Compare Eureka Airspeed Ultra-Lightweight Vacuum vs Shark NV151 Navigator Swivel Pro Complete Upright Vacuum

Typically includes two basic tools (crevice and dusting brush). Useful for quick above-floor tasks, but the tool set is minimal versus pricier uprights.

The included crevice, upholstery, and pet tools are frequently praised for couch, crevice, and above-floor cleaning. Some Amazon reviewers complain specific accessories they expected (such as a wide upholstery tool or round brush) were missing or hard to find.

Design is often described as simple and minimalist. A few owners mention a more plastic feel than older versions and occasional cosmetic marks or wear.

A recurring complaint is brush-roll-driven kickback on hard floors (sand/rice thrown behind the vacuum), making hard surfaces a weak use case.

Several users contrast it with older vacuums that blew dust back into the room, saying this model has minimal blowback and no spit-back on hard floors. This is closely tied to sealed filtration and strong suction.

Several reviewers report good area-rug results (including thicker rug litter tests), with the main limitation being larger debris that can plow ahead of the head.

Area rug handling is inconsistent: some users vacuum rugs successfully after adjusting suction, while others say the head sits too low, stalls, or stops on certain rugs. Shag-style rugs are specifically called out as a poor match by some owners.

Setup is generally described as straightforward, with one reviewer warning that hose/tube positioning must be switched correctly when using the wand.

Assembly is consistently described as fast and tool-free, with components clicking into place in minutes. This is one of the most universally positive aspects across reviews.

Dustbin size is a positive highlight, including a lab-style mention of a large 1.7L bin, which reduces how often it needs emptying in light use.

Bagless dust cup emptying is usually described as easy, but capacity impressions vary widely. Some call the bin large, while others find it small or note a low fill line that forces frequent emptying in hair-heavy homes.

No summary yet.

Build quality feedback ranges from sturdy, well-snapping parts to concerns about cheaper plastic materials and belt smells. It generally feels solid for the price, but not everyone expects premium longevity.

High-pile and shag performance is a relative bright spot for the price in at least one lab-style review, and some users report strong results on thicker rugs.

Performance on plush or thicker carpet is often positive, with reports of smooth gliding and strong extraction. Still, some say it can feel too grabby or struggle unless suction is reduced, and a few recommend avoiding very thick shag.

Low-pile carpet results trend below average in lab-style testing and some demos show snowplowing of larger debris, though it can still remove embedded dirt with enough passes.

On low-pile and standard carpet, many users see strong pickup and noticeably fuller bins after one or two passes. Some still report needing extra passes or seeing a trace of dust left near the sides of the head.

On typical carpets, multiple reviewers report good pickup of smaller debris and routine dirt, though push effort and large-debris behavior can be drawbacks.

Some users report the wand/tube can clog with hair and debris and mention a clog indicator/red light behavior; others say it stays clear when filters and brush roll are maintained. Clog complaints tend to come from hair-heavy households or heavy use.

Comparisons are often favorable versus cheaper brands and even some premium vacuums for day-to-day pickup, especially on mixed flooring. Dissenting voices prefer higher-end Sharks or other brands for tangle resistance, rug performance, or long-term durability.

Controls are consistently described as simple, including foot controls and basic release mechanisms for the handle/canister functions.

Controls are simple, with hard-floor vs carpet modes and an adjustable suction slider that users like for switching surfaces. Some wish the power switch were positioned higher on the handle for convenience.

Cord length is described as decent to long for the category, supporting room-to-room cleaning without frequent outlet changes.

Cord length sentiment skews mixed-to-negative: some reviewers like the reach, but many wish it were longer than older models or competitors and note there is no automatic rewind. Cord length matters more in larger rooms and multi-room runs.

Cord wrap and hooks are mentioned as functional and straightforward, but not a standout feature versus uprights with rewind.

Cord management is often cited as a pain point because it must be wrapped manually and can drag or tangle while vacuuming. Positives include cord clips/hooks that help keep it out of the way once you get used to routing it.

Swivel steering is widely praised for easy turns and navigating around furniture. However, a noticeable subset says it over-swivels or feels sloppy, and handling can feel less controlled on some carpets.

Ease of use varies: many like the simple operation and low weight, but multiple testers note it can be hard to push or reposition, especially without swivel or height adjustment.

Ease of use is widely praised: quick setup, straightforward controls, and a lighter feel than many uprights. Common negatives are cord handling, occasional over-swivel behavior, and fatigue during long whole-home sessions.

Edge cleaning is frequently described as limited, with missed material near baseboards and corners due to the head design.

Edge results are mixed: some users report good cleaning along walls and baseboards, while others note a small gap near edges that requires switching to the hose/crevice tool for a complete pass.

Emptying is usually described as easy via a bottom-release style mechanism that dumps debris with a button press.

Emptying is typically simple with an easy-release, bottom-dump style, and many describe it as low-mess. The main downside is that frequent emptying can be necessary depending on bin size and how much hair/dust you collect.

Filtration impressions conflict: one lab-style test reports excellent particle containment even without HEPA, while multiple reviewers emphasize it is not a sealed system and can be weaker for fine-dust control than sealed uprights.

Reviews frequently highlight the HEPA filter and sealed dust containment for trapping allergens and reducing dust blowback, including positive mentions from allergy/asthma users. Long-term odor complaints show up occasionally when filters or odor components aren’t kept fresh.

Floorhead design is frequently described as simple and contributes to snowplowing and scatter, especially on hard floors and with larger debris.

The floorhead earns praise for swivel maneuvering and general pickup, but complaints include limited under-furniture clearance, a narrower head that takes longer to cover rooms, and a brush/roller design that can trap hair or stall on some rugs.

Carpet hair pickup ranges from strong in user demos (including deep carpet claims) to weak in lab testing on both low- and high-pile pet-hair scenarios.

Many owners say it removes pet hair from carpets effectively and reveals debris their old vacuums missed. Counterpoints include reports of needing multiple passes or preferring models with a self-cleaning roller for heavy shedding.

Hair pickup on hard floors is generally rated highly, especially for pet fur, with many owners impressed by what it collects after prior vacuuming. Results depend more on suction and technique than on tangle resistance.

Tangle resistance is inconsistent: one reviewer found the brush roll stayed clean, while others describe tangling and a brush roller that is frustrating to clean thoroughly.

Hair wrap is one of the biggest recurring complaints: long hair and pet fur often wrap the brush roll and require manual cutting or regular cleanouts. Several reviewers recommend stepping up to a Shark with a self-cleaning roller if hair is a daily issue.

Most reviews describe weak hard-floor fine-dust control due to scattering and kickback, although one long-term user reported good hardwood results with regular use.

Hard-floor fine dust pickup is frequently praised, including reports of less dust being kicked back into the air than with older vacuums. This aligns with strong suction and sealed filtration comments.

Large debris on hard floors can act like a snowplow for some debris types, and multiple reviewers note scatter rather than clean intake on hard surfaces.

Most users report it handles larger debris well on hard floors, including pet mess and gritty dirt. A few note the head can grab certain rugs or feel less smooth when transitioning over thicker surfaces.

A frequent complaint is the lack of a headlight or LEDs on the floorhead. Many reviewers miss this feature for seeing dust on hard floors or vacuuming in low-light areas.

Hose reach is described as adequate for countertop-level tasks in at least one review, but overall reach is considered limited compared to uprights with longer wands.

The extendable hose and wand are valued for reaching ceilings, blinds, and above-floor areas. Some users dispute the advertised reach, say the wand feels too long, or note the base can tip when the hose is pulled taut.

Maintenance includes regular filter cleaning (wash and fully dry) and potential brush-roll hair cleanup; one reviewer notes an extra filter is included, which helps downtime.

Ongoing maintenance is expected: rinsing filters, clearing clogs, and cutting hair off the brush roll. Reviewers who keep up with these routines report better performance and fewer issues.

Handling is commonly described as basic: no swivel steering and sometimes awkward turning, with some users also noting sticky push effort on carpet.

Noise is rarely discussed, but at least one long-term user describes it as quieter than other vacuums they have owned.

Noise feedback is mixed: several users call it relatively quiet or quieter than older Sharks, while others describe it as very noisy. Overall it trends tolerable but not silent.

A few reviewers say it leaves the air feeling fresher at first, but long-term owners sometimes report musty odors if filters aren’t cleaned or replaced on schedule. One reviewer also expressed caution about the odor-neutralizing component around kids/pets.

Onboard tool storage is noted positively in multiple reviews, with the basic attachments parking on the vacuum for quick access.

Onboard storage for the main attachments is a convenience highlight, reducing the chance of losing tools. A few reviewers still want more dedicated storage space, such as a spot for spare filters.

Washable filters are repeatedly called out as a cost saver because they can be rinsed instead of replaced frequently. Some users still buy extra filter sets so one can dry while the other is in use.

Longevity sentiment is split: many long-time Shark owners report years of service from older Navigators and expect similar life, while some users report early failures or worry about lighter, more plastic construction.

Overall sentiment is mostly positive, driven by suction, maneuverability, and value, with many repeat Shark buyers recommending it. Negative reviews focus on missing premium features (like a headlight), hair wrap maintenance, occasional rug handling issues, and sporadic reliability complaints.

Pet usefulness is mixed: some households report noticeably better hair control on carpets, while lab-style testing shows weaker pet-hair pickup versus typical upright averages.

Many reviews position it as a pet-friendly upright thanks to strong suction and included pet tools, with multiple owners impressed by fur pickup on carpets and furniture. The main pet-related downside is brush-roll hair wrap, which can require frequent cleanouts in heavy-shedding homes.

Strong value at deep-discount pricing (often cited well under $100), but several reviewers caution it is harder to justify if priced closer to midrange uprights due to hard-floor and handling limits.

Value is a consistent theme: many see it as a budget-friendly upright that competes well with more expensive vacuums. A minority feel it’s overpriced if you need more features, better rug handling, or longer-lasting build.

Cosmetic durability is a minor but present theme, with mentions of scratches and some tools leaving marks on surfaces. These reports are not universal but suggest care is needed around delicate finishes.

Stairs are generally manageable thanks to the hose/wand and lighter feel compared with heavier uprights. The main drawback is stability, as some users say the base can tip when pulling the hose during stair work.

Several reviewers like that it stores in a closet or corner, but stability can be an issue. Multiple comments mention the vacuum can feel tipsy or tip over when using the hose/wand, requiring a hand to steady it.

Testing references modest suction with respectable airflow for a plug-in budget upright, translating to decent carpet cleaning but not class-leading power.

Most reviews describe very strong suction that pulls up noticeably more dirt, dust, and hair than prior vacuums. A smaller set of owners say power feels similar to other Sharks or takes multiple passes on rugs, especially compared with higher-end models.

Some professional or frequent cleaners report it holds up well with routine upkeep, suggesting it can handle heavier use. Others frame it as a good home vacuum that may wear faster or be harder to repair under commercial-style abuse.

Several reviewers highlight that it fits well in apartments, condos, and small storage spaces while still offering strong suction. People in larger homes sometimes want a longer cord or bigger bin to reduce interruptions.

Reliability experiences vary from trouble-free use (including frequent cleaning) to complaints about clogs, vibration, and occasional unit failure. Some also note repair/parts availability can be limited, reinforcing a replace-rather-than-repair perception.

Tool changes are simple once you understand the hose routing, but at least one reviewer notes it is easy to misuse if you forget to re-seat the tube for wand mode.

Attachments are generally described as easy to swap, with parts that click into place and detach quickly. A few users still wish certain tools were included, but the change process itself is straightforward.

Under-furniture reach is generally limited; multiple reviewers say it is not great under beds, though one demo shows a mechanism intended to help in tighter spots.

Getting under low furniture is a common limitation for a standard upright design. Some users can reach under tables and chairs, but others say the head and body are too bulky for couches and low-clearance spaces.

Above-floor and upholstery cleaning is limited by the basic tool design; one lab-style review found the brush tool less effective and requiring multiple passes.

Above-floor cleaning is a strength for many owners, especially using the pet tool on couches and the wand for curtains, vents, and ceiling fans. Reach is generally good, but pulling hard on the hose can make the base tip for some users.

Versatility is moderate: it can handle basic above-floor tasks with the included tools, but lacks premium features that make multi-surface and whole-home cleaning easier.

The hose, wand, and tools make it useful for floors, furniture, and high dusting, adding versatility for a standard upright. It does not offer a Lift-Away detachable canister, which limits portability compared with other Shark lines.

Repeatedly described as genuinely lightweight (roughly 7.7–8.4 lb), which helps for quick cleanups and carrying room to room.

Many users describe it as lightweight and easy to carry, including older owners who appreciate reduced strain. Others still find it heavy to lift or feel wrist/hand fatigue during long sessions, especially when using the hose.