Compare Roborock QV 35A Robot Vacuum and Mop vs Roborock Q Revo Pro Robot Vacuum and Mop

Edge-following accuracy earns a positive test result for going right up to an edge without hassle.

Edge-following accuracy was weak in the lab test because navigation kept the robot from getting close enough to wall-edge debris.

Carpet hair pickup is weak in the available carpet test, where it struggled to lift hair from carpet.

Carpet pet-hair pickup was strong in lab testing and significantly above the reviewer's testing average.

Docking and auto-empty reliability are positive in the available tests, including successful emptying after cleaning.

Docking and auto-empty reliability were the main weakness, including docking issues and repeated dustbin auto-empty failures.

Emptying and mess control are positive, with reviewers reporting automated maintenance and successful dust-bin emptying.

Emptying and mess control were a repeated concern because the onboard dustbin sometimes failed to empty itself.

Setup earns very strong praise, with reviewers calling installation and Wi-Fi/app setup simple.

Initial setup was a weak spot, with mapping taking several attempts despite the physical setup being easy.

Stuck resistance is mixed: it generally navigates well, but reviewers warn that cables and floor clutter still need prep.

Stuck resistance was consistently strong in hands-on use, with reviewers saying it did not get stuck.

Reliability and support are viewed positively overall, with reliable operation and decent support but slower service noted in context.

Reliability concerns centered on unresolved auto-empty behavior that led the reviewer to suggest contacting Roborock customer service.

Corner cleaning is only average because reviewers say corners are just okay and note the lack of extending pads or brushes.

Corner cleaning evidence was favorable where the reaching mop was observed working along walls and corners.

Comparative performance is strong for the price, with reviewers saying it keeps up with higher models in key everyday areas.

Comparative evidence was mixed to negative overall: objective debris was above average in one test, but a tier list ranked Q Revo Pro poorly.

The rubber floorhead design is viewed positively because it is easy to clean.

Floorhead design drew criticism because the vacuum side brush could not extend like the mop pad.

Build quality earns a positive note from the same manufacturing praise, but evidence is limited to one hands-on review.

Build quality was rated very highly, with the robot described as well-designed and well-crafted.

Hard-floor hair pickup is generally strong, with reviewers saying it got most long hairs and performed amazingly on hard floors.

Hard-floor hair pickup was split between perfect measured removal and a tier-list result where hair barely reached the dustbin.

Hard-floor large debris intake is strong, with food debris mostly picked up on the first pass and finished by later passes.

Large hard-floor debris handling was only moderate in the tier-list test, with cornflake and oatmeal left behind.

Innovation is viewed as strong value-driven trickle-down tech, though one reviewer notes it is not the cutting-edge flagship design.

The Pro mopping features were viewed as meaningful improvements that helped offset missing higher-end sonic mopping.

Overall sentiment is positive across the reviews, centered on strong value, capable cleaning, and a polished app despite budget tradeoffs.

Overall opinion was divided: most hands-on reviews ended positive, while the tier-list review ranked Q Revo Pro poorly.

High-pile or deep carpet pickup is mixed: suction is respectable, but reviewers say it lacks deep penetration and cannot replace upright vacuuming.

High-pile carpet pickup was limited; the lab review said it should not be the sole solution for thicker carpets.

Edge cleaning is mixed: it can track along an edge well, but lacks extendable edge hardware found on higher models.

Edge and baseboard results were sharply mixed: the extending mop impressed some reviewers, while lab edge-debris pickup was very poor.

Under-furniture pickup is positive but limited to furniture with enough clearance.

Under-furniture and overhang cleaning were strengths, driven by the extending mop’s reach under cabinets and overhangs.

The onboard dust bin is praised as relatively large for a newer robot vacuum design.

Bag replacement was described as occasional and very easy, making the bag system straightforward in the reviewed use.

Mapping and route efficiency are among the strongest areas, with repeated praise for accurate maps, straight lines, and efficient coverage.

Mapping and path evidence was mixed, with strong app/map tools but early mapping failures in one lab review.

Suction is viewed as good enough for daily use and strong for the price, though not a dramatic upgrade over close budget models.

Reviewers agreed suction is workable but not premium; carpet passes and final debris removal could be good, while first-pass pickup lagged higher-suction bots.

Obstacle avoidance is mixed: larger objects are handled well, but cables and low objects remain a repeated weakness.

Obstacle avoidance was mixed but mostly usable: it avoided many household obstacles, yet smaller remotes and cables remained difficult.

Heavy-duty mess handling is limited; reviewers say huge muddy messes are outside what this robot should be expected to clean fully.

Heavy-duty suitability was limited by weaker first-pass pickup and confusion on challenging debris tests.

Hard-floor fine debris pickup is excellent in tests, including a tile run that left no crumbs behind.

Hard-floor fine debris pickup was mixed: lab testing found the floor visibly clean, while a tier test saw small leftovers.

The finish and manufacturing are described positively, with one reviewer calling them neat and nice.

Design impressions were positive, emphasizing a nice-looking station and decor-friendly appearance.

Area rug handling is positive because the mop pads lift and avoid dragging wet pads on carpet or rugs.

Rug handling was mostly positive due to mop lifting, but one reviewer found mopping around rugs only okay.

Maintenance is a strong point, especially the removable dock tray, washable parts, and easy access for cleaning.

Maintenance requirements were low overall due to self-maintenance, mop washing/drying, and limited recurring purchases.

The mop-lifting system is positive for short-pile carpet and rugs because it keeps wet pads from dragging.

Mop lifting was consistently useful for carpet and rug protection, with reviewers noting automatic lift behavior.

Large debris handling on hard floors is positive in one food-debris test, where two passes picked everything up.

Large-debris handling was ultimately good in final results, although one comparative test still found small leftovers.

Reviewers frame price as a major strength, especially below $500, though one says the deal improves when it drops lower.

Value impressions were mostly positive at sale or midrange pricing, though the product still needs context against cheaper alternatives.

Ease of use is strong, with reviewers highlighting simple setup and a good overall user experience.

Ease of use was positive, with a user-friendly app and floor-cleaning controls that felt approachable.

Dock noise is rated positively in hands-on reviews, with auto-empty and drying described as not very loud or quiet.

Dock noise evidence was positive from the quick review, which described emptying as relatively quiet.

Streaking and residue are mixed, with repeated smearing noted after muddy paw-print mopping.

Residue evidence was mixed in one test, where smearing appeared during a large muddy mess before later passes improved it.

Mopping performance is good for routine cleaning and dried stains, but less ideal for severe muddy messes or perfect residue-free results.

Mopping performance was strongly split: most reviews praised the mop, but one tier test found weak one-pass stain removal.

Noise levels are praised in the dock/drying context, with reviewers saying it is hard to hear.

Noise was a strength across reviews, with one reviewer calling it relatively quiet and another ranking Q Revo Pro quietest among tested Roborocks.

Value-for-money is the clearest consensus strength, especially when the robot is discounted into the $350-$500 range.

Value-for-money evidence was strong at discounted or reasonable pricing, especially in the hands-on reviews.

Overall cleaning convenience is strong because the dock automates maintenance and the robot can handle routine vacuuming and mopping.

Cleaning convenience was strong because self-emptying, washing, drying, and final floor cleanliness reduced hands-on work.

Versatility is praised because the robot can switch between vacuuming, mopping, and combined vacuum-mop cleaning modes.

Versatility was supported by whole-home vacuum-and-mop use at a decent price.

The self-cleaning mop cycle is a clear strength, with reviewers praising the dock's ability to wash pads effectively.

Self-cleaning was a strength, with mop rewashing, washing, drying, and extra cleaning when pads were dirty.

Hair-wrap resistance is mixed: some design choices help, but multiple hands-on tests still found hair wrap on the roller.

Tangle resistance was mixed: one lab result found only modest tangling, while a tier test ranked Q Revo Pro poorly; another reviewer said it avoided tangles well.

Dried-on stain removal is a strength in the tests, including maple syrup and dried coffee on hard flooring.

Dried or targeted spill evidence was positive, with both article and video review describing strong spill-cleaning performance.

The onboard water tank and water-flow control are praised for keeping mop pads wet and improving everyday mopping.

The water system was praised for large clean/dirty tanks and automatic refilling that helps the mop operate semi-autonomously.

Low-pile carpet pickup is positive in the available carpet food-debris test, especially after a second pass.

Low-pile carpet pickup was generally good but not flawless, especially with granular debris.

Controls and app UI are consistently praised for customization, room/zones controls, and an easy interface.

Controls and UI were praised for a simple app experience, easy controls, and drag-and-drop map editing.

Smart features, mapping, app controls, scheduling, routines, and automation are repeatedly praised as polished and full-featured.

Smart features and automation were clear strengths, especially app customization, schedules, mapping, dirt detection, and zone controls.

Threshold and chassis handling are rated well, with reviewers noting it can cross half-inch-plus and 3/4-inch transitions.

Battery and charging impressions were positive, with reviewers saying battery life could cover the whole house.

Clogging evidence was negative: a full onboard dustbin appeared to impede suction during testing.

Crevice pickup was excellent in lab testing, with no debris found in the test crevice afterward.

Dirty-water detection was praised as impressive because it triggered extra cleaning behavior after dirty mop washing.

Auto-empty dust containment gets a strong but narrow positive note for preventing dust from escaping around the bag during suction.

Drying performance is a recurring compromise because it uses room-temperature air and takes hours to dry the pads.

Fresh large liquid or spill pickup is a poor fit because reviewers say robot vac-mops are not engineered to suck up big wet spills.

Hair-removal channel design is positive because hair that reaches the ends is described as easy to remove.

Handling over thresholds receives positive evidence from a tested 3/4-inch transition.

Odor control is a weak point because dirty water tanks and wet pads can stink if not emptied or dried promptly.

Ownership cost evidence was favorable because the main recurring purchase identified was replacement debris bags.

Durability evidence centered on sturdy construction, with thick, durable-feeling plastic noted in the build assessment.

Pet evidence was mixed: lab testing showed strong pet-hair removal, but one reviewer warned heavy pet-hair homes may prefer anti-tangle DuoRoller models.

Runtime evidence was favorable because the battery handled whole-home cleaning in hands-on use.

The liquid system was mixed: reviewers liked adjustable waterflow, but one specifically wanted a dedicated solution tank.

The dock and robot were viewed as reasonably compact and able to blend into decor rather than dominating a room.