Compare Simplicity Vacuums Allergy Upright Vacuum, S20EZM vs Amazon Basics Upright Vacuum

Ease of use is mostly positive, though physical effort and control quirks keep it from being universally easy.

Ease of use was rated highly in the positive owner review, which called the vacuum easy to operate.

Filtration and dust containment are among the strongest themes, especially for allergies and bagged dust control.

Filtration was consistently judged poor, with reviewers reporting particle leakage, no HEPA-style containment, and smoke escaping from the body.

Crevice pickup is praised when using the crevice tool for narrow gaps and hard-to-reach areas.

Crevice pickup was very poor in the comparative test, where the vacuum barely made progress lifting sand from a groove.

Under-furniture pickup is favorable when the machine or tools reach beneath furniture well.

Under-furniture pickup was poor because the machine did not get particularly low.

High-pile and thick carpet performance is generally strong, helped by brush agitation and height adjustment.

High-pile carpet suitability was weak; a reviewer suggested spending more if shag carpet is part of the home.

Tools are useful and available, but Amazon reviewers split over whether the included set is adequate.

Accessory support was criticized because the included tools were limited and nonstandard, making additional accessories difficult to find.

Heavy-duty suitability is good for frequent pet-home use when the unit stays intact, with workhorse praise from some owners.

Heavy-duty suitability was low because one reviewer framed it as a temporary, budget stopgap rather than a long-term workhorse.

Overall opinion is positive but not unanimous: reviewers praise cleaning power while noting convenience and durability tradeoffs.

Overall opinion was mostly negative, with several reviewers calling it basic, a missed opportunity, or not recommended, while one owner liked it.

Fine dust hard-floor evidence is mixed, with some strong cleaning praise and other hard-floor complaints.

Fine debris on hard floors was a major weakness, with reviewers describing sand or debris being scattered or kicked back.

Medium/all-pile carpet evidence is favorable, with reviewers calling the carpet performance outstanding or broadly ideal.

Medium-carpet evidence was mixed: it could pick up some sand and felt clean in one review, but other reviewers called carpet cleaning lackluster or below average.

Hose reach is mixed: videos praise long reach, while some owners find the attached hose too short or awkward.

Hose length and reach were criticized by two reviewers as short or limited.

Emptying and mess control are strong because the bag avoids the dirty, dusty bin-cleaning process users dislike.

Emptying was polarizing: one owner called it very easy, while another warned the dust was hazardous and messy.

Weight is one of the clearest tradeoffs, with users calling it substantial or hard to push despite cleaning power.

Weight was the clearest strength, with nearly every source calling the vacuum very light or emphasizing its low 8-pound range.

The bagged system is a strength because users like simple bag changes, contained dust, and steady suction.

The bin was viewed positively by one reviewer for straightforward emptying, but another criticized the bagless design as inconvenient for apartments.

Small-space suitability is strong because several users cite compact footprint and easy closet storage.

Small-space suitability was limited to a very small, carpet-only apartment use case.

Versatility is good for carpets, tools, and above-floor cleaning, but hard-floor limitations reduce flexibility.

Versatility was mixed to poor: one owner liked using the wand for different tasks, while testing sources found the vacuum unsuitable across common surfaces.

Hard-floor sealing is weak where reviewers report no squeegee effect and debris being thrown back.

The floorhead seal on hard floors was weak, with debris scattering instead of staying contained for pickup.

Hair-wrap/tangle resistance is a concern in pet homes when long hair is linked to brushroll lockup.

Tangle resistance was mixed: the comparative test saw some wrap, and a later test reported longer hair tangling around the brush roll.

Low-pile carpet evidence is positive but less detailed, mainly tied to nap revival and general carpet cleaning.

Low-pile carpet pickup was one of the better areas, with reviewers calling fine-debris pickup decent or better than expected.

Maintenance is mixed-to-negative because belts, filters, and brushroll cleaning can require ongoing attention.

Maintenance requirements were a drawback in the technician review because bagless use meant frequent upkeep.

Onboard tool storage is a clear convenience when the tools stay accessible and easy to use.

Onboard tool storage was praised in the owner review.

Carpet hair pickup is usually praised, especially for dogs, cats, and high-shedding homes.

Hair pickup on carpet was generally decent to strong, though one review still saw some pet hair movement or sticking.

Pet-ready performance is a major strength for carpet hair and allergens, though long-haired pets can expose brushroll issues.

Pet hair pickup was a relative bright spot, with reviewers saying it handled pet hair well, though filtration concerns limited its pet-readiness.

Cord management earns praise for simple wrapping and top cord routing, with some wishing for retractability.

Cord management was praised in one owner review because the onboard cord storage was easy to release.

Large-debris hard-floor intake is a weakness because users report thrown particles and litter blowback.

Large debris intake was weak, especially on hard floors where rice was thrown around and bare-floor debris pickup was only passable.

Tool changes are usually easy with the included setup, though compatibility with older attachments is limited.

Tool changes were praised in one hands-on review because the hose was easy to remove and attach.

Above-floor pickup is mixed: hose suction can be strong, but upholstery and long cat hair disappoint some owners.

Above-floor pickup was mixed: one owner liked the suction through the tool setup, while another found the hose use inconvenient.

Clogging prevention is a weakness in Amazon feedback, with users reporting easy clogs and teardown hassle.

Debris prevention was weak in the technician review, where pet hair was observed sticking in the cyclone assembly.

Storage is mostly good thanks to compact footprint, though stability concerns appear in owner feedback.

Its small body was noted as a possible storage advantage, though the evidence supported compactness more than strong stand stability.

Low-profile reach is favorable when reviewers say it gets under furniture better.

Low-profile design was poor because the vacuum did not get very low.

The floorhead has strong agitation but mixed design feedback because the brush roll cannot be shut off.

Floorhead design was a recurring weakness, especially the fixed height, low gates, and limited design features.

The finish and styling draw light but positive comments, with reviewers liking the color or clean design.

One reviewer liked the color, giving the design finish a modest positive note.

Comparative comments often favor the Simplicity over Shark-type vacuums, though Rainbow-style deep cleaning can outperform it.

Comparative performance was poor, with reviewers pointing to better options or slightly more expensive alternatives.

Edge and baseboard cleaning gets positive mentions from both the attachment layout and edge-cleaning system.

Edge and wall pickup was weak in the comparative test, where rice remained near the wall.

Suction is the strongest recurring praise, with multiple reviewers calling it powerful or excellent.

Reviewers split sharply on suction: one found good suction in casual use, while multiple tests called hose suction, airflow, or measured vacuum strength weak for the category.

Noise is a recurring concern, though a few users find the tone tolerable or quieter than prior vacuums.

Noise was a clear weakness in the comparative test, where the Amazon Basics was measured as nearly as loud as another noisy budget upright.

Stair use is limited by weight and lift-handle complaints despite useful step/edge attachments.

Stair cleaning was only moderately supported: the wand and light body made it possible, but not positioned as especially convenient.

Hard-floor debris blowback appears in negative Amazon feedback when litter was thrown back at the user.

Airflow blowback was poor, with one reviewer describing sand being kicked back on hard floors.

Value is generally favorable, especially against higher-end vacuums, but ongoing parts costs temper the score.

Price is the product’s core appeal, but reviewers repeatedly warned that the low price comes with major performance compromises.

Assembly is treated as very easy, with reviewers emphasizing the simple handle and hose setup.

Assembly was consistently easy, with one test noting it was nearly ready out of the box and another calling setup straightforward.

Controls are mixed: the height dial is easy, but many users dislike the always-on roller and limited suction control.

The foot controls were strongly liked in the hands-on review.

Area-rug handling is polarized: some rugs revived, while one flat-weave rug was damaged by the roller.

The bag-full indicator receives both praise for usefulness and complaints when it fails to reset.

Cord length is mixed across homes: some call it long, while others say larger spaces still require replugging.

Hair-channel and brushroll serviceability is a concern where users cannot easily clean a locked beater bar.

The headlight is consistently useful in positive feedback, though one reviewer questioned non-LED longevity.

Innovation centers on the five-level height system, described as unusual for uprights in this class.

Handling is mixed: it rolls or maneuvers well for some, but weight and suction make pushing difficult for others.

Packaging received a positive environmental note for mostly cardboard packing.

The forward-propel feel helps some users, but others still miss true self-propelled drive.

Surface safety is a serious caveat because the active brush can damage rugs or beat one spot while using the hose.

Wool-rug evidence is limited but positive, with one owner saying wool rugs looked better after use.

Build quality is disputed: video reviewers praise durable parts, while Amazon complaints cite cheap plastic and failures.

Longevity feedback is mixed, ranging from multi-year praise to early belt, hose, motor, and handle failures.

Ownership costs are a concern because OEM bags, belts, and optional pet tools add expense.

Support and reliability are mixed: warranty backing and refunds help, but some service attempts disappoint.