HEPA filter, and one mentioned proprietary solution separately.

The liftable brush and mop mechanisms were viewed positively because they move out of the way for mopping, carpet avoidance, and surface changes.

High-pile carpet pickup was above average in one test, but plush carpeting raised concerns because the fixed mop mount may still contact rugs.

Medium-pile deep cleaning was mixed: one review called it above average but unimpressive, while another found the S8 Pro near the top in a flour test.

Maintenance indicators were useful, with app tracking for parts, replacement timing, and estimated wear.

Dust containment was mixed: one review found the internal bin nearly empty after auto-emptying, while another saw dust and litter left behind.

Hair removal from the brush area was easier than usual because removable brush ends let tangled hair slide off.

Carpet hair pickup was good overall, including pet fur, though not always the best in class.

The hot-air drying element was valued for helping prevent smells, bacteria buildup, and damp mop issues.

Kid-friendliness was positive where mentioned, mostly as a daily cleanup helper for busy families or homes with children and crawling babies.

Odor control was a strength when the mop dryer worked, but dirty water still needed timely emptying and rinsing.

Onboard storage was a weakness where mentioned because there was no built-in place for the spare vacuum piece.

One six-month reviewer reported daily use with impressive low-touch dustbin maintenance.

Privacy was a tradeoff: losing the RGB camera and microphone eased concerns for some but removed remote monitoring.

Software support was mixed: one issue seemed firmware-fixable and one pathing bug improved, but map transfer limitations remained.

Small-space suitability was poor mainly because the docking station is large and can be an eyesore.

Reliability evidence was mixed: one reviewer found it efficient and reliable, while another felt it fell short of expectations.