Kenmore 600 Series Canister Vacuum Feature Scores
Explore all 46 feature scores for Kenmore 600 Series Canister Vacuum, organized into pros and cons.
Scores by Feature
Summary
46 reviewed features-
Very positive 4.5-5.01 (2%)
-
Positive 3.5-4.428 (61%)
-
Neutral 2.5-3.49 (20%)
-
Negative 1.5-2.48 (17%)
Pros
Sort
-
The 600 Series drew broad praise for its attachment set, powered pet tool, and included accessories, though one technician found the tool set only partly satisfying.
-
The vacuum was repeatedly praised for multi-surface versatility, onboard tools, and above-floor reach.
-
Above-floor and upholstery cleaning was usually praised for the powered pet/upholstery tool, although one technician's tool stalled during use.
-
Handle controls, suction adjustment, brush switching, and height controls were generally treated as convenient and easy to use.
-
Filtration was a major strength in several reviews, with strong sealed-system and smoke-test praise, but one technician disputed the seal and reported dust leakage.
-
Reviewers generally found suction and airflow strong, though one reviewer noted the measured suction was not exceptional despite solid pickup outcomes.
-
Onboard tool storage was consistently praised for convenience and internal attachment storage.
-
Tool changes and Pop-N-Go access were often described as convenient and easy, with one reviewer warning the Pop-N-Go mechanism did not work every time.
-
Pet tooling impressed some reviewers, especially the powered pet attachment, but other testing found hair wrap, stalling, and weak pet-hair results on carpet.
-
Floorhead feedback was mixed: reviewers liked agitation, height adjustment, and corner access, but complained about bulk and poor internal aerodynamics.
-
Bagged operation was praised for dust containment and easy bag replacement, but one technician criticized the bag seal design.
-
Comparative evidence was mostly favorable against similarly priced or cordless alternatives, but one technician preferred other vacuums in a higher price range.
-
The visual design received mild praise, with reviewers saying it looked good or nice.
-
Cord rewind was usually praised as convenient, but one technician found the rewind slow and weak.
-
Ease of use was divided: several reviewers found it convenient or nice to use, while others criticized clunky handling and bulk.
-
Crevice and corner pickup on hard floors was viewed positively, with the standard head or slim tool considered useful.
-
Value opinions were divided: some reviewers called it a good buy or strong feature value, while others thought the price was hard to justify.
-
Longevity evidence is split: two reviewers referenced long Kenmore ownership without issues, while one technician criticized serviceability and expected limited repairs.
-
Hard-floor fine-debris pickup ranged from excellent in lab testing to only qualified success in a technician's mixed hard-floor test.
-
High-pile and shag performance was contested, with two positive shag/carpet comments and one poor high-pile lab result.
-
Low-pile carpet results were generally positive, including an impressive measured pickup score and a decent carpet-test result.
-
Reach and hose length were praised by some reviewers, while one technician disliked the stiff, bulky hose.
-
Overall opinion was mixed, ranging from great-buy praise to middling or far-from-best verdicts.
-
Cord length feedback varied from long-enough praise to one technician calling it surprisingly short; another reviewer treated the 600's extra length as minor.
-
One reviewer said the canister design worked pretty well for reaching under beds.
-
One comparison review said the vacuum handled rugs along with carpets and flat floors as expected.
-
Large-debris hard-floor intake was split between strong lab pickup and a technician reporting debris falling back out of the nozzle.
-
The Pop-N-Go concept was described as unique or a cool idea, though execution was not uniformly praised.
-
One technician liked the parts availability and repairability, while still questioning repair economics elsewhere in the review.
Cons
Sort
-
Hair-wrap resistance was a repeated weakness, with multiple reviewers reporting longer hair or pet hair wrapping around the brush roll.
-
Weight was a common concern, with reviewers calling it heavy, heavier than competitors, or poorly balanced.
-
Hair removal requires manual cleanup in multiple reviews, especially around the brush roll.
-
One technician reported debris bouncing around inside the head, indicating blowback or poor internal airflow management.
-
A technician warned that hard plastic wheel surfaces make it a poor choice for delicate floors.
-
One technician cautioned against using it on delicate floors because of hard plastic wheels.
-
Handling was sharply split, from one positive movement comment to strong complaints about bulk, clunkiness, and outdated maneuverability.
-
The canister stores upright, but reviewers also described it as large, bulky, and visually bigger than typical canisters.
-
Edge and baseboard hard-floor cleaning was criticized because grounds were pushed forward and left behind near the wall.
-
A technician reported cereal snowplowing and debris bouncing, indicating imperfect debris control inside the head.
-
One technician found the hard-floor floorhead left a central path, suggesting a weak seal or pickup pattern.
-
One reviewer noted the absence of LED lighting as a limitation.
-
Stair use was mixed: one reviewer found it easy enough, while others disliked the weight or found the stair features awkward.
-
Carpet hair pickup was highly inconsistent, praised in one review but weak in others that found hair left behind.
-
Small-space suitability is mixed: the smaller hard-floor tool can fit tight spots, but the overall canister is bulky.
-
Build quality was polarizing, with one reviewer calling the vacuums well built and another pointing to taped shortcuts and weak construction.
-
Maintenance was split between easy-care praise for bags and filters and concerns about hair cleanup, belt replacement, and repair economics.