Compare LG CordZero A937 Cordless Stick Vacuum vs Dyson V15s Detect Submarine Wet Dry Vacuum

Support and warranty feedback was strongly negative overall, with repeated complaints about slow repairs, poor communication, and unresolved failures.

One reviewer specifically praised Dyson customer service as excellent and efficient for support and faulty-part replacement.

Debris illumination was criticized because customers expected a headlight or dirt-revealing floorhead at this price.

Debris illumination was one of the most consistently loved features, repeatedly helping reviewers see hidden dust and make vacuuming more thorough.

The missing headlight/LED feature was a recurring disappointment for customers.

Headlight performance was praised as better than typical LED headlights in one lab comparison.

Hard-floor hair pickup was weaker in customer evidence, particularly for dog fur on tile or wood floors.

Hard-floor hair pickup was praised across tests, especially with the Fluffy Optic head and strong suction.

Onboard storage was one of the tower’s best-liked features because tools are hidden, organized, and close at hand.

Onboard tool storage was weak because one review found more accessories than mounting solutions.

The self-emptying cycle was a standout feature when working, and some customers described it as essential.

The lack of an auto self-cleaning cycle was a repeated weakness, making mop-head cleanup more manual than competing wet-dry vacuums.

Small-space suitability was weak because the tower needs side clearance and loses usefulness in tight slots.

Small-space suitability was strong because reviewers saw the compact, multi-function design as a way to avoid owning multiple floor-cleaning devices.

Long-term durability was a major weakness in customer evidence, with reports of suction loss, motors dying, and units failing early.

One lab review saw promising long-term durability in the Submarine attachment's lightweight, sturdy plastic construction.

Large debris intake was one of the weakest areas, with cereal, Cheerios, and food pieces clogging, scattering, or getting pushed around.

Large hard-floor debris performance was mixed: dry vacuum heads often performed very well, but the mop head struggled with cereal, rice, and large pieces.

Kid-friendliness was poor in evidence involving playdoh and larger household debris that still required broom-and-dustpan cleanup.

Kid-friendliness was noted positively when the dust-revealing head made a child's room vacuuming more fun.

Floorhead design was a common flaw, especially the low or poorly designed head that pushed larger debris instead of taking it in.

Floorhead design was strong for dry heads and surface matching, but the separated vac-mop layout reduced the all-in-one feel.

Comparative performance was mixed: LG impressed in some user comparisons but lagged behind Dyson, Samsung, or Tineco in several tests and reviews.

Comparative performance was favorable against Dyson's V15 lineage, with the Submarine treated as comparable to or based on a top cordless platform.

The mop water controls were viewed as useful enough for choosing water output, but evidence was limited to basic water-level use.

Water tank feedback was mixed to negative: reviewers liked the reach of the small tank in some rooms, but repeatedly called the reservoirs small or spill-prone.

Crevice pickup was a strength in test evidence, especially pulling sand or flour from hard-floor grooves.

Crevice and groove pickup was mixed, with one review praising nooks-and-crannies cleaning but lab testing showing weak deep-crevice pickup from the mop head.

Emptying was highly polarized: many loved the dust-free auto-empty tower, but others found it slow, messy, or unreliable.

Mess control was polarized: dry-bin emptying could be easy, but the dirty-water compartment, mop debris, and cleanup were messy in several reviews.

Smart and app features were not a major selling point; reviewers often called the app unnecessary or unreliable.

Smart features were praised for auto suction adjustment, battery efficiency, particle detection, and display feedback, though there was no app-centered praise.

Noise feedback was mostly positive, with several tests and users calling it quiet or less annoying than rivals.

Noise feedback was mixed: one lab result found mopping slightly quieter than average, while another reviewer found Boost mode very loud.

Hair-channel clogging was a clear pet-home problem, with fur getting stuck and requiring manual clearing.

One reviewer noted hair could get trapped in crevices and need manual attention.

Low-pile carpet pickup was acceptable but reduced by larger cereal-type debris.

Low-pile carpet pickup was one of the strongest areas, with reviewers describing carpets as nearly new, excellent, or crushed in tests.

Filtration was praised in some reviews, but one detailed test criticized the vacuum for failing dust containment.

Filtration and dust containment drew strong praise, with reviewers describing the filtration as excellent and the system as keeping fine flour or microscopic dust well contained.

Mopping residue/streaking evidence was negative where customers said the mop moved dirty water around.

Streaking and residue were recurring mop-head concerns, especially after pauses, large spills, dirty rollers, or uneven initial water flow.

The liquid system was limited: reviewers noted water-only use and customers criticized the mop attachment when it failed or performed poorly.

Liquid delivery feedback was mixed: some liked the controlled water output, while others disliked the single wet mode and lack of water-flow adjustment.

Reviewers and tests split on raw suction: some found it excellent or surprisingly strong, while others measured only average airflow or said it was weak in real use.

Reviewers consistently praised the vacuuming side as powerful, with strong suction and airflow across general cleaning, carpets, hard floors, and hard-to-reach areas.

Innovation was strongest around the auto-empty tower, which reviewers framed as unusual or bleeding-edge for stick vacuums.

One review highlighted the product's versatility as the factor that sets it apart from other wet-dry mops.

Tool changes were described as intuitive and easy, with attachments clicking on and off without much friction.

Tool changes were usually quick and easy, but several reviewers disliked the extra reconfiguring needed because vacuuming and mopping require separate heads.

Ease of use was generally strong, though not enough to offset reliability and clogging complaints for dissatisfied customers.

Ease of use was mostly positive for maneuvering and day-to-day cleaning, but push resistance, many parts, and trigger fatigue created caveats.

The tool bundle and attachments were generally valued, though some customers objected that certain accessories were sold separately.

The accessory set was widely praised as versatile and complete, with multiple cleaning heads and specialty tools for floors, crevices, hair, stairs, and upholstery.

Value was mixed: some reviewers called it worth the cost, but many felt the high price amplified missing features, failures, and repair hassles.

Value was one of the most divided areas: reviewers liked the added mop at Dyson-tier performance, but repeatedly flagged the high price or weak mop premium.

Cordless convenience was a clear positive, with users valuing the lack of cord for easier day-to-day cleaning.

The cable-free design was praised for portability around domestic cleaning tasks.

Ownership costs were a mild concern because bags and refill accessories were described as expensive or extra-cost items.

Ownership-cost feedback was limited and mixed, mentioning optional spare batteries and likely mop-roller replacement costs.

Heavy-duty suitability was weak for pet-heavy or kid-heavy homes because customers reported clogs, weak pickup, and the need to use other tools.

Heavy-duty suitability was limited; reviews repeatedly framed the mop as better for light, regular cleaning than deep grime or full mop-and-bucket replacement.

Carpet pickup was strong overall, including high-pile, shag, and general carpet tests.

High-pile and thicker carpet pickup was generally workable but less dominant, needing slower passes or more effort with larger lightweight debris.

Runtime was mixed: dual batteries and medium-mode life helped, but turbo runtime and advertised claims disappointed some reviewers.

Runtime was a strength, with many reviewers reporting enough battery for homes, long mop runtime, or useful auto-mode endurance.

The lock-on power button was praised, but the long-press process for maximum suction was criticized.

The LCD and smart display were often praised, but the trigger operation and some particle-readout usefulness drew repeated complaints.

Overall opinion was highly mixed: several reviewers loved or recommended it, while others refused to recommend it because of hard-floor, reliability, or support problems.

Overall impressions were positive but qualified: reviewers loved the vacuum and versatility, while the mop, maintenance, tanks, and price created tradeoffs.

Setup and unpacking were described as straightforward by customer reviewers.

Setup ranged from very easy to confusing: several reviewers assembled it quickly, while others needed manuals, videos, or clearer instructions for the Submarine head.

Versatility was strong overall because reviewers used it across mixed floors, quick cleans, attachments, handheld cleaning, and mopping.

Versatility was a major strength because the machine combines high-end dry vacuuming with a mop head and broad attachment set.

The design was widely considered sleek and attractive, though one reviewer criticized the tower as heavy and clunky.

Design comments leaned positive on the colorful, quirky Dyson styling, though one reviewer felt the plastic mop head looked more toy-like than premium.

Cyclone performance was praised for helping sustain suction and keeping the pre-motor filter cleaner.

Cyclone performance received one positive assessment that the core dust-separation technology seemed to do the job.

The low-profile floorhead helped reach under beds and furniture.

Low-profile capability was excellent in lab testing because the vacuum could fully lay flat.

Maintenance was mixed: washable filters and easy parts helped, but clogs and frequent filter washing hurt ownership.

Maintenance was mixed: dry-vac maintenance could be straightforward, but the mop head requires washing, drying, and manual cleanup after use.

Storage was a tradeoff: the tower hides tools and can be freestanding, but several reviewers found it large or space-hungry.

Storage feedback was split: the compact attachment system helped in small spaces, but the vacuum is not freestanding and several reviews complained about attachment or dock storage.

Battery feedback was mixed: dual batteries were a major advantage, but turbo/runtime complaints appeared in tests and customer reviews.

Battery and charging feedback was strong overall, with long runtime, useful countdowns, fade-free behavior, and removable-battery benefits.

Area-rug handling was positive where reviewers said flatter rugs and fringe did not stall or jam the vacuum.

Area rug handling was generally positive across rugs and mixed floor homes, including thick-pile and delicate rug examples.

Debris blowback/scatter was a problem on hard floors and with loose debris.

Airflow blowback was a negative edge case, with one reviewer getting a blast of vent air when cleaning under low furniture.

Clogging was one of the clearest weaknesses, especially with cereal, fur, fluff, and narrow intake paths.

Debris handling through the mop head was a recurring weakness, especially with dry debris, liquid mixed with solids, cereal, small debris, or wand blockages.

Stair use was supported by lightweight handling and handheld-style cleaning, especially with smaller attachments.

Stair-cleaning feedback was favorable where the hair screw and smaller tools were used for stairs, furniture, and pet-related jobs.

Weight was mixed: several reviewers called it light, while customer reviews criticized the unit or head as heavy.

Weight feedback was mixed: some found it light and easy, while others reported hand, thumb, or forearm fatigue.

Hair-wrap resistance was mixed: some tests and users saw little wrap, while long-hair tests found major tangling.

Hair-wrap resistance was mixed: Dyson's anti-tangle tools worked well in some tests, but longer hair still wrapped or needed cutting free in others.

Hair pickup from carpets was positive in testing, with long strands removed from the floor.

Carpet hair pickup was strong, lifting ingrained long hair and fur well in hands-on testing.

Pet performance was polarized: several reviewers praised pet-fur pickup, but customer reviews repeatedly reported fur clogging and weaker results in homes with shedding pets.

Pet-related feedback was positive: dog owners liked the mop option for paw prints and reviewers found pet hair pickup strong, though hair wrap still required attention in some tests.

Build quality evidence was mixed-to-negative: some saw premium construction, while customers reported weak plastic, broken tabs, and poor build quality.

Build quality was generally strong for the main vacuum, but some reviewers criticized plastic feel or dock/head design elements.

The handheld conversion was useful for finer control, tight areas, cars, sofas, and stairs.

The handheld conversion was praised for sofa, mattress, and tight-spot cleaning.

Mopping was mostly secondary: useful for light spot cleaning, but several users found it unimpressive or gimmicky.

Mopping performance was useful for light cleaning, small spills, and general maintenance, but reviews agreed it is not a full true wet-dry or deep-clean replacement.

Fine dust and small-debris pickup on hard floors tested well in controlled reviews.

Hard-floor fine-dust pickup was excellent, especially with the Fluffy Optic head and laser revealing fine dust, sugar, hair, and corner debris.

The compressor and bag system drew praise for extending capacity, but the small bin and bag cost/capacity were common caveats.

The dry bin was viewed as adequate and generally usable, but some reviewers still had to reach in for stuck hair or debris.

Handling was mostly positive: reviewers highlighted light wrist feel, maneuverability, tight-corner control, and low-to-ground movement.

Maneuverability was mostly praised for swivel, lay-flat ability, easy gliding, and small head size, though some reviewers felt effort or fatigue on certain surfaces.

Under-furniture reach was good thanks to low-profile and lay-flat handling.

Under-furniture pickup was praised in one review for the thin wand and flexible head joint.

Above-floor and upholstery cleaning were strong, with reviewers praising couch, fabric, tight-spot, and pet-hair pickup.

Above-floor and upholstery pickup was praised, especially for sofa, dog-bed, mattress, shelf, and couch-corner use.

Packaging feedback was positive in the customer evidence that mentioned it.

Packaging was praised for secure, recyclable cardboard protection.

The obstruction shutoff behavior was criticized when users reported false obstruction errors or shutdowns during cleaning.

Medium or conventional carpet pickup was praised in one hands-on review for pulling dust, bunnies, and grime from carpeting.

Dirty-water sensing was a clear weakness in TechRadar's review because the display only showed clean-water level, not dirty-water buildup.

Dock and auto-empty reliability was a significant concern in customer reviews, especially base failures within months.

Dried-on stain performance ranged from excellent one- or two-pass results to needing many extra passes or struggling with overnight sticky stains.

Edge and baseboard cleaning was mostly positive, but one lab review found the exposed roller could miss debris at wall contact.

Floor drying time was praised in two reviews, with quick drying and floors not left saturated after mopping.

Fresh liquid pickup was useful for small spills and standalone liquids, but multiple reviews warned against large wet spills or wet-solid mixtures.

Odor control was a negative in customer evidence, with the auto-empty/dust-bag process described as producing an unacceptable smell.

Sanitizing feedback was negative because the Submarine cannot steam-sterilize floors.

Scratch resistance evidence was negative where small debris dragged along wood floors and scratched them.

The self-propelled mopping feel was praised as lightweight and easy to propel along.

The product does not provide steam cleaning, and one review treated that as a limitation versus hot, sterilizing mop methods.

Stuck resistance was mixed: it handled flatter rugs well, but customer reviews reported the vacuum getting stuck in the base station.

Surface safety feedback was positive from a reviewer who felt the head protected tile from scratches.

One reviewer successfully cleaned a delicate wool woven rug despite initial hesitation.