Compare Eureka Mighty Mite Vacuum Cleaner vs Kenmore 600 Series Canister Vacuum

Ease of use was mostly positive thanks to simple operation and light handling, but one lab review found it uneven overall.

Ease of use was divided: several reviewers found it convenient or nice to use, while others criticized clunky handling and bulk.

Weight was an overwhelming strength: reviewers repeatedly called it very lightweight, easy to carry, and easier to maneuver than heavier competitors.

Weight was a common concern, with reviewers calling it heavy, heavier than competitors, or poorly balanced.

Filtration was a repeated weakness, with reviewers warning that small particles escape and that the vacuum is a poor option for severe allergies or asthma.

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.

High-pile carpet was one of the weakest areas, with multiple tests and reviewers saying it struggled badly or was not the right vacuum for that surface.

High-pile and shag performance was contested, with two positive shag/carpet comments and one poor high-pile lab result.

Small-space suitability was supported by one video review that praised easy storage in tight spaces.

Small-space suitability is mixed: the smaller hard-floor tool can fit tight spots, but the overall canister is bulky.

Maneuverability was usually praised because of light weight and easy rolling, although one reviewer strongly disliked the canister’s wheel behavior.

Handling was sharply split, from one positive movement comment to strong complaints about bulk, clunkiness, and outdated maneuverability.

Cord management was a recurring drawback because several reviewers disliked the missing retractable cord or manual wrap-up, though one liked the winding system.

Cord rewind was usually praised as convenient, but one technician found the rewind slow and weak.

Reviewers split on the tool kit: several found the small set useful or effective, while others called the accessories cheap, limited, or thin.

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.

Hair-wrap resistance depended on the tool and surface: no brush roll helped in some cases, but hair also stuck on brushes and bristles in others.

Hair-wrap resistance was a repeated weakness, with multiple reviewers reporting longer hair or pet hair wrapping around the brush roll.

Fine dust and small debris on hard floors were a standout strength, with multiple reviews reporting near-complete pickup on wood, tile, or hardwood tests.

Hard-floor fine-debris pickup ranged from excellent in lab testing to only qualified success in a technician's mixed hard-floor test.

Crevice and groove pickup was praised in hard-floor gaps, nooks, crannies, and other tight places.

Crevice and corner pickup on hard floors was viewed positively, with the standard head or slim tool considered useful.

Above-floor pickup was a strength, with reviewers praising furniture, crevice, cabinet, stair, and general above-floor cleaning.

Above-floor and upholstery cleaning was usually praised for the powered pet/upholstery tool, although one technician's tool stalled during use.

Low-pile carpet performance was generally solid to excellent, though it was not always enough to make the Mighty Mite a good whole-home carpet vacuum.

Low-pile carpet results were generally positive, including an impressive measured pickup score and a decent carpet-test result.

Area-rug evidence was positive but limited, with one reviewer’s professional cleaner saying it could handle area rugs.

One comparison review said the vacuum handled rugs along with carpets and flat floors as expected.

Large hard-floor debris pickup was generally good, but cereal, oats, or other large pieces sometimes got pushed or caught before being suctioned.

Large-debris hard-floor intake was split between strong lab pickup and a technician reporting debris falling back out of the nozzle.

Storage and parking were mixed: one reviewer liked small-space storage, while another criticized awkward upright parking and hose/wand stowage.

The canister stores upright, but reviewers also described it as large, bulky, and visually bigger than typical canisters.

Surface safety was a concern for delicate hardwood because reviewers warned about hard plastic wheels or floor tools that could scratch.

One technician cautioned against using it on delicate floors because of hard plastic wheels.

Clogging evidence centered on the hose elbow, where one reviewer warned debris can build up and be hard to clear.

A technician reported cereal snowplowing and debris bouncing, indicating imperfect debris control inside the head.

Overall opinion was mixed-positive: many reviewers loved the value and hard-floor performance, while critical sources emphasized compromises on carpet, noise, filtration, and refinement.

Overall opinion was mixed, ranging from great-buy praise to middling or far-from-best verdicts.

Onboard storage was modest but useful, especially for the crevice tool that fits into the handle or stays readily available.

Onboard tool storage was consistently praised for convenience and internal attachment storage.

Pet-hair pickup on carpets was highly polarized: TechGearLab measured excellent hair removal, while other reviewers said pet hair stuck or was left behind.

Carpet hair pickup was highly inconsistent, praised in one review but weak in others that found hair left behind.

Under-furniture pickup was supported by one lab review that reported no trouble cleaning under tight spaces.

One reviewer said the canister design worked pretty well for reaching under beds.

Cord length was mixed: several reviewers liked the 20-foot reach, but CNN noted some users may find it short.

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.

Bag feedback was mixed: some liked the cleaner disposal versus bagless bins, while others criticized finicky seals, recurring costs, or dust leakage.

Bagged operation was praised for dust containment and easy bag replacement, but one technician criticized the bag seal design.

Versatility was a strength when the vacuum was used for hard floors, above-floor cleaning, and blower or canister-style reach.

The vacuum was repeatedly praised for multi-surface versatility, onboard tools, and above-floor reach.

Maintenance was mixed: some found it simple, while others criticized bag seating or higher-than-expected replacement costs.

Maintenance was split between easy-care praise for bags and filters and concerns about hair cleanup, belt replacement, and repair economics.

Pet-oriented evidence was mixed, with strong pet-hair praise in some tests but poor pet-hair handling in another review.

Pet tooling impressed some reviewers, especially the powered pet attachment, but other testing found hair wrap, stalling, and weak pet-hair results on carpet.

Reach feedback was mixed, with one review praising the hose/wand cleaning radius and another calling the hose short.

Reach and hose length were praised by some reviewers, while one technician disliked the stiff, bulky hose.

Edge and baseboard cleaning earned strong praise in hands-on tests, including elite baseboard performance and best-of-the-bunch edge results.

Edge and baseboard hard-floor cleaning was criticized because grounds were pushed forward and left behind near the wall.

The blower function was treated as useful for outside dirt, sawdust, leaves, or garage-style cleanup rather than a core indoor vacuuming feature.

One technician reported debris bouncing around inside the head, indicating blowback or poor internal airflow management.

Stair cleaning earned strong praise from owners and testers because the canister is light, compact, and easy to carry or place on steps.

Stair use was mixed: one reviewer found it easy enough, while others disliked the weight or found the stair features awkward.

Comparative evidence was favorable on short carpet and hard floors, where one review said it matched vacuums costing much more.

Comparative evidence was mostly favorable against similarly priced or cordless alternatives, but one technician preferred other vacuums in a higher price range.

Suction was usually praised as strong, especially for hard floors, although Consumer Reports criticized weak suction in its test context.

Reviewers generally found suction and airflow strong, though one reviewer noted the measured suction was not exceptional despite solid pickup outcomes.

Controls were basic; one review criticized the unmarked power button, while another found the on/off switch acceptable.

Handle controls, suction adjustment, brush switching, and height controls were generally treated as convenient and easy to use.

Floorhead feedback was mixed to negative: it worked adequately in some tests but pushed large debris, caught material, or felt cheap.

Floorhead feedback was mixed: reviewers liked agitation, height adjustment, and corner access, but complained about bulk and poor internal aerodynamics.

The bright yellow styling drew mild praise for personality from some reviewers, but another reviewer said the dated look would not win beauty contests.

The visual design received mild praise, with reviewers saying it looked good or nice.

Build impressions varied sharply, from sturdy or high-quality praise to complaints about cheaper plastic, toy-like parts, and disappointing first impressions.

Build quality was polarizing, with one reviewer calling the vacuums well built and another pointing to taped shortcuts and weak construction.

The design’s long-running status supports durability confidence, though this is more about product-line longevity than abuse resistance.

Longevity evidence is split: two reviewers referenced long Kenmore ownership without issues, while one technician criticized serviceability and expected limited repairs.

Value was the strongest consensus point: reviewers repeatedly framed the Mighty Mite as inexpensive, high-performing for the money, or a bargain despite compromises.

Value opinions were divided: some reviewers called it a good buy or strong feature value, while others thought the price was hard to justify.

Repairability and parts support were a positive point in CNN’s review, which found many replacement parts available online.

One technician liked the parts availability and repairability, while still questioning repair economics elsewhere in the review.

Setup was consistently described as simple, with reviewers assembling the wand and parts easily and sometimes without reading the manual.

Medium-pile carpet evidence was sparse but positive in one listicle, which credited the floorhead with close contact on low and medium pile.

Mess control around bag changes was a weak point in one lab test, where debris missed the bag and required extra cleanup.

Energy use was criticized in one review as high for a straight-suction vacuum without a powered brush.

One technician found the hard-floor floorhead left a central path, suggesting a weak seal or pickup pattern.

Hair removal requires manual cleanup in multiple reviews, especially around the brush roll.

Hard-floor hair pickup was praised by one owner but another reviewer noted hair could get stuck in the bristles.

One reviewer noted the absence of LED lighting as a limitation.

The Pop-N-Go concept was described as unique or a cool idea, though execution was not uniformly praised.

A technician warned that hard plastic wheel surfaces make it a poor choice for delicate floors.

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.

Noise was one of the clearest negatives, with most reviewers describing it as loud, shrill, or neighbor-unfriendly; one owner found a newer unit surprisingly quiet.

Ownership costs drew criticism from Modern Castle because bag and filter replacement costs were higher than expected for the low price tier.