Compare Amazon Basics Upright Vacuum vs Dirt Devil Multi-Surface Upright Vacuum

The floorhead seal on hard floors was weak, with debris scattering instead of staying contained for pickup.

One Rewind review praised the bare-floor seal, saying it helped pick up debris that might normally scatter.

Edge and wall pickup was weak in the comparative test, where rice remained near the wall.

Only one review supplied opinionated edge-cleaning evidence, and it was positive about reducing dirt hiding near walls and corners.

Filtration was consistently judged poor, with reviewers reporting particle leakage, no HEPA-style containment, and smoke escaping from the body.

Filtration drew praise in roundup-style coverage and from one owner, but the detailed review criticized it as an unsealed budget system with dust getting through.

Tool changes were praised in one hands-on review because the hose was easy to remove and attach.

Tool changes and fittings were a recurring weak spot, with reviewers criticizing awkward attachment installation and proprietary/custom hose fittings.

Assembly was consistently easy, with one test noting it was nearly ready out of the box and another calling setup straightforward.

Assembly was a clear pain point in the unboxing review, with the handle and screws described as surprisingly difficult.

Fine debris on hard floors was a major weakness, with reviewers describing sand or debris being scattered or kicked back.

Hard-floor fine-dust evidence was mixed: CNET found weak fine-particle performance, while first-impression demos saw fine dust pickup on carpet and bare-floor demos looked better.

Reviewers split sharply on suction: one found good suction in casual use, while multiple tests called hose suction, airflow, or measured vacuum strength weak for the category.

Reviewers most often praised suction and airflow, especially on the newer Multi-Surface Total Pet, though that strength did not rescue every hard-floor or tool scenario.

Onboard tool storage was praised in the owner review.

Onboard storage was convenient in the roundup, but reviewers criticized an unused post, missing accessory, and tool-storage oddities.

Hose length and reach were criticized by two reviewers as short or limited.

Hose length was decent on newer owner reviews, but CNET considered the Dash hose ungenerous against a named Eureka comparison.

Accessory support was criticized because the included tools were limited and nonstandard, making additional accessories difficult to find.

Accessories were useful in some reviews, but the tool package was inconsistent, with complaints about a stubby wand, custom fitting, missing tools, and a disappointing turbo tool.

Floorhead design was a recurring weakness, especially the fixed height, low gates, and limited design features.

The floorhead earned praise for stiff bristles and a felt gasket, but reviewers also criticized carpet-contact issues and the lack of brushroll shutoff.

Noise was a clear weakness in the comparative test, where the Amazon Basics was measured as nearly as loud as another noisy budget upright.

Noise impressions were mixed: one reviewer said the vacuum was not very loud, while another called the turbo brush loud and rattly and the Rewind louder than a cordless unit.

The foot controls were strongly liked in the hands-on review.

Controls were generally simple and accessible, but height adjustment and release mechanisms could be awkward or inconvenient.

Packaging received a positive environmental note for mostly cardboard packing.

Packaging and out-of-box setup were criticized because filters were not preinstalled and reviewers had to warn buyers to check packaging.

Versatility was mixed to poor: one owner liked using the wand for different tasks, while testing sources found the vacuum unsuitable across common surfaces.

Versatility was a strength for floor types and above-floor use, but bare-floor safety and custom tools limited the otherwise broad use case.

Overall opinion was mostly negative, with several reviewers calling it basic, a missed opportunity, or not recommended, while one owner liked it.

Overall opinion was highly mixed: several reviewers liked the newer models at $100, while CNET strongly rejected the older Dash evidence.

Heavy-duty suitability was low because one reviewer framed it as a temporary, budget stopgap rather than a long-term workhorse.

Heavy-duty suitability was limited: the Rewind was framed for heavier cleaning, but CNET found jam-clearing could create extra work.

Comparative performance was poor, with reviewers pointing to better options or slightly more expensive alternatives.

Comparative performance evidence diverged sharply, with CNET's Dash test performing poorly and the detailed reviewer calling the newer model a major Dirt Devil improvement.

Maintenance requirements were a drawback in the technician review because bagless use meant frequent upkeep.

Maintenance requirements were mixed: filters and savings were manageable, but brush access, filter washing, and jam-clearing could be tedious.

Cord management was praised in one owner review because the onboard cord storage was easy to release.

Cord management varied by variant: the non-rewind cord fought the reviewer during wrapping, while the Rewind's retracting cord was praised.

High-pile carpet suitability was weak; a reviewer suggested spending more if shag carpet is part of the home.

High-pile evidence was limited and only moderately positive, mostly pet-hair pickup rather than broad debris testing.

Debris prevention was weak in the technician review, where pet hair was observed sticking in the cyclone assembly.

Clogging/debris prevention evidence was split: one review praised multi-cyclonic clog reduction, while CNET found tool clogging and brush-well jams.

Under-furniture pickup was poor because the machine did not get particularly low.

Under-furniture cleaning was a weakness because the bulkier cyclone assembly prevented reaching under low furniture.

Large debris intake was weak, especially on hard floors where rice was thrown around and bare-floor debris pickup was only passable.

Large-debris hard-floor pickup was mixed, with positive claims about fewer passes but CNET's hard-floor Cheerios result was poor.

Tangle resistance was mixed: the comparative test saw some wrap, and a later test reported longer hair tangling around the brush roll.

Hair-wrap/tangle resistance was poor in CNET's human-hair test, where hair tangled and wrapped around the rollerbrush.

Above-floor pickup was mixed: one owner liked the suction through the tool setup, while another found the hose use inconvenient.

Upholstery and above-floor pickup were inconsistent: CNET's turbo tool clogged with pet hair, while newer reviews found the turbo tool acceptable or powerful.

Price is the product’s core appeal, but reviewers repeatedly warned that the low price comes with major performance compromises.

Value depended heavily on price: reviewers liked it around $100, but criticized it at $119-$130 and strongly rejected the older Dash's value.

Low-profile design was poor because the vacuum did not get very low.

Low-profile reach was poor because the cyclone assembly prevented getting under low furniture.

Stair cleaning was only moderately supported: the wand and light body made it possible, but not positioned as especially convenient.

Stair use was better than expected for the detailed reviewer, although reach limitations meant the top steps could require repositioning.

Weight was the clearest strength, with nearly every source calling the vacuum very light or emphasizing its low 8-pound range.

Weight evidence was mostly positive: the vacuum was described as light or easy to carry, though the newer model traded some weight for sturdier build.

Low-pile carpet pickup was one of the better areas, with reviewers calling fine-debris pickup decent or better than expected.

Low-pile pickup split by model/review: CNET measured poor sand pickup, while the newer model did excellently on low-pile commercial carpet.

Its small body was noted as a possible storage advantage, though the evidence supported compactness more than strong stand stability.

The hose clip and parked hose setup were viewed as helpful for keeping the vacuum from tipping during above-floor use.

Ease of use was rated highly in the positive owner review, which called the vacuum easy to operate.

Ease of use was generally good once assembled, with simple operation and disassembly, though filter condition affected cleaning performance.

Pet hair pickup was a relative bright spot, with reviewers saying it handled pet hair well, though filtration concerns limited its pet-readiness.

Pet-oriented tools and hair pickup earned praise in positive reviews, but the included pet/turbo accessories were not consistently strong across all evidence.

The bin was viewed positively by one reviewer for straightforward emptying, but another criticized the bagless design as inconvenient for apartments.

The bin was praised for capacity/removability in some reviews, but several reviewers disliked accidental release, grimy handling, or awkward reinstallation.

Hair pickup on carpet was generally decent to strong, though one review still saw some pet hair movement or sticking.

Carpet hair pickup was generally favorable in newer reviews, but CNET found the older Dash comparatively weak despite a 92 percent pet-hair result.

Emptying was polarizing: one owner called it very easy, while another warned the dust was hazardous and messy.

Emptying and mess control were mixed: one-touch/removable bins helped, but accidental bin release, grimy handling, and trash-can positioning were concerns.

Medium-carpet evidence was mixed: it could pick up some sand and felt clean in one review, but other reviewers called carpet cleaning lackluster or below average.

Medium-pile performance was context-dependent, ranging from CNET's weak pickup to newer-model reviewers who found carpet contact finicky but workable.

One reviewer liked the color, giving the design finish a modest positive note.

One reviewer described the Rewind variant as a nice-looking vacuum, giving limited but positive aesthetic evidence.

Airflow blowback was poor, with one reviewer describing sand being kicked back on hard floors.

Area-rug handling was mixed: reviewers saw dirt pickup, but also noted hard pushing and annoying height-setting compromises.

The newer model's build quality received strong praise for sturdiness, thicker plastic, and feeling less cheap than prior Dirt Devils.

Cord length evidence was split, with CNET calling 25 feet plenty but the detailed newer-model review calling the cord too short.

Crevice pickup was very poor in the comparative test, where the vacuum barely made progress lifting sand from a groove.

Cyclone performance was improved versus older Dirt Devils in some owner evidence, but the detailed review still called the cyclone ineffective under dust load.

Hair-removal channel evidence was negative, with CNET finding hair wrapped around the rollerbrush rather than fully entering the bin.

Hard-floor hair pickup was weak in the CNET test and the detailed review remained cautious about bare-floor use despite some pickup ability.

Innovation evidence was limited but positive, centered on the detailed review's view that TTI made real improvements over recent Dirt Devils.

Handling was usually positive on the newer models, but the CNET Dash review found it less maneuverable than comparable vacuums.

Ownership costs look moderate: some evidence praised fewer filter replacements, but the detailed review still expects washing and periodic filter replacement.

The detailed reviewer saw better construction and motor feel than older Dirt Devils, but still considered longevity below the equivalent Bissell.

Bare-floor scratch resistance was a serious concern in the detailed review because of the aggressive spinning brush and lack of brushroll shutoff.

Small-space suitability was limited to a very small, carpet-only apartment use case.

Support evidence was mixed to negative: CNET noted a comparable warranty, while the detailed reviewer criticized TTI after-sales and warranty support.