Compare Dyson Ball Animal 2 Upright Vacuum Cleaner vs Shark Navigator Lift-Away Upright Vacuum

Reviewers consistently liked the included tools and attachments, especially when they made hair, upholstery, and detailed cleaning easier.

Attachments are generally useful, with praise for pet, upholstery, crevice, and broad above-floor tools, though one pillow/upholstery test found the brush only okay.

The self-adjusting head earned praise for adapting across floors, but multiple tests found that the same tight seal could hinder large debris or rugs.

Reviewers who commented on looks described the Dyson as cool, futuristic, or one-of-a-kind, with no major finish complaints in the evidence.

Area-rug results were mixed: one owner cleaned small rugs quickly with tools, while testers found strong suction could make rugs unworkable or sticky.

Area rug handling is mixed-to-negative: reviewers note smooth surface transitions, but shag and larger particles can require extra effort.

Assembly evidence was positive, with reviewers describing a simple setup and parts that clicked together easily.

Assembly evidence is limited but favorable, with one test saying the Shark took only a couple of minutes despite needing more assembly than others.

One reviewer liked that the rollers stop in the upright position, framing it as a useful safety behavior around children.

The bagless bin was praised for large capacity and reduced interruptions, though most comments focused on capacity and disposal rather than aesthetics.

The dust cup/bin is usually reviewed positively for capacity, easy emptying, and a straightforward open design, with one sealed-bin test also supporting containment.

Build quality evidence was mixed-positive: some reviewers called the plastics robust and durable, while one disliked a cheap-feeling hose handle.

Build quality is serviceable but not premium; reviewers mention plastic construction as a drawback while also linking it to low weight and price.

High-pile carpet was the clearest cleaning limitation, especially with cereal, rugs, shag, or strong suction pulling the head down.

High-pile carpet and shag rugs are a recurring weakness because the lack of height adjustment makes deep or tall pile harder to handle.

Low-pile and general carpet pickup drew strong praise, with several reviewers reporting excellent or near-record cleaning results.

Low-pile carpet pickup is a strength, with reviewers citing strong low-pile results and best-in-test budget carpet performance.

Medium or thicker-carpet suitability was supported by reviewers who described the wider brush bar and flooring range as appropriate for thicker or medium pile.

Medium-pile/deep carpet evidence is very strong, including perfect-score and deep-clean praise for embedded sand pickup.

Clogging evidence was limited but negative, with reviewers noting occasional dog-hair bin sticking and a narrow tube that could clog on larger items.

Hair-related clogging evidence is weak-to-negative, with one test describing embedded pet hair as prone to clumping.

Comparative performance was strong overall, but not unanimous: some reviews ranked it among the best, while others found cheaper models performed better.

Comparative performance is generally good for the price, but named comparisons show some rivals beat it on hard-floor pickup, suction, or overall score.

Controls were viewed favorably when mentioned, especially suction settings and brush controls that let users adjust spinning or suction behavior.

Controls are simple, with one comparison calling the Navigator simpler than newer Shark models, though fewer advanced settings are available.

Handheld conversion was a weakness because a reviewer noted it cannot become a lightweight handheld unit like some alternatives.

The Lift-Away/portable canister design is a repeated strength, making stairs, furniture, upholstery, and above-floor cleaning easier.

Cord reach was consistently positive where mentioned, with reviewers appreciating the long cord or cable for larger cleaning areas.

Cord length is acceptable-to-good in reviewed variants, with reviewers calling reach good or sufficient.

Crevice and groove pickup was split: one test praised deep crevice pickup, while hard-floor gap and larger-debris tests exposed limitations.

Crevice/groove pickup is a weakness, with multiple reviews reporting struggles in cracks or crevices despite strong suction elsewhere.

Cyclone performance was praised as central to the vacuum’s suction and constant cleaning power.

Cyclone performance has limited but positive evidence, with one review praising cyclonic suction for capturing fine dust and debris.

Ease of use was generally positive, especially for routine movement and cleaning tasks, though weight-related handling complaints appear under other attributes.

Ease of use is mostly positive because of simple operation, light handling, and Lift-Away utility, though pushing can be harder with strong suction.

Edge and baseboard cleaning was praised in test evidence, including near-edge debris collection and edge-to-edge cleaner-head design.

Edge/baseboard cleaning is mixed: one test found no edge issues, another praised head-on edge pickup, while a third said the model struggled.

Emptying and mess control were consistently praised, with several reviewers saying the bin empties easily and keeps hands away from debris.

Emptying is generally easy and clean, but one comparison disliked the two-clip canister removal compared with a one-button Kenmore.

Filtration and containment were strong overall thanks to HEPA or washable filtration, though one lab noted a partly weakened seal on an older unit.

Filtration is one of the strongest points: reviewers repeatedly praise the sealed HEPA system and dust containment for allergy-sensitive homes.

Floorhead design was a tradeoff: reviewers liked the wide, self-adjusting head, but some found it poor with larger debris.

Floorhead design is seen as a strength for budget handling and carpet agitation, though its older/simple geometry contributes to larger-debris limits elsewhere.

Floorhead sealing was mixed-positive, with suction-loss control praised but active-baseplate behavior linked to large-debris problems.

Hair-removal channel evidence is negative because reviewers advise routine roller clearing to avoid hair buildup.

Hair pickup on carpets and pet hair tests was a major strength across lab and owner reviews.

Carpet hair pickup is split: many sources praise pet and long-hair pickup, while one lab test found embedded pet hair mediocre.

Hard-floor hair pickup receives positive evidence where a pet-focused review says the Navigator handled pet hair across carpet and hardwood floors.

Hair-wrap evidence was mixed: pet-hair tools resisted tangling, but one lab measured substantial long-hair wrap on the brush roll.

Hair-wrap resistance is a weakness, with multiple reviews noting long hair tangles or regular brush-roll clearing.

Hard-floor fine-dust pickup was strong in some tests but weaker in floor cracks and gaps.

Hard-floor fine-debris pickup is mixed-to-positive: some reviewers praise hardwood results, while one lab review found sand left behind.

Hard-floor large-debris intake was mixed, ranging from strong cereal pickup to complaints that the head pushed larger debris.

Large-debris hard-floor pickup is mixed: some tests report strong rice/Cheerios pickup, while others say the head pushed or scattered debris.

The lack of LEDs on the floorhead was a clear drawback in the only opinionated evidence for this attribute.

LED/headlight evidence is limited; one comparison noted the Shark lacks a headlight, but also said it was not a major issue for that test.

Hose and wand reach were praised for stairs and above-floor cleaning, though one owner disliked a stiff non-bending section.

Hose and wand reach are common concerns, with several reviews saying the hose or wand is shorter than ideal.

Innovation evidence centered on Dyson’s ball and self-adjusting systems, which reviewers called distinctive or inventive, but sometimes with practical tradeoffs.

Competitive design evidence is positive because reviewers describe sealed filtration at this price as rare and the budget design as unusually enduring.

Kid-friendliness evidence was positive, with one household reporting children enjoyed using the tools and another praising upright roller safety.

Low-profile cleaning was a repeated weakness because the ball and bulk limited reach under furniture and tight areas.

Low-profile design is mixed; it can help around furniture but can also bump into overhanging objects or struggle with taller debris.

Maintenance was considered straightforward, especially because filters can be washed and routine cleaning tasks are easy to access.

Maintenance is mixed: the canister and parts are easy to maintain, but hair wrap and regular upkeep remain necessary.

Maneuverability was polarizing: the ball design helped turning, but weight and suction made some users work harder.

Maneuverability is mostly praised for swivel steering, light weight, and easy handling, though one test found it stiffer than higher-end uprights.

Noise opinions varied sharply, from quiet and acceptable in some reviews to loud or noisy in others.

Noise is generally acceptable for a corded upright, with some tests calling it relatively quiet, though one comparison still described both vacuums as fairly loud.

Onboard tool storage was praised when mentioned, especially the integrated storage for upright accessories.

Ongoing ownership costs were favorable because the vacuum is bagless and uses washable or reusable filters.

Durability and longevity evidence was positive, with reviewers citing long-term use, flagship status, or confidence from warranty/build quality.

Long-term sentiment is strong because the NV352 is repeatedly described as having stood the test of time despite newer competitors.

Overall opinion was mixed-to-positive: many reviewers loved the cleaning power, but some rejected it over price, weight, or handling.

Overall sentiment is positive: reviewers call it a strong budget performer, an excellent deal, and a time-tested model, with some caveats.

Pet-ready performance was a strong point, with pet hair and upholstery hair pickup repeatedly praised, though one turbine-tool comment was critical.

Pet-hair opinions are mixed: several sources praise pet pickup and pet tools, while others report mediocre embedded fur pickup or missing powered pet attachments.

Value was the main split: some reviewers said the power justified the price, while others called it too expensive or best only on sale.

Value is a major strength: many reviews call it affordable, a budget standout, or an excellent deal given its suction, filtration, and lift-away design.

Stair cleaning was generally strong because of long hose and wand reach, though one review cited moving the heavy unit as cumbersome.

Stair cleaning benefits from Lift-Away portability and handheld use, with several reviewers specifically praising stairs or portable above-floor reach.

Upright-stand stability and storage were weak spots, with multiple reviewers describing bulk or difficulty getting the vacuum to stay upright.

Storage footprint evidence is positive because one review calls it compact and far less bulky than most upright vacuums.

Stuck resistance evidence was negative, focused on area rugs and mats that strong suction could grab or lift.

Suction was the strongest consensus attribute, repeatedly praised as exceptional, powerful, or among the strongest tested.

Reviewers consistently describe strong suction and airflow, especially for a budget upright, though one direct comparison measured weaker suction than a Kenmore rival.

Heavy-duty suitability was mixed: reviewers admired its power for busy homes, but some found it impractical for varied carpets or prolonged whole-house use.

Heavy-duty evidence is limited but positive, with one review calling it a no-frills workhorse when given extra passes and basic maintenance.

Small-space suitability was poor because the large ball and bulky body made tight spaces and storage harder.

Small-space suitability is positive where reviewers call it compact and less bulky than most upright vacuums.

Support and reliability evidence was positive, driven by the five-year warranty and reviewer confidence in coverage.

Support and reliability evidence is positive where reviewers note replacement-part availability and a five-year warranty adding long-term value.

Surface-safety evidence was positive where mentioned, especially the ability to stop the brush bar on hard floors or delicate rugs.

Tool changes were generally described as easy, with attachments clicking on, staying secure, or being simple to use.

Tool-change and lift-away button convenience drew criticism in a head-to-head comparison, where the controls were described as less convenient than Kenmore.

Under-furniture pickup was mixed-to-negative; wand/tools helped some users, but the bulky ball limited precision and low-clearance reach.

Under-furniture pickup is limited; one review specifically noted the Navigator could not fully reach under chairs.

Above-floor and upholstery cleaning was a strength because the wand, hose, and attachments were useful on sofas, stairs, furniture, and high areas.

Above-floor and upholstery pickup are broadly positive, especially with Lift-Away and pet tools, but one test found tougher cushion cleaning required effort.

Versatility was strong for tool-based cleaning, although one professional review noted it was less versatile than some uprights.

Versatility is a major consensus strength because the vacuum handles carpets, hard floors, stairs, upholstery, and handheld tasks with multiple tools.

Weight was one of the most repeated drawbacks, with reviewers calling it heavy or difficult to lug, despite some tool-based workarounds.

Weight is a strength for this upright class, though one pet-hair roundup still considered a related Navigator Professional slightly heavy.