Black+Decker Dustbuster Cordless Hand Vacuum Feature Scores
Explore all 39 feature scores for Black+Decker Dustbuster Cordless Hand Vacuum, organized into pros and cons.
Scores by Feature
Summary
39 reviewed features-
Very positive 4.5-5.08 (21%)
-
Positive 3.5-4.417 (44%)
-
Neutral 2.5-3.45 (13%)
-
Negative 1.5-2.47 (18%)
-
Very negative below 1.52 (5%)
Pros
Sort
-
Nozzle design was one of the better-supported positives, with praise for adjustable width and a wider pull-out nozzle.
-
Ease of use was a strength overall, especially for quick cleanups, one-handed operation, and simple handling.
-
Fine debris pickup was strong on hard floors and shelves in hands-on reviews, especially for tiny grains, dust, and hair.
-
Design was praised as sleek, slim, and straightforward rather than bulky or visually intrusive.
-
The bin earned positive handling comments because reviewers described it as easy to empty or twist off.
-
Crevice and tight-space pickup was positive overall, especially for cracks between shelves and large debris in tight spaces.
-
Emptying and mess control was generally positive, including easy emptying and a base that helped prevent stray particles from spilling out.
-
Setup evidence was positive, with one reviewer saying setup mainly involved charging the vacuum before use.
-
Cordless convenience was praised when paired with a docking station that keeps the vacuum charged and easy to locate.
-
Onboard tool storage was praised because the crevice tool and brush store directly on the base.
-
Storage was a strength in hands-on testing because the slim body and dock made it easy to keep in tight spaces.
-
Small-space suitability was positive because the vacuum was recommended for small spaces and tight storage.
-
Battery and charging were mixed: one reviewer loved that it stayed charged, while another disliked not knowing when it was fully charged.
-
Suction drew sharply different judgments: one hands-on review found it surprisingly strong for tiny debris, while another said it was not very powerful overall despite useful hard-floor suction.
-
Tool changes were praised when the expandable nozzle avoided swapping heads, but another review found add-on tools could fall out during cleaning.
-
Pet-hair results depended heavily on surface: lab evidence was favorable and one reviewer used it for quick pet-hair cleanups, but another found embedded hair on a soft chair did not move.
-
Runtime was adequate for small messes in one hands-on review, which found 11 minutes plenty for quick cleanups.
-
Edge and baseboard performance was moderate to favorable: Consumer Reports rated edge cleaning better, while Homes & Gardens found it handled tight spaces but missed some dust.
-
Versatility was split: one review praised versatile suction for compact cleanups, while another said it did not work well as an all-round cleaner.
-
Large hard-floor debris results were mixed, with strong grits and rice pickup in hands-on reviews but lab criticism that exhaust could blow debris around.
-
Hard-floor hair pickup was positive in the Homes & Gardens review, which saw dust and hair pulled into the nozzle from a distance.
-
Low-profile design evidence was positive because the slim, straightforward body helped the vacuum fit neatly into home spaces.
-
Handling was positive in the Homes & Gardens review because the long handle and switch allowed one-handed use.
-
Longevity evidence was limited but positive, tied to the washable filter being described as prolonging the device lifespan.
-
Attachments helped reduce clutter in one review, while another review criticized the fit because the tools could fall out during use.
Cons
Sort
-
Airflow blowback was a repeated downside, with lab testing and hands-on use both noting overly strong exhaust or outward airflow.
-
Area-rug handling was poor in one review because a crumb was pushed deeper into the rug fabric.
-
Carpet hair pickup was poor in the Homes & Gardens pet-shelter test, where hair on a soft chair did not move.
-
Comparative performance was weak because two reviews pointed to other handheld vacuums as better options.
-
General carpet evidence was poor, with the closest carpet-pickup evidence describing the vacuum as mostly incapable on carpets, rugs, and upholstery.
-
Clogging was a clear concern in one review because the filter clogged after testing.
-
Filtration evidence was negative, centered on a filter that could clog easily rather than high-grade dust containment.
-
Maintenance was a concern because one review expected regular filter cleaning after clogging.
-
Heavy-duty suitability was weak because the vacuum did not impress as an all-round cleaner.
-
Noise feedback split sharply, with Consumer Reports calling the unit pretty quiet while Homes & Gardens found it incredibly loud for its size.
-
Controls were simple but limited: the on/off operation is easy, but the vacuum lacks suction modes.
-
Value was mixed: one review pointed to a same-brand better alternative at an equal price, while another still called this model a great affordable option.
-
Above-floor results split sharply, from excellent shelf cleanup in one review to poor upholstery performance in another.
-
Overall opinion was mixed, ranging from Consumer Reports' middling rating to a very positive apartment-cleanup experience and a more qualified Homes & Gardens verdict.