Compare Dyson Ball Animal 2 Upright Vacuum Cleaner vs Kenmore Bagless Upright Vacuum Lift

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

Attachments were viewed positively when reviewers saw the pet tool pick up hair, called the attachment set useful, or described the HandiMate as good for upholstery and tight areas.

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.

Lift-up or Lift Away-style functionality was repeatedly praised for changing the vacuum into a more flexible room, stair, and above-floor tool.

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.

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

Setup was praised in one hands-on review as very easy.

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 bin was described as large enough and easy to open, supporting solid scores for everyday debris handling.

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

Build impressions were split between well-built praise in test reviews and severe owner complaints about cracking and broken parts.

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

High-pile carpet evidence was limited to one hands-on review but positive for removing cat hair and ingrained dirt.

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

Low-pile carpet pickup was generally strong, including effective brush-roll comments, 98 percent pickup, and hands-on praise.

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-carpet pickup scored strongly in lab-style tests, including 98 percent overall pickup and a 100 percent carpet deep-clean result.

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

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

Comparative evidence was favorable overall, including better hardwood value versus a cheaper model and advantages over a Shark comparison, though not every comparison was a win.

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

Controls were praised for making surface changes easier and for better button placement than the comparison Shark.

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

The detachable canister/lift-up format was treated as a useful convertible cleaning design in the DU5092 review.

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

Cord length was mostly positive at 30 feet, but one review noted some users would prefer longer cords for larger spaces.

Cordless convenience scored low because one reviewer explicitly found it less convenient than a cordless vacuum.

Cord management was a mild drawback because one reviewer noted the cord must be wrapped manually.

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

Crevice pickup was a noted weakness in the DU5092 review, scoring below average alongside unsealed suction.

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

Debris illumination was positive in the DU5092 review, where LED lights were said to help reveal debris that might otherwise be missed.

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 was a strong positive, with reviewers praising easier controls, responsive features, and straightforward handling.

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

Edge cleaning received a moderate score because the head was said to work okay rather than exceptionally along edges.

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

Emptying and mess control were repeatedly praised for easy canister removal, one-button emptying, and simple opening.

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 received strong marks across reviews, with smoke tests passing well and HEPA or sealed-air-path comments tied to dust containment.

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

Floorhead design was mostly positive because reviewers linked it to strong debris pickup and deep cleaning, while acknowledging a trade-off in seal.

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

The floorhead seal was a weakness in the DU5092 review because large front gates let in more air and reduced the seal.

Hair-removal channel issues were clearly negative in one pet-hair comparison where hair stuck on the rollers.

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

Carpet hair pickup was generally positive, with fur and cat-hair removal praised, despite separate tangle concerns.

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 was split: one review said the Kenmore did poorly with hair tangles, while another DU5092 review praised the hair Eliminator nozzle.

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

Hard-floor fine pickup was strong across reviews, with hardwood performance, 98 percent overall pickup, and fine-debris praise.

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

Large-debris intake scored strongly because reviewers praised hardwood pickup and large front gates for debris other vacuums may miss.

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

LED lighting was consistently useful in reviews, helping illuminate dark spots or missed debris.

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

Reach was praised through the 10-foot wand and a comparison noting the wand was longer than a Shark model.

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

Innovation evidence was limited but positive where sealed filtration was described as rare in the price range.

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 scored poorly because multiple reviews said the main head was too large to fit under a bed.

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

Maintenance requirements were a moderate drawback because one review said the filter needs monthly cleaning to keep performance.

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

Maneuverability was generally praised, with swivel steering and easy direction changes highlighted across multiple reviews.

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

Noise was a consistent caveat: reviewers measured or described it as noisy, louder than a Shark comparison model, or noisy on higher suction settings.

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.

Ongoing ownership cost evidence was negative in one review because replacement filters were described as expensive.

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

One negative owner review reported early motor failure, making longevity a serious concern in that review.

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

Overall opinion was mostly favorable, with several strong recommendations or 'impressive' conclusions, offset by one strongly negative owner review.

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

Pet-oriented evidence was mostly positive: reviewers liked the pet tool, brush roll, and pet-hair cleaning ability, though separate tangle evidence showed limits.

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

Most reviews framed it as a strong value for the price, but one owner review sharply disagreed after failures and filter costs.

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

Stair use was rated positively where Lift Away technology made stair cleaning easier.

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

Storage received a positive mention from one reviewer who said putting it away was simple.

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 repeatedly measured or described strong suction and airflow, including 22 kPa results and above-average head airflow, with one owner also praising how much it pulled from carpet.

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 suitability was supported by a reviewer saying homes with lots of carpet, kids, or pets may need a heavier corded option like this.

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

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

Reliability evidence was mixed: professional-style reviews disliked the shorter warranty, while one owner reported the vacuum would not power on.

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 and release actions were praised when reviewers noted one-button canister emptying and an easy switch between crevice and brush tool modes.

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

Under-furniture performance was mixed: Lift Away helped in one comparison, but multiple reviews said the main head was too big for beds.

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 cleaning scored well through praise for ceiling reach, pet-hair cleaning on furniture and stairs, and sofa cleaning.

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

Versatility was one of the strongest themes, supported by lift-up use, tools, reach, upholstery cleaning, and multi-surface performance.

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

Weight evidence was mixed: several reviews found it heavy or cumbersome versus cordless models, while one review called 14 pounds below average and another called it lightweight.