Compare Roomba i5+ Combo Robot Vacuum and Mop vs Roborock S8 MaxV Ultra Robot Vacuum and Mop

The included command card was described positively as a useful reference for Rocky voice commands.

Adaptive floor contact and chassis behavior scored well because reviewers described uneven-floor adjustment and wheels that climb carpet.

Design impressions were positive, with reviewers liking the textured finish, clean-looking top, and overall appearance after use.

Design impressions were strongly positive, with reviewers praising the aesthetics of both the robot and dock.

Smart features were polarizing: reviewers liked routines, mapping, and app use, but also criticized missing AI detection, no-go zones, and wet-bin detection failures.

Smart features and automation were a highlight, including top feature scoring, integrations, app reliability, and rich customization.

Area-rug handling was split: wheels were praised for climbing carpet, but mopping was cautioned for homes with rugs or carpets.

Area-rug handling was strong in reviews that praised carpet/rug settings and hard-floor/rug cleaning behavior.

Setup was strongly praised in one review for being easy to unbox, connect, and pair with the app.

Setup was consistently easy, with reviewers describing app pairing, assembly, and first setup as straightforward.

Battery and charging were acceptable in one review because recharge-and-resume reduced the practical impact of runtime limits.

Battery evidence was middling: one test reached 101 minutes before returning to charge, behind some high-end competitors.

Bag and bin feedback was positive because the self-emptying setup reduced bin handling and the bag design was described as sealed.

The dust bag system was viewed as a major convenience, with self-emptying described as the preferred approach.

Build quality was mixed-to-negative: reviewers noted no hardware upgrade and one brush failure, while another felt the bumper could handle impacts.

Build/design detail was praised, with one reviewer saying the small details felt carefully considered.

High-pile/deep-pile carpet pickup was praised strongly in Lifehacker's home testing.

Carpet pickup was highly inconsistent: one comparison test put it near the bottom, while other reviewers praised carpet cleaning and deep-cleaning results.

Medium/generic carpet pickup was mixed-to-good: comparative tests showed good but not class-leading pickup, including flour/sand limitations.

Clog handling received a positive maintenance note because the base could be opened for self-empty clog access.

Debris-prevention evidence was positive but qualified: it could keep working through small foreign objects, though rollers still sometimes needed clearing.

Comparative performance was mostly unfavorable, with the i5+ described as worse in a budget roundup, very similar to the I3, or behind Narwal overall.

Comparative performance was mixed: it topped one 2024 scorecard, but another Roborock-only test favored cheaper models overall.

Controls and UI were sharply mixed: several reviewers found the app easy and enjoyable, but one found the Roomba app buggy and map-forgetting.

Controls and UI were broadly liked for intuitive apps and rich options, though Rocky and remote video had wording and quality limits.

Cord management was positive because the base includes channels that route the cord neatly.

Cord management was praised because the dock provided a neat place to wrap the cord.

Corner cleaning was largely positive thanks to edge-reaching arms and carpet-corner performance.

Auto-empty reliability was mixed: one comparison found debris left behind, while other reviews praised the base as a time saver; one wet-bin case created a serious failure.

Auto-empty reliability was a weak spot in one comparative test, where debris remained in the robot after emptying.

Dock noise was a caveat because the self-emptying cycle was described as jet-engine loud, even if brief and infrequent.

Dock noise was a drawback because drying noise was noticeable and louder than one household wanted nearby.

Dried-on or sticky mess performance was weak because the mop was not expected to handle sticky messes or ground-in stains.

Dried-on stain evidence was strong in Lifehacker's use, though stubborn stains could still require an extra pass.

Ease of use was strong in the positive reviews, especially for room-by-room cleaning and app pairing.

Ease of use was strongly positive, with owner-style reviewers calling it a pleasure and praising the app.

Hard-floor edge/baseboard cleaning was split: some reviewers praised edge reach, while one ketchup test left cabinet-edge residue.

Edge-following accuracy was only moderate: it avoided wall impacts well but still created baseboard brush marks.

Emptying and mess control ranged from poor dense-debris clearing in one test to strong self-emptying convenience in everyday use.

Emptying and mess control was mixed: a comparative test left debris in the bin, but the bagged self-emptying system was praised for convenience.

Dust containment was positive in the auto-empty particle test because the non-Switchbot vacuums, including the i5+ group, showed no particle increase.

Dust containment was praised because the self-emptying bag seals dust after removal, useful for sensitive sinuses.

Floorhead feedback was split between a brush failure complaint and praise for rubber rollers that pick up debris well.

Floorhead design had a notable flaw in PCMag's mopping stress test because brush lifting did not work effectively.

Hair-removal channel behavior improved over a prior S8 but still sometimes required roller clearing.

Carpet hair pickup was split: one comparison found it left the most hair, while another praised the dual rubber rollers for hair-heavy homes.

Carpet pet-hair pickup was strong in the comparative test, leaving only a single dense clump.

Hard-floor hair pickup was positive in one review that specifically praised light pet-hair handling on hardwood floors.

Hard-floor hair pickup was positive in the pet-home review, where the S8 avoided clump-leaving issues seen on another robot.

Tangle resistance was mixed-to-positive: one reviewer noted periodic hair clearing, while another called the anti-tangling system among the best.

Hair-wrap resistance was the biggest cleaning weakness, with one test stopping the robot and another Roborock comparison ranking it poorly, despite PCMag's better experience.

Hard-floor fine-dust pickup was mixed: some reviews reported strong dust pickup, while one hard-floor experience stayed dirty after cleaning.

Fine-dust hard-floor pickup was inconsistent: one test was decent, PCMag found poor relative performance, and Lifehacker was impressed in home use.

Large hard-floor debris pickup was generally positive, including 97.2% test pickup and praise for handling fine-to-large debris.

Large hard-floor debris handling was mixed, with one broad test positive but PCMag reporting rice and sand scatter.

Headlights were noted as useful during dark-area cleaning and navigation.

The dock heating systems were praised through hot-air drying that helped prevent musty odors, supporting a high heating-element score.

Innovation scored low because reviewers said it was not built around the best tech and felt years behind competitors.

Innovation evidence was positive where the extending edge arms were described as a major leap forward for reaching walls and toe kicks.

Large debris handling was positive in reviews that said suction or the cleaning system could pick up larger objects and debris.

Large-debris handling was positive in Lifehacker's experience because the robot could keep working after encountering foreign objects.

Low-profile design was positive because the robot was said to reach under many pieces of furniture.

Low-profile design was limited by size; it could not fit between chair legs that a smaller robot could.

Maintenance was mixed: one reviewer warned about regular brush replacement, while another praised easy roller cleaning.

Maintenance requirements were favorable overall, with long water-change intervals and less intervention than many robots.

Maneuverability was weak in the comparison review because the robot was described as clumsily bumping around while navigating.

Mapping and path efficiency were highly mixed, from useful room learning to basic, limited, or worse path planning with no no-go zones.

Mapping and pathing were generally excellent, with app maps, room editing, and self-location all praised.

Mop lifting scored poorly because reviewers described missing mop-lift automation and no reliable carpet awareness during mopping.

Mop lifting was a standout strength, especially in the comparative test where it kept high-pile carpet dry.

Mopping was the main weak spot: reviewers called it basic, carpet-risky, or failed in one case, though one saw it as useful light maintenance.

Mopping performance was highly mixed across tests, from weak dried-mud/jelly results to excellent everyday and stubborn-stain performance.

Noise feedback was mixed: one reviewer called impact noise jarring, while another measured it as roughly typical for robot vacuums.

Noise feedback was acceptable but not silent: one Roborock comparison ranked it well, while another said it was not loud but disruptive for calls.

Obstacle avoidance was a consistent weakness because budget models were described as plowing through objects and the i5+ lacks camera-based avoidance.

Obstacle avoidance was sharply split, ranging from flawless and best-in-test to PCMag's repeated obstacle impacts.

Odor control was poor in one wet-bin failure case where the collection bag and second floor were affected by odor.

Odor control was praised through detergent dispensing and hot-air drying that reduce bacterial growth and musty smells.

Disposable bag ownership costs and upkeep were framed positively because bags were described as cleaner to use and change.

Consumable cost evidence was mildly positive because six dust bags per year was not seen as excessive.

Cleaning convenience was a clear strength when reviewers emphasized not thinking about vacuuming and praised the self-empty base.

Overall cleaning convenience was very strong, with reviewers emphasizing reduced hands-on floor cleaning.

Durability was split: one reviewer had brushes fail quickly, while another said the robot still functioned fine after cosmetic impacts.

Longevity evidence was favorable from an eight-month user who still repeatedly recommended the robot.

Overall opinion was mixed: reviewers ranged from enthusiastic convert to hesitant or disappointed, with the main split around mopping and smart-feature limits.

Overall opinion ranged from cautious to glowing, but most reviews treated it as a highly capable flagship with price and performance tradeoffs.

Packaging was rated positively because the retail box and packaging were described as looking great.

Pet-readiness was positive where reviewers discussed pet hair and hair-heavy households, especially on hard floors and with rubber rollers.

Pet-related evidence was mostly favorable: reviewers liked pet-finding, pet-waste options, and pet-hair pickup, though not every pet interaction was perfect.

Price sentiment was generally favorable at sale or lower pricing, though one reviewer warned it remained a tempered-expectations purchase.

Value was divisive and often price-sensitive: several reviewers criticized the flagship price, while value was defended only when performance and convenience justified it.

Privacy controls were praised for onboard processing, disabled-by-default remote video, camera-password controls, and audible remote-view alerts.

Runtime was mixed: a comparison run used a lot of battery, but other reviewers found recharge behavior or short-use battery status acceptable.

Runtime was acceptable but not exceptional in PCMag's test, ending at 101 minutes before recharge.

Scratch resistance was a concern in one comparative test because the side brushes left swirl marks on white baseboards.

Self-cleaning performance was one of the strongest areas, with praise for hot-water washing, auto detergent, dock cleaning, and mop care.

Software-update support received a positive forward-looking judgment because the reviewer framed updates as a way the product can improve automatically.

Apple Home/Matter support was described as a positive step, though the Roborock app remained the deeper control center.

The liquid system was a repeated weakness due to leaking risk, wet-bin failure, and lack of water-flow controls.

The cleaning-solution system was praised for convenience and for improving mop performance.

The base footprint earned a positive note because the cord routing helped it sit flush against a wall.

Residue control was mixed: one comparative mop test left sticky floors, while PCMag found only limited jelly spread.

Stuck resistance was mixed: PCMag said the second unit did not get stuck, but obstacle struggles still remained.

Reviewers praised the iRobot cleaning system and reported strong deep-cleaning or suction results, including easy handling of fine dust and larger debris.

Reviewers praised the jump in suction and premium cleaning power, with especially strong language from long-term and detailed-use reviews.

Heavy-duty suitability was favorable where reviewers cited strong combined vacuuming and mopping performance.

Small-space suitability was weak because its size kept it from fitting between dining-chair legs that a smaller competitor could handle.

Reliability scored poorly in the ZDNET review because the wet-cleaning function failed and undermined the recommendation.

Reliability evidence was strong in owner-style reviews, including repeated recommendation and confidence based on Roborock experience.

Surface safety evidence was mixed: PCMag saw no scratching on hard floors, but another test reported side-brush swirl marks on white baseboards.

Tool swapping was only lightly positive-to-mixed because the mop attachment could be a little difficult to install when visibility was poor.

Tool-change simplicity had a notable drawback because PCMag listed the non-detachable mop cloth mount as a con.

Under-furniture pickup was positive where the reviewer said the robot had enough reach to get under many furniture pieces.

Under-furniture pickup was praised where the Flexi-arms reached under toe kicks and nearby items that older edge brushes missed.

Value-for-money was strong in sale-price and affordability-focused reviews, especially when the self-emptying feature was considered.

Value-for-money was mixed-to-positive: one guide called it exceptional, while another saw the price as fair only if affordable.

Versatility was positive when reviewers valued the combination of smart mapping, self-emptying, and vacuum-mop use in one robot.

Versatility evidence was favorable because reviewers highlighted the broad configurability of cleaning modes and zones.

The water tank was judged limited in one review because the reviewer described the tank system as not huge.

The clean-water tank was easy to remove and handle, supporting a positive water-tank usability score.

Weight feedback was neutral-to-positive: the robot felt substantial but not overly heavy in handling.