Amazon Basics Upright Vacuum Feature Scores
Explore all 42 feature scores for Amazon Basics Upright Vacuum, organized into pros and cons.
Scores by Feature
Summary
42 reviewed features-
Very positive 4.5-5.06 (14%)
-
Positive 3.5-4.49 (21%)
-
Neutral 2.5-3.48 (19%)
-
Negative 1.5-2.413 (31%)
-
Very negative below 1.56 (14%)
Pros
Sort
-
Weight was the clearest strength, with nearly every source calling the vacuum very light or emphasizing its low 8-pound range.
-
Assembly was consistently easy, with one test noting it was nearly ready out of the box and another calling setup straightforward.
-
The foot controls were strongly liked in the hands-on review.
-
Onboard tool storage was praised in the owner review.
-
Cord management was praised in one owner review because the onboard cord storage was easy to release.
-
Ease of use was rated highly in the positive owner review, which called the vacuum easy to operate.
-
Tool changes were praised in one hands-on review because the hose was easy to remove and attach.
-
Hair pickup on carpet was generally decent to strong, though one review still saw some pet hair movement or sticking.
-
Pet hair pickup was a relative bright spot, with reviewers saying it handled pet hair well, though filtration concerns limited its pet-readiness.
-
Low-pile carpet pickup was one of the better areas, with reviewers calling fine-debris pickup decent or better than expected.
-
One reviewer liked the color, giving the design finish a modest positive note.
-
Packaging received a positive environmental note for mostly cardboard packing.
-
Above-floor pickup was mixed: one owner liked the suction through the tool setup, while another found the hose use inconvenient.
-
Stair cleaning was only moderately supported: the wand and light body made it possible, but not positioned as especially convenient.
-
Its small body was noted as a possible storage advantage, though the evidence supported compactness more than strong stand stability.
Cons
Sort
-
Filtration was consistently judged poor, with reviewers reporting particle leakage, no HEPA-style containment, and smoke escaping from the body.
-
Fine debris on hard floors was a major weakness, with reviewers describing sand or debris being scattered or kicked back.
-
Floorhead design was a recurring weakness, especially the fixed height, low gates, and limited design features.
-
Comparative performance was poor, with reviewers pointing to better options or slightly more expensive alternatives.
-
Large debris intake was weak, especially on hard floors where rice was thrown around and bare-floor debris pickup was only passable.
-
Overall opinion was mostly negative, with several reviewers calling it basic, a missed opportunity, or not recommended, while one owner liked it.
-
Airflow blowback was poor, with one reviewer describing sand being kicked back on hard floors.
-
Crevice pickup was very poor in the comparative test, where the vacuum barely made progress lifting sand from a groove.
-
The floorhead seal on hard floors was weak, with debris scattering instead of staying contained for pickup.
-
Under-furniture pickup was poor because the machine did not get particularly low.
-
Hose length and reach were criticized by two reviewers as short or limited.
-
Accessory support was criticized because the included tools were limited and nonstandard, making additional accessories difficult to find.
-
Edge and wall pickup was weak in the comparative test, where rice remained near the wall.
-
Low-profile design was poor because the vacuum did not get very low.
-
Noise was a clear weakness in the comparative test, where the Amazon Basics was measured as nearly as loud as another noisy budget upright.
-
Price is the product’s core appeal, but reviewers repeatedly warned that the low price comes with major performance compromises.
-
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.
-
High-pile carpet suitability was weak; a reviewer suggested spending more if shag carpet is part of the home.
-
Debris prevention was weak in the technician review, where pet hair was observed sticking in the cyclone assembly.
-
Maintenance requirements were a drawback in the technician review because bagless use meant frequent upkeep.
-
Heavy-duty suitability was low because one reviewer framed it as a temporary, budget stopgap rather than a long-term workhorse.
-
Tangle resistance was mixed: the comparative test saw some wrap, and a later test reported longer hair tangling around the brush roll.
-
Versatility was mixed to poor: one owner liked using the wand for different tasks, while testing sources found the vacuum unsuitable across common surfaces.
-
Emptying was polarizing: one owner called it very easy, while another warned the dust was hazardous and messy.
-
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.
-
The bin was viewed positively by one reviewer for straightforward emptying, but another criticized the bagless design as inconvenient for apartments.
-
Small-space suitability was limited to a very small, carpet-only apartment use case.