Kenmore Bagless Upright Vacuum Lift Feature Scores
Explore all 49 feature scores for Kenmore Bagless Upright Vacuum Lift, organized into pros and cons.
Scores by Feature
Summary
49 reviewed features-
Very positive 4.5-5.022 (45%)
-
Positive 3.5-4.412 (24%)
-
Neutral 2.5-3.49 (18%)
-
Negative 1.5-2.44 (8%)
-
Very negative below 1.52 (4%)
Pros
Sort
-
Reviewers repeatedly measured or described strong suction and airflow, including 22 kPa results and above-average head airflow, with one owner also praising how much it pulled from carpet.
-
Hard-floor fine pickup was strong across reviews, with hardwood performance, 98 percent overall pickup, and fine-debris praise.
-
Filtration received strong marks across reviews, with smoke tests passing well and HEPA or sealed-air-path comments tied to dust containment.
-
Versatility was one of the strongest themes, supported by lift-up use, tools, reach, upholstery cleaning, and multi-surface performance.
-
Ease of use was a strong positive, with reviewers praising easier controls, responsive features, and straightforward handling.
-
Medium-carpet pickup scored strongly in lab-style tests, including 98 percent overall pickup and a 100 percent carpet deep-clean result.
-
Maneuverability was generally praised, with swivel steering and easy direction changes highlighted across multiple reviews.
-
Low-pile carpet pickup was generally strong, including effective brush-roll comments, 98 percent pickup, and hands-on praise.
-
Large-debris intake scored strongly because reviewers praised hardwood pickup and large front gates for debris other vacuums may miss.
-
Emptying and mess control were repeatedly praised for easy canister removal, one-button emptying, and simple opening.
-
Comparative evidence was favorable overall, including better hardwood value versus a cheaper model and advantages over a Shark comparison, though not every comparison was a win.
-
Lift-up or Lift Away-style functionality was repeatedly praised for changing the vacuum into a more flexible room, stair, and above-floor tool.
-
Overall opinion was mostly favorable, with several strong recommendations or 'impressive' conclusions, offset by one strongly negative owner review.
-
Above-floor and upholstery cleaning scored well through praise for ceiling reach, pet-hair cleaning on furniture and stairs, and sofa cleaning.
-
Most reviews framed it as a strong value for the price, but one owner review sharply disagreed after failures and filter costs.
-
Pet-oriented evidence was mostly positive: reviewers liked the pet tool, brush roll, and pet-hair cleaning ability, though separate tangle evidence showed limits.
-
Reach was praised through the 10-foot wand and a comparison noting the wand was longer than a Shark model.
-
Attachments were viewed positively when reviewers saw the pet tool pick up hair, called the attachment set useful, or described the HandiMate as good for upholstery and tight areas.
-
Carpet hair pickup was generally positive, with fur and cat-hair removal praised, despite separate tangle concerns.
-
LED lighting was consistently useful in reviews, helping illuminate dark spots or missed debris.
-
Controls were praised for making surface changes easier and for better button placement than the comparison Shark.
-
Tool and release actions were praised when reviewers noted one-button canister emptying and an easy switch between crevice and brush tool modes.
-
The bin was described as large enough and easy to open, supporting solid scores for everyday debris handling.
-
Floorhead design was mostly positive because reviewers linked it to strong debris pickup and deep cleaning, while acknowledging a trade-off in seal.
-
Setup was praised in one hands-on review as very easy.
-
High-pile carpet evidence was limited to one hands-on review but positive for removing cat hair and ingrained dirt.
-
The detachable canister/lift-up format was treated as a useful convertible cleaning design in the DU5092 review.
-
Stair use was rated positively where Lift Away technology made stair cleaning easier.
-
Storage received a positive mention from one reviewer who said putting it away was simple.
-
Debris illumination was positive in the DU5092 review, where LED lights were said to help reveal debris that might otherwise be missed.
-
Heavy-duty suitability was supported by a reviewer saying homes with lots of carpet, kids, or pets may need a heavier corded option like this.
-
Innovation evidence was limited but positive where sealed filtration was described as rare in the price range.
-
Cord length was mostly positive at 30 feet, but one review noted some users would prefer longer cords for larger spaces.
-
Edge cleaning received a moderate score because the head was said to work okay rather than exceptionally along edges.
Cons
Sort
-
One negative owner review reported early motor failure, making longevity a serious concern in that review.
-
Reliability evidence was mixed: professional-style reviews disliked the shorter warranty, while one owner reported the vacuum would not power on.
-
Ongoing ownership cost evidence was negative in one review because replacement filters were described as expensive.
-
Low-profile design scored poorly because multiple reviews said the main head was too large to fit under a bed.
-
Hair-removal channel issues were clearly negative in one pet-hair comparison where hair stuck on the rollers.
-
Noise was a consistent caveat: reviewers measured or described it as noisy, louder than a Shark comparison model, or noisy on higher suction settings.
-
Cordless convenience scored low because one reviewer explicitly found it less convenient than a cordless vacuum.
-
Crevice pickup was a noted weakness in the DU5092 review, scoring below average alongside unsealed suction.
-
The floorhead seal was a weakness in the DU5092 review because large front gates let in more air and reduced the seal.
-
Cord management was a mild drawback because one reviewer noted the cord must be wrapped manually.
-
Maintenance requirements were a moderate drawback because one review said the filter needs monthly cleaning to keep performance.
-
Weight evidence was mixed: several reviews found it heavy or cumbersome versus cordless models, while one review called 14 pounds below average and another called it lightweight.
-
Hair-wrap resistance was split: one review said the Kenmore did poorly with hair tangles, while another DU5092 review praised the hair Eliminator nozzle.
-
Build impressions were split between well-built praise in test reviews and severe owner complaints about cracking and broken parts.
-
Under-furniture performance was mixed: Lift Away helped in one comparison, but multiple reviews said the main head was too big for beds.