Compare Roborock S8 MaxV Ultra Robot Vacuum and Mop vs Roborock Qrevo Master Robot Vacuum and Mop

Floorhead design had a notable flaw in PCMag's mopping stress test because brush lifting did not work effectively.

The floorhead and dual rollers were praised for capable pickup across crumbs, fluff, hair, and debris.

Tool-change simplicity had a notable drawback because PCMag listed the non-detachable mop cloth mount as a con.

Bag and mop-related replacements were described as simple, including easy bag replacement.

The dust bag system was viewed as a major convenience, with self-emptying described as the preferred approach.

The onboard dustbin drew repeated criticism for poor usable capacity and filling quickly, even though auto-empty helped.

Dust containment was praised because the self-emptying bag seals dust after removal, useful for sensitive sinuses.

Dust containment was a weakness in one owner review because hair and dust could spill when the bin was partly full.

Design impressions were strongly positive, with reviewers praising the aesthetics of both the robot and dock.

Design opinions were mixed-to-negative: build looked acceptable, but styling was called old-fashioned or less premium than expected.

Value was divisive and often price-sensitive: several reviewers criticized the flagship price, while value was defended only when performance and convenience justified it.

Value depended heavily on price: reviewers praised the premium system and discounts, but several called the MSRP expensive.

Auto-empty reliability was a weak spot in one comparative test, where debris remained in the robot after emptying.

Docking and auto-empty reliability were mostly strong, with powerful auto-empty and automated washing/drying, though one owner reported a docking incident.

Reliability evidence was strong in owner-style reviews, including repeated recommendation and confidence based on Roborock experience.

Reliability was mostly good, but one owner reported a map glitch that temporarily ruined the map.

Edge-following accuracy was only moderate: it avoided wall impacts well but still created baseboard brush marks.

Edge-following accuracy was strong in testing, with the robot passing close enough to edges for effective debris pickup.

Runtime was acceptable but not exceptional in PCMag's test, ending at 101 minutes before recharge.

Runtime and area coverage per charge were above average in reviewer testing.

Area-rug handling was strong in reviews that praised carpet/rug settings and hard-floor/rug cleaning behavior.

Area-rug handling was mixed: mop lifting kept rugs dry, but pad edges could catch on rugs.

Battery evidence was middling: one test reached 101 minutes before returning to charge, behind some high-end competitors.

Battery and charging performance were described as good, with above-average efficiency in reviewer testing.

Large hard-floor debris handling was mixed, with one broad test positive but PCMag reporting rice and sand scatter.

Hard-floor large debris intake was strong, including rice and extra-large debris, though side-brush scatter sometimes remained.

Emptying and mess control was mixed: a comparative test left debris in the bin, but the bagged self-emptying system was praised for convenience.

Emptying and mess control were strong in one dock test, where suction cleared the robot bin thoroughly.

Fine-dust hard-floor pickup was inconsistent: one test was decent, PCMag found poor relative performance, and Lifehacker was impressed in home use.

Hard-floor fine dust pickup was repeatedly strong, with near-perfect sweeping and strong single-pass pickup in tests.

Odor control was praised through detergent dispensing and hot-air drying that reduce bacterial growth and musty smells.

Odor control depended on maintenance: hot-air drying helped, but dirty tanks could smell if neglected.

Dock noise was a drawback because drying noise was noticeable and louder than one household wanted nearby.

Dock noise was mixed: some found it barely audible, while another described mop cleanup sounds as horrible.

Comparative performance was mixed: it topped one 2024 scorecard, but another Roborock-only test favored cheaper models overall.

Comparative performance was excellent, with reviewers placing it above several premium competitors in cleaning or feature value.

Large-debris handling was positive in Lifehacker's experience because the robot could keep working after encountering foreign objects.

Large debris handling was strong, with review testing noting extra-large debris pickup.

Build/design detail was praised, with one reviewer saying the small details felt carefully considered.

Build quality was judged good by one reviewer despite the plastic-heavy appearance.

The dock heating systems were praised through hot-air drying that helped prevent musty odors, supporting a high heating-element score.

The dock’s hot-water mop washing was viewed as a useful part of its automated maintenance system.

Reviewers praised the jump in suction and premium cleaning power, with especially strong language from long-term and detailed-use reviews.

Reviewers found real-world suction and pickup strong on carpets and hard floors, though bench airflow and suction measurements were sometimes unimpressive.

Medium/generic carpet pickup was mixed-to-good: comparative tests showed good but not class-leading pickup, including flour/sand limitations.

Medium-pile carpet results were above average to excellent in multiple tests and home reviews.

Weight feedback was neutral-to-positive: the robot felt substantial but not overly heavy in handling.

Weight was a drawback in one review, with the full system described as heavy.

Noise feedback was acceptable but not silent: one Roborock comparison ranked it well, while another said it was not loud but disruptive for calls.

One reviewer found the robot quiet during mop washing/drying, with sound levels described positively.

Hard-floor edge/baseboard cleaning was split: some reviewers praised edge reach, while one ketchup test left cabinet-edge residue.

Edge and baseboard cleaning was a strength thanks to close edge passes and extendable mop/brush behavior.

Hair-wrap resistance was the biggest cleaning weakness, with one test stopping the robot and another Roborock comparison ranking it poorly, despite PCMag's better experience.

Hair-wrap resistance was mixed: some reviewers praised anti-tangle design, while tests found long hair still tangled badly.

Mopping performance was highly mixed across tests, from weak dried-mud/jelly results to excellent everyday and stubborn-stain performance.

Mopping performance was one of the strongest themes, with many reviewers praising stain removal, wet-spill cleanup, and routine mopping.

The included command card was described positively as a useful reference for Rocky voice commands.

Included accessories were basic but useful, with one reviewer specifically appreciating the plug adapter.

Debris-prevention evidence was positive but qualified: it could keep working through small foreign objects, though rollers still sometimes needed clearing.

Clogging and debris prevention was positive in dock testing, where suction was strong enough to clear the robot bin effectively.

Low-profile design was limited by size; it could not fit between chair legs that a smaller robot could.

The robot’s height limited low-profile access under some low furniture.

Self-cleaning performance was one of the strongest areas, with praise for hot-water washing, auto detergent, dock cleaning, and mop care.

The self-cleaning dock function was praised as rare even among flagship robots.

Stuck resistance was mixed: PCMag said the second unit did not get stuck, but obstacle struggles still remained.

Stuck resistance was mixed: some reviewers reported no issues, while others saw socks, cords, or hair ties stop it.

Heavy-duty suitability was favorable where reviewers cited strong combined vacuuming and mopping performance.

Heavy-duty suitability was mixed: it handled commercial-style spaces well but was not a full replacement for manual mopping or vacuuming.

Small-space suitability was weak because its size kept it from fitting between dining-chair legs that a smaller competitor could handle.

Small-space suitability was limited by the bulky robot/dock footprint.

Value-for-money was mixed-to-positive: one guide called it exceptional, while another saw the price as fair only if affordable.

Value-for-money was split: Vacuum Wars called it exceptional, while one reviewer thought a cheaper Pro model cleaned similarly.

Overall cleaning convenience was very strong, with reviewers emphasizing reduced hands-on floor cleaning.

Overall cleaning convenience was a standout, reducing daily cleaning burden and making maintenance easier.

Dried-on stain evidence was strong in Lifehacker's use, though stubborn stains could still require an extra pass.

Dried-on stain removal was a major strength, including coffee, grape juice, and jelly tests with high marks.

Corner cleaning was largely positive thanks to edge-reaching arms and carpet-corner performance.

Corner cleaning was praised because the extending side brush and mop helped reach true corners.

Mop lifting was a standout strength, especially in the comparative test where it kept high-pile carpet dry.

Mop lifting was consistently useful for keeping carpets and rugs dry and handling mixed flooring.

Ease of use was strongly positive, with owner-style reviewers calling it a pleasure and praising the app.

Ease of use was strong overall, especially through app routines, room selection, and clear controls.

Innovation evidence was positive where the extending edge arms were described as a major leap forward for reaching walls and toe kicks.

Innovation was supported by rare flagship-level features such as self-cleaning dock functions and advanced automation.

The cleaning-solution system was praised for convenience and for improving mop performance.

The liquid system offered many water-flow options, which reviewers considered useful for mopping control.

Under-furniture pickup was praised where the Flexi-arms reached under toe kicks and nearby items that older edge brushes missed.

Under-furniture pickup was praised in large-space use where it cleaned beneath piles of chairs.

Versatility evidence was favorable because reviewers highlighted the broad configurability of cleaning modes and zones.

Reviewers saw the robot as versatile across floor types, combining vacuuming, mopping, app control, and dock automation.

Obstacle avoidance was sharply split, ranging from flawless and best-in-test to PCMag's repeated obstacle impacts.

Obstacle avoidance was the most divided attribute, ranging from perfect lab results to poor cable and toy performance.

Carpet pet-hair pickup was strong in the comparative test, leaving only a single dense clump.

Hair pickup on carpets was strong for pet hair and general fluff, with several reviewers noting complete or effective pickup.

Smart features and automation were a highlight, including top feature scoring, integrations, app reliability, and rich customization.

Smart features and the app were major strengths, though one owner disliked routine scheduling limitations.

Setup was consistently easy, with reviewers describing app pairing, assembly, and first setup as straightforward.

Setup was consistently described as easy or straightforward across app-based and reviewer testing.

Maintenance requirements were favorable overall, with long water-change intervals and less intervention than many robots.

Maintenance was generally easy and automated, though filters, tanks, and brushes still required attention.

The clean-water tank was easy to remove and handle, supporting a positive water-tank usability score.

Water handling was easy and flexible, with large tanks praised and solution use described as optional.

Overall opinion ranged from cautious to glowing, but most reviews treated it as a highly capable flagship with price and performance tradeoffs.

Overall opinion was strongly positive, with multiple reviewers calling it a top premium robot or one of their best purchases.

Pet-related evidence was mostly favorable: reviewers liked pet-finding, pet-waste options, and pet-hair pickup, though not every pet interaction was perfect.

Pet owners praised the robot’s dog and cat hair cleanup, while pet-oriented avoidance and photo features added household usefulness.

Residue control was mixed: one comparative mop test left sticky floors, while PCMag found only limited jelly spread.

Residue and streaking were mild concerns, including sticky invisible residue and possible streaks on glossy floors.

Hair-removal channel behavior improved over a prior S8 but still sometimes required roller clearing.

Hair-removal features may reduce maintenance, but owner evidence also showed hair accumulating in bearings and sockets.

Controls and UI were broadly liked for intuitive apps and rich options, though Rocky and remote video had wording and quality limits.

The app and controls were usually praised as easy or excellent, though one owner found the UI hard to learn.

Mapping and pathing were generally excellent, with app maps, room editing, and self-location all praised.

Mapping and path efficiency were widely praised for speed, precision, coverage, and stable maps.

Hard-floor hair pickup was positive in the pet-home review, where the S8 avoided clump-leaving issues seen on another robot.

Hard-floor hair pickup impressed a pet owner who felt dog hair collection was unusually thorough.

Consumable cost evidence was mildly positive because six dust bags per year was not seen as excessive.

Ownership costs and parts availability were considered reasonable by one reviewer, though not cheap.

Bag-full indication was criticized because one reviewer said it did not remind them to empty the bag.

High-pile/deep-pile carpet pickup was praised strongly in Lifehacker's home testing.

Low-pile or surface-level carpet pickup was strong in stress-test language, especially after one or two passes.

Cord management was praised because the dock provided a neat place to wrap the cord.

Crevice pickup was a weak spot on default power, although maximum power improved results.

Dirty-water detection was appreciated when it triggered or could trigger remopping, though one test did not activate it.

Filter-change guidance was criticized because one reviewer felt the filter needed cleaning more often than the app suggested.

Floor drying was good in one review because mopping left little damp residue.

Fresh liquid pickup was strong in one test where milk and soy sauce were removed in a single sweep.

Headlights were noted as useful during dark-area cleaning and navigation.

Maneuverability was strong in tight spaces and around obstacles, with precise navigation in test rooms and heavy-use spaces.

Longevity evidence was favorable from an eight-month user who still repeatedly recommended the robot.

Privacy controls were praised for onboard processing, disabled-by-default remote video, camera-password controls, and audible remote-view alerts.

Scratch resistance was a concern in one comparative test because the side brushes left swirl marks on white baseboards.

Apple Home/Matter support was described as a positive step, though the Roborock app remained the deeper control center.

Several reviewers called the dock or full unit large, chunky, or conspicuous, especially for smaller homes.

Surface safety evidence was mixed: PCMag saw no scratching on hard floors, but another test reported side-brush swirl marks on white baseboards.