Dyson Ball Animal 2 Upright Vacuum Cleaner Feature Scores
Explore all 55 feature scores for Dyson Ball Animal 2 Upright Vacuum Cleaner, organized into pros and cons.
Scores by Feature
Summary
55 reviewed features-
Very positive 4.5-5.025 (45%)
-
Positive 3.5-4.418 (33%)
-
Neutral 2.5-3.47 (13%)
-
Negative 1.5-2.45 (9%)
Pros
Sort
-
Suction was the strongest consensus attribute, repeatedly praised as exceptional, powerful, or among the strongest tested.
-
Low-pile and general carpet pickup drew strong praise, with several reviewers reporting excellent or near-record cleaning results.
-
Emptying and mess control were consistently praised, with several reviewers saying the bin empties easily and keeps hands away from debris.
-
Tool changes were generally described as easy, with attachments clicking on, staying secure, or being simple to use.
-
Reviewers consistently liked the included tools and attachments, especially when they made hair, upholstery, and detailed cleaning easier.
-
Overall opinion was mixed-to-positive: many reviewers loved the cleaning power, but some rejected it over price, weight, or handling.
-
Above-floor and upholstery cleaning was a strength because the wand, hose, and attachments were useful on sofas, stairs, furniture, and high areas.
-
Filtration and containment were strong overall thanks to HEPA or washable filtration, though one lab noted a partly weakened seal on an older unit.
-
Ease of use was generally positive, especially for routine movement and cleaning tasks, though weight-related handling complaints appear under other attributes.
-
Pet-ready performance was a strong point, with pet hair and upholstery hair pickup repeatedly praised, though one turbine-tool comment was critical.
-
The bagless bin was praised for large capacity and reduced interruptions, though most comments focused on capacity and disposal rather than aesthetics.
-
Stair cleaning was generally strong because of long hose and wand reach, though one review cited moving the heavy unit as cumbersome.
-
Cyclone performance was praised as central to the vacuum’s suction and constant cleaning power.
-
Maintenance was considered straightforward, especially because filters can be washed and routine cleaning tasks are easy to access.
-
Reviewers who commented on looks described the Dyson as cool, futuristic, or one-of-a-kind, with no major finish complaints in the evidence.
-
Hair pickup on carpets and pet hair tests was a major strength across lab and owner reviews.
-
Versatility was strong for tool-based cleaning, although one professional review noted it was less versatile than some uprights.
-
Ongoing ownership costs were favorable because the vacuum is bagless and uses washable or reusable filters.
-
Maneuverability was polarizing: the ball design helped turning, but weight and suction made some users work harder.
-
Comparative performance was strong overall, but not unanimous: some reviews ranked it among the best, while others found cheaper models performed better.
-
Hose and wand reach were praised for stairs and above-floor cleaning, though one owner disliked a stiff non-bending section.
-
Durability and longevity evidence was positive, with reviewers citing long-term use, flagship status, or confidence from warranty/build quality.
-
Edge and baseboard cleaning was praised in test evidence, including near-edge debris collection and edge-to-edge cleaner-head design.
-
Support and reliability evidence was positive, driven by the five-year warranty and reviewer confidence in coverage.
-
Cord reach was consistently positive where mentioned, with reviewers appreciating the long cord or cable for larger cleaning areas.
-
Assembly evidence was positive, with reviewers describing a simple setup and parts that clicked together easily.
-
The self-adjusting head earned praise for adapting across floors, but multiple tests found that the same tight seal could hinder large debris or rugs.
-
Surface-safety evidence was positive where mentioned, especially the ability to stop the brush bar on hard floors or delicate rugs.
-
Build quality evidence was mixed-positive: some reviewers called the plastics robust and durable, while one disliked a cheap-feeling hose handle.
-
Heavy-duty suitability was mixed: reviewers admired its power for busy homes, but some found it impractical for varied carpets or prolonged whole-house use.
-
Hard-floor fine-dust pickup was strong in some tests but weaker in floor cracks and gaps.
-
Medium or thicker-carpet suitability was supported by reviewers who described the wider brush bar and flooring range as appropriate for thicker or medium pile.
-
Value was the main split: some reviewers said the power justified the price, while others called it too expensive or best only on sale.
-
Floorhead design was a tradeoff: reviewers liked the wide, self-adjusting head, but some found it poor with larger debris.
-
Innovation evidence centered on Dyson’s ball and self-adjusting systems, which reviewers called distinctive or inventive, but sometimes with practical tradeoffs.
-
Kid-friendliness evidence was positive, with one household reporting children enjoyed using the tools and another praising upright roller safety.
-
One reviewer liked that the rollers stop in the upright position, framing it as a useful safety behavior around children.
-
Onboard tool storage was praised when mentioned, especially the integrated storage for upright accessories.
-
Controls were viewed favorably when mentioned, especially suction settings and brush controls that let users adjust spinning or suction behavior.
-
Noise opinions varied sharply, from quiet and acceptable in some reviews to loud or noisy in others.
-
Crevice and groove pickup was split: one test praised deep crevice pickup, while hard-floor gap and larger-debris tests exposed limitations.
-
Hair-wrap evidence was mixed: pet-hair tools resisted tangling, but one lab measured substantial long-hair wrap on the brush roll.
-
Floorhead sealing was mixed-positive, with suction-loss control praised but active-baseplate behavior linked to large-debris problems.
Cons
Sort
-
Low-profile cleaning was a repeated weakness because the ball and bulk limited reach under furniture and tight areas.
-
Small-space suitability was poor because the large ball and bulky body made tight spaces and storage harder.
-
Upright-stand stability and storage were weak spots, with multiple reviewers describing bulk or difficulty getting the vacuum to stay upright.
-
Under-furniture pickup was mixed-to-negative; wand/tools helped some users, but the bulky ball limited precision and low-clearance reach.
-
Weight was one of the most repeated drawbacks, with reviewers calling it heavy or difficult to lug, despite some tool-based workarounds.
-
Handheld conversion was a weakness because a reviewer noted it cannot become a lightweight handheld unit like some alternatives.
-
The lack of LEDs on the floorhead was a clear drawback in the only opinionated evidence for this attribute.
-
Stuck resistance evidence was negative, focused on area rugs and mats that strong suction could grab or lift.
-
Area-rug results were mixed: one owner cleaned small rugs quickly with tools, while testers found strong suction could make rugs unworkable or sticky.
-
High-pile carpet was the clearest cleaning limitation, especially with cereal, rugs, shag, or strong suction pulling the head down.
-
Clogging evidence was limited but negative, with reviewers noting occasional dog-hair bin sticking and a narrow tube that could clog on larger items.
-
Hard-floor large-debris intake was mixed, ranging from strong cereal pickup to complaints that the head pushed larger debris.