Compare Kenmore Bagless Upright Vacuum Lift vs Kenmore Intuition Bagged Upright Vacuum

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

Upright stability evidence was negative in the technician review because tugging the short hose could tip or move the machine.

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

Tool-change evidence was negative in the technician review, where a non-locking attachment came off during 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.

Heavy-duty suitability evidence was negative from the technician review, which said the narrow path and design were not meant for a full house.

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

Ownership cost evidence was mixed: bags and filters add recurring expense, but one technician argued bagged machines can cost less to run than bagless designs.

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

Crevice pickup evidence was very positive in Vacuum Wars, where Kenmore performed significantly better than the Shark.

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

Build-quality evidence was strongly negative in the technician review, which called the quality unacceptable at higher prices.

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

Floorhead design evidence was negative in the technician review, mainly because the cleaning path was narrower than most vacuums.

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

Support evidence was split between praise for a five-year warranty in BU4020/BU4022 coverage and criticism of a one-year warranty in the 31140 review.

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

Carpet hair pickup ranged from good in Top Ten Reviews to mediocre or roller-sticking in TechGearLab and the technician review.

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

Under-furniture pickup was a weakness because the dust-bin position, bulky body, and bed clearance limited reach.

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

Reach evidence was mixed: some reviewers liked the longer wand or hose, while the technician review strongly criticized the short, stiff hose.

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

Durability and longevity evidence was limited but strongly negative from the technician review, which said the machine did not meet older Kenmore quality standards.

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

Large-debris hard-floor intake was mixed, with bigger gates and hard-floor pickup praised by Vacuum Wars but snowplowing and dragged debris noted in other tests.

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

Fine-dust hard-floor pickup was mixed: some reviews praised hard-floor debris pickup, while Forbes and TechGearLab said hard floors lagged carpets and fine flour was challenging.

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.

Weight evidence depended on model and context: several reviewers called the BU4020/BU4022 light, while older or loaded variants were described as heavy or heftier than expected.

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

Hair-wrap evidence was the most consistent concern, with multiple reviews reporting tangles, wrapped long hair, or pet hair stuck around the roller.

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

Handling evidence was mixed: many reviews praised lightness, swivel steering, and obstacle-course movement, while heavier variants and stair carrying drew criticism.

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

Noise evidence was mixed: Consumer Reports described it as less noisy than the Oreck but still middle-of-the-road, Top Ten Reviews found it surprisingly quiet for its size, and one technician called it a screamer.

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

Cord length was generally considered good, often around 30 feet, though one technician found the usable cord length closer to 25 feet with the holder attached.

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

Controls were praised for practical brushroll and wand/lift controls that make switching modes straightforward.

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

The bag system earned praise for capacity, dust control, and allergy usefulness, but the technician review argued the bag size and sealing lagged competitors.

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

Stair-cleaning evidence was split: lift-up designs were praised for stairs by several reviewers, while the technician review found the hose and balance awkward enough to feel risky.

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

Pet-focused evidence was mostly positive, with reviewers praising pet-hair pickup and allergy-friendly use, though separate hair-wrap evidence shows pet hair can still collect in the roller on some models.

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.

Most reviewers liked the included accessories, especially turbo, pet, upholstery, and combination tools, but the technician review criticized the tools as an afterthought.

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

LED headlights were consistently praised as useful for spotting debris and lighting the brush area.

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

The lift-up or lift-away pod design was widely praised for above-floor cleaning, though the technician review felt it served little practical purpose.

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

Assembly evidence was positive, with reviewers describing parts that lock in and quick setup from unpacking to full assembly.

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

Cord management evidence was negative, with Vacuum Wars criticizing the stiff cord hook.

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

Emptying and mess control was mostly praised for dust-free, no-touch bag disposal, but one technician said the bag did not seal up well.

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

Maintenance evidence was mixed-to-negative, mainly because the wand, bag mechanism, cord hook, and brushroll required extra effort.

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

Ease of use was generally strong, with reviewers praising pushability and simple operation, although some mechanisms needed getting used to.

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

Edge and baseboard hard-floor evidence was decent but not perfect, with one lab review saying head-on wall pickup worked better than parallel passes.

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

Innovation evidence was positive but mostly feature-oriented, with no-touch bagging and uncommon features for the price presented as differentiators.

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

Low-profile cleaning was weak because reviewers said the bin and bulky body made cleaning under furniture difficult.

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

Filtration was one of the strongest themes, with sealed HEPA-style bags and lower dust exposure praised, though the technician review questioned the small exhaust filter.

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

Hair-removal maintenance was a recurring weakness because the brushroll did not pop out and was hard to clean.

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

Overall opinion was mostly favorable for carpet-focused buyers, value, and filtration, though the technician review was sharply negative about design and build tradeoffs.

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.

Comparative evidence was positive in Vacuum Wars, where Kenmore beat the compared Shark in head airflow and pickup tests.

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

Medium-pile carpet evidence was excellent, including perfect deep-clean scores and strong user praise for deep cleaning.

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

Value evidence was generally positive because reviewers saw strong carpet performance and extras for the price, but recurring costs and higher-price build concerns tempered the score.

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

High-pile carpet pickup was strong in TechGearLab testing, with an outstanding average and easy pushing.

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

Low-pile and general carpet pickup was a clear strength, with lab and tester evidence showing high collection rates and single-pass debris pickup.

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

Above-floor and upholstery evidence was generally strong, with lift-up use and upholstery tools praised for stairs, sofas, and pet hair.

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

Versatility was a major strength, with reviewers praising lift-off use, wand reach, mixed-surface cleaning, and broad cleaning roles.

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

Debris illumination was praised where reviewers said the LED lights made dust, brush area, or hard-to-see debris easier to spot.

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.

Reviewers repeatedly praised strong suction and airflow, especially on carpet, though one older-model review framed the power as part of broader cleaning performance rather than flawless all-surface results.

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

Design comments were generally positive, with reviewers noting rose-gold styling, a sleek package, and chrome accents.

Airflow blowback evidence was positive in one technician test because the front exhaust did not blow pet hair away.

Area-rug handling was mixed: reviewers praised rug cleaning, but thick carpet and shag rugs could be hard to push or struggle.

The bag-full indicator was consistently liked as a helpful touch that prevents overfilling or unnecessary checking.

Clogging and debris-prevention evidence centered on the BU4050 hair eliminator, which was praised for tackling hair accumulation.

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

Dual-motor evidence was limited to one review, which credited the system with effective cleaning performance.

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

Hard-floor hair pickup evidence was average, with TechGearLab saying it pulled up a fair amount but did not dominate the pet-hair test.

Onboard tool storage was mixed: some reviews liked organized onboard storage, while the technician review said tools did not lock in and bumped off.

Small-space suitability was mixed: one technician saw it as more apartment or condo sized, yet also said the design still did not make sense for his own apartments.