Compare Kenmore Bagless Upright Vacuum Lift vs Bissell MultiClean Vacuum

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 because the LED bank helped visibility more than expected.

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

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.

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 clearest strengths, with fog and air-quality testing showing no meaningful leakage or particle spikes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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