Compare Eureka Airspeed Ultra-Lightweight Vacuum vs Bissell MultiClean Vacuum

Tool feedback was mixed: reviewers liked having a wand or basic tool set at the price, but another called the included attachments very basic.

Attachment feedback was mixed-to-positive: reviewers liked the included turbo/crevice/dusting tools, but one lab review found the motorized brush underpowered.

One budget test criticized blowback from an unsealed system, saying fine dust and dirt could return to the room.

Area-rug performance was praised strongly in the dedicated rug test.

Area-rug handling was mixed, helped by suction adjustment and strong pickup in some tests but hurt by mat-climbing difficulty in another.

One owner-style review said assembly and setup were very easy.

Assembly and setup were easy in the first-look review, with no tools required and the unboxing described as straightforward.

Reviewers liked the dust bin size and easy-empty canister, describing it as sizable, big, and slow to fill.

The bagless bin was easy to clean and empty, though bin size was called a little below average in Slim-model testing.

Build quality was polarized, with one review calling it plasticky and others saying it felt high quality or did not feel cheap.

Build feedback was sparse but positive where mentioned, especially around the sealed HEPA filter's rubber-sealed design.

High-pile and thick-carpet feedback was notably better, with one lab test scoring above average and another reviewer praising deep carpet pickup.

High-pile and shag results were mixed: Vacuum Wars supported thick-rug use, while TechGearLab found deep debris remained in shag fibers.

Low-pile or standard carpet results ranged from poor lab performance to very strong owner demonstrations, making this a mixed attribute.

Low-pile carpet pickup ranged from decent to very good, with some reviewers praising carpet results and one noting inefficient reverse passes.

On ordinary fitted carpet, reviewers described pickup as pretty good in short demonstrations.

Medium-pile/rug pickup was strong in the comparison review, where the Lift-Off picked up large debris in a solid pass.

Large-debris handling was a weakness in tougher tests, where Cheerios or rice were pushed or plowed instead of cleanly collected.

In one standardized pickup test it was acceptable but clearly not among the best performers.

Comparative performance depended on the outlet: Vacuum Wars found it competitive with pricier vacuums, while TechGearLab found several similarly priced alternatives stronger.

Controls were consistently described as simple, especially the foot-style power control and basic operation.

Controls were useful, including brushroll on/off and floor-transition settings, but they were not as seamless as automatic systems.

The Lift-Off canister design improved above-floor flexibility, though it could not attach to the wide floor head in one review's testing.

Cord length received positive comments from reviewers who called it decently long or nice and long.

Cord length was a mild drawback on the Slim model, repeatedly described as a little below average.

Cord management received a positive mention for the wrap hooks keeping the cord tidy.

Cord management was convenient with automatic rewind, but the same reviewer questioned long-term reliability.

Crevice and groove pickup was a consistent weakness in formal tests, tied to lower suction and large front gates.

Debris illumination was praised because the LED bank helped visibility more than expected.

Ease of use was split: simple controls and setup earned praise, but a lab review found the minimalist design less user-friendly in practice.

Ease of use varied, with users praising light rolling and simple handling while lab testing found harder pushing and floor transitions.

Edge cleaning varied sharply, with budget testing saying it missed edges and one demonstration saying it cleaned right to the edge.

Edge cleaning was a weakness in lab and user testing, especially along walls or wood edges where it failed to collect or glide smoothly.

Emptying was consistently praised as simple, quick, and easy through the release-button canister design.

Emptying was easy in user reviews, with debris dropping from the bagless canister and minimal complication.

Dust containment evidence conflicted, with one review criticizing the unsealed system while another found it unlikely to worsen sensitivity issues.

Filtration was one of the clearest strengths, with fog and air-quality testing showing no meaningful leakage or particle spikes.

The floorhead drew mixed reactions: the brush roll impressed at the price, but the no-height-adjustment/basic design caused snowplowing and poor debris behavior.

The floorhead's large front gates helped debris intake, but the design could also trap material or make pushing harder depending on surface.

Hard-floor seal performance was weak in one test, where debris kicked backward from under the head.

The hard-floor seal was a tradeoff: the larger front gates helped large debris but let in more air and reduced seal strength.

Hair-removal maintenance was frustrating in one lab review because the roller could not be removed from the head.

Carpet hair pickup was split, ranging from untouched pet hair in lab testing to several reviewers reporting easy cat-hair pickup.

Carpet hair pickup was a relative strength, with reviewers reporting clean low-pile results and easy pet-hair pickup.

Hair-wrap resistance was mixed, with one reviewer impressed by a clean brush roll and other testing finding tangles with long hair.

Hair-wrap resistance was mostly positive, especially in Vacuum Wars testing, though TechGearLab still found some long hair wrapped around the brushroll.

Hard-floor fine debris results were highly inconsistent but mostly negative, with repeated reports of sand or grit being kicked back or scattered.

Fine hard-floor pickup was sharply split: Vacuum Wars praised broad debris pickup, while TechGearLab found sand left behind on hardwood.

Hard-floor large-debris intake was weak in multiple tests, with snowplowing and scattered debris noted.

Large hard-floor debris pickup was generally strong in Vacuum Wars and user tests, but TechGearLab found overall hardwood pickup below average.

LED headlights were praised as useful and a nice touch rather than just a spec-sheet feature.

Reach was mixed: one reviewer liked the hose for counter-height cleaning, while others wished the wand or hose were longer.

The hose earned positive comments for stretch and reach, including a clear stretch hose and a useful long-reach handle setup.

Reviewers treated some features as uncommon for the category, especially the tangle-free brushroll and sealed filtration system.

The low-profile design was weak because one review said it was not good for cleaning under surfaces.

Low-profile usefulness was limited in one review because the canister mode could not connect to the powered floorhead for under-furniture cleaning.

Maintenance feedback was mixed, with one review frustrated by a non-removable brush roll and another liking how simple filter access was.

Maintenance feedback was split: tangle-free design reduced hair work in positive reviews, but one lab review found roller hair removal frustrating.

Handling was one of the most mixed areas: the vacuum is light, but several reviewers disliked the non-swivel head and carpet resistance.

Maneuverability varied by reviewer: some found it light and easy to turn, while lab testing found turning and mat transitions harder.

Only one reviewer evaluated noise directly and praised the vacuum as quieter than other vacuums they had used.

Noise impressions were generally favorable, with reviewers describing it as not very loud, not screaming, and more pleasant than some alternatives.

Onboard tool storage was praised as convenient and nicely designed.

Onboard tool storage was explicitly liked in the cord-rewind review.

One reviewer praised the included second filter as a nice ownership touch.

Durability impressions ranged from plasticky but maybe serviceable for a few years to one family calling it tried-and-true after a year.

Long-term confidence was limited by concern over how well the automatic cord rewind would hold up.

Overall opinion was split between strong budget praise from video reviewers and a much harsher lab review that placed it near the bottom.

Overall opinion was mixed-to-positive: multiple reviewers strongly recommended it, while one lab review rated it only average and limited by suction and hard-floor results.

Packaging was rated positively in the first-look review, with the box arriving undamaged and the product wrapped well.

Pet-readiness was divided: one lab-style review found pet hair performance poor, while a family-use review said regular vacuuming solved their cat-hair problems.

Pet usefulness was a recurring strength, driven by pet-hair pickup, HEPA filtration, tangle resistance, and pet-focused attachments, though tougher pet messes had stronger competitors.

Value depended heavily on price: some called it one of the best cheap uprights, while others said full list price made it less compelling.

Value was polarized: Vacuum Wars saw strong performance for the price, while TechGearLab considered it expensive for its performance tier.

Stair cleaning benefited from the Lift-Off canister and attachments, although the inability to use the wider powered head in canister mode limited coverage.

Stuck resistance was a weak point in one lab review, where the vacuum struggled to climb onto a bamboo test mat.

Reviewers generally found the AirSpeed strong for its size and price, with measured airflow and repeated praise for suction, though one budget roundup still placed it below pricier uprights.

Reviews split on suction: some users praised strong real-world pickup, while lab reviews found below-average sealed suction, hose airflow, and crevice results.

Reviewers framed it as an entry-level or simple-task vacuum rather than a serious long-term heavy-duty cleaner.

In a user test with a large carpet mess, the vacuum was judged to do a very good job, though heavier-duty limits appeared in lab suction and hard-floor findings.

Small-space suitability was a consistent bright spot, especially for dorm rooms, first apartments, or simple apartment cleaning.

The Slim version received positive small-space feedback because its narrower head was easier to maneuver in tight areas.

Attachment surface safety was a caveat because the dusting brush bristles were described as stiff and unsuitable for delicate surfaces.

The wand and hose changeover drew a caveat because one reviewer warned users not to forget reconnecting the tube properly.

Tool changes were mostly straightforward, especially where no tools were needed, but the fixed handle-and-wand setup limited convenience in some versions.

Under-furniture cleaning was criticized because the vacuum was not good at getting under surfaces such as beds.

Under-furniture cleaning was mixed: the body could get fairly flat, but Lift-Off mode could not use the powered floorhead for easier reach.

Above-floor cleaning was mixed, with one reviewer finding the dusting tool decent and another finding upholstery cleaning ineffective.

Above-floor and upholstery cleaning were usable, with Lift-Off flexibility and tools, but lab upholstery pickup was only about average.

One review found some versatility through the wand for furniture and ceilings, but only in a qualified way.

Versatility was a major pro across positive reviews because of Lift-Off use, attachments, pet features, and hard-floor/carpet adaptability.

The vacuum was broadly praised as lightweight, although two reviews noted that carpet suction or awkward handling can make it feel heavier in use.

Weight impressions were mostly manageable, described as lightweight by one user and medium-weight by another first-look reviewer.