Compare Roomba Combo j9+ Robot Vacuum & Mop vs Shark PowerDetect NeverTouch Robot Vacuum & Mop

Ease of use was a core strength, with multiple reviewers emphasizing hands-off operation, simple setup, and low effort.

Ease of use was usually strong thanks to simple setup, straightforward apps, and scheduling, but spot cleaning felt too slow in one review.

Tangle resistance was praised by two reviewers, including one who reported no tangles or hairballs.

Hair-wrap resistance was a weakness, with multiple reviewers noting hair wrap, embedded long strands, or brushroll tangles.

Innovation was praised for the retractable mop and feature set, though one review framed the j9+ as less unique against high-end rivals.

One reviewer felt Shark was falling behind competitors' pace of robot-vacuum innovation.

Runtime was generally positive, with tests around 113 to 115 minutes and one reviewer seeing two and a half hours.

Runtime was split between poor Vacuum Wars battery scores and acceptable recharge-and-resume behavior in a larger home.

The liquid system was praised for a large reservoir stored neatly in the redesigned base.

The liquid system drew criticism because the reviewer wanted more water-flow control for sensitive floors.

The mop-lifting system was a standout strength because reviewers said it kept carpets dry better than ordinary lift pads.

Mop lifting was mixed: one reviewer found it unreliable, while another praised the robot for significantly lifting the mop over rugs.

Pet-focused evidence was strong: reviewers highlighted poop avoidance and confidence that pet messes would not be spread.

Pet-readiness was split: one tester praised carpet and rug hair pickup, while another multi-pet tester said long hair and edge debris were weak points.

Crevice pickup was praised as better than earlier i-Series and j-Series Roombas.

Crevice and groove pickup on hard floors was described as average in Vacuum Wars testing.

Low-pile carpet pickup was generally good, though one reviewer still needed a manual vacuum for stray hair.

Low-pile rug and carpet pickup was mixed, with flour, kitty litter, and coffee grounds causing trouble in several tests.

Large debris handling was praised in one review that called it among the best for fine and oversized debris.

Large-debris handling was mostly good, with easy mess and cereal pickup, though wood chips were an exception in one review.

Emptying and mess control was a major strength, with hands-off bin emptying and detangling repeatedly praised.

Emptying and mess control ranged from excellent hands-free performance to a severe Wired complaint that the robot barely auto-emptied.

Medium-pile carpet evidence was mixed: one review found weak performance on longer carpet, while another reported a top deep-clean score.

Medium/longer carpet pickup was mixed to weak, with reviewers noting visible fluff or granular debris left behind.

Hair-channel issues appeared in one review where long human and pet hair tangled in the brushes.

Hair-removal channel issues were a problem in the multi-pet test, where long hair wrapped around the brushroll.

Heavy-duty suitability was limited because reviewers warned against worse messes and said it could not handle large spills.

Heavy-duty suitability was limited: reviewers saw it as enough for everyday hands-free upkeep rather than a true deep-cleaning replacement.

Small-space suitability was praised in one review that called it a game-changer for small apartments and pet owners.

Small-space suitability was positive because the base was more compact than expected in a small home.

One reviewer found bag swapping very simple, saying the custom waste bags took only seconds to change.

The mop release system was praised as a useful convenience that lets the robot switch between vacuuming and mopping modes more cleanly.

Overall opinions leaned positive, with many reviewers calling it impressive or excellent, though a few saw it as better at vacuuming than mopping.

Overall opinion was mixed: several reviewers praised cleaning and automation, but others highlighted serious app, auto-empty, and navigation shortcomings.

Area-rug handling was mostly praised for dry-carpet transitions, but one review reported the mop pad trapping under a rug.

Area rug handling was inconsistent: some praised carpet-safe mop lifting, while one reviewer saw it avoid or mop rugs at the wrong time.

Obstacle avoidance was one of the strongest areas, with many reviewers praising avoidance of toys, cords, pet waste, and household objects.

Obstacle avoidance was generally positive but not perfect, with high praise in several reviews and lower scores for low objects or average lab performance.

Carpet hair pickup was a weakness in one review that found low-pile carpet still needed a Dyson pass.

Carpet hair pickup was mixed: some tests showed above-average or easy pickup, but long strands and brushroll tangles hurt pet-heavy homes.

Fresh wet mess handling was mixed, from strong wet-stain performance to minor spreading and poor large-spill handling.

Fresh liquid pickup was positive in one test where the robot picked up liquids easily.

Hard-floor hair pickup was strong in reviews that praised pet hair and daily debris removal.

Hair pickup on hard floors was generally strong in controlled tests, though not flawless.

Kid-friendliness was positive in one review where the robot stopped calmly when children stepped in front of it.

Family suitability was praised because obstacle avoidance and hands-free cleaning were considered helpful for family homes.

Odor control was viewed favorably because the no-dirty-water-bin approach was considered more sanitary and less messy.

Odor control received a positive note from one reviewer who liked the scent after the vacuum ran through the odor cartridge.

Packaging earned praise for smart design and visible quick-start instructions.

Packaging earned mild praise because recyclable materials made the extra box-within-a-box packaging acceptable.

One review praised the compact footprint, saying the vacuum and base used about a square foot and were easy to place.

The dock and robot were seen as more compact than expected, making the system easier to place than the tester feared.

Surface safety had a caution around damp stripes and possible long-term wood-floor warping.

Surface safety was a concern for delicate hardwood because the robot left more water than the reviewer wanted.

Under-furniture pickup was positive where the robot cleaned under a sofa valance.

Under-furniture pickup was a strength in one review because the robot was shallow enough to clean under furniture.

Versatility was praised because the robot can vacuum and mop in one run with little extra effort.

Versatility was praised because reviewers valued the vacuum-and-mop combination and its combo capabilities.

Maintenance was mixed: some reviewers found care simple, while several disliked washing mop pads and checking parts manually.

Maintenance was generally praised for hands-free operation, but Wired had the opposite experience due to failed auto-emptying.

Streaking and residue were mild concerns, with reviewers noticing occasional streaks or sticky residue after tests.

Streaking and residue were mixed, with one tester seeing smearing and sticky residue while another praised even, streak-free drying.

Hard-floor fine dust pickup was mostly strong, but one quantified sand result on hardwood was weaker.

Hard-floor fine-dust pickup was mixed, with strong one-pass hard-floor performance in one review and visible flour or imperfect cleanup in others.

Dried-on stain results were generally strong, especially in mopping torture tests and muddy paw-print tests, though one review said deep cleaning still needed manual work.

Dried-on stain performance was one of the strongest areas, with reviewers reporting above-average stain scores and complete removal of sticky or dried messes.

Maneuverability was strong in tight spaces and on hard-floor rugs according to two reviewers.

Maneuverability was praised in tight household spaces, especially around furniture and chair legs.

Floor drying evidence was limited to one reviewer noting a damp stripe left behind.

Floor drying time ranged from quick-drying clean floors to concerns about excess wetness or a mop pad taking hours to dry.

The water tank system drew praise for automatic refilling and automation, but one reviewer found the reservoir awkward to refill.

The water tank system was well received for its easy handling and impressive capacity relative to the compact base.

Stuck resistance was generally good, with reviewers reporting only rare stuck incidents after setup or during longer use.

Stuck resistance was generally strong in tests, with reviewers saying it did not get stuck and could avoid common obstacles.

Mapping and path efficiency varied widely, ranging from accurate and logical mapping to slow, incomplete, or clumsy early map learning.

Mapping and path efficiency ranged from exceptional or flawless to slow, random, or inconsistent, depending on the reviewer's home and test method.

The bag system earned positive comments for an easy click-in design.

The bin and mop-washing station were judged to have good basic functionality in lab testing.

High-pile carpet pickup was weak in the review evidence, with the robot struggling in longer fibers.

High-pile or carpet-heavy use was discouraged because suction was not considered sufficient for deep-pile carpet cleaning.

Hard-floor large debris intake was mixed, with strong extra-large debris pickup in one review and rice scattering in another.

Hard-floor large-debris pickup was usually strong, although one tester said smaller rice grains were pushed around before a later pass.

Weight was a setup drawback because the full box was described as something users should be ready to lift.

Weight was a drawback for delivery and setup because the box was hefty enough that some users might need help.

Stair usability was poor because reviewers noted the robot cannot climb stairs and must be carried.

Stair avoidance performed well in Tom's Guide testing, where the robot avoided stairs even in the dark.

Edge-following accuracy was positive in one review where the robot cleaned along edges instead of bumping into them.

Edge-following accuracy was weak in one review, which found dust remaining along edges.

Reviewers consistently praised suction, saying it outperformed the j7+, made a real-world difference, and was powerful enough to clear typical debris.

Reviewers found suction adequate to strong on ordinary debris, with above-average airflow and a standout Tom's Guide result, but some testers said fine dust and rice exposed limited pull.

Airflow or brush blowback was a weakness where the side brush flicked larger bits around.

Airflow blowback for edges was seen as novel and sometimes useful, though one tester gave it only qualified praise.

Comparative performance was split: one review rated vacuuming among the best, while another said competitors maintain floors better.

Comparative performance was mixed, from a low flagship ranking and a negative Dreame comparison to a Tom's Guide claim that it outcleaned a Roomba combo.

The self-cleaning cycle was a repeated weakness because the dock does not wash the mop pad automatically.

The self-cleaning mop cycle was seen as decent at washing but not strong at drying.

Corner cleaning was mixed-to-weak: one reviewer praised corners, but several noted poor corner reach or missed nooks.

Corner cleaning was mixed: Tom's Guide praised corner coverage, while People said the tester still used a dust buster for corners.

Edge and baseboard cleaning was a weakness in one review, especially for hair and grime along edges.

Edge and baseboard results varied sharply; some testers praised edge cleaning, while others said it stayed too far from walls or left dust behind.

Dock noise was highly mixed, from jet-like complaints to one reviewer calling it the quietest self-emptying process tested.

Dock noise was a concern in hands-on use, especially self-emptying noise and fan noise.

Floor shine evidence was strong in one review where freshly mopped floors visibly glowed.

Floor shine after cleaning was strong, with reviewers describing genuinely clean floors and shiny wood after mopping.

Noise was mixed: one reviewer found the vacuum and dock very loud, while another described the robot as quietly working in the background.

Noise feedback was mixed, ranging from quiet enough for Zoom calls and under-60dB operation to loud self-emptying or cleaning noise that startled users.

Reviewers repeatedly praised day-to-day convenience, saying it reduced manual vacuuming and made cleaning feel easier.

Overall cleaning convenience was a major strength, with reviewers repeatedly praising hands-free cleaning, scheduling, and reduced daily effort.

Mopping performance was broadly useful for routine upkeep and stains, but weaker on sticky messes and against some spinning-mop competitors.

Mopping performance was broadly strong, with many reviewers praising stain removal and clean floors, though some saw smearing or only average results.

Build quality evidence was negative in the malfunction report, where one test unit failed.

Build quality was viewed positively by an Ideal Home tester who said the robot felt high-quality.

The low profile was praised because it helped the robot fit under furniture.

Low-profile design was useful under appliances and cabinet overhangs in Tom's Guide testing.

Design opinions were mostly positive for the robot and base blending into rooms, though one review disliked the cheap-looking faux wood.

Design impressions were positive overall, with reviewers calling the unit attractive, slicker than earlier Shark models, and good-looking.

Smart features were a strength, including mapping, app automation, Dirt Detective-style prioritizing, and efficient cleaning paths.

Smart features and automation were the most polarizing category, praised for useful detection in some tests but criticized for basic apps, failed DirtDetect, and missing maps.

The app and controls were usually described as easy and feature-rich, but one reviewer missed live map progress and another noted app quirks.

Controls and UI were divisive: some reviewers found the app easy to navigate, while others criticized missing maps, controls, and customization.

Privacy controls were mixed-to-positive: one reviewer called data sharing a convenience tradeoff, while another cited opt-in limits and no map-data sales.

Privacy controls earned a positive comment because the reviewer liked that the robot did not take pictures.

Battery and charging evidence was mixed: some reviewers saw solid runtime, while others complained about long charging or failure to resume.

Battery and charging were weak in Vacuum Wars testing, where the reviewer described battery life as not good.

Reliability was mixed, with connectivity issues and one malfunctioning unit prompting caution.

Support drew criticism in one review because Shark had not responded to a DirtDetect sensor question by publication.

Value-for-money was cautiously positive for parents in one review, despite the high price.

Value-for-money was mixed: one review thought the system punched above its weight, while another valued it closer to a midrange robot.

Docking and auto-empty reliability was mixed: some saw reliable return and resume behavior, while one reviewer had a failure to finish after recharging.

Docking and auto-empty reliability was sharply split: several reviewers praised the dock's hands-free behavior, while others reported auto-empty struggles or failure.

Setup was usually quick or simple, with several reviews praising app guidance, though one reviewer needed early tech support.

Setup was consistently praised as straightforward or easy across hands-on reviews, helped by assembly-light packaging and clear app prompts.

Value opinions were divided: some reviewers felt the performance justified the price, while others called it expensive or hard to justify.

Price/value was one of the most divided areas, with some reviewers calling it a strong or affordable value and others saying it did not justify its price.

The included extra odor neutralizer and spare mop pads were viewed positively as helpful accessories.

Adaptive chassis lift was a major split point: several testers praised threshold and rug climbing, while one found the sensors laggy and unreliable.

Automatic stopping around obstructions was praised when the robot halted for kids or cats in its path.

Debris prevention had a limitation in one review, where large pieces could get stuck between the rubber brushes.

Dust containment earned praise from allergy-focused reviewers because the base and filters were described as trapping allergens and using HEPA filtration.

The lack of heated water or heated drying was called out as a drawback versus other premium docks.

Onboard storage was praised for a convenient compartment for spare supplies.

Scratch or scuff resistance was a concern in one review that noted light scuffing on the robot's casing.

The filter or component health indicator was praised as handy for keeping the Roomba in good condition.

Ownership cost evidence was negative because reviewers noted replacement parts and consumables add ongoing costs.

The floorhead design received a positive assessment as a proven Roomba brush design.

Durability evidence was limited but mildly positive, with one reviewer saying it held up reasonably well during intense testing.

Software longevity looked uncertain because reviewers said the robot needed app and software updates, though one expected bugs to be fixed later.